Studies Simpson 1

001-a Contents vol.
1 Page i Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:55 PM
Studies in Honor of
William Kelly Simpson
¡%¢
…d ¢
i
001-a Contents vol. 1 Page ii Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:55 PM
William Kelly Simpson

001-a Contents vol. 1 Page iii Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:55 PM
tudies in onor of
illiam elly impson
Volume 1
Peter Der Manuelian

Editor
Rita E. Freed
Project Supervisor
Department of Ancient Egyptian,

Nubian, and Near Eastern Art
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

1996
001-a Contents vol. 1 Page iv Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:55 PM
Front jacket illustration: The Ptolemaic Pylon at the Temple of Karnak, Thebes, looking
north. Watercolor over graphite by Charles Gleyre (1806–1874). Lent by the Trustees of the
Lowell Institute. MFA 161.49. Photograph courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
Back jacket illustration: Palm trees at the Temple of Karnak, Thebes. Watercolor over
graphite by Charles Gleyre. Lent by the Trustees of the Lowell Institute. MFA 157.49.
Photograph courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
Endpapers: View of the Giza Pyramids, looking west. Graphite drawing by Charles Gleyre.
Lent by the Trustees of the Lowell Institute. MFA 79.49. Photograph courtesy Museum of
Fine Arts, Boston
Frontispiece: William Kelly Simpson at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1985
Title page illustration: A document presenter from the Old Kingdom

Giza mastaba chapel of Merib (g 2100–1), north entrance thickness
(Ägyptisches Museum Berlin, Inv. Nr. 1107); drawing by Peter Der Manuelian
Typeset in Adobe Trump Mediaeval and Syntax. Title display type set in Centaur
Egyptological diacritics designed by Nigel Strudwick
Hieroglyphic fonts designed by Cleo Huggins with
additional signs by Peter Der Manuelian
Jacket design by Lauren Thomas and Peter Der Manuelian
Edited, typeset, designed and produced by Peter Der Manuelian
Copyright © Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1996

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or by any information storage or retrieval systems, without permission
in writing from the publisher
isbn 0-87846-390-9
Printed in the United States of America

by
Henry N. Sawyer Company, Charlestown, Massachusetts
Bound by Acme Bookbinding, Charlestown, Massachusetts
001-a Contents vol. 1 Page v Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:55 PM
Contents
Volume 1
Preface by Rita E. Freed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Bibliography of William Kelly Simpson, 1963–1996 . . . . . . . . . . . xv
James P. Allen
Some Theban Officials of the Early Middle Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . 1–26
Hartwig Altenmüller
Geburtsschrein und Geburtshaus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27–37
Dieter Arnold
Hypostyle Halls of the Old and Middle Kingdom? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39–54
Jan Assmann
Preservation and Presentation of Self in Ancient
Egyptian Portraiture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55–81
John Baines
On the Composition and Inscriptions of the
Vatican Statue of Udjahorresne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83–92
Lawrence M. Berman
The Stela of Shemai, Chief of Police, of the Early
Twelfth Dynasty, in The Cleveland Museum of Art . . . . . . . . . . . 93–99
Janine Bourriau
The Dolphin Vase from Lisht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101–116
Edward Brovarski
An Inventory List from “Covington’s Tomb”
and Nomenclature for Furniture in the Old Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . 117–155
Emma Brunner-Traut
Zur wunderbaren Zeugung des Horus nach Plutarch,
De Iside Kap. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157–159
Betsy M. Bryan
The Disjunction of Text and Image in Egyptian Art . . . . . . . . . . . 161–168
v
001-a Contents vol. 1 Page vi Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:55 PM
Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson
Sue D’Auria
Three Painted Textiles in the Collection
of the Boston Athenaeum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169–176
Margaret A. Leveque
Technical Analysis of Three Painted Textiles in the Collection
of the Boston Athenaeum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177–178
Leo Depuydt
Egyptian Regnal Dating under Cambyses and the Date
of the Persian Conquest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179–190
Ch. Desroches-Noblecourt
Les Déesses et le Sema-Taouy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191–197
Elmar Edel
Studien zu den Relieffragmenten aus dem Taltempel
des Königs Snofru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199–208
Richard Fazzini
A Statue of a High Priest Menkheperreseneb in
The Brooklyn Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209–225
Gerhard Fecht
Der beredte Bauer: die zweite Klage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227–266
Henry G. Fischer
Notes on Some Texts of the Old Kingdom and Later . . . . . . . . . . . 267–274
Detlef Franke
Sesostris I., “König der beiden Länder” und
Demiurg in Elephantine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275–295
Rita E. Freed
Stela Workshops of Early Dynasty 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297–336
Florence Dunn Friedman

Notions of Cosmos in the Step Pyramid Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337–351
Hans Goedicke
A Special Toast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353–359
Stephen P. Harvey
A Decorated Protodynastic Cult Stand from Abydos . . . . . . . . . . 361–378
Zahi Hawass
The Discovery of the Satellite Pyramid of Khufu (GI–d) . . . . . . . . 379–398
vi
001-a Contents vol. 1 Page vii Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:55 PM
Contents
Joyce L. Haynes
Redating the Bat Capital in the Museum
of Fine Arts, Boston. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399–408
Erik Hornung
Zum königlichen Jenseits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409–414
T.G.H. James
Howard Carter and Mrs. Kingsmill Marrs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415–428
Volume 2
Jack A. Josephson
A Portrait head of Psamtik I? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429–438
Gerald E. Kadish
Observations on Time and Work-Discipline
in Ancient Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439–449
Werner Kaiser
Zwei weitere Ìb-Ì∂.t-Belege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451–459
Timothy Kendall
Fragments Lost and Found: Two Kushite
Objects Augmented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461–476
Arielle P. Kozloff
A Masterpiece with Three Lives—
The Vatican’s Statue of Tuya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477–485
Peter Lacovara
A Faience Tile of the Old Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487–491
Jean-Philippe Lauer
Remarques concernant l’inscription d’Imhotep gravée sur
le socle de statue de l’Horus Neteri-Khet (roi Djoser) . . . . . . . . . . 493–498
Jean Leclant and Catherine Berger

Des confréries religieuses à Saqqara,
à la fin de la XIIe dynastie? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499–506
Mark Lehner
Z500 and The Layer Pyramid of Zawiyet el-Aryan . . . . . . . . . . . . 507–522
Ronald J. Leprohon
A Late Middle Kingdom Stela in a Private Collection . . . . . . . . . . 523–531
vii
001-a Contents vol. 1 Page viii Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:55 PM
Antonio Loprieno
Loyalty to the King, to God, to oneself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533–552
Jaromir Malek
The “Coregency relief” of Akhenaten and Smenkhare
from Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553–559
Peter Der Manuelian

Presenting the Scroll: Papyrus Documents in Tomb Scenes
of the Old Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561–588
Yvonne Markowitz
A Silver Uraeus Ring from Meroë. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589–594
Geoffrey T. Martin
A Late Middle Kingdom Prince of Byblos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595–599
Andrea McDowell
Student Exercises from Deir el-Medina: The Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . 601–608
N.B. Millet
The Wars against the Noba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609–614
Gamal Mokhtar
Mummies, Modern Sciences, and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615–619
David O’Connor
Sexuality, Statuary and the Afterlife; Scenes in
the Tomb-chapel of Pepyankh (Heny the Black).
An Interpretive Essay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621–633
Jürgen Osing
Zur Funktion einiger Räume des Ramesseums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635–646
R.B. Parkinson
Khakeperreseneb and Traditional Belles Lettres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647–654
Paule Posener-Kriéger
Au plaisir des paléographes. Papyrus Caire JE 52003 . . . . . . . . . . . 655–664
Stephen Quirke
Horn, Feather and Scale, and Ships. On Titles
in the Middle Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665–677
Donald B. Redford
Mendes & Environs in the Middle Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679–682
viii
001-a Contents vol. 1 Page ix Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:55 PM
Contents
Robert K. Ritner
The Earliest Attestation of the kp∂-Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683–688
Gay Robins
Abbreviated Grids on Two Scenes in a Graeco-Roman
Tomb at Abydos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689–695
James F. Romano
The Armand de Potter Collection
of Ancient Egyptian Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697–711
Alan R. Schulman
The Kushite Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713–715
Gerry D. Scott, III
An Old Kingdom Sculpture in the San Antonio
Museum of Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717–723
David P. Silverman
Magical Bricks of Hunuro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725–741
Hourig Sourouzian
A Headless Sphinx of Sesostris II from Heliopolis
in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, JE 37796 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743–754
Anthony Spalinger
From Esna to Ebers: An Attempt at
Calendrical Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 755–763
Donald B. Spanel
Palaeographic and Epigraphic Distinctions between
Texts of the So-called First Intermediate Period and
the Early Twelfth Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765–786
Rainer Stadelmann
Origins and Development of the Funerary
Complex of Djoser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787–800
Bruce G. Trigger
Toshka and Arminna in the New Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801–810
Jean Vercoutter
Les Minéraux dans la naissance des Civilisations de
la Vallée du Nil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811–817
ix
001-a Contents vol. 1 Page x Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:55 PM
Cornelius C. Vermeule
Mythological and Decorative Sculptures in Colored
Stones from Egypt, Greece, North Africa, Asia Minor
and Cyprus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819–828
Pascal Vernus
Réfections et adaptations de l’idéologie monarchique
à la Deuxième Période Intermédiare: La stèle
d’Antef-le-victorieux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829–842
Kent R. Weeks
Toward the Establishment of a Pre-Islamic
Archaeological Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843–854
Edward F. Wente
A Goat for an Ailing Woman (Ostracon Wente) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855–867
Christiane Zivie-Coche
Miscellanea Ptolemaica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869–874
Author Address List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875–877
x
002 WKS Freed/Preface.5 Page xi Wednesday, November 13, 1996 10:00 AM
Preface
I
n our generation, few Egyptologists have achieved the inter-
national acclaim and earned the universal respect that is enjoyed by
William Kelly Simpson. As scholar, curator, teacher, and excavator,
he has made significant contributions to nearly every aspect of Egyptol-
ogy and already claims a major legacy of students taught directly or
indirectly through his nearly twenty books and over 130 articles. Hardly
a member of the lay public interested in Egypt has not read and enjoyed
his Literature of Ancient Egypt, An Anthology of Stories, Instructions,
and Poetry (edited and translated with R.O. Faulkner and E.F. Wente) or
learned from his Ancient Near East: A History (co-authored with W.W.
Hallo).
To know Kelly, as friends and acquaintances all address him, is to
know a man profoundly interested in and knowledgeable about a wide
variety of topics. He is a leading collector of modern and contemporary
art, and has generously lent to many shows in those areas. He has served
as trustee of institutions as diverse as the Caramoor Center for Music
and the Arts, the French Institute–Alliance Française New York, and the
Museum of Primitive Art. The International Association of Egyptolo-
gists, the American Research Center in Egypt, the American University
in Cairo, and the American School of Classical Studies in Athens have
all acknowledged his leadership abilities by electing him president, vice-
president, or chairman.
Born in New York City on January 3, 1928, Kelly Simpson graduated
from the Buckley School (New York) and Phillips Academy (Andover,
Massachusetts) before attending Yale University. At Yale, he received
his B.A. and M.A. in English. In search of a job afterwards, he was hired
by W.C. Hayes and Ambrose Lansing in the Metropolitan Museum’s
Egyptian Department, where he served as Curatorial Assistant from
1948 to 1954. Within a year of accepting the job, he published his first
Egyptological articles, on a Fourth Dynasty head and the Tell Basta trea-
sure, the first two in a long list covering a tremendous breadth of mate-
rial in the field. Taking classes at the Metropolitan while he worked
there, Kelly pursued a Ph.D. in Egyptology under the tutelage of Ludlow
Bull and wrote his dissertation on the Metropolitan Museum’s excava-
tion of the pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht. It was also during his years
at the Metropolitan Museum that he participated in his first archaeolog-
002 WKS Freed/Preface.5 Page xii Wednesday, November 13, 1996 10:00 AM
ical excavation (in Nimrud, Iraq, under the auspices of the British School
of Archaeology) and served in the New York National Guard, retiring as
First Lieutenant.
Upon completion of his Ph.D. in 1954, Simpson received the presti-
gious Fulbright Fellowship and visited Egypt for the first time. In addi-
tion to touring museums and archaeological sites, he also excavated at
the Bent Pyramid at Dahshur under the directorship of Ahmed Fakhry
and at Mitrahineh with the University of Pennsylvania, where he
worked with Rudolph Anthes. After two years in Egypt, he returned to
the U.S. to Harvard University, accepting a position as Research Fellow
at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies.
Recognizing a young scholar with stellar potential, Yale University
offered William Kelly Simpson an assistant professorship in the Depart-
ment of Near Eastern Languages and Literatures in 1958. He was pro-
moted to Associate Professor of Egyptology in 1963 and made full
professor two years later, a position he still holds.
It was thanks to Kelly Simpson that Yale University became
involved in archaeological fieldwork in Egypt in 1960. Responding to the
international call for help in rescuing the monuments of Nubia at the
time of the building of the Aswan High Dam, Simpson led a joint team
from the University of Pennsylvania and Yale to Toshka and Arminna
for three seasons, excavating and recording New Kingdom Egyptianizing
tombs and Late Meroitic cemeteries, which he published in 1963. The
Pennsylvania–Yale team then moved north to work on the Middle King-
dom remains at Abydos under the co-directorship of Simpson and his
student, David O’Connor, now Lila Acheson Wallace Professor of
Ancient Egyptian Art at the Institute of Fine Arts of New York Univer-
sity. Simpson’s 1974 volume that was inspired by this work, The Terrace
of the Great God at Abydos, forms a basis for any scholarship done on
stelae, administration, or social organization of the Middle Kingdom.
It was also during his years at Yale that he completed three out of
four landmark volumes on the Middle Kingdom hieratic texts from
Naga ed-Deir known as Papyrus Reisner. To quote one of its many glow-
ing reviews:
The. . . volumes. . . are monuments of careful and painstaking scholarship
which yield almost an embarrassment of material to broaden our paleo-
graphical and lexicographical knowledge of Middle Egyptian, as well as fur-
nishing material for the administrative study of the Middle Kingdom. . . .1
1 A.R. Schulman, JARCE 6 (1967), p. 175.
xii
002 WKS Freed/Preface.5 Page xiii Wednesday, November 13, 1996 10:00 AM
Preface
In 1970, a year after completing a three-year tenure as Chairman of

the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Literatures at Yale, Kelly
Simpson was offered the Curatorship of the Department of Egyptian and
Ancient Near Eastern Art (now called the Department of Ancient
Egyptian, Nubian, and Near Eastern Art) at the Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston, which he accepted in addition to his Yale professorship. For the
next seventeen years, he split his time weekly between Boston and New
Haven, and devoted full-time attention to each job. With the collection
as his primary focus, he refurbished galleries and added fully 500 objects
to the collection. Hiring students interested in Egyptology every sum-
mer, he saw to it that a younger generation was given the opportunity to
work in the Department, its present curator and most of its present staff
included.
Recognizing the need to publish the tremendous legacy of Giza mas-
tabas excavated by George A. Reisner, Simpson reopened the Museum
of Fine Arts’ excavations at Giza in 1970, after a nearly thirty-year
hiatus, in order to complete the recording of the tombs and finalize their
publication. He remains its principal project director. Also in 1970, the
inaugural volume of the Giza Mastabas series, The Mastaba of Queen
Mersyankh III, was published under the joint authorship of Simpson and
Dows Dunham. As of 1996, a total of six volumes have been published
in the series (four by Simpson) and an additional six are in preparation.
In 1986 Kelly Simpson resigned the curatorship in Boston to devote
his full attention to teaching and writing, which he does to this day.
Upon his departure, the administration of the Museum of Fine Arts
appointed him Consultative Curator in gratitude and recognition of his
accomplishments at the museum and in the expectation and hope that
he would continue to serve in an advisory capacity. To date, he is the
only person in the museum’s history to hold this title and distinction.
These sixty-eight articles written by scholars from nine countries
are offered in gratitude and tribute to a great man. The substantial task
of administering, editing, and designing these volumes was admirably
borne by Peter Der Manuelian, another scholar whose entry into the
field of Egyptology was made possible by William Kelly Simpson. From
the entire staff of the Department of Ancient Egyptian, Nubian, and
Near Eastern Art, a resounding ™n∞, w∂£, snb (life, prosperity, health) to
Kelly, with affection.
Rita E. Freed
Curator, Department of Ancient Egyptian,
Nubian, and Near Eastern Art
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
xiii
002 WKS Freed/Preface.5 Page xiv Wednesday, November 13, 1996 10:00 AM
I
n the early 1970s, I was an undergraduate at the University of
Pennsylvania. Having participated in one of the University’s excava-
tions in Greece, I began attending the annual meetings of the
Archaeological Institute of America. It was at one of these meetings that
I first met Kelly Simpson. I was immediately impressed by the fact that
he was both professor of Egyptology at Yale and Curator of Egyptian Art
at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
In the fall of my senior year, as I pondered whether to pursue gradu-
ate studies or to gravitate towards law or business school, out of the blue
I received a telephone call that was to change my life. Kelly Simpson was
on the line, informing me that he had an assistant’s opening in the
Egyptian Department at the Museum and asking if I would be interested
in discussing it with him. Needless to say, I was on the next plane, and
thus began my lifelong love both of Egyptology and of the Museum of
Fine Arts.
I was, however, curious as to why he would consider me for the
position rather than one of his graduate students or someone else far
more qualified than I. In his characteristically candid way, he replied
that this was a curatorial position and that, in his opinion, it would be
more productive for the Museum to take on someone who had an inter-
est in ancient art and archaeology and train him in Egyptian art than to
bring in one of his graduate students—all of whom at the time were
philologists—and try to get them to look at an object as a work of art.
Ever since that first telephone call, Kelly has had a profound influ-
ence on my life as teacher, mentor, and friend. He was (and is) a demand-
ing professor with a razor-sharp mind and quick wit, but at the same
time he gives freely of his advice and wisdom. His interests extend far
beyond his chosen field, both in art and in his love of the opera. Given
the enormous impact he has had on students, colleagues, and friends
alike, it is only fitting that so many of the leading scholars in the field
have contributed to this book. Enjoy!
Miguel de Bragança
MFA Overseer and Chairman of the
Visiting Committee to the Department of
Ancient Egyptian, Nubian, and Near Eastern Art
xiv
003 WKS Bibliography Black Page xv Thursday, October 24, 1996 3:21 PM
Bibliography of William Kelly Simpson
E
gyptological publications by William Kelly Simpson are
gathered below in four separate categories: books, publications he
has edited, prefaced or contributed to, articles and, finally, book
reviews. The listings are in chronological order, from the earliest to the
most recent. The bibliography is complete through early 1996.
Books
i
1963
a. Papyrus Reisner I: The Records of a Building Project in the Reign of Sesostris I. Tran-
scription and Commentary. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1963
b. Heka-Nefer and the Dynastic Material from Toshka and Arminna. Publications of the
Pennsylvania–Yale Expedition to Egypt, No. 1. New Haven and Philadelphia: The Peabody
Museum of Natural History of Yale University and the University Museum of the Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania, 1963
1965
Papyrus Reisner II: Accounts of the Dockyard Workshops at This in the Reign of
Sesostris I. Transcription and Commentary. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1965
1969
Papyrus Reisner III: The Records of a Building Project in the Early Twelfth Dynasty,
Transcription and Commentary. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1969
1970
(With Dows Dunham). The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III. G 7530–7540. Giza
Mastabas 1. Edited by William K. Simpson. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1974
1971
(With William W. Hallo). The Ancient Near East: A History. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1971
1972
(Editor and translator with Raymond O. Faulkner and Edward F. Wente). The Literature of
Ancient Egypt. An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, and Poetry. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1972
1973
(Editor and translator with Raymond O. Faulkner and Edward F. Wente). The Literature of
Ancient Egypt. An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, and Poetry, second edition. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1973
This document was created with FrameMaker 4.0.4

003 WKS Bibliography Black Page xvi Thursday, October 24, 1996 3:21 PM
Books
i
1974
The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos: The Offering Chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13.
Publications of the Pennsylvania–Yale Expedition to Egypt, No. 5. Edited by William K.
Simpson and David B. O’Connor. New Haven and Philadelphia: The Peabody Museum of
Natural History of Yale University and the University Museum of the University of Penn-
sylvania, 1974
1976
a. The Mastabas of Qar and Idu. G 7101–7102. Giza Mastabas 2. Edited by William K.
Simpson. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1976
b. The Offering Chapel of Sekhem-ankh-ptah in the Museum of Fine Arts Boston. (With
drawings by Nicholas Thayer and Suzanne E. Chapman). Boston: Museum of Fine Arts,
1976
1976
The Face of Egypt: Permanence and Change in Egyptian Art. New York: The Katonah
Gallery, Katonah, 1976
1978
The Mastabas of Kawab, Khafkhufu I and II. G 7110–7120, 7130–7140, 7150. Giza
Mastabas 3. Edited by William K. Simpson. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1978
1980
Mastabas of the Western Cemetery: Part 1 – Sekhemka (G 1029); Tjetu I (G 2001); Iasen Fig. 1. W.K. Simpson at the Metropolitan
(G 2196); Penmeru (G 2197); Hagy, Nefertjentet, and Herunefer (G 2352/53); Djaty, Tjetu Museum, 1952. Photograph by Nora E.
II, and Nimesti (G 2337X, 2343, 2366). Giza Mastabas 4. Edited by William K. Simpson. Scott.
Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1980
1986
Papyrus Reisner IV: Personnel Accounts of the Early Twelfth Dynasty. Transcription and
Commentary. With Indices to Papyri Reisner I–IV and paleography to Papyrus Reisner IV,
Sections F, G by Peter Der Manuelian. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1986
1992
The Offering Chapel of Kayemnofret in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. (With drawings
by Suzanne E. Chapman, Lynn Holden, Peter Der Manuelian, and Nicholas Thayer).
Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1992
1995
Inscribed Material from the Pennsylvania–Yale Excavations at Abydos. Publications of
the Pennsylvania–Yale Expedition to Egypt, No. 6. Edited by William K. Simpson and
David B. O’Connor). New Haven and Philadelphia: The Peabody Museum of Natural
History of Yale University and the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology
and Anthropology, 1995
Editor/Prefaces/Contributions in books m
1961
Appendix: Corpus of the Dahshur Pottery. In Ahmed Fakhry, The Monuments of Sneferu
at Dahshur, Vol. II, The Valley Temple, Part II, The Finds, pp. 103–40. Cairo: General
Organization for Government Printing Offices, 1961
xvi
003 WKS Bibliography Black Page xvii Thursday, October 24, 1996 3:21 PM
Fig. 2. Archaeological team at Toshka, 1961.

On the left: Anthony Casendino and
Edward L.B. Terrace. On the right, Maher
Saleeb and Nicholas B. Millet. Kneeling:
W.K. Simpson.
1965
(With Rudolf Anthes, H.S.K. Bakry, and H.G. Fischer). “Catalogue of Finds.” In R. Anthes,
ed., Mit Rahineh 1956, pp. 71–161 (in part). Museum Monographs. Philadelphia: The
University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1965
1966
(Introduction). Adolf Erman, The Ancient Egyptians, A Sourcebook of their Writings,
pp. xi–xl. Translated by Aylward M. Blackman. New York: Harper and Row, 1966
1967
a. (Director’s preface). Bruce G. Trigger, The Late Nubian Settlement at Arminna West.
Publications of the Pennsylvania–Yale Expedition to Egypt, No. 2, New Haven and Phila-
delphia: The Peabody Museum of Natural History of Yale University and the University
Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1967
b. (Director’s preface). Kent R. Weeks, The Classic Christian Townsite at Arminna West.
Publication of the Pennsylvania–Yale Expedition to Egypt, No. 3. New Haven and Phila-
delphia: The Peabody Museum of Natural History of Yale University and the University
Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1967
1970
(Director’s preface). Bruce G. Trigger, The Meroitic Funerary Inscriptions from Arminna
West. Publications of the Pennsylvania–Yale Expedition to Egypt, No. 4. New Haven and
Philadelphia: The Peabody Museum of Natural History of Yale University and the Univer-
sity Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1970
1978
a. (Editor and contributor). Ancient Egypt: Discovering its Splendors. (Introduction by J.
Carter Brown and other chapters by William Peck, Karl Butzer, I.E.S. Edwards, Barbara
Mertz, Virginia Davis, Edna R. Russmann, and Anthony Spalinger). Washington: The
National Geographic Society, 1978. German translation 1992
b. (Preface). Arnold C. Brackman, The Gold of Tutankhamun. Kodansha/Newsweek, 1978
xvii
003 WKS Bibliography Black Page xviii Thursday, October 24, 1996 3:21 PM
Fig. 3. Studying rock shrine on south

side of Gebel Agg, Toshka East, 1961.
1980
(Revised and edited). William Stevenson Smith, The Art and Architecture of Ancient
Egypt. 2nd integrated edition. The Pelican History of Art. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Books, 1980
1981
(Editor with W.M. Davis). Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan: Essays in
Honor of Dows Dunham on the Occasion of his 90th Birthday, June 1, 1980. Boston:
Museum of Fine Arts, 1981
1981
(Preface). Egypt’s Golden Age: The Art of Living in the New Kingdom 1558–1085 B.C.
(exhibition catalogue), pp. 6–7. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1982
1982
(Foreword). Salle Werner Vaughn. Paintings and Watercolors. February 5 to March 5, 1983.
Helen Serger, La Boetie. New York: La Boetie, Inc., unpaged, 1982
1986
(Editor and author of preface). James P. Allen, Leo Depuydt, H.J. Polotsky, and David P.
Silverman, Essays on Egyptian Grammar. Yale Egyptological Studies 1. New Haven: Yale
Egyptological Seminar, 1986
1988
a. (Editor). James P. Allen, Genesis in Egypt: The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation
Accounts. Yale Egyptological Studies 2. New Haven: Yale Egyptological Seminar, 1988
b. (Forward). S. D’Auria, P. Lacovara, and C.H. Roehrig, eds. Mummies and Magic: The
Funerary Arts of Ancient Egypt. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1988
xviii
003 WKS Bibliography Black Page xix Thursday, October 24, 1996 3:21 PM
1989
(Editor and author of preface). James P. Allen, Jan Assmann, Alan B. Lloyd, Robert K.
Ritner, and David P. Silverman. Religion and Philosophy in Ancient Egypt. Yale Egypto-
logical Studies 3. New Haven: Yale Egyptological Seminar, 1989
1990
(Editor). Pascal Vernus, Future at Issue. Tense, Mood and Aspect in Middle Egyptian:
Studies in Syntax and Semantics. Yale Egyptological Studies 4. New Haven: Yale Egypto-
logical Seminar, 1990
(Editor and contributor). Ägypten. Schatzkammer der Pharaonen. Munich: The National
Geographic Society, 1990. German translation of Ancient Egypt: Discovering its Spendors,
1978
1993
Entries on Egyptian art in: The David and Peggy Rockefeller Collection, Vol. III: Arts of
Asia and Neighboring Cultures, pp. 368–71. New York, 1993
(Author of preface). Christiane M. Zivie-Coche, Giza au premier Millénaire. Autour du
teple d’Isis, dame des Pyramides, p. xvii. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1991
1994
(Editor with Peter Der Manuelian). Kent R. Weeks, Mastabas of Cemetery G 6000. Giza
Mastabas 5. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1994
Articles [
1949
a. “A IVth Dynasty Portrait Head.” Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 7 (1949),
pp. 286–92
b. “The Tell Basta Treasure.” Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 8 (1949), pp. 61–
65
1951
With John D. Cooney. “An Architectural Fragment from Amarna.” Bulletin of the
Brooklyn Museum 12 (1951), pp. 1–12
1952
“An Egyptian Statuette of a Phoenician God.” Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art
10 (1952), pp. 182–87
1953
“New Light on the God Reshef.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 73 (1953),
pp. 86–89
1954
a. “Two Middle Kingdom Personifications of Seasons.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 13
(1954), pp. 265–68
b. (“The Pharaoh Taharqa”), Sumer 10 (1954), pp. 193–94
Fig. 4. At Abydos, 1969.
xix
003 WKS Bibliography Black Page xx Thursday, October 24, 1996 3:21 PM
Articles [
1955
a. “The Head of a Statuette of Tutankhamun in the Metropolitan Museum.” Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 41 (1955), pp. 112–14
b. “The Non-existence of a Vizier Khentybau in the Middle Kingdom.” Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 41 (1955), pp. 129–30
1956
a. “The Single-Dated Monuments of Sesostris I: An Aspect of the Institution of Coregency
in the Twelfth Dynasty.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15 (1956), pp. 214–19
b. “On the Statue Group: “Amun Affixing the Crown of the King.” Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 42 (1956), pp. 118–19
c. “A Statuette of King Nyneter.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 42 (1956), pp. 45–49
1957
a. “A Running of the Apis in the Reign of Aha and the Passage in Manetho and Aelian.”
Orientalia 26 (1957), pp. 139–43
b. “Sobkemhet, A Vizier of Sesostris III.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 43 (1957), Fig. 5. With Gamal Mokhtar and
pp. 26–29 MFA Visiting Committee members,
Boston, 1975.
1958
a. “Allusions to the Shipwrecked Sailor and the Eloquent Peasant in a Ramesside Text.”
Journal of the American Oriental Society 78 (1958), pp. 50–51
b. “A Hatnub Stela of the Early Twelfth Dynasty.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäol-
ogischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 16, Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag Prof. Hermann
Junker, II. Teil (1958), pp. 298–309
1959
a. Council on Old World Archaeology Bibliography, Area 9: Northeast Africa I (1959),
pp. 1–28
b. Council on Old World Archaeology Survey, Area 9: Northeast Africa I (1959), pp. 1–11
c. “Historical and Lexical Notes on the Series of Hammamat Inscriptions.” Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 18 (1959), pp. 20–37
d. “The Vessels with Engraved Designs and the Repoussé Bowl from the Tell Basta
Treasure.” American Journal of Archaeology 63 (1959), pp. 29–45
e. “The Hyksos Princess Tany.” Chronique d’Egypte 34 (1959), pp. 233–39
1960
a. “Papyrus Lythgoe: a Fragment of a Literary Text of the Middle Kingdom from el Lisht.”
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 46 (1960), pp. 65–70
b. “The Nature of the Brick-work Calculations in Kah. Pap. XXIII, 24–40.” Journal of
c. “Reshep in Egypt.” Orientalia 29 (1960), pp. 63–74
1961
a. “An Additional Fragment of a ‘Hatnub’ Stela.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 20 Fig. 6. With Dows Dunham, Boston,
(1961), pp. 25–30 1975.
b. “The Tomb of Heka-Nefer, ‘Child of the Nursery’ of Tutankhamun’s Court: An Ameri-

can Excavation in a Nubian Site Threatened by the High Dam.” The Illustrated London
News, Vol. 238, No. 6360, June 24, 1961, pp. 94–95
xx
003 WKS Bibliography Black Page xxi Thursday, October 24, 1996 3:21 PM
Fig. 7. With Omar Sharif by the colossal

statue of Mycerinus in the Museum of Fine
Arts, Boston, mid-1970s.
Articles [
c. “In the Land which the Waters of the High Dam will Submerge: Discoveries, from Old
Kingdom to Coptic Times, at Toshka West.” The Illustrated London News, Vol. 239, No.
6363, July 15, 1961, pp. 94–95
d. “Expedition to Nubia.” Archaeology 14 (1961), pp. 213–14
1962
a. Council for Old World Archaeology, Surveys and Bibliographies: Area 9: Northeast
Africa, No. 11 (1962), 35 pp.
xxi
003 WKS Bibliography Black Page xxii Thursday, October 24, 1996 3:21 PM
Fig. 8. In the garden of Presiden Sadat

(right), Ismalia, with trustees of the
American University in Cairo, late
1970s.
Articles [
b. “Nubia: The University Museum–Yale University Expedition.” Expedition, The
Bulletin of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, Vol. 4, No. 2 (win-
ter, 1962), pp. 28–39
c. “Yale’s Research on the Nile.” Ventures, Magazine of the Yale Graduate School, Vol. I
(winter, 1962), pp. 20–23
d. “Nubia – 1962 Excavations at Toshka and Arminna.” Expedition, The Bulletin of the
University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, Vol. 4, No. 4 (summer, 1962),
pp. 34–46
1963
a. “A Brief Note on the Date of the Stelae and Frescoes Recently Discovered at Faras.”
Kush 11 (1963), pp. 313–14
b. “The Vizier Weha™u in Papyrus Lythgoe and Ostr. Moscow 4478.” Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 49 (1963), pp. 172–73
c. “Studies in the Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty: I–II. I. The Residence of Itj-towy; II. The Sed
Festival in the Regnal Year 30 of Amenemhat III and the Periodicity of the Festival in
Dynasty XII.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 2 (1963), pp. 53–63
xxii
003 WKS Bibliography Black Page xxiii Thursday, October 24, 1996 3:21 PM
Articles [
d. “Toshka–Arminna: Brief Preliminary Report, Pennsylvania–Yale Archaeological
Expedition to Nubia, 1961.” In Fouilles en Nubie (1959–1961), pp. 41–43. Campagne
Internationale de l’Unesco pour la sauvegarde des monuments de la Nubie. Cairo, 1963
1964
“The Pennsylvania–Yale Expedition to Egypt: Preliminary Report for 1963: Toshka and
Arminna (Nubia).” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 3 (1964), pp. 15–23
1965
a. “The Archaeological Expedition to Egyptian Nubia.” Discovery, Magazine of the
Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, Vol. I, No. I (fall, 1965), pp. 4–11
b. “The Stela of Amun-wosre, Governor of Upper Egypt in the Reign of Ammenemes I or
II.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 51 (1965), pp. 63–68
1966
a. “The Letter to the Dead from the Tomb of Meru (N3737) at Nag™ ed Deir.” Journal of
b. “Provenance and the Date of the Stela of Amun-wosre.” Journal of Egyptian Archae-
ology 52 (1966), p. 174
1967
a. “Toshka–Arminna 1962: The Pennsylvania–Yale Archaeological Expedition to Nubia.”
Fouilles en Nubie (1961–1963), pp. 169–83. Campagne Internationale de l’Unesco pour la
sauvegarde des monuments de la Nubie. Cairo, 1967
b. “The Pennsylvania–Yale Expedition to Egypt Preliminary Report for 1963: Toshka and
Arminna (Nubia).” In Fouilles en Nubie (1961–1963), pp. 184–94. Campagne Inter-
nationale de l’Unesco pour la sauvegarde des monuments de la Nubie. Cairo, 1967
1969
“The Dynasty XIII Stela from the Wadi Hammamat.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 25 (1969), pp. 154–58
1970
a. “A Late Old Kingdom Letter to the Dead from Nag™ ed-Deir N 3500.” Journal of Egyp-
tian Archaeology 56 (1970), pp. 58–64
b. “A Short Harper’s Song of the Late New Kingdom in the Yale University Art Gallery.”
Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 8 (1970), pp. 49–50
c. “A Statuette of Amunhotpe III in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.” Boston Museum
Bulletin 68 (1970), pp. 260–69
1971
a. “Department of Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art.” The Museum Year: 1970–
1971, the Ninety-Fifth Annual Report of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (1971), pp. 45–
47
b. “A Horus-of-Nekhen Statue of Amunhotpe III from Soleb.” Boston Museum Bulletin 69
(1971), pp. 152–64
c. “Three Egyptian Statues of the Seventh and Sixth Centuries B.C. in the Boston Museum
of Fine Arts.” Kemi 21 (1971), pp. 17–33
1972
a. “Acquisitions in Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art in the Boston Museum of Fine
Arts, 1970–71.” The Connoisseur 179, No. 720 (February, 1972), pp. 113–22
xxiii
003 WKS Bibliography Black Page xxiv Thursday, October 24, 1996 3:21 PM
Articles [
b. “Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art in Boston, 1970–71.” The Burlington Magazine
114, No. 829 (April, 1972), pp. 237–42
c. “A Tomb Chapel Relief of the Reign of Amunemhet III and Some Observations on the
Length of the Reign of Sesostris III.” Chronique d’Egypte 47 (1972), pp. 45–54
d. “The Lintels of Si-Hathor/Nehy in Boston and Cairo.” Revue d’Egyptologie 24 (1972),
pp. 171–75
e. “A Relief of the Royal Cup-Bearer Tja-wy.” Boston Museum Bulletin 70 (1972), pp. 68–
82
f. Entries in The Rathbone Years. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1972
g. “Department of Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art.” The Museum Year: 1971–72,
The Ninety-Sixth Annual Report of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (1972), pp. 50–55
h. “Two Egyptian Bas Reliefs of the Late Old Kingdom.” North Caroloina Museum of Art
Bulletin 11, No. 3 (December, 1972), pp. 3–13
i. “Ahmose, called Pa-tjenna.” Boston Museum Bulletin 70 (1972), pp. 116–17
1973
a. “Two Lexical Notes to the Reisner Papyri: w∞rt and trsst.” Journal of Egyptian Archae-
ology 59 (1973), pp. 218–20
b. “Bauwesen, Organization des.” In W. Helck and E. Otto, Lexikon der Ägyptologie 1,
Lieferung 5, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1973, 668–71
c. “Century Two: Collecting Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art for the Museum of
Fine Arts, Boston.” Apollo 98, No. 140, (October, 1973), pp. 250–57
d. “Ptolemaic-Roman Cartonnage Footcases and Prisoners Bound and Tied.” Zeitschrift
für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 100 (1973), pp. 50–54
e. “Papyri of the Middle Kingdom.” In Textes et Languages de l’Egypte Pharonique:
Hommage à Jean-François Champollion, pp. 63–72. Bibliotheque d’Etude LXIV, 2. Cairo:
Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1973
f. “Department of Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art.” The Museum Year: 1972–73,
The Ninety-Seventh Annual Report of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (1973), pp. 47–51
1974
a. “Polygamy in Egypt in the Middle Kingdom?” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 60
(1974), pp. 100–105
b. “A Commemorative Scarab of Amenophis III of the Irrigation Basin/Lake Series from
the Levant in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and Remarks on Two Other Commemo-
rative Scarabs.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 60 (1974), pp. 140–41
c. “The Publication of Texts in Museums. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts.” In Textes et
Languages de l’Egypte Pharonique: Hommage à Jean-François Champollion, pp. 203–207.
Bibliotheque d’Etude LXIV, 3. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1974
d. “A Portrait of Mariette by Théodule Déveria.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéol-
ogie Orientale 74 (1974), pp. 149–50
1975
“Ermenne.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 1, cols. 1266–67. Edited by W. Helck and E. Otto.
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1975
1976
a. “A Statuette of a Devotee of Seth.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 62 (1976), pp. 41–44
xxiv
003 WKS Bibliography Black Page xxv Thursday, October 24, 1996 3:21 PM
Articles [
b. “At the Source.” Opera News 40 (1976), pp. 32–34
c. Entries in Illustrated Handbook of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston, Museum
of Fine Arts, 1976
d. (With John D. Cooney). “An Early Dynastic Statue of the Goddess Heqat.” Bulletin of
the Cleveland Museum of Art 63 (1976), pp. 201–209
1977
a. “Hatnub.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 2, cols. 1043–45. Edited W. Helck and E. Otto.
b. “An Additional Dog’s Name from a Giza Mastaba.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 63
(1977), p. 175
c. “Amor Dei: N†r mrr rm† m t£ w£ (Sh. Sai. 147–48) and the Embrace.” In Fragen an die
altägyptische Literatur: Studien zum Gedenken an Eberhard Otto, pp. 493–98. Edited by
Jan Assmann, Erika Feucht, and Reinhard Grieshammer. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert,
1977
Fig. 9. With Zahi Hawass in front of the

stela of Thutmose IV between the paws of
the Sphinx at Giza, 1977; photograph by
Robert E. Murowchick.
xxv
003 WKS Bibliography Black Page xxvi Thursday, October 24, 1996 3:21 PM
Articles [
1978
a. “Kenotaph.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 3, cols. 387–91. Edited by W. Helck and E. Otto.
b. “Lischt.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 3, cols. cols. 1057–61. Edited by W. Helck and E.
Otto. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1978
c. “Aspects of Egyptian Art: Function and Aesthetic.” In Immortal Egypt: Invited Lec-
tures on The Middle East at the University of Texas at Austin, pp. 19–25. Edited by Denise
Schmandt-Besserat. Malibu: Undena Publications, 1978
1979
a. “The Pennsylvania–Yale Giza Project.” Expedition Vol. 21, no. 2 (1979), pp. 60–63
b. “Two Stelae of the Overseer of the Goldworkers of Amun, Amunemhab, at Yale and the
Oriental Institute.” Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 1 (1979), pp. 47–54
c. “Topographical Notes on Giza Mastabas.” In Festschrift Elmar Edel, 12. März 1979.
pp. 489–99. Edited by M. Görg and E. Pusch. Ägypten und Altes Testament 1. Bamberg:
Offsetdruckeri Kurt Urlaub, 1979
d. “Egyptian Treasures Analyzed.” Art/World 3, No. 4, (December 15–January 17, 1979),
pp. 1, 12
e. “Egyptian Statuary of Courtiers in Dynasty 18.” Boston Museum Bulletin 77 (1979),
pp. 36–49
1980
a. “Mariette and Verdi’s Aida.” Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 2 (1980), pp. 111–19
b. “Mastabat el Faraun.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 3, cols. 1231–32. Edited by W. Helck
and W. Westendorf. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1980
c. “Masghuna.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 3, col. 11196. Edited by W. Helck and W.
Westendorf. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1980
d. “Meresanch I–III.” In Lexikon der Ägypyologie 3, cols. 78–79. Edited by W. Helck and
W. Westendorf. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1980
e. “Expedition: Pennsylvania–Yale Expedition, U.S.A.; Sites: Toshka, Arminna.” The
Unesco Courier, 33rd Year (February–March, 1980), p. 44, Also in German and Japanese
editions
1981
a. “Varia Aegyptiaca in American Collections.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäo-
logischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 37 (1981), pp. 433–41
b. “Nefermaat.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 4, cols. 376–77. Edited by W. Helck and W.
c. “Pap. Reisner I–IV.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 4, cols. 728–30. Edited by W. Helck and
d. “Pap. Westcar.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 4, cols. 744–46. Edited by W. Helck and W.
e. “The Memphite Epistolary Formula on a Jar Stand of the First Intermediate Period from
Naga ed Deir.” In Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan. Essays in the
Honor of Dows Dunham on the Occasion of his 90th Birthday, June 1, 1980, pp. 173–79.
Edited by W.K. Simpson and W.M. Davis. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1981
f. “Textual notes on the Elephantine Building Text of Sesostris I and the Zizinia fragment
from the tomb of Horemheb.” Göttinger Miszellen 45 (1981), pp. 69–70
xxvi
003 WKS Bibliography Black Page xxvii Friday, November 1, 1996 4:30 PM
Articles [
g. “A Shawabti box lid of the chief steward Nia (Iniuya) acquired by General Jean-Joseph
Tarayre.” Bulletin du Centenaire, Supplément au Bulletin de l’Institute Français
d’Archaeologie Orientale 81 (1981), pp. 325–29
1982
a. “Reschef.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5, cols. 244–45. Edited by W. Helck and W.
b. “A New Kingdom Relief of a Harper and his Song.” In Studies in Philology in Honour
of Ronald James Williams, pp. 133–37. Edited by Gerald E. Kadish and Geoffrey E.
Freeman. Toronto: Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, 1982
c. “Egyptian Sculpture and Two-Dimensional Representation as Propaganda.” Journal of
d. “Preliminary Account of Papyrus Reisner IV.” L’Egyptologie en 1979. Axes Prioritaires
de Recherches, II, pp. 171–72. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recher-
che Scientifique. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1982
e. “A Relief of a Divine Votaress in Boston.” Chronique d’Egypte 57 (1982), pp. 231–35
1983
a. “Sarenput.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5, cols. 428–30. Edited by W. Helck and E. Otto.
Fig. 10. At the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983
1985.
b. “Scheich Said.” In Lexikon der Ägytpologie 5, cols. 557–59. Edited by W. Helck and W.
c. “Schiffbrüchiger.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5, cols. 619–22. Edited by W. Helck and
1984
a. “Senebtisi.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5, cols. 848–49. Edited by W. Helck and W.
b. “Senenmut.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5, cols. 849–51. Edited by W. Helck and W.
c. “Sennefer (Burgermeister).” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5, cols. 855–56. Edited by W.
Helck and W. Westendorf. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1984
d. “Sennefer (Schatzmeister).” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5, cols. 856–57. Edited by W.
Helck and W. Westendorf. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1984
e. “Sesostris I.” In Lexikon der Ägyptolgie 5, cols. 890–99. Edited by W. Helck and W.
f. “Sesostris II.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5, cols. 899–903. Edited by W. Helck and W.
g. “Sesostris III.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5, cols. 903–06. Edited by W. Helck and W.
h. “Sesostris IV.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5, cols. 906–07. Edited by W. Helck and W.
i. “Sesostris V.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5, col. 907. Edited by W. Helck and W.
j. “Sinuhe.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5, cols. 950–55. Edited by W. Helck and W.
xxvii

003 WKS Bibliography Black Page xxviii Thursday, October 24, 1996 3:21 PM
Articles [
1985
a. “Toschqa.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 6, cols. 637–39. Edited by W. Helck and W.
b. “A Stela of the Chief Coppersmith Ahmose.” Mélanges Offerts à Jean Vercoutter, pp.
313–16. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985
1986
a. “Wadi Gawasis.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 6, cols. 1098–99. Edited by W. Helck and
b. “Wadi el Hudi.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 6, cols. 1113–14. Edited by W. Helck and W.
1987
a. Entries in: Art for Boston: A Decade of Aquisitions Under the Directorship of Jan
Fontein. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1987
b. Entries in: A Table of Offerings: 17 Years of Acquisitions of Egyptian and Ancient Near
Eastern Art for the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1987
1988
a. “Lepsius Pyramid LV at Dahshur: The Mastaba of Si-Ese, Vizier of Amenemhet II.” In Fig. 11. With Werner Kaiser on the
Pyramid Studies and Other Essays Presented to I.E.S. Edwards, pp. 57–60. Edited by John island of Elephantine, 1994.
Baines, T.G.H. James, Anthony Leahy, and A.F. Shore. Egypt Exploration Society Occasion-
al Publications 7. London: The Egypt Exploration Society, 1988
b. “Two Corrections to Papyrus Reisner IV, sections F and G.” Journal of Egyptian Archae-
ology 74 (1988), pp. 211–212
c. “A Protocol of Dress: The Royal and Private Folds of the Kilt.” Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 74 (1988), pp. 203–204
1989
a. “On Vuillard.” In The Intimate Eye of Edouard Vuillard. Katonah, New York: The
Katonah Gallery, 1989
b. “E. Vuillard in Katonah.” Art World 13, No. 8, June 2 –July 5 (1989), p. 1,6.
c. “Religion and Philosophy in Ancient Egypt: A Symposium.” Newsletter–1989,
Memphis State University Institute of Art and Archaeology (1989), pp. 11–12
1990
a. “Remarks.” In Lawrence Michael Berman, The Art of Amenhotep III: Art Historical
Analysis, pp. 81–83. Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1990
b. “Rosalind Moss.” In A Dedicated Life: Tributes Offered in Memory of Rosalind Moss,
pp. 87–89. Edited by T.G.H. James and J. Malek. Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean
Museum, 1990
1991
a. “The Political Background of the Eloquent Peasant.” Göttinger Miszellen 120 (1991),
pp. 95–99
b. “Mentuhotep, Vizier of Sesostris I, Patron of Art and Architecture.” MDAIK 47 (1991),
pp. 331–40
xxviii
003 WKS Bibliography Black Page xxix Monday, October 28, 1996 9:36 AM
Articles [
1996
“Belles lettres and Propaganda in Ancient Egyptian Texts,” pp. 435–43. In Ancient Egyp-
tian Literature. History and Forms. Edited by A. Loprieno. Probleme der Ägyptologie 10.
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996
Reviews
∏
1952
Review of Nubian Treasure, by W.B. Emery. American Journal of Archaeology 56 (1952),
pp. 97–98
1953
a. Review of Pottery from the Dyala Region, by P. Delougaz. American Journal of Archae-
ology 57 (1953), pp. 121–23
b. Review of Tepe Gawra II, by A. J. Tobler. American Journal of Archaeology 57 (1953),
pp. 123–25
c. Review of City of Shepherd Kings, by W.M.F. Petrie et al. American Journal of Archae-
ology 57 (1953), pp. 219–21
d. Review of The Near East and the Foundations for Civilization, by R.J. Braidwood.
American Journal of Archaeology 57 (1953), pp. 221–22
e. Review of Archaeologia Orientalia in Memoriam Ernst Herzfeld. American Journal of
Archaeology 57 (1953), pp. 222–23
f. Review of Anatolian Studies I. American Journal of Archaeology 57 (1953), pp. 287–88
1954
a. Review of New Light on the Most Ancient East, by V.G. Childe. American Journal of
Archaeology 58 (1954), pp. 58–59
b. Review of Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne I, by J. Vandier. Archaeology 7 (1954), pp.
257–58
1955
a. Review of Kush I. American Journal of Archaeology 59 (1955), pp. 71–72
b. Review of Excavations in Azarbaijan 1948, by T.B. Brown. American Journal of Archae-
ology 59 (1955), pp. 71–72
c. Review of Arrest and Movement, by H. Groenewegen-Frankfort. American Journal of
Archaeology 59 (1955), pp. 325–27
1956
a. Review of Excavation of Medinet Habu V, by U. Holscher. American Journal of Archae-
ology 60 (1956), pp. 190–91
b. Review of Egyptian Painting, by A. Mekhitarian. Archaeology 9 (1956), p. 222
c. Review of Shaheinab, by A.J. Arkell. American Journal of Archaeology 69 (1956), pp.
67–68
1957
a. Review of The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East, edited by Dentan. American
Journal of Archaeology 61 (1957), pp. 192–95
xxix

003 WKS Bibliography Black Page xxx Thursday, October 24, 1996 3:21 PM
Reviews
∏
b. Review of Radiocarbon Dating, by W.F. Libby. American Journal of Archaeology 61,
(1957), p. 187
1958
Review of The Lost Pyramid, by Z.M. Ghoneim. Archaeology 11 (1958), pp. 140–41
1962
Review of Ägyptische Bronzefiguren, by G. Roeder. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 21
(1962), pp. 313–14
1963
a. Review of Archaic Egypt, by W.B. Emery. American Journal of Archaeology 67 (1963),
pp. 85–87
b. Review of The Heka-nakhte Papers and other early Middle Kingdom Documents, by
T.G.H. James. American Journal of Archaeology 67 (1963), p. 423
1964
a. Review of Thebes in the Time of Amunhotep III, by E. Riefstahl. Journal of Biblical
Literature 87 (1964), p. 217
1965
Review of Studies in Egyptology and Linguistics in Honour of H.J. Polotsky, edited by H.B.
Rosen. Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1965), p. 101
1967
Review of Hieratic Inscriptions from the Tomb of Tut™ankhamun, by J. ◊ern≈. Journal of
the American Oriental Society 87 (1967), pp. 66–68
1970
a. Review of History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies,
by Donald B. Redford. Journal of American Oriental Society 90 (1970), pp. 314–15
b. Review of Anthropomorphic Figurines, etc., by P.J. Ucko. American Anthropologist 72,
No. 5, (October, 1970), pp. 1181–82
c. Review of Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum. Fifth Series. The Abu Sir Papyri, by
P. Posener-Krieger and J.L. de Cenival. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 29 (1970), pp. 131–
33
1974
Review of The Wandering of the Soul, by A. Piankoff. Archaeological News (Tallahassee,
Florida) 3, No. 4, (Winter, 1974), pp. 83–84
1975
Review of Corpus of Hieroglyphic Inscriptions in the Brooklyn Museum, vol. 1, by T.G.H.
James. American Journal of Archaeology 79 (1975), pp. 153–54
1976
a. Review of Ancient Art: The Norbert Schimmel Collection, edited by Oscar White
Muscarella. American Journal of Archaeology 80 (1976), pp. 317–19
b. Review of Saqqara: The Royal Cemetery of Memphis, by Jean-Philippe Lauer. American
Scientist, vol. 64, no. 6 (Nov.–Dec., 1976), p. 700
xxx
003 WKS Bibliography Black Page xxxi Thursday, October 24, 1996 3:21 PM
Reviews
∏
1977
Review of Ancient Egyptian Literature, A Book of Readings 1: The Old and Middle King-
doms, by Miriam Lichtheim. Orientalistiche Literaturzeitung 72, Nr. 4 (1977), cols. 348–
50
1978
Review of Food: The Gift of Osiris, 2 vols., by W.J. Darby, Paul Ghalioungui, and Louis
Grivetti, American Scientist 66, no. 3 (1978), p. 378
1981
a. Review of The Temple of Khonsu, Volume 1, Scenes of King Herihor in the Court, by
The Epigraphic Survey, The Oriental Institute, The University of Chicago (preface by
Edward F. Wente). American Journal of Archaeology 85 (1981), pp. 94–95
b. Review of Fragen an die altägyptische Literatur, edited by Jan Assmann, E. Feucht, and
R. Grieshammer. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 76 (1981), cols. 235–37
1982
Review of Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep, by Ahmed Moussa and Hartwig
Altenmuller. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 77/2 (1982), cols. 121–24
Fig. 12. Speaking at the American University
1985
in Cairo 75th Anniversary Forum, May 18,
1995. Photograph by Richard Laird. Review of Excavating in Egypt: The Egypt Exploration Society 1882–1982, edited by
T.G.H. James. Journal ofEyptian Archaeology 71 (1985), rev. suppl., pp. 16–17
1986
Review of Index of Egyptian Adminstrative and Religious Titles in the Middle Kingdom
with a Glossary of Words and Phrases Used, by William A. Ward. Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 45 (1986), pp. 70–74
1987
Review of La Littérature historique sous l’Ancien Empire Egyptien, by Alessandro
Roccati. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 82 (1987), cols. 17–20
1993
Review of Middle Kingdom Studies, edited by Stephen Quirke. Bibliotheca Orientalis 50
(1993), cols. 117–22
1995
Review of Das Archiv von Illahun: Die Briefe, Lieferung 1, by Ulrich Luft. Bibliotheca
Orientalis 52 (1995), cols. 323–27
1996
Review of Die chronologische Fixierung des ägyptischen Mittleren Reiches nach dem
Tempelarchiv von Illahun, by Ulrich Luft. Bibliotheca Orientalis 53 (1996), cols. 683–85
xxxi
01 ALLEN Page 1 Friday, July 23, 2004 9:54 AM
Some Theban Officials of the

Early Middle Kingdom
James P. Allen
O
ver the course of his Egyptological career, the name of
William Kelly Simpson has become nearly synonymous with
Middle Kingdom studies. Although his interests have included
most aspects of ancient Egyptian civilization, Kelly’s first love has
always been the literature, art, and history of the Middle Kingdom. The
list of his publications bears eloquent witness to just how much his
scholarship has expanded and enriched our knowledge in these areas
over the past forty years. It is my privilege to offer the present study—
which covers an equivalent span of time in the formation of the Middle
Kingdom—in tribute to Kelly’s scholarship, and with affection to an es-
teemed colleague and a treasured friend.
The recent redating of the tomb of Meket-re (TT 280, fig. 1) to the
early years of Amenemhat I has provided a new benchmark for the art
1
and history of the early Middle Kingdom. Given the service of Meket-
re under Mentuhotep II (see below), this new dating now provides evi-
dence for an official career stretching from the last decades of
Mentuhotep II (ca. 2030–2010 B.C. in the traditional chronology),
through the reign of Mentuhotep III (ca. 2010–1998 B.C.) and the end of
the Eleventh Dynasty, to the first years of Dynasty 12 (ca. 1991–1981
B.C.).
The titles preserved in Meket-re’s tomb are mr ∞tmt “Overseer of
the Seal” and mr pr wr “Chief Steward.”2 The former identifies him as
1 Dorothea Arnold, “Amenemhat I and the Early Twelfth Dynasty at Thebes,” MMJ 26
(1991), pp. 21–32; J. Allen, “The Coffin Fragments of Meketra,” MMJ 26 (1991), pp. 39–40.
I am grateful to Dorothea Arnold for discussing the subject of the present paper with me
and for offering numerous valuable comments. In Arnold, op. cit., p. 23 and p. 38 fig. 62,
and Allen, op. cit., p. 39, the bookroll with two ties, which appears on a fragment from
Meket-re’s coffin, was cited as partial evidence for the date of the tomb. A further search
of the fragments of tomb relief has revealed another instance of the same sign, also with
two ties, in carved relief (MMA 20.3.1018).
2On fragment, MMA 20.3.962 (MMA Theban Expedition drawing AM 691), and a frag-
ment in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, respectively. The latter is reproduced in Arnold,
MMJ 26 (1991), p. 21 fig. 26, and discussed ibid., p. 23.
2
MMA 505 MMA 516–517
MMA 508–510
Mortuary Temple
of
Mentuhotep II
Meket-re
Dagi
Sheikh Abd
el-Qurna
N
Planned Mortuary
Temple of
Amenemhat I
Fig. 1. The Theban Necropolis in the early Middle Kingdom.

James P. Allen, Some Theban Officials of the Early Middle Kingdom
the official responsible for the personal property of the king; the latter,
as the administrator of state property.3 Meket-re also appears as mr ∞tmt
in fragments from the reliefs of the mortuary temple of Mentuhotep II.4
He had thus attained the office sometime in the final two decades of
Mentuhotep’s reign,5 and presumably exercised it under succeeding
kings until his death in the early years of the Twelfth Dynasty. The title
of mr pr wr, which appears only in his tomb, was presumably conferred
on him by Amenemhat I.
Meket-re’s predecessor as mr ∞tmt was probably Khety, the owner of
TT 311 (MMA tomb no. 508), above Mentuhotep’s temple in the north
cliff of Deir el-Bahari (fig. 2). Khety appears with this title in two graffiti
from the Wadi Shatt el-Rigala, where he is shown before the figure of
Mentuhotep II.6 In a nearby group of graffiti commemorating other offi-
cials of Mentuhotep’s court, Meket-re is identified only as mrr nb≠f
7
m£<™> mikwt-r™ “Truly beloved of his lord, Meket-re.” These may date
to Mentuhotep II’s Year 39, but are probably a few years later (see below).
3 W. Helck, Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reiches, Probleme der
Ägyptologie 3 (Leiden, 1958), pp. 77–79 and 92. For the function of mr ∞tmt, see also B.
Schmitz, “Schatzhaus(vorsteher),” LÄ 5, cols. 539–43; and G. van den Boorn, The Duties
of the Vizier (London, 1988), pp. 61–62. For the office of mr pr wr, first attested in Dyn. 12,
see Arnold, MMJ 26 (1991), p. 23; O. Berlev, “The Date of the ‘Eloquent Peasant’,” in Form
und Mass, Festschrift für Gerhard Fecht, ed. by J. Osing and G. Dreyer, ÄAT 12 (Wies-
baden, 1987), p. 79; F. Arnold, “The High Stewards of the Early Middle Kingdom,” GM 122
(1991), pp. 7–14.
4 Fr. 5344 = BM 1452: E. Naville, The XIth Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari 2, EEF 30
(London, 1910), pl. 9D; J.J. Clère and J. Vandier, Textes de la première période inter-
médiaire et de la XIème dynastie, BAe 10 (Brussels, 1948), no. 28r3: … smr] w™[t](¡) mr
∞tmt mikt-r™. The mortuary temple relief has been studied by B. Jaroß-Deckert. Her papers
are now in the MMA’s Department of Egyptian Art, and I am grateful to Dieter Arnold for
making them available to me for study. These show Meket-re on at least two other frag-
ments: 5342 (BM 1398), which depicts him carrying a collar, with the legend r[p]™ ∞tmt¡-
b¡t(¡) smr-w™t(¡) mr ∞tmt mikwt-r™; and 1464, with the partial title [mr]-∞tmt m[ikwt]-r™.
All three inscriptions mentioning Meket-re are in raised relief, and thus integral with the
original decoration of the temple, rather than secondary additions. Other references to
fragments from the mortuary temple in the present article are derived from Jaroß-Deck-
ert’s papers; all the fragments are in raised relief.
5 The fragments of temple decoration derive from building phase D; for the date, see Dieter
Arnold, The Temple of Mentuhotep at Deir el-Bahari, PMMA 21 (New York, 1979), pp. 41–
45.
6 W.M.F. Petrie, A Season in Egypt, 1887 (London, 1888), pl. 16 no. 489 and pl. 15 no. 443;
H. E. Winlock, “The Court of King Neb-¢epet-re- ™ Mentu-¢otpe at the Shat. t. er Riga-l,”

AJSL 57 (1940), p. 142 (and fig. 7) and p. 143 fig. 8 = idem, The Rise and Fall of the Middle
Kingdom in Thebes (New York, 1947), pls. 36–37.
7Petrie, Season, pl. 15 no. 455; Winlock, AJSL 57 (1940). pp. 147, 148 fig. 10D, 149–
50 = Rise and Fall, pp. 66–67 and pl. 39D. An initial mr preceding this graffito was erased.
The title mr ¢wt 6 wrt, which follows Meket-re’s name and which was read by Petrie and
Winlock with it, belongs to another graffito (discussed below).
3
MMA 517 = TT 240 (Meru)
MMA 516 = TT 315 (Ipi)

Fig. 2. Early Middle Kingdom tombs above the mortuary temple of
3 (Henenu)
MMA 510 = TT 31
N
Mentuhotep II; after Arnold, Das Grab des Jnj-jtj.f, pl. 1.
MMA 509
y)
(Khet
=T T 311
MM A 508
100 m
MMA 505 = TT 310

0
4
Evidence for Meket-re’s title at this time, while Khety was still in office,
is preserved in a graffito of Mentuhotep’s Year 41 from Aswan:8
¢sbt 41 ∞r 9 ¢rw ZM£-T£W¡ (n)swt b¡t(¡) NB-ÌPT-R™ ™n∞ m¡-r™ ∂t
¡wt ∞tmt¡-b¡t(¡) smr-w™t¡ mr ∞tmww 10 flty ms.n z£t-r™ m£™t ∞rw
™¢™w n w£w£t mikwt-r™ ∞tmt(¡)11
Year 41 under the Horus UNITER OF THE TWO LANDS, King of Upper and Low-
er Egypt NB-ÌPT-R™, alive like Re forever. Return of the King’s Sealbearer,
Unique Friend, Overseer of Sealers Khety, born of Sit-Re, justified; boats of
Wawat; and Meket-re the Sealbearer.
In light of this inscription, Meket-re’s appointment as mr ∞tmt can be
dated to Mentuhotep II’s Year 41 at the earliest, following his return
from Aswan and the death of his predecessor.12
Khety’s office is attested throughout the reliefs from his tomb, as
well as in his sarcophagus and on the offering table from the tomb’s
13
entrance. The reliefs preserve a number of his other honorary and
functional titles as well, including rp™ ¢£t(¡)-™ ∞tmt¡-b¡t(¡) smr w™t(¡)
“Hereditary Noble, High Official, King’s Sealbearer, Unique Friend,” ∞rp
r∞w-(n)sw “Director of the King’s Acquaintances,” r∞-(n)swt [¡m¡] ¡b≠f
“King’s Acquaintance and Intimate,” [(¡)t]-n†r mry-n†r “God’s Father
and Beloved,” mr prw¡-¢∂ “Overseer of the Two Treasuries,” ¡m¡-r ¢∂
¢n™ nbw mr ∞sb∂ mfk£[t] “Overseer of silver and gold, Overseer of lapis-
lazuli and turquoise,” and mr ™b w¢mw nßmt ßw “Overseer of horn,
hoof, scale, and feather.”14 His name and title also occur on linen from
the tombs of Mentuhotep’s queens Aashyt and Henhenet, in the king’s
8 AJSL 57 (1940), p. 147 = Rise and Fall, pp. 65–66; W. Schenkel, Memphis-Herakleopolis-
Theben, ÄA 12 (Wiesbaden, 1965), no. 359. The graffito is reproduced in Petrie, Season,
pl. 8 no. 213.
9 For ∞r alone introducing the king’s name, see the Belegstellen to Wb. 3, 316, 1. The sign
shown in Petrie’s copy between the numeral and ∞r is probably nothing: H.E. Winlock, in
MMA Theban Expedition Journal 3, p. 84.
10 For this spelling, cf. G.T. Martin, Egyptian Administrative and Private-Name Seals
(Oxford, 1971), pl. 5 no. 18. The individual in question is probably not the same as the mr
∞tmt Khety: see below.
11 Petrie’s copy can plausibly be read as ÷ ! fiæ
™3
m% m fix . For the spelling of the title, cf. J.
Couyat and P. Montet, Les inscriptions hiéroglyphiques et hiératiques du Ouâdi Ham-
mâmât, MIFAO 34 (Cairo, 1912), no. 113, 12. Its position after the name is unusual, but
not unparalleled: R. Anthes, Die Felsinschriften von Hatnub, UGAÄ 9 (Leipzig, 1928), no.
19, 5; cf. also Winlock, AJSL 57 (1940), pp. 148 fig. 10K, 152 = Rise and Fall, p. 69 and pl.
39K.
12 Thus substantiating the chronological arguments of Arnold, MMJ 26 (1991), pp. 21–22.
13 For the offering table, see H.E. Winlock, “The Egyptian Expedition 1922-1923,” BMMA
18 (1923), Part 2, p. 14 fig. 4 and p. 17 fig. 7. The relief and sarcophagus fragments are un-
published: MMA Theban Expedition drawings AM 705–706 and 713, respectively. For the
burial chamber, see C.K. Wilkinson and M. Hill, Egyptian Wall Paintings (New York,
1983), p. 67.
5
mortuary complex;15 and from Tomb 23 in the triangular court north of

the temple, which also yielded linen dated to Year 40.16
Nearly all of Khety’s attestations are associated with the final phase
of Mentuhotep’s reign, marked by the Horus name zm£-t£w¡ and
prenomen NB-ÌPT-R™.17 Besides the graffiti from the Wadi Shatt el-Riga-
la, this titulary also occurs, along with the king’s image, in the fragmen-
tary stelae from Khety’s tomb.18 The graffiti are commonly dated to
Mentuhotep’s Year 39 on the basis of year-dates scratched secondarily on
either side of the two main inscriptions showing the figure of the king.19
The relationship between the dates and the graffiti is not completely
certain, but the fact that the king is shown, in one instance, in Sed-
Festival garb suggests that Khety was involved in the planning or cele-
bration of this event, probably sometime between Years 30 and 39.20
The linen marks from the queens’ burials also suggest that Khety had
attained his high office earlier than, or at the latest around the beginning
of, the reign’s final phase.21 Those from Tomb 23 show that he was serv-
ing as mr ∞tmt in or after Year 40. He may also appear in the reliefs of
Mentuhotep’s mortuary temple, like Meket-re, although the evidence is
not unequivocal.22 If so, he must have died while the temple was being
decorated, since there is no evidence for more than one royal mr ∞tmt in
office at any one time. The combined evidence indicates that Khety
14 MMA Theban Expedition drawings AM 705–706 and AM 709; MMA Theban Expedition
Journal 3, p. 116. Khety’s reliefs (AM 705) contain what appears to be the first known use
of the “tongue” sign (Gardiner F20) as a writing of the word “overseer” (¡m¡-r), in the
sequence ¡m¡-r ∞tmt ¡m¡-r ¢∂ ¢n™ nbw; the usage is next attested under Senwosret I: W.
Schenkel, Frühmittelägyptische Studien (Bonner Orientalistische Studien, 13: Bonn,
1962), § 7.
15 Aashyt: Winlock, BMMA 18 (1923), Part 2, p. 12 fig. 2 (MMA 22.3.3; MMA Theban
Tomb Card 61). Henhenet: MMA 07.230.1c3; MMA Theban Tomb Card 31 (unpublished).
16 Noted by Winlock, AJSL 57 (1940), p. 146 = Rise and Fall, p. 65; otherwise unpublished:
MMA 25.3.262 (MMA Theban Expedition photograph M6C 424, MMA Theban Tomb
Card 93) (mr ∞tmt flty) and MMA 25.3.264 (MMA Theban Expedition photograph M6C
423, MMA Theban Tomb Card 94) (¢sbt 40).
17 As suggested, in slightly different terms, by Winlock, AJSL 57 (1940), p. 146 = Rise and
Fall, p. 65. For the king’s titulary, see Dieter Arnold, “Zur frühen Namensformen des
Königs Mn†w-¢tp Nb-¢pt-R™”MDAIK 24 (1969), pp. 38–42.
18 Unpublished: MMA Theban Expedition drawings AM 708 (including fragments of the
king’s figure: MMA 26.3.354B-C) and AM 705.

19 Winlock, AJSL 57 (1940), pp. 153 and 143 fig. 8 = Rise and Fall, p. 70 and pl. 37.
20 For the date of Mentuhotep II’s Sed-Festival, see Dieter Arnold, Der Tempel des Königs
Mentuhotep von Deir el-Bahari 1, AV 8 (Mainz, 1974), p. 66 and n. 178.

21 The burial of Henhenet, and probably also that of Aashyt, was sealed by the temple’s
Phase C: Arnold, Tempel 1, p. 64; idem, Mentuhotep, p. 41. This building phase seems to
have been inaugurated at the time of Mentuhotep’s adoption of the Horus name zm£ t£w¡:
idem, Mentuhotep, pp. 42 and 56.
6
became mr ∞tmt sometime before the final decade of Mentuhotep II and

was succeeded by Meket-re in the king’s last years, before the decoration
of the mortuary temple had been completed.
In this respect, several monuments attributed to the Khety of TT
311 (hereafter distinguished, for convenience, as “Khety I”) should prob-
ably be assigned to other individuals. Winlock identified Khety I with
the expedition-leader named in the Aswan graffito of Year 41, cited
above.23 The identification is tempting, but the title mr ∞tmww makes
24
such an equation problematic, since it is apparently a variant of the
more common title mr ∞tmt¡w, of lower rank than mr ∞tmt.25 If the two
men were identical, Khety could have become mr ∞tmt in Year 41 at the
earliest. This in turn would date the burial of Mentuhotep’s queens, and
building phase C of his mortuary temple, also to Year 41 at the earliest.
Though barely conceivable, the time span is probably too short to
accommodate the architectural and historical events that occurred be-
fore the king’s death in Year 51: building phases C and D of the royal
mortuary temple,26 Khety’s career and the construction of his own
tomb, and Khety’s death and the succession of Meket-re. At any rate, the
likeliest interpretation of the Wadi Shatt el-Rigala graffiti indicates that
Khety I was already mr ∞tmt at the time of Mentuhotep II’s Sed-Festival,
in Year 39 at the latest.
At the other end of the scale, Khety I has also been identified with
the owner of a statue from Karnak and a second offering-table that may
come from the same place.27 The statue was inscribed for the ∞tmt(¡)-
b¡t¡ smr w™(t¡) (¡)t-n†r mr ∞tmt m t£ r ∂r≠f ¡m£∞ flty m£™ ∞rw “King’s
22 Frs. 82 (...] ∞tmt fl[t]y[...), 660 (... ∞tm]t flty), 3078 (...] ∞tmt flty). The relief mentioned
by E. Naville, The XIth Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari I, EEF 28 (London, 1907), p. 40
n. 1, showing “the king, enthroned as Osiris, receiving the homage of the vizier Kheti,”
depicts Mentuhotep, identified as (n)swt b¡t(¡) [NB]-ÌPT-[R™], in Sed-Festival garb, receiv-
ing a procession of officials, the first two of whom are identified as (¡)t-n†r mry-n†r ∞<t>y
and mr ∞tmt [...] (fr. 5130). Although the first title is attested for the mr ∞tmt Khety (see
above), the fact that it is followed by a separate mr ∞tmt suggests that the individual in
question is another Khety, or Khety followed by his predecessor. The relief is at a small
scale and unlike the others in which Mentuhotep II’s officials are depicted.
23 AJSL 57 (1940), p. 147 = Rise and Fall, pp. 65–66.
24 As noted by Arnold, MMJ 26 (1991), p. 45 n. 108.
25 For the latter, see Helck, Verwaltung, pp. 83–84, 181; S. Quirke, “The Regular Titles of
the Late Middle Kingdom,” RdE 37 (1986), p. 118 and n. 39.

26 The sanctuary of the mortuary temple bore a cornice inscription mentioning the king’s
first Sed-Festival: Dieter Arnold, Der Tempel des Königs Mentuhotep von Deir el-
Bahari 2, AV 11 (Mainz, 1974), pl. 1. On that basis, Arnold has suggested that the temple’s
decoration was completed around the time of the Sed-Festival: Tempel 1, p. 66; 2, p. 20.
The evidence assembled in the present article indicates that this inscription is more prob-
ably commemorative.
27 Winlock, AJSL 57 (1940), pp. 146–47 = Rise and Fall, p. 65.
7
Sealbearer, Unique Friend, God’s Father, Overseer of the Seal in the

28
entire land, revered Khety, justified.” The offering-table bears two
h
dedicatory texts: ¡m£∞ ∞r n†r ™£ (

∆K
) nb £b∂w (¡)t-n†r mry-n†r flty m£™
∞rw “Revered by the Great God, lord of Abydos, God’s Father and
Beloved Khety, justified” and ¢tp-∂i-(n)swt ∞£ t ¢nqt k£ £pd sß mn∞t n mr
∞tmt ¡m£∞ flty m£™ ∞rw “A royal offering of a thousand of bread and beer,
beef and fowl, alabaster and clothing for the Overseer of the Seal, revered
Khety, justified.”29 Although the inscriptions on these two monuments
contain the name and titles of Khety I, the objects themselves belong
stylistically in the early Twelfth Dynasty, or even later.30 The statue’s
closest parallel, particularly in the treatment of the legs, is that made for
Nakht, Chief Steward of Senwosret I, sometime during the reign of
Amenemhat I.31 The offering-table displays a pair of basins linked by
curving channels to the central spout, a feature well attested in Twelfth-
Dynasty examples; antecedents in the late Eleventh and early Twelfth
Dynasties tend to have straight channels.32 Stylistically, its closest ana-
logues are a slab made for Ameny, vizier under Amenemhat II,33 and
another dedicated to Wah-ka I or II, nomarch of Qaw el-Kebir in the lat-
ter half of the Twelfth Dynasty.34 It is quite different from the much
simpler offering-table found at Khety’s tomb, which has a large, - fi
shaped central element covered with depictions of offerings in raised
relief, two basins without channels, and no spout.35 If the Karnak pieces
28 A.Mariette, Karnak 1 (Leipzig, 1875), p. 44 no. 12; 2, pl. 8j. P.A.A. Boeser, Beschreibung
der Aegyptischen Sammlung des Niederländischen Reichsmuseum der Altertümer in
Leiden 3 (Hague, 1910), p. 5 no. 40, pl. 21 fig. 13.
29 M. Kamal, “Journal d’entrée, no. 67858,” ASAE 38 (1938), pp. 15–19 and pl. 3.
30 Thus probably also not attributable to the (¡)t-n†r mry-n†r Khety who appears in reliefs
from Mentuhotep II’s mortuary temple (see n. 22 above). I am grateful to Dorothea Arnold
for discussing these objects with me, and for pointing out stylistic parallels.
31 Arnold, MMJ 26 (1991), p. 30. Nakht’s statue (C 409) comes from his mastaba in Lisht
(LN 493): J. Gautier and G. Jéquier, Les fouilles de Licht (MIFAO 6: Cairo, 1902), p. 100 and
figs. 121–22; L. Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleuten im Mu-
seum von Kairo (CG 1–1294: Berlin, 1925), pp. 20–21 and pl. 67; G. Evers, Staat aus dem
Stein (Munich, 1929), pl. 22. The statue of Khety is unfortunately headless: cf. Winlock,
AJSL 57 (1940), p. 147 n. 31 = Rise and Fall, p. 65 n. 30.
32 See Arnold, MMJ 26 (1991), p. 9; H.G. Fischer, “Some Early Monuments from Busiris, in
the Egyptian Delta,” MMJ 11 (1976), pp. 165–66. For Dyn. 12 examples (from Lisht), cf. A.
Kamal, Tables d’offrandes (CG 23001–23256: Cairo, 1909), nos. 23029, 23049–56, 23062,
23064.
33 C 23027: Kamal, Tables d’offrandes, pp. 22–23 and pl. 12. For Ameny, see D. Franke, Per-
sonendaten aus dem Mittleren Reich (ÄA 41: Wiesbaden, 1984), p. 18 and Dossier 117;
W.K. Simpson, “Lepsius Pyramid LV at Dahshur: the Mastaba of Si-Ese, Vizier of Amen-
emhet II,” in J. Baines et al., eds., Pyramid Studies and Other Essays Presented to I.E.S.
Edwards (EES Occasional Publications 7: London, 1988), p. 59.
34 W.M.F. Petrie, Memphis 1 (BSA 15: London, 1909), pl. 4. See Franke, Personendaten,
Dossier 200.
8
date to the Twelfth Dynasty, they cannot have been made at the behest
of Khety I, who evidently died in the final decade of Mentuhotep II’s
reign. They must then be posthumous donations to Khety’s cult, or ob-
jects made for a later individual of the same name and titles, who evi-
dently served under Amenemhat I and perhaps into the next reign, as a
successor of Meket-re, probably following the service of the mr ∞tmt In-
tef, who was buried in Meket-re’s complex and who may have succeeded
him in office.36
In his rise from ∞tmt(¡) in Mentuhotep II’s Year 41 to mr ∞tmt before
the king’s death, Meket-re seems to have bypassed the intermediate
37
rank of mr ∞tmt¡w “Overseer of Sealbearers.” In Year 41, this office
was apparently held by the expedition-leader Khety (if the two titles mr
∞tmww and mr ∞tmt¡w are the same), under whom Meket-re visited
Aswan. In the Wadi Shatt el-Rigala graffiti of Mentuhotep II’s courtiers,
it is associated with a man named Meru, who appears in at least two
inscriptions: as ∞tmt¡-b¡t(¡) smr w™t(¡) mr ∞£swt ¡£btt ¡w n≠f wrw m ksw
r r(w)t pr-(n)swt mry-nb≠f mr ∞tmt¡w mrw “King’s Sealbearer, Unique
Friend, Overseer of the Eastern Hill-country, to whom the great come
bowing at the gate of the King’s House, his lord’s chosen, Overseer of
Sealbearers Meru;”38 and as simply mr ∞tmt¡w mrw “Overseer of Seal-
bearers Meru.”39 Since there is no clear evidence for two royal mr
∞tmt¡w serving at the same time, a third graffito in the same group
should perhaps be assigned to the same individual: it names the m¢-¡b-
35 Winlock, BMMA 18 (1923), Part 2, pp. 14 fig. 4 and 17 fig. 7. The fragmentary offering-
table made for Mentuhotep II’s queen Tem has comparable features: Arnold, Tempel 1,
p. 54 and pl. 25b.
36 For the tomb of Intef see H.E. Winlock, Excavations at Deir el-Ba¢ri 1911–1931 (New
York, 1942), p. 20 and fig. 2. Intef’s title is preserved on a statue base from the tomb, iden-
tical to one made for Meket-re, with the inscription prt-∞rw t ¢nqt k£ £pd n ¡m£∞ ∞r n†r ™£
mr ∞tmt ¡n-t≠f m£™ ∞rw (MMA 20.3.961: MMA Theban Expedition drawing AM 691). Both
bases originally measured ca. 55 x 35cm.
37 For the offices, see Helck, Verwaltung, pp. 83–84 and 181; S. Quirke, RdE 37 (1986), p.
118 and n. 39. There is no direct evidence associating Meket-re with the office of mr
∞tmt¡w. A fragment from his tomb has the partial inscription ∞tmt¡w n (MMA 20.3.1002),
but the context and reference are unknown. Winlock’s reading of a Wadi Shatt el-Rigala
graffito as mr ∞tmt¡w mikwt (AJSL 57 (1940), p. 155 = Rise and Fall, p. 71) is questionable:
see the copy in Petrie, Season, pl. 14 no. 409. It is not associated with those of
Mentuhotep II’s courtiers, and is evidently of a different individual; Meket-re’s name is not
otherwise attested without the r™ element. A [...] ∞tmt mikt¡ appears in the mortuary tem-
ple reliefs (fr. 5332; see n. 22), perhaps identical with the [flr¡] ™ mr ∞tmt m[...], who also
occurs in the mortuary temple (fr. 345), and with the ∞tmw mikwt attested in the Wadi
Shatt el-Rigala (Winlock, AJSL 57 (1940), p. 155).
38 Petrie, Season, pl. 15 no. 459; Winlock, AJSL 57 (1940), pp. 148 fig. 10G, 150–51 = Rise
and Fall, p. 68 and pl. 39G.

39 Petrie, Season, pl. 15 no. 478; Winlock, AJSL 57 (1940), p. 151 and n. 50 = Rise and Fall,
p. 68 and n. 40.
9
(n)sw m st≠f nb ¢z.n nb≠f m£™ ∞tmt¡-b¡t(¡) mr ∞tmt¡w mry “King’s trust-
ee in all his places, whom his lord has truly favored, King’s Sealbearer,
Overseer of Sealbearers Mery.”40
If there was in fact only a single mr ∞tmt¡w in office at any one time,
and if the title of the expedition-leader Khety in the Aswan graffito was
in fact equivalent to mr ∞tmt¡w, Meru’s appearance with the same title
in the Wadi Shatt el-Rigala graffiti dates these inscriptions to Year 41 or
later. The two dates of “Year 39” scratched next to the graffiti depicting
Mentuhotep II must then refer to the year of the event commemorated
(the king’s Sed-Festival?) and not to that of the inscriptions them-
selves—if, in fact, they have any contemporary relevance at all. At any
rate, Meru is firmly attested as mr ∞tmt¡w in Year 46 of Mentuhotep II
by a stela of his, which was probably erected in Abydos.41 The same title
appears in the sarcophagus from his tomb (TT 240, MMA tomb no. 517),
the easternmost in the row of early Middle Kingdom tombs in the north
cliff of Deir el-Bahari (fig. 2).42 The date of Meru’s death is unknown, but
could be as late as the beginning of Dyn. 12 on the basis of his tomb’s
43
architecture and the orthography of his sarcophagus. In that case, he
will have been roughly the same age as Meket-re, under whom he appar-
ently served for most of his professional career.
As noted above, Meket-re’s title of mr pr wr “Chief Steward” was
evidently conferred on him late in life by Amenemhat I, since it is not
attested before the Twelfth Dynasty. His predecessor in this office seems
40 Petrie, Season, pl. 15 no. 474+472; Winlock, AJSL 57 (1940), pp. 148 fig. 10J and 152 =
Rise and Fall, p. 69 and pl. 39J. The graffito of a mr ∞tmt¡w sbkw-¢tp is not associated with
those of Mentuhotep’s court, and is probably later: Petrie, Season, pl. 17 no. 586; Winlock,
AJSL 57 (1940), p. 153 and fig. 12 = Rise and Fall, p. 69 and pl. 38D. Meru’s name is not
otherwise attested in the spelling mry, but the variant mrw≠(¡) ~ mr¡≠¡ is plausible: cf.
Schenkel, FmäS, § 18. An Aswan graffito of Year 41 that Winlock assigns to Meru (Petrie,
Season, pl. 8 no. 243: AJSL 57 (1940), p. 152) belonged to a man named mrr-tty: cf.
Schenkel, MHT, no. 358. Winlock apparently changed his mind about the attribution,
since it is not repeated in Rise and Fall, p. 69.
41 Turin 1447: Schenkel, MHT, no. 387. A good photograph can be found in L. Klebs, Die
Reliefs und Malereien des Mittleren Reiches, AHAW 6 (Heidelberg, 1922), p. 22 fig. 14. For
the stela’s origin, see Winlock, AJSL 57 (1940) p. 151 = Rise and Fall, p. 68; Fischer, review
of W. Schenkel, Frühmittelägyptische Studien, in BiOr 23 (1966), p. 30. Meru does not
seem to appear in the mortuary temple reliefs, although fr. 3650, with the inscription
[...]rw, could attest to his presence among the other officials honored there.
42 R. Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien (Berlin, 1849–59), Abt. 2, pl. 148c–
d. The small tombs to the east of Meru’s belong to Dyn. 12 or later: Winlock, in MMA
Theban Expedition Journal 3, p. 181; Arnold, MMJ 26 (1991), p. 48 n. 196 (for TT 316 =
MMA tomb no. 518).
43 The tomb’s architecture is discussed below. The sarcophagus displays the group h,
∆„
otherwise attested only in Dyn. 12: Schenkel, FmäS, § 4; Fischer, MMJ 11 (1976), p. 9 and
n. 33. I know of no other royal mr ∞tmt¡w that can be firmly dated to the time between
Year 46 of Mentuhotep II and the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty.
10
to have been the Steward (mr pr) Henenu, a contemporary of Khety I.

The tomb of Henenu (TT 313, MMA tomb no. 510) is similar in design
to that of Khety, and lies to its east (fig. 2). His name (mr pr ¢nnw) occurs
on linen from the tomb of Mentuhotep II’s queen Miyet, in the king’s
mortuary complex, like that of Khety in the burials of Aashyt and Hen-
henet.44 Henenu’s tomb, like Khety’s, commemorated the titulary asso-
ciated with the final phase of Mentuhotep’s reign, both on its entrance
doorway and in at least one of the two wall-stelae flanking the
entrance.45 Besides his chief office, the fragments from Henenu’s tomb
record a number of his other titles, honorary and functional:46 ∞tmt(¡)-
47
b¡t¡ smr w™[t(¡)] “King’s Sealbearer, Unique Friend,” flr¡-tp¡-[(n)sw]
“King’s Confidant,”48 mr [™b] w¢mw ßw nßmt “Overseer of horn, hoof,
feather, and scale,”49 mr qb¢ p£wt ∞nn[t] “Overseer of fowl that swim,
fly, and land,”50 and mr nt[t] ¡w[tt] “Overseer of what is and is not.”
The title mr pr occurs throughout Henenu’s tomb, as well as on frag-
ments from his sarcophagus.51 On Stela A it has the unique form [m]r
pr ™£, perhaps also m[r pr ™£] m t£ r ∂r≠f.52 Unlike the Twelfth Dynasty’s
mr pr wr, the adjective here probably does not qualify the title mr pr
(“Great Steward”) but is to be read with pr alone—i.e., “Overseer of the
pr ™£.”53 Hence, perhaps, the additional qualification m t£ r ∂r≠f “in the
entire land.” Given the scope of Henenu’s stewardship, this is evidently
a forerunner of the later title mr pr wr “Chief Steward,” which
Amenemhat I bestowed on his successor, Meket-re.
The linen mark from Miyet’s tomb indicates that Henenu, like
Khety, came into office before the final phase of Mentuhotep II’s reign.
44 MMA 22.3.7, unpublished: MMA Theban Expedition Tomb Card 65, photograph MCC
133.
45 The doorway is unpublished: MMA Theban Expedition Journal 3, p. 142, photograph
M7C 133. The fragmentary stela (A) was published by W.C. Hayes, “Career of the Great
Steward Ìenenu under Neb¢epetre™ Mentu¢otpe,” JEA 35 (1949), pp. 43–49 and pl. 4.
46 Primarily from Stela A (see preceding note). Additional sources (all unpublished) are
noted separately.
47 From the entrance doorway (see n. 45).
48 On Stela C: MMA Theban Expedition Journal 3, 157, photograph M7C 135. Cf. also line
3 of Stela A: ¡w [¡r].n≠f w(¡) m flr¡-tp¡≠[f] “He made me his confidant.”

49 Also on Stela C (see preceding note).
50 See Hayes, JEA 35 (1949), p. 47 (c).
51 The latter are unpublished: MMA Theban Expedition Journal 3, pp. 147–48, photograph
M7C 136.
52 Hayes, JEA 35 (1949), pl. 4 line 1 and right frame. Hayes’s restoration of the latter as m[r
pr wr] m t£ r ∂r≠f is improbable: Berlev, in Form und Mass, p. 81.

53 For the pr ™£ in the Middle Kingdom, see O.D. Berlev, in B.G. Gafurova et al., eds., Tpy‰˚
‰‚a‰âÚ¸ ÔflÚo„o åeÊ‰yHapo‰Ho„o KoH„pecca BocÚoÍo‚e‰o‚ 1 (Proceedings of the Twenty-

fifth International Congress of Orientalists 1) (Moscow, 1962), pp. 143–44 and 145–46.
11
It is uncertain whether he is represented in the Wadi Shatt el-Rigala graf-

fiti, although the traces of one partially erased inscription can be plausi-
bly read as mr pr ¢nn[w].54 From their titles, Khety and Henenu would
appear to have divided the administration of Mentuhotep’s personal and
state property between them (see n. 3 above). Their common responsi-
bility for property may account for the fact that both bear the title mr ™b
w¢mw nßmt ßw “Overseer of horn, hoof, scale, and feather” apparently
at the same time: in Khety’s case, the title may denote the king’s private
livestock; in Henenu’s, that of the state.
The titulary of Mentuhotep II in Henenu’s tomb shows that he sur-
vived with Khety into the king’s final decade. Like Khety, he may have
55
been represented in the reliefs of Mentuhotep’s mortuary temple. In
construction and decoration (discussed below), Henenu’s tomb is some-
what earlier than that of Khety. For this reason, Henenu is porbably not
identical with the Steward Henu who led an expedition to the Wadi
Hammamat in Year 8 of Mentuhotep III.56 Since no other stewards of
comparable rank are known from the late Eleventh Dynasty,57 Henu
seems to have been Henenu’s successor as (Chief) Steward and Meket-
re’s predecessor. His tomb is not known, but it could be one of the anon-
ymous structures in the north cliff—perhaps MMA 511, just west of
Henenu’s.
Apart from Meket-re, Khety, and perhaps also Henenu, two other
high officials are known to have been honored by the inclusion of their
names and figures in the reliefs of Mentuhotep II’s mortuary temple.
The first of these, the vizier Bebi, occurs only once, as the last of a row
of officials; the accompanying inscription (the only one preserved) reads:
†£(t¡) z£b t£¡t¡ bb¡ “Vizier, Dignitary of the Curtain, Bebi.”58 The second,
the vizier Dagi, is attested on several fragments, one of which names
him as ¢£t(¡) ™ mr nwt †£(t¡) z£b t£¡t¡ d£g[¡] “High Official, Overseer of the
Pyramid Town, Vizier, Dignitary of the Curtain, Dagi.”59 Since there is
no evidence for two viziers in office at the same time during this period,
54 Petrie, Season, pl. 15 no. 487; Winlock, AJSL 57 (1940), pp. 149 and 148 fig. 10C = Rise
and Fall, p. 67 and pl. 39C.

55 A [...] ∞nr[t] ¢nnw appears on one fragment (646), but a title with this element is not
otherwise attested for the Steward Henenu.

56 Couyat and Montet, Hammâmât, no. 114. Hayes, JEA 35 (1949), pp. 43 and 47(a);
Schenkel, MHT, no. 426.

57 For the Steward Shedwi-Ptah, under Mentuhotep IV, see Schenkel, MHT, 260 n. a.
58 H.R. Hall and E.J. Lambert, Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, &c., in the British
Museum 6 (London, 1922), pl. 24; Clère and Vandier, TPPI, § 28r4; N. de Garis Davies, Five
Theban Tombs, ASE 21 (London, 1913), p. 39. This is fr. 5341 (BM 116). The beginning of
the inscription is lost.
12
one or the other must have died during the decoration of the temple—
60
most probably Bebi, who is not known elsewhere. Dagi appears with
other members of Mentuhotep’s court in the graffiti of the Wadi Shatt
el-Rigala, as mr ¢wt 6 wrt d£g ms.n nmt(¡) “Overseer of the Great Enclo-
sure of Six, Dagi, born of Nemti.”61 This inscription commemorates
Dagi’s career at a stage where he had assumed at least partial responsi-
bility for the office of vizier.62 Since Bebi’s name does not appear in the
graffiti, it is conceivable that he had died and that Dagi was in fact vizier
in his own right. If so, Dagi’s inscription dates the Wadi Shatt el-Rigala
graffiti to a time when the decoration of Mentuhotep II’s mortuary tem-
ple (phase D) had been started but not yet completed.
Dagi is also attested as vizier in his tomb on the hill of Sheikh Abd
el-Qurna, south of the causeway of Mentuhotep’s mortuary temple
(TT 103, fig. 1). The tomb was decorated in two stages, the second of
which—probably begun after Dagi’s appointment as vizier—involved
59 Fr. 471: Davies, Five Theban Tombs, p. 39; Clère and Vandier, TPPI, no. 28r5. The begin-
ning of the inscription is lost; the word nwt “town” has a “pyramid” determinative. Dagi
also appears in fr. 5352 ([...] z£b t£¡t¡ d£g) and probably also fr. 1097 ([...] t£ r ∂r≠f d£g[¡]).
60 Fr. 5352, cited in the preceding note, may join with another (fr. 1496), which would iden-
tify the official preceding Dagi as †£(t¡) z£b [t£¡t¡ ...]—perhaps honoring Dagi’s immediate
predecessor, Bebi. Whether this indicates that the two viziers were in office simultaneous-
ly, however, is debatable. For the question, see E. Martin-Pardey, “Wesir, Wesirat,” LÄ 6,
cols. 1227–28, with additional references there.
61 Petrie, Season, pl. 15, 455+456; Winlock, AJSL 57 (1940), pp. 148 fig. 10D-E, 150 = Rise
and Fall, pp. 57–68 and pl. 39D–E. Winlock read the title as part of Meket-re’s graffito, and
the name as part of graffito E (Petrie 456). It is evident, however, from the facsimile (and
photograph in H.E. Winlock, “The Egyptian Expedition, 1925–1927,” BMMA 23 (1928)
Section 2, p. 23 fig. 24) that Petrie’s 455+456 = Winlock’s D-E actually consists of three sep-
arate graffiti. The first of these, chronologically, constitutes the beginning of Winlock’s E:
w¢mw n (n)swt r∞.n n†r rn≠f sd(m) ßm™w m¢w mry-nb≠f m£™ z£-m£¢z£ “Herald of the King,
whose name the god knows, whom the Nile Valley and Delta hear, his lord’s true chosen,
Si-Mahes.” For the epithet s∂m ßm™w m¢w, cf. W. Ward, Index of Egyptian Administrative
and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom (Beirut, 1982), nos. 745, 748, 750. The name
z£-m£¢z£ is apparently otherwise unattested, but cf. the feminine s(£)t-m£¢s£ (MK): H.
Ranke, Die ägyptischen Personennamen 1 (Glückstadt, 1935–77), p. 288, 27; the £-bird
above and between the m£ and ¢ signs appears to belong to this inscription, inserted sec-
ondarily. Meket-re’s graffito (the beginning of Winlock’s D) was inscribed next, above that
of Si-Mahes (E); its signs seem to have been adjusted around the superlinear £ of E. The two
lines of Dagi’s text were added last, to the left: the upper line is lower than Meket-re’s, and
the bottom line is higher than that of Si-Mahes. The spelling d£g also appears in the mor-
tuary temple reliefs (fr. 5352: see note 59 above) and in Dagi’s tomb (Davies, Five Theban
Tombs, pl. 38, 1); the vizier Dagi is also depicted with a woman named nmt¡ there (Davies,
op. cit., p. 32 n. 8, p. 37, and pl. 34).
62 The title mr ¢wt 6 wrt is a common, and nearly exclusive, feature of the vizier’s titulary:
cf. W. Helck, Untersuchungen zu den Beamtentiteln des ägyptischen Alten Reiches (ÄF
18: Glückstadt, 1954), p. 73; W.C. Hayes, A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom in the
Brooklyn Museum, Wilbour Monographs 5 (Brooklyn, 1955), p. 74; Strudwick,
Administration, pp. 186–98. Only exceptionally is it borne by officials other than the
vizier: Strudwick, op. cit., pp. 178 and 186.
13
among other changes the application of a fine limestone face to the walls
of the entrance corridor, as in the tombs of Khety, Henenu, and Meket-
re.63 The sarcophagus from this tomb contains several paleographic fea-
tures that point to a date at the end of Dyn. 11, if not in early Dyn. 12.64
The only title recorded on this object, however, is mr rw¡t “Overseer of
the Gate,” which has led to speculation that the sarcophagus was made
either before Dagi became vizier, or for a different individual.65 An
official with the same title is attested in a relief from Mentuhotep II’s
mortuary temple, which could date, like the fragment mentioning the
vizier Bebi, to a time just before Dagi became vizier.66 Dagi’s promotion
from mr rwyt to vizier is conceivable, since the former title is often
qualified by the designation ∞tmt¡-b¡t¡ “King’s Sealbearer,” indicating
membership in the king’s inner circle of advisors.67 It is less likely, how-
ever, that the sarcophagus was made before this promotion, given the
late indications of its paleography noted above. It could conceivably
have been decorated for another Dagi, perhaps a son of the vizier, but
there is no evidence for a burial other than Dagi’s in the tomb.68 In this
light, it is arguable that the sarcophagus was made for Dagi himself, just
prior to his burial. The fact that it does not mention his highest title is
disturbing, but not completely unparalleled: the sarcophagus of the
63 Davies, Five Theban Tombs, pp. 28–30; Dieter Arnold, Das Grab des Jnj-jtj.f, AV 4
(Mainz, 1971), p. 40; B. Jaroß-Deckert, Das Grab des Jnj-jtj.f, AV 12 (Mainz, 1984), p. 131.
Dagi’s vizieral titles appear on the stonework: Davies, op. cit., p. 37.
64 Schenkel, FmäS, § 42f. Cf. also H. Willems, Chests of Life, MVEOL 25 (Leiden, 1988), p.
112. The sarcophagus is published in Lepsius, Denkmäler 2, pls. 147–148b; and P. Lacau,
Sarcophages antérieurs au Nouvel Empire, CG 28001–28126 (Cairo, 1903 and 1906), no.
28024.
65 Davies, Five Theban Tombs, pp. 38–39; Arnold, Jnj-jtj.f, p. 40.
66 Fr. 5333 ([...] mr ryt d[£]g), part of the scene noted in n. 22, above: Davies, Five Theban
Tombs, p. 39; Clère and Vander, TPPI, p. 42 n. b. For the title, see Helck, Verwaltung, p.
65; H.G. Fischer, Dendera in the Third Millenium B.C. (Locust Valley, NY, 1968), p. 166.
67 Quirke, RdE 37 (1986), pp. 123–24. Cf. the references in Ward, Titles, no. 236. The se-
quence ∞tmt¡-b¡t(¡) smr w™t(¡) appears on the exterior ends of Dagi’s sarcophagus: Lacau,
Sarcophages, no. 28024. Traces at the begining of the inscription cited in the preceding
note may also suit [∞tmt¡] b¡t(¡). An early Twelfth-Dynasty holder of the title had the
sequence rp™ ¢£t(¡) ™ ∞tmt(¡)-b¡t¡ mr rwyt: A. Nibbi, “Remarks on the Two Stelae from the
Wadi Gasus,” JEA 62 (1976), pl. 9. The office of mr rwyt seems to be closely linked with
that of the mr ∞tmt, to judge from a stela associating the mr ∞tmt Ikhernefret and the mr
rwyt Inpi: H.O. Lange and H. Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine des Mittleren Reichs, CG
20001–20780 (Cairo, 1902–1925), no. 20683; cf. Franke, Personendaten, Dossier 27. An
official of the later Twelfth Dynasty was both mr ∞tmt and mr rw¡t: Borchardt, Statuen
und Statuetten, nos. 433–436; cf. Franke, op. cit., Dossier 340.
68 No family members are identified in the tomb other than the woman Nemti, who seems
to have been his mother (see n. 61 above). A row of seated men, however, is commonly
supposed to represent his sons: Davies, Five Theban Tombs, pl. 30 no. 1; W.C. Hayes, The
Scepter of Egypt 1 (New York, 1953), p. 163 fig. 99 (MMA 12.180.243).
14
vizier Mentuhotep, who served under Senwosret I, and the tomb cham-
ber of Siese, vizier of Amenemhat II, also bear no evidence of their own-
ers’ service as vizier—perhaps in deference to their successors—
although at least the sarcophagus of Mentuhotep was made near the end
of its owner’s life.69
Though fraught with uncertainties, the bulk of evidence thus sug-
gests that Dagi initially served as mr rwyt during the viziership of Bebi
and was promoted to vizier after the latter’s death sometime in the final
decade of Mentuhotep II’s reign. Among the titles preserved in his tomb
are several comparable to those held by the Chief Steward Henu in Year
8 of Mentuhotep III: mr prw¡-¢∂ mr prw¡ nbw mr ßnwt¡ “Overseer of the
Double Treasuries of Silver and Gold, Overseer of the Double
Granary.”70 If this is of any significance, it may serve to date Dagi’s
death to the same year, at the latest. At any rate, he cannot have sur-
vived beyond Year 2 of Mentuhotep IV, when Amenemhat is attested as
vizier.71
Dagi’s probable date of death, between Year 8 of Mentuhotep III, at
the earliest, and Year 2 of Mentuhotep IV, at the latest, has further ram-
ifications for the date of the vizier Ipi, the owner of TT 315 (MMA tomb
no. 516). On the basis of his tomb’s position, just west of Meru’s in the
row of tombs lining the north cliff of Deir el-Bahari, Ipi has generally
been dated to the reign of Mentuhotep II. Unlike the other tomb-owners
in this row, however, Ipi is not attested outside his tomb, and the tomb
itself bears no evidence of an association with that king.72 The tomb’s
position alone makes it unlikely that Ipi preceded Bebi as vizier. This
leaves only two periods within the late Eleventh Dynasty when Ipi could
have been in office: a few years between Bebi and Dagi in the last decade
of Mentuhotep II; or a maximum of six years between the death of Dagi
and the accession of the vizier Amenemhat, assuming that the latter was
appointed by Mentuhotep IV. The former is improbable, not only be-
cause the vizier Ipi does not appear in the reliefs of Mentuhotep’s mor-
tuary temple, unlike Bebi and Dagi,73 but also because the time involved
would seem to be too short for the construction of his tomb. The latter
69 See Simpson, in Pyramid Studies, p. 60. Cf. Willems, Chests of Life, p. 112. The
sarcophagus of Ipi, however, bears his vizieral titles (MMA Theban Expedition drawings
AM 138 and 774): L.S. Bull, “A New Vizier of the Eleventh Dynasty,” JEA 10 (1924), p. 15.
The sarcophagus of Mentuhotep will be published in J. Allen, Funerary Texts from Lisht
(PMMA, forthcoming).
70 Davies, Five Theban Tombs, pl. 32. For Henu’s titles, see n. 56 above. For the titles, see
Helck, Verwaltung, pp. 180–82; Strudwick, Administration, pp. 290–99.

71 Couyat and Montet, Hammâmât, nos. 110, 113, 192.
72 As noted by Arnold, MMJ 26 (1991), p. 36.
15
is conceivable, though equally limited in time. More importantly, how-

ever, Ipi’s tomb bears several features that point to a later date for its
construction.
Although most of the late Eleventh-Dynasty burials in the north
cliff of Deir el-Bahari were accompanied by wood models, as was that of
Meket-re, only the tombs of Ipi, Meru, and Meket-re contained separate
chambers for such models, excavated in each case in the floor of the
entrance corridor.74 This feature alone places Ipi’s tomb in a group dat-
ing probably (Meru) or certainly (Meket-re) to the early Twelfth Dynasty.
His tomb also has a number of other characteristics found otherwise
only in the tomb of Meket-re. Both complexes contain a contemporary
subsidiary tomb excavated in the upper righthand corner of the court-
yard: that of Wah, Meket-re’s storekeeper (mr st); and that of Meseh, in
75
the case of Ipi. In the same corner, each complex also exhibits a small
crypt in which the owner’s embalming materials were interred.76 This
last peculiarity is linked to another significant characteristic of Ipi’s
burial: the presence of a canopic chest alongside the sarcophagus. Of all
contemporary nonroyal Theban tombs, only that of Ipi and the coordi-
nate burials of Meket-re and Intef exhibit this feature.77 The separate
burial of the viscera in a canopic chest seems to be a northern practice,
adopted in the south only after the reunification and for nonroyal burials
in Thebes apparently only at the very end of the Eleventh Dynasty or
73 See Arnold, MMJ 26 (1991), p. 48 n. 195. An official identified only as [...]p¡ appears
among those honored in the reliefs of Mentuhotep II’s mortuary temple (fr. 3346).
74 For plans of TT 315 (Ipi) and TT 280 (Meket-re), see Winlock, Excavations, pp. 54 fig. 6
and 18 fig. 2, respectively. The plan of TT 240 (Meru) is unpublished (MMA Theban Expe-
dition drawing AM 4330). An antecedent exists in the burial of Mentuhotep II: Arnold,
Tempel 1, pp. 45–46; 2, pp. 11–13. The feature is absent, however, from the tombs of
Mentuhotep’s queens, although that of Neferu (TT 319) has several small niches that
could have been used to store models: Winlock, op. cit., p. 102 fig. 8. The use of a separate
chamber thus appears to have been initially a feature of the royal burial, and adopted only
much later for non-royal tombs. Arnold’s impression that “nearly all the large tombs in
the northern cliff” had model chambers (ibid., 1, p. 46 and n. 105) is mistaken. Of the
“large tombs” (nos. 508–517), only that of Ipi (516 = TT 315), cited by Arnold, and Meru
(517 = TT 240) have a distinct chamber like that of Meket-re. Nos. 508 (TT 311) 509, 512,
513 (TT 314), and 515 have none at all (MMA Theban Expedition drawings AM 759, 1285,
768, and 1287–88). No. 510 (TT 313, Henenu) has three, all apparently later excavations
(MMA Theban Expedition drawings AM 766, 1295; Winlock, MMA Theban Expedition
Journal 3, p. 146). No. 511 has a crude shaft with two chambers, sunk in the floor of its
chapel (MMA Theban Expedition drawing 1283), probably associated with the six burials
of early Twelfth-Dynasty coffins found in this tomb (MMA Theban Expedition Tomb
Cards 1738–43). No. 514, a “gallery” tomb for multiple burials, has five subterranean
chambers off its entrance corridor (MMA Theban Expedition drawing AM 1286).
75 Winlock, Excavations, pp. 29–30 and 55. See also Arnold, MMJ 26 (1991), pp. 34–37.
76 For Meket-re, see Winlock, Excavations, p. 18 fig. 2; finds from this cache are recorded
on MMA Theban Expedition Tomb Cards 3484–87. For Ipi, see Winlock, op. cit., pp. 55–56.
16
78
more probably in Dyn. 12. As with separate model chambers, the use
of this feature appears first in the burial of Mentuhotep II (though per-
haps only in jars, without a canopic chest) and only much later in the
tombs of court officials.
The distinctive architectural features that Ipi’s tomb shares with
that of Meket-re indicate that it was constructed, like the latter, at the
beginning of Dyn. 12. If so, Ipi’s service as vizier must be placed in the
same period, presumably as the first vizier of Amenemhat I and succes-
sor of the vizier Amenemhat. Barring the discovery of another late
Eleventh-Dynasty vizier, Dagi’s tenure will then have stretched from
the death of Bebi to the appointment of Amenemhat in the final years of
Mentuhotep III or early in the reign of Mentuhotep IV. The careers of
Dagi and the other officials discussed above, during the forty years from
the last decades of Mentuhotep II to the first of Dyn. 12, are summarized
in the table in fig. 3.
This proposed chronology, and the attendant discussion above,
involves of necessity some revision in the picture of the Theban necro-
polis and its development in the late Eleventh and early Twelfth
Dynasties. The two ends of the process are anchored by the tombs of
Khety (TT 311) and Meket-re (TT 280). Meket-re’s appearance as mr
∞tmt in the mortuary temple reliefs of Mentuhotep II dates the death of
Khety fairly securely to the last decade of Mentuhotep’s reign, and
Meket-re’s own tomb has been dated to the early years of Amenemhat I,
as noted above.
77 For Ipi, cf. Winlock, Excavations, p. 54 fig. 6; “The Egyptian Expedition, 1921–1922,”
BMMA 17 (1922), Part 2, p. 38 fig. 29. The chests of Meket-re and Intef are recorded in plan
in MMA Theban Expedition drawing AM 645; Meket-re’s was placed under the
sarcophagus. All three are of stone. Winlock’s published plan of Khety’s tomb (Excava-
tions, p. 69, fig. 7) shows a canopic chest beside the sarcophagus, but this is simply specu-
lative. The original plan (MMA Theban Expedition drawing AM 723) records the box only
as a reconstruction. No fragments of such a chest were actually found. The assumption
that there was one is based on the general shape of the pit in which the sarcophagus was
constructed. The photograph of this pit as found (M4C 113) shows only a crude excavation
in one of its sides, with rough walls and an uneven floor, unsuited for the placement of a
canopic chest. If it had any purpose at all, the feature is more probably a slot for the wood
beams used to maneuver the large slabs of the sarcophagus.
78 Two wood heads, probably from canopic jars, were found in the tomb of Mentuhotep II:
Arnold, Tempel 2, p. 49 and pl. 62a. The bodies of Mentuhotep’s queens, however, were
buried with viscera intact: Winlock, MMA Theban Expedition Tomb Card 22. Of the non-
royal examples collected by B. Lüscher, Untersuchungen zu ägyptischen Kanopenkästen,
HÄB 31 (Hildesheim, 1990), pp. 96–113, those identified as pre-Dyn. 12 (mostly of wood)
are predominantly from Saqqara (nos. 3–7, 14, 19, 23, 37–38, 40–41, 64, 68, 72, 76–78, and
103—the last of stone), and Haraga (nos. 95–97). Examples from Middle Egypt, less certain-
ly pre-Dyn. 12, are from Beni Hasan (nos. 46, 48–49, and 79) and Bersha (nos. 82–85). Only
one example possibly prior to the Twelfth Dynasty is known to have originated in the
south, at Nag ed-Deir (no. 53). Another (no. 104) is of unknown provenience.
17
DECADE mr ∞tmt mr pr vizier mr ∞tmt¡w other

30–41 mh ii Khety (I) Henenu Bebi Khety (II) mt c–d
(wsr, linen, (wsr, linen, (mt) (Aswan) queens’ burials
tt 311; mt?) tt 313; mt?) Sed-Festival
41–51 mh ii Meket-re Dagi Meru mt d

(mt) (wsr, mt, tt 103) (wsr, stela)
1–12 mh iii Henu
(WH 114)
1–2 mh iv ? Amenemhat
+ 5 years (wh 110, etc.)
1–10 a i Meket-re Ipi mt in Thebes
Intef (tt 280) (mr pr wr) (tt 315) (tt 240) Arnold, MMJ
(tt 280) 26 (1991), 5–16
Fig. 3. Chronology of the high officials of the early Middle Kingdom. The following
abbreviations are employed in the table:
MH II–IV Mentuhotep II–IV
AI Amenemhat I
WSR Wadi Shatt el-Rigala graffiti
Aswan Aswan graffito of Year 41
MT mortuary temple: of Mentuhotep II (C and D = construction
phases), and Amenemhat I
WH Wadi Hammamat graffiti
linen linen marks from the tombs in Mentuhotep II’s mortuary temple
stela Meru stela of Year 46.
The term “decade” indicates only the period in which service began or ended, not the
full length of such service.
Khety’s tomb is the westernmost of the three largest tombs in the

cliff to the north of the mortuary temple (fig. 2). It was decorated in two
stages. The statue chamber at the end of its entrance corridor was origi-
nally plastered and painted, in a “local” style analogous to—but differ-
ent from—that found in the earlier tombs of Intef (TT 386) and Djar
(TT 366).79 The walls of this chamber and those of the corridor were
subsequently lined with limestone and carved in incised relief, in a style
most comparable to that used in the earlier tomb of Mentuhotep’s queen
Neferu (TT 319); Khety’s painted sarcophagus chamber is also similar in
style to that of Neferu.80 The two stelae from the tomb, originally
placed opposite each other on the walls of the corridor just inside the en-
trance, were decorated with the figure of Mentuhotep II in a fairly high
raised relief similar to that of the final construction phase (D) in the
king’s own mortuary temple.81 Altogether, this combination of styles
79 Jaroß-Deckert, Jnj-jtj.f, p. 130 and pl. 10d. This phase of decoration bears Khety’s name:
Winlock, MMA Theban Expedition Journal 3, p. 96. For the date of Intef’s tomb, see
Arnold, Jnj-jtj.f, p. 49. The tomb of Djar is being prepared for publication by Catharine
Roehrig.
18
places the decoration of Khety’s tomb in a period contemporaneous with

the last two decades of Mentuhotep II—fully in accord with the histori-
cal evidence for Khety’s career noted above.
The tomb of Henenu (MMA 510 = TT 313) is the easternmost of the
three largest tombs in the cliff north of the mortuary temple. Very little
remains of its decoration. A fragment of incised relief from the entrance
shows the figure of Henenu in a style somewhat less attenuated than
that of Khety, with thicker arms and waist more like those found on the
stela of Meru from Year 46.82 The low raised relief of Henenu’s Stela A
is also more advanced than that of Khety’s stelae, and stylistically com-
parable to relief from the sanctuary of Mentuhotep II’s mortuary temple;
in concept and execution it appears to be somewhat earlier than the stela
of Intef, son of Tjefi, which shows marked Memphite influence and is
83
perhaps the latest attributable to the reign of Mentuhotep II. Taken
together, these features indicate that Henenu’s tomb was decorated a
few years after that of Khety. This is possible historically, since Khety
and Henenu appear to be contemporaries.
Other remains from the tomb, however, exhibit an earlier style.
Henenu’s Stela B, which was apparently placed opposite Stela A inside
the vestibule of the tomb, was carved in a very high relief most closely
paralleled in reliefs from the tomb of Neferu.84 The few remnants of his
sarcophagus show that it was rather crudely painted on the interior with
texts and object friezes; the latter include human figures, in the “Upper
Egyptian” style exemplified elsewhere by coffins from Gebelein and
80 R. Freed, The Development of Middle Kingdom Egyptian Relief Sculptural Schools of

Late Dynasty XI (Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 1984),
pp. 55–60 and 164–65; Jaroß-Deckert, Jnj-jtj.f, p. 130. A sample of Khety’s incised relief
appears in Hayes, Scepter 1, p. 165 fig. 101 (MMA 26.3.354). For his sarcophagus chamber,
see Wilkinson and Hill, Egyptian Wall Paintings, p. 67; Winlock, Excavations, pl. 16. For
that of Neferu, see Winlock, op. cit., pl. 13. For the date of Neferu’s tomb, see Arnold,
Mentuhotep, p. 19.
81 Freed, Development, p. 59. For the stela, see n. 18, above.
82 Unpublished: Winlock, MMA Theban Expedition Journal 3, p. 141; photograph M7C
132.
83 Freed, Development, pp. 71–73. For Henenu’s Stela A, see n. 45, above. Henenu’s frag-
mentary stelae C and D (unpublished) were similar in style, though less well executed:
Winlock, MMA Theban Expedition Journal 3, p. 152. For the stela of Intef, see Freed, op.
cit., pp. 75–78; H.G. Fischer, “An Example of Memphite Influence in a Theban Stela of the
Eleventh Dynasty,” Artibus Asiae 22 (1959), pp. 240–52; idem, “The Inscription of ⁄N-
⁄T.F, Born of ÊF¡,” JNES 19 (1960), pp. 258–68.
84 See Freed, Development, pp. 73–75; Jaroß-Deckert, Jnj-jtj.f, p. 136. For the stela’s place-
ment, see Hayes, JEA 35 (1949), p. 43 n. 6. A photograph of the figure of Henenu from the
stela (MMA 26.3.218) was published by H.G. Fischer, “Flachbildkunst des Mittleren
Reiches,” in C. Vandersleyen, ed., Das alte Ägypten, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 15
(Berlin, 1975), pp. 299–300 and pl. 268a. No titles are preserved from this stela.
19
Assiut and in Thebes exclusively by coffins and sarcophagi predating the

85
final phase of Mentuhotep’s reign. This evidence indicates that the
decoration of Henenu’s tomb was begun before that of Khety.
The tombs of Khety and Henenu lie on either side of MMA 509, an
unfinished tomb of the same type, whose owner is unknown. No deco-
ration survives from this tomb, other than the cartouche of a king [...]-
ÌTP—presumably Mentuhotep II—inscribed on the wood door at its
entrance.86 Its facade and entrance court are larger than those of either
Khety or Henenu. The owners of these three tombs were clearly honored
with the most favorable position in the row, closest to the king. Khety
and Henenu appear to have been roughly of the same generation,
although Henenu evidently survived somewhat longer. Between them,
they shared responsibility for the management of the king’s property,
private (Khety) and state (Henenu). In view of the relationship and rank
of these two tomb-owners, it seems probable that the unknown official
buried in MMA 509 was of the same generation and equally high office—
perhaps, therefore, the vizier Bebi, who apparently died during the final
decoration of Mentuhotep II’s mortuary temple.
All three tombs lie east of the fieldstone wall that marked the east-
ern limit of the temple enclosure during its first two construction
87
phases (figs. 1–2). The courts of MMA 509 and 510 (Henenu) are
aligned on an axis roughly parallel to this wall, suggesting that they were
excavated during the same period. That of MMA 508 (Khety), however,
is skewed some ten degrees to the east, even though it lies just to the
east of the fieldstone wall. This indicates that it was laid out after the
northeast corner of the “shield-shaped” enclosure wall, erected during
construction phase C of the mortuary temple (figs. 1–2) was in place.88
If Khety’s court had been built on the same orientation as MMA 509 and
510, the sightline up to the tomb’s facade would have been partly
85 The fragments, which bear Henenu’s title of mr pr, are unpublished: Winlock, MMA
Theban Expedition Journal 3, pp. 147–50; photographs M7C 136–40. The human figures
appear in one fragment representing a bull-slaughtering scene (caption zf† ¡w£). Henenu’s
burial chamber was undecorated. For the “Upper Egyptian” comparanda, see G. Lapp,
Typologie der Särge und Sargkammern von der 6. bis 13. Dynastie, SAGA 7 (Heidelberg,
1993), §§ 306–308 (Assiut), 348–71 and 414–16 (Thebes), and 427–30 (Gebelein). The sar-
cophagus from Khety’s tomb apparently had only horizontal dedicatory inscriptions
around the exterior: Winlock, MMA Theban Expedition Journal 3, p. 86; drawing AM 713.
86 Winlock, BMMA 18 (1923), Part 2, p. 15 and fig. 5 (in situ); Hayes, Scepter 1, p. 257 and
fig. 163 (MMA 23.3.174). A few fragments of raised relief found at the bottom of the cliff
were identified as coming from MMA 509, but the attribution is uncertain: Winlock,
MMA Theban Expedition Journal 3, p. 139; photograph M8C 221.
87 For the date of the wall, see Arnold, Tempel 1, p. 63; idem, Mentuhotep, pp. 8–9, 40.
88 For the date of the wall, see Arnold, Tempel 1, p. 65; idem, Mentuhotep, p. 41.
20
89
obscured by the northeast corner of this wall. Khety’s tomb was there-
fore built later than MMA 509 and 510: if it had been the first tomb con-
structed in the row, it could easily have been located farther east, to
better expose its court and facade to visitors coming from below.
Before the construction of Khety’s court, MMA 509 clearly had the
most advantageous position with respect to the royal mortuary temple.
This relationship, added to the evidence from the orientation of Khety’s
court, indicates that MMA 509 was the first tomb constructed in the
north cliff. Its owner—whether the vizier Bebi or some other high
official—evidently died before it was decorated. The tomb of Henenu
may have been licensed either at the same time as MMA 509 or slightly
later; in the first case, its position would indicate that Henenu’s rank
was in some respect junior to that of the anonymous owner of MMA
509. The insertion of Khety’s tomb between MMA 509 and the mortuary
temple could indicate that the owner of MMA 509 had died, but it may
also reflect the close association with Mentuhotep that Khety presum-
ably enjoyed as manager of the king’s private estate. In this regard, the
relationship of his tomb to the royal monument can be seen as anteced-
ent to that between the later tombs of Meket-re and his storekeeper
Wah.
The tomb of Dagi (TT 103), Bebi’s apparent successor, is not among
those lining the north cliff; it lies instead to the south of the royal com-
plex, on the north face of Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, directly opposite MMA
89 MMA 507, to the west of Khety’s tomb, is almost certainly later, and therefore cannot
have influenced the latter’s position. This tomb, which consists of a number of “galleries”
off a central corridor, was the burial place of some sixty soldiers killed in battle: H.E. Win-
lock, The Slain Soldiers of Neb-¢epet-Re™ Mentu-¢otpe, PMMA 16 (New York, 1945), pp.
1–6 and pl. 1. The grading of Khety’s court buried a stairway of mudbrick whose axis, pro-
jected, points to the entrance of MMA 507 (ibid., p. 3 and pl. 1). Partly on the basis of this
feature, Winlock dated the tomb to the reign of Mentuhotep II, and suggested that Khety’s
tomb was built later. The relationship of the stairway to the two tombs, however, is not
certain. Winlock suggested that it could also have been built to facilitate the climb to
Khety’s tomb before the court was finished (ibid., p. 3); the problem cannot be settled with-
out further excavation. More importantly, the prosopographic evidence from MMA 507
points convincingly to a Twelfth-Dynasty date. Linen recovered from the tomb bore
private names clearly modelled after those of Amenemhat I and Senwosret I: s¢tp-¡b, ∞pr-
k£, and z-n-wsrt (ibid., pp. 28–30, nos. 17, 23, 29, 30, 33); cf. G. Posener, Princes et pays
d’Asie et de Nubie (Brussels, 1940), p. 32; H. de Meulenaere, “Contributions à la prosopo-
graphie du Moyen Empire,” in Bulletin du Centenaire, BIFAO 81 Supplement (1981),
p. 78; P. Vernus, Le surnom au Moyen Empire, Studia Pohl 13 (Rome, 1986), p. 113. For the
historical implications of this redating, cf. H. Willems, “The Nomarchs of the Hare Nome
and Early Middle Kingdom History,” JEOL 28 (1983–84), pp. 98–99. Of the other large
tombs to the west of Khety’s, MMA 506 has a “gallery” substructure like MMA 507 (see
Winlock, op. cit., pl. 1), and is evidently of the same date; it was largely empty when exca-
vated: Winlock, MMA Theban Expedition Journal 3, p. 66. TT 310 = MMA 505 is discussed
below.
21
509 (fig. 1). Since the north cliff seems to have been originally designated
for Mentuhotep’s highest officials, this location may indicate that Dagi
began the tomb before he became vizier. Evidence in favor of an earlier
date exists in the tomb’s plan, which is marked by a facade of pillars
excavated from the bedrock and by a relatively short entrance corridor:
the same features appear in tombs built prior to the latest phase of con-
struction in the royal mortuary temple, such as that of the General Intef
(TT 386).90 In Dagi’s case, this plan was eventually altered: a limestone
facing was applied to the walls of the statue chamber and entrance cor-
ridor, and extended out the door to the two central pillars, thus length-
ening the corridor and placing the tomb’s entrance directly at the end of
the court rather than behind a row of pillars. The changes effectively
converted the original plan to that of the higher-status tombs in the
91
north cliff, and were most likely initiated after Dagi’s appointment as
vizier.
The decoration of Dagi’s tomb consists of painting and relief, both
generally exhibiting a style more advanced than that found in the tombs
of Khety and Henenu.92 Of all the Theban tombs of this era, Dagi’s is the
first in which the paintings show the same degree of northern, “canoni-
cal” influence as the relief, with figures more compactly proportioned
than those of the post-unification Theban style.93 The carved decoration
reflects even more strongly the influence of Memphite traditions.94
Although some fragments exhibit features reminiscent of earlier relief,
such as that from Neferu’s tomb,95 others are more evocative of later
styles. The meticulous carving of interior details displayed in the feath-
ers and uraei of a winged sundisk is characteristic of the art of
Mentuhotep III.96 The relief of a row of seated men (usually identified as
Dagi’s sons) is lower and flatter than even the latest work from
Mentuhotep II’s mortuary temple, and more like that of the succeeding
90 Arnold, Jnj-jtj.f, pp. 39–41. Arnold’s classification of Meket-re’s tomb among these,
however, has been revised by the later study of Arnold, MMJ 26 (1991), pp. 21–32; for the
significance of Meket-re’s pillared facade, see ibid., p. 22.
91 Arnold, Jnj-jtj.f, p. 40 and pl. 18 (PM 103).
92 Jaroß-Deckert, Jnj-jtj.f, p. 131.
93 Ibid.
94 Jaroß-Deckert, Jnj-jtj.f, p. 131; Freed, Development, pp. 60–63.
95 E.g., MMA 12.180.265: Davies, Five Theban Tombs, pl. 30 no. 10. See Freed, Develop-
ment, p. 63.
96 Davies, Five Theban Tombs, pl. 30 no. 3. Cf. Freed, Development, p. 180; idem, “A
Private Stela from Naga ed-Der and Relief Style of the Reign of Amenemhet I,” in W.K.
Simpson and W.M. Davis, eds., Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan:
Essays in honor of Dows Dunham (Boston, 1981), p. 72.
22
97
reign as well. As in the later relief of Meket-re, the figures appear al-
most as if they were pasted onto the stone rather than carved from it; the
detailed painting of interior features that characterizes Meket-re’s relief,
however, is absent here.98
In its combination of earlier and later stylistic features, the decora-
tion of Dagi’s tomb undoubtedly belongs in the period between the
death of Mentuhotep II and the beginning of Dyn. 12, and most probably
in the reign of Mentuhotep III. This agrees with the historical evidence
for Dagi’s career as well as with the paleographic evidence from his sar-
cophagus, and makes it even more probable that his tenure as vizier
extended from the final years of Mentuhotep II to the appointment of
the vizier Amenemhat, perhaps as late as Year 2 of Mentuhotep IV.
The probable length of Dagi’s service as vizier makes it unlikely, in
turn, that the vizier Ipi was in office before the first years of
Amenemhat I—a conclusion strengthened by the architectural features
of Ipi’s tomb, as noted above. In this light, however, the location of Ipi’s
tomb is seemingly anomalous: unlike the tomb of Meket-re, which
dates from the same period, it was not constructed near the funerary
monument of Amenemhat I,99 but lies instead among the tombs of
Mentuhotep II’s high officials, in the north cliff of Deir el-Bahari (fig. 2).
Moreover, it is situated just west of the tomb of Meru, who began his ca-
reer as mr ∞tmt¡w under Mentuhotep II.
From all indications, the two tombs (MMA 516–517) were built at
roughly the same time. Although they lie at the easternmost end of the
cliff, both were clearly designed along the lines of the earlier tombs of
Khety and Henenu to their west (MMA 508 and MMA 510), and display
the same orientation as MMA 509–510.100 Both have a plain facade
equal in size to those of Khety and Henenu, and much the same interior
plan,101 but neither was finished to the same extent. Ipi’s tomb was
97 MMA 12.180.243: Davies, Five Theban Tombs, pl. 30 no. 1; Hayes, Scepter 1, p. 163 fig.
99. See Freed, Development, p. 63; idem, in Studies in Ancient Egypt, p. 71.
98 For the relief of Meket-re, see Arnold, MMJ 26 (1991), pp. 22–23.
99 In the valley south of Deir el-Bahari, formerly attributed to Mentuhotep III: Arnold,
MMJ 26 (1991), pp. 5–16.

100 The present format does not allow for consideration of the evidence for the date of the
tombs that lie between Henenu’s (MMA 510) and Ipi’s (MMA 516). The location of these
intervening tombs, however, does not necessarily indicate that they were constructed be-
fore those of Ipi and Meru. The eastward turn of the cliff face in this region, reflected in
the axes of all but MMA 511 (fig. 2), could well have been undesirable for the construction
of tombs oriented to the mortuary temple of Mentuhotep II. Winlock notes that the rock
in this area is badly faulted, and could also have been avoided for that reason (MMA
Theban Expedition Journal 3, p. 158).
101 Arnold, Jnj-jtj.f, p. 45 and pl. 20.
23
supplied with a rudimentary court; that of Meru exhibits only the exca-
vated facade. Neither tomb was decorated. Meru’s burial chamber is
similar to that of Khety, lined with limestone and painted with texts; his
sarcophagus, unlike Khety’s, was painted on the interior with object
friezes and texts.102 Ipi’s tomb had only a sarcophagus and canopic
chest, the former also decorated on the interior like Meru’s.103
Despite their obvious similarity to the tombs of Khety and Henenu,
however, the tombs of Ipi and Meru are separated from the latter not
only by distance but also by the reigns of at least two kings
(Mentuhotep III–IV). As already noted, both are distinguished by fea-
tures that date their construction to the first years of Dyn. 12, near the
end of their owners’ lives. Although Meru at least, if not Ipi as well,
began his career in the final years of Mentuhotep II104 by the beginning
of Dyn. 12 his association with this king may have become less impor-
tant than another relationship to the mortuary temple—the annual visit
of Amun of Karnak “in his first festivals of the summer, when he rises
on the day of sailing to the Valley of nb-¢pt-r™.105 Of all the tombs in the
north cliff, in fact, only MMA 508–510 reflect a direct relationship with
Mentuhotep II per se rather than with his mortuary temple. With the
possible exception of MMA 511, the tombs east of Henenu’s (MMA 510)
may have been built where they are in order to allow their owners post-
humously to partake in the benefits of Amun’s annual visit to the tem-
ple. MMA 516 (Ipi) and 517 (Meru) may have been the first of these later
tombs, to judge from their size and their location in the best area of the
remaining cliff (see n. 100 above). Since they were built at about the
same time, the precedence accorded Ipi’s tomb probably reflects his
higher official rank.
In the sequence of early Middle Kingdom Theban tombs proposed
here, the tomb of Meket-re is an apparent anomaly. If, as suggested
102 The burial chamber is unpublished: MMA Theban Expedition drawings AM 793–96;
photographs M6C 32–37, M6C 223, M7C 203. The sarcophagus (without texts) is repro-
duced in Lepsius, Denkmäler 2, pl. 148c–d; also MMA Theban Expedition drawings AM
797–99 and photographs M6C 38–42.
103 Unpublished: MMA Theban Expedition drawings AM 138–40 and 773–74. For a photo-
graph of the burial chamber with sarcophagus and canopic chest in situ, see Winlock,
BMMA 17 (1922) Part 2, p. 38 fig. 29.
104 For Meru, see the stela cited in n. 41, above. The fragment of relief cited in n. 73 above
could have represented Ipi at the beginning of his career.

105 Winlock, Rise and Fall, pl. 40, no. 1. For this festival in the early Middle Kingdom, see
ibid., pp. 86–90; Arnold, Tempel 2, p. 33. A relationship between the Middle Kingdom
tombs in the Assasif and the festival was first suggested by Do. Arnold, “The American
Discovery of the Middle Kingdom,” in N. Thomas, ed., The American Discovery of
Ancient Egypt (Los Angeles, forthcoming).
24
above, it is contemporary with the tombs of Ipi and Meru, why are the
latter two not located in the new royal valley south of the Assasif—or
conversely, why was Meket-re’s tomb not built in the same row on the
north cliff? Dieter Arnold’s study of these tombs has suggested a possi-
ble answer.106 Some sixty meters to the west of Khety’s tomb lies an
unfinished tomb that was apparently never occupied (MMA 505 =
TT 310). Although it was evidently planned along the lines of MMA
508–510, with the same orientation to the temple of Mentuhotep II, its
position is clearly less advantageous, and for that reason alone it is prob-
ably later in date.107 Its substructure is also different from those of the
tombs to its east: where the latter have a sloping corridor leading from
the back wall of the antechamber to the burial chamber, the burial
chamber of MMA 505 is reached via a deep shaft in the floor of the
antechamber. Among the Theban tombs of the early Middle Kingdom,
the clearest analogue of this plan is to be found in the tomb of Meket-re.
On that basis, Arnold has suggested that MMA 505 may have been orig-
inally intended for the burial of Meket-re but was abandoned before
completion in favor of a site closer to the new mortuary temple of
Amenemhat I.108
Apart from the architectural evidence, Arnold’s theory has much to
recommend it. The identification of MMA 505 as Meket-re’s original
tomb places it squarely in the sequence of tomb development already ex-
emplified by the tombs of his contemporaries Ipi and Meru. Its plan
indicates that it was begun after the latter two tombs—like the tomb of
Meru, therefore, only toward the end of its owner’s life. This may
account in part for its location on the cliff, though it also usurps the
favored position of Meket-re’s predecessor, Khety, closest to the temple.
The latter may have been the more important factor, since Meket-re’s
new tomb near the mortuary temple of Amenemhat I has the same rela-
tionship to the royal monument. The fact that Meket-re was able to
abandon MMA 509 and at least begin work on his final resting place in
the south valley suggests that he lived somewhat longer into the
Twelfth Dynasty than Ipi and Meru.
In the dynastic system that we have adopted from Manetho, it is
often too easy to forget that the lives of real people lie behind the histor-
ical change from one dynasty to another. The beginning of the Middle
106 Arnold,Jnj-jtj.f, p. 45 and 41 n. 162.

107 Thiswas Winlock’s conclusion: MMA Theban Expedition Journal 3, p. 64.
108 Arnold dated MMA 505 to the reign of Mentuhotep II and TT 280 to that of his
successor, Mentuhotep III (n. 106, above). The chronology has since been revised by the
more recent study of Arnold, MMJ 26 (1991).
25
Kingdom, from the third decade of Mentuhotep II to the first of

Amenemhat I, encompassed only some forty years—well within the
lifetime of many officials, as the careers of Meket-re and Meru show. Of
the high officials attested under Mentuhotep II, some, such as Bebi and
Khety, probably did not outlive him. Others, however, seem to have be-
longed to a younger generation, whose political careers were only begin-
ning in the final years of Mentuhotep II. These officials, including
Meket-re, Dagi, and Meru, served through the end of Dyn. 11 and, in
some cases, into the beginning of Dyn. 12. Such men, as much as the
kings they served, were the founders of the Middle Kingdom.
b
26
02 ALTENMULLER Page 27 Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:31 PM
Geburtsschrein und Geburtshaus
Hartwig Altenmüller
D
ie Stiftung eines Geburtsschreins unter Amenemhet II.
Am Beginn seiner Alleinregierung ließ Amenemhet II. in seiner
Totenkultanlage einen Geburtsschrein errichten. Das Ereignis
war so bedeutend, daß es in den Annalen des Königs aufgezeichnet
1
worden ist (M 14; Abb. 1):
“Aufstellen (s™¢™) (aus) Akazienholz:
Schrein der Geburt (sßdt nt mst) 1
¢£w ∞tm 15
b£¢yt 6
im (Pyramidentempel Amenemhets II.)
‘Versorgt ist Amenemhet’
(Îf£-⁄mn-m-¢£t).”
Bemerkenswert sind die Platzwahl und das Baumaterial. Der
Geburtsschrein wird nicht im Palast oder in der Pyramidenstadt
2
aufgestellt, sondern im Totentempel, der zu diesem Zeitpunkt noch
eine Baustelle ist. Das Bauwerk besteht aus Holz und nicht aus Stein.
Daraus leiten sich Fragen nach Art, Funktion und Bedeutung des
Geburtsschreins ab, denen im folgenden nachgegangen werden soll.
Die Bettlaube des Alten Reiches

Eine direkte Identifizierung des Geburtsschreins in der Pyramiden-
anlage Amenemhets II. ist nicht möglich, weil die Holzkonstruktion
selbst nicht erhalten geblieben ist. Das im Annaleneintrag verwendete
Determinativ zeigt ein querrechteckiges Gebäude mit 6 Säulen oder
Pfeilern und erinnert durch seinen Prospekt an die Darstellungen der
3
sog. Bettlaube in den Gräbern des Alten Reiches. Mit dieser Bettlaube
soll das Bauwerk zunächst verglichen werden.
Die Bettlaube des Alten Reiches besteht aus einer Holzmatten-
konstruktion, in deren Innenraum ein Bett aufgestellt ist. Die das Dach
1 Hartwig Altenmüller–Ahmed M. Moussa, “Die Inschrift Amenemhets II. aus dem

Ptahtempel von Memphis. Ein Vorbericht,” SAK 18 (1991), S. 11 Nr. 19; Jaromir Málek–
Abb. 1. Zeile M 14 der In- Stephen Quirke, “Memphis, 1991: Epigraphy,” JEA 78 (1992), S. 13 ff.
schrift Amenemhets II. aus 2Hartwig Altenmüller, “Die Pyramidennamen der frühen 12. Dynastie,” Intellectual
Memphis nach H. Alten- Heritage of Egypt, Studies presented to László Kákosy, Studia Aegyptiaca 14 (Budapest,
müller–A.M. Moussa, SAK 18 1992), S. 33–42.
(1991), Falttafel.
tragenden Säulen haben die Form von Zeltstangen oder Lotossäulen. Bei
Nebemachet in Giza sind sie einmal mit Hathorköpfen bekrönt und
4
erinnern dadurch an die späteren Sistrumsäulen. Der obere Abschluß
der Laube ist horizontal gebildet und gelegentlich zusätzlich mit einem
5
Cheker-Fries dekoriert. In einigen Fällen, vor allem in der Provinz,
6
haben die Decken die Form eines leicht geschwungenen Pultdachs. Das
im Inneren der Laube aufgestellte Bett wird fast immer durch
Bedienstete mit einem Laken bezogen und mit einer Kopfstütze aus-
gerüstet. Neben und unter dem Bett sind Matten, Kästen, Salbgefäße,
Kleidungsstücke und Gerätschaften des Haushalts zu sehen; gelegent-
lich hängen an den Deckenbalken Schurze. Daß es sich bei diesen Kon-
struktionen um begehbare Räume handelt, zeigt die seitlich angebrachte
7
Tür bei einigen Abbildungen in den Gräbern von Saqqara und auf
8
einem Relief in Brooklyn (Inv. Nr. 71.10.1). Zwischen den Zeltstangen
9
befinden sich Matten.
Mit Hilfe der Ikonographie läßt sich der Grundplan der Bettlaube
einigermaßen sicher bestimmen. Das Bauwerk besteht aus zwei
Raumeinheiten, und zwar aus einem vorderen und einem hinteren Teil.
Bei Kaemanch in Giza sind beide Raumeinheiten jeweils mit einem
10
eigenen Pultdach versehen. Eine ähnliche Unterteilung des Gebäudes
ist bei den Darstellungen im Grab des Neferseschemptah und Sechentiu
3 Die Belege aus dem Alten Reich hat, mit anderer Zielsetzung und anderer Deutung, Vera
Vasiljevi c in ihrer Hamburger Dissertation “Untersuchungen zum Gefolge des Grabherrn
in den Gräbern des Alten Reiches” (Kapitel 5) zusammengestellt. Dazu gehören die Belege:
a) Giza: Dows Dunham–William Kelly Simpson, The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III,
Giza Mastabas 1 (Boston, 1974), Abb. 8; Hassan, Gîza IV, S. 140 Abb. 81; Junker, Gîza IV,
S. 40 Abb. 10a;
b) Saqqara: Boris de Rachewiltz, The Rock Tomb of Irw-k£-Pt¢, Documenta et Monumenta
Orientis Antiqui IX (Leiden, 1960), Taf. 12 a-b; Selim Hassan, Mastabas of Ny-™ankh-Pepy
and Others, Excav. at Saqqara (1937–1938), vol. II (Cairo, 1975), S. 97–98 Abb. 39–41;
Duell, Mereruka II, Taf. 91–95; Ahmed M. Moussa–Friedrich Junge, Two Tombs of Crafts-
men, AV 9 (Mainz, 1975), Taf. 1–2; Peter Munro, Der Unasfriedhof Nord-West I (Mainz,
1993), Taf. 22; Hartwig Altenmüller, Die Wanddarstellungen im Grab des Mehu, AV 42
(Mainz, im Druck), Taf. 52–53; Brooklyn Mus. 71.10.1 = Richard A. Fazzini, “Some
Egyptian Reliefs in Brooklyn,” Miscellanea Wilbouriana 1 (1972), S. 41 Abb. 7.
c) Dahschur: Ludwig Borchardt, Denkmäler des Alten Reiches II (Kairo, 1964), S. 199, Taf.
106 (CG 1777).
d) Provinz: Deir el Gebrawi II, Taf. 23; Naguib Kanawati, The Rock Tombs of El-Hawa-
wish, The Cemetery of Akhmim I (Sydney, 1980), Abb. 9; Mohamed Saleh, Three Old-
Kingdom Tombs at Thebes, AV 14 (Mainz, 1977), Taf. 4, 13.
Die Bettlaube des Alten Reiches ist ikonographisch von der sog. Wochenlaube des Neuen
Reiches zu trennen: Emma Brunner-Traut, “Die Wochenlaube,” MIO 3 (1955), S. 11–30.
4 Ludwig Borchardt, “Zu LD. II, 14”, ZÄS 35 (1897), S. 168; Hassan, Gîza IV, S. 140 Abb. 81.
5Hassan, Gîza IV, S. 140 Abb. 81; Moussa–Junge, op.cit., Taf. 1–2; Fazzini, op.cit., S. 41
Abb. 7.
28
Hartwig Altenmüller, Geburtsschrein und Geburtshaus
Abb. 2. Nach Ahmed M. in Saqqara zu erkennen, wo die drei ersten Zeltstangen im vorderen Teil
Moussa–Friedrich Junge, Two
Tombs of Craftsmen, AV 9, des Baus enger nebeneinander stehen als die übrigen Zeltstangen (vgl.
11
(Mainz, 1975), Tafel 1, unten. Abb. 2). In etwa dem gleichen Sinn dürfte das Torgebäude bei ⁄y-n-™n∞
und auf dem Relief in Brooklyn (Inv. Nr. 71.10.1) zu interpretieren sein,
das sich durch seinen Cheker-Fries von der Laube ohne Cheker-Fries
12
ikonographisch absetzt. In welchem der beiden Räume die Tür ange-
bracht war, ist nicht sicher zu entscheiden. Der innere Raum ist der “in-
time” Bett- und Schlafraum und war vermutlich mit einer Tür versehen.
6 Junker, Gîza IV, S. 40 Abb. 10a.; Deir el Gebrâwi II, Taf. 23; Kanawati, op.cit., Abb. 9;
Saleh, op.cit., Taf. 4, 13.
7 Moussa–Junge, op.cit., Taf. 1-2; Hassan, Ny-™ankh-Pepy, S. 98 Abb. 41; Munro, op.cit.,
Taf. 22.
8 Fazzini, op.cit., S. 41 Abb. 7.
9 Moussa–Junge, op.cit., Taf. 2.
10 Junker, Gîza IV, S. 40 Abb. 10a.
11 Moussa–Junge, op.cit., Taf. 1, 2.
12 Hassan. op. cit., S. 98 Abb. 41; Fazzini, op. cit., S. 41 Abb. 7.
29
Der vordere Raum diente als Empfangsraum für Besucher und benötigte
13
daher keine eigene Tür.
Raum A.10 im Grab des Mereruka in Saqqara bildet eine solche Bett-
14
laube nach (Duell, Mereruka, Taf. 77–103). Der Bau weist vier Pfeiler
15
auf, die an die Laubenkonstruktion der sog. Bettlauben erinnern. Sein
oberer Wandabschluß wird, und dies ist ungewöhnlich im Alten Reich,
durch einen Cheker-fries gebildet, der auch in den Abbildungen der Bett-
lauben zu beobachten ist. Die Zweiteilung des Bauwerks in einen vor-
deren und einen hinteren Raum wird auch durch die Wanddekoration
angedeutet. Am Eingang werden der Grabherr und seine Frau bei der
Entgegennahme von Kultgerät, Stoffen und Kästen (ibid., Taf. 96–99)
und beim Empfang von Lebensmitteln (ibid., Taf. 78–82) gezeigt. Im hin-
teren Raumabschnitt sind in aufeinander folgenden Szenen das Herrich-
ten des Bettes und der Gang zur Bettlaube (ibid., Taf. 91–95) dargestellt.
Ebenfalls in den hinteren Raumabschnitt gehören die Szenen von Musik
und Tanz vor einer Statue des Grabherrn (ibid., Tf. 83–87 + Tf. 97A). Alle
diese Bilder geben einen Hinweis auf das reale Geschehen. Das abge-
bildete und gefeierte Ereignis ist das Zusammensein des Grabherrn mit
seiner Frau mit dem Ziel von Zeugung und Geburt. Raum A.10 in der
Mastaba des Mereruka erweist sich damit als das Geburtshaus eines
16
hohen Beamten des Alten Reiches.
Der Geburtsschrein Amenemhets II.

Bei der Suche nach einer Zweiraumkonstruktion mit der Gestalt einer
Bettlaube und der Funktion eines Geburtsraums stößt man auf das
17
Mammisi des späten Ägypten. Trotz des fast 2000-jährigen zeitlichen
Intervalls besitzen die Mammisis eine markante Ähnlichkeit mit der
Bettlaube des Alten Reiches und zeigen in wesentlichen Teilen die
gleiche Struktur. Die Anlagen sind von einem Säulenumgang umgeben;
sie bestehen aus einem Pronaos und einem Kernbau. Die Säulen sind als
13 Der Vorraum einer solchen Bettlaube ist vermutlich im Grab des Nefer und Kahay ab-
gebildet. In der Laube sitzt eine Frau mit ihrer Tochter, vor der ein Tanz ausgeführt wird:
Ahmed M. Moussa–Hartwig Altenmüller, The Tomb of Nefer and Ka-hay, AV 5 (Mainz,
1971), Taf. 10–11; vgl. auch Dunham–Simpson, Mersyankh III, Abb. 11.
14 PM III2, 530 Room X.
15 Georges Daressy, “Le Mastaba de Mera,” Extrait des Mémoires de l’Institut Égyptien,
(Kairo, 1898), S. 540 spricht von insgesamt 8 Pfeilern in zwei Viererreihen; ähnlich Duell,
Mereruka, S. 9.
16 Zu ähnlichen Räumen vgl. z.B.: Ptahhotep (LS 1): PM III2, 653; Kagemni, Raum III: PM
III2, 522-523; Mereruka, Raum A.X: PM III2, 530-531; Anchmahor, Raum VI: PM III2, 514.
17 Ludwig Borchardt, Ägyptische Tempel mit Umgang, BeiträgeBf 2 (Kairo, 1938); François
Daumas, Les mammisis des temples égyptiens (Paris, 1958).
30
Pflanzensäulen gebildet und haben einmal sogar die Form von Sistrum-
18
säulen, wie dies auch im Alten Reich bei der Bettlaube des Nebem-
achet der Fall ist. Interkolumien zwischen den Säulen versperren den
Blick auf den Kernbau und erinnern in ihrer Funktion an die Matten der
Bettlauben des Alten Reiches. Die Mammisis sind für die Geburt des
Götterkindes bestimmt.
Gute Gründe sprechen für die Annahme, daß der Geburtsschrein
(sßdt nt mst) in der Totenkultanlage von Amenemhet II. eines der
Zwischenglieder in der baugeschichtlichen Entwicklungsreihe von den
Bettlauben des Alten Reiches bis hin zu den Mammisis der Spätzeit ist.
Es ist daher naheliegend, diesen Geburtsschrein des Mittleren Reiches
sich wie die Bettlaube des Alten Reiches und das Mammi der Spätzeit
als Zweiraumkonstruktion vorzustellen. Dadurch eröffnen sich neue
Möglichkeiten zur Erklärung der in den Geburtsschrein hinein ge-
stifteten b£¢yt und ¢£w-∞tm genannten Gegenstände. Die b£¢yt könnten
19
etwas, das “vorne” (m-b£¢), d.h. im “Vorraum,” ist, benennen und die
20
¢£w-∞tm-Art etwas, das sich “hinten” (¢£), d.h. im “Hauptraum,” be-
findet.
Trotz der möglichen Verteilung der b£¢yt und ¢£w-∞tm genannten
Gegenstände auf Vor- und Hauptraum eines Geburtsschreins des Mitt-
leren Reiches bleibt zunächst unklar, was genau die b£¢yt und ¢£w-∞tm
sind. Zur näheren Bestimmung muß daher das für beide Wörter
verwendete gleichartige Determinativ herangezogen werden. Dieses
zeigt einen querrechteckigen schmalen Gegenstand, dessen Bedeutung
allerdings nur schwer zu erkennen ist.
Aufgrund der Tatsache, daß die Wände der Bettlauben des Alten
Reiches aus Vorhängen oder Matten bestehen, ist zu überlegen, ob die
als b£¢yt und ¢£w-∞tm bezeichneten Gegenstände Vorhänge oder Mat-
ten des Vorraums und Hauptraums darstellen. Unwillkürlich denkt man
dann bei dem für beide Wörter verwendeten querrechteckigen Determi-
nativ an einen Vorhangkasten, wie er im Alten Reich im Zusammen-
hang mit dem Bettbaldachin der Königin Hetepheres gefunden worden
21
ist. Dieser besitzt eine Länge von 157,5 cm (= 3 Ellen), eine Tiefe von
21,5 cm und eine Höhe von 18,5 cm, hat also längliches Format und ist
als Vorbild für das Determinativ zu den b£¢yt und ¢£w-∞tm-Gegen-
ständen durchaus geeignet. Der Kasten könnte in übertragener
18 L.Borchardt, op.cit., S. 3–5, Blatt 1.

19 Wb I, 422.5.
20 Wb III, 8.12.
21 Reisner, Giza II, S. 26, Taf. 12.
31
Bedeutung die Gegenstände determinieren, die in ihm aufbewahrt

worden sind. Wird darin die Lösung gesehen, könnten die mit dem Vor- 7 8 9
raum in Verbindung gebrachten b£¢yt luftige und leichte Vorhänge be-
22 6 10
zeichen , während die ¢£w-∞tm genannten Vorhänge des Hauptraums
als geschlossene (∞tm) Matten die Funktion von Wänden gehabt haben.
Es wird sich weiter unten zeigen, daß allem Anschein nach die ¢£w-∞tm 5 11
des Hauptraums Darstellungen aufnehmen konnten.
Die Verteilung der angenommenen Vorhänge (b£¢yt) und Matten Geburtsraum
(¢£w-∞tm) auf Vor- und Hauptraum paßt sich der Struktur der in Skelett- (15 ¢£w-∞tm)
bauweise errichteten Holz-Matten-Konstruktion an. Jeweils 3 b£¢yt 4 12
waren auf den beiden Seiten des Vorraums angebracht, davon 2 auf der
Längsseite und 1 an der Fassade und neben der Tür. Die 15 ¢£w-∞tm des
Hauptraums waren so verteilt, daß sich je ein ¢£w-∞tm neben der Ein- 3 13
gangstür, 3 ¢£w-∞tm auf der Rückseite und jeweils 5 ¢£w-∞tm an den
Längsseiten des Hauptraums befanden (Abb. 3). Aus der Anordnung der
6 Vorhänge (b£¢yt) und 15 Matten (¢£w-∞tm) lassen sich dann auch die
ungefähren Ausmaße des Gebäudes errechnen. Sofern b£¢yt und ¢£w- 2 14
1 15
∞tm jeweils die Breite des Vorhangs der Hetepheres I. von 1,575 m (= 3
Ellen) gehabt haben, ergibt sich für den Geburtsschrein Amenemhets II.
eine Gesamtlänge von 7 Vorhangsbreiten (11,025 m; 21 Ellen) und eine 3 4
Gesamtbreite von 3 Vorhangsbreiten (4,725 m; 9 Ellen). Die auf diese
Weise errechneten Größenverhältnisse stimmen fast exakt mit den Vorhalle
Raummaßen des bei Mereruka als Nachbildung eines Geburtsraums an- (6 b£¢yt)
23
gesprochenen Raums A.10 überein, der 11 m (= 21 Ellen) lang ist. 2 5
1 6
Die Funktion des Geburtsschreins in der Kultanlage des Toten–
tempels
Obwohl der Geburtsschrein (sßdt nt mst) im Totentempel bisher nur Abb. 3. Verteilung der b£¢yt und
inschriftlich für den Totentempel Amenemhets II. nachgewiesen ¢£w-∞tm.
werden kann, haben solche Institutionen mit Sicherheit bereits im AR

24
existiert. Diese haben in der Architektur der Totentempel des Alten
Reiches allerdings keine sicher identifizierbaren Spuren hinterlassen.
Dennoch ist es möglich, ihr Bildprogramm zu bestimmen und die Deko-
ration zu rekonstruieren.
22 B£¢ytbezeichnet Schurze oder Perlengehänge: vgl. Wb I, 422.5; Jéquier, Frises d’Objets,

S. 21–22, 108; Harco Willems, Chests of Life, Mededelingen en Verhandelingen van het
vooraziatisch-egyptische Genootschaft “Ex Oriente Lux” XXV (Leiden, 1988), S. 223. Die
im Grab des Neferseschemptah und Sechentiu und bei Snofru-ini-ischetef (CG 1777) von
den Deckenbalken der Laube herabhängenden Schurze sind aber sicher nicht diese b£¢yt,
sondern Beamtenschurze für die Regeneration des Grabherrn als “Beamten.”
23 Maße nach Duell, Mereruka, Taf. 1; vgl. auch Duell, Mereruka, S. 9.
32
Bei Abwägung der verschiedenen Möglichkeiten zur Rekonstruk-

tion der Dekoration eines solchen Geburtsschreins im Totentempel
muß man sich zwischen zwei Versionen entscheiden. Die eine Version
ist mythenfrei und dürfte den Sachverhalt so darstellen, wie er in den
Privatgräbern des Alten Reiches zu beobachten ist; die andere Version
verlegt das Ereignis in die Götterwelt und dürfte das Geschehen in der
gleichen Art wie im Zyklus von “der Geburt des Gottkönigs” aus-
25
deuten. Dieser Bilderzyklus ist zwar erst seit dem Neuen Reich
bekannt, geht aber nachweislich auf Vorlagen aus einer Zeit noch vor
26
der 4. Dynastie zurück, so daß er zeitlich in das Bildprogramm der
Totentempel des Alten und Mittleren Reiches passen würde. Positiv für
diesen zweiten Bildtyp spricht, daß zwei der erhaltenen Exemplare des
Neuen Reiches (Hatschepsut, Ramses II.) in einem königlichen
27
Totentempel aufgezeichnet worden sind (Deir el Bahari, Rames-
28
seum ) und daher im gleichen funktionalen Zusammenhang stehen
wie die anzunehmenden Exemplare des Alten und Mittleren Reiches.
Eine für die Geburt des Götterkindes redaktionell überarbeitete und
umgedeutete neue Fassung des Zyklus findet sich in den Mammisis des
29
späten Ägypten.
Ein direkter Nachweis für die Ausschmückung eines Geburts-
schreins des Alten und Mittleren Reiches mit dem Bildzyklus der “Ge-
burt des Gottkönigs” kann bisher nicht geführt werden. Dennoch lassen
sich für die Zusammengehörigkeit von Geburtsschrein und Bildzyklus
wichtige Indizien anführen. Der Zyklus besteht in den vollständigen Ex-
emplaren von Hatschepsut in Deir el Bahari und von Amenophis III. in
Luxor aus 15 Bildern, die wegen ihrer auffälligen Anzahl mit den 15 ¢£w-
24 Den deutlichsten Hinweis darauf geben die Titel der königlichen Frauen (Prinzessinnen,
Königsgemahlinnen, Königsmütter), die mit dem Namen des Totentempels bei der Pyra-
mide gebildet sind. Vgl. zu diesen Namen: Pierre Montet, “Reines et Pyramides,” Kêmi 14
(1957), S. 92–101; Klaus-Peter Kuhlmann, “Die Pyramide als König?”, ASAE 68 (1982), S.
223–235; Jaromir Málek, “Princess Inti, the Companion of Horus”, JSSEA 10 (1980), S.
236–240; Jean Leclant, “Noubounet–une nouvelle reine d’Egypte,” Gegengabe, Festschrift
für Emma Brunner-Traut (hgg. Ingrid Gamer-Wallert und Wolfgang Helck) (Tübingen,
1992), S. 218 Abb. D.
25 Brunner, Geburt des Gottkönigs, passim.
26 Brunner, op.cit., S. 183, 186–187.
27 PM II2, 348-349; Naville, Deir el Bahari II, Taf. 46–54.
28 G.A. Gaballa, “New Evidence on the Birth of Pharaoh,” Or 36 (1967), S. 299–304, Taf.
64–65; Labib Habachi, “La reine Touy, femme de Séthi I, et ses proches parents inconnus,”
RdE 21 (1969), S. 27 ff.; Christiane Desroches Noblecourt, “Le mammisi de Ramsès au
Ramesseum”, Memnonia 1 (1990/1991), S. 25–46.
29 Vgl. auch die Beispiele im Tempel von Luxor: PM II2, 326–327; Brunner, op.cit., Taf. 1–
15. Die Bilder im Bezirk des Khonspakhrod des Mut-Tempels in Karnak haben erstmals
mit der Geburt des Götterkindes zu tun: PM II2, 271 (8)–(10).
33
∞tm genannten Matten des Geburtsschreins Amenemhets II. in Verbin-

dung stehen könnten. Dargestellt werden die Zeugung, die Geburt und
die Annahme des später zum König berufenen Kindes durch den Gott.
Am Zyklus beteiligt sind der göttliche Vater, die Königsmutter und das
Kind. Eine Abbildung des göttlichen Vaters findet sich in Sz. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
10, 11 und 14, ein Bild der Königsmutter in Sz. 1, 4, 7, 8, 9 und 12; das
Kind wird in Sz. 6 vor der Geburt und in den Sz. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
nach der Geburt gezeigt. Verteilt man die Szenen in der Reihenfolge des
Zyklus von Deir el Bahari von links nach rechts auf die 15 Felder des re-
konstruierten Geburtsschreins gelangt das Geschehen vor der Geburt
auf die linke Wand (Sz. 1, 2–6), die eigentliche Geburt (Sz. 7–9) auf die
Rückwand—dort unter Verschränkung der Sz. 7–9–8—und das Gesche-
hen nach der Geburt auf die linken Wand (Sz. 10–14, 15) (Abb. 4). Der
30
göttliche Vater geht in das Innere des Geburtsschreins hinein, die im
Inneren des Schreins vorgestellte Mutter blickt nach außen; das Kind
wird mit Blick nach außen dargestellt. Eine vergleichbare Disposition
31
findet sich in den Mammisis der Spätzeit.
Durch eine derartige Verteilung der Szenen von der “Geburt des
Gottkönigs” auf die 15 Felder des Geburtsschreins gelangen die Szenen
mit der auf einem Bett sitzenden Königsmutter stets in eine Mittelposi-
tion: In der Mitte der rechten Wand befindet sich das Bett für die Zeu-
gung (Sz. 4), in der Mitte der gegenüberliegenden linken Wand das Bett
für das Stillen des Kindes durch die Königin und die Ammen (Sz. 12) und
in der Mitte der Rückwand wird die Geburt auf einem Bett dargestellt
(Sz. 9). Die zentrale Wandposition der Szenen mit dem als Löwenbett
gestalteten Bett läßt nur eine Erklärung zu: Hier liegt die götterweltliche
Ausdeutung jener Szene vor, die in den Privatgräbern des Alten Reiches
32
durch das Bett in der Bettlaube angezeigt ist.
Auch bei der Verteilung der übrigen Szenen ist eine sinnvolle Anord-
nung zu erkennen, die die Rekonstruktion des Bildprogramms des Ge-
burtsschreins hervorragend unterstüzt. Der göttliche Vater tritt in das
Innere des Geburtsschreins ein, um die Königsmutter aufzusuchen, und
30 Dies gilt auch wohl auch für die Sz. 1 und die beiden Sz. 10–11, die in Deir el Bahari
seitenverkehrt, d.h. gegen die Zyklusrichtung, dargestellt sind.
31 In Luxor steht der Bildzyklus auf der Westwand von Raum XIII (PM II2, 326–327 (152)).
Die Vorlage von Sz. 1, 2–6 war für eine rechte Wand, die von Sz. 7–9 für eine Rückwand
und die von Sz. 10–14, 15—weil seitenverkehrt—für eine linke Wand bestimmt. Die Bilder
sind in Luxor in drei Registern angeordnet, die Sz. 1–6 im untersten Register v.r.n.l., die
Sz. 7–9 und 10–11 im darüber liegenden mittleren Register dazu bustrophedon v.l.n.r., die
Sz. 12–15 im dritten Register v.l.n.r.
32 Zur Bettendarstellung im königlichen Zyklus vgl. H. Brunner, Geburt des Gottkönigs,
S. 38–42.
34
Abb. 4. Vorschlag für eine I Amun verkündet seinen Plan,

Rekonstruktion der Dekora-
VIII IX VII einen neuen König zu erzeugen
tion eines Geburtsschreins
des Alten und Mittleren VI Bett X II Amun schickt Thot auf die Suche
Reiches. nach einer Königin
III Thot geleitet Amun zur erwählten

V XI Königin
IV
I Amun wohnt der Königin auf
Geburtsraum einem Löwenbett bei
V Amun beauftragt Chnum, das
IV Bett Bett XII Kind zu bilden
VI Chnum formt das Kind und seinen
Ka, Heket belebt es
VII Thot verkündet der Königin die

III XIII
bevorstehende Geburt
VIII Chnum und Heket geleiten die
schwangere Königin zur Geburt
II XIV
IX Die Königin kommt auf einem
I XV
Löwenbett nieder
X Hathor präsentiert das Kind dem
Amun
XI Amun liebkost das Kind
Vorhalle XII Königin und Ammen betreuen
das Kind auf einem Löwenbett
XIII Zwei Gottheiten präsentieren das

Kind den Göttern(?)
XIV Thot überreicht das Kind dem
Amun
XV Gottheiten nehmen die

Beschneidung vor
33
wird daher mit dem Blick nach innen dargestellt. Das Kind ist der für
die Thronbesteigung vorgesehene König, dessen Wirken außerhalb des
Geburtsschreines liegt, und der daher mit dem Blick nach außen gezeigt
wird. Den Schlußpunkt des Zyklus bildet nicht die Krönung, sondern
die Beschneidung (Sz. 15). Diese gelangt in der rekonstruierten Fassung
auf die rechte Eingangswand des Raumes. Auch hier ist eine direkte
Übereinstimmung zum Bildprogramm der Privatgräber zu erkennen: Bei
33 Nach W. Barta, Untersuchungen zur Göttlichkeit des regierenden Königs, MÄS 32

(Berlin, 1975), S. 19 ff. spielt diese Rolle zunächst Horus, dann der Sonnengott Re.
35
Anchmahor ist eine vergleichbare “mythenfreie” Beschneidungsszene

an der rechten Eingangswand jenes Raumes abgebildet, der aufgrund
seiner Architektur und seiner Lage das Gegenstück zum Geburtsraum
34
des Mereruka (A.10) ist.
Die Bedeutung der Geburtshäuser in den Totentempeln und

Zusammenfassung
Die bis hierher geführten Untersuchungen haben gezeigt, daß unter dem
Namen Geburtsschrein (sßdt nt mst) im Mittleren Reich eine Ein-
richtung belegt ist, die mit der Bettlaube der Privatgräber des Alten
Reiches verglichen werden kann. Auf die Existenz solcher Einrich-
tungen in den königlichen Totentempeln verweisen die seit der 6. Dy-
nastie bis zum Beginn des Mittleren Reiches mit dem Namen des
Pyramidenbezirks gebildeten Titel der Frauen des Königshauses. Bau-
liche Formen des Geburtsschreins sind im Alten und Mittleren Reich
allerdings bisher noch nicht mit Sicherheit nachgewiesen.
Die ursprüngliche Bedeutung der Geburtsschreine erschließt sich
aus dem Zyklus der “Geburt des Gottkönigs.” Das mit diesem Ereignis
verbundene Ritual dient dem Nachweis der Göttlichkeit des regie-
renden Königs. Ort der Handlung ist der Totentempel, vermutlich weil
dort die Göttlichkeit des Königs frühzeitig und am deutlichsten nach
außen hin dargestellt werden kann. Die ersten Festfeiern werden eng
mit der Thronbesteigung des Königs verbunden gewesen sein. Denn erst
mit der Krönung erfüllt sich die in die Vergangenheit zurück zu datie-
rende Folge der Ereignisse, in deren Verlauf das Kind durch den Gott
gezeugt, als Sohn angenommen und als Herrscher bestimmt worden ist.
Die Darstellung dieses Mythos in Form eines Rituals ist für das Alte
Reich zwar ungewöhnlich, hat aber im Dramatischen Ramesseumpapy-
35
rus ihre Parallele.
Die flachbildlichen Darstellungen von privaten Geburtsschreinen
sind in den Gräbern von hohen Beamten des Alten Reiches seit der 4.
Dynastie belegt. Ihre dreidimensionale Umsetzung in Stein findet sich
in einigen Mastabas der 6. Dynastie. Mit ihrer Einrichtung ist die Hoff-
nung verbunden, daß bei einer Wiedergeburt der Grabherr seine ehe-
34 PM III2, 514 (21b); Wreszinski, Atlas III, Taf. 25–26; Text S. 45–46; Alexander Badawy,
The Tomb of Nyhetep-Ptah at Giza and the Tomb of ™Ankhm™ahor, University of
California Publications: Occasional Papers 11: Archaeology (Berkeley, 1978), Abb. 27, Taf.
30.
35 Vgl. Hartwig Altenmüller, “Zur Lesung und Deutung des Dramatischen Ramesseum-
papyrus,” JEOL 19 (1965–1966, 1967), S. 432–436; Jan Assmann, “Die Verborgenheit des
Mythos in Ägypten,” GM 25 (1977), S. 21 Anm. 29.
36
36
malige Beamtenposition wieder erreicht. Die Beispiele aus dem
privaten Bereich lassen erkennen, daß derartige Geburtsschreine aus
Stein auch in den gleichzeitigen Totentempeln der Könige seit dem
Alten Reich existiert haben, auch wenn deren Identifizierung bisher
37
noch nicht gelungen ist. Das Bildprogramm der in Stein umgesetzten
königlichen Geburtsschreine dürften dabei unter dem Aspekt der
Wiedergeburt des Königs und der Herrschaftserneuerung gestanden
38
haben.
b
36 Vermutlich sind aus diesem Grund die Beamtenschurze in der Bettlaube abgebildet.
37 Als “Geburtsraum” kommt am ehesten die “antichambre carrée” in Betracht, deren
Dekoration Themen der Regeneration behandelt. In der Mastaba des Mehu liegt der durch
sein Bildprogramm als solcher gekennzeichnete “Geburtsraum” im Vorraum zur
Opferhalle, der von der Lage her der “antichambre carrée” der königlichen Architektur am
ehesten entspricht.
38 Dieser Gedanke ist am besten durch den Sedfestgedanken vertreten, bei dem die
“Löwenmöbelfolge” einen direkten Hinweis auf Wiedergeburt und Herrschaftser-

neuerung im Sinne der Geburtsszenen liefert.
37
03 ARNOLD Page 39 Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:37 PM
Hypostyle Halls of the Old and Middle

Kingdom?
Dieter Arnold
T
he following considerations evolved from discussions
with Rita Freed on the origin of the columns of the temple of
Herakleopolis magna and seem to be an appropriate contribution
to studies honoring William K. Simpson, whose work is so closely con-
nected with problems of the art and architecture of the Old and Middle
Kingdom.1
Since 1842, remains of monolithic papyrus bundle, palm capital and
Hathor(-Sistrum) columns have been uncovered in temples of
Ramesses II and kings of the Third Intermediate and Late Period in the
Faiyum and Delta. These columns certainly originated in older build-
ings, and are generally believed to have been removed from Old and
Middle Kingdom Memphite pyramid temples.2 Unfortunately very few
columns have been adequately measured or recorded and several of
them have remained unpublished. The major examples are listed below
(cf. fig. 1).
Palm capital columns

During the Old and Middle Kingdom there was a preference for granite
columns, while between the Eighteenth and Twenty-first Dynasties
new granite columns were rarely made, leading to the conclusion that
most of the columns described below have an early date.3
Palm capital columns are not known from Middle Kingdom temples
but do appear in three pyramid temples of the Fifth Dynasty (Sahura,
Djedkara and Unas) and a temple of Niuserra, suggesting that all reused
granite palm capital columns originated from the Old Kingdom.
Tanis
1Iwish to thank Adela Oppenheim for her comments.
2 EricP. Uphill, The Temples of Per Ramesses (Warminster, 1984), was the first to collect
and systematically study the question of older building material in the various Delta sites.
His data base is of great importance and quoted below as Uphill, no. XY.
3 Probably of New Kingdom origin are granite columns from the chapel of Thutmosis III
in Luxor Temple, columns of Amenhotep III found in Cairo, and three columns of
Thutmosis IV in Vienna.
Fig. 1. Bundled papyrus columns of the Middle Kingdom from Bubastis and Crocodilopolis (1–2),
and palm capital columns of the Old Kingdom from Herakleopolis Magna (4) and Tanis (4–5).
40
Dieter Arnold, Hypostyle Halls of the Old and Middle Kingdom?
1) Kiosk between the gate of Sheshonk III, and the first pylon (fig. 1[5])4
Behind the huge entrance gate of Sheshonk III the remains of a kiosk of
colossal 10.82 m high, granite palm columns were excavated (“hall of
columns”). Parts of probably four monolithic columns are preserved
with nine fronds (without barbs). Their style and perfect execution indi-
cate that they date to the Old Kingdom and were usurped by Ramesses II
with additional inscriptions by Merenptah. Possibly they alternated
with papyrus bundle columns of limestone. Since the limestone
columns are attested by only two fragments the date of their manufac-
ture cannot be determined.
2) Court of the temple of Anta (fig. 1[4])

In the precinct of the temple of Anta six granite palm capital columns
were found, which probably formed a kiosk.5 Some capitals have fronds
with barbs, while others do not include these details. The abaci were
round, a highly unusual feature in Egyptian architecture that is also
found on the columns from the East Temple (see below). The columns
are dated by their style and perfect execution to the Old Kingdom and
were usurped by Ramesses II. The total height was 6.70 m (including
abacus), the width of the abacus 1.04 m. Two broken and incomplete col-
umns are now in the Egyptian Museum Cairo, while one column is in
the Louvre.6
3) East Temple
Ten more granite palm capital columns with barbed fronds were found
by Mariette in the so-called East Temple, usurped by Ramesses II and
reused by Osorkon II. The abaci were from different blocks and inserted
into the square sockets of the capitals. The round abaci and similar
dimensions suggest that the columns have the same origin as those in
the temple of Anta. The columns had a height of 7.0 m, an upper diam-
eter of 0.817 m, and a lower diameter of 0.955 m.7
4 W.M. Flinders Petrie, Tanis 1 (London, 1885), p. 14; idem, Tanis 2 (London, 1888), pp. 10,
27–28, pl. 5; Pierre Montet, Les nouvelles fouilles de Tanis (1929–1932) (Paris, 1933),
pp. 63–69, pls. 28, 31; idem, Le lac sacré de Tanis (Paris, 1966), pp. 21–31; Uphill, T. 43–46;
Tanis, l’ôr des pharaons, exhibition catalogue (Paris, 1987), fig. on p. 29.
5 Montet, Nouvelles Fouilles, pp. 95–101, pls. 45–47 [upper], inscriptions pls. 48–53;
Studies Presented to F.Ll. Griffith, pp. 407–8, pl. 65; Revue Biblique 39 (1930) pl. 4[1]; for
the history of their discovery and removal see Georges Goyon, La découverte des trésors
de Tanis (Paris, 1987), pp. 55, 173–91, figs. pp. 56, 175–89.
6 Ibid., fig. p. 189.
7 P. Montet, “Les fouilles de Tanis en 1933 et 1934,” Kemi 5 (1935), p. 14; Montet, Les con-
structions et le tombeaux d’Osorkon II à Tanis (Paris, 1957), pp. 29–33, pls. 3–4; Tanis, l’ôr
des pharaons, exhibition catalogue (Paris, 1987), fig. on p. 69.
41
Bubastis
1) The Main Temple of Bastet
Behind the famous Sed-festival gate of Osorkon II was a hypostyle hall
or colonnaded court, about 23 m wide and 55 m deep. The excavation
reports of Edouard Naville and Labib Habachi indicate that this area
contained fragments of at least four monolithic, granite palm capital col-
umns from the Old Kingdom.8 They were reinscribed by Ramesses II
and Osorkon II.9 Petrie gives their dimensions as 6.34 m high (including
the abacus, but without the base of about 0.15 cm) with a 99 cm wide
abacus and a diameter of 95 cm at the foot.10 One column is now in the
British Museum (1065).11
Smaller versions of the same type of column were found in the Hall
of the Sed-Festival Gate but they were not documented.12
2) Temple of Mihos
In the small temple of Mihos was found a group of seven granite palm
capital columns (and two papyrus bundle columns), inscribed by
Osorkon II. One fragment is of quartzite. Habachi assumed that because
of their small size and poor quality, these columns might have been
produced for Osorkon II. Habachi estimated their height to have been
about 4.25 m.13
Herakleopolis Magna (Ihnasya el-Medina) (fig. 1[3])

In 1892(?) Naville excavated parts of the Herishef temple at Hera-
kleopolis magna, uncovering a group of at least six palm capital col-
umns. The matching bases of the columns, which formed a pronaos of
two rows of eight columns, were excavated in 1904 by Petrie.14 The col-
umns were monolithic, granite palm capital columns usurped by
Ramesses II from an older building and later reinscribed by Merenptah;
they were found in association with blocks of the Old Kingdom as well
as Middle Kingdom blocks of Senwosret II. and III. The columns are 5.23
8 Edourd Naville, Bubastis (London, 1891), pp. 11–13, pls. 5–7, 9, 23–24, 53; W.M. Flinders
Petrie, Ehnasya 1904 (London, 1905), p. 14; Labib Habachi, Tell Basta, Supplément ASAE
22 (1957), pp. 61–70, pls. 17–21.
9 Nestor l’Hôte, MSS 20369, p. 359 verso.
10 Petrie, Ehnasya 1904, pp. 13–15.
11 Naville, Bubastis, p. 11; Budge, Guide, Sculpture (London, 1909), p. 164, no. 598; Uphill,
B. 12.
12 Naville, Bubastis, p. 11; Uphill, B. 12–15.
13 Naville, Bubastis, pp. 49–50; Habachi, Tell Basta, pp. 46–48.
14 Edouard Naville, Ahnas el Medineh (London, 1894), pp. 9–11, pls. 5–6 and frontispiece;
Petrie, Ehnasya 1904, pp. 10, 13–15, pls. 6–9, 10[c]; Mohamed Gamal El-Din Mokhtar,
Ihnâsya El-Medina, BdE 40 (Cairo, 1983), pp. 82–86, pl. 6.
42
m high (including the abacus but excluding a base of perhaps 0.15 m),
with the width of the abacus of 0.75 m and a diameter of 0.72 m at the
foot of the column. Gamal El-Din Mokhtar suggests (from field observa-
tions?) that the twenty-four columns of the hypostyle hall behind the
pronaos were also palm capital columns, allowing for a total of forty
columns. From the lower diameter of the hypostyle hall columns (1.2–
1.3 m) one can estimate a height of at least 7–8 m, which is considerably
higher than the pronaos columns. The central aisle of the hypostyle hall
was not higher than the side aisles. Complete columns of the pronaos
are now in the British Museum (1123)15 and in the Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston (91.259).16 Incomplete columns are in the Art Gallery of South
Australia, Adelaide, The Manchester Museum, the Bolton Museum and
Art Gallery (United Kingdom), and in the University of Pennsylvania
Museum, Philadelphia (636).17
Cairo
Several Cairo mosques include reused pharaonic palm capital columns
of granite, which were probably removed from the ruins at Heliopolis
and Memphis, and perhaps include some from Memphite pyramid
temples of the Old Kingdom. The following examples are mentioned in
literature:18
a) The Mosque of Amir Altunbuga al-Maridani (739–40/1339–40)

includes columns taken from the Rashida Mosque outside Old Cairo
(founded 393/1003). The Maqsura has eight granite columns, two of
which are complete palm columns; four have palm column shafts only
and were topped with Corinthian and late Egyptian composite capitals.
Three more palm column shafts are visible at the court front of the
Qibla-Riwaq.19
15 Budge, Guide, Sculpture, pp. 164–65 [599].

16 William Stevenson Smith, Ancient Egypt as represented in the Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston (Boston, 1942), pp. 73–74, fig. 43; Mokhtar, Ihnâsya El-Medina, pl. 6[A].
17 Hermann Ranke, The Egyptian Collections of the University Museum (University
Museum Bulletin 15) (Philadelphia, 1950), pp. 100–101, fig. 59; Mokhtar, Ihnâsya El-
Medina, pl. 6[B].
18 I wish to thank Viktoria Meinecke-Berg, Berlin for kindly drawing my attention to her
article “Spolien in der mittelalterlichen Architektur von Kairo,” Ägypten Dauer und
Wandel (Mainz am Rhein, 1985), pp. 131–42 and for further personal communications.
Since the columns have never been measured or drawn, it is impossible to match them
with specific monuments.
19 V.Meinecke-Berg, “Spolien in der mittelalterlichen Architektur,” p. 132 no. 10, p. 133
no. 16.
43
b) The Arcade of the palace of Maq’d Mamay (901/1496) has four palm
capitals, placed on top of different shafts.20
c) The six columns in the arcades of the Qibla-Iwan of the Madrasa of

Sultan Qala’un (684/1285) are made of palm column shafts combined
with Corinthian capitals.21
The existing reused palm columns are summarized in the following
table:
Tanis 1 5+x 11.00 m (Amun Temple)

Tanis 2 6+x 6.70 m (Anta Temple)
Tanis 3 10 + x 7.00 m (East Temple)
Bubastis 1 4+x 6.50 m (Bastet Temple)
Bubastis 2 7+x 4.25 m (Mihos Temple)
Herakleopolis 6 – 16 5.38 m
Cairo 17 + x ?
Total: 55 + x attested
palm columns
Papyrus bundle columns

Because the monolithic granite papyrus bundle column with six to
twelve main stems (with additional secondary bundles of buds) was the
favored column type during the Middle Kingdom,22 all these columns
are dated to that period. As a confirmation, the columns of Crocodilo-
polis mentioned below are inscribed with the name of Amenemhat III.
Another type of papyrus bundle columns with only six stems, a protrud-
ing abacus, no secondary bundles of buds and an angular collar must be
assigned to the Old Kingdom.23
20 Ibid.,p. 133 no. 23; Edmond Pauty, Les Palais et les Maisons d’Epoque Musulmane au
Caire, MMIFAO 62 (Cairo, 1932), p. 47, pl. 16; Jacques Revault-Bernard Maury, Palais et
Maisons du Caire du XIVe au XVIIIe siècle 1, MIFAO 96 (Cairo, 1975), p. 19, pls. 6–9.
21 U.A.C. Creswell, The Architecture of Egypt 2 (Oxford, 1959), pl. 74b.
22 Examples come from the pyramid complexes of Senwosret I, Senwosret III,
Amenemhat III at Dahshur and Hawara, the temple of Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV
at Medinet Madi, and the temple of Month at Medamoud (F. Bisson de la Roque and J.J.
Clère, Rapport sur les fouilles de Médamoud (1928) [Cairo, 1929], pp. 79–81, figs. 73–76).
For the few New Kingdom examples see note 3.
23 Datedexamples in the pyramid temple of Niuserra (Ludwig Borchardt, Das Grabdenk-
mal des Königs Ne-user-Re [Leipzig, 1907], pp. 66–68, pl. 13) and the so-called queen’s
pyramid of Djedkara.
44
Tanis
a) Several fragments of granite papyrus bundle columns were found
reused and redressed in the area of the main temple.24 They had a
protruding abacus but lacked bundles of secondary buds and bands, sug-
gesting a shaft with six stems. Traces of the name of Niuserra on one of
the columns confirm their Fifth Dynasty origin.
b) A few granite fragments from the East Temple can be reconstructed to

form a 90 cm high capital with an upper shaft diameter of 73 cm. The
capital had bundles of secondary buds and seems to originate from the
Middle Kingdom.25
Bubastis
1) The Main Temple of Bastet (fig. 1[1])
The above-mentioned hypostyle hall or colonnaded court behind the
Sed-festival gate of Osorkon II also contained fragments of at least four
monolithic, granite papyrus bundle columns, found together with parts
of granite architraves (some now in the British Museum), usurped by
Ramesses II from Senwosret III.26 None of the columns was completely
preserved, but from the size of the only published capital one can esti-
mate an original height of about 7–8 m (including the abacus). A capital
and upper part of a column are now in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
(89.555);27 broken and incomplete examples remain at the site.28
2) Temple of Mihos
Naville and Habachi excavated fragments of two or more red granite
papyrus bundle columns, inscribed by Ramesses II and usurped by
Osorkon II.29 One fragment is now in the Louvre.
Crocodilopolis, Arsinoe (Medinet el-Faiyum) (fig. 1[2])

In 1937, Habachi recorded a group of fourteen incomplete shafts of red
granite papyrus bundle columns, lying on the Kiman Faris, about 1 km
south of the Ptolemaic Sobek Temple of Crocodilopolis. Some columns
24 P. Montet, Le drame d’Avaris (Paris, 1941), pp. 52–53, figs. 24–25; P. Montet, Le lac sacré
de Tanis (Paris, 1966), p. 30, fig. 5.

25 Montet, Le lac sacré de Tanis, fig. 4[b].
26 Naville, Bubastis, pp. 11–13, pls. 5–7, 9, 23–24, 53; Petrie, Ehnasya 1904, p. 14; Habachi,
Tell Basta, pp. 61–70, pls. 17–21; Uphill, nos. B 8–11.

27 Naville, Bubastis, p. 11, pl. 7; Habachi, Tell Basta, pp. 67–69; Smith, Ancient Egypt as
represented in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, pp. 79–80, fig. 44; Uphill, B. 11.
28 Naville, Bubastis, p. 11, pls. 7, 17, 21[A]; Habachi, Tell Basta, pp. 67–69; Uphill, B. 8–10.
29 Naville, Bubastis, p. 49; Habachi, Tell Basta, pp. 46–55, pl. 11B.
45
still retained parts of the original building inscription of Amenemhat III

with later additions by Ramesses II and Ramesses VI.30 Builders had
apparently collected the columns for Ptolemaic structures. The upper
parts of the columns and capitals were missing, but Habachi estimated
their original height to have been about 7.20 m. Two column shafts are
now in the garden of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo.
Herakleopolis Magna (Ihnasya el-Medina)

In front of the gateway of an unidentified temple at the Kom el-Akârib,
four granite bundled papyrus columns are still standing. Originally in-
scribed by Queen Sobeknofrure, they were cut in half and reused proba-
bly by Ramesses II.31 The gateway itself contains about ten huge granite
beams which may have the same origin as the columns. Two colossal
statues were also found in the area; they were usurped by Ramesses II
and are thought to have originated from the time of Senwosret III. The
columns have never been measured.
Hathor capital columns

Hathor capital or Sistrum columns appear in temples of female gods of
all periods. From the Eightenth Dynasty onward, the capital shows the
face of Hathor on all four sides and is capped by a chapel. Examples with
the Hathor faces on two opposite sides and without the chapel are
believed to be of Middle Kingdom origin. Only the latter type will be
considered here.
Bubastis
At least nine Hathor capital columns were recorded in the area of the
hypostyle hall of the temple of Bastet at Bubastis.32 They are inscribed
with the names of Ramesses II and/or Osorkon II. They were found in
three sizes:
a) Five or more, granite Hathor capitals of Osorkon II were 7 ft. high

(= 2.13 m) and had Hathor faces on two opposite sides. A complete cap-
ital is now in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; incomplete ones are in
30 L. Habachi, “Une ‘vaste salle’ d’Amenemhat III à Kiman-Farès (Fayoum),” ASAE 37

(1937), pp. 85–95. One of the columns was seen already by Golénischeff, see Henri
Gauthier, Le livre des rois d’Egypte 1 (Cairo, 1907), p. 259.
31 Now in the garden of the Cairo Museum JdE 45975–76. Mokhtar, Ihnâsya El-Medina,
pp. 89–90, pls. 7–8; Maria del Carmen Perez-Die and Pascal Vernus, Excavaciones en
Ehnasya el Medina (Heracleópolis Magna) (Madrid, 1992), pp. 20–21, pl. 148B.
32 Naville, Bubastis, pp. 11–12, pls. 9, 23 A–B, 24 B; Habachi, Tell Basta, pp. 61–67, pls. 18–
20.
46
the British Museum (1107 = 768), the Louvre, and in Berlin (10834).
b) Four Hathor capitals had Hathor faces on two opposite sides, the two
other sides being empty. They were inscribed with the name of
Osorkon II, and were said to be “smaller and more simple.” Labib
Habachi, however, states that the head in Sydney had “almost” the same
dimensions as those of the first group. One capital is now in Sydney,
Australia.
c) One complete red granite capital along with fragments of others were
found by Labib Habachi in 1939 in the Bastet temple. The Hathor faces
are on two opposite sides, while one other side was decorated with the
lily and the other with the papyrus symbols. The 1.43 m high capital was
inscribed with the name of Osorkon II and is now in the Egyptian
Museum, Cairo (JdE 72134).
The columns described above, as well as other building elements

(architraves, door frames, wall blocks) and statuary, are usually said to
have originated from the pyramid complexes of the memphite area.
They would have been removed either by Amenemat I or later by
Ramesses II to new construction sites in the Delta and elsewhere.33
Some of them were again reused by rulers of the Twenty-first and
Twenty-second Dynasties at Tanis.
We now have to ask the question, whether or not the approximately
fifty-five remaining, reused palm capital columns described above could
be accommodated in the Memphite pyramid temples, given the number
of missing palm columns. Three pyramid temples of the Old Kingdom
contained such columns (Sahura, Ddjekara and Unas). In the Sahura
pyramid temple, eleven of sixteen 6.40 m high columns from the court
of the pyramid temple were found when the complex was excavated in
1907.34 The valley temple has a maximum of eight empty positions, but
the column types used in this building are unknown.35
The pyramid temple of Djedkara contained sixteen palm capital col-
umns, of which an undetermined number lie broken at the site. The
33 Eric Uphill, “Pithom and Rameses: Their Location and Significance,” JNES 27 (1968),
pp. 291–316, JNES 28 (1969), pp. 15–39; idem, The Temples of Per Ramesses (Warminster,
1984), pp. 230–32.
34 Two now in Cairo [39527, 39529], five columns in Berlin [31605], and one in The Metro-
politan Museum of Art, New York [acc. no. 10.175.137].

35 Only one fragment of a round column was found, which might have belonged to the
plain shaft columns used at the side entrance; cf. Ludwig Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal
des Königs Sa£¢u-Re™ (Leipzig, 1910), pp. 10, 32–33.
47
remaining pieces have a diameter of 0.74 m, suggesting that the columns

were smaller than the columns of Sahura. Eight more palm capital
columns might have been placed in the unexcavated valley temple,
increasing the number of empty positions to a maximum of eighteen.
However, J.-Ph. Lauer assumes that the missing Djedkara columns were
reused in the pyramid temple of Unas.36 Eighteen 6.30 m high palm cap-
ital columns were erected in the pyramid temple of Unas, seven of
which were found at the site.37 His valley temple may have contained
ten palm capital columns, two of which were reerected in the 1970s.38
The missing palm capital columns can be summarized as follows:
Sahura: 5 columns in court h. 6.45 m

of main temple
Perhaps 8 columns h. 6.45 m(?)
in valley temple
Djedkara: 18 columns h. 5.25 m(?)
Unas: 11 columns h. 6.30 m
8 columns h. 6.30 m(?)
Total: 50 missing palm
columns
The figure of 50 missing columns is exceeded by the 55 existing, reused

columns, which must represent a small percentage of the original one to
two hundred columns.
Another issue is the height of the columns. A comparison of the
missing and the existing columns shows that the reused columns are
generally higher than those found in the pyramid temples. The columns
of Tanis 1 are—at 11.00 m—nearly double the height of those from the
pyramid temples (5.25–6.45 m). The only exception is the columns of
the Pronaos of Herakleopolis, which, at 5.38 m, are close in height to
those from the temple of Djedkara (5.25 m?).
The following evidence also refutes the assumption that the reused
papyrus bundle columns came from pyramid temples of the Middle
Kingdom:
36 A. Labrousse, J.-Ph. Lauer, and J. Leclant, Le temple haut du complex funéraire du roi
Ounas, BdE 73 (Cairo, 1977), p. 25 n.1.

37 Two in Cairo (JdE 35131) and one each in the Louvre (E 10959), the British Museum
(1385), and The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (acc. no. 07.229.2); see Labrousse
et al., Le temple haut du complex funéraire du roi Ounas, pp. 23–29, pls. 9–11.
38 A.M. Moussa, “Excavations in the Valley Temple of King Unas at Saqqara,” ASAE 70
(1985), pp. 33–34.
48
The pyramid temple of Senwosret I contained only one papyrus

bundle column, in the square antechamber, that was about 5–6 m
high.39 This column was never found. The pyramid temple of
Amenemhat III at Dahshur contained another granite papyrus bundle
column, the shaft of which is now in the Egyptian Museum Cairo.40
According to Lepsius’ reconstruction,41 the granite and limestone papy-
rus bundle columns in the “labyrinth” of Amenemhat III at Hawara
were about 6.30 m and 7.9 m high. These latter columns would offer the
closest parallels to those found reused at Tanis and Bubastis, but since
Greek and Roman travellers describe the labyrinth as being intact to the
height of the roof, the columns cannot have been removed before that
time.
That the Hathor columns of Bubastis did not originate from pyramid
temples is certain, since we have no evidence that such columns were
used in these buildings.42
This discussion should make it clear that the pyramid complexes of
the Old and Middle Kingdom cannot have been the origin of the reused
columns. An alternative solution, that the columns could have been
removed from other temples in the Memphite region, must also be elim-
inated. During the pharaonic period, older temples were only demol-
ished to make way for a larger substitute. The idea that Amenemhat I
would have replaced older Memphite temples with grander new build-
ings and shipped the old material to build (less important?) temples in
the Delta seems unlikely.
The only convincing alternative would be to assume that the older
building material originated from the same sites where it was reused.
Since nearly all these sites have longstanding cult and building
traditions, the existence of Old and Middle Kingdom temples is not
extraordinary. This assumption does not exclude the possibility that
building material was occasionally transferred between neighbouring
sites such as Tell ed-Dab™a, Qantir and Tanis.43
39 Dieter Arnold, The Pyramid of Senwosret I (New York, 1988), p. 47. Twelve stems.
Lower diameter 0.93 m, height unknown.
40 In my publication, Der Pyramidenbezirk des Königs Amenemhet III. in Dahschur
(Mainz am Rhein, 1987), pp. 61–63 (pl. 60), I suggested that the court of the pyramid temple
was surrounded by a number of such columns. Based on the evidence collected in the tem-
ple of his predecessor Senwosret III at Dahshur, I assume now that no such court existed
and the Cairo granite column stood in the square antechamber; perhaps 2–4 limestone
papyrus bundle columns were placed in a porticus.
41 LD 1, pl. 47, Text 2, pp. 16–17; Ludwig Borchardt, Die ägyptische Pflanzensäule (Berlin,
1897), pp. 31–32, fig. 55. One fragment in Berlin (no. 1167). Some magnificent fragments
are still at the site.
42 The cult of Hathor generated such columns, however, in the mortuary temples of
Hatshepsut, Thutmosis III and Amenhotep III at Thebes.
49
A study of the reuse of Old Kingdom material cannot omit the

question of the origin of the Old Kingdom blocks found reused in the
pyramid complex of Amenemhat I at Lisht.44 The decoration and
inscriptions of these blocks do not include subjects found exclusively in
royal cult and pyramid temples (such as offering lists, the king at the
offering table, scenes from the square antechamber). On the contrary,
the subjects of the reliefs are found in royal or divine temples that are
not associated with burial places. The potential existence of one or more
Old Kingdom temples in the area of El-Lisht, ancient Itj-tawy, helps to
explain the presence of blocks dating to Cheops, Chephren, Userkaf,
Unas and Pepi II. This hypothetical building of the Old Kingdom would
have been dismantled during the coregency of Amenemhat I and
Senwosret I in order to make room for projects connected with the
building of the new residence. It is significant that granite architraves
and probably pillars but no columns of the Old Kingdom were found
reused in the pyramid complex of Amenemhat I. If the Old Kingdom
structure contained columns, they were apparently left in place.
The available material suggests that at least four hypostyle halls

existed during the Old and Middle Kingdom in a) the area of Tanis–
Qirqafa–Tell el-Dab™a, b) at Bubastis (cf. fig. 2), c) at Crocodilopolis and
d) at Herakleopolis. There is no doubt that more hypostyle halls existed
at places such as Memphis, and Heliopolis, but the evidence for them is
meager.45
a) If one assumes that all columns found reused at Tanis originated in

the same building,46 one could reconstruct a hypostyle hall of 4 x 4 (or
43 I
do not intend to suggest identifying Tanis with Avaris/Pi-Ramesse, a theory that was
convincingly disproven by Manfred Bietak, Tell el-Dab™a 2 (Vienna, 1975), pp. 179–88. The
possibility of Old and Middle Kingdom structures at a hitherto unexplored part of the
enormous tell of Tanis cannot be completely ruled out; cf. A. Lézine, “Le temple nord de
Tanis” Kêmi 12 (1952), p. 54, n. 3.
44 See Hans Goedicke, Re-used Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhet I at Lisht (New
York, 1971). A few more were not included in this publication and seven more were found
in excavations at the pyramid in 1991. Another example is the reuse of temple blocks of
Djedkara in the pyramid of Unas, see Labrousse et al., Le temple haut du complexe
funéraire du roi Ounas, pp. 124–29.
45 The author is aware of the completely hypothetical character of the reconstructions
offered. They are meant to attract fresh attention to a unique assembly of monuments that
need better documentation and investigation.
46 Montet considered this possibility in his Le lac sacré de Tanis, pp. 23–24. No traces of
actual buildings before the Twenty-first Dynasty have been found at Tanis proper. Earlier
remains, if existing, would have been removed when the foundation pits of the Twenty-
first Dynasty temples were dug, and again when the temple foundations were torn out by
stone robbbers.
50
Fig. 2. Hypothetical reconstruction of hypostyle halls of the Old and

Midle Kingdom from the area of Tanis-Qantir and Bubastis.
51
more) smaller Fifth Dynasty columns (fig. 2, upper). A hypostyle hall

would have been added in the Sixth Dynasty; the roof of this hall would
have been supported by the four + x larger palm columns found in the
area. The interior height of the hall of about 12.34 m suggests a total ex-
terior height of about 13 m (25 cubits would be 13.125 m), a dimension
only surpassed by the pronaoi of later temples at Esna (14.98 m) and Edfu
(15.67 m). The proportions of the columns are astonishingly slender.
They remain, however, well within the style of the later Old Kingdom.47
According to the ratio used in other porticoes of the Old Kingdom,48 the
distance between the columns should actually have been half their
height, that is 5.25 m. This distance might have been reduced to 4.725
or even to 4.20 m because of the immense size and weight of the granite
architraves (36 tons!). If a fifth column was actually found (see above) we
would have—for reasons of symmetry—to place at least six columns
forming a longitudinal hall divided by two rows of three columns into
three aisles.
Middle Kingdom activity in the northeastern Delta is further sug-
gested by granite papyrus bundle columns, a granite architrave and other
blocks of Senwosret III, and royal statuary of Amenemhat I, Senwosret I,
Amenemhat II, Senwosret II and the Thirteenth Dynasty from Tanis.49
b) A hypothetical reconstruction of the old temple of Bubastis must

include four palm and four papyrus bundle columns, in addition to the
famous group of granite Hathor capitals, generally attributed to the
Twelfth Dynasty. Naville differentiated a larger and a smaller group,
while Habachi thought that they were variations of the same columns
(height “little above 7 feet” or 2.15 m according to Naville); from this
measurement one may estimate that the columns were 6–8 m high.
Hypothetically, one could reconstruct an Old Kingdom hypostyle
hall (fig. 2, lower) consisting of four, 6.34 m high palm capital columns,
enlarged in the earlier Twelfth Dynasty (Amenemhat I/ Senwosret I) by
a second hall of four, 8.0 m high papyrus bundle columns. About the
time of Senwosret III, the temple would have been enlarged by the addi-
tion of a hypostyle of sixteen Hathor columns. The existence of a Middle
Kingdom monumental stone temple at Bubastis is further substantiated
47 The relation between lower diameter and total height is at Tanis 1/7.9. The columns of
Sahura show 1/6.94, those of Unas 1/8.1. The columns of Herakleopolis have a ratio of 1/
7.26. Only in the New Kingdom does the palm capital column become more compact, at
Soleb 1/5.3, at Sesebi 1/3.7, and at Antaeopolis 1/5.
48 The relation between distance of the axis and total height: Sahura 1/1.86, Unas 1/2.27.
Tanis might have been 1/2.4.

49 See PM 4, pp. 15–25.
52
by the discovery of relief blocks of Senwosret I and Senwosret III, the re-
mains of a granite colossus of Amenemhat III, and other sculpture of the
period.50
c) For the reconstruction of the hall of Amenemhat III at Crocodilopolis,

at least sixteen columns are available, though without the outlines of
the groundplan the reconstruction remains uncertain. One could sug-
gest a hypostyle hall of at least four by four 7.20 m high papyrus bundle
columns built in front of a sanctuary of the Old or early Middle King-
dom. The existence of a monumental stone temple of the Middle King-
dom is also confirmed by the discovery of wall blocks of Amenemhat III
and sculptures of Amenemhat I and Amenemhat III.51
d) The Middle Kingdom temple of Herakleopolis, as indicated by

Flinders Petrie, seems to have retained the same dimensions after the
restoration by Ramesses II (22 x 42.5 m). Beneath the temple Flinders
Petrie found burials of the Eleventh Dynasty, which suggest that the Old
Kingdom temple must have stood somewhere else. One can assume that
the Old Kingdom Temple was completely dismantled and rebuilt at the
later site by Senwosret II, who may have used the palm capital columns
in a front hall. Several blocks inscribed with the name of Senwosret III
suggest that he completed this work of his predecessor. Numerous wall
blocks and statuary of the Sixth Dynasty, of Senwosret II, Senwosret III,
and Amenemhat III originated from this monumental stone temple.52
One final observation must be added. If we assume that hypostyle
halls with 8 to 12 m high columns existed, one also has to consider that
the walls of these halls must have been built of stone because brick
walls would not have carried the weight of the stone architraves and roof
slabs. These walls would certainly have been built of limestone; only
doors and door sills and orthostates would have been of granite. Whereas
granite columns had a better chance of surviving, limestone and granite
wall blocks were much easier to dress down into smaller blocks or burn
for lime. This would explain why so few decorated or inscribed wall
blocks of the Old and Middle Kingdom have endured.53
To sum up: temple architecture of huge dimensions outside the
residential royal funerary complexes has hitherto seemed inconceivable
50 Ibid.,
pp. 30–31.
51 Ibid.,
pp. 98–99 and Henri Gauthier, Le livre des rois d’Egypte 1, p. 259.
52 See PM 4, pp. 118–19.
53 Uphill lists twelve at Tanis (T. 13–15, 17–19, 22–24) and five at Bubastis (B. 1–2, 5–7).
Petrie excavated twenty at Ehnasya and the expeditions of the Metropolitan Museum of
Art, New York about 100 at Lisht-North.
53
before the New Kingdom. The preceeding analysis combined with

recent studies of Thinite temple architecture by Bruce Williams and
David O’Connor,54 urges an adjustment. Stone temples for the gods dur-
ing the Old and Middle Kingdom were certainly less numerous than in
later periods and many may have been of modest size. A few, however,
could have attained monumental proportions, matching or even out-
shining the royal mortuary temples.
b
54 B. Williams, “Narmer and the Coptos Colossi,” JARCE 25 (1988), pp. 35–59; D.
O’Connor, “The Status of Early Egyptian Temples: An Alternative Theory,” in The
Followers of Horus: Studies dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman, Oxbow Monograph 20
(Oxford, 1992), pp. 83–98. For the decoration of early sanctuaries see also L. Morenz, “Zur
Dekoration der frühzeitlichen Tempel am Beispiel zweier Fragmente des archäischen
Tempels von Gebelen,” in Ägyptische Tempel—Struktur, Funktion und Programm,
Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 37 (Hildesheim, 1994), pp. 234–35.
54
04 ASSMANN Page 55 Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:13 PM
Preservation and Presentation of Self in

Ancient Egyptian Portraiture
Jan Assmann
I
n 1988, when W. Kelly Simpson invited me to teach at Yale for
a couple of weeks and when I was preparing a lecture on Egyptian
portraiture, I had the opportunity to discuss this topic with Kelly and
to profit from his great knowledge and infallible judgment. I thought it
appropriate, therefore, to contribute a version of this lecture to his
Festschrift, in affectionate memory of his hospitality and our many con-
versations on Egyptian art, literature and other subjects.1
1. Sculptural and inscriptional self-thematization

Portraiture is by far the most important and productive genre of Egyp-
tian art, just as biography is the most ancient and productive genre of
Egyptian literature. Both genres are self-thematizations2 of an individual
subject, one in the medium of art, the other in the medium of language.
To be sure, the Egyptian portraits are not self-portraits in our sense of the
term, nor are the biographical inscriptions autobiographies in our sense.
It is not the self of an artist or writer which is revealed by a statue or
speaking in an inscription, but the self of the patron, who had the por-
trait sculptured or the inscription carved. What matters is the “self” that
gives the order, not the one that executes it. I shall use the term “self-
thematization” for every kind of sculpture, relief or inscription repre-
senting such an order-giving individual. By using the term portraiture in
this sense of self-thematization, we are spared the thankless task of dis-
cussing whether there is any “real” portraiture or biography in ancient
Egypt. In this essay, the focus is shifted from the sculptor to the model.
Consequently, we can dispense with the anachronistic idea of “artists”
1I wish to thank Dr. Christine Lilyquist for the invitation to deliver a lecture on Egyptian
portraiture at the MMA, New York, on Sept. 25, 1988, and my friend Dr. Dorothea Arnold
for her kind assistance. The paper has profited greatly from discussions with W.K.
Simpson, M. Lehner and J.P. Allen during my stay at Yale Sept./Oct. 1988. I am grateful to
William Barrette and Peter Der Manuelian for providing photographs, and to Maria S. Rost
for correcting my English.
2 Cf.J. Assmann “Sepulkrale Selbstthematisierung im alten Ägypten,” in: A. Hahn and V.
Kapp, eds., Selbstthematisierung und Selbstzeugnis: Bekenntnis und Geständnis
(Frankfurt, 1987), pp. 196–222.
being “attracted” by, for example, “faces that express experience and
sharp intelligence.”3 We can deal rather with the order-giving, self-
thematizing self, which wants to convey these qualities in its iconic
self-thematization.4 No one will deny that self-thematization prevails
in the artistic and inscriptional evidence of Ancient Egypt to an extraor-
dinary degree and that both genres of self-thematization account for the
singular character of Egyptian culture. For underlying almost every
Egyptian inscription and every monument there is such an “order-giving
self.” Since, as has rightly and repeatedly been stressed,5 Egyptian art is
always functional and never decorative, it is this notion of self which
seems to determine its functional contexts to the greatest extent. These
are closely linked to Egyptian ideas about immortality, about self-eter-
nalization and self-monumentalization. As everybody who has had
some experience with Egyptian monuments is very well aware, there is
a deep desire for eternity, for overcoming death and transience, at the
root of almost everything Egyptian culture has bequeathed to us, which
Paul Eluard called “le dur désir de durer.” In this essay I shall investigate
how this desire for eternity is linked to conceptions of the self and how
these conceptions are translated into forms of artistic expression.
2. Realism and idealization in portraiture

Egyptian portraiture ranks among the most enigmatic and amazing chal-
lenges which history has in store for us. The enigma does not lie in the
fact of its remoteness and strangeness, but quite to the contrary in its
very closeness, its seeming familiarity and modernity. The bust of
prince Ankh-haf, for example, which is from the Fourth Dynasty and
thus removed by more than four and one-half thousand years, shows the
face of modern man. This work, slightly restored and cast in bronze, and
exhibited in the hall of any official building, could very well pass for a
statesman or businessman of our time.6 The bust of queen Nefertiti
from the Amarna Period (some twelve hundred years later) was, after its
discovery, immediately welcomed into the world of Helena Rubinstein
and Elizabeth Arden, where it decorates the windows of innumerable
beauty salons. But these busts of Ankh-haf and Nefertiti appeal to the
3 B.V.Bothmer “Revealing man’s fate in man’s face,” ARTnews, 79 no.6 (New York, 1980),
p. 124f.
4 For a similar approach, cf. L. Giuliani, Bildnis und Botschaft: Hermeneutische Unter-
suchungen zur Bildniskunst der römischen Republik (Frankfurt, 1987). Cf. also W.K.
Simpson “Egyptian Sculpture and Two-dimensional Representation as Propaganda,” JEA
68 (1982), pp. 266–71, whose concept of “propaganda” is akin to “self thematization.”
5 Cf., e.g., W.K. Simpson, The Face of Egypt: Permanence and Change in Egyptian Art
(Katonah, N.Y., 1977).
56
Jan Assmann, Preservation and Presentation of Self in Ancient Egyptian Portraiture
Fig. 1. Bust of Ankh-haf from Giza G 7510, MFA 27.442. Courtesy Fig. 2. Bust of Nefertiti from Amarna; Berlin 21 300;
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. from W. Kaiser, Ägyptisches Museum, Berlin
(Berlin, 1967), cat. 767.
modern eye in two different ways. Nefertiti seems to incarnate an ideal

of beauty which we share, while with Ankh-haf just the opposite
applies; there is a total absence of any idealization or type. Instead, there
is an incredibly realistic rendering of individual traits in their almost
expressionless, unemphatic state of relaxation.
6 Cf. the experiment of D. Dunham, who had a cast of the bust “fitted with modern cloth-
ing in a somewhat jocular effort to satisfy the writer’s curiosity as to what an ancient Egyp-
tian would look like living today in our own familiar world”: “An Experiment with an
Egyptian Portrait. Ankh-haf in Modern Dress,” BMFA 41, (1943), p. 10. The cast was “tint-
ed in flesh tones and the eyes, eyebrows and hair were coloured in an approximation to
lifelike values.” The result, shown in a photograph, is most striking. Ankh-haf wears Mr.
Dunham’s clothing, hat, shirt, tie, and tweed jacket which fit him perfectly (D. Dunham
being then, as he indicates, 6 feet tall and weighing 160 pounds) and looks absolutely plau-
sible. What we have in mind is, of course, an experiment of a different kind. We do not
propose to convert the bust into a modern mannequin which shows clothes, but into a
modern portrait which shows a face.
57
Realism and individualism are not commonly found at the begin-

ning of a tradition of portraiture. In fact, two points are generally taken
for granted. One is that realism and individualism always coincide, and
the other is that this syndrome can only appear at the end of a very long
evolutionary process.
Thus at the beginning there is ordinarily the general, the abstract,
the non-individual. Individualization evolves by differentiation, by a
“gradual sub-division of the general image.”7 This evolution of individ-
uality started with abstract geometric symbols like menhirs, developed
into highly idealized figures like the Greek kouroi, and only at the very
end of this process was the scene sufficiently prepared for the entrance
of the individual. In Egypt, this evolutionary process was turned upside
down. Here, tomb sculpture started with portraits of the utmost realism.
3. Magic Realism
The typical tomb sculpture of the Fourth Dynasty is the so-called
reserve head.8 Generally, the reserve heads render individual features,
but in a much more summarizing or abstract way than does the bust of
Ankh-haf. Most of these heads show a remarkably coarse treatment. The
surface of the stone has in most cases not received the final polish. The
plaster coating, which covers the Ankh-haf head and into which the
details of the facial features are modelled, is missing in all of them. Some
even seem unfinished, perhaps because the original plaster coating is
now missing. The beauty of the more carefully worked examples, like
the heads in figs. 3–6, lies in the summarizing treatment of features
which nonetheless must be recognized as indvidual, for there is in gen-
eral very little resemblance between them. They are not realizations of
a common ideal or convention. The two examples shown in figs. 3–4 are
from the same mastaba in Giza and represent a man and his wife who
are clearly different from one another. Also, the two examples in Cairo
(figs. 5–6)—the left one a man, the right one a woman—do not seem to
reflect some generalized conception of a human face, but rather to ren-
der individual physiognomies. The hooked nose of Nefer (fig. 7) reap-
pears on his relief representations. On the reserve head, it is the result
of a rather coarse rewiring. Nefer was apparently not content with the
first version and wanted his nose, which he may have regarded as a
particularly distinctive feature, to be more emphatically shown on his
7 Ernst Buschor, Das Porträt. Bildniswege und Bildnisstufen in fünf Jahrtausenden

(Munich, 1960).
8 W.S. Smith, A History of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old Kingdom, 2nd ed.
(London, 1949), pp. 23–27.
58
Fig. 3. Male reserve head from Giza G 4440, MFA Fig. 4. Female reserve head from Giza G 4440,
14.718; courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. MFA 14.719; courtesy Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston.
Fig. 5. Male reserve head from Giza G 4140, MFA Fig. 6. Female reserve head from Giza G 4540,
14.717; courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. MFA 21.328; courtesy Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston.
59
Fig. 7. Reserve head of Nefer, from Giza G 2110 A, MFA Fig. 8. Plaster mask from Giza G 2037b X, MFA 39.828; cour-
06.1886; courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. tesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
portrait head. Such individual features seem to have been of great impor-
tance to the men and women who had themselves represented in this
way.
What is the nature of the concept of “self” and of the interest in
“self-thematization” that possibly underlie these portrait heads?
Obviously, the concept of “self” seems to have been very closely identi-
fied with the face and its individual appearance. What seems to me very
significant in this context is the fact that the first attempts at mummi-
fication fall within the same period. There are even direct links between
mummification and portraiture.9 Plaster masks like that shown in fig. 8
have been found in connection with rudimentarily mummified corpses.
The “reserve heads” seem to be functionally equivalent to these plaster
9 The early mummification technique is in fact a remodelling of the body by means of
wrapping and resin, cf. D. Spanel, Through Ancient Eyes: Egyptian Portraiture, exhibition
catalogue (Birmingham, Alabama, 1988), pp. 19, n. 44 and 35, n. 104. For the relationship
between mummification and sculpture, cf. Smith, HESPOK, pp. 22–30 and Panofsky,
Tomb Sculpture. Four Lectures on its Changing Aspects from Ancient Egypt to Bernini
(New York, 1964), pp. 9–22.
60
masks. Even if they cannot be considered death masks in the strict

sense, because they are not casts made from the face of the deceased,10
but modelled on the face over a thin layer of linen,11 it is highly probable
that casts did exist as a transitory stage in the fabrication of the Ankh-
haf bust and some of the more detailed reserve heads.
Self-thematization, as seen in the reserve heads and mummy masks,
must be interpreted as self-preservation. The portrait has no apparent
communicative and commemorative meaning. It is not meant as a
“sign” but as a “body,” to make a somewhat illegitimate use of the
Platonic pun on soma (body) and sema (sign). “Body” and “sign,” soma
and sema, can also be regarded as the two foci on which the tomb as a
“bifocal” structure is centered. This applies by definition to all tombs,
not only to the Egyptian ones. Every tomb fulfils the double and even an-
tagonistic function of hiding the body (the corpse) and of showing a sign
of the deceased within the world of the living. In the Egyptian monu-
mental tomb, both these aspects or foci are widely extended. The body
focus is expanded into the techniques of mummification and the expen-
ditures of funerary equipment. The sign focus is expanded into monu-
mental architecture and lavish wall decoration. The question arises as
to which focus statuary belongs, and the answer can—with regard to the
private sculpture of the Old Kingdom—obviously point only to the
“body” focus. It is the body, and not the sign, which is extended by this
type of tomb sculpture.
Indeed, the total absence of the “semiotic” dimension seems to me
of prime importance to the problem of realism. There is a gulf between
what may be called “somatic” and “semiotic” realism, one being a tech-
nique, the other a language of art. The question is not whether or not an
artist is able to render the individual traits of a given physiognomy, but
whether or not he chooses to use the individual physiognomy to create
a message of general import. In the frame of our investigation, which fo-
cuses not on the artist but on the owner patron, the question arises
whether or not an individual chooses to convey information about his
distinctive traits and qualities in his iconic self-thematization. In Egypt,
at this early stage, we are clearly in the realm of “somatic” realism,
realism not as a language but as a technique serving functions similar to
those of mummification. In the Pyramid Texts, the deceased is occasion-
ally asked “to put on his body” (wn∞.k ∂t.k) the idea obviously being
10 But even those existed, cf. J.E. Quibell, Excavations at Saqqara (1907/8), SAE (Cairo,
1909), pl.55, pp. 20, 112–23; Smith, HESPOK, p. 27.
11 Cf. Smith, HESPOK, pp. 27–28. For a very remarkable plaster coating of the whole body,
cf. Sue D’Auria et al., eds., Mummies and Magic: The Funerary Arts of Ancient Egypt,
exhibition catalogue (Boston, 1988), cat. no. 23, p. 91f.
61
that the body may temporarily be re-animated by the returning spirit,

the Ka of the dead person.12 The reserve heads may have served to
attract and direct the indwelling Ka by preserving the physiognomy and
assuring the recognizability of the subject.
There does not seem to be any functional difference between reserve
heads, busts and entire statues. The three forms never occur together
and are therefore in complementary distribution, which is indicative of
functional equivalence. The statues also belong to the sphere of self-
preservation and not self-presentation; this means that they are hermet-
ically blocked and protected against profanation much like the mummi-
fied corpse itself.13 But they are also meant in a way to participate in the
mortuary cult. These dual and antagonistic functions of seclusion and
participation were realized by a hidden chamber or “serdab” within the
mastaba block, communicating with the cult chamber through one or
more small slots, thus enabling the statue to smell the incense but to
remain unseen and inaccessible.14
The statues reveal the same realism as do the reserve heads. Func-
tion and style are both identical. Only the treatment of the surface is dif-
ferent, and much of the even more striking realism of the statues (and of Fig. 9. Statue of Hemyunu from Giza
the Ankh-haf bust) is due to that treatment. Without the painting, the G 4000, Hildesheim 1962; courtesy
Pelizaeus-Museum, Hildesheim.
heads of Rahotep and Nofret,15 for example, look exactly like the reserve
heads. Another famous case is provided by the extraordinary statue in
Hildesheim of Prince Hemyunu (fig. 9),16 the architect of the Great
Pyramid, where the realism extends to the bodily features. Here too, the
stylistic resemblance to the reserve heads is complete. The statue of
Prince Kai, the famous Louvre scribe, dates from the early Fifth Dynasty
and comes not from Giza, but from a Saqqara mastaba (fig. 10).17 His
head could not pass for a reserve head, even without the color. The dif-
ference affects the sub-structure and is especially noticeable in the ex-
pressive rendering of the mouth. The expression of concentrated
attention must probably be attributed to the type of the scribe statue and
12 Pyr. 221c; 224d; 1300b/c.
13 But cf. H. Junker, Giza 12 (Vienna, 1955), pp. 124–26. A notable exception of the rule of
inaccessibility is shown in Mummies and Magic, cat. no.14, fig. 47, pp. 83–87 (statue
installed in cult chamber).
14 E. Brovarski, “Serdab,” in LÄ 5 (1984), cols. 874–79; Mummies and Magic, p. 88.
15 Cf. Smith, HESPOK, pp. 23–27 and recently M. Saleh and H. Sourouzian, Die
Hauptwerke im Ägyptischen Museum in Kairo (Offizieller Katalog) (Mainz, 1986), cat. 27

(with bibliography).
16 Junker, Giza 1, pp. 153–57; Smith, HESPOK, p. 22f.; B. Porter, and R.L.B. Moss,Topo-
graphical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings Fig. 10. Statue of Prince Kai from Saqqara;
III.1, Memphis, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1975), p. 123. Paris, Louvre.
17 PM III.2, p. 458f.
62
the attitude of listening rather than to the individual physiognomy of

prince Kai.18 But the same observation applies to other examples as
well, where the tradition of realistic portraiture persists exceptionally in
the later part of the Old Kingdom. Generally, the realism now becomes
more a matter of depth structure than of surface treatment and can be
appreciated much better when the color is gone.19
4. Royal Statuary: from “somatic” self-preservation

to “semiotic” self-representation
Turning to royal portraiture, we find pieces which seem close enough to
the “somatic” or “magic” realism of private portraiture like the heads in
Boston of King Mycerinus (figs. 11–12).20 Although the facial type with
its fleshy roundness is different and the insignia of kingship create a
difference, the realism seems quite the same here as in the private sculp-
ture. The piece most striking in its realism is perhaps the colossal statue
in Boston of Mycerinus, where the much-too-small head, the protruding
eyes, the painted moustache (now to be seen only on excavation photo-
graphs, cf. fig. 12), and the strangely shaped mouth with its thin upper
Fig. 11. Head of Mycerinus from Giza, MFA and heavy lower lip are rendered with unmitigated frankness. But these
09.203; courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. examples appear to be exceptions that confirm a rule which points in
quite a different direction. The individual features of King Mycerinus do
not recur on his other sculptures, at least not with such unmitigated
directness. The cheekbone, for example, the absence of which gives such
a striking expression in conjunction with the protruding eyes on the
colossus, is decidedly present on the triads or the group statue in Boston
with queen Khamerernebty II, where the mouth, which has such a
unique shape on the colossus, is also rendered in quite a conventional
way (fig. 13). The face, circular on the colossus, is elongated in the group
statue. What could these mitigations mean?21
The famous cycle of statues in Cairo of Chephren, which come from
the valley temple of his pyramid in Giza,22 shows a shift in emphasis: it
18 Cf. B.V. Bothmer, “On Realism in Egyptian Funerary Sculpture of the Old Kingdom,”
Expedition 24 (1982), pp. 27–39, esp. p. 34f. where he confronts, as examples of “realism
in mature persons,” Rahotep of Medum, the reserve head of Nefer, the bust of Ankh-haf,
and the scribe statue of Kai.
19 Cf. D. Spanel, Through Ancient Eyes: Egyptian Portraiture, p. 21, n. 49, with regard to
the wooden statue of Senedjemib Mehi in Boston (MFA 13.3466).

Fig. 12. Head from colossal statue of 20 Smith, HESPOK, pl.12a: Boston MFA 21.351 (Chephren).
Mycerinus from Giza, MFA 09.204; courtesy 21 Reisner, as is well known, attributed the difference between unmitigated and mitigated
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
realism to two different schools of art. The unmitigated realism is characteristic of his
“Sculptor B,” who is essentially a realist, striving for exact portraiture, and the more gen-
eralized rendering of the face is characteristic of “Sculptor A,” who is “not so much an
idealist as the creator of the formula of a type of face which influenced all his work;” cf.
Smith, HESPOK, p. 35.
63
Fig. 13. Detail of pair statue of Mycerinus and Khamerernebty II Fig. 14. Detail of statue of Chephren from Giza, Cairo JE
from Giza, MFA 11.1738; Courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. 10062; courtesy H.W. Müller.
is now not so much the recognizability of the bodily features that mat-
ters, but the expression, the “radiance” of the whole royal appearance
(fig. 14). The insignia and symbols of kingship, the nemes headdress, the
beard, the falcon, and the throne contribute greatly to this general
expression. The material, the very hard diorite, polished to a shine of
supernatural radiance, seems to be equally important. The emphasis is
shifted towards expressiveness, and what is to be expressed pertains
more to the divine institution of kingship than to the individual person
of the king: dignity, majesty, divinity, superhuman power. With these
statues we are obviously leaving the realm of mere somatic self-preser-
vation and are entering the realm of “semiotic” self-representation.
These statues “communicate,” conveying an evident message.
These stylistic observations are in conformity with the functions
and the architectural installation of the royal statues, which differ
22 Fora possible cultic context cf. D. Arnold, “Rituale und Pyramidentempel,” MDAIK 33
(1977), pp. 1–14.
64
widely from private statuary. These statues were not installed in a her-
metically closed serdab, but in the temple courtyard, thus exposed to
daylight and human view. They belong to the general appearance of the
architectural structure, thus functioning in the context of a superordi-
nate “text.” What we have called the shift from bodily self-preservation
to semiotic self-representation corresponds to the shift from closed to
open installation. The portrait is here not an extension of the body—
soma—but of the funerary monument—sema, thus functioning within
the sphere of the semiotic rather than in the sphere of the somatic.
5. Conventionalism and hieroglyphic generalization:

private portraiture in the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties
In private portraiture, however, there is a very substantial change to be
observed in the course of the Fifth Dynasty. The realism prevailing in
private statuary from the late Third until the early Fifth Dynasty gives
way to conformity and conventionalism. The statues of the Fifth and
Sixth Dynasties look very much alike. The face is rendered in a very
summary and generalized way, which is commonly considered “ideal-
ized.”23 According to the conventional wisdom, the faces and figures
resemble one another so very closely because they all represent a com-
mon ideal of beauty.24 However, the following chapter will demonstrate
that such a concept of “idealization” does not apply in this context. We
are dealing with something else and should find a different term. In an
attempt to characterize more closely what this something else might be,
there are three points to be made, all of them very closely related.
1) “Industrialization:” the production of non-royal statuary increases during
the course of the Fifth Dynasty by some five to ten thousand percent. What
was very high privilege, restricted to members of the royal family during the
Fourth Dynasty, now becomes extended to the entire upper class. This
increase in production in itself leads to routinization and standardization.
Wherever there is industrialization, there is a tendency towards reproduction
or serial production, copying the same models over and over again, resulting
in Kunst vom Flie∫band (art from the assembly line) as the German Egyptol-
ogist D. Wildung aptly but somewhat unkindly called this tradition.25 Indus-
trialized serial production places the emphasis on the reproducibility of the
model, thus on its perfection. This leads to a Platonist view of the world, split-
23 This interpretation is too general to need bibliographical references. For a recent exam-
ple, cf. Spanel, Through Ancient Eyes, who speaks in passing of idealization, the ideal
being Maat, but also “beauty” which seems to be quite the same (e.g., on p. 5: “eternally
beautiful” and “the model of a sinless life”).
24 Cf.
H. Sourouzian, “Schönheitsideal,” in LÄ 5 (1984), cols. 674–76.
25D. Wildung, in H. Altenmüller, and W. Hornbostel, eds., Das Menschenbild im Alten
Ägypten, exhibition catalogue (Hamburg, 1982), pp. 8–10.
65
Fig. 15. Pair statue of Demedj and his wife, Henutsen, New York, Fig. 16. Pair statue of Kaemheset and family; Egyptian
MMA 51.37; courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art. Museum, Cairo.
ting reality into “types,” and “tokens,” models and copies, the general and the
particular.
2) “Inscription:” it is obvious and perhaps trivial to point out that virtually all
Egyptian portrait sculpture bears an inscription giving the name and the titles
of its owner, the only exception being the busts and reserve heads of the
Fourth Dynasty. There, the great concern for individual facial features seems
to ensure identification without an identifying inscription. But the statues,
which do bear inscriptions, show the same physiognomic realism, so that the
presence or absence of inscriptional identification does not seem to make any
difference with regard to style. In the Fifth Dynasty, on the other hand, the
inscription tends to be regarded as a sufficient means of individuation and
thus makes physiognomic individuation dispensable. Image and inscription
cooperate in conveying the same message, but “on different wavelengths: [as]
two types of supporting communication,” to quote W.K. Simpson.
3) “Hieroglyphicity:” the third point has to do not with just the presence, but
with the nature of hieroglyphic writing. The inscriptions which generally
accompany Egyptian statues do not simply make resemblance dispensable as
a means of identification. They also transform the image itself. They are not
external to the image, belonging to a different medium as cuneiform or Greek
66
characters would, but internal in the sense that they are images themselves,
exactly as the image itself functions as a hieroglyph. There is no clear-cut line
of demarcation between hieroglyphic writing and representational art.26 The
images function in the context of hieroglyphic writing as “determinatives.”
This intimate interrelation between art and writing has been amply and con-
vincingly demonstrated by Henry G. Fischer in many of his writings.27
As images, hieroglyphs refer not only to language, as every script
does, but also to things. They are understood to be the “models” of these
things, whether natural or artificial. Thus, “industrialization” and
“hieroglyphicity” point towards the same platonic view of reality. In the
context of Egyptian thought, this platonic world view finds its clearest
expression in the figure and the theology of the Memphite god Ptah, who
is the creator of the world and at the same time the patron of artisans
and craftsmen. He is believed to have created the world, not with his
hands, but with his “heart,” that is, by planning, designing, and concep-
tualizing.28 He conceived the models or the “generative grammar” gen-
erating all the “well-formed” elements that constitute reality. These
may be compared to “ideas” in the platonic sense, but not to “ideals.” A
hieroglyph is a generalized formula, referring to a norm. Ideals never re-
fer to norms, but to goals which on earth are only approximately attain-
able.29 The term “idealization” is understood to refer not to “ideas,”
though, but to “ideals.” This difference, which to me seems rather
important, tends to be constantly blurred by our terminology. Thus I
propose to use the term “generalization” for what we observe as a ten-
dency in Old Kingdom private portraiture and to reserve the term
“idealization” for artistic traditions, which are in fact oriented by ideals.
26 This principle has been explained in Assmann, “Hierotaxis. Textkonstitution und Bild-
komposition in der altägyptischen Kunst und Literatur,” in J. Osing, and G. Dreyer, eds.,
Form und Mass: Beiträge zur Literatur, Sprache und Kunst (Wiesbaden, 1987), pp. 18–41.
The concept of “hierotaxis” which I attempt to introduce in that article is related to what
here is called “hieroglyphicity” and tries to explain certain characteristics of Egyptian art
that are commonly (within the theory of “aspective”) held to be unconscious cognitive
preconditions as elements of a very consciously achieved “language of art.”
27 Cf. especially H.G. Fischer, L’écriture et l’art de l’égypte ancienne. Quatre leçons sur la
paléographie et l’épigraphie pharaoniques, Collège de France, Essais et Conférences (Paris,

1986).
28 Cf. J.P. Allen, Genesis in Egypt. The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts,
Yale Egyptological Studies 2 (New Haven, 1988).

29 The Kantian distinction between Normalidee and Vernunftidee is relevant here. The
representation of the Normalidee is perfect, if only it does not contradict any condition of
beauty. The Normalidee is the quintessence of correctness, not of beauty. Cf. H.G.
Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode (Tübingen, 1960), p. 44f.
67
6. Idealization: art and beauty in the late Eighteenth Dynasty

A brief chapter on what I take to be such an “idealizing” style in
Egyptian art may make this more clear. This brings us back to queen
Nefertiti, whose statuary marks the very apex of this stylistic moment.
The statues of Nefertiti may be regarded as love-poems in stone. Their
most conspicuous features, the long neck, the slim waist, the broad hips
and heavy thighs, recur in the love-poems of the age; they recur also in
other statues and evidently pertain to the ideal of beauty of that time
rather than to the individual appearance of Nefertiti.30
There is a very refined sensuousness and an almost erotic grace and
radiance in the art of this period, an expression of “luxe, calme et
volupté,” which is totally absent from the sober, dry and clear-cut fea-
tures from the Old Kingdom that are characteristic of Egyptian art in
general. This artistic sensuousness, pointing to an ideal of tenderness,
grace and beauty, starts in the time of Amenophis III and—though at
Fig. 17. Head of an unknown official;
first violently opposed by the almost expressionist and caricaturistic Egyptian Museum, Cairo CG 849.
outbursts of the revolutionary style—dominates the whole of Amarna
and post-Amarna art well into the reign of Haremhab. It is during this
short period that Egyptian art comes closest to Greek art, as seen, for
example, in the head of an unknown official in Cairo, shown in fig. 17.
The common element of these two traditions is the tendency to idealize,
which in Greek art is characteristic especially of the late archaic period.
In the context of Egyptian art, it is to be regarded as a quite exceptional
episode, a temporary emancipation from and the very opposite of the
hieroglyphic formula.
But is Amarna really “idealized” rather than “realistic”? How is one
to account for the many plaster casts, masks and models which have
been found in the workshop of the sculptor Thutmose?31 All this
testifies to a keen interest in the accidental traits of a living face, in
“nature.” This goes well with a realistic or “naturalistic” art, but not
with an “idealized” one. Even the royal heads seem close to the physical
form. Nevertheless this is not inconsistent with what I understand by
idealization. The sketches found in the house of the sculptor Thutmose
prove beyond a doubt that in Amarna the living face in its individual
form is the object of plastic representation, and not a super-individual
30In my article “Ikonographie der Schönheit im alten Ägypten,” in Th. Stemmler, ed.,
Schöne Frauen, schöne Männer. Literarische Schönheitsbeschreibungen, 2. Kolloquium
der Forschungsstelle für europäische Literatur des Mittelalters (Mannheim, 1988), pp. 13– Fig. 18. The wife of Nakhtmin; Egyptian
32, I elaborated on this comparison between plastic arts and love poetry in the New King- Museum, Cairo JE 31629; courtesy Eva
dom in greater detail. Hofmann.
31 Cf. G. Roeder, “Lebensgroße Tonmodelle aus einer altägyptischen Bildhauerwerkstatt,”
Jahrbuch der Preußischen Kunstsammlungen (1941) pp. 145–70.
68
ideal of beauty. We must not forget, however, that these finds illustrate
the starting point and intermediate stages, and not the final product of
the artistic process. They show that this process starts from “nature”
and not from preconceived ideas and point to the well known “percep-
tual” rather than “conceptual” character of Amarna art. It is this percep-
tual character that makes this artistic movement so exceptional in the
context of Egyptian art, which is generally a conceptual art par excel-
lence. But perception is exactly what “beauty” means. Beauty is some-
thing to be perceived and not conceived. It is a sensual quality in that it
addresses the senses. Thus, idealization—understood as an ideal of beau-
ty to be aimed for—is a stylistic tendency which is well in keeping with
a perceptually oriented art.
But there is still another point to be made concerning beauty.
Beauty, as an ideal of iconic self-representation, is not only to be distin-
guished from “hieroglyphic normality” but also from the concept of
“perfection,” of a spotless outward appearance that distinguishes the lit-
erate upper class, the “literatocracy,” from the hard-working lower
classes. In 1970, Kent Weeks clearly showed how, in wall decoration of
private tombs, especially in the Old Kingdom, certain deviations from
the normal type of physical appearance serve as indicators of social rank
and professional occupation.32 They are déformations professionelles.
In order to stress the typical character of these features, Weeks coined
the term “personification” as opposed to “individuation.” In all these
seemingly individualizing portrayals of bodily anomalies, we are dealing
in fact with personification, because these features are indicative of
class and thus of the social, not of the individual, self. Thus body hair,
beards, stubble, baldness, paunchiness, etc., seem to be associated with
people, “who were forced by their work to stay away from home for a
while,” i.e., herdsmen, fishermen, field hands and, less frequently, boat-
men, bakers, and netters of birds. Incidentally, the same sense of humor
with regard to the physical imperfections of the lower classes is dis-
played in the famous “Satire of the trades,” a Middle Kingdom classic
which, apart from being a favorite text itself, has stimulated a great
many imitations.33 Beauty, in the sense of spotless outward perfection,
is—and has always been—a prerogative of the leisure class.
The representations of craftsmen, peasants, shepherds, and so forth
in the tombs of all periods do not belong to “portraiture” in the sense of
32 Kent Weeks, The Anatomical Knowledge of the Ancient Egyptians and the Represen-
tation of the Human Figure in Egyptian Art, Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1970.
33 Cf. P. Seibert, Die Charakteristik. Untersuchungen zu einer altägyptischen Sprechsitte
und ihren Ausprägungen in Folklore und Literatur, Äg. Abh. 17 (Wiesbaden, 1967).
69
our definition, because they are no self-thematizations. Had these peo-

ple been in a position to have themselves represented in a statue or stela
or tomb wall of their own, they would no doubt have chosen different
attire. This speculation is not altogether theoretical; there are plenty of
stelae and even tombs of craftsmen and artisans preserved in Egypt, the
best known being the tombs of Deir el Medinah. Everywhere, the owner
appears in the attire and makeup of the literate official, the scribe with
clean hands and white garments, who—in the satirical texts mentioned
above—looks down with considerable disdain and derision on the work-
ing classes of which the tomb owner is himself a member.
The opposite of these bodily imperfections is not beauty, however,
but perfection. Beauty and perfection are of course closely related, but
not synonymous. There is a difference, which might not be irrelevant in
the context of this discussion. Perfection is the degré zero in the repre-
sentation of the human figure. It is merely the absence of any distin-
guishing abnormalities like baldness, paunchiness, etc. Even beauty
may appear as a deviation from the norm. This is quite frequently the
case with, for example, the representations of female musicians and
dancers in New Kingdom tombs. The bodily features of these girls devi-
ate from the overslim female norm. In self-thematization, this alluring
rendering of breasts, waist, hips, and thighs would be impossible. But it
is exactly this characterization of beauty that becomes the norm in
Amarna art.34
In representational art, bodily perfection may be just the absence of
any distinguishing peculiarities, impressed upon the body by hard labor
and/or extended absence from home. But in life, it is much more than
just a degré zero: it is a state which is difficult to achieve and which sig-
nifies something. The maintenance of a perfect outward appearance
must have been a very exacting task which only the members of the up-
per classes could fulfill, disposing of their time so as to meet the require-
ments which the extensive devices of Egyptian cosmetics imposed on a
person, whether male or female. It is common in dealing with ancient
Egyptian portraiture to complain of the uniformity of appearance and
the absence of individuality, to the extent of denying these statues the
character of portraiture altogether. It is highly probable, however, that
this uniformity was a fact of life, and not only of art. Cosmetics as prac-
tised in ancient Egypt was an art in itself, applied to the body and giving
it the uniformity of perfection. Epilation, hair dressing, the wearing of
wigs, eye makeup, dress and other demanding operations collaborated in
34Cf. also J.R. Harris, “The Cult of Feminine Beauty in Ancient Egypt,” Apollo 77 (July,
1962), pp. 355–59.
70
transforming the individual appearance of a person into something

super-individual and uniform to a degree where people closely
resembled each other, and even the sexes may have been hard to distin-
guish. Cosmetics, to use Kent Weeks’ term, is a device of “personifica-
tion.” Many of the tendencies and characteristics typical of Egyptian
art—and especially of portraiture—pertain to the sphere of what Erving
Goffman called “the presentation of self in everyday life.” In this sphere,
personification, and not individuation, is the norm.
Beauty is something more than perfection. It transcends the stan-
dard, however high, of physical spotlessness which the cosmetic devices
of personification can attain. It is an enhancement of perfection in the
direction of a specific ideal. It is also again a matter of emphasis: ideali-
zation emphasizes certain features, placing them in the foreground,
whereas perfection is a state of perfect balance. While the general con-
cept of perfection, apart from some changes of fashion, remains constant
throughout the phases of Egyptian art and history, beauty as a form of
sculptural self-thematization appears only during a short period.
With these distinctions in mind, we are now in a position better to
evaluate the achievement of late Old Kingdom portraiture. It has now
become evident that the uniform character of private statuary from the
latter parts of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties has nothing to do with an
ideal of beauty that became generally de rigueur during those centuries.
We have also seen that, besides the conformist and uniformist tenden-
cies of industrialization and “hieroglyphization” prevailing in art, there
is a third tendency of equally uniformist influence, prevailing not in art,
but in life, namely, cosmetics. This tendency cannot be dismissed in
dealing with portraiture. The face we show to our neighbors even in ev-
eryday life is already a form of self-thematization, of personification, a
“social mask.”35 Beautiful princess Nofret may have painted her face ev-
ery morning exactly as the painter did in painting her Meidum statue.
7. Expressive Realism: Middle Kingdom portraiture

With the end of the Old Kingdom, tomb sculpture disappears. When it
reappears some two hundred years later in the Middle Kingdom, it looks
at first—at least in the north—very much as it did in the late Sixth
Dynasty. This may be illustrated by comparing the Sixth Dynasty statue
in Boston of Tjeteti36 with the Twelfth Dynasty statue in New York of
Sesostrisankh (figs. 19–20).37 Towards the end of the Old Kingdom,
35 Cf. E.H. Gombrich, “The Mask and the Face,” in E.H. Gombrich, J. Hochberg, and M.
Black, Art, Perception, Reality (Baltimore, 1972), pp. 1–46.
36 PM III.2, p. 566.
71
portraits acquire a certain expressiveness, concentrated in the over-sized

eyes. This concentration of emphasis destroys the tradition of Old King-
dom sculpture. Due to the extreme traditionalism typical of the Lower
Egyptian schools, the same traits reappear in the early Middle Kingdom.
But a very different style developed in the south, one which soon pre-
vailed all over Egypt: The statues which Sarenput II, nomarch of
Elephantine, had set up in the sanctuary of Heqaib, a deified predecessor
in the function of nomarch, are only a generation later than the statue
of Sesostrisankh. One shows his father Khema (fig. 21), the other himself
(fig. 22).38 In the strict sense of our definition, only Sarenput’s own stat-
ues can be considered as “self-thematization.” The statue of his father
is ordered by someone else (the son) and made from memory. This may
account for the very remarkable difference between the two.39 The stat-
ue of Khema is very close to a “hieroglyphic” representation in its very
general and summarized features. The statue of Sarenput II is the com-
plete opposite in its richness of detail, its realism, and its expression of
power, wealth and dignity. Both are much closer to royal traditions of
portraiture in the Old Kingdom than to private statuary. This is partly
due to iconography,—they wear the royal kilt—partly to the material, Fig. 19. Statue of Tjeteti, MFA 24.605; courtesy
dark and polished hard stone, and partly to style, the expression of dig- Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
nity and power. In a sense, these characteristics apply to all Middle King-
dom portraiture. The sharp line of demarcation which in the Old
Kingdom separates royal from private portraiture seems blurred in the
Middle Kingdom. The use of polished hard stone such as diorite, granite,
schist, and quartzite becomes the rule with private statuary. The most
striking innovation is the creation of new types of private statuary,
which in a most felicitous way combine the organic and the geometric
elements of Egyptian sculpture: the coat statue and the block statue.40
These very fundamental stylistic changes are closely correlated to
correspondent changes in function and architectural setting. With the
end of the Old Kingdom, the serdab disappears. Private portraiture now
emerges from the hermetically concealed sphere of the “body” and Fig. 20. Detail of statue of Sesostrisankh, MMA
enters the sphere of the “sign,” the monument. It no longer serves as a 33.1.2; courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art.
device for preservation, but rather for presentation of self. Instead of
37 W.C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt I (New York, 1953), p. 207, fig. 124.
38 F. Junge, “Die Provinzialkunst des Mittleren Reiches in Elephantine,” in L. Habachi,
The Sanctuary of Heqaib, Elephantine IV, AV 33 (Mainz, 1985), pp. 117–39.
39 Ibid.
40 In my article “Die Gestalt der Zeit in der ägyptischen Kunst,” in J. Assmann, and G.
Burkard, eds., 5000 Jahre Ägypten. Genese und Permanenz pharaonischer Kunst
(Nussloch bei Heidelberg, 1983), pp. 3–32, I dealt with the distinction between the iconic
and the aniconic components of Egyptian images.
72
Fig. 21. Detail of statue of Khema from Aswan, no. 15; Fig. 22. Detail of statue of Sarenput II from Aswan, no.
from L. Habachi, The Sanctuary of Heqaib (Mainz, 1985), 13; from L. Habachi, The Sanctuary of Heqaib (Mainz,
pl. 42. 1985), pl. 33.
providing a hidden serdab for the statue, the tomb now leads through a
sequence of axially arranged rooms to a chapel where the statue
occupies a place and fulfills a function comparable to cult images in
temples. From the Middle Kingdom onwards, the temple also becomes
a setting for private statuary.41 The invention of the cube statue seems
closely to correspond to this new function. These are new contents of
self-thematization which are reflected in stylistic developments.
Yet the most decisive factor accounting for these changes in the
forms and contexts of sculptural self-thematization is, in my opinion,
that during this period the very concept of “self” underwent its most
fundamental transformation in the creation—or the discovery—of
“inner man,” of the interior sphere of personality. This makes its appear-
ance in the texts of the period in quite a new vocabulary with concepts
like “character,” “virtue,” “nature,” “knowledge,” “insight,” “silence,”
“self-control,” etc., and above all, the “heart” as the seat of virtue and
character.42 Since the inscriptional genre of self-thematization, the
41 H. Kayser, Die Tempelstatuen ägyptischer Privatleute im Mittleren und Neuen Reich
(Heidelberg, 1936); cf. W.K. Simpson, JEA 68 (1982), pp. 266–271, esp. p. 267 for further ref-
erences.
73
biography, changes in the Middle Kingdom almost beyond recognition,

it would have been most paradoxical if the sculptural genre of self-
thematization, the portraiture, had remained the same. Obviously, it did
not. On the contrary, it is precisely this new notion of an “inner person-
ality” which in my opinion best explains the evolution to be observed
in Middle Kingdom portraiture. This may best be illustrated by some
royal portraits of the period.
The statue in Cairo of Sesostris II is contemporary with the statue of
Sarenput II (fig. 22), nomarch of Elephantine, and shows precisely the
same serene energy and richness of detailed and “realistic” characteriza-
tion. But this characterization does not necessarily point in the direction
of what we have called “inner personality.” There is nothing peculiarly
psychological in this kind of realism. One generation later, however,
with his son Sesostris III, an evolution begins towards psychological
expressiveness, one which has always and rightly been regarded as the
absolute apex of Egyptian portraiture.
Perhaps the most striking feature of the portraits of Sesostris III (and
about one hundred of them are attested) is the rendering of the eyes,
which appear to be actually looking (figs. 23–24). In Egyptian sculpture
generally, the eyes almost never show a specific expression. It would be
quite inadequate to read into them someting like an “empty gaze” or
“stare towards eternity,” for example. They are simply not looking or
gazing or staring at all, but indeterminate. They are not indicative of any
eye contact with an object or a person, let alone an implied spectator. An
analogous and simpler case is provided by posture. As a general rule,
Egyptian statuary never renders specific postures as they might be
assumed in normal life. The way sculpted figures stand or sit or squat
cannot be characterized as “relaxed” or “strained” or “erect,” for exam-
ple. This kind of specification is quite simply not intended in the frame-
work of Egyptian art and must not be read into it. Instead of concrete
specification, we get abstraction. Postures abstract from specific atti-
tudes, eyes abstract from specific looks (e.g., glance, gaze).43 Precisely
this rule was broken in the portraiture of Sesostris III. Here, a specific
look was quite unmistakably intended, a look as it normally occurs in
life when there is eye contact. These eyes do establish contact. “Jamais,”
writes J. Vandier, “semble-t-il, un sculpteur égyptien n’a rendu les yeux
et le regard d’un homme avec autant de vérité et de naturel.”44 The
42 Cf. Assmann, “Individuum und Person. Zur Geschichte des Herzens im Alten
Ägypten,” in G. Boehm and E. Rudolph, eds., Individuum: Probleme der Individualität in

Kunst, Philosophie und Wissenschaft (Stuttgart, 1994), pp. 185–220.
43 Cf. Assmann, Hierotaxis.
74
decisive features to achieve this fidelity to nature are the rendering of

the eyelids, the modelling of the cheekbones and, perhaps most of all,
the absence of any of the cosmetic treatment that was usually adminis-
tered to the eyes and eyebrows. Again we are reminded of the fact that
the suppression of individuality applies to life itself and not only to art.
Similar remarks could be made concerning the mouth. Here, too, hiero-
glyphic abstraction of any specific expression is abandoned in favour of
a very naturalistic rendering of that play of muscles which gives a mouth
expression and attitude.
Expression changes with genre. The head shown in fig. 23, found in
Karnak and on exhibit in the Luxor Museum, belongs to a colossal
statue. In keeping with these far larger-than-life dimensions, the face
expresses strength, power, energy, resolve, and enterprise. Even more
than with genre and dimension, expression changes and intensifies with
time. Not only eyes and mouth, but in fact the whole physiognomy
grows more and more expressive. These faces obviously carry a certain
Fig. 23. Head of Sesostris III; Luxor J 34. message, although one has to be very careful in deciphering it in order
not to read too much into it. There are certain notions, though, that
reappear in almost every description. This is how Janine Bourriau, in her
catalogue of the Cambridge exhibition on the Middle Kingdom, de-
scribes and “reads” the facial form: “These faces show a deepening ex-
pression of sorrow and disdain. We can study the physiognomy of these
kings, assured that we are looking at individual men, not an idealized
image of kingship. We can see the family resemblance and observe the
burden of being pharaoh etching its way into their faces.”45 This almost
unanimous response46 to the portraiture of Sesostris III must be inter-
preted as a part of its Wirkungsgeschichte in the sense of H.G.
Gadamer:47 it tells us something about the semantic potentialities of a
44 J. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne III (Paris, 1958), p. 184.

45 J. Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals. Egyptian Art in the Middle Kingdom (Cambridge,
1988), p. 37.
46 The only exception seems to be D. Wildung, Sesostris und Amenemhet. Ägypten im
Mittleren Reich (Munich, 1984), p. 203, who prefers to relate the portraits of Sesostris III
not to wisdom literature, but to the cycle of hymns redacted in the name of that king and
preserved on a papyrus from Kahun. He rejects accordingly all associations of “alleged
tragedy and melancholy” and reads in these faces only “power politics, resoluteness and
untroubled self-assurance.” But this polarity is artificial. No one sees Hamlet in
Sesostris III. The expression of sorrow and care is not meant as a symptom of melancholy,
but as a sign of political responsibility, cf. i.a., Simpson, JEA 68 (1982), p. 270, who links
the “aging, concerned and caring features” of the portraits with the literary image of the
“Good Shepherd.”
Fig. 24. Face of Sesostris III, MMA 26.7.1394;
47 H.G. Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode; the term appears in the English translation
courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art.
(Truth and Method) as “effective history,” which seems somewhat awkward in compari-
son to the perfectly lucid German term.
75
text (here an iconic text) which discloses its meaning only in the histor-
ical process of reading.
This evolution reaches its apex with the Metropolitan Museum
fragment (fig. 24). Here, the power and strength, resolve and energy char-
acteristic of the earlier portraits has turned into bitterness, disillusion-
ment, sorrow and solitude. Again, we seem to be looking at the face of
timeless man and experience the same feeling of affinity as we did with
the face of prince Ankh-haf at the outset of this investigation. The dif-
ference, however, is crucial. It is the specific expressiveness of the one,
and the unexpressive “neutrality,” the zero expression of the other, that
makes all the difference. Both display realism. The early realism we had
called a “magic realism,” born from concern for the preservation of the
bodily surface-structure. The later realism might be termed “expressive
realism” born from concern for the visualization of inward personality
or depth structure. Expressiveness, with regard to the facial features of
Sesostris III as they are displayed in the Louvre fragment, can only refer
to inward qualities and attitudes, to an inner personality.
It is customary to compare these heads to a well-known piece of lit-
erature, in fact one of the great classics in ancient Egypt. the “Instruc-
tions of King Amenemhet I,” where bitterness, disillusionment and
solitude are communicated verbally:
Trust not a brother, know not a friend,
make no intimates, it is worthless.
When you lie down, guard your heart yourself,
for no man has adherents on the day of woe.
I gave to the beggar, I raised the orphan,
I gave success to the poor as to the wealthy;
but he who ate my food raised opposition;
he to whom I gave my trust used it to plot.48
As is generally assumed, King Amenemhet I fell victim to a harem
conspiracy, but the extreme case of a murdered king cannot account for
a general attitude which finds its expression not only on hundreds of
royal portraits, but also, as will be shown below, on the faces of their
contemporaries as well. The specific wisdom of Amenemhet, stressing
distrust, is just one element in a general wave of pessimism and skepti-
cism characteristic of the literature of this age.
At the bottom of this pessimism, which appears to be the very hall-
mark of the Middle Kingdom, is the conviction that man is innately un-
reliable. This unreliability consists in what the Vedic tradition calls
48 Translation: M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature I (Berkeley, 1973), p. 136; cf. E.
Blumenthal, “Die Lehre des Königs Amenemhet” (first part), ZÄS 111 (1984), pp. 85–107;
(second part), ZÄS 112 (1985), pp. 104–15. This passage: ZÄS 111 (1984), p. 94.
76
“the law of the fishes,” under which the smaller ones are invariably eat-
en by the bigger ones. “When three men travel on the road,” we read in
an Egyptian text, “only two are found. For the greater number kills the
lesser.”49 Thomas Hobbes took this to be the natural state (status natu-
ralis) of man: man as man’s wolf (homo homini lupus) living in an inces-
sant and indiscriminate war (bellum omnia contra omnes). As is well
known, Hobbes exposes his pessimistic anthropology as a plea for strong
and authoritarian government, laying the theoretical foundations for
absolutism.50 There might be a general correlation of absolutism and
pessimistic anthropology which also applies to the Middle Kingdom.
The concept of kingship at this time, the image of the Good Shepherd,
is based on the conviction that the wolfish nature of man requires a
strong and resolute government in order to protect the weak and to es-
tablish and maintain justice.
Expressive realism subsides into the reign of Amenemhet III, in
whose portraits the rendering of the mouth is especially remarkable.
Even more importantly, it extends to private sculpture, too. The statue
shown in fig. 26 is from the sanctuary of Heqaib in Elephantine and was
made in the reign of Sesostris III. The resemblance to the royal portrait
(fig. 25) is so striking that Friedrich Junge went as far as to speak of a
“borrowed personality.”51 This, however, seems rather paradoxical. We
have become acquainted with the Egyptian ways of suppressing individ-
uality, both in life and in art, applied to outward appearance. It is inner
personality, however, that is usually identified with “individuality.” Yet
this is somewhat hasty; there are no compelling reasons why inner per-
sonality should not be as socially shaped and determined as outward
appearance. On the contrary: virtues, values and axioms which shape an
inner personality are usually group-specific; they are shared by all mem-
bers of a class or community. An expressive realism, which strives at
visually revealing and communicating inward personality, tends to uni-
formity in the same measure as this inner personality is socially shaped.
Features expressive of inner qualities or attitudes like frowning, half-
closed eyelids, sunken eyes, lowered lips, etc., soon become fixed formu-
las or clichés—“pathos formulas” in the sense of Aby Warburg52—in the
language of sculptural self-thematization which remained in use into
49 Admonitions. I cannot quite understand how Miriam Lichtheim, Maat in Egyptian
Autobiographies and Related Studies, OBO 120 (Fribourg, 1992), p. 46f., can be certain
that “the thoroughly negative view that “die Großen fressen die Kleinen” did not exist in
ancient Egypt.”
50 Cf. e.g., L. Strauss, The Political Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes: Its Basis and its
Genesis (Chicago, 1952).

51 Junge, “Die Provinzialkunst des Mittleren Reiches,” p. 122.
77
Fig. 25. Head of Sesostris III, Berlin; after K. Lange, Sesostris Fig. 26. Detail of statue of Heqaib from Aswan, no. 17; from L.
(Munich, 1954), fig. 23. Habachi, The Sanctuary of Heqaib (Mainz, 1985), pl. 53.
the following Dynasty. We are dealing here with the first phase of the
Wirkungsgeschichte of royal portraiture.
What is perhaps more astonishing is that this sculptural language
fell into complete disuse with the emergence of the New Kingdom.
Given the notorious traditionalism of the Egyptian civilization, it is
quite incredible that this tradition of artistic self-thematization should
have been so completely lost and forgotten as it indeed must have been.
For in the Eighteenth Dynasty, even the scribe statues of wise men look
young and beautiful, just as in the late Middle Kingdom every one
looked wise and sorrowful. In one of his well known Cairo statues,
Amenophis, son of Hapu, wanted himself to be represented as a “sage;”
he, therefore, had to have recourse to a model of the late Twelfth
Dynasty, feeling more ready to identify himself with this quotation from
another epoch than with the language of contemporary art.53 The reuse
52 Cf. L. Giuliani, Bildnis und Botschaft: Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Bildnis-
kunst der römischen Republik, who uses this term in his “hermeneutic reading” of
Roman portraiture, which comes very close to what is here understood by “expressive
realism.”
78
of Middle Kingdom sculpture soon became the great fashion of the

Ramesside kings. Nevertheless, its style could not be imitated,54 any
more than in literature, where the Middle Kingdom classics were copied
but not imitated. Both the verbal language and the language of art of the
Middle Kingdom became dead languages.
There was, however, a revival. In the Late Period, one thousand
years after the end of the Middle Kingdom, its artistic language became
revitalized. The formulas expressive of inner life, the modelling of eyes
and mouth in particular, again became a living language, coinciding
with a flourishing of biographical literature.55 The Late Period may
therefore be regarded as the heyday of Egyptian verbal and sculptural
self-thematization.
8. Individuation and Immortality

We started with the observation that Egyptian art is in the highest
degree “self thematizing.” This concern that the “self” be preserved
and/or presented in inscriptional and sculptural forms determines not
53 Sylvia Schoske “Historisches Bewußtsein in der ägyptischen Kunst,” MJbK 38 (1987),

pp. 7–26, goes so far as to assume that Amenophis in fact usurped a statue of the late
Middle Kingdom. This observation does not meet with universal approval, though, and the
possibility that the statue is in fact a work of the Eighteenth Dynasty has to be seriously
considered, cf. Edna R. Russmann, Egyptian Sculpture. Cairo and Luxor (Austin, 1989), pp.
106–107 (cat. 51). In any event, whether by usurpation or by imitation, the statue testifies
recourse to the late Middle Kingdom. Decisive is the fact that it is always this period that
reappears in later art and literature when the ideal to be expressed is “wisdom.”
54 Cf. Assmann, “Die Entdeckung der Vergangenheit. Innovation und Restauration in der
ägyptischen Literaturgeschichte,” in H.U. Gumbrecht, and U. Link-Heer, eds., Epochen-

schwellen und Epochenbewußtsein im Diskurs der Literatur- und Sprachhistorie
(Frankfurt, 1985), pp. 484–99.
55 Cf. E. Otto, Die biographischen Inschriften der ägyptischen Spätzeit (Leiden, 1954).
Most remarkably, the image of the Good Shepherd, in connection with elements of “neg-
ative anthropology,” returns in the Late Period, too. In an unpublished wisdom text in the
Brooklyn Museum, the political philosophy of the Middle Kingdom reappears in the same
way, as its style revives the plastic arts. This is what G. Posener and J. Sainte Fare Garnot
meant in “Sur une sagesse égyptienne de basse époque (Papyrus Brooklyn No.
47.218.135),” in Les sagesses du Proche Orient ancien, Bibl. des centres d’études
supérieures spécialisées, colloque de Strasbourg 1962 (Paris, 1963), pp. 153–57, esp. p. 154,
concerning the relevant passages on ‘page C:’ “Toutefois le thème favori de l’auteur est
l’apologie du chef. Celui-ci est nécessaire; il faut vivre dans son entourage, afin de n’être
pas ‘un chien qui n’a pas de maître’ (page A). Au reste ‘des millions de soldats sont battus,
qui n’ont pas un vaillant capitaine(?);’ ‘une armée est médiocre qui n’a pas avec elle son
maître’ (page C). Le rôle du chef est de conduire et de dominer; il lui arrive de punir, mais
c’est chose naturelle: ‘est-ce que les taureaux ruent, qui ont un berger qui les mate?’ (page
C). Mais il doit exercer aussi sa fonction avec douceur et solicitude et l’on retrouve, dans
la même page C, le théme classique du ‘bon berger.’ Le chef est le ‘pasteur‘ de ‘ceux que
Rê a crées.’ Il retribue chacun selon ses mérites et, par voie de réciprocité, le superieur
‘donne en retour de ce qu’on a fait pour lui.’ C‘est pourquoi la sagesse est d’adorer le
maître, de lui être fidèle et même de ‘donner chaque jour en plus’ de ce qu’on lui doit, en
sorte qu’il étende vers le donateur bénévole ‘sa main qui porte la vie’.”
79
only the functional contexts of Egyptian art, but also its artistic
languages and values. The concepts of “realism” and “individualism”
are not anachronistic with regard to ancient Egypt, but are rather at the
very center or artistic function and intention. Underlying these tenden-
cies is the firm belief in a post-mortem existence, not as an anonymous
shadow, but in complete preservation of personal identity as it has
developed during the lifetime of an individual. This belief, which so
strikingly contradicts the views held by neighboring civilizations
(Mesopotamia, Israel, Greece) about such matters,56 makes all the differ-
ence and may be regarded as the basic Egyptian conviction. Yet this con-
viction is based upon two different ideas of equal longevity and binding
force, which to our understanding seem rather contradictory. One envi-
sions endurance upon earth in social memory, and the other an eternal
life in another world after having passed the examination of posthumous
judgment and the transfiguration into a “luminous spirit” (akh).57 Both
ideas stress the individual. It is because of his individual achievement
that a person may aspire to an enduring place in social memory, and it
is his individual life for which he is held accountable in the examination
of the “Psychostasia.” Neither before the one nor the other instance can
he rely on collectivistic distinctions like noble descent, group member-
ship, etc. Only personal achievements count.
Consequently, Egyptian anthropology is determined by a variety of
concepts and ideas that belong to its views concerning death and an
afterlife, such as ka, ba, akh, etc. We cannot go into these details here,
but in conclusion and by way of illustrating the enormous importance
of individuating principles in thought about man, his nature and his des-
tiny, I shall briefly enumerate some concepts which are related to birth
and death:
1) To shape the individual form and character on a potter’s wheel is the func-
tion of the god Khnumu. According to Egyptian belief, every man has his own
Khnumu as a symbol of his genetic individuality.58
2) The aspect of an individual’s fate, the sum of favorable and calamitous
events which determine his personal career, is represented by the goddess
Meskhenet, the personification of the birth stool or brick, who appears as “his
(individual) Meskhenet” at the birth of a person and prophecies his career.59
56 S.G.F. Brandon, The Judgment of the Dead: An Historical and Comparative Study of the
Idea of a Post-Mortem Judgment in the Major Religions (London, 1967), and J.Gw.
Griffiths, The Divine Verdict (Leiden, 1991), offer a useful survey of these different beliefs
concerning death and afterlife.
57 See the studies by Brandon and Griffiths cited in the note above.
58 Cf. J. Quaegebeur, Le dieu égyptien Shai, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 2 (Leuven,
1975), p. 88ff.
59 Ibid., p. 92ff.
80
3) To foster individual development in its physical, material and spiritual

aspects is the function of the goddess Renenet (“breeding” and “harvest”).60
4) The individually apportioned life span and form of death are personified by
the god Shai (destiny).61
The deities Khnumu and Meskhenet appear on the stage before and
during the birth of an individual; the deities Meskhenet (again), Renenet
and Shai appear on the occasion of the posthumous judgment. Their
charge in this context is to represent the individual factors of life—its
particular chances and handicaps—vis à vis the super-individual norm
of the goddess Maat (truth-justice-order). The central role in the judicial
examination is played by the heart. which is weighed on the balance
against an image of Maat. The heart mediates the spheres of individua-
tion and socialization.
Especially important in the context of portraiture is the role of the
“face” (Egyptian ¢r) in Egyptian anthroplogy. The ba, the form in which
the transfigured dead survives outside the body in another world, is rep-
resented as a bird with a human head. The body represents the celestial
nature of this being, the head its personal identity as a human being with
names and titles and, above all, with a past on earth during which its
specific personality evolved. In a hymn to the creator god we even read:
thou hast built all that exists with the labor of thy hands;
it is thou who createst their shapes,
every singular face of them being distinguished from its fellow.62
Of the two focal points which determine and organize Egyptian mor-
tuary beliefs, endurance in social memory and posthumous judgment, it
is the concept of social memory to which portraiture is more closely
related. Portraiture is visualized memory. Portraiture, as well as its
inscriptional counterpart, biography, is meant to keep alive the remem-
brance of the individual appearance, achievement and character of the
deceased and to bestow permanence to the singular and unmistakably
individual final shape that s/he has developed during her/his time upon
earth.
b
60 J. Broekhuis, De godin Renenwetet (Leiden, 1971).

61 Cf. Quaegebeur, Le dieu égyptien Shai.
62 J. Assmann, Sonnenhymnen in thebanischen Gräbern, THEBEN I (Mainz, 1983), pp.
203–209, especially p. 206 (p); cf. also H. Brunner, “Textliches zur Frage des Porträts in
Ägypten,” SAK 11 (1984), pp. 277–79.
81
05 BAINES Page 83 Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:28 PM
On the Composition and Inscriptions of

the Vatican Statue of Udjahorresne
John Baines
T
he naophorous statue of Udjahorresne in the Vatican has
been studied repeatedly for its important inscriptions, which
form the only preserved native Egyptian account relating to the
1
Persian conquest in 525 BCE and its aftermath. Both internally and in
historical terms, the texts pose problems of order of reading that have
2
been analyzed in particular by Ursula Rößler-Köhler. In this brief study
I return to similar questions in honor of William Kelly Simpson, who
has contributed so much to the study of Egyptian literature and history,
and of the monuments whose owners integrated those two categories to
proclaim their role in events.
The inscriptions are divided quite rigidly down the vertical axis of
the statue, except for the back pillar, which has a single text in three
1 Vatican collections, 196; perhaps from Hadrian’s villa at Tivoli. PM VII, 416 (giving no. as
158). See Ursula Rößler-Köhler, Individuelle Haltungen zum ägyptischen Königtum der
Spätzeit, GOF IV:21 (Wiesbaden, 1991), pp. 270–72, no. 78a, with references; good general
photographs, with the eighteenth century head: Orazio Marucchi, Il Museo Egizio Vati-
cano descritto ed illustrato/Catalogo del Museo Egizio Vaticano con la traduzione dei
principali testi geroglifici (Rome, 1899/1902), pp. 79–102 with pls. I–II, no. 113; see also
Giuseppe Botti and Pietro Romanelli, Le sculture del Museo Gregoriano Egizio, Monu-
menti Vaticani d’Archeologia e d’Arte 9 (Vatican City, 1952), pp. 32–40, pls. 27–32, no. 40,
with bibliography and photographs of the original and of casts; treatment of the 1930s res-
toration of the head, as against the “rococo” head it previously had, and of the texts, with
many photographs and bibliography: Alberto Tulli, “Il Naoforo vaticano,” in Miscellenea
Gregoriana, Monumenti Vaticani … 6 (Vatican City, 1941), pp. 211–80; valuable transla-
tion, indicating the distribution of the texts: Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Litera-
ture: A Book of Readings III: The Late Period (Berkeley, 1980), pp. 36–41. A second statue
of Udjahorresne, apparently made in the fourth century, was found at Mit Rahina: Rudolf
Anthes et al., Mit Rahineh 1956 (Philadelphia, 1965), pp. 98–100, pl. 35f–g; Edda Bresciani,
“Ugiahorresnet a Menfi,” EVO 8 (1985), pp. 1–6. His pit tomb was discovered at Abusir in
1988–89: Miroslav Verner, “La tombe d’Oudjahorresnet et le cimetière Saïto-Perse
d’Abousir,” BIFAO 89 (1989), pp. 283–90. See also Vilmos Wessetzky, “Fragen zum Verh-
alten der mit den Persern zusammenarbeitenden Ägyptern,” GM 124 (1991), pp. 83–89.
Section letters and column numbers of inscriptions used here are those of Georges Posen-
er, La première domination perse: recueil d’inscriptions hiéroglyphiques, BE 11 (Cairo,
1936), pp. 3–26. I owe a great debt to Anthony Leahy for advice over this article and to Ri-
chard Parkinson for reading and commenting on a draft.
2“Zur Textkomposition der naophoren Statue des Udjahorresnet/Vatikan Inv.-Nr. 196,”
GM 85 (1985), pp. 43–54. Rößler-Köhler’s lettered subdivisions are not those of Farina and
Posener, also used here.
Fig. 1. Front and left side of the naophorous statue of Udjahorresne, taken in the
late nineteenth century with the older restored head. The lettering (added after Fa-
rina, Bilychnis 18:1 [1929], pp. 449–57, and Posener, La première domination perse
[Cairo, 1936], pp. 3–26) indicates the distribution of the inscriptions. Rephoto-
graphed from Marucchi, Il Museo Egizio Vaticano descritto ed illustrato (Rome,
1899/1902), pp. 79–102.
84
John Baines, On the Composition and Inscriptions of the Vatican Statue of Udjahorresne
Fig. 2. Back and right side of the naophorous statue of Udjahorresne. Rephotographed from
Marucchi, Il Museo Egizio Vaticano descritto ed illustrato [Rome, 1899/1902], pp. 79–102.
85
3
vertical columns. Georges Posener (see n. 1) followed Giulio Farina in
his presentation, lettering the sections on the statue’s right in upper case
4
and on its left in lower case (see figs. 1–2). They began with the material
framing the naos (A, 1–2) and on top of it (A, 3–6), continuing with the
major panels beneath the arms (B, 7–15; b, 16–23). They then treated the
columns on the naos support at the front (C, 24–27; c, 28–30) and the
panels on its sides and on the body above the arms (D, 31–36; d, 37–42),
concluding with the back pillar (E, 43–45) and the plinth (F, f, 46–48). It
may not be possible to devise any single ordering and this could be inap-
propriate, since a work of art such as the statue may not impose any one
sequence of viewing and reading, even if texts are necessarily more
sequential than pictorial materials. It is, however, worth investigating
whether the distribution of the texts has a thematic or iconographic sig-
nificance, in addition to the sequence in which the inscriptions may best
be read. While the distribution of the inscriptions on the statue will
hardly have been deliberately ambiguous, its prime purpose was proba-
bly not to create a single consistent narrative.
The longest narratives of Udjahorresne are contained in the two
visually balancing inscriptions under the arms of the statue (B, 7–15; b,
16–23). These are of uneven textual size (38 and 26 metrical verses
respectively), together giving a seemingly consecutive treatment of the
protagonist’s relations with Cambyses, as well as looking back to
Amasis and Psammetichus III. The back pillar (E, 43–45), which has a
narrative of the reign of Darius I, may perhaps be read continuous with
5
these. Nineteenth century scholars presented the side panels first,
6
whereas Farina, Posener, and later writers have started with the upper
part of the naos surround. While this latter ordering is better in terms of
3 “La politica religiosa di Cambise in Egitto,” Bilychnis 331, year 18, fasc. 1 (1929), pp. 449–
57.
4 This lettering also covers the naos, which is best described from the statue’s point of view
(contrary to the practice of Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature III, pp. 36–41). Rößler-
Köhler, Individuelle Haltungen zum ägyptischen Königtum der Spätzeit, p. 50 n. 11,
states incorrectly that Posener reversed the main inscription panels (compare published
photographs). This impression was probably given by the changes in orientation in de-
scriptions of the naos and the statue: her usage of “right” and “left” in her figs. 1–2 is the
opposite of conventional statue description.
5 E.g., Heinrich Brugsch, Thesaurus Inscriptionum Aegyptiacarum IV (Leipzig, 1884), pp.
636–42, 691–97; Karl Piehl, Inscriptions hiéroglyphiques, 1st series (Stockholm and
Leipzig, 1886), pls. 32–35, pp. 39–42; Marucchi (see note 3 above), pp. 81–100.
6 E.g., Alan B. Lloyd, “The Inscription of Udja¢orresnet, a Collaborator’s Testament,” JEA
68 (1982), pp. 166–80; Torben Holm-Rasmussen, “Collaboration in Early Achaemenid

Egypt. A New Approach,” in Studies in Ancient History and Numismatics Presented to
Rudi Thomsen (Aarhus, 1988), pp. 29–38; both use Posener’s order without comment. See
further Günter Burkard, “Literarische Tradition und historische Realität: Die persische
Eroberung Ägyptens am Beispiel Elephantine,” ZÄS 121 (1994), pp. 93–106.
86
the statue’s composition, it is a little illogical because it presents the

remaining areas around the naos toward the end and treats the narrative
sections written on the naos sides, which are above the arms, after the
parts written beneath the arms. Apart from the awkwardness of this
selective movement around the statue, the resulting overall shape of the
composition may not be satisfactory, because the formulaic phrases and
general religious actions which are the presupposition of the whole are
placed near the end. In comparison, unitary royal inscriptions and non-
royal biographies tend to begin with extensive formulaic materials and
only then move to the narrative. It is therefore worth testing a placing
of the formal material, which is at the front of the statue and closest to
the naos and its statuette of Osiris, near the beginning.
Rößler-Köhler orders the material according to two principal crite-
ria. She distinguishes between Cambyses’s orders, which are said to be
executed by others after advice by Udjahorresne, and those of Darius,
which are executed by Udjahorresne himself without such advice. On
this basis she assigns the episodes of § D, d to the reign of Darius I.
Rößler-Köhler then groups the texts thematically according to the
deities mentioned, demonstrating that Neith is principally named on
the right (her “left,” see n. 4) and Osiris on the left. Her assignment of D
to Darius I additionally produces a visual distribution of the material,
illustrated in her fig. 3, in which the parts set highest on the statue are
related to his reign.
I should like to propose another approach to the ordering. The pas-
sages covering the walls of the naos and continuing on the figure’s torso
above the arms (D, 31–36; d, 37–42) remain the center of discussion.
Temporally they cannot be assigned with certainty, because they refer to
the king as “His Person” and not by name. Rößler-Köhler’s assignment
criterion of the way actions are described is fragile, because the Darius I
sections are much shorter than those relating to Cambyses and the dis-
tinction could be based simply in the part Udjahorresne played in the
two reigns and in a desire to give him a visible role.
A parallel translation of the two crucial passages follows:
87
Right (D, 31–36) Left (d, 37–42)

The revered one before the gods of the Saite Nome, The one revered before his city god,
Chief Physician, Udjahorresne the Chief Physician, Udjahorresne
says: I established divine offerings for Neith the great, the says: I was one revered of his father,
mother of the god, favored of his mother,
on the order of His Person for the extent of time (m £wt ∂t). who was in the hearts of his siblings.
I made monuments for Neith mistress of Sais I established them <in?> the office of priest.
consisting of every good thing, as an efficacious servant I gave them good fields
does for his lord. on the command of His Person, for the extent of time.
I am a man who is good in his city. I made a good burial for the one who had no burial;
I saved its people in the great turmoil I supported all their children and reestablished their houses.
when it happened in the entire land I did everything beneficial for them,
—the like had never happened in this land. as a father does for his son,
I protected the wretched from the mighty; whena the turmoil occurred in this district,
I saved the fearful when his time (of fear) had come. among the very great turmoil
I did everything beneficial for them which happened in the entire land.
at that time of acting for them.
a. This s(t) could be read as beginning a new sentence, but that would leave the
last three verses of the section without any clear relation with what comes before.
The most striking feature of these passages is their mixing of tradi-

tional elements of ideal biography with references to what seems to be
7
a specific “turmoil (nßn¡ )” through which the land had passed. The mix-
ing of ideal biography and other elements has much older literary paral-
8
lels, for example in the Story of Sinuhe, but is unusual in biographies,
which tend to separate formulaic sections from ones with individual
content and to start with the formulaic. Since the texts must in any case
have been carefully composed for their place of inscription on the statue,
this mixing of genres could be related in part to the passages’ placing in
the highest, and in some respects most prominent, position on the
statue. Udjahorresne would then cite his general concern with the state
of people in his district as well as referring discreetly to the more
embracing catastrophe which had happened in Egypt. From around two
centuries later, the long biographical inscription of Petosiris in his tomb
at Tuna al-Gabal has a similar formulation, referring to events during
the time when the “ruler of foreign lands” was the “protector (n∂t¡)” in
7 On the interpretation of this word, see Lloyd (n. 5), pp. 176–77.
8 Here, the presentation of Udjahorresne’s journey back from Elam on the back pillar
(E, 44) offers another striking parallel: “The foreigners carried me / from foreign land to
foreign land,” recalling Sinuhe’s “foreign land gave me to foreign land” (B 28–29, 182—the
king’s letter to Sinuhe). This coincidence need not mean that the author of Udjahorresne’s
inscriptions was familiar with Sinuhe, although that is conceivable. It is more likely that
he drew upon established classical usage.
88
Egypt, and “the south was in turmoil (nßn¡) / and the north in uproar
9
(? —swh¡).”
Udjahorresne’s references to the episode of turmoil have been vari-
ously interpreted, but mostly identified with a rebellion or rebellions
10
early in the reign of Darius I. On such a reading, and if the text is taken
to report events relatively soberly, such a rebellion would have had a
severe effect throughout Egypt, something for which there does not
11
seem to be strong evidence. It would also follow that Udjahorresne
made no extended or explicit reference to the Persian conquest itself,
only to its aftermath.
I suggest placing these passages near the beginning of the statue’s
sequence of texts. In comparison with Farina and Posener, this position
gives an order A D C B E (F lies outside such a schema), but does not
require that the whole be read in a consecutive sequence. The essential
difficulty, already referred to, that the king of D is not mentioned by
name, is presumably why scholars have placed this section near the end.
But unless local knowledge bridged the gap, the ambiguity of reference
of “His Person” would have been just as great in antiquity as it is now;
it might refer to any of three kings named elsewhere—Psammetichus III,
Cambyses, and Darius I (Amasis can be excluded because he died before
the Persian conquest) and so cannot be used to decide the position of the
situations described there. One reason for not naming the king might
possibly be the small amount of space for writing available above the
statue’s arms, but since the whole composition could no doubt have
been rearranged, such an approach is unsatisfactory. It is more cogent to
see the reference as being unspecific because the matters referred to
12
were delicate. If the king referred to was Psammetichus III, to recall
him here was inappropriate under Darius I, when the inscription was
13
presumably composed. In the analogous case of Petosiris, the
9 Also cited by Lloyd (see note 6 above): Gustave Lefèbvre, Le tombeau de Pétosiris II Les
textes (Cairo, 1923), no. 81, ll. 28–30, p. 54; see, e.g., Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Litera-
ture III, p. 46.
10 So Rößler-Köhler, Individuelle Haltungen zum ägyptischen Königtum der Spätzeit. See
Anthony Spalinger, “Udjahorresne,” LÄ VI (1986), cols. 821–23, with references. Depen-

dent on how it is interpreted, this inscription appears to be the only definite evidence from
Egypt for the revolt.
11 See the comments of Jean Yoyotte, “Pétoubastis III,” RdE 24 (1972), pp. 222–23.
12 Compare Anthony Leahy, “The Date of Louvre A.93,” GM 70 (1984), pp. 50–51 (disput-
ed by Rößler-Köhler, Individuelle Haltungen zum ägyptischen Königtum der Spätzeit,

pp. 244–45).
13 Darius I is said to have looked back to Amasis for a precedent, at least in his recording
of the laws of Egypt; see e.g. Edda Bresciani, “The Persian Occupation of Egypt,” in Ilya
Gershevitch, ed., The Cambridge History of Iran II The Median and Achaemenid Periods
(Cambridge etc., 1985), pp. 505–508.
89
vagueness of the reference to a foreign ruler has meant that it has re-
mained uncertain how his tomb should be dated. It is economical to
heed this parallel and to interpret the passage as a description of the Per-
sian invasion, deliberately kept vague in part because that was the peri-
14
od during which Udjahorresne switched his allegiance. Nonetheless,
it cannot be finally established in historical terms, or in terms of the
statue’s texts, whether the episode referred to here was the Persian con-
quest or a revolt early in the reign of Darius; the reference could also be
generic rather than specific.
In thematic terms, an early placing of these passages sites the evoca-
tion of the most fundamental theme of disorder and the response to it in
the most prominent position while tying it to the core statements of a
traditional biography. The inscriptions above and below the naos tend to
confirm the significance of this central area. The naos front (A, a) has of-
fering formulas, while its vertical support (C, c) has a record of Camby-
ses’s visit to the temple of Neith in Sais and the consequent ritual
15
actions and endowments. The naos roof (A, 3–6 ) has a short prayer to
Osiris. Finally, the plinth texts (F, f, 46–48), which presuppose the rest of
the composition, summarize Udjahorresne’s achievements under “every
16
lord of his” and appeal to the living, asking that they should preserve
his reputation both with the gods and on earth, on account of all the
good he did.
This reading implies a double composition. The “core” consists of
the material at the front and near the naos, including both the statuette
of the god and the identification of Udjahorresne and the main statue it-
self. Both treatment and subject matter are more schematic in the core
than in the other sections, which may then be seen as extended and rel-
atively “secular” elaborations of the given themes. Apart from the par-
allels such a distinction offers with the organization of long biographies,
it is also comparable to the distinction between the decoration in stela
lunettes, which include pictorial material, and extended texts beneath.
A lunette is brief, tightly constructed, and visually ordered, while a run-
ning text is discursive and of variable length. Like modern scholars, such
Egyptians as had access to the stature might have been drawn most to
the longer narratives.
14 This is also the interpretation of Lloyd (see note 6 above), pp. 176–78, who follows
Posener’s ordering but does not comment on the resultant oddity of the reference to the
conquest near the end of the inscriptions.
15 Excellent photograph: Tulli (see note 1 above), p. 236 fig. 19.
16 nb≠f nb, a rare phrase, but compare nswt nb in cols. 29 and 30.
90
The distribution of the core texts is also analogous with the cosmo-
logical implications of temple and stela decoration. The artfully worded
prayer on the naos top (A, 3–6) is the most intimate and sacred material
on the statue, drawing Udjahorresne visually and thematically close to
his god. The wording makes this clear:
O Osiris, lord of everlasting, / the Chief Physician Udjahorresne has placed /
his hands around you in protection. // May your ka command that everything
good be done for him, / inasmuch as he has made protection around you for
ever.
As in temple reliefs, a direct address is placed in the most remote loca-
17
tion. This treatment contrasts with the thematically similar plinth in-
scriptions, which are addressed to visitors and not to the god. The rather
conventional offering formula around the naos front is complemented
on the sides by the description of turmoil, which occupies the same con-
ceptual space as royal “historical” action in this world, establishing the
“order” which is incorporated in the dedication of the statuette of
Osiris. In comparison, the inscriptions on the naos support (C, 24–27;
c, 28–30), which describe the visit of Cambyses to Sais and his dedica-
tion and endowment of offerings there, give a material and ritual basis
for the continued interaction between humanity and the gods embodied
in the texts above. This low placing of dedication texts has general par-
allels in the organization of stelae and a specific temple analogy in the
18
great dedication text at Edfu. The texts on the naos support end with
praise of Neith and a strong statement of Udjahorresne’s role, couched
in very classical language, which would be visually prominent for a
viewer first looking at the statue. This material duplicates to some ex-
tent what is said in the first main biographical section (B, 12–15). Such
repetition may be best understood not as the narration of different
episodes in similar language but as summarizing and fuller accounts of
essentially similar material.
The inscriptions and composition of Udjahorresne’s statue show a
coherence and artistic balance that can be pursued both in literary
19
terms and through the distribution of the material on the object itself.
Just as the texts at the front of the statue carry the greatest symbolic
weight even though they have relatively little precise “historical” con-
tent, their verbal parallels with literary texts are most striking—
17 Compare Erich Winter, Untersuchungen zu den ägyptischen Tempelreliefs der
griechisch-römischen Zeit (DÖAW 98, 1968), pp. 53–55.
18 Dimitri Meeks, Le grand texte des donations au temple d’Edfou, BE 59 (Cairo, 1972).
19 Thus, Rößler-Köhler (GM 85, p. 48) shows that all the main sections of the text end with
∂t “for ever.” This feature is compositionally significant, but it does not help to choose
between orderings because it is compatible with several of them.
91
although all the texts have strong literary qualities. These artistic char-
acteristics, which underpin the religious and biographical significance of
the object, should be given due weight in a reading. On this basis, the
composition can be interpreted as referring to the Persian conquest in a
way that has not hitherto been proposed, while a revolt under Darius
may not be mentioned. For the actors, however, the chief interest of the
front of the statue is likely to have been its presentation of general and
cosmological concerns rather than particular historical events. Despite
the large amount of historical information in the texts, the statue should
be read first as a dedicatory piece in the temple of Neith in Sais, which
is the major single subject of the narratives, and only thereafter in more
general historical terms. As in other biographical sources, the statue’s
focus is on the individual, and it is organized for biographical informa-
tion much less than such texts as the comparably significant inscription
20
of Ahmose son of Ebana. A very rare quality of the composition as a
nonroyal monument is its semi-iconographic organization to imply that
its owner embodied the essentially royal role of setting order in place of
disorder.
b
20E.g., Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature II (Berkeley, 1976), pp. 12–15. On
personalities of the Persian period, their biographies, and their historical role, see now
Didier Devauchelle, “Le sentiment anti-Perse chez les anciens Egyptiens,” Trans-
euphratène 9 (1995), pp. 67–80, esp. pp. 78–79.
92
06 BERMAN Page 93 Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:38 PM
The Stele of Shemai, Chief of Police, of

the Early Twelfth Dynasty, in The
Cleveland Museum of Art
Lawrence M. Berman
I
n choosing a subject wherewith to honor my former teacher,
Kelly Simpson, I have been guided by his interest in all things
Middle Kingdom and also his devotion to publishing little-known
monuments in American collections.
In 1901–02 and 1904, Lady William Cecil, eldest daughter of
William Amhurst Tyssen-Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst of Hackney,
excavated1
thirty-two rock-cut tombs at Qubbet el-Hawa, opposite
Aswan. Family friend Howard Carter, then Chief Inspector of Antiqui-
ties for
2
Upper Egypt, was periodically on hand to supervise the excava-
tions. Lady Cecil’s share of the finds entered the Amherst collection at
Didlington Hall, Norfolk. When the major part of this important collec-
tion was auctioned at Sotheby’s, London,
3
in 1921, Carter acted as agent
for the Cleveland Museum of Art. Among the dozen objects he acquired
for the Museum was the upper part of a stele inscribed for a chief of
police named Shemai,
4
from Lady Cecil’s second season at Qubbet el-
Hawa (figs. 1–2).
The stele is in the form of a false door framed on three sides by a
torus molding with transverse and diagonal lashings in raised relief and
crowned by a curved cavetto cornice with parallel palm fronds. The pan-
el is sunk within a door frame. Below was probably
5
a lintel and one or
more pairs of jambs enclosing a central niche.
The main scene, carved in raised relief, shows Shemai on the right,
seated on a low-backed chair, facing left toward a pile of offerings. He
1 Lady William Cecil, “Report on the Work Done at Aswan,” ASAE 4 (1903), pp. 51–73,
with pl. IV; idem, “Report of Work Done at Aswan during the First Months of 1904,” ASAE
6 (1905), pp. 273–83; PM 5, pp. 240–42.
2 See T.G.H. James, Howard Carter: The Path to Tutankhamen (London and New York,
1992), pp. 81–82.

3 For Carter’s association with the Cleveland Museum of Art, see idem, “Howard Carter
and The Cleveland Museum of Art,” in Evan H. Turner, ed., Object Lessons: Cleveland
Creates an Art Museum (Cleveland, 1991), pp. 66–77.
Fig. 1. Stele of Shemai. Painted limestone, 83.4 x 87.4 cm. Aswan,

Qubbet el-Hawa, northeast slope of hill, excavations of Lady William
Cecil, 1904, tomb no. 28, early Dynasty 12, probably reign of Sesostris
I. Gift of Edward S. Harkness. CMA 21.1017.
94
Lawrence M. Berman, The Stele of Shemai, Chief of Police, of the Early Twelfth Dynasty, in The Cleveland Museum of Art
wears a short, curled wig that covers the ears, a pleated kilt, and a sash
across his chest. His broad (wesekh) collar is composed of three rows of
tubular beads and an outer row of drop-shaped beads. He wears bead
bracelets on both wrists, and a bead belt. His left hand rests on his thigh,
holding a folded bolt of cloth or handkerchief, while his right reaches out
toward the pile of offerings: joints of meat, loaves of various shape, a
duck or goose, a basket of figs on a tray, onions or leeks, and other vege-
tables. In the center is a raised relief inscription arranged in three col-
umns: “The one honored before Osiris, lord of Busiris, (2) the great god,
lord of Abydos, that he may give invocation-offerings of bread and beer,
oxen and fowl, (3) linen and travertine
6
(vessels) to the ka of the overseer
of police, Shemai, vindicated.” Some of the much faded color remains.
The door frame is inscribed in sunk relief with two offering formulae
beginning in the center of the lintel and continuing down the jambs on
either side. On the right is “An offering which the king gives to Anubis,
who is on his mountain, who is in the place of embalming, lord of the
cemetery, that he may give a thousand of bread and beer, 7
oxen and fowl,
linen and travertine, of[ferings and provisions(?)…]” On the left is “An
offering which the king gives to Osiris,
8
lord of Busiris, the great god, lord
of Abydos [that he may give…]” Some of the hieroglyphs have raised
4 CMA 21.1017 Stele of Shemai, painted limestone, H. 79 cm, W. 87.4 cm, D. at cornice
24 cm, D. below cornice 13 cm. Aswan, Qubbet el-Hawa, northeast slope of hill, excava-
tions of Lady William Cecil, 1904, tomb no. 28, early Dynasty 12, probably reign of Sesos-
tris I. Gift of Edward S. Harkness.
Ex collection: William Amhurst Tyssen-Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst of Hackney, Didling-
ton Hall, Norfolk; sale: London, June 13–17, 1921, Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge, The Am-
herst Collection of Egyptian and Oriental Antiquities, lot 191, cat. p. 19 and pl. IV (as mid-
Dynasty 18).
Publications: Cecil, ASAE 6, pp. 276–77; Handbook of The Cleveland Museum of Art
(Cleveland, 1925), p. 55, repro. (as Dynasty 18), 2nd ed. (1928), p. 70, repro. (as Dynasty 18);
PM 5, p. 241.
5 E.g., J. Vandier, Manuel d'archéologie égyptienne, vol. II: Les grandes époques. L'archi-
tecture funéraire (Paris, 1954), p. 407, fig. 278, 1, 3.

6 The name is incorrectly spelled in Cecil, ASAE 6, p. 277, with the feather (H 2) as the
final sign; it is the reed leaf. For the title, ¡my-r ßnt (or ßn†), William A. Ward, Index of
Egyptian Religious and Administrative Titles of the Middle Kingdom (Beirut, 1982), no.
390; add Labib Habachi, Elephantine IV: The Sanctuary of Heqaib, AV 33 (Mainz, 1985),
no. 85, line 17, a stele from the Heqaib sanctuary; Guillemette Andreu, “Deux stèles de
commissaires de police (¡my-r ßn†) de la Première Période Intermédiaire,” Mélanges
Jacques Jean Clère (= Cahiers de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d'Egyptologie
de Lille 13) (1991), pp. 11–23; Ronald J. Leprohon, “Administrative Titles in Nubia in the
Middle Kingdom,” JAOS 113 (1993), p. 432, no. [143], with references. I thank Professor
Leprohon for an offprint of his very useful article.
7 Ìtpw, probably followed by ∂f£w “provisions.”
8 The top part of d¡ is just visible.
95
Fig. 2. Head and shoulders. Detail of stele of Shemai, CMA 21.1017.
96
interior modeling with incised detail—note particularly the quail chick

and owl (figs. 3–4).
Traces of red, black, blue, and green pigment on the surface are dis-
cernable to the naked eye. Shemai’s skin is painted red, as is every third
square of his belt; his wig is black. The offerings of meat, bill and feet of
the goose, and basket of figs are red. The hieroglyphs are blue for the swt-
plant, the bread (t), the mountain (∂w), the reed leaf, the t£-sign, the
throne in Wsr “Osiris,” and the city-sign; red for the conical loaf (d¡),
¡my, the hand (d), the vertical stroke in Îdw “Busiris,” and the foot (b)
in £b∂w “Abydos;” black and blue for Anubis on his shrine; red and
black for the profile head (tpy), red9 and blue for ∂sr, £b in £b∂w, and Îd
in Îdw; green for the basket (nb).
It is curious that the deceased faces left. The main figure in two- and
three-dimensional representations nearly always faces right except
when architectural or other considerations dictate the reverse—for
example, on tomb walls, where 10
the overriding consideration is for the
deceased to face the entrance. The leftward orientation of this figure
might have been occasioned by its placement in relation to the 11
burial or
even by external factors, such as the proximity of a shrine. Unfortu-
nately, the circumstances of the find do not enable us to say what that
was. Most of the Cecil Tombs, including no. 28, are now inaccessible,
and we must rely on Lady Cecil’s description of it in the excavation
report (fortunately accompanied by a plan, which does not, however,
show the position of the objects as found):
It is simply a passage measuring about fifty feet long and four feet wide, and
from four to six feet high. At the end of the passage are two very small tomb
chambers. About thirty-six feet from the entrance and occupying nearly the
whole width of the passage is a shaft about twenty feet deep, at the bottom of
which is a third small tomb-chamber. In the passage were found pottery of var-
ious qualities and12 shapes, and the remains of arrows with many beads nearly
all in blue glaze.
The stele of Shemai was discovered at the bottom of the shaft. Also
found there were portions of another stele (present location not
known)—also of limestone, but inscribed in paint only, with remains of
9I thank Patricia S. Griffin, Mellon Fellow in Objects Conservation, for her assistance in
locating and identifying the pigments.
10 See Henry George Fischer, Egyptian Studies II: The Orientation of Hieroglyphs, Part 1:
Reversals (New York, 1977), pp. 3–46, esp. pp. 21–26, and fig. 42 on p. 40.
11 Fischer (ibid., p. 25, n. 64), cites as an example tomb 34 at Aswan, in which the New
Kingdom offering scene at the back faces left, “perhaps because the cult chamber which
leads to the burial is at the right.”
12 Cecil, ASAE 6, p. 276.
97
the artist’s guide lines in red—inscribed with a hotep-di-nesu formula

for a woman named 13
Muthetpet and also mentioning “[the overseer of]
po[lice], Shemai.” Although the excavators claim to have “most care-
fully sifted the sand of 14
every fragment,” they never found the missing
portions of either stele.
The tombs
15
at Qubbet el-Hawa date mainly from the Old and Middle
Kingdoms. The objects that entered the Amherst collection, however,
mostly come
16
from intrusive burials of the late New Kingdom to Roman
periods. In the Amherst sale catalogue the stele of Shemai is dated to
mid-Dynasty 18. The offering formula alone would suggest a date in the
first half
17
of Dynasty 12, according to the criteria established by
Bennet. Cooney dated the stele to Dynasty 12, “probably, in view of its 18
obvious dependance on Old Kingdom work, to very early Dynasty 12.”
Freed is more 19precise and assigns it, to my mind correctly, to the reign
of Sesostris I. The limestone pillar of Sesostris I from Karnak and
recently
20
discovered reliefs at Elephantine Island afford the closest paral- Fig. 3. Quail chick. Detail of stele of
lels. Features in common, as pointed out by Freed, include the Shemai, CMA 21.1017.
13 Ibid.,p. 277; PM 5, p. 241.

14 Cecil, ASAE 6, p. 276.
15 Elmar Edel, “Qubbet el Hawa,” LÄ 5, col. 54 with bibliography.
16 Amherst sale, lots 1–2 (Third Intermediate period shawabtis), 14 (Third Intermediate pe-
riod shawabtis), 29 (shawabtis), 40 (shawabtis), 59 (shawabtis), 65 (Ptah-Sokar-Osiris fig-

ure), 340 (coffin panels), 341 (coffin), 342 (coffin), 465 (beadwork shroud and amulets), 576
(amulets), 590 (amulets), 718 (scarab of Ramesses II). Tomb 15 contained an original burial
of the Old Kingdom (ravaged by termites); more Old Kingdom pottery was found in tombs
19 and 24, along with a cylinder inscribed with the prenomen of Amenemhat III (Cecil,
ASAE 4, pp. 60–61, 66, 73). Two tombs contained oyster shells inscribed with the prenom-
en of Sesostris I (Cecil, ASAE 4, pp. 68, 72; the first is Cairo JE 36398, H. E. Winlock, “Pearl
Shells of Se™n-Wosret I,” Studies Presented to F.Ll. Griffith [London, 1932], pl. 62, no. 1; cf.
p. 391). Tomb 20 contained the intact burial of Mesenu’s son Heqaib, whose painted lime-
stone stele has been dated on stylistic grounds to the reign of Amenemhat I (Cairo JE
36420; ibid., pl. V; Rita E. Freed, “A Private Stela from Naga ed-Der and Relief Style of the
Reign of Amenemhet I,” in Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan: Essays
in Honor of Dows Dunham on the Occasion of His 90th Birthday, June 1, 1980, edited by
William Kelly Simpson and Whitney M. Davis [Boston, 1981], p. 76 and fig. 7 on p. 71).
17 J.C. Bennett, “Growth of the ¢tp-d¡-nsw Formula in the Middle Kingdom,” JEA 27
(1941), pp. 77–82.

18 CMA curatorial files. The Dynasty 18 date, though clearly mistaken, is interesting
nonetheless in view of the early Eighteenth Dynasty’s deliberate (and frequently even now
deceptive) archaism back to Dynasty 12, discussed by James F. Romano, “A Relief of King
Ahmose and Early Eighteenth Dynasty Archaism,” BES 5 (1983), pp. 103–15.
19 Rita E. Freed, “The Development of Middle Kingdom Relief: Sculptural Schools of Late
Dynasty XI, with an Appendix on the Trends of Early Dynasty XII (2040–1878 B.C.),” Ph.D.
diss., New York University, 1984, pp. 212–13.
20 Jean-Pierre Corteggiani, The Egypt of the Pharaohs at the Cairo Museum (London,
1987), no. 33; Werner Kaiser et al., “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine: 15./16. Grabungs-
bericht,” MDAIK 44 (1988), pl. 52.
98
perfectly almond-shaped eye with short diagonal line at the inner can- 21
thus, the modeling of the jawbone in relief, and incipient double chin.
Aswan was the scene of great activity under Sesostris I: the king rebuilt
the main temple of Satis, lady of Elephantine,
22
and his nomarch
Sarenput I the shrine of the deified Heqaib.
b
21 Sesostris I's double chin is commented on by C. Vandersleyen, “Objectvité des portraits
égyptiens,” BSFE 73 (1975), p. 9.
22 See Labib Habachi, “Building Activities of Sesostris I in the Area to the South of
Thebes,” MDAIK 31 (1975), pp. 27–31; Wolfgang Schenkel, “Die Bauinschrift Sesostris' I.
im Satet-Tempel von Elephantine,” MDAIK 31 (1975), pp. 109–25, pls. 33–39; Wolfgang
Helck, “Die Weihinschrift Sesostris' I. am Satet-Tempel von Elephantine,” MDAIK 34
(1978), pp. 69–78; Habachi, Heqaib, nos. 9–10, pp. 36-39; Kaiser et al., MDAIK 44, pp. 152–
57.
Fig. 4. Owl. Detail of stele of Shemai,

CMA 21.1017.
99
07 BOURRIAU Page 101 Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:40 PM
The Dolphin Vase from Lisht
Janine Bourriau
T
he monuments of el-Lisht, above all the Pyramid complex
of Amenemhet I, have long been of particular interest to Profes-
sor Kelly Simpson, stemming from the period when he worked
in the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Department of Egyptian Art. I
should like to offer him, with the collaboration of many past and present
members of the Department, a study of the Dolphin Vase, one of the
most beautiful and most well known objects from the cemetery around
Amenemhet I’s pyramid (fig. 1).1
Since the vase was discovered in 1921 it has been much discussed in
the literature,2 because it brings together dolphins, which are common
in Minoan art, and a vessel of Syro-Palestinian type found in a private
tomb in Egypt. The vase was dated by Kantor to the Thirteenth Dynasty
and used to correlate the ceramics-based chronologies of the Middle
Minoan III period in Crete and the Middle Bronze IIA–B of the Levant
with the Thirteenth Dynasty of Egypt.
The absolute date of the Twelfth Dynasty, upon which the date of
the Thirteenth Dynasty depends, was once thought to be one of the
most secure in Egyptian history. The recent debate,3 to a great extent
initiated by Professor Simpson’s entries in the Lexikon der Ägyptologie
on Sesostris II and Sesostris III,4 has changed this certainty irrevocably.
1 All of the following have contributed to the documentation and discussion which fol-
lows, although any errors remain my own: Susan Allen, James P. Allen, Dorothea Arnold,
Felix Arnold, Peter Dorman, Barry Girsh, Anne Heywood, Christine Liliquist, William
Schenck, Ray Slater, M.T. Wypyski. Inevitably and necessarily, the current project to pub-
lish the Lisht excavations is a team enterprise and I have benefited greatly from the range
and depth of specialized knowledge now available in the Department.
2 H.J. Kantor, in Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (Chicago, 1965), pp. 23–24, fig. 6;
W.C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt II (Cambridge, MA, 1959), pp. 12–13; B.J. Kemp and R.S.
Merrillees, Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt (Mainz, 1980), pp. 220–25; R.S.
Merrillees, “El-Lisht and Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware in the Archaeological Museum of the
American University of Beirut,” Levant 10 (1978), p. 83; P. Warren and V. Hankey, Aegean
Bronze Age Chronology (Bristol, 1989), pp. 135–37; Do. Arnold in Nancy Thomas, ed., The
American Discovery of Ancient Egypt. Essays (Los Angeles, 1996), p. 73, fig. 50.
3 R.Krauss, Sothis-und Mond-daten (Hildesheim, 1985); D. Franke, “Zur Chronologie des
Mittleren Reiches (12.–18. Dynastie),” Orientalia 57 (1988), pp. 113–38, 245–74 and
bibliography there cited.
4 LÄ 5, cols. 899–906.
Fig. 1. The Dolphin vase; Metropolitan Museum

of Art, 22.1.95. Rogers Fund and Edward S. Hark-
ness Gift, 1922.
Secondly, the shaft tomb, 879, in which the vase was found is not a
closed context; it contained at least three burials and the records of its
excavation do not tell us the precise location of the objects found or their
relationship to one another. For these reasons the Dolphin Vase cannot
be used to support uncritically synchronisms between Egypt, Palestine
and Crete, as in the past. A full discussion of its nature and its context
is long overdue, and only when these are available can the vase’s rele-
vance to a chronological debate be established. Merrillees5 was not able
to provide this only because he did not have full access to the Museum’s
archive and because considerable research on the vase has taken place
since he studied it.
5 In Kemp and Merrillees, Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt, pp. 220–25.
102
Janine Bourriau, The Dolphin Vase from Lisht
Fig. 2. Drawing of the Dolphin vase by Barry

Girsh. Courtesy of the Department of Egyptian
Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Description of the Dolphin Vase6

At first glance (figs. 1, 8), the Dolphin Vase stands apart from the classes
of Egyptian pottery found during the Middle Kingdom, which are now
well known.7 The vase8 measures 14.0 cm (preserved) height and 15.1
cm at maximum diameter on the shoulder. The vase originally had a flat
ring-foot, suggested by jugs of otherwise similar shape from Syria/
Palestine9 and this is confirmed by the burnishing marks, which change
from regular horizontal strokes to uneven oblique ones close to the base,
(fig. 2).
The Dolphin Vase was made in three stages on a wheel. It was sub-
jected to X-ray examination but visual inspection was more successful
in reconstructing the stages of manufacture. First the clay was pinched
6 See also Patrick E. McGovern, Janine Bourriau, Garman Harbottle, and Susan Allen,
“The Archaeological Origin and Significance of the Dolphin Vase determined by Neutron
Activation Analysis,” BASOR 296 (1994), pp. 31–41.
7 Do. Arnold, “Keramikbearbeitung in Dahschur 1976–1981,” MDAIK 38 (1982), pp. 25–
65; Do. Arnold, “The Pottery,” in D. Arnold, The Pyramid of Senwosret I (New York,
1988), pp. 106–146.
8 The rounded base added in plaster and shown by Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt II, fig. 4, is
incorrect and has now been removed.

9 R. Amiran, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land (Jerusalem, 1969), pl. 34, 7–8.
103
Fig. 3. The dolphins as arranged around the body

of the vase; drawing by Barry Girsh. Courtesy of
the Department of Egyptian Art, The Metro-
politan Museum of Art.
outwards, to form what would become the base; then the wheel was set
spinning and the walls of the juglet pulled upward and thinned. After the
juglet was allowed to dry somewhat, more clay was perhaps added and
the shoulder and neck formed on the wheel. The vessel was then al-
lowed to dry to the leather-hard stage, the excess clay was shaved down
and a ring base was modelled. Finally the folded-under rim and fillet at
the base of the neck were finished using a tool, and a three-coil loop
handle was added.
A multiplicity of techniques were used in decorating the vessel:
painting, burnishing, incising and filling. First the birds and then the
dolphins were painted on with a mixture of finely levigated clay colored
purplish-black (Munsell 2.5YR 2.5/2) using a manganese-iron pig-
ment.10 It is likely that the surface of the vessel was burnished before
10Analyzed by M.T. Wypyski of the Metropolitan Museum of Art using EDS Elemental
Analysis.
104
Fig. 4. The design of birds and dolphins, painting and again afterwards. The outlines and essential details of the
flattened out; drawing by Barry Girsh.
Courtesy of the Department of Egyptian
dolphins and birds were then incised into the painted shapes. Large areas
Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art. of the animals’ bodies were filled with punctate patterns made with
both a comb and a single point. After firing the incised and punctate
lines were filled in with a paste of white calcium carbonate.
There appears at first (figs. 3–4) to be no spatial relationship between
the dolphins and the birds, but when the design is flattened out, it
becomes clear that each dolphin is associated with three birds (male and
female with young?), while the tenth bird, which is much smaller, fills
the area below the handle. The birds have long necks and tails, erect
plump bodies and well defined toes, one apparently projecting back-
wards: these features suggest a wading bird of the stork, crane or heron
families, although a duck or goose remains most probable.
The fabric, as examined at 10x magnification, is a hard, dense,
extremely fine material with many fine mineral inclusions, sand and a
little fine straw. It was fired in an oxidizing atmosphere to a reddish yel-
low (Munsell 5YR 6/6–8). There are no examples of a similar fabric in
Egyptian pottery of the Middle Kingdom. Fabric, shape, technology and
decoration all place the vase unequivocally within the ceramic tradi-
tions of Syria/Palestine rather than Egypt.11
11 This is confirmed by the NAA results reported in the BASOR article, see note 6.
105
Comparanda
There are three vessels, two found in Egypt and one in Palestine, which
can be compared with the Dolphin Vase. The vase also needs to be con-
sidered in relationship to Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware, which shares some,
but not all of its techniques and motifs of decoration, and has a distribu-
tion which includes Syria/Palestine, Cyprus, Egypt, and Nubia in the
MBII–III periods.12
The first vessel is an undecorated juglet of comparable shape to the
Dolphin vase but less than half its size (fig. 5, top right). It comes from a
shaft tomb at Lisht, 907, close to 879.13 Inspection of the surface sug-
gests strongly that the fabric is not Egyptian, but without examination
of a fresh break, petrographic or elemental analysis, a closer identifica-
tion than to Syria/Palestine is not possible. Tomb 907 contained at least
five burials, to judge by the number of chambers, and the surviving ob-
jects and pottery suggest a late Thirteenth Dynasty date. But there is no
chance of reconstructing, however incompletely, original burial groups
since the physical relationship of objects with each other, as found, is
not recorded. Among the finds was a scarab of Mernefer-Re, twenty-
seventh king of the Thirteenth Dynasty, following von Beckerath,14 and
the last of that dynasty with monuments in both Upper and Lower
Egypt.
The second vessel, also found in Egypt, is from Abydos, E515 and is
now in the Ashmolean Museum, E. 250216 (fig. 6). It is not a precise par-
allel for the Dolphin vase, but it clearly belongs to the same ceramic tra-
dition. It is a jug, 17.0 cm (preserved) height and 13.0 cm at maximum
diameter, with a long neck, an “inner gutter lip,”17 a double handle and
a broad carinated body. The base is not preserved. It is carefully wheel
thrown (3.0 mm width of vessel wall) in two parts, a join at the base of
the neck is visible, and the surface has been equally skillfully burnished.
There are traces of red (Munsell 2.5 YR 4/6) pigment perhaps suggestive
of the motifs illustrated by Amiran.18 The fabric is very fine, hard and
12 M.F. Kaplan, The Origin and Distribution of Tell el Yahudiyeh Ware (Goteborg, 1980);
M. Bietak, “Archäologischer Befund und Historische Interpretation am Beispiel der Tell el-
Yahudiya-ware,” BSAK Band 2 (Hamburg, 1989), pp. 7–34.
13 The juglet, originally MMA 22.1.209, is now in the Museum of the Oriental Institute,
The University of Chicago.

14 J. von Beckerath, Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der zweiten Zwischen-
zeit in Ägypten, Ägyptologische Forschungen (Glückstadt/New York, 1965), pp. 251–52.

15 J. Garstang, El Arabah (London, 1901), pl. 29.
16 I am grateful to Dr. Helen Whitehouse for giving me permission to study this vessel and
publish it here. The drawing I owe to William Schenck.

17 Cf. MBIIA jugs in Amiran, op. cit., p. 106, photo 106, pl. 33, 6–7.
106
Fig. 5. Excavation photograph of juglets and

duck vase from shaft tomb 907. Scale
approximately 1:3. Photography by the
Egyptian Expeditions, The Metropolitan
Museum of Art.
dense with inclusions of fine sand, mica, red-brown and black rock par-
ticles. The section is a uniform reddish brown (Munsell 5YR 5/3) indi-
cating steady, well-controlled firing, and the surface, light reddish brown
(Munsell 5YR 6/3). Abydos E5 is not a closed context and the cemetery
map19 seems to show it as two adjoining shafts. The surviving objects,
pottery (Garstang, El Arabah, pl. XXIX); fertility figure (pl. XVII); wand
(pl. XIV) and unpublished ivory hairpins and stone fragments,20 all sup-
port a Thirteenth Dynasty date.
The third vessel is from Tell Beit Mirsim and is unpublished.21 What
remains is the complete shoulder of a juglet, broken at the base of the
neck and with the scar left by a single handle. It is wheel thrown, the
surface self-slipped and burnished. On the shoulder is a band showing
the heads and upper bodies (only one preserved) of birds(? ducks), the
foremost of which is pecking at a lotus flower. The motif has been clum-
sily incised over burnished, purplish-black pigment. It seems likely that
the technique is that of the Dolphin Vase in that the shapes were first
18 Ibid.,photograph 106.
19 Garstang, op. cit., pl. II.
20 Philadelphia University Museum, E. 6711–14, E. 9341–2.
21 The publication of this juglet and the Middle Bronze Age tomb, containing many
burials, in which it was found, is in the course of preparation by Dr. Sarah Ben Arieh. I am
extremely grateful to her for having the opportunity of examining the juglet during a visit
to Jerusalem in May, 1994.
107
Fig. 6. The jug from Abydos, Ashmolean

Museum E.2502; courtesy of the Ashmolean
Museum, Oxford (drawing by William Schenck).
painted and then outlined and details incised but there is no trace of fill-
ing in the lines with white paste. The style of incision is crude but the
shapes of the birds’ heads and necks closely resemble those on the Dol-
phin vase. The fabric of the juglet is fine and hard, with plentiful medi-
um (0.25–0.50 mm) sand particles. The surface is pitted where fine
mineral inclusions have burnt away. A scatter of fine red-brown and
white (limestone?) particles is visible. The fabric is coarser and more
sandy but otherwise appears similar to that of the Dolphin Vase.
These comparisons, while not detracting from the unique character
of the vase, serve to confirm, firstly, that it belongs to the ceramic tradi-
tions of Syria/Palestine rather than Egypt and secondly that comparable
vessels, albeit small in number, were finding their way into Egyptian
burials in Upper Egypt as well as into cemeteries close to the Residence.
A striking increase in imported pottery from the Syria/Palestine area has
been observed at Lisht itself during the Thirteenth Dynasty.22
108
Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware, which is very plentiful in the North Pyra-

mid cemetery,23 is characterized by jugs and juglets decorated in incised
and white filled designs on a black burnished surface. The black colour
is produced by firing in a reducing atmosphere, not by the application of
pigment as in the Dolphin Vase and this is an important difference. An-
other is the fact that the fabric of most of the Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware at
Lisht is made from a fine Nile alluvial clay, and it is, in my own view,
likely that, like most of the examples circulating in Egypt, it was made
there,24 probably at Tell el-Dab™a.25 At Kom Rabi™a, Memphis, for exam-
ple, in levels of comparable date, only one out of forty sherds was non-
Egyptian.
The structure of the design, which uses horizontal registers, and the
motifs, geometric patterns rather than figures, also differentiate most
Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware from the Dolphin Vase. However, two vessels
from Egypt, from Tell el-Dab™a26 and Dahshur,27 carry representations
of dolphins, albeit much more crudely incised. It has been argued that
the dolphins as depicted on the Lisht jug share mannerisms belonging to
Minoan fresco depictions.28 Minoan frescoes have now been found at
Tell el-Dab™a (without dolphins) but in contexts considerably later than
that of the Dolphin Vase.
The context of the Dolphin Vase

The dating of the shaft tomb 879 and its contents poses several prob-
lems. The nature of the evidence available from cemeteries like that
around the North Pyramid has been well described29 and to this have to
be added uncertainties arising from the interpretation of the excavator’s
records. We can rely on the fact that Mace, who recorded 879, omitted
nothing from his list of objects from the tomb, but he provides no infor-
mation on their deposition within chambers and shaft, so all we can do
22 D. Arnold, F. Arnold and S. Allen, “Canaanite imports at Lisht, the Middle Kingdom
Capital of Egypt,” Ägypten und Levante 5 (1995). I am grateful to the authors for showing
me the article in manuscript.
23 So much so that Merrillees has created a special stylistic sub-class which he calls “el-
Lisht” ware, R.S. Merrillees, “A Middle Cypriote III Tomb Group from Arpera Mosphilos,”
in Trade and Transcendence in the Bronze Age Levant (Goteborg, 1974), pp. 59–75.
24 This is also suggested by Kaplan’s analytical results. Most samples fell into the Nile
alluvium or Nile Mixture fabric class, see Kaplan, Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware, passim.
25 Bietak, op. cit., n. 12.
26 M. Bietak, Tell el-Dab™a V (Vienna, 1991), pp. 28–29, fig. 4.
27 Do. Arnold, “Zur Keramik aus dem Taltempelbereich der Pyramide Amenemhets III. in
Dahschur,” MDAIK 33 (1977), p. 21, pl. 4b.

28 McGovern et al., above n. 6, p. 32.
29 See n. 22, above.
109
is to look at each class of object in turn and assess its date range from
comparable material.
The shaft tomb 879 lay on the south side of the Pyramid underneath
the houses of the earliest settlement on the site, which respected the
enclosure wall. The location of 879 was rediscovered by Felix Arnold in
199130 but the interpretation of the relationships between houses and
shafts in this part of the site is not straightforward. The most significant
finding for our purposes is the possibility that the original burials could
have been contaminated by material, little later in date, from the
houses.
Objects from shaft tomb 879

Shaft tomb 879 contained at least one extremely rich burial, of the ¡my-
r †¢ntyw Db¢.n≠¡, the overseer of faience workers, Debeheni (fig. 7).31
The evidence for this lies in fragments of two coffins, one rectangular
and one anthropoid. None of the wood survives but remains of the eye
panel of a rectangular coffin (inlaid eyes and Egyptian blue inlays of
brows and markings) exist, together with scraps of gold foil from inscrip-
tions (in a script using mutilated hieroglyphs) and decoration from a
rectangular and an anthropoid coffin of Debeheni. The inscriptions will
be published in full in James P. Allen’s forthcoming volume on the fu-
nerary texts from Lisht.32 Allen (personal communication) dates the cof-
fins on the basis of texts and orthography33 to the reign of King Awibre
Hor, whose burial, with coffins, was found by de Morgan at Dahshur.34
King Hor is fourteenth king of Dynasty 13.35 Sufficient decorated frag-
ments of foil remain to suggest that a third anthropoid coffin or mask,
without a name, may have existed.
There is no reason to associate the Dolphin Vase with Debeheni’s
burial other than its unique character and quality but perhaps this is
enough given the wealth of that burial.
30 FelixArnold, personal communication.

31 Name: Ranke, Personennamen, p. 399,14. He is not attested in the Topographical
Bibliography files in Oxford; in G.T. Martin’s personal index of Middle Kingdom officials;
nor in Detlef Franke’s Personendaten (Personendaten aus dem Mittleren Reich [Wies-
baden, 1984]). At least one other example of the title is known in the Middle Kingdom,
(Stephen Quirke, personal communication).
32 They are referred to by Peter Dorman in D. Arnold, The Pyramid of Senwosret I (New
York, 1988), p. 147; see James P. Allen, The Funerary Texts from Lisht (New York, forth-
coming).
33 J. Bourriau, “Patterns of change in burial customs during the Middle Kingdom,” in
S. Quirke, ed., Middle Kingdom Studies (New Malden, 1991), p. 13.
34 J. de Morgan, Fouilles à Dahchour I, pp. 88–106.
35 J. von Beckerath, op. cit., (n. 14), pp. 234–35.
110
Fig. 7. Facsimile of the name and title on the

coffins in Lisht 879; courtesy James P. Allen.
The coffin provides us with a date around the middle of the Thir-
teenth Dynasty (following the position of King Hor suggested by von
Beckerath);36 can any of the other objects in the shaft tomb be given a
later date? Since we also have to consider whether there is evidence of
any use of the tomb prior to the mid-Thirteenth Dynasty, are there any
objects which must be dated earlier than that?
Pottery
The complete pottery group is shown in the excavation photographs in
figs. 8–9. The group may be subdivided into the following functional
groups: miniature pottery; tableware; and storage vessels. Among the
tableware, the group of Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware juglets, the Dolphin Vase
and the mysterious juglet (fig. 8), top, second from right, form a special
class.
Miniature pottery: fig. 9, top row, sixth and seventh
The vessels are carelessly made of Nile B2 fabric.37 They are typical of
funerary assemblages at Lisht. Senebtisi’s burial, which was found
intact,38 illustrates the complete set from a rich burial. Miniatures,
36 Inceramic terms this is ceramic complex 6 rather than 7 at Dahshur.

37 The Vienna System is used in all descriptions of Egyptian pottery fabrics, see H-Å.
Nordström and J. Bourriau, “Ceramic Technology: Clays and Fabrics” in D. Arnold and J.
Bourriau, eds., An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery (Mainz, 1993).
38 A.C. Mace and H.E. Winlock, The Tomb of Senebtisi at Lisht (New York, 1916), fig. 82,
2–14, 17–21.
111
Fig. 8. Excavation photograph of juglets and jug from shaft tomb 879. Photography by the
Egyptian Expeditions, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Fig. 9. Excavation photograph of Egyptian pottery from shaft tomb 879. Scale approxi-
mately 1:6. Photography by the Egyptian Expeditions, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
112
perhaps because they were for ritual rather than practical use, do not
evolve as rapidly as tableware, but as a class they are more common in
the Twelfth than the Thirteenth Dynasty.
Tableware: fig. 9, top row, first to third and last; middle row; bottom
row, second and third vessels
The cups, hemispherical and carinated, are probably of Nile B1;39 the
globular “yellow white” (excavator’s words) vessel, top row, third, is a
small jar, broken at the neck, of Marl A3 and is probably therefore an
import from Upper Egypt; the dishes, potstands and drop pots are Nile
B2;40 and the jug fragment in the middle row, is Marl C.41 There are no
exclusively Twelfth Dynasty types in this group. A mid-Thirteenth
Dynasty date would suit all except the cups and the jug. The vessel in-
dex42 of the hemispherical cup, second in top row, is very difficult to cal-
culate since, as the photograph clearly shows, the cup is strongly
asymmetrical. Using the 1:10 drawing on the tomb card, an index of 140/
142 can be calculated but this is too insecure a figure, and too close to
145, the boundary between early and advanced Dynasty 13 cups, to jus-
tify extending the group’s date on this basis alone. The flat-bottomed
cup appears to have the profile of a hemispherical cup with a a base cut
flat almost accidentally in trimming off the excess clay.43 A very close
match for it in profile curve and proportion of diameter to height among
the hemispherical cups, is MMA 22.1.159144 which has a vessel index
of 123, well into the advanced Thirteenth Dynasty. The jug fragment is
likely to be intrusive from the house since the type occurs in settle-
ments45 rather than in burials. Shaft tomb 896, where a complete jug
was found, contained domestic pottery from the houses.46
39 The fabric attributions are based on the excavator’s descriptions and photographs inter-
preted by the writer who has studied comparable pottery from Lisht, Dahshur and Mem-
phis, Riqqeh and Harageh.
40 The potstand, middle row, second, is described as “polished black.” Another example
from Lisht confirms that the potstand has been self-slipped and burnished before being
fired in a reducing atmosphere. A similar technique was used for the Egyptian made Tell
el-Yahudiyeh ware.
41 A complete vessel of this rare shape, also Marl C, was found in shaft tomb 896 and is
now in Chicago, Oriental Institute Museum (MMA 22.1.1525).

42 Arnold, “The Pottery” (see n. 7), pp. 135, 140.
43 The cup does not belong to the large class of flat-bottomed cups familiar from Tell el-
Dab™a. The base is not set off from the body and significantly, the cup is open with a slight-
ly flaring rim, not restricted.
44 Now in Chicago.
45 Kahun (W.M.F. Petrie, Kahun, Gurob and Hawara [London, 1890], pl. XII, 18) and
Memphis, Kom Rabi™a (unpublished).
113
Storage Vessels: fig. 9, bottom row, first and last

Only the base of the large jar remains so further dating is impossible.
The bulbous jar in Marl C has more to offer. A parallel for the rim but
not the body shape is provided by a jar from Dahshur, ceramic complex
6,47 and an even closer match from the burial of Senebtisi (Chicago
Oriental Museum, MMA 09.180.849). Senebetisi should now be placed
early in the Thirteenth Dynasty following the most recent review of the
evidence by the Arnolds,48 where it is stated that her shaft postdates a
house “probably dating to the Thirteenth Dynasty.”
Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware: fig. 8
The tomb card describes, without illustrating, “remains of 4 incised
Kahun49 pots. Upper part of a handled vase in polished red ware.” None
of these vessels can now be identified with confidence among the pot-
tery in the MMA or Chicago, so the photograph remains the only record
of them. The most complete example, to which the other three may,
despite their poor preservation, be related, can be assigned to Bietak’s
Piriform 1c type50 which occurs at Tell el-Dab™a from strata F to E/2 and
which, following Bietak, corresponds to the MBIIA/B transition and ear-
ly MBIIB.51
The small vessel broken off below the rim in the top row, is certainly
non-Egyptian. If the photograph is examined with a hand lens, the sur-
face appears to be burnished and pock-marked with large irregular min-
eral inclusions.52 The shape recalls juglets from Palestine of MBIIA
date53 of which one example is published from Dahshur.54
To sum up the pottery evidence: in my view, the pottery does not ex-
tend the date range in either direction beyond the dating provided by the
coffin, i.e., the Thirteenth Dynasty up to the reign of Awibre Hor. We
should allow a generation for the filling of the three chambers of the
tomb shaft. This dating depends upon accepting that later pottery types,
46 Including a large thick-walled trough in Nile C and part of an incised bread tray in
Marl C.
47 D. Arnold, “Keramikbearbeitung in Dahschur 1976–1981,” MDAIK 38 (1982), Abb.
19,1.
48 See n. 22, above.
49 Mace’s term for Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware following Petrie’s discovery of juglets at Kahun.
50 See Bietak, op. cit., (n. 12).
51 M. Bietak, “Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age,” BASOR 281 (1991), fig.3.
52 It is a tribute to the quality of the original excavation photograph that such observations
can be made. Arthur Mace was responsible for the photography at Lisht in the 1920s.
53 Amiran, op. cit., pl. 34, no. 17.
54 Arnold, op. cit., (n. 47), Abb. 13, 5.
114
such as the jug and possibly the flat based cup, are contamination from
the houses.
Stone vessels
There were fragments of at least eight stone vessels in the tomb, only
three of which were drawn on the tomb card. None was photographed.
Of the drawn vases, two were of alabaster and one of “white limestone”
and they can be typed to Aston 135; Aston 157; and Aston 161.55 The
date range of all these is given by Aston as Dynasty 12–13 and in the case
of 135 and 161, also Second Intermediate Period. The rest of the stone
vessels are described as “pieces of two large globular vases in alabaster,
pieces of two large kohl pots in alabaster, piece of a rim of a blue-marble
[blue anhydrite] vase.”
Objects of Faience and Egyptian Blue

None of these is illustrated or photographed. From the tomb cards: “frag-
ments of one or more glaze tiles; pieces of small dishes from a tile; pieces
of two or three glaze vases; lid of glaze vase 3.7cm in diameter; piece of
a lion(?) in blue paste [Egyptian blue]; pieces of glaze inlay.” Faience
models of food and offerings were common at Lisht56 as were small apo-
tropaic figures of lions. I have argued elsewhere that such grave goods be-
gin to appear in burials there from the late Twelfth Dynasty onwards.57
Beads
These are now located in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. They can be
typed to the corpus of beads made up by Brunton for the late Middle
Kingdom cemetery at Harageh,58 but it is noteworthy that among them
were beads from a flail such as that reconstructed from the tomb of
Senebtisi.59 This is yet another indication of the status of the burials in
shaft tomb 879.
It is necessary to sum up the evidence which a study of the context
of the Dolphin Vase provides, and to begin with dating. The jug does not
come from a closed group and we cannot, regrettably, say that it was part
of the burial equipment of Debeheni, but we can say that all the objects
(with the exception of the pottery discussed above) in the shaft tomb are
55 B.G. Aston, Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels, SAGA 5 (Heidelberg, 1994), pp. 138–39,
144, 147.
56 Hayes, op. cit., (n. 2), Part I, fig. 225.
57 Bourriau, op. cit., (n. 33), pp. 11–20.
58 R. Engelbach, Harageh (London, 1923), pls. 50–53.
59 Mace and Winlock, op. cit., (n. 38), p. 16, fig. 7.
115
consistent with burials of the early Thirteenth Dynasty up to the reign

of King Awibre Hor. Given the current chronological debates, I am
reluctant to suggest absolute dates for Hor but von Beckerath places him
around 1760 b.c.
The context provides much more than a date, +/– 20 years. It pro-
vides a setting for the vase which includes a rich, high status burial and
a group of pottery which contains one other actual import and 4 vessels
of Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware. The Dolphin Vase remains unique but it
must be seen as contributing to the sudden increase in Canaanite pot-
tery which is visible in the first half of the Thirteenth Dynasty60 at
Lisht. The contemporary expansion of Tell el-Dab™a as an entry point for
Canaanite goods and people offers a ready explanation.
One final point concerns the burial of Debeheni. It may seem sur-
prising that such a rich burial should be provided for an “overseer of
faience-workers.” His own and many other late Middle Kingdom burials
at Lisht attest to the number and importance, in ritual terms, of faience
objects. There are apotropaic figures of dwarves, lions, and hippos, fertil-
ity figurines, miniature vessels, model food offerings, cosmetic jars, in-
lays for coffins and a whole corpus of beads. Preparing such funerary
assemblages must have been a major activity61 and provided for the of-
ficial in charge of the workshops an opportunity to ensure, like the
workmen at Deir el-Medineh, that his own burial was as well equipped
as any.
b
60 See n. 22.
61 There is evidence of faience working close to shaft 879, but its date is not certain.
116
08 BROVARSKI Page 117 Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:42 PM
An Inventory List from “Covington’s

Tomb” and Nomenclature for Furniture
in the Old Kingdom
Edward Brovarski
S
eventy-five years ago Battiscombe Gunn commented on the
inadequacy of our lexical knowledge of ancient Egyptian.1 More
recently Janssen, in his masterly study of the economy at the
Ramesside village of Deir el-Medineh, remarks that “lexicographical
studies and special vocabularies are among the most urgent needs for the
2
progress of egyptology.” Although the last few decades have witnessed
the appearance of a number of monographs and works of broader scope
3
that have extended considerably our lexical knowledge, a great deal
4
remains to be done.
1 Battiscombe Gunn, “The Egyptian Word for ‘short’,” RecTrav 39 (1920), p. 101.
2 Jac.J. Janssen, Commodity Prices from the Ramessid Period (Leiden, 1975), p. 3.
3 A few such publications which come readily to mind are Ricardo A. Caminos, Late-
Egyptian Miscellanies (London, 1954); Hildegard von Deines and Hermann Grapow,
Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Drogennamen (Berlin, 1959); Elmar Edel, “Zu den Inschriften
auf den Jahreszeitenreliefs der “Weltkammer” aus dem Sonnenheiligtum des Niuserre,”
NAWG 8 (1961); 4–5 (1964); J.R. Harris, Lexicographical Studies in ancient Egyptian
Minerals (Berlin, 1961); Wolfgang Helck, Materialien zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des
Neuen Reiches, pts. 1–6 (Wiesbaden, 1961–69), with Inge Hoffman, Indices zu W. Helck,
Materialien zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Neuen Reiches (Mainz, 1970); Ingrid Gamer-
Wallert, Fische und Fischkulte im alten Ägypten (Wiesbaden, 1970); Hildegard von Deines
and Wolfhart Westendorf, Wörterbuch der medizinischen Texte, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1961–62);
Janssen, Commodity Prices; Hartwig Altenmüller, “Das Ölmagazin im Grab des Hesire in
Saqqara (QS 2405),” SAK 4 (1976), pp. 1–29; Rosemarie Drenkhahn, Die Handwerker und
ihre Tätigkeit im Alten Ägypten (Wiesbaden, 1976); Dimitri Meeks, Année Lexico-
graphique, 3 vols. (Paris, 1977–1982) (hereafter AL); Gérard Charpentier, Recueil de
materiaux épigraphiques relatifs à la botanique de l’Egypte Antique (Paris, 1981);
Nathalie Baum, Arbres et arbustes de l’Egypte ancienne (Leuven, 1988).
4 In addition to the specific acknowledgments in footnotes of the present article, I would
like to thank Dr. James P. Allen and Prof. Janet H. Johnson for sharing their expertise with
me in a number of particulars. The latter, moreover, very agreeably looked up a number of
words on my behalf in the files of the Chicago Demotic Dictionary Project (hereafter
CDD). I am also indebted to my wife, Del Nord, and an old friend and colleague, Elizabeth
Sherman, for editing and considerably improving the manuscript. Finally, Dr. Peter Der
Manuelian spent long hours, above and beyond the call of duty as editor of the present
volume, scanning and formatting the numerous figures that accompany this article and
compiling Table 1.
In the course of an illustrious career in which he has made sig-

nificant contributions to practically every branch of Egyptology—
archaeology, art, history, philology, and so on—Kelly Simpson has
shown a lively interest in lexicography, as demonstrated especially in
5
the four volumes of Papyrus Reisner. Inasmuch as he has also published
one of the offering lists that form the focus of the current article in a
6
volume of the Giza Mastaba series initiated by him, I hope he will find
the present study of interest. It is dedicated to him with heartfelt
appreciation for more than twenty years of friendship, inspiration, and
7
encouragement.
In the files of the Department of Ancient Egyptian, Nubian, and
Near Eastern Art in Boston is a drawing in pencil on aging brown paper
8
of an inventory list of offerings (fig. 1). Someone has written in pencil
on the lower corner of the sheet “Covington’s Tomb.” William Steven-
son Smith refers to the penciled note and discusses the offering list in
9
his study of Old Kingdom sculpture and painting. We quote him at
length:
This [the note] would seem to refer to the large panelled brick mastaba exca-
vated by Dow Covington and Mr. Quibell on a high point in the ridge south-
east of the Third Pyramid. This tomb was probably of the reign of
Khasekhemuwy, but Covington also uncovered a few other pits and even a
stone mastaba which is certainly as late as Dyn. IV, if not later. No one has any
recollection, apparently, of the finding of a painted wall in any of these tombs,
and it is uncertain whether it came from a chapel or a burial-chamber. Never-
theless the possibility that it may have come from the great panelled mastaba
is further strengthened by inner evidence in the list itself. It is in the form of
an early compartment list containing garments (including an unusual one
called wnß determined by a wolf and apparently implying that the garment
was made of wolf skin), furniture, granaries, food, and drink. This type of com-
partment list is very rare after the reign of Cheops, and is characteristic of the
transition period Dyn. III–IV. Its most elaborate form is exemplified by the
whole east wall of the corridor of Hesi-ra. Therefore it would form a suitable
part of the decoration of a mastaba of the end of Dyn. II. Another early detail
is that the thousand sign is painted yellow instead of the green which became
more common later for all plant forms, basket work, &c., which were often
yellow in early paintings.
5 William Kelly Simpson, Papyrus Reisner I–IV, 4 vols. (Boston, 1963–1986).

6 Idem, Mastabas of the Western Cemetery: Part 1 (Boston, 1980), p. 35, pl. 61a, fig. 47; see
number (17) in the list of monuments on pp. 127ff. below.
7 The second part of this article, on the nomenclature of boxes and chests, is scheduled to
appear in the Festschrift for another distinguished scholar, Prof. Edward F. Wente.
8 I should like to thank to Dr. Rita E. Freed, Curator of Ancient Egyptian, Nubian, and Near
Eastern Art, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, for permission to publish the list from
“Covington’s Tomb.” Mr. Nicholas Thayer redrew the pencil sketch in ink for publication.
9 A History of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old Kingdom, 2nd ed. (London,
1949), p. 141 (hereafter HESP).
118
Edward Brovarski, An Inventory List from “Covington’s Tomb” and Nomenclature for Furniture in the Old Kingdom
Fig. 1. Inventory offering list

from “Covington’s Tomb.”
The ridge referred to by Smith rises from the plain about half a mile
south of the Great Pyramid, above the Muslim cemetery and a group of
trees which, according to Petrie, was a well-known landmark in many
10
pictures taken at the turn of the century. The rock ridge runs south for
half a mile and, again as noted by Petrie, is riddled with tombs, especial-
ly at its southern end. Covington and Quibell excavated the great brick-
built mastaba on the top of the ridge in 1902–3, but the mastaba known
10 W.M. Flinders Petrie, Gizeh and Rifeh (London, 1907), p. 1.
119
today as “Covington’s Tomb” was already marked on the plan of

11
Lepsius. Covington and Quibell opened and traced round the mastaba,
12
and the former’s 1905 report is illustrated with plans and a section.
Petrie investigated the great mastaba, which was designated
“Mastaba T” by him, in 1906–7, discovering hundreds of fragments of
stone vessels in its subterranean chambers, stone balls (or marbles) for a
13
game, a beautifully polished chert object, and model tools of copper.
Although no royal name was recovered, Petrie thought that the general
arrangement and position of the chambers beneath the mastaba were of
the same basic type as the Third Dynasty mastabas uncovered by
14
Garstang at Beit Khallaf. He also noted that the mastaba had the same
type of all-round panelling as did the mastabas of early Dyn. 1, there be-
ing fourteen bays and fifteen projections in the length and seven bays
15
and eight projections in the width.
On the east side of Mastaba T, Petrie also cleared around a “large
stone platform,” of which the basement of the walls of the superstruc-
16
ture remained. A pit in the middle was cleared but led to nothing.
Seeing Covington’s Tomb/Giza Mastaba T as the last example of a
palace-facade mastaba with elaborate panelling on all four sides, Reisner
dated it to the reign of Khasekhemui—that is, to the beginning of the
17
archaeological group characteristic of Dyn. 3.
Henri Frankfort noted the unsuitability of all-round niching in the
palace-facade mastabas of Dyns. 1–2 to the requirements of the offering
cults, in that the arrangement afforded no real focus for the funerary cer-
18
emonies. The offerings were presumably deposited at one of the great
19
doors of the panelling immediately opposite the body. Succeeding gen-
erations of Egyptians sporadically distinguished the second niche from
11 Carl Richard Lepsius, Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, 12 vols. (Berlin, 1849–
56), 1, pl. 14 (hereafter LD I/II); see Petrie, Gizeh and Rifeh, p. 7. See also the plan of the
pyramids of Giza in Karl Baedeker, Egypt and the Sûdân, 8th rev. ed. (Leipzig, 1929),
between pp. 122–23. The mastaba appears as well on the isometric drawing of the Giza
plateau in Mark Lehner, “Excavations at Giza 1988–1991,” Oriental Institute News and
Notes 135 (Fall, 1992), fig. 1.
12 Dow Covington, “Mastaba Mount Excavations,” ASAE 6 (1905), pp. 193–218.
13 Gizeh and Rifeh, pp. 7–8, pls. 3 A, 4, 6 D, E.
14 Ibid., p. 7. For the Beit Khallaf mastabas, see John Garstang, Mahasna and Bêt Khallâf
(London, 1901), pls. 7 and 18.

15 Petrie, Gizeh and Rifeh, pp. 7–8, pl. 7.
16 Ibid., p. 7, pl. 3 A. From its location in front of Covington’s Tomb/Mastaba T, Petrie
(ibid., p. 8) concluded that the stone platform might have been the base of a stone temple
for the “king” buried in the mastaba.
17 George Andrew Reisner, The Development of the Egyptian Tomb down to the
Accession of Cheops (Cambridge, MA, 1936), p. 248.
18 Henri Frankfort, “The Origin of Monumental Architecture in Egypt,” AJSL 58 (1941),
pp. 349–50.
120
the south in some way—by adding a wooden flooring or a projecting

entrance—and ultimately by the withdrawal of the niche into the body
20
of the mastaba and its expansion into an internal chapel. Such a chapel
would indeed be the logical place for a painted offering list, protected
from the weather as it would be, but “Covington’s Tomb” lacks any
such arrangement.
Cognizant of this difficulty, Smith says: “it is uncertain whether it
came from a chapel or a burial-chamber.” Since the earliest examples of
the practice of decorating the walls of the burial chamber date to a much
later period, namely to the end of the Fifth Dynasty, such a location can
21
probably be safely excluded from consideration.
Smith observed that the type of inventory list represented in the
Boston drawing is characteristic of the transition period of Dyn. 3–4, but
22
is very rare after the reign of Cheops. He therefore felt that the list
would form a suitable part of the decoration of a mastaba of the end of
Dyn. 2. In support of this early date, he further observed that the thou-
sand sign is painted yellow instead of the green which became more
common later for all plant forms, basketwork, etc., which were often
yellow in early paintings.
Unfortunately, Smith provided no documentation for the last asser-
tion, nor am I able to substantiate it with reference to his appendix on
the coloring of Old Kingdom hieroglyphs, which incorporates evidence
from the tombs of Khabausokar, Hathor-nefer-hetep, Nefermaat, Atet,
23
and Rahotep. According to Murray, the thousand sign in the niche of
24
Hathor-nefer-hetep is green, as are those in Rahotep and Wepemnofret,
although the sign in the slab-stele of Nefert-iabet has a yellow leaf and
25
a red base and stem. In the only archaic niche-stone with well-pre-
served paint to which I have access, that of Imet from Saqqara, the leaf
26
is yellow, the stem red, and the rhizome black with green roots.
19 George A. Reisner, “The History of the Egyptian Mastaba,” in Mélanges Maspero 1
(Cairo, 1934), p. 580.

20 See W.M. Flinders Petrie, G.A. Wainwright, and A.H. Gardiner, Tarkhan I and
Memphis V (London, 1913), p. 13, pls. 15 [2], 18; W.M. Flinders Petrie, Tarkhan II (London,
1914), p. 4, pl. 18; cf. Frankfort, “Monumental Architecture,” pp. 351–52.
21 George Andrew Reisner, A History of the Giza Necropolis, vol. 2, completed and revised
by William Stevenson Smith (Cambridge, MA, 1955), p. 57 (hereafter Reisner–Smith,

GN 2); Klaus Baer, Rank and Title in the Old Kingdom (Chicago, 1960), pp. 126, 293 [455];
133, 293 [479].
22 HESP, p. 141.
23 HESP, pp. 366–82.
24 Margaret A. Murray, Saqqara Mastabas 1 (London, 1904), pl. 42.
25 HESP, pp. 374, 378 [M 12].
121
Moreover, later examples of the inventory offering list do exist, for

instance, numbers (11)–(23) in the following list of monuments, and
there is other evidence to suggest that the list from “Covington’s Tomb”
is not so early in date as Smith thought.
First, the list uses a later form of the determinative for mantles or
mantle-like garments. In the early lists—Kha-bau-sokar (3), Hathor-
nefer-hetep (4), Irensen (7), Metjen (8), and Rahotep (9)—and in the pic-
ture list on the eastern wall of the painted corridor of Hesyre, the deter-
minative is , , , or the like. In the later lists from G 4260 (12)
and anon. (13), those of Izi (14) and Setju (17), and the list preserved in
27
Boston, the mantles are determined by .
Second, the term £†t “bed” (a) in the list from “Covington’s Tomb”
otherwise first appears in the furniture list from anon. (13) from the
28
reign of Shepseskaf. Earlier the word for bed was st(-n-)∞t (g).
Moreover, as a rule in the Fourth Dynasty, the grain lists consist of
29
ßm™w, m¢w, bdt, zwt, and bß£. Dates (bnr) and the so-called “earth
30
almonds” (w™¢) are also common, and likewise appear in the list from
31
“Covington’s Tomb” along with an unknown grain or fruit, tßw(?).
In addition, in the list from “Covington’s Tomb,” the thousand-sign
has two distinct forms. While the leaf is usually turned forward, in two
instances it turns upward. In our corpus, the earliest instance of the sign
with leaf turned forward occurs in the slab-stele of Seshat-sekhentiu (11)
from the reign of Khufu. Both versions of the sign appear in the other
32
slab-steles. The upright leaf reappeared sporadically in the course of
33
the Old Kingdom, but from then on the forward facing leaf was usual.
Finally, the last entry in the Covington Tomb list is ¡∞t nb(t) bnrt rn-
pwt ¢nkw(t) nbt, “everything sweet, vegetables, and all donations.”
While this entry occurs in none of the early inventory lists, i∞t nbt bnrt
is a commonplace in the great ritual offering list of the Old Kingdom
26 W. Stevenson Smith, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt (Baltimore, 1958),
pl. 13. There exists in Boston an aquarelle made by Joseph Lindon Smith in 1938–39, when
the stela was on deposit in “Emery’s magazine” at Saqqara.
27 In the panel of Nedji (6), m£st is determined by an earlier form of the determinative and
b£ Ím™w with the later.

28 The letters in parentheses refer to the lettering of the items of furniture in the discus-
sion below, pp. 130ff.

29 Winfried Barta, Die altägyptische Opferliste (Berlin, 1963), p. 45.
30 The tubers of Cyperus esculentus L.; see Elmar Edel, Die Felsengräber der Qubbet el
Hawa bei Aswan II/1/2 (Wiesbaden, 1970), p. 22 [7].

31 Cf. Adolf Erman and Hermann Grapow, eds. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache 5
vols. (Berlin, 1926–31), 5, p. 329, 17 (hereafter Wb. 1–5).

32 George Andrew Reisner, A History of the Giza Necropolis 1 (Cambridge, MA, 1942),
pls. 17–20 and 57 (hereafter Reisner, GN 1).

33 Henry George Fischer, Ancient Egyptian Calligraphy (New York, 1988), p. 33 [M 12].
122
34
from the end of the Fourth Dynasty. Slightly earlier ¡∞t nbt bnrt rnpwt
nbt ¢nkwt appears on the south wall of the chapel of Khufukhaf I and on
35
the sarcophagus of Minkhaf, both sons of Khufu.
If, as internal evidence seems to indicate, the copy of the list in
Boston is at least as late as the Fourth Dynasty, it obviously could not
have come from the structure known as “Covington’s Tomb.” What
then are we to make of the label on the drawing? Smith notes that Dow
Covington also uncovered a few other pits and a stone mastaba which
certainly dates to Dyn. 4 or later. “No one had any recollection of the
finding of a painted wall in any of these tombs,” wrote Smith, yet it is
not impossible that the original offering list whose copy is now pre-
served in Boston came from the stone mastaba. Covington places this
nearly denuded structure just 11 meters to the east of the great mastaba
that bears his name, describing it as a “large bluish-grey stone mastaba
36
(about 28 x 12 metres) excavated by Mariette,” and again as “a large
37
mastaba built of immense blocks of oyster-filled limestone.” This
mastaba is presumably identical with the “large stone platform” on the
east side of “Covington’s Tomb/Mastaba T” excavated by Petrie.
If the fragmentary compartment list does not derive from the stone
mastaba, it may have been found in or near one of the other four mas-
tabas referred to by Covington, about which he unfortunately provides
38
no details.
In his exhaustive study of offering lists, Prof. Barta distinguished
two types, the ritual offering list (“Ritualopferliste”) and the inventory
39
offering list (“Inventaropferliste”). Whereas the former preserves the
ritual of the funerary offering cult, the latter enumerates the household
effects and other equipment which might be of utility in the next world.
Barta’s inventory offering list corresponds to Reisner’s “old compart-
40
ment list.” As Smith notes, the so-called “cupboard list” covering the
whole east wall of the corridor in the tomb of Hesyre represents the
most extensive exemplar of the inventory offering lists but, as fate
would have it, the captions inscribed at the top of the wall have largely
34 Hermann Junker, Gîza, 12 vols. (Vienna, 1929–1955), 1, p. 258; Barta, Opferliste, p. 43;
Selim Hassan, Excavations at Gîza, 10 vols. (Oxford, 1932; Cairo, 1936–60), 6, pt. 2, pls. 7–
12, 16, 32, 40.
35 William Kelly Simpson, The Mastabas of Kawab, Khafkhufu I and II (Boston, 1978),
fig. 31; W. Stevenson Smith, “The Coffin of Prince Min-khaf,” JEA 19 (1933), pl. 22.
36 Covington, “Mastaba Mount,” p. 193; cf. p. 194.
37 Ibid., p. 196.
38 Ibid., p. 193. He does refer to objects and fragments of 4th, 5th, and 6th Dynasty, as well
as 1st, 3rd, and 26th Dynasty, date (ibid., p. 194).

39 Barta, Opferliste, pp. 7–8.
40 GN 1, pp. 332–34.
123
41
been lost. More complete offering lists include food and drink, linen,
unguents and perfumes, mantles, metal utensils, stone vessels, house-
42
hold furnishings, and on occasion, woodworking tools (14, 23). Ra-
hotep (9) adds to these board games, a ewer and basin for hand-washing,
a beaded collar, a staff and scepter, and another item of uncertain iden-
43
tity. Kayemankh (23) also has a new class of objects that did not appear
in the older lists—a whole dockyard of ships and boating equipment.
In general, the elaborate system of compartition used by Khabau-
sokar (3) and Hathor-nefer-hetep (4) was not followed, and an entry nor-
mally consisted of only two compartments with the name of the object
above and the thousand-sign below. Far rarer is the wide compartment
with a heading that specifies the nature of the several objects below, pro-
vides an indication of the material from which they were made or, in the
case of pottery or metal vessels, identifies their contents (21). Equally
uncommon is a separate compartment for the determinative (12). The
Boston list is unique in the present corpus in placing the thousand sign
within the same compartment as the named item, while the lists of
Senenu (19, 20) set determinative and thousand-sign side by side in a
smaller compartment below the compartment with the name of the
item. Grain ricks labeled with their contents and offerings of oxen and
fowl are frequently shown in a register beneath the compartment list,
although on occasion, both ricks and offerings have compartments of
their own (9, 12, 17, 18).
Reisner, writing in 1942 when the evidence for the inventory offer-
ing list at Giza was rather more limited than at present, assumed that
Seshemnofer I (21) had copied the list on the east wall of his chapel from
older slab-steles, some of which were then still visible in the necro-
44
polis. The material available today (15–21) suggests rather an unbro-
ken (if not always uniform) development until about the the middle of
the Fifth Dynasty (21, 22). Thereafter the inventory offering list does
41 J.E. Quibell, The Tomb of Hesy (Cairo, 1913), pls. 6, 7 [1], 10–22.
42 Cf. Barta, Opferliste, pp. 8–9.
43 Cf. Barta, Opferliste, p. 37. The board games (mn, m¢n, znt) are not considered in the
present article, as they have been the subject of much discussion in recent years; see, e.g.,
Timothy Kendall, Passing through the Netherworld: The Meaning and play of senet, an
ancient Egyptian funerary game (Belmont, MA, 1978), p. 3, n. 1; idem, “Schlangenspiel,”
LÄ 5 (1985), cols. 653–55; idem, “Mehen: The Ancient Egyptian Game of the Serpent,”
(forthcoming British Museum publication); Edgar B. Pusch, Das Senet-Brettspiel im Alten
Ägypten 1 (Munich, 1979); idem, “Senet,” LÄ 5 (1985), cols. 851–55; Peter A. Piccione,
“Mehen, Mysteries, and Resurrection from the Coiled Serpent,” JARCE 27 (1990), pp. 43–
52; idem, “The Historical Development of the Game of Senet and its Significance for Egyp-
tian Religion,” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1990).
44 GN 1, pp. 332–33.
124
seem to fall out of favor, except for a brief revival in the so-called
“Gerätekammer” of Kayemankh (23).
The beginning of the compartment list in Boston is lost. Traces in-
dicate five or more original registers, of which four remain. The first sur-
viving register is damaged, but clearly contains part of a linen list,
followed by a list of mantles, a furniture list, and eight grain ricks. It is
the last compartment that contains the phrase ¡∞t nb(t) bnrt rnpwt
¢nkw(t) nbt. The individual entries are as follows.
x+1 [...] 45
x+2 ßzpt “ßzpt-linen.” This46type of cloth does not otherwise
appear in the linen-lists.
x+3 [...]
x+4 [...]
x+5 [ . . . ] “[ . . . ]-mantle”
x+6 [ . . . ] “[ . . . ]-mantle” 47
x+7 [∞]sd∂ “canine-skin
48
mantle”
49 50
x+8 wnß “wolf- or jackal -skin 51
(mantle)”
x+9 ∂srw “ornamental casket”
x + 10 ¢£-∞t “plain box”
x + 11 £†(w?)t “bed”(a)
45 Henry G. Fischer, “Varia Aegyptiaca,” JARCE 2 (1963), p. 25; idem, “A Group of Sixth
Dynasty Titles Relating to Ptah and Sokar,” JARCE 3 (1964), p. 26 and n. 15; idem, “Notes,
Mostly Textual, on Davies’ Deir el Gebrâwi,” JARCE 13 (1976), p. 11. The word is in
palimpsest, traces of a previous text remaining visible.
46 See, e.g., William Stevenson Smith, “The Old Kingdom Linen List,” ZÄS 71 (1935), pp.
139–49; Elmar Edel, “Beiträge zum ägyptischen Lexikon VI: Die Stoffbezeichnungen in
den Kleiderlisten des Alten Reiches,” ZÄS 102 (1975), pp. 13–30.
47 Ósd∂ is to be found in the compartment lists of Kha-bau-sokar, Hathor-nefer-hetep, and
Izi, in the Covington Tomb list, on the coffin of Minkhaf (Smith, “Min-khaf,” p. 154,
pl. 24), and in the false door panel of Sneferu-seneb (Reisner, GN 1, pl. 57b). The latest of
these monuments, and also the last cited, belongs to the mid-Fourth Dynasty or the early
Fifth (Baer, Rank and Title, pp. 125, 293 [451]; Yvonne Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian
Tombs of the Old Kingdom [London and New York, 1987], p. 269). Ósdd (the younger form
of ∞sd∂ ) serves to designate a member of the zoological genus Canis in Pap. Jumilhac XII
16 and XV 9 (W. Westendorf, in Edel, “Beiträge zum ägyptischen Lexikon VI,” p. 30, 2.
Nachtrag).
48 Wb. 1, 324, 16; Wilhelm Spiegelberg, Koptisches Handwörterbuch (Heidelberg, 1921),
p. 274 (hereafter KoptHWb); David Paton, Animals of Ancient Egypt (Princeton and Lon-
don, 1925), p. 21; AL 1 (1977), p. 91; 2 (1978), p. 98; 3 (1979), p. 70.
49 Raymond O. Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian (Oxford, 1962), p. 63
(hereafter FCD); Caminos, Late-Egyptian Miscellanies, p. 538; Janssen, Commodity

Prices, pp. 178–79; Lothar Störk, “Wolf,” LÄ 6 (1986), col. 1285.
50 Wnß occurs in the tomb of Hesyre (Tomb of Hesy, pl. 19). Subsequently the term is found
in the mantle-list of Izi and in that on the panel of Sneferu-seneb (n. 47). In the Boston list,
the word is determined by a standing canine. At Beni Hasan two wnß and two z£b are
shown in a hunt scene (Percy E. Newberry, Beni Hasan 2 [London, 1894], pl. 4). The former
pair of animals is larger than the latter. If z£b is “jackal” (Wb. 3, 420, 5–13), then wnß is
probably “wolf,” since wolves are the largest members of the genus Canis with the excep-
tion of some varieties of domestic dogs (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1956 ed., s.v. “Wolf.”).
51 For the ∂srw chest and ¢£-∞t box, see the publication cited in n. 7 above.
125
x + 12 wsr (sic) “headrest” (b). The exceptional orthography of wrs as

˙é
¡ , with the head and neck of a canine, is paralleled by the
spelling of ∂sr as ∂rs in the two lists of Senenu (19–20), with the
bundle of flax stems as p , p3
†
x + 13 gst “two-legged backrest” (j) 52
x + 14 ¡t-ßm™w “Upper Egyptian barley”53
x + 15 ¡t-m¢w “Lower 54
Egyptian barley”
x + 16 bdt “emmer”55
x + 17 zwt “wheat” 56
x + 18 b[ß£] “b[ß£]-grain”
57
x + 19 bnr “dates”
x + 20 w™¢ “earth almond(s)”
x + 21 ∞t nbt bnrt “everything sweet”
x + 22 rnpwt “vegetables”
x + 23 ¢nkt nbt “and all donations”
Several other categories of objects contained in the inventory offer-
ing lists are to be found already in earlier steles, but the furniture list
only appears at the very end of the Second Dynasty in the stele of Satba
58
from Helwan (1).
In the two early furniture lists of Satba and Ni-djefa-nesut (2), items
of furniture are represented by ideograms unaccompanied by the phono-
grams which would indicate the precise word intended. Satba shows a
small box with a round handle at the top and a stool(?), while Ni-djefa-
nesut has a double column headrest (c), a small rectangular box, and a
vaulted box. In addition, in the list of Merib from the end of Dyn. 4 or
early Dyn. 5 (16), ideograms of a stem-type headrest (c) and a bed (a or g)
signify the objects depicted, but the other furniture lists spell out the
names of the individual items.
52 Wb. 1, 142, 14; A.H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1947), 2,
p. 221* (hereafter AEO); cf. Renate Müller-Wollermann, “Die sogenannte Ober- und
Unterägyptische Gerste,” VA 3 (1987), pp. 39–41.
53 Wb. 1, 142, 13; Henri Wild, “Gerste,” LÄ 2 (1976), col. 554.
54 AEO 2, pp. 221*–23*, 279*; Edel, “Inschriften auf den Jahreszeitenreliefs,” NAWG 5
(1963), pp. 201–202.

55 Wb. 3, 426, 12–17; AEO 2, pp. 222*–23*; William J. Darby, Paul Ghalioungui, and Louis
Grivetti, Food: The Gift of Osiris, 2 vols. (London, 1977), 2, pp. 490–91; Helck, Materi-
alien, pp. 400, 632, 693.
56 See W.W. Struve, Mathematischer Papyrus des Staatlichen Museums der schönen
Künste in Moskau (Berlin, 1930), pp. 60ff.; AEO 2, pp. 223*–25*; Charles F. Nims, “The
Bread and Beer Problems of the Moscow Mathematical Papyrus,” JEA 44 (1958), pp. 60–64;
Henri Wild, “Brasserie et panification au tombeau de Ti,” BIFAO 64 (1966), p. 98 with n. 2;
Qubbet el Hawa II/1/2, p. 22 [9].
57 See Ingrid Wallert, Die Palmen im Alten Ägypten (Berlin, 1962), pp. 33ff.; Renate
Germer, Flora des pharaonischen Ägypten (Mainz am Rhein, 1985), pp. 232–34.
58 Barta, Opferliste, p. 24.
126
The following is a chronological ordering of all the furniture lists of

59
which I am aware. Since the captions over the objects are destroyed,
the “cupboard list” of Hesyre is excluded.
(1) Satba, niche stone, Helwan tomb no. 1241 H 9; Zaky Y. Saad, Ceiling Stelae
in Second Dynasty Tombs from the Excavations at Helwan (Cairo, 1947),
p. 41, no. 20, pl. 24; end of Dyn. 2, Barta, Opferliste, p. 24.
(2) Ni-djefa-nesut, niche stone, in Hannover, No. 1935, 200, 46; Kestner
Museum, Hannover, Ausgewählte Werke der Aegyptischen Sammlung (Han-
nover, 1958), cat. no. 12; first half of Dyn. 3, Barta, Opferliste, pp. 30–31.
(3) Kha-bau-sokar, stone-lined niche from Saqqara, in Cairo, CG 1385; Murray,

Saqqara Mastabas 1, pl. 1; temp. Djoser, see Nadine Cherpion, “Le Mastaba
de Khabausokar (MM A 2): problèmes de chronologie,” OLP 11 (1980), pp. 79–
90.
(4) Hathor-nefer-hetep, wife of (3), stone-lined niche from Saqqara, in Cairo,

CG 1386–1388; Murray, Saqqara Mastabas 1, pl. 2.
(5) Sisi, niche stone, Helwan tomb no. D. H 6 ; Saad, Ceiling Stelae, pp. 46–48,
no. 23, pl. 27; late Dyn. 3, Barta, Opferliste, pp. 35, 156.
(6) Nedji, wooden panel from offering niche; Ahmad Moh. Badawi,
“Denkmäler aus Sa˚˚arah, 1,” ASAE 40 (1940), pp. 495–501, pl. 46; early Dyn.
4.
(7) Irensen, panel of offering niche or of false door from Saqqara, in Cairo, CG
1393; Ludwig Borchardt, Denkmäler des Alten Reiches (ausser den Statuen)
im Museum von Kairo 1 (Berlin, 1937), p. 52, pl. 13; early Dyn. 4, Barta, Opfer-
liste, pp. 40, 156.
(8) Metjen, panel of false door of stone-lined cruciform chapel from Saqqara,
Berlin 1105 G; LD 2, pl. 3; Aegyptische Inschriften aus den Königlichen
Museen zu Berlin 160(Leipzig, 1913), p. 81 (hereafter ÄIB 1); temp. Khufu,
Smith, HESP, p. 149.
(9) Rahotep, false door panel from Medum, in London, BM 1242; W.M. Flinders
Petrie, Medum (London, 1892), pl. 13; T.G.H. James, Hieroglyphic Texts on
59 Ibelieve I can make out the word hn on the edge of the inscribed right-hand aperture of
the false door of the “Washerman of the God,” Senenu in Jean Leclant, “Fouilles et travaux
en Egypte, 1951–1952” Orientalia n.s. 22 (1953), pl. 17 [31]. Above and on the left aperture,
what look to be portions of two separate linen-lists are visible. Since the tomb is unpub-
lished and the character of the rest of the list unknown, I have not included it here. For the
tomb, see Bertha Porter and Rosalind L.B. Moss, assisted by Ethel W. Burney, Topo-
graphical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, vol. 3, 2d ed., rev. and aug-
mented by Jaromir Málek (Oxford, 1974–1981), p. 48 (hereafter PM 32). This Senenu is a
different individual from the Senenu of our list (19)–(20).
60 Dr. Dietrich Wildung, Director of the Egyptian Museum, Berlin, went to considerable
trouble to provide me with photographs of the panels of Metjen and Merib (16), and I would
like to express my appreciation to him. The furniture determinatives in both have under-
gone considerable deterioration since the panels were copied by Lepsius.
127
Egyptian Steles, etc. 1, 2d ed. (London, 1961), pl. 1 (2) (hereafter HTES 12);
temp. Khufu, Smith, HESP, p. 149.
(10) Rahotep, left side of false door recess, in London, BM 1277; Petrie, Me-
dum, pl. 13; HTES 12, pl. 3 (3); as last.
(11) Seshat-sekhentiu, slab-stele, Giza tomb G 2120, in Boston, MFA 06.1894;

Ronald J. Leprohon, Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum; Boston 2 (Mainz,
1985), pp. 59–62 (hereafter CAA); temp. Khufu, Reisner, GN 1, pp. 66–67, 417,
427, and passim.
(12) Anonymous, slab-stele, Giza, Junker Mastaba II n = G 4260; Junker, Gîza

1, pp. 181–91, fig. 36, pl. 29a; temp. Khufu, ibid., p. 14.
(13) Anonymous, slab-stele, Giza, ibid., pp. 229–31, fig. 53, pl. 37b; temp.
Shepseskaf, ibid., p. 14.
(14) Izi, fragment of wall relief from Saqqara, in Copenhagen, ÆIN 672; Maria
Mogensen, Glyptothèque Ny Carlsberg. La collection égyptienne (Copen-
hagen, 1930), pl. 93, p. 90; end Dyn. 4; Barta, Opferliste, pp. 44–45.
(15) Ni-hetep-Khnum, right aperture of false door, Giza, Western Field; Abdel-
Moneim Abu-Bakr, Excavations61at Giza 1949–1950 (Cairo, 1953), fig. 10; end
Dyn. 4, Barta, Opferliste, p. 44.
(16) Merib, false door panel, Giza tomb G 2100–I–annexe (LG 24), Berlin 1107
G; LD 2, pl. 19 = ÄIB 1, p. 99; temp. Shepseskaf–Userkaf, Harpur, Decoration,
p. 267.
(17) Setju, slab stela, intrusive in Giza tomb G 2353 B, in Boston, MFA
13.4341: Simpson, Western Cemetery, p. 35, pl. 61a, fig. 47; Leprohon, CAA
Boston 2, pp. 93–96; end Dyn. 4 or early Dyn. 5, Reisner, GN 1, p. 333 (7).
(18) Painted inventory list from “Covington’s Tomb,” Giza, South Field(?)
(fig. 1); end Dyn. 4 or early Dyn. 5.
(19) Senenu, left aperture of false door, Giza, West Field, Abu Bakr excavation
for University of62Alexandria (1953); unpublished, see PM 32, p. 48; end Dyn. 4
or early Dyn. 5.
(20) Senenu, right aperture of false door, as last.
61 This tomb has been assigned to widely divergent periods within the Old Kingdom; see,
e.g., Hermann Kees, “Ausgrabungen in Giza,” OLZ 50 (1955), col. 437–41; Harpur,
Decoration, p. 267; Nadine Cherpion, Mastabas et hypogées d’Ancien Empire (Brussels,
1989), pp. 98–99. The date involves the vexed question of late Old Kingdom archaism at
Giza, on which see recently Nadine Cherpion, “De quand date la tombe du nain Seneb?,”
BIFAO 84 (1984), pp. 35–54, and Henry G. Fischer, review of Harpur, Decoration, in BiOr
47, nos. 1/2 (January–March, 1990), p. 90, n. 1. Until this problem is resolved, we follow
Barta’s date for the tomb arrived at by an analysis of offering lists.
62 I owe my knowledge of the existence of the two lists of Senenu (19–20) to Henry Fischer,
who very kindly placed his hand copies, made in 1959, at my disposal.
128
(21) Seshemnofer I, inventory list on east wall of chapel, Giza tomb G 4940
(= LG 45); LD 2, pl. 28; Userkaf–Neferirkare, Harpur, Decoration, p. 270.
(22) Kapunesut Kai, inventory list on south wall of chapel, Giza, West Field;
63
unpublished, discovered by Dr. Zahi Hawass in 1992, early to middle Dyn. 5.
(23) Kayemankh, Giza, West Field, G 4561; painted “Gerätekammer” on walls

of burial chamber; Junker, Gîza 4, pp. 70–71, pl. 9; Dyn. 6, Harpur, Decoration,
p. 270.
The chronological order of numbers (6) to (10) differs from that of

Barta, who placed Nedji before Rahotep, but Metjen and Irensen after
64
Rahotep, Nofret, and Nefermaat. According to Smith, from the type of
mastaba and burial, Reisner dated the tomb of Nefermaat to late Sneferu
65
or early Khufu, and that of Rahotep definitely to the reign of Khufu.
Smith himself placed Metjen with Rahotep as the latest of the cruciform
chapels. To my mind, the three panels of Nedji, Irensen, and Metjen are
closely related in composition, iconography, and palaeography. Al-
though the panel of Rahotep is also related, there are several indications
that it is slightly later in date. In all four panels, the thousand-sign ap-
pears under each entry in the linen list, but is absent in the inventory
list that follows. Beneath the linen list, at the right of each of the first
three panels, is an inventory list comprising oils, mantles, and furniture,
in that order, but in Rahotep’s case the oils are omitted. Heads of ani-
mals and birds appear in a register beneath the inventory list in all four
panels. But in Rahotep’s panel the names of the sacrificial animals are
spelled out, as in the slab-steles of Seshat-sekhentiu and Princess Meret-
66
ites from the reign of Khufu. In Metjen’s panel, only the ideogram of
the ox-head has a precomplement, n (presumably for ng£). In Rahotep’s
panel, in addition, two of the animal heads appear in the ideographic list
beneath the table, which in the other three panels and the niches of Kha-
bau-sokar and Hathor-nefer-hetep, is restricted to bread, beer, alabaster
vessels, and linen. Animals also appear beneath the table in several slab-
67
steles. The small figure of a panther that serves as a determinative of
b£ Ím™w along with the mantle-sign is a specific palaeographic feature
68
linking the panels of Nedji and Irensen.
63 For the date, cf. Junker, Gîza 3, pp. 123–45. I would like to express my appreciation to
Dr. Hawass, General Director of Antiquities of the Giza Pyramids and Saqqara, for allow-
ing me to include the information from the tomb of Kapunesut Kai in advance of his pub-
lication. I would also like to thank Ms. Amani Abdel-Hameid for facsimile drawings of the
furniture utilized in the present article (with revisions by the author).
65 HESP, p. 149.
66 Reisner, GN 1, pl. 39.
67 Reisner, GN 1, pls. 17, 18 a,19, 20.
129
In the following discussion, the investigation of the terms for furni-

ture and their applications in periods later than the Old Kingdom is lim-
ited in scope and mainly included for purposes of comparison.
a) £†t “type de lit le plus simple:” Frises d’objets, p. 243; “das Bett:”
Wb. 1, 23, 12; “das Bett mit vier Füßen:” Junker, Gîza 4, p. 71; “niedriger
Sessel (Bett?) mit Rinderfüßen:” Hermann Ranke, Die ägyptischen
Personennamen 1 (Glückstadt, 1935), p. 4 [17].
£†t first occurs, under the simple form †t, in the tomb of Metjen in
early Dyn. 4, where an attendant carries a bed so labeled on his back
69
(fig. 2a). The bed has bent wood legs and appears to slope slightly to-
wards the foot. The determinative of £†t in the slab-stele of the reign of
Shepseskaf from a Giza anonymous mastaba is definitely that of a slight-
70
ly sloping bed with bent wood legs. An identical sign determines st-
(n)-∞t (g) in the early lists.
The slightly sloping bedframe with bent wood legs (fig. 2b) is only
71
one of three bed types depicted in Old Kingdom scenes of daily life.
The second type also has a sloping bedframe but is supported by bull’s
72 73
(fig. 8) or lion’s legs. The third type is a horizontal bedframe support-
74 75
ed on bull’s (fig. 2c) or lion’s legs. While actual examples of Early
76
Dynastic theriomorphic beds are fitted with bull’s legs, Queen
68 Cf. HTES 12, pl. 18 [2].
69 LD 2, pl. 6; ÄIB 1, p. 84.
70 Table 1 at the end of this article should be consulted for the signs determining the words
for furniture occurring in our corpus in the ensuing discussion.

71 E.g., Tomb of Hesy, pl. 20 [49, 50]; Selim Hassan, Excavations at Saqqara, 1937–1938, 3
vols., ed. by Dr. Zaki Iskander (Cairo, 1975), 2, fig. 39; Eugen Strouhal, Life in Ancient
Egypt (Cambridge, 1992), fig. 159 (= fig. 2b = Ahmed M. Moussa and Hartwig Altenmüller,
Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep [Mainz am Rhein, 1977], pl. 63 [left leg lost
in shadow] [£†t]); Naguib Kanawati, The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish, 9 vols. (Sydney,
1980–89), 1, fig. 9.
72 E.g., Tomb of Hesy, pl. 20 [51, 52]; Junker, Gîza 4, fig. 10 (= fig. 22) (£†t); Hassan, Gîza 4,
fig. 81; HTES I2, pl. 29 [2]; Ahmed M. Moussa and Friedrich Junge, Two Tombs of Crafts-
men (Mainz am Rhein, 1975), pl. 2.
73 E.g., Dows Dunham and William Kelly Simpson, The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III
(Boston, 1974), fig. 8, pl. 9 d; Hassan, Saqqara 3, pl. 28 B.
74 L. Epron, F. Daumas, and H. Wild, Le tombeau de Ti, 3 vols. (Cairo, 1939–1966), 3,
pl. 174 (= fig. 3c) (£†t nt hbn); Ludwig Borchardt, Denkmäler des Alten Reiches (ausser den
Statuen) im Museum von Kairo 2 (Cairo, 1964), p. 199, pl. 106 (CG 1777); Ahmed M.
Moussa and Hartwig Altenmüller, The Tomb of Nefer and Ka-hay (Mainz am Rhein,
1971), pl. 20.
75 The Sakkarah Expedition, The Mastaba of Mereruka, 2 vols. (Chicago, 1938), 1, pls. 94–
95; N. de G. Davies, The Rock Tombs of Deir el Gebrâwi, 2 vols. (London, 1902) 1, pl. 14
(£†t); 2, pls. 10 (£†t), 23 (hereafter Gebr.); Mohamed Saleh, Three Old-Kingdom Tombs at
Thebes (Cairo, 1977), pls. 4, 13.
76 Hollis S. Baker, Furniture in the Ancient World, (New York, 1966), pp. 21–23. For the
different types of construction in early dynastic beds, see ibid., pp. 22–23, and G. Killen,
Ancient Egyptian Furniture 1 (Warminster, 1980), pp. 24–26.
130
Fig. 2. Old Kingdom beds.
Hetepheres I’s gold sheathed wooden bed has lion’s legs supporting a
77
slightly sloping bedframe. With one exception, all these types and sub-
78
types are identified by the term £†t. The exception is the sloping bed-
frame with leonine legs, and this is probably simply the result of
insufficient documentation.
While animal legs were common on Old Kingdom beds, chairs, and
stools, the determinative of £†t in the furniture list of Izi seemingly goes
one step further by providing the bedframe with a lion’s head. The actual
bed probably bore a lion’s head at the head end of each of the side poles.
Two beds (£†t) depicted in Sixth Dynasty burial chambers at Heliopolis
79
also have lion heads and legs.
77 Reisner–Smith, Giza Necropolis 2, pp. 32–33, fig. 33, pls. 25–26.
78 See nn. 70–74.
79 Georges Daressy, “La nécropole des grands prêtres d’Heliopolis sous l’Ancien Empire I:
Inscriptions,” ASAE 16 (1916), pp. 196 [7]; 202 [11].
131
Beds mentioned in Old Kingdom private documents were valuable

objects. The well-known “Hausurkunde” states that a bed (£†t) and two
80
different kinds of cloth made up the price paid for a house or tomb.
The following death-bed injunction contained in the Letter to the Dead
81
on Cairo Linen CG 25975, from the end of the Dyn. 6 or the decades
immediately following, further underscores a bed’s value: “May the
fi
wood of this my bed ( 6 ` ¡» ) which bears me rot(?), should the son
82
of a man be debarred from his household furniture.”
In the object friezes on Middle Kingdom coffins the term for bed is
`-~~
sometimes spelled £tyt ( fi).83 In the ensuing Second Intermedi-
ate Period, in Adm. 3, 5, and 14, 1, the word appears as £twt, £t¡wt
» »
` n M `-~nM
84
( fi fi , fi ). fi , etc.), which
Janssen is of the opinion that the term yt¡t¡ ( ~~-~»
appears in several Deir el-Medineh texts mentioning the cost of coffin
85
decoration, is a variant of Old Kingdom £†t. He further identifies yt¡t
as a “funeral couch” in contrast to ¢nkyt, the usual New Kingdom term
86 87
for bed, and ¢™t¡, the ordinary type of Deir el-Medineh bed which had
88
a straight wooden frame, four straight legs and matting for “springs.”
Since funerary couches often had lion’s heads and legs, like the bed of Izi
and the two beds from decorated burial chambers at Heliopolis, and
89
sometimes tails as well, he may be right. Nevertheless, lion-headed
fi
beds ( `-~~ ) referred to in the stela of Pi(ankh)y were probably in-
80 On this document, consult most recently Bernadette Menu, “Ventes de maisons sous
l’Ancien Empire égyptien,” in Francis Geus and Florence Thill ed., Mélanges offerts à Jean
Vercoutter (Paris, 1985), pp. 251–55 and passim.
81 Alan H. Gardiner and Kurt Sethe, Egyptian Letters to the Dead (London, 1928) , pp. 1–
3, pls. I and I A, line 4 (hereafter L. to D.). On ibid., p. 15, the written w in £†t is explained
as the result of the addition of the suffix to a feminine noun in the status pronominalis. It
seems that £†wt was originally written in the Boston list, but it is not clear from the draw-
ing in fig. 1 whether the quail chick has simply flaked away or was purposely painted out.
82 The translation is that of Edward F. Wente, in Letters from Ancient Egypt (Atlanta,
1990), p. 211. For a different treatment of the same passage, see Harco Willems, “The End
of Seankhenptah’s Household (Letter to the Dead Cairo JDE 25975),” JNES 50 (1991),
p. 184.
83 Gustave Jéquier, Les Frises d’objets des sarcophages du Moyen Empire (Cairo, 1921),
p. 243.
84 Alan H. Gardiner, The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage from a Hieratic Papyrus in
Leiden (Pap. Leiden 344 recto) (Leipzig, 1909), pp. 32, 89. For the date, see John van Seters,
The Hyksos: A New Investigation (New Haven and London, 1966), pp. 103–20.
85 Commodity Prices, pp. 239–40.
86 Wb. 3, 119, 14–15; Frises d’objets, p. 243.
87 Janssen, Commodity Prices, pp. 180–84.
88 Wb. 3, 119–20. ¢™t¡-beds could also be quite sumptuous; see Kurt Sethe, Urkunden der
18. Dynastie (Leipzig, 1914), p. 667, 2–5 (hereafter Urk. 4).

89 For Egyptian funerary lion-beds, see Winifred Needler, An Egyptian Funerary Bed of the
Roman Period in the Royal Ontario Museum (Toronto, 1963), esp. pp. 4–7.
132
90
tended for sleeping, since they were provided with sheets of fine linen.
In Late Period and Graeco-Roman times, £†¡, £t, and even ¡†¡w designate
91
lion-headed beds, including the bier of Osiris.
While Ranke wondered whether £†t might not be the term for a low
seat or chair, he was probably misled by the form of the determinative
a in the name £†t-k£, which could easily be mistaken for a seat with
92
animal-legs ( ). However, the determinative of £†t is sometimes
contracted for reasons of space and symmetry. The caption in the tomb
of Ti reproduced in fig. 2c, with the width of the determinative half that
of the bed depicted below, provides an especially clear instance.
b) wrs “head-rest:” Murray, Saqq. Mast. 1, p. 34; “chevet:” Frises
d’objets, p. 237; “die Kopfstütze (aus Holz oder Alabaster) zum
b Schlafen:” Wb. 1, 335, 9.
Contained within a box in the object frieze in the tomb of the Third
Fig. 3. Headrests of Hesyre (a)
and Kagemni (b). Dynasty official Hesyre are the three most popular types of Old King-
93
dom headrests (fig. 3a). On the left is a stem type headrest, in the mid-
dle a double column type with abacus, and on the right a single column
94
headrest with plain stem and abacus. The different colors and patterns
indicate that the first two were made of ebony and the third perhaps of
95
alabaster. All three types of headrests are well represented in the fur-
niture lists.
A drawing in the tomb of Kagemni (fig. 3b) may provide evidence for
a type of folding headrest, actual examples of which are not known be-
96
fore the New Kindom.
The Wb. provides no references to wrs later in date than the New
Kingdom. Although headrests possibly remained in use into the Roman
97
Period, examples from well-dated archaeological contexts are rare. In
90 N.-C. Grimal, La stèle triomphale de Pi(™ankh)y au Musée du Caire JE 48862 et 47086–
47089 (Cairo, 1981), ll. 110, 118; n. 441 on p. 147.
91 Wb. 1, 23, 11–12. The stone Osiris “bed” of Second Intermediate Period date found in
the tomb of Djer at Abydos is “formed by the bodies of two lions, the heads, tails, legs and
both front paws of which are carefully delineated;” see Anthony Leahy, “The Osiris ‘Bed’
Reconsidered,” Orientalia 46 (1977), p. 424.
92 Ranke, PN 1, p. 4, 20; see now El-Hawawish 6, pl. 13 b, fig. 29b.
93 Tomb of Hesy, pl. 21; cf. the colored rendering on ibid., pl. 14.
94 George A. Reisner, Kerma 1–3 (Cambridge, MA, 1923), pp. 229–32, types I–1, I–2, II–1.
95 Pace Quibell, Tomb of Hesy, p. 17, who thinks the pale yellow color of the last repre-
sents a white wood.

96 Friedrich Wilhelm von Bissing, Die Mastaba des Gem-ni-kai, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1905), 1,
pl. 27 [107]; Fischer, “Kopfstütze,” LÄ 3 (1979), col. 689 and n. 60.

97 E.A. Wallis Budge, The Mummy (London and New York, 1987), pp. 248–49; idem, A
Guide to the Third and Fourth Egyptian Rooms (London, 1904), pp. 69–73; Reisner, Kerma
1–3, pp. 234 [d], 236; Fischer, “Kopfstütze,” col. 690 with n. 62. Amulets in the form of
headrests are popular in the Saite Period, see ibid., n. 63.
133
Demotic wrs refers to both the supports of a board on which the body of
the Apis bull rests during the embalming process and a support beneath
98
human mummies. In the latter context it is quite natural to assume
99
that a headrest is intended.
c) w†z(t) “grand fauteuil:” Raymond Weill, La IIe et la IIIe Dynastie
(Paris, 1908), p. 254; “sedan-chair:” Griffith, in: Medum, p. 38; “sedan-
chair:” Murray, Saqq. Mast. 1, p. 35; “Tragsessel:” Wb. 1, 384, 5;
“litière:” Frises d‘objets, p. 238.
W†z appears in the furniture lists of Hathor-nefer-hetep, Rahotep
(10), and Seshemnefer I. Hathor-nefer-hetep‘s carrying chair was fash-
ioned from ebony. The determinatives approximate in form the carrying
chair of Queen Hetepheres I, mother of Khufu, when viewed in pro-
100
file. The body of the chair with its high back, the curved frame of the
armrest on one side, and one of the side boards of the foot rest are all
carefully delineated. Due to space limitations, the carrying poles of the
chairs are shortened, however.
In one of Senenu‘s lists
6
$
appears (20). According to
fi
Gardiner, the balance post sign, Old Kingdom , originally had the value
101
w†z and only secondarily acquired the value †z. For that reason, the
reading w†zt is probably to be preferred in the present case. Moreover,
102
the New Kingdom word for “carrying chair” was w†zt.
Prof. Goedicke has observed that the carrying chair or litter was a
103
sign of high social rank and importance. The motif of the tomb owner
borne in a carrying chair or palanquin recurs in the tombs of a number
104
of high officials of the Old Kingdom beginning with a portrayal in the
105
tomb of Rahotep. There is some evidence to suggest that the use of a
carrying chair was a prerogative granted by the king, who also assigned
106
noble youths of the Residence to carry the chair. Indeed, the official
Hetep-her-en-ptah received his carrying chair as a boon-which-the-king-
98 R.L. Vos, The Apis Embalming Ritual (Louvain, 1993), p. 341 (187), where the word also
occurs in hieratic; Mustafa el Amir, A Family Archive from Thebes (Cairo, 1959), p. 27,
n. 6. Both references from the files of the CDD.
99 Wb. connects wrs with babyl. urußßa, but Werner Vycichl (Dictionnaire étymologique
de la lange Copte [Louvain, 1983], p. 232 [hereafter DELC]) questions the equation on
grammatical grounds.
100 Reisner–Smith, GN 2, pp. 33–34, fig. 34, pls. 27–29.
101 Alan H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed. rev. (London, 1969), p. 521 (U 39) (here-
after Gardiner, EG). Gardiner notes that the sign appears in †z already in PT 960. The
present example is after N. de G. Davies, The Mastaba of Ptahhetep and Akhethetep at
Saqqarah 1 (London, 1900), pl. 13 (272). For the archaic form of the carrying chair, see, e.g.,
Walter B. Emery, Archaic Egypt (Baltimore, 1961), fig. 3; PT 811a.
102 Wb. 1, 384, 7–8.
103 Hans Goedicke, “A Fragment of a Biographical Inscription of the Old Kingdom,” JEA
45 (1959), p. 9.
134
107
gives. Reisner pointed out that carrying chairs were used for visits of
108
inspection of all sorts. In the Old Kingdom carrying-chairs also appear
109 110
from time to time in workshop and bedroom scenes.
d) m™ “footstool with sandals? upon it:” Griffith, in Petrie, Medum,
p. 38; “sandal tray:” Tarkhan 1, p. 25; “Badewanne für die Füsse,” Bil-
dung von ¡™ “waschen:” Wb. 2, 46, 5; “footbath, laver:” Henry G. Fischer,
“Some Emblematic Uses of Hieroglyphs with Particular Reference to an
Archaic Ritual Vessel,” MMJ 5 (1972), p. 8; “wooden basin with em-
placements for washing the feet:” idem, “Möbel,” LÄ 4 (1980), col. 185.
The determinative in Rahotep’s list shows a rectangular receptacle
111
with a projecting element at the top. In the center the outline of two
feet presumably indicate where in the original the user would have
stood, while his feet were being washed. Curiously, an actual example
Fig. 4. Early Dynastic footlaver of a footbath, from an archaic grave at Abu Sir, has only a single (right)
from Abu Sir. 112
foot occupying its middle (fig. 4). The rectangular basin, which is
made of red clay, has inward slanting sides. At the top of the footbath is
a broken appendage that corresponds to the projecting element of the
104 References are to be found in Jacques Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne, 6 vols.
(Paris, 1952–78), 4, p. 329, n. 2, and PM 32, pp. 354 (2), 903 (2), to which should be added
W.M. Flinders Petrie, Deshasheh (London, 1898), pl. 24; Miroslav Verner, Abusir–I: The
Mastaba of Ptahshepses I (Prague, 1977), pls. 53–55; William Kelly Simpson, “Topo-
graphical Notes on Giza Mastabas,” in Festschrift Elmar Edel (Bamberg, 1979), fig. 3; idem,
Kawab, Khafkhufu I and II, fig. 27, pl. 11b; fig. 38, pl. 25a (= Vandier no. xxviii); El-
Hawawish 1, fig. 13; 2, fig. 21; William Kelly Simpson, The Offering Chapel of Kayem-
nofret in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Boston, 1992), pl. E; Ann Macy Roth, “The
Practical Economics of Tomb-building in the Old Kingdom: A Visit to the Necropolis in a
Carrying Chair,” in David P. Silverman, ed., For His Ka: Essays Offered in Memory of
Klaus Baer (Chicago, 1994), fig. 16.1; G 2374, Khnumenti, east wall of Room I, unpub-
lished. For discussions, see Luise Klebs, Die Reliefs des alten Reiches 1 (reprint,
Hildesheim, 1982), p. 28; Junker, Gîza, 11, pp. 251–54; Vandier, Manuel 4, pp. 328–63.
105 Petrie, Medum, pl. 21.
106 Kurt Sethe, Urkunden des Alten Reiches, 2 ed. (Leipzig, 1933), pp. 43, ll. 16–18; 231,
l. 14 (hereafter Urk. 1); Goedicke, “Biographical Inscription,” pp. 8–11, pl. 2.

107 Urk. 1, 231, 14. The word for carrying-chair in this passage evidently represents an
instance of periphrasis. Sethe (Urk. 1, 231, n. f–f) translates: “einer, dem der König eine
Sänfte (åbnr ’“Angenehmmacher”) machen ließ. Junge leute trugen ihn darin hinter dem
König.”
108 Reisner, GN 1, p. 368; see more recently Roth, “Visit to the Necropolis,” pp. 227–40.
109 E.g., Maria Mogensen, Le mastaba égyptien de la glyptothèque Ny Carlsberg (Copen-
hagen, 1921), fig. 38; Mersyankh III, fig. 5, pl. 5[b]; Nianchchnum, pl. 62. See further,
pp. 152–54 below.
110 HTES I2, pl. 29.
111 Fischer, “Emblematic Hieroglyphs,” p. 8.
112 H. Bonnet, Ein Frühgeschichtliches Gräberfeld bei Abusir (Leipzig, 1928), pl. 35, 3
(10C-3) = Renate Krauspe, Ägyptisches Museum der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig

(Leipzig, 1976), 16, no. 9/7, pl. 4 (Inv. Nr. 2339). I would like to thank Prof. Elke Blumen-
thal and Dr. Renate Krauspe for the photograph of the footlaver reproduced as fig. 4 of the
present article.
135
determinative in Rahotep’s list. What evidently represent the straps of a

sandal are incised on the outline of the foot. On the rim of the basin, and
also evidently on the broken appendage, are herringbone designs. Two
other wooden footbaths with sloping sides and the outline of a single
113
foot on a crossbar were found by Petrie in Dyn. 1 graves at Tarkhan.
One of these shows clearly that the projecting appendage at the top,
evident in Rahotep’s list and in the Abu Sir footbath, was, at least in
114
origin, a projecting U-shaped handle.
Baker illustrates a stool of “Late Period” date with footstands
115
attached to the top that he believed was possibly used in a bath, but
116
Fischer doubts the identification.
e) ∞£wt “table:” Frises d’objets, p. 246; “Platte mit Untersatz (einbeini-
ger Tisch):” Wb. 3, 226, 11–13.
Ó£wt and hn appear together in the abbreviated furniture list in the
anonymous slab-stela from G 4260. From its determinative on the left
side of the false door recess of Rahotep, where it is depicted among the
stone vessels, not with the furniture, it is clear that ∞£wt represents the
ubiquitous type of low, flat-topped circular table with a tubular support
117
(see fig. 5a). Rahotep’s ∞£wt is said to be of alabaster.
Reisner was of the opinion that the flat-topped circular table was
118
introduced by Khasekhemui at the end of Dyn. 2. Subsequently,
119
examples have been found in tombs of Dyn. 1 and earlier Dyn. 2.
Numerous practical examples of stone offering tables of this type, as
well as models, have been found all through the Old Kingdom, and to a
120
lesser extent in tombs as late as Dyn. 12.
Ó£wt is a regular item in the great ritual offering list of the Fifth
121
Dynasty and later. On the walls of Old Kingdom tombs a ∞£wt is
122
sometimes washed as a preliminary to the funerary rites depicted or
113 Tarkhan 1, pp. 11, 25, pls. 11 [24, 25], 12 [10, 11]; see Fischer, “Möbel,” col. 185 and
n. 80.
114 Tarkhan 1, pl. 11 [25]; cf. ibid., pls. 11 [26], 12 [9].
115 Furniture, fig. 213, p. 139.
116 “Möbel,” n. 81.
117 Emery, Archaic Egypt, fig. 142. See also ibid., pp. 55, 56 (types 40, 41 and 42), pl. 36;
Vandier, Manuel 1, pt. 2, pp. 772–74; Reisner–Smith, GN 2, p. 101; Fischer, “Möbel,” col.
184 with nn. 64–65.
118 Reisner–Smith, GN 2, p. 101.
119 Walter B. Emery, The Tomb of Hemaka (Cairo, 1938), pp. 55, 56 (types 40, 41 and 42),
pl. 36; Saad, Ceiling Stelae, pl. 29 A.

120 Reisner–Smith, GN 2, p. 101; Fischer, “Möbel,” col. 184 with nn. 64–65; see also
Emery, Archaic Egypt, p. 242.

122 See Junker, Gîza 3, pp. 108, 109, no. 7, fig. 10; Vandier, Manuel 4, p. 107, no. 7, fig. 30.
136
123
serves to convey food to the tomb owner. At funerary banquets, the
deceased regularly sits on a chair or stool before a table of bread offerings
consisting of a high stone or pottery stand on which a ∞£wt-table is
124
placed (fig. 5b), while family members and guests sit on the ground
125
and eat from low ∞£wt-tables. That ∞£wt-tables were also used in the
course of earthly meals seems indicated by the marsh scenes in two Old
Kingdom tombs in which an official sits on the ground and is served a
126
meal from just such a table.
In Hesyre’s tomb, two round-top tables, painted yellow to represent
alabaster, are shown alongside a series of barrels that seem to represent
127
corn measures. Hesyre’s household furniture comes next, however,
just after a divider at the right, and it is possible that the tables are
a actually to be counted amongst the latter. Further along on the same
wall, two other ∞£wt-tables are contained in covered boxes provided
with handles for ease in carrying (fig. 5c). In identical containers nearby
are stone bowls and a ewer and basin, all presumably part of Hesyre’s ta-
128
ble service.
Wb. 3, 226, 12 notes that ∞£wt-tables may also be made from metal,
but the citations all belong to the New Kingdom. In fact, seven metal
129
∞£wt-tables are listed in a dedication inscription of Neuserre.
In the Middle Kingdom, ∞£wt continues to be used for flat-topped
circular tables, although in one Dyn. 12 decorated coffin the term, right-
130
ly or wrongly, is ascribed to a small rectagular table. In the Second
Intermediate Period and later, the term also denotes altars of other
131 132
sorts, encompassing both hand-held offering stands, flat offering
123 See LD 2, pl. 23; Junker, Gîza 2, fig. 29; 3, figs. 27, 28; Kawab and Khafkhufu, fig. 32.
124 Ibid., fig. 31 (= fig. 5a); Paule Posener-Kriéger, Les Archives du temple funéraire de
Néferirkarê-Kakaï (Les papyrus d’Abousir), 2 vols. (Cairo, 1976), 1, pp. 84 (d), 178 (B 13);
Edward Brovarski, “A Stele of the First Intermediate Period from Naga-ed-Dêr,” Medel-
b havsmuseet Bulletin 18 (1983), p. 5 and n. 21. The example in fig. 5b clearly shows that
the tubular support of the table was introduced as a tenon into the cavity at the top of the
stand. The ensemble can also evidently be referred to as ∞£wt; see S’£a¢ure™ 2, pl. 63; Smith,
“Minkhaf,” pl. 22. The word for the pedestal is gn; see, e.g., Wb. 5, 174, 5–6; Frises d’objets,
p. 246; ArchAbousir 1, p. 178 [B 13].
125 E.g., Ti 1, pls. 56–57; Nefer and Kahay, pls. 29, 33–34, 36, 38; Jaromír Málek, “New
Reliefs and Inscriptions from Five Old Tombs at Giza and Saqqara,” BSEG 6 (1982), fig. 63,
fig. 5.2
126 J.E. Quibell, Excavations at Saqqara (1907–1908) (Cairo, 1909), p. 3, pl. 61 (pedestal
omitted in drawing?); Aylward M. Blackman, The Rock Tombs of Meir 5 (London, 1953),
c pl. 30.
127 Tomb of Hesy, pp. 25–26, pl. 17.
Fig. 5. Flat-topped circular 128 Ibid., p. 37, pl. 22.
tables with tubular supports. 129 Ludwig Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Ne-user-re™ (Leipzig, 1907), 3, pl. 28.
130 Frises d’objets, p. 246, fig. 646.
131 Wb. 3, 226, 14–16.
137
133 134
stones, square, crennelated altars, and great built altars, like the
sun altar in the Re-Harakhte chapel on the upper terrace at Deir el-Bahri,
which is topped by a cavetto cornice and torus moulding and approached
135
by a flight of steps. Ó£wt is Demotic ∞wy (fem.) and Coptic ßhyes,
b a 136
ßhoyi , –˙ hye .
f) ∞nd(w) “chair or stool:” Murray, Saqq. Mast. 1, p. 35; “tabouret sans
dossier:” Weill, La IIe et la IIIe Dynastie, p. 253; “Sitz, Thron (des
Königs oder eines Gottes); auch einfächer Sessel der Form :” Wb. 3,
314, 4–6; “seat or carrying chair:” Hassan, Giza 5, p. 122; 63, p. 56;
“chair:” Gardiner, “A Unique Funerary Liturgy,” JEA 41 (1955), p. 14;
“stool with bent wood reinforcement:” Henry G. Fischer, “Notes on
Sticks and Staves in Ancient Egypt,” MMJ 13 (1978), p. 16 and n. 66.
The verb ∞nd is applied to the action of “bending” wood, the
“plainting” of baskets, and the “twisting” together of the stems of flow-
137
ers to make wreaths. In the furniture lists of Hathor-nefer-hetep and
Rahotep (10), the determinative of ∞nd(w) is a simple archaic stool with
138
a bent wood stretcher beneath supporting both legs and seat: .
The determinative is, in fact, very like the bent wood seat of the Third
Dynasty statue of the princess Redji, although the addition of a low back
139
transforms the latter into a chair (fig. 6). Hathor-nefer-hetep’s stool
was fashioned from imported ebony. In Rahotep’s case the stool is col-
140
ored yellow, perhaps indicating that it was made from a native wood.
In the Pyramid Texts this term seems to have a wider application. In
PT 606c, 736a, 1165c, ∞nd is determined by a drawing of the other com-
mon type of archaic stool with bull’s legs and papyrus terminals on the
132 E.g., CG 36338: Walter Wreszinski, Atlas zur altaegyptischen Kulturgeschichte 1
(Leipzig, 1923), pl. 7 (b); Howard Carter, “Report on the Tomb of Sen-nefer found at Biban
el-Molouk near that of Thotmes III no 34,” ASAE 2 (1901), p. 200 (3).
133 Wolfgang Helck, Historisch-Biographische Texte der 2. Zwischenzeit und neue Texte
der 18. Dynastie, 2nd ed. (Wiesbaden, 1983), p. 4, no. 7.
134 Urk. 4, pp. 629, 639.
135 Edouard Naville, The Temple of Deir el-Bahri 1 (London, 1894), p. 8, pl. 8. For earlier
altars of this kind, see Rainer Stadelmann, “Altar,” LÄ 1 (1972), cols. 146–47.
136 W. Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar (Copenhagen, 1954), p. 353; W. Vycichl, DELC,
p. 274.
137 Wb. 3, 312, 15; Norman de Garis Davies, The Rock Tombs of Sheikh Saïd (London,
1901), pl. 4; Pierre Montet, Les scènes de la vie privée dans les tombeaux égyptiens de
l’ancien empire (Strasbourg, 1925), p. 314; AEO 1, p. 66; Janssen, Commodity Prices, pp.
138–39; Caminos, LEM, p. 42.
138 Killen, Furniture, p. 38.
139 Turin 3065. Dr. Anna Maria Donadoni Roveri, Soprintendente delle Antichità Egizie at
the Museo Egizio, most kindly provided the photograph reproduced here as fig. 6. For a
view of the statue showing the back, see Donadoni Roveri, Daily Life, pl. 169. A very sim-
ilar chair appears in the painted corridor of Hesyre (Tomb of Hesy, pl. 18 [36]).
140 Cf. ibid., pp. 27, 30, and passim.
138
Fig. 6. Statue of Princess Redji, Turin 3065.
139
side-rails ( ). As in the archaic steles from Helwan and Saqqara, the

141
seat of the stool is viewed from above. Ónd with the same type of
stool as determinative figures in two archaic priestly titles ¢m-n†r B£stt
142
¢ryt ∞nd and ¢m-n†r Ônm ∞nty pr ∞nªdº.
Again in the Pyramid Texts, ∞nd(w) is applied to a throne-like seat
143
with back and arms. The most specific determinative likewise pos-
144
sesses bull’s legs and papyrus terminals ( ). In three instances, the
145
throne is said to be made from “(meteoric) iron” (b¡£). In PT 1906 c,
on the other hand, the throne is fashioned of ebony (hbn). An even more
elaborate theriomorphic throne is described in PT 1124: “He (viz. the
king) sits on this iron throne of his, the faces of which are those of lions,
146
and its feet are the hooves of the Great Wild Bull.” Just such a sign
determines ∞ndw in PT 1293 a ( ). A curious feature of these thrones
is the curved frame of the armrest which otherwise appears on the car-
rying chairs (c) and on the portable chair illustrated in fig. 9b.
In a Dyn. 12 coffin ∞nd is written over four isolated furniture sup-
ports in the form of bull’s legs, the object or objects represented being
147
otherwise destroyed. Since the word is otherwise applied to seats of
various sorts, the legs may well have belonged to two chairs or stools.
The determinative of ∞nd in a papyrus from a tomb of the Thir-
148
teenth Dynasty discovered beneath the Ramesseum is that of a chair
141 Heinrich Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, ed. by Emma Brunner-Traut; translated
and ed. by John Baines, with a foreword by E.H. Gombrich (Oxford, 1974), p. 140, fig. 122;
HESP, pp. 122–23. In private tombs this feature is attested as late as Dyn. 4; see Cherpion,
Mastabas et hypogées, p.32 (Criterion 8), fig. 10, pl. 9, table on p. 155.
142 G. Maspero, Les mastabas de l’Ancien Empire; fragment de dernier ouvrage de A.
Mariette publié d’apres le manuscript du l’auteur (Paris, 1889), p. 70. In the epithet of
Khnum, Mariette copied ∞nt. Barbara Begelsbacher-Fischer, Untersuchungen zur
Götterwelt des Alten Reiches (Freiburg and Göttingen, 1981), p. 48, emends to ∞ndt, see-
ing this as an otherwise unattested feminine form of ∞nd(w). Since emendation does ap-
pear necessary, I prefer to emend the t to d.
143 Kurt Sethe, Die altägyptischen Pyramidentexte, 4 vols. (Leipzig 1908–22), 1, spells
770 c, 805 b; 2, spells 1124 a, 1165 c, 1293 a, 1298 a, 1301 b (hereafter PT and spell number).
144 PT 770 c, 805 b, 1124 a. In the pyramids of Merenre and Pepy II, more conventionalized
signs , that resemble the portable seat used to write the name of Osiris in the
Middle Kingdom and later (Gardiner, EG, p. 500 [Q 3]), determine the word ∞nd(w); see PT
770 c, 805 b and 1165 c, and also in PT 865 a, 873, a, 1016 a, 1165 c. I would like to express
my appreciation to Prof. Jean Leclant and Mme. I. Pierre, who have been most generous in
sharing with me their beautiful facsimile copies of hieroglyphic texts inscribed on the
walls of the pyramids of Pepy I and Merenre utilized in the text. Their facsimiles generally
confirm the accuracy of Sethe’s hand copies of the same signs.
145 See John R. Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals (Berlin,
1961), pp. 166–68.

146 R.O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1969), 1, p. 184.
(hereafter FPT).
147 Frises d’objets, p. 243 and n. 1.
148 Gardiner, “Unique Funerary Liturgy,” pl. V, l. 81, p. 14.
140
with carved animal-legs and tall straight back (the slanting back rest
149
characteristic of New Kingdom chairs is lacking): .
Ónd appears to represent an instance of a word with a very specific
meaning originally (“stool with bent wood reinforcement”), which over
time came to have a wider application, often seemingly without any ap-
parent connection to the root meaning of the word: “bull-legged
stool,”“lion-headed throne,” “straight-backed chair,” and so forth. On
the other hand, many of these types of seats probably incorporated
minor bent wood elements, such as small angular braces, and these may
have constituted the tie that binds.
In the New Kingdom and later, the term acquires a new, if related,
150
meaning: “stairway, (flight of) steps,” especially of a throne or chapel.
g) st-(n)-∞t “seat of wood:” Murray, Saqq. Mast. 1, pp. 34–35; “type de lit
le plus simple:” Frises d’objets, p. 243; “Name des Ruhebettes:” Wb. 5,
6, 21; “Liegestuhl:” Junker, Gîza 4, p. 71.
This is the earlier of the two Old Kingdom words for bed. Only in
Kha-bau-sokar’s furniture list, where st-n-∞t “bed of wood” appears,
does the indirect genitive occur. Otherwise, except for Hathor-nefer-
hetep’s list, where ∞t follows st directly, st-∞t is usually written with ∞t
in apposition, to indicate the material of which the bed is made (9–10,
151
14, 23). In the lists of Khabausokar and his wife Hathor-nefer-hetep,
where the term is subsumed under the heading “s£∂-wood,” the element
∞t “wood” seems redundant. In place of ∞t, Senenu (19) has mnq-
152
wood.
The determinative in the early furniture-lists of Khabausokar and
Hathor-nefer-hetep, as well as in both of Rahotep’s lists, is a gently slop-
ing bedframe with bent wood legs. In the published photographs and
drawings of the first two lists, the determinatives are on too small a
scale to be certain, but in both of Rahotep’s lists the lower bend of the
149 For this innovation, see Baker, Furniture, pp. 63, 128–29; Killen, Furniture, pp. 51–52,
and the chairs numbered 4 and 5. The earliest depiction of such a chair known to me is in
a stele of the reign of Senusert I; see William Kelly Simpson, The Terrace of the Great God
at Abydos (New Haven, 1974), pl. 51 (ANOC 33.1). They appear sporadically in steles of
the late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period; see e.g., ibid., pls. 32 (ANOC
22.2) and 76 (ANOC 54.1); H.O. Lange and H. Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine des Mit-
tleren Reichs im Museum von Kairo 4 (Berlin, 1902), pls. 21 (CG 20434), 39 (CG 20537),
49 (CG 20614), 55 (CG 20732), 95 [613–615], 96 [616–625]; cf. pl. 93 [575]. For the anteced-
ents of these chairs, see n. 167 below.
150 Wb. 3, 314, 11–14.
151 For this function of badal apposition, see Gardiner, EG, § 90, 1; Elmar Edel, Alt-
ägyptische Grammatik, 2 vols. (Rome, 1955, 1964), 1, § 312. Possibly ∞t distinguishes beds
made of wood from those in other materials like palm-stalks or wicker; see e.g., Denise
Ammoun, Crafts of Egypt (Cairo, 1991), p. 69.
152 On mnq-wood, see Janssen, Commodity Prices, p. 208.
141
bed legs definitely rest on drums. The same sort of bed (on wide drums)
appears in a craft scene in the “Tomb of the Two Brothers” (fig. 2b), but
153
here the bed is designated by the later term, £†t (a).
In the tomb of the vizier Ptahshepses at Abusir, four, probably orig-
154
inally five, male figures transport articles of furniture (fig. 7). The
wall is damaged and only the upper part of the body of the first man re-
mains, while the second figure is completely destroyed. Verner remarks
that the arms of the first man are turned backwards, which implies that
he must have been carrying a sizeable object together with the second
155
man behind him. The piece of furniture carried by the two figures is
likewise destroyed, but an upright element in the space between the rear
arm and body of the first figure, which may represent a footboard,
156
suggests that the object was probably a bed. The third man evidently
held an angled backrest (j) over one shoulder. The pair of figures bringing
up the rear of the procession carry between them an arm chair with high
back and lion’s paw legs. The horizontal line of inscription above the
row of five male figures reads as follows: s∞pt swt r dw m st.sn ¡(n)
s¢∂(w) s∂£wt(yw) n pr-∂t, “Bringing the swt to be put in their places by
157
the inspector(s) of treasurers of the estate.”
A fairly common scene in Old Kingdom mastabas shows attendants
158
readying their master’s bedchamber. In the tomb of Kayemankh at
Giza, for example, a number of attendants prepare an armchair and bed,
159
the former set within a canopy, for their master’s use (fig. 8). The leg-
160
end to the former vignette reads w∞£ st “dusting the armchair,” while
over the latter is written wdt £†t, “making the bed.” The armchair has a
high back, square supports on the sides for elbows and arms, and side
rails terminating in papyrus flower ornaments, while its bull’s legs rest
on fulcrum-shaped supports. In a second bed-making scene from the
Saqqara mastaba of Werirenptah, two men remove sheets from a chest
and bring them to the attendants making up the owner’s bed; the legend
161
here reads: dw st ¡n s∂£wt(yw), “making the bed by the treasurers.”
153 Nianchchnum, pl. 63.

154 Verner, Ptahshepses, photo 19, pl. 9.
155 Ibid., p. 23.
156 This detail is omitted in the drawing in ibid., pl. 9, but is clear in photo 19.
157 Verner, ibid., p. 23, treats the sentence differently. I take dw to be the masculine infin-
itive of wd¡; see Edel, Altäg. Gramm. 1, Table 3 on p. 12*.

158 See PM 32, pp. 357 [15], 907 [15].
159 Junker, Gîza 4, fig. 10 A.
160 Ibid., p. 40.
161 HTES I2, pl. 29 (2).
142
Fig. 7. Bearers of furniture in the tomb of the vizier Ptahshepses at Abu Sir.
Fig. 8. Bedchamber scene from the chapel of Ka-em-ankh.
143
From the evidence of the furniture lists, as well as the wall scenes in
the tombs of Ptahshepses and Werirenptah, it is clear that st in the Old
Kingdom was a term that encompassed beds as well as seats. Going one
step further, Henry Fischer has suggested that st in origin perhaps
designated any “piece of furniture on which one rested, whether seated
162
or reclining.”
Erman in fact was of the opinion that the Egyptian bed was really
163
only a broader seat. Beds from the early dynastic tombs of Tarkhan
are so short that a sleeper would have to curl up tightly when taking ad-
164
vantage of one. Actual early dynastic beds are usually low, rarely ex-
165
ceeding 30.8 cm, and chairs are often no higher. When depicted
together in Old Kingdom daily life scenes, beds and chairs usually appear
166
to be of similar height. Externally then, there is little to distinguish
theriomorphic beds and chairs except breadth and the presence of a foot-
board in lieu of a low backrest. Perhaps for these reasons, the Egyptians
did not draw a sharp distinction between beds and chairs.
To return to st-(n)-∞t. Although beds with bent wood supports are
sometimes labeled £†t (a), as far as can be judged from the surviving evi-
dence, st-(n)-∞t is only applied to the type of sloping bed with bent wood
supports, never to the other two types of Old Kingdom beds (above,
p. 130). This may reflect the nature of the evidence, however, since st
alone does refer to theriomorphic beds in the tombs of Kayemankh and
Werirenptah.
h) st ¢ms “Stuhl zum Sitzen:” Junker, Gîza 4, p. 71.
We have just seen that the term st, generally translated “seat,
throne,” also possessed the meaning “bed” in the Old Kingdom. This
dual usage perhaps explains the existence of the term st-¢ms “a seat for
sitting” in the furniture list of Kayemankh. The sign , which func-
tions as a determinative of st-¢ms in the list of Kayemankh (and as a
logogram in st-[n]-∞t elsewhere), seemingly reflects the form of the
simple high-backed chair with straight legs which is attested in relief as
167
early as the Second Dynasty.
162 Henry George Fischer, “Stuhl,” LÄ 6 (1985), col. 92.
163 Adolf Erman, Ägypten und ägyptisches Leben im Altertum (Tübingen, 1885), p. 261.
164 Tarkhan I, pp. 23–24; Henry George Fischer, L’écriture et l’art de l’Egypte ancienne
(Paris, 1986), p. 188.

165 Emery, Archaic Egypt, p. 242. For actual beds or chairs, see idem, Ìor-a¢a (Cairo, 1939),
p. 63, cat. no. 348; idem, Great Tombs of the First Dynasty, 3 vols. (Cairo, 1949; Oxford,
1954–58), 1, p. 57, cat. nos. 538, 539; 2, p. 53, cat. no. 300; Killen, Furniture, pp. 24–26, nos.
1–4; 37, no. 2; see also Tomb of Hesy, pls. 18–20. Higher chairs, which allowed a proper
seated posture, are illustrated in niche-stones from the Second Dynasty cemetery at
Helwan; see Baker, Furniture, p. 37, figs. 24, 25, and below, n. 167.
166 See as well, Mersyankh III, fig. 8, pl. 9 a; El-Hawawish 1, fig. 9.
144
a c
Fig. 9. Portable chairs in Old
Kingdom tombs.
There is no question that st by itself could refer to seats during the
Old Kingdom. Above, we have seen that Kayemankh’s bull-legged arm-
chair is designated a st. An arm chair with lion’s legs in the tomb of the
168
vizier Ptahshepses is likewise denominated. In the Pyramid Texts st
is applied to a “throne” with bull’s legs and papyrus terminals on the
169
side-rails ( ). In two other spells, the determinative of st is a lion-
headed, bull-legged throne, the same sign that elsewhere in this corpus
170
of religious literature serves as the determinative of ∞ndw (f).
It is possible that £†t (a) appeared at a time when the word st came
increasingly to be applied to proper seats of various forms. Evidence for
this conjecture may be provided by the furniture list of Izi. In that list £†t
167 Baker, Furniture, pp. 32–33, 51; figs. 24–25. Straight-back chairs are sometimes repre-
sented in Old Kingdom statuary; see Institut français d’archéologie orientale, Un siècle de
fouilles français en Egypte 1880–1980 (Cairo, 1981), cat. no. 59; Henry G. Fischer, Dendera
in the Third Millennium B.C. (Locust Valley, NY, 1968), pp. 102–3 and pl. 7. Fischer, ibid.,
p. 103, doubts that these chairs were patterned on a piece of furniture in daily use, but the
examples in Second Dynasty stele, though admittedly few in number, suggest otherwise.
Fischer, L’écriture et l’art, p. 190, pls. 84 and 85, calls attention to a rigidly straight-backed
chair with low scroll legs in a boat model of the vizier Meketre and to an actual fragment
of such a chair in Cairo. A chair in the Hearst Museum of Anthropology, Berkeley, pub-
lished by him as Middle Kingdom, ibid., pp. 189–90, pl. 85, and said to be from Naga-ed-
Dêr tomb N 3765, is actually from N 3746, a tomb that yielded up a stele that forms part
of the Polychrome Group of Dynasty 9 (Dows Dunham, Naga-ed-Dêr Stelae of the First
Intermediate Period [Boston, 1937], p. 43, pl. 13 [2]; Edward Brovarski, “Naga (Nag™)-ed-
Dêr,” LÄ 4 (1980), cols. 308–9). According to Naga-ed-Dêr Notebook 2, p. 4, however, the
tomb was almost certainly reused in Dynasty 18, and the chair may conceivably belong to
the later period.
168 Verner, Abusir 1, pl. 10.
169 PT 267 c.
170 PT 306 e, 509 c.
145
is the term applied to a lion-headed bed, while st-∞t is determined by

what appears to be a chair without legs . Presumably a kind of por-
table chair that appears from time to time in Old Kingdom reliefs and
171
paintings was intended (fig. 9a–c).
i) s£¢ “table:” Griffith, in Petrie, Medum, p. 38; “ein Gerät (Gestell
o.a.):” Wb. 4, 22, 4.
The term s£¢ is known only from Rahotep’s furniture list. The deter-
minative looks like a high, straight-legged table. It is colored white,
which may suggest it was made from an inferior wood and gessoed to
172
improve its appearance. A table of similar proportions in the tomb of
173
the vizier Mereruka functions as a gaming board (fig. 10a).
Tables are ubiquitous in Old Kingdom representations. They can be
174
high, like Rahotep’s and Mereruka’s tables, medium (fig. 10b) or low
175
(fig. 10c). They may be reinforced with bent wood braces (figs. 10a–b,
176 177
e–f) or stretchers (fig. 10d) or be provided with both (fig. 10e–f). One
table has a cavetto cornice and torus molding at the upper edge (fig.
178
10f). Another, used for gaming purposes, may be fitted with a drawer
179
(fig. 10b). Although they often served as sideboards, rectangular tables
do not appear to have been used for dining, a function which was evi-
dently reserved for ∞£wt-tables (e).
As Fischer notes, tables in general do not seem to have acquired
180
splayed legs much before Dyn. 11. One exception (fig. 10g), which
181
serves as a sideboard, probably falls into the category of cult tables
182
(w∂¢w).
171 E.g., Ti 1, pl. 16 (=

fig. 9a); Mogensen, Mast. ég., fig. 38 (= fig. 19b); Junker, Gîza 4, pl. 14;
Two Craftsmen, pl. 1; Nianchchnum, pl. 63 (= fig. 9c); Richard A. Fazzini, “Some Egyptian
Reliefs in Brooklyn,” in Miscellanea Wilbouriana 1 (Brooklyn, 1972), p. 41, fig. 7; El
Hawawish 1, fig. 9, pl. 6. In the mastabas of Kayemrehu (fig. 9b) and of Nianchchnum and
Chnumhotep, a carrying chair is depicted nearby.
172 See Baker, Furniture, p. 118.
173 E.g., Mereruka 2, pl. 172.
174 E.g., Baker, Furniture, fig. 61 (= J.E. Quibell, Excavations at Saqqara 1907–1908 [Cairo,
1909], pl. 64).

175 E.g., Mereruka 1, pl. 30.
176 E.g., ibid., pl. 90.
177 E.g., ibid., pl. 30.
178 LD 2, 61a. Cavetto-corniced, splayed leg tables are more common in the Middle and
New Kingdoms, and actual examples exist; see Fischer, “Möbel,” col. 183 and n. 72; Peter
Der Manuelian, in Edward Brovarski, Susan K. Doll, and Rita E. Freed eds., Egypt’s Golden
Age (Boston, 1982), cat. no. 45; Fischer, L’écriture et l’art, p. 182, pl. 66.
179 E.g., Mereruka 1, pls. 57, 58, 63–64; 2, pls. 121, 122.
180 Fischer, “Möbel,” col. 184.
181 Junker, Gîza 8, fig. 92.
182 Wb. 1, 393, 15.
146
a b
f g
Fig. 10. Old Kingdom tables.
147
Fig. 11. Angled backrests and

two-legged beds from the
mastaba of Hesyre.
j) gs(£w)t “sloped footboard:” Griffith, in: Saqq. Mast. 1, p. 35; “two-

legged inclined rest:” Tomb of Hesy, p. 29; “two-legged bed, in fact only
an angled backrest rather like a wedge-shaped cushion:” Schäfer, Princi-
ples, p. 140; “lit:” Frises d’objets, p. 243, n. 5; “Art Ruhebett (in ge-
neigter form):” Wb. V 206, 1; “Liegestuhl:” Junker, Gîza 4, p. 83;
“Schemel oder Rückenstütze:” Rosemarie Drenkhahn, Die Handwerker
und ihre Tätigkeit im Alten Ägypten (Wiesbaden, 1976), p. 101.
This article of furniture appears as gs£ in the list of Hathor-nefer-
hetep. Later writings consistently include a terminal -t. Gst (18, 22) and
gs£t (20, 23) each appear twice, while a full writing, gs£wt, is known from
(19) as well as from a carpentry scene in the Tomb of the Two Brothers
183 »
at Saqqara. The group √ in the tomb of Kapunesut presumably
fi
5
fi) in the tomb of
reads gst. A problematical spelling is qnst (
184 ¤ ¢√
Metjen.
Outside of the furniture lists, gs(£)wt appear in a variety of pictorial
contexts, the earliest being the eastern wall of the painted corridor of
Hesyre. Beside two pairs of four-legged beds appear four gs(£)wt
185 186
(fig. 11), separated into pairs by the mast of a tent. The two-legged
beds on the right of the mast are about the same size as the four-legged
beds. The gs(£)wt to the left of the mast, which are two-thirds the size of
those at the right, might better be described as two-legged, angled back-
rests.
The angled backrest on the upper left was drawn in plan and side
elevation to show both the frame and one of the two bull’s legs at the
head end. Killen observes that it was drawn sloping from head to foot to

184 LD 2, pl. 4; ÄIB 1, p. 87. Is it possible that ˚n actually refers to the doubled-over cloth
that the second bearer from the left holds in his hand, while st (g, h) is applied to the angled
backrest borne by the third man? For ˚n¡ as an ornament worn by sem-priests and kings,
see Wb. 5, 51, 9.
185 Tomb of Hesy, pls. 19–20.
186 Ibid., p. 18.
148
187
conform to the other gs(£)wt. Bull’s leg were used as furniture sup-
188
ports from the earliest period, but not ordinarily for angled backrests.
The only other instance known to me comes from the tomb of Kayem-
rehu (fig. 13a). The form of the mattress also seems to have attracted the
interest of the artist, who shows in considerable detail how it was
attached to the frame by a webbing (presumably made of leather straps)
189
woven through slots in the side and bottoms of the rails. The leather
thongs that fastened the top of the leg to the frame are indicated as well.
Like those of the longer, two-legged bed shown in plan at the right, the
190
projecting side-rails of this backrest end in papyrus flower terminals.
The two-legged bed on the upper right seems to have consisted of
thirteen cross planks originally, but only five were still visible when
a b 191
Quibell recorded Hesyre’s paintings. The artist here omits the legs
which presumably supported the head end. The two-legged bed below
and corresponding backrest on the other side of the mast are drawn in
elevation. Both have bent wood supports and drums.
Two-legged beds appear to have passed out of fashion after Dyn. 3,
but two-legged, angled backrests continue to be found in scenes which
show the tomb owner on outings—generally tours of inspection—where
they are carried by an attendant along with other personal equipment
192
(fig. 12b–d).
In the tomb of Metjen the context is not so clear. To either side of
the entrance on the east wall of the chapel, short processions of offering
193
bearers appear above a large figure of the tomb owner. Whereas
Metjen faces the doorway, the bearers have their backs to the entrance,
c d
Fig. 12. Method of carrying
as if walking into the tomb. One of the bearers to the north of the en-
angled backrests in Old trance carries an angled backrest (fig. 12a), while the man immediately
Kingdom scenes of daily life. behind him holds a headrest. On the west wall of the chapel (to the
south of the false door) a large figure of Metjen views a very abbreviated
194
hunting scene, which is continued on the south wall. Over the
187 Killen, Furniture, p. 27.
188 Ibid., p. 21.
189 Ibid., p. 23.
190 Tomb of Hesy, p. 29 [43, 44].
191 Ibid., p. 30 [47].
192 E.g., LD 2, pl. 107; Ti 1, pl. 17 (= fig. 12b); Two Craftsmen, pl. 3 ( = fig. 12c). In the tomb
of Iymery at Giza, the tomb owner’s father, Shepseskaf-ankh, sallies forth in his carrying-
chair. In the register below, the personal effects which are to accompany him are laid out
on tables; included is an angled backrest with a headrest on it; see Kent R. Weeks, Mas-
tabas of Cemetery G 6000 (Boston, 1994), fig. 32, pl. 16 (= LD 2, pl. 50). Cf. Frises d’objets,
p. 241.
193 LD 2, pl. 4 (reversed here).
194 HESP, p. 152.
149
animals on the south wall are three more attendants marching into the
195
chapel, one of whom carries the bed reproduced in our fig. 2a. If the
relative scale can be trusted, the angled backrest is a little more than half
the length of the bed.
It is possible that the three groups of attendants on the walls of
Metjen’s chapel are associated thematically with the only scene from
life in the chapel, the hunting scene on the west and south walls, that is,
as transporting equipment needed for his outing on the gebel.
In Room 3 of the tomb of the vizier Ptahshepses at Abusir, proces-
sions of attendants march with furniture, boxes, and cases toward the
196
entrance, as if preceding out of the tomb. The large figure of the vizier
on the southern part of the east wall is similarly oriented, and this might
197
well be another example of a tomb owner’s outing. What appears to
be an angled backrest occurs in the damaged scene on the rear wall of
198 199
Room 3 to the south of a doorway (fig. 7). Although Verner identi-
fies this object as a bed, the manner in which the badly damaged figure
holds it indicates that the article of furniture was in fact a two-legged an-
gled backrest; compare fig. 12a–c.
Finally, in the Fifth Dynasty tomb of Nesutnofer at Giza, a dwarf
carries the owner’s headrest in his right hand and a two-legged angled
200
backrest over his shoulder in his other hand (fig. 12c). In the register
below, a second dwarf holds the owner’s staff and sandles, while above,
two Nubians carry other personal items. Between the two doors in the
west wall, the owner and his wife stand viewing the presentation of
animals and goods from his estates in Upper Egypt. The presence of the
animals shows that this event takes place in the open air, and it is likely
that the four attendants were understood to be in attendance on the
owner on this outing, even though separated from him by the interven-
ing false door.
Two-legged angled backrests also appear in scenes showing the prep-
aration of funerary equipment. One, in the tomb of Kayemrehu, is about
half the size of the bed being polished by two squatting carpenters in the
195 LD 2, pl. 6.
196 Verner, Ptahshepses, p. 11, pls. 1–3, 9–10.
197 Ibid., pl. 1.
198 Ibid., pl. 9.
199 Ibid., p. 23.
200 Junker, Gîza 3, fig. 27; cf. pl. 5. Sensitive to scale, the draftsman has evidently reduced
the size of the backrest to correspond to the height of the dwarf. Otherwise this would be
a very small backrest indeed.
150
201
register below. As in Hesyre’s paintings, Kayemrehu’s angled backrest
has a bull’s leg support (fig. 13a).
In the tomb of the Two Brothers, a carpenter planes a gs£wt with an
202
adze (fig. 13b). This backrest, like most of those depicted elsewhere
and the bed being worked on nearby, has a bent wood support and
drums, the whole resting on low, fulcrum-shaped supports. It is about a
third the length of the bed.
a
In the burial chamber of Kayemankh, an angled headrest is depicted
203
along with other household furniture. This backrest has bent wood
supports ending in drums on fulcrum-shaped supports and, most unex-
pectedly, is equipped with a high footboard (fig. 13c). Resting on it are a
cushion, headrest, and fly whisk. It is portrayed as about the same size
as the bed, which is being made up by a servant, but both bed and servant
are much smaller than they should be relative to the portable armchair
and leather bag in the same register. The relative proportions of the
backrest, headrest, and flywhisk to one another, on the other hand, seem
about right.
A number of conclusions emerge from this review of the occurences
b
of gs(£)wt in the Early Dynastic Period and Old Kingdom. First, the early
gs(£)wt depicted in the painted corridor of Hesyre—both the two-legged
beds and the angled backrests—appear to be considerably longer than
the later Old Kingdom examples. Second, by the early Fourth Dynasty
at the latest, smaller gs(£)wt existed which, from their size, can only
have functioned as backrests.
The latter appear to have been only a half to a third as long as ordi-
nary beds, and unlike them could be easily transported. Only in the
tomb of Metjen does a single bearer carry with difficulty this larger piece
Fig. 13. Angled backrests from c
of furniture (fig. 2a).
Saqqara (a–b) and Giza (c). With a two-legged backrest of the later type, the user presumably sat
on a mat and reclined against the backrest. It is unlikely that he would
have rested his upper body on the mat with his legs and feet resting on
the backrest. The curious backrest provided with a footboard in the
tomb of Kaemankh (fig. 13c) would leave the user’s upper torso project-
ing at an acute angle above the ground. It is probably a mistake, falsely
204
echoing the high board at the foot of the bed in the same register.
James Allen suggests plausibly that gs£wt derives from gs£ “to lean,
205
incline.” But the later gs(£)wt at least were essentially half-beds. The
201 Mogensen, Mast. ég., fig. 38.
203 Junker, Gîza 4, pl. 14.
204 Cf. Vandier, Manuel 4, p. 188.
151
scribe of the inventory list preserved in Boston, perhaps playing on the

206
words gs(£)t and gs “half,” showed the determinative for gst with a
splintered end, as if a four-legged bed had been broken in two.
Both two-legged beds and angled backrests appear to have gone out
of fashion at the end of the Old Kingdom.
In addition to the furniture lists, a certain number of other terms for
furniture occur sporadically in Old Kingdom sources.
k) n∂rwt “Teile des Bettes:” Wb. 2, 382, 17; “bedstead:” L. to D., pp. 2,
15; “household property:” Battiscombe Gunn, review of Egyptian Let-
ters to the Dead, by Alan H. Gardiner and Kurt Sethe, in JEA 16 (1930),
pp. 149, 150; “household furniture:” Wente, Letters from Ancient Egypt,
p. 211.
To quote Gardiner and Sethe in their commentary on the Letter to
the Dead on the Cairo linen: “N∂rwt perhaps from the stem n∂r “to car-
penter,” hence possibly “bedstead,” “frame of bed.” So restrictive a
translation does not necessarily follow from the meaning of the verb n∂r,
and this may have prompted Gunn to translate n∂rwt with the more
general sense of “household property,” and Wente to translate it as
“household furniture.” However, if the Wb. is correct in identifying
n∂rwt as a component of beds, by a process of exclusion n∂rwt might
well be “bedframe,” since the word for the feet of a bed or other piece of
207
furniture appears to be rdw, and the word for footboard, at least in the
208
New Kingdom, mrt.
l) ∞wdt “Art Tragsessel:” Wb. 3, 250, 3.
In the tombs of both Ibi and Djau Shemai at Deir el-Gebrawi carpen-
ters are shown planing carrying chairs with adzes (fig. 14a–b). Over the
head of the workman in the earlier scene is written: n∂r ∞wdd (sic) ¡n
209
fn∞ “fashioning a carrying chair by a carpenter.” The label over the
later scene is damaged (as is the chair itself) and all that remains is . . .
210
ªmº ∞wdt hbn “ . . . a carrying chair of ebony.” The term ∞wdt is
known from a number of other contexts, including its appearance in the
fragmentary biographical inscription of the Old Kingdom published by
211
Goedicke. This fragmentary inscription tells how the king provided a
carrying chair from the Residence for an esteemed official who was tak-
205 According to Wb. 5, 205, 7–8, the verb is only attested from the Middle Kingdom.
206 Wb. 5, 196, 1–19.
207 Wb. 2, 426, 14–15, and above, p. 140 (PT 1124).
208 Janssen, Commodity Prices, p. 184.
209 Gebr. 1, pl. 14.
210 Ibid., 2, pl. 10
211 Goedicke, “Biographical Inscription,” pp. 8ff., fig. 1, pl. 2.
152
Fig. 14. Old Kingdom carrying chairs.
a b
c
en ill in the course of duty, at the same time assigning youths to carry
him in it so that he might continue to supervise the work in his charge.
Goedicke has noted that the fragmentary inscription is in part probably
a literal parallel to Urk. 1, 43, 16, which should be restored according-
212
ly. The latter passage belongs to the biography of the vizier Washptah
who, like the Goedicke’s anonymous official, was taken ill in the pres-
ence of the king, and who was similarly provided with a carrying chair
(∞wdt) by his sovereign, who also assigned ten men “to carry him in it
in perpetuity.” Ten would be an overly large number of men to transport
an ordinary carrying chair like Queen Hetepheres I’s, which can not
213
have accomodated more than four men at a time. This raises the pos-
sibility that ∞wdt actually refers to the later sort of Old Kingdom carry-
ing chair which was surmounted by a baldachin comprising an elaborate
vaulted or rectangular superstructure of wood supported on light col-
umns, and which might require as many as twenty-eight porters to bear
212 Ibid., p. 9.
213 See above, p. 134.
153
214
it aloft. The possibility appears to be borne out by the song of the por-
ters who bear Djau Shemai in state in just such a palanquin (fig. 14c): hr
flr(y)w ∞wdt nfr.s m¢ r wnn.s ßwt “Happy are they who bear the palan-
215
quin. Better is it when full than when it is empty.”
The appearance of ∞wdt/∞wdd as a label above the carrying-chairs
without baldachin in the two workshop scenes at Deir el-Gebrawi might
be seen as constituting an obstacle to this identification. So too might
the fact that the determinative of ∞wdt in the fragmentary inscription
published by Goedicke and the biography of Washptah is an ordinary
carrying chair. Nevertheless, the sign that determines ∞wdt in the por-
ters’ song just quoted is essentially the same sign that determines ∞wdt
in the carpentry scene from the tomb of Djau Shemai referred to at the
head of this entry. Possibly the ancient painter or scribe hesitated at
drawing so large and elaborate an object as a carrying chair with bal-
dachin for a determinative, and settled for the simpler sign which de-
fined the meaning of the word in a more general way. A similar
consideration perhaps prevented the draughtsman from inserting so
large an object into a workshop scene.
An additional point in favor of the identification of ∞wdt as a “car-
rying-chair with baldachin” may be the survival of the older term for
“carrying-chair (without baldachin),” w†z(t), into the New Kingdom and
216 217
later as w†zt (d), since both Middle and New Kingdom carrying-
218
chairs generally lack a baldachin.
The superstructure of the baldachin in the Old Kingdom is frequent-
ly decorated with an elaborate openwork(?) or inlay design of symbolic,
219
floral or geometric motifs. For that reason, a derivation of ∞wdt from
220
∞wd “rich, be rich” ought to be considered. *
b
214 LD 2, pl. 78 b; Simpson, “Topographical Notes,” fig. 3.
215 Gebr. 2, p. 11, pl. 8; for the translation, see also, Adolf Erman, Reden, Rufe und Lieder
auf Gräberbildern des Alten Reiches (Berlin, 1919), p. 52; Edel, Altäg. Gramm. 2, § 944.
216 See, e.g., Frises d’objets, pp. 252–53, figs. 664–66; Vandier, Manuel 4, pp. 351–54,
figs. 174–75.
217 See, e.g., ibid., figs. 179–82.
218 The carrying chair of Ramses III from Medinet Habu illustrated in The Epigraphic
Survey, Medinet Habu 4 (Chicago, 1940), pls. 196 A, B, 197–208 has a very elaborate
baldachin, but is also termed a w†zt.
219 See Vandier, Manuel 4, p. 340.
220 Wb. 3, 249, 9–15.
* Studies in Egyptian Lexicography I
154
£†t wrs w†z(t) m™ ∞£wt ∞n∂(w) st-(n)-∞t st ¢ms s£¢ gs(£w)t n∂rwt ∞wdt
1) Satba
2) Ni-djefa-
nesut
3) Khabausokar
4) Hathor-
nefer-hetep
5) Sisi
6) Nedji
7) Irensen
8) Metjen
9) Rahotep
10) Rahotep
11) Seshat-
sekhentiu
12) G 4260
13) Anon.
(Giza)
14) Izi
15) Ni-hetep-
Khnum
16) Merib
17) Setju
18) “Coving-
ton’s Tomb”
19) Senenu
20) Senenu
21) Seshem -
nofer I
22) Kapunesut
Kai
23) Kayemankh
Table 1. Signs determining the words for furniture

discussed in the corpus above.
155
09 BRUNNER-TRAUT Page 157 Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:44 PM
Zur wunderbaren Zeugung des Horus

nach Plutarch, De Iside Kap. 9
Emma Brunner-Traut
K
aum ein Text aus dem Alten Ägypten hat ein solches Echo
gefunden wie die durch Plutarch bekannte Inschrift auf einer
Statue in Sais.1 Bekanntlich fand sich zu dem Plutarch-Zitat
eine zweite, etwa 350 Jahre jüngere Überlieferung bei dem Philosophen
Proklos.2 Die beiden Zitate lauten in Übersetzung:
Ich bin alles, was gewesen ist, was ist und was sein wird. Mein Gewand
(peplos) hat kein Sterblicher je aufgehoben (Plutarch).
Das, was ist, das, was sein wird, und das, was war, bin ich. Mein Gewand
(chiton) hat niemand aufgehoben. Die Frucht, die ich gebar, wurde die Sonne
(Proklos).
Die Philologen haben zu recht festgestellt, daß die ältere Fassung die
Prädikationsformel “ich bin” richtig voranstellt, doch bei Proklos ist die
Version in zwei Punkten überlegen: Erstens bringt sie einen dritten Satz,
der allein die Bedeutung des zweiten erhellt, und zweitens steht dort
“niemand” (oudeis) statt “kein Sterblicher” (Plutarch). Diese beiden
Abweichungen des Proklos von Plutarch lassen erst den Hintersinn des
Textes erkennen.
Griffiths hat mit vollem Recht darauf hingewiesen, daß das “Aufhe-
ben” des Gewandes “clearly sexual” ist. Seinen genauen Sinn aber er-
schließt erst Proklos, indem er auf die “Frucht” Horus hinweist. Die
2
1 Plutarch, De Iside, Kap. 9 (354C). Dazu den vorzüglichen Kommentar von John Gwyn
Griffiths, Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride (1970), S. 283 f.; dort weitere Literatur. Die
Plutarch-Stelle hat Friedrich Schiller zu seinem berühmten Gedicht “Das verschleierte
Bild zu Sais” inspiriert. Der Übersetzungsfehler “Schleier” für “Gewand” (peplos bzw.
chiton) ist älter, s. Georg Steindorff, “Schillers Quelle für “Das verschleierte Bild zu Sais,”
ZÄS 69 (1933), S. 71, und Hans Lietzmann, “Die Quellen von Schillers und Goethes Bal-
laden,” Kleine Texte für theologische und philologische Vorlesungen und Übungen, Band
73, und Siegfried Morenz, Die Zauberflöte (Münster und Köln, 1952), S. 15 und 23. Zum
Einfluß der Freimaurerei: Norbert Klatt, “... Des Wissens heißer Durst,” Jahrbuch der
Deutschen Schillergesellschaft 29 (1985), S. 98–112.
2 In seinem Kommentar zu Platons Dialog Timaios 21 E (ed. Diehl I, S. 98); dazu und zum
Vergleich der beiden Versionen s. Otto Weinreich, in: ARW 19 (1918), S. 129; Eduard
Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes (Stuttgart 1924), S. 30 mit Anm. 3.
Zeugung des Horus ist ja, wie Plutarch in Übereinstimmung mit frühe-
ren ägyptischen Vorstellungen berichtet, postum erfolgt. Isis hat den
Leichnam ihres Gatten Osiris soweit wiederbelebt, daß sie ihren Sohn
empfangen konnte, indem sie “die Rolle des Mannes gespielt hat, ob-
wohl sie doch eine Frau” war.3 Auf diesen Akt spielt der zweite Satz der
Inschrift an und besagt, daß ihr bei der Zeugung des Horus kein Mann
(aktiv) beigewohnt, keiner “ihr Gewand gehoben” habe,4 eben auch
nicht Osiris. Somit trifft “niemand” richtiger als “kein Sterblicher.”
Der Sinn der Inschrift wird erst durch den dritten Satz deutlich,
indem als “Frucht”5 Horus, Horus als Sonnengott, genannt ist. Die
beiden letzten Sätze des Proklos enthüllen damit den Sinn des Textes als
eine Umschreibung der übernatürlichen Zeugung des Heilbringers.
Durch die Proklos-Version bzw. -Erweiterung wird zugleich die
Legitimität des Sohnes betont. Kein anderer Mann außer der tote
Osiris—der aber auch in sexueller Hinsicht kein voller Mann mehr ist—
kommt als Vater ihres Sohnes in Frage. Die Betonung der Übernatür-
lichkeit der Empfängnis war für Horus besonders wichtig, da Ratio-
nalisten, die es in hellenistischer Zeit gewiß auch in Ägypten gab, leicht
nachrechnen konnten, daß Osiris nicht der Vater sein könne, weil er
doch vor mehr als 9 Monaten gestorben war, die Byblos-Episode ein-
gerechnet, weit mehr als der Schwangerschaftsperiode. Durch den Hin-
weis auf die supranaturale Empfängnis wird von vornherein jeder
Verdacht auf eine illegitime Vaterschaft abgewiesen. Das vorliegende
Mythologumenon gliedert sich in die Reihe der extraordinären
Zeugungen des Heilbringers als eine neue Variante ein.
Im Geburtsmythos der Pharaonen ist bekanntlich der Vater ein
Gott. Um den Gemahl der Königin als Erzeuger auszuschließen, wird
von ihm behauptet, er sei noch ein ¡npw, ein Kind,6 nach Plutarch/
3 Wilhelm Spiegelberg “Eine neue Legende über die Geburt des Horus,” ZÄS 53 (1917), S.
94 ff. Auf diese Stelle weist auch Griffiths, a.a.O. (Anm. 1), S. 284, Anm. 6, hin.
4 Die sonderbare Erzählung bei Plutarch, Kap. 17 (357 D/E), Isis habe “in der Einsamkeit”
den Sarg geöffnet, ihr Gesicht an das des Osiris gepreßt, ihn umarmt und beweint; der mit-
genommene Prinz aus Byblos habe die Szene zufällig gesehen und sei durch den wütenden
Blick der Isis getötet worden—diese Erzählung ist wohl ebenfalls als eine dezente
Beschreibung der Zeugungsszene zu verstehen. Der tödliche Zorn der Isis bleibt sonst un-
verständlich.
Im pharaonischen Ägypten läßt sich diese mythische Szene bis ins MR zurückverfolgen.
Zwar ist sie nicht häufig, aber eindeutig dargestellt, wobei ebenfalls Dezenz gewahrt blieb:
Isis erscheint als Vogel. Die bekannte Osiris-Bahre aus Abydos/Umm al-Qa™ab, jetzt im
Lichthof des Museums in Kairo, ist das älteste Beispiel. Das Stück stammt aus der 13.
Dynastie, Chen-Djer, s. Anthony Leahy, “Osiris Bed,” Orientalia 46 (1977), S. 424–34. Ein
Relief aus dem Abydos-Tempel Sethos’ I. zeigt dieselbe Szene: Henri Frankfort, Kingship
and the Gods (Chicago 1948), Abb. 18.
5 Zu dieser Bezeichnung des Horus-Kindes s. Norden, a.a.O. (Anm. 2), S. 30, Anm. 3.
158
Emma Brunner-Traut, Zur wunderbaren Zeugung des Horus nach Plutarch, De Iside Kap. 9
Proklos hat “niemand das Gewand der Isis gehoben;” in beiden my-
thischen Aussagen ist von einer “Jungfräulichkeit” der Mutter nicht
ausdrücklich die Rede. Immerhin weist Griffiths eine Stelle aus der Zeit
Hadrians nach, in der Isis als “reine Jungfrau” bezeichnet wird.7 Dem-
nach war auch diese Variante der hellenistischen Glaubenssprache noch
nicht überlebt, und sie lenke nun noch kurz auf die neutestamentlichen
Aussagen über die Geburt des Heilbringers Jesus.
Bei Matthäus (1,18) und Lukas (1,28–35) wird berichtet, daß der
Heiland vom Heiligen Geist gezeugt sei, der die Frau “überschatten”
werde.8 Dem naheliegenden Verdacht einer Vaterschaft des Joseph wird
gewehrt durch den Bericht, Maria sei diesem Manne “verlobt” gewe-
sen—ein jüdisches Rechtsinstitut jener Zeit, daß eine Verpflichtung zur
Heirat ein-, aber eine Beiwohnung nach strenger Sitte ausschloß. Die
frühe Christenheit fand, als dies Institut nicht mehr bekannt war, die
Erklärung, daß Joseph ein alter Mann gewesen sei, dem “die Mannes-
kraft geschwunden” war, wie es Ptah-hotep ausdrückt. Außerdem bietet
Matthäus den Traum Josephs, in dem ihm ein Engel das Wunder der
Zeugung durch den Heiligen Geist mitteilt.
Nirgends ist die Jungfräulichkeit selbst das Wunder, das Wunder ist
vielmehr das Erscheinen des Heilbringers, dessen Zeugung oder Geburt
mirakulös umschrieben wird. Erst eine sexualfeindliche Zeit hat den
Akzent dieser mythischen Aussagen in die Richtung der Jungfräulich-
keit verschoben. Aber die vielen Varianten des Mythologumenons vom
pharaonischen Ägypten bis in späthellenistisch-frührömische Zeiten
sagen alle das gleiche Theologumenon aus: Die wunderbare übernatür-
liche Zeugung (oder Geburt) des Bringers eines neuen Aion (wie Norden
sagt) oder einfach des Trägers einer neuen Heilszeit. In dieser Kette ist
das Zeugnis der Inschrift der Isis/Neith-Statue in Sais—sei sie nun
griechisch oder ägyptisch konzipiert oder gar fiktiv—ein weiterer Be-
leg.9 b
6 Zu dieser Bezeichnung und ihrer Bedeutung in unserem Zusammenhang, s. in dem
grundlegenden Werk Brunner, Geburt des Gottkönigs, S. 27 ff.
7 K. Preisendanz, Papyri graecae magicae (Leipzig 1928–1932) 57, 16 f.
8 Die “jungfräuliche” Geburt eines Gottes haben die Ägypter außer vom König auch von
Apis ausgesagt: Herodot III 28; andere Stellen bei Th. Hopfner, Fontes, S. 814 s.v. Apis. In
dieser Vorstellung wurde die Mutter des Apis, “die gar keine andere Frucht tragen kann,”
schwanger durch “einen Strahl vom Himmel,” der auch als Strahl des Mondes bestimmt
wird: Plutarch, Quaestiones III I., S. 18 b. Auch für die Jungfrau Maria ist ikonographisch
die Berührung durch einen Strahl überliefert.
9Zur Geburtsgeschichte vgl. von E. Brunner-Traut auch: “Pharao und Jesus als Söhne
Gottes” in: Gelebte Mythen, 3. Aufl. (Darmstadt, 1988), S. 31–59.
159
10 BRYAN Page 161 Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:45 PM
The Disjunction of Text and Image in

Egyptian Art
Betsy M. Bryan
A
lthough in most cases inscriptions are read in concert
with the objects on which they are placed, if they are considered
separately it may be possible to identify two distinct messages
1
comprehended by different audiences. A stela from Abydos, (fig. 1)
recently republished by Anthony Leahy, illustrates well the disjunction
of text and image possible in monumental settings. Due to the hiero-
glyphic readability of both writing and art, some elements of both were
often mixed in monumental settings: for example, as early as the Third
Dynasty, flkr and ∂d signs were used as decorative elements on architec-
tural friezes at the Step Pyramid and were no doubt intended to be read
as well as viewed. Even the illiterate, then, if they resided near cult cen-
ters, must have known some royal and divine iconography, and must
also have been familiar with a number of hieroglyphic signifiers, such as
cartouches and serekhs with falcons atop as identifications of rulers; or
lapwings as writings of r∞yt, particularly combined with the dw£ sign to
2
designate stations for people within temples. The mixture of hiero-
glyphic forms with artistic compositional principles on this Abydos
stela’s lunette scene would therefore have been readable: not as to the
specific royal names, but rather as to the iconographies of king and
divinity as well as the meaning of their placements and gestures.
Leahy’s discussion was largely centered on the stela inscription, but
he nonetheless carefully illustrated the entire stela and discussed its
lunette scene briefly. The text, a decree of the Thirteenth Dynasty,
(which Leahy showed to have been reused in the same dynasty) forbade
the building of tombs in the Wepwawet area of Abydos as marked by the
stela. It also granted tomb construction outside the area designated by
1Cairo JE 35256. Anthony Leahy, “A Protective Measure at Abydos in the Thirteenth

Dynasty,” JEA 75 (1989), pp. 41–61.
2 Lanny Bell, “Les parcours processionnels,” Dossiers histoire et archéologie 101 (January
1986), pp. 29–30. See also mention of this topic, Betsy Bryan, “Royal and Divine Statuary,”
in A. Kozloff and B. Bryan, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun. Amenhotep III and his World,
(Cleveland, 1992), pp. 125–36.
Fig. 1. Abydos Stela, Cairo Museum JE 35256, after

drawing in A. Leahy, JEA 75 (1989), pp. 41–61.
162
Betsy M. Bryan, The Disjunction of Text and Image in Egyptian Art
the stela. The inscription was thus directed at the literate wealthy who
might attempt to place constructions in the area.
The lunette scene, on the other hand, would have been viewed and
understood by literate elites and nonliterate alike. In that scene the
king’s Horus and cartouche names appear facing the name of the god
Wepwawet, the writing of which was determined by a striding jackal on
a standard. Possibly this determinative, a common writing for Wep-
3
wawet, represented a processional cult emblem of that god. The ™n∞ and
w£s signs are projecting out to the falcon atop the Horus name from the
standard, enduing the king (through his name) with those two proper-
ties. The winged sun disk identified stretches across the top, with the
limits of Egypt identified as the northern and southern cult centers of
Horus of Behdet.
It is useful to consider what the lunette scene and the form of a stela
generally would communicate were the text lacking. Indeed, set in its
original location the stela, absent its main inscription, would alert any
viewer that it is a royal decree and therefore important to heed. In
addition the lunette establishes Wepwawet, a god from a neighboring
cult center, at Abydos, and it demonstrates that the king is favored by
4
that god in particular. The form of the stela, therefore, alerted the non-
literate to the king’s relationship with Wepwawet, perhaps in a proces-
sional emblematic form, thereby increasing the ruler’s association with
that god in whatever role he played at Abydos. The stela’s siting may
have further suggested a specific association within Abydos generally.
This message for the illiterate was an entirely positive one with regard
to the ruler and his cult involvement. Whether the particular ruler
would have been known to the viewer is, of course, not possible to say.
We should acknowledge, however, that nonliteracy, like literacy, has
degrees, and some may have known more signs than others. Some may
also have been aware of the reason for the stela’s erection.
As Leahy’s discussion of the stela inscription reveals, the Thirteenth
Dynasty rulers were unusual in their personal participation in the
5
Osirian festivals held at Abydos. Thus the inscription, for Leahy, was
composed and recarved on occasions of two Thirteenth Dynasty rulers
attending such festivities. In addition, Leahy, following Kemp, argued
persuasively that the protected region referred to in the inscription was
3 Wb. 1, p. 202,16.
4 See F. Gomaa, Die Besiedlung Ägyptens während des Mittleren Reiches, TAVO Beihefte
(Wiesbaden, 1986), p. 202, with n. 16, for Wepwawet as resident in Abydos.
5 Ibid., pp. 59–60. Leahy notes the distinction between Thirteenth Dynasty rulers who
attended the festivals in person and Twelfth Dynasty kings who sent emissaries.
163
the wadi leading from the Osiris temple toward the archaic tombs of the
6
First Dynasty at Umm el Qaàb. He states that “the reason for the
dedication of the area to Wepwawet also becomes clear; it was he who
as ‘Opener of the Ways,’ led the sequence of processions in the Osiris
7
mysteries.” Thus the lunette’s message of royal association with Wep-
wawet in a processional form was background for the inscription itself.
For those who could read, however, the message was quite different
from that of royal association with Wepwawet and involvement with
the Abydene mysteries. The literate were informed of the prohibition
from building tombs in the area, a point that was no doubt intended to
enforce the ruler’s own wishes with regard to the processional and
cemetery space. This was a message of power asserted over the affluent
whose actions were potentially a threat to the crown. At the same time,
the king’s granting of construction outside his protected area, further
insisted on his overall ability to dispense privileges. As Leahy states,
“the fact that no burials were made in the wadi before Roman times,
whereas the areas on either side of it were used and reused, confirms
8
both the identification and the success of the decree.” Ultimately text
and image speak to two distinct audiences with the appropriate message
of royal display and power.
Egyptian art communicates without text and with it. Although it
often does, art does not necessarily coincide with text in the meaning it
9
conveys. Nor, then, does text in monumental uses, necessarily purely
10
caption the art, as most writers have argued it does. Rather, art may
provide a different version of the same subject expressed in accompany-
ing text. For example, although the visual cues provided by the scenes
from Ramesses II’s Kadesh Battle reliefs at the Ramesseum, Karnak,
11
Luxor Temple, Abydos, and Abu Simbel (fig. 2) are not identical, the
6 Ibid., p. 54, after Barry Kemp, Lexikon der Ägyptologie 1, col. 37.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Thomas von der Way, in his excellent study, Die Textüberlieferung Ramses’ II. zur
Qadeß-Schlacht: Analyse und Struktur, (Hildesheim, 1984), Introduction, notes that the
texts and reliefs do not often coincide, but concludes that the text can stand alone, while
the reliefs cannot. This I would argue is not the case.
10 While Roland Tefnin, “Image, écriture, récit. A propos des représentations de la bataille
de Qadesh,” GM 47 (1981), pp. 55–78, was certainly mindful of the interconnections of

text and image, he was not sensitive to the dissonance conveyed by the Kadesh reliefs
placed next to the accompanying legends and War Bulletin. The most difficult view to
accept is that of Alan H. Gardiner, The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II (Oxford, 1960),
who attempted a chart to place text and image opposite one another to demonstrate their
coincidence. It was a failure.
11 Charles Kuentz, La Bataille de Qadech, MIFAO 55 (Cairo, 1928–1934).
164
Fig. 2. Kadesh Battle Relief from Luxor

Temple, after drawing in K. Kitchen,
Pharaoh Triumphant (Warminster, 1988),
figs. 18–19.
essential elements of the camp, the fort of Kadesh, the Orontes river
around it, and the meeting of chariot warriors exist in all versions. How-
ever, the serious predicament in which Ramesses II found himself
during the battle, as described in the Poem and/or the Bulletin or relief
inscriptional legends are largely not evident in the reliefs themselves.
165
Lacking the texts, the viewer would conclude that Ramesses II was
12
victorious against the vile Hittite foe, apparently nearly all alone. It is
interesting to point out that one consistent addition was the mission of
the Egyptian vizier to hurry the army for the ruler.
Although many Egyptologists might conclude that the uncomplicat-
13
ed nature of the relief story underscores the dependence of art on text,
it is more likely an illustration that Egyptian art was directed at more
than one constituency, depending on whether the text was to be read or
not. The nature of audience for monumental reliefs and inscriptions is
problematic, but it would certainly be wise to consider first the low
14
literacy levels in the New Kingdom. Even those who read hieratic rea-
sonably well might have had difficulty seeing and reading monumental
hieroglyphic texts on temple pylons. In addition, in my opinion, monu-
mental Egyptian art was not intended as argument, but rather as state-
15
ment. The work of persuasion must have taken place before the
monumentalizing, i.e., before the statement was, quite literally, “set in
stone.” Those who could read the text most probably knew of it as the
story it tells was being composed.
The statement of the monument in the reign of Ramesses II, and
later as well, to the vast non-literate majority of the population was a
reminder of pharaoh’s victories, specific and continuous, on behalf of
Egypt and its gods. The statement to the literate government elites
provided an explanation of Egypt’s poor performance at Kadesh. To con-
clude from the Kadesh texts, the army, largely an illiterate group led by
officers answerable to the crown, was the scapegoat offered to the gov-
ernment bureaucrats. It is noteworthy that the mission of the vizier to
hasten the army of Ptah’s assistance to Ramesses II was prominently
labeled in the reliefs. The court official did his duty, while, as could be
read in full in the “Poem,” the army disgraced itself by its cowardly per-
16
formance in battle.
12 The conclusions reached also by von der Way and Tefnin, op.cit., but without further
analysis of the meaning of this disjunction.
13 See above, concerning von der Way. In addition to Gardiner, Lichtheim too appears not
to have noticed the discrepancy of reliefs and texts, seeming to think them inevitably read
together; Gardiner, The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II, p. 26; Miriam Lichtheim,
Ancient Egyptian Literature 2 (Berkeley, 1976), p. 58.
14 Even if one considers the Baines and Eyre estimate to be low, one would hardly push
literacy above the level of 5% of the population; J. Baines and C. Eyre, “Four notes on
literacy,” GM 61 (1983), pp. 65–96.
15 Michael Baxandall, Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy: A Primer in the
Social History of Pictorial Style (Oxford, 1972), provides a similar view.
166
It is a significant point in this example that the small number of

elites who could read would not have interpreted the monuments of
Ramesses II in the same way as the vast public. For this last group the
temples were in any case distant and restricted centers of authority,
royal and religious. Nonetheless a complete message was communicat-
ed to both audiences. We cannot estimate with any certainty the degree
to which the owner of a monument depended on the separate and com-
bined messages of art and inscription. We are safe, however, in assuming
that all those who viewed a monument did not take away the same
message.
For example, a statue of a man and woman in a private decorated
tomb chapel of the New Kingdom might depict the couple arm in arm,
at the same scale. Stylistically, they would both have the features of the
reigning king and iconographical details that identified them with a par-
ticular generation. A female family member visiting the chapel would
most likely have been illiterate, but would have recognized both a man
and woman as primary recipients of the statue’s benefits. A male visitor,
at the elite tomb-owning level of society, on the other hand, would
possibly have been literate and therefore able to learn that the statue
might have had an overwhelming preponderance of inscriptions relating
17
to the man, or conversely might mention the woman prominently.
The impressions of the two visitors about the statue owners would not
have been identical and yet both received the communication of the
monument.
Indeed, this dissonance in text and image can be found on nearly
every inscribed object and must assert that the function of text with
image was other than caption or explication. Rather, in the monumental
setting the text preserved a statement that few could comprehend and
appreciate. Although that statement was not intended as argument to
the viewer, its very monumentalization and its limited accessibility
made it likely to have been prestigious. This prestige might have
invoked a “dialogue” between viewer and monument. And if discussion
16 This is an alternative view to that offered by von der Way, who considered the army
itself needed to be propagandized. It is difficult for me to accept a level of literacy among
the army at large that would have enabled their true knowledge of the inscription
contents.
17 For example, compare the statue of Djehutyemheb and Iay, YAG 1947.81, Gerry Scott,
Ancient Egyptian Art at Yale, Yale University Art Gallery (New Haven, 1986), pp. 128–31
with Johns Hopkins University Archaeological Museum 9212, Betsy M. Bryan, “An Early
Eighteenth Dynasty Group Statue from the Asasif in the Johns Hopkins University
Archaeological Collection,” BES 10 (1989/90), pp. 25–38. Here the woman is more promi-
nent than the man by both inscriptions and by her artistic placement on the proper right
side.
167
resumes with the viewer, it does so as part of further interpretation of

the monument, and that interpretation is culturally sensitive—chang-
18
ing not only from person to person, but from era to era.
b
18 See,for example, the discussion of the communicative role of art, as discussed by Keith
Moxey, in “Semiotics and the Social History of Art,” New Literary History 22 (1991),
pp. 985–99.
168
11 D’AURIA Page 169 Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:46 PM
Three Painted Textiles in the Collection

of the Boston Athenaeum
Sue D’Auria
T
his article is dedicated to William Kelly Simpson, with
appreciation. In 1916, the Boston Athenaeum acquired three
New Kingdom painted linen panels dedicated to Hathor, along
with a collection of 124 inscribed mummy bandages.1 The painted tex-
tiles had formed part of the collection of Robert de Rustafjaell,2 and their
provenance was said to be “a mound of debris on the site of the Temple
of Hathor at Thebes.”3 Several other similar cloths from this collection
are now scattered in museums throughout the world, and have been
determined to derive from Deir el-Bahri, where additional examples
were excavated by the Egypt Exploration Society in the Eleventh
Dynasty temple.4 Eleven are featured in Geraldine Pinch’s work on
votive offerings.5 The three textiles discussed here are an addition to
Pinch’s corpus.
All three examples are votive textiles, and two were dedicated by
members of the same family. Both of these consist of rectangular pieces
of rather coarse linen. The larger scene (fig. 2) measures 27.5 cm tall and
24.5 cm wide, excluding fringe. The piece is fringed on top and sides (see
appendix for further details of construction). The painted scene, in two
1 “Three Egyptian Decorative Shrine Hangings Painted Upon Canvas and a Collection of
Inscribed Mummy Bandages,” Boston Athenaeum Report for the Year 1916, p. 3. A photo-
graphic reproduction is in the Brooklyn Museum, see The Brooklyn Museum, Wilbour
Library Acquisitions List no. 9 (April 1 to Dec. 31, 1967). I wish to thank Michael Went-
worth, Curator, Library of the Boston Athenaeum, for permission to publish these textiles.
I am also grateful to Joyce Haynes for her suggestions.
2 Robert de Rustafjaell, The Light of Egypt (London, 1910); Catalogue of the Remaining
Part of the Valuable Collection of Egyptian Antiquities Formed by R. de Rustafjaell

(London, 1913); Catalogue of the Interesting and Valuable Egyptian Collection formed by
Mr. Robert de Rustafjaell (New York, 1915). See also Robert de Rustafjaell, “The Earliest
known Paintings on Cloth,” The Connoisseur 14 (1906), pp. 239–42.
3 Boston Athenaeum Report for the Year 1916, p. 3.
4 Edouard Naville and H.R. Hall, The XIth Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahri III (London,
1913), p. 15 and pls. 30–31. See also the discussion and additional examples cited in Klaus
Parlasca, Mumienporträts und verwandte Denkmäler (Wiesbaden, 1966), pp. 153–54, pls.
54–55.
5 Geraldine Pinch, Votive Offerings to Hathor (Oxford, 1993), pp. 103–105, 107–12.
Fig. 1. Votive textile of Ìnr and Ór. The Boston Athenaeum,

Fine Arts Fund, 1916.
170
Sue D’Auria, Three Painted Textiles in the Collection of the Boston Athenaeum
Fig. 2. Second votive textile of Ìnr and Ór. The Boston Athenaeum,
171
registers, is framed by a frieze of white lotus petals on a blue background

at the top, and a red and black linear border at sides and bottom. Seven
figures are depicted worshipping Hathor, who appears as a cow.
At the top of the upper register appears a horizontal red line, with a
series of small vertical strokes under it. On the left, the forepart of the
Hathor cow, painted yellow, emerges from the Western Mountain. The
cow is adorned with a black broad collar with an indistinct black and red
terminal. A red menat is placed at the back of the cow’s neck. Facing her
are three figures. A bare-headed man wearing a diaphanous pleated kilt
and blue broad collar raises his left hand in adoration, as do all of the
other figures pictured. His right hand holds a censer above a table
flanked by floral offerings. Behind him is the figure of a nude child, with
right arm extended down. Behind the child stands a woman wearing a
long, full black wig, blue broad collar, and long, diaphanous garment
with sleeves. Her right hand grasps a long-necked jar, from which a liba-
tion is poured.
The bottom register is very worn, but depicts a procession of three
women led by a man. The man, who is dressed in a fashion similar to the
man in the upper register, holds a duck by its wings in his right hand.
The details of dress of the three women are not well preserved, but the
first wears a long, diaphanous dress with blue broad collar and full black
wig, and holds the same type of vessel as the woman in the upper
register.
The accompanying text is brief and gives only names and titles. The
goddess is identified as “Mistress of the West, Mistress of Heaven, Mis-
tress of all the gods” (nbt ⁄mnt, nbt pt, ¢nwt n†rw nbw). Each of the
donors is identified in a short vertical text. The figures in the upper reg-
ister may be considered the principal donors, and their names are conse-
quently preceded by ¡r n. The man is the “draughtsman, Hunure” (sß
˚dwt Ìnr),6 and the woman is the “mistress of the house, Kharu” (nbt-
6 For the spelling of the name, see Hermann Ranke, Die Ägyptischen Personennamen 1
(Glückstadt, 1935), p. 245, no. 7. The name occurs more commonly in its feminine form;
see, for example, Bertha Porter and Rosalind Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient
Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings I, part 1, (Oxford, 1960), p. 482. For sß
˚dwt, see Percy Newberry, Funerary Statuettes and Model Sarcophagi, CCG (Cairo,
1957), nos. 47617l, 47733; Georges Legrain, Statues et Statuettes de Rois et de particuliers,
CCG, (Cairo, 1925), no. 42122; Mario Tosi and Alessandro Roccati, Stele e Altre Epigrafi
di Deir el Medina (Turin, 1972), no. 50009; and Labib Habachi, Tavole d’offerta are e Bicili
da Libagione (Turin, 1977), nos. 22025, 22028. See also T. Handoussa, “A Funerary Statu-
ette from a Private Collection,” MDAIK 37 (1981), p. 204.
172
pr Ór).7 The child between them is identified as “her son, Huy” (s£≠s
Ì¡¡).8
Of the four people in the bottom register, only two can be named
with certainty. The man at the head of the procession is identified as
“the scribe, Khonsu-hotep,” (sß Ónsw-¢tp),9 and the woman following
him is the mistress of the house, Huy (nbt-pr Ì¡¡). The second woman
incorporates the name of Isis into her name, but the other signs are
almost completely obliterated, save for a seated woman determinative.
Hunure, Kharu, and her son Huy appear again on the second textile,
(fig. 1) which measures 27 cm high by 22.5 cm wide. It is manufactured
of a rather coarse linen similar to that of the first example, and is fringed
on the top and right side. Unfortunately, the piece as a whole is not as
well preserved as the first example. Much of the decoration of the left
side is gone, and there is a triangular loss from the lower left.
This textile contains a single scene, framed once again at the top
with a frieze of white lotus petals on a blue ground, and at sides and bot-
tom with a linear border in black and red. The figures of the three wor-
shippers are rendered in a fashion similar to the first textile. Hunure is
bare-headed and wears a blue broad collar, but the the lower part of his
kilt is worn away, as are any objects that he holds. The lady Kharu again
wears a long garment with sleeves, blue broad collar, and long, full, curly
wig, ornamented by a tall perfumed cone decorated with a lotus flower
at the front. She holds a tall-necked jar, under which the tiny figure of
her son appears. The depiction of the goddess Hathor has been entirely
obliterated, as has most of the inscription above her missing image.
Only her name and two nb-signs at the top of the columns can be iden-
tified with certainty. The remainder of the text once again identifies
Hunure with the title sß ˚dwt, and introduces his name with ¡r n. Kharu
is named as nbt pr, and Huy is labelled as her son.
Two textiles matching the description of those dedicated by Hunure
are listed in a 1913 auction catalogue of the Rustafjaell collection, but
are described there as “attached in the centre by the horizontal threads
of canvas.”10 Close examination reveals that the fringe originally join-
ing the two scenes was cut between 1913 and their acquisition in 1916
by the Athenaeum, in order to bind the textiles into the volume in
7 Ranke, Personennamen 1, cf. p. 273, no. 20. The final signs of the name appear behind
the figure of its owner, and are badly worn, but they are confirmed on the second textile;
see below.
8 Ranke, Personennamen 1, p. 233, no. 18.
9 Ibid.,
p. 271, no. 12.
10 Catalogue of the Remaining Part of the Valuable Collection, p. 51, no. 577. See also
Pinch, Votive Offerings to Hathor, p. 107, no. 6.
173
which they are now found. The double scene is unusual, but accounts
for the fact that each individual panel is taller than it is wide; when
joined they produce the wider-proportioned scene that is characteristic
of these textiles. Hunure’s panels are also unusual in that he is given a
title that is rarely found in this class of objects, and the title is a scribal
one, while the others are exclusively those of priests.11
The lotus petal frieze, cow and mountain motif, and the style of the
figures, including dress and hairstyle, indicate that these textiles date to
the end of Dynasty 18.12
The third Athenaeum textile (fig. 4)13 is very different in both design
and execution. It is 29.5 cm tall and 15 cm wide, excluding fringe, and
the linen is of a much finer quality than those discussed above. It has a
looped fringe at the top, and a plain fringe at the right side. The looped
fringe presumably held a cord for suspension, and is found on several
other votive textiles from Deir el-Bahri.14
The dedicatory scene is placed on the upper half of the textile, and
there is no border. This arrangement is unparalleled in the other painted
textiles devoted to Hathor, and is closer in its design to a cloth in the
Royal Ontario Museum with a similar scene drawn in black ink.15 On
the Athenaeum piece, Hathor appears in the context of a papyrus thick-
et. The goddess, in cow form, stands on the left upon a green-painted
papyrus barque, whose curving stern ends in a papyrus umbel. The bow
of the barque has unfortunately been obliterated, but in most compara-
ble scenes, it is the bow, and not the stern, that ends in a papyrus-shaped
element. The thicket is rendered as seven stems of green papyrus. The
cow itself is long and lean, painted yellow with black markings. It has a
sundisk between its horns, and its neck is adorned with two lotus flow-
ers. In front of the goddess, a red stand has been placed, whose green-
painted contents are heavily damaged. A woman stands at the right,
with right arm extended down, and left hand holding a censer. She is yel-
low-skinned, and wears a long black wig and a sheath dress. Behind her,
additional offerings appear;16 they are very damaged, but are large, black
objects, perhaps jars, placed on a small red base.
11 Pinch, Votive Offerings to Hathor, p. 123.

12 See Pinch’s discussion of date range, ibid., pp. 127–28.
13 Catalogue of the Remaining Part of the Valuable Collection, p. 52, no. 579; Pinch,
Votive Offerings to Hathor, p. 111, no. 11.

14 Ibid., p. 117.
15 Ibid., p. 105 and pl. 26a.
16 For two other examples with offerings placed behind the donor, see ibid., p. 124.
174
Fig. 3. Votive textile of ⁄-¡t. The Boston Athenaeum,

175
The inscription is limited to the name of the donor, which appears

above her figure; it can be read as ⁄-¡t.17 The simple wig and sheath dress
suggest a date in the Eighteenth Dynasty, no later than Amenhotep II.18
b
17 The name as spelled here does not appear in Ranke’s Personennamen, but there are close
parallels; see, for example, ¡tf≠¡, p. 51, no. 8; and ¡tf≠¡, p. 51, no. 18; also ¡fy, p. 24, no. 3.
176
12 LEVEQUE Page 177 Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:47 PM
Technical Analysis of Three Painted

Textiles in the Collection of the Boston
Athenaeum
Margaret A. Leveque
T
he cloths described in the preceding article were made
from medium–coarse undyed linen,1 woven in an open plain
weave, although one (see preceding article, fig. 3) was more fine-
ly prepared and woven.2 Unusually, the threads were two S-plyed, the
reverse of traditional Egyptian techniques.3 The panels are roughly rect-
angular, generally wider than they are tall, but they were irregularly wo-
ven with varying widths.
The three votive cloths were made in an identical manner, presum-
ably expressly for the purpose, by a technique of construction unreport-
ed by Pinch: the cloths were woven, then turned 90° and painted,
making the warp horizontal and the weft vertical. Thus, the top of each
panel represents the left side selvage of the original weaving.
Technique
A series of small rectangular panels were woven consecutively, each sep-
arated by a length of unwoven warps.4 The loom was either an upright
frame loom, used in Egypt from the beginning of the New Kingdom,5 or
the traditional ground loom, with such narrow bands, a more uncom-
fortable and ungainly solution for the weaver. Each panel begins and
ends with 4–6 rows of multiple wefts (from 3 to 5 threads combined),
probably to reinforce the edges.
The fringe along the top edge of each panel was inlaid into the sheds
of the left selvage as groups of four or five threads, which were pulled out
1 The panels had been adhered to paper backings that were then glued into the book at the
Boston Athenaeum. Consequently, the reverse sides of the panels were not available for
study.
2 The average thread count for figs. 1 and 2 is 13 warps/8 wefts; fig. 3 is 16 warps/ 18–22
wefts.
3 Rosalind Hall, Egyptian Textiles (Aylesbury, 1986), p. 12.
4 A group of two joined panels was illustrated in Pinch, Votive Offerings to Hathor, pl. 26B.
5 Hall, Egyptian Textiles, p. 15, E.J.W. Barber, Prehistoric Textiles (Princeton, 1991), p. 113.
12 LEVEQUE Page 178 Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:47 PM
into loops.6 The traces of cord found by Pinch in the fringe of some of
the cloths she examined, may have initially been a template on the
loom, strung to assure the evenness of the fringe.7 They might subse-
quently have been used for hanging the cloths, as Pinch suggested.8
Although this helped to properly tension the left side, the right selvage
of the cloths had more uneven tensioning, as seen most clearly in the
preceding article, fig. 2. In Egypt, the inlaid fringe was always exclusive-
ly on the left side;9 as expected, there was no evidence of fringe along the
bottom edge of any of the Athenaeum panels.
The other fringes were merely cut warps; however, this is complicat-
ed by the fact that two of the votive cloths (above, figs. 1 and 2) were
originally joined by their fringe and only cut for insertion into the bound
volume at the Boston Athenaeum. This can be clearly seen by the con-
tinuation of warp threads and painted lines from one section of fringe to
the next. It is apparent by the amount of paint crossing the fringes from
one panel to the other that these two panels were painted while joined.
The left side of one panel (above, fig. 2) had no fringe; rather, the warps
were worked back into the weaving, suggesting that it may have been
the first panel on the loom. The right edges of two of the panels (above,
figs. 1 and 3) were bound at the fringe after weaving with a series of loop-
ing stitches.
Two of the panels (above, figs. 1–2) were initially covered with a
white ground layer, then the figures were outlined with red followed by
the remainder of the colors. The third panel (above, fig. 3) does not ap-
pear to have had an overall ground layer, although some white is present
below some of the colors (e.g., the black of the wig).
Conclusion
It is clear from the analysis that such votive cloths were woven as a
series of panels that could be cut apart into one or more sections to be
painted on commission or for stock supply. This technique was an effi-
cient method of weaving a number of separate panels without having to
continually rewarp a loom. It is as yet unknown how many panels were
typically woven together, since two is the largest grouping yet found,
but further examination of the cut warp ends of the remainder of the
existing textiles should prove fruitful.
b
6 Barber, Prehistoric Textiles, pp. 151–52.
7 Suggested by E. Barber, personal communication, 1996.
9 Barber, personal communication, 1996.
178
13 DEPUYDT Page 179 Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:48 PM
Egyptian Regnal Dating under

Cambyses and the Date of the
Persian Conquest
Leo Depuydt
A
s a long line of congratulants began forming around the
block, it became clear that space limitations would not permit
publication here of the full study on regnal dating in Achae-
menid Egypt which I had intended to contribute to this festal volume.
Only an extract of suitable length on the first reign of the period in ques-
tion therefore appears below. The bulk is found under the title “Regnal
Years and Civil Calendar in Achaemenid Egypt” in The Journal of Egyp-
tian Archaeology 81 (1995), as a supplement to Gardiner’s treatise on
“Regnal Years and Civil Calendar in Pharaonic Egypt,” published half a
century ago in JEA 31 (1945). But this entire investigation of Achae-
menid Egyptian regnal dating is written in recognition of a man who
manifests, in the way Gardiner did, a range of activity and a breadth of
learning that are the envy of Egyptology’s younger generation.
1. Predating of Postdating in Achaemenid Egypt

At the eve of the Persian conquest and the end of the Saite period (664–
526/25 B.C.E.), regnal years were counted from one New Year’s Day to
the next in Egypt. Year 1 began on the day of accession and lasted until
the first new year. This regnal dating system is called predating because
the beginnings of the regnal years precede the beginnings of years
actually reigned of the same number; years actually reigned are those
counted from one anniversary of the accession to the next, beginning
with the day of accession itself. The wandering year’s New Year’s Day
roughly coincided with the beginning of the retrocalculated julian year
in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E.
In the Babylonian system, adopted by the Persians, regnal years were
counted from one Babylonian New Year’s Day to the next, but Year 1
began on the first Babylonian new year after the accession. The period
from the day of accession to the first new year was an accession year.
This regnal dating system is called postdating because the beginnings of
the regnal years follow the beginnings of years actually reigned of the
same number. The Babylonian new year always begins around the spring
equinox.
If Saite regnal dating is predating and Babylonian regnal dating is
postdating, then Egyptian regnal dating under the Achaemenids can be
1
appropriately called predating of postdating. Year 1 had begun by the
first Babylonian new year of the reign in the spring; this is the postdating
element. Year 2 begins on the first Egyptian new year after that; this is
the predating element. In predating of postdating, the beginnings of
Egyptian regnal years either precede or follow the beginnings of real reg-
nal years of the same number. If the king comes to the throne between
the Egyptian new year and the Babylonian new year, less time is post–
dated forward to the Babylonian new year than predated backward from
the Babylonian new year to the Egyptian new year, and the Egyptian
Year 1 ends before the first anniversary of accession, and so on for the
subsequent regnal years. An example is the reign of Darius II. But if the
king comes to the throne between the Babylonian new year and the
Egyptian new year, more time is postdated forward than predated back-
ward, and the Egyptian Year 1 ends after the first anniversary of acces-
sion. An example is the reign of Xerxes I.
2
Cambyses came to the throne in August 530, after the Babylonian
new year in the spring and before the Egyptian new year, which fell in
the beginning of January at the time. Since Cambyses (530–522) did not
begin his reign as ruler of Egypt, the question arises whether the same
system applies in his reign as under the other Persian rulers of the Twen-
ty-seventh Dynasty (526/5–405/4). In what follows, it will be claimed
that all the dates known from his reign can be reconciled with predating
of postdating. There is no absolute proof, but all the relevant items will
be passed in review so that the reader might be able to make an indepen-
dent assessment of the plausibility of the thesis. It will also be necessary
to examine the dates of the conquest and the end of Amasis’ reign as
well as the reigning view that two dating systems were used under
Cambyses.
1 Fora more detailed description of predating of postdating, see JEA 81 (1995). On Achae-
menid Egyptian chronology, see also Winfried Barta, “Zur Datierungspraxis in Ägypten
unter Kambyses und Dareios I,” ZÄS 119 (1992), pp. 82–90; Barta does not mention Pest-
man’s article of 1984 (see n. 17), which has shed new light on the problem; on Barta’s con-
tribution, see n. 24 below and JEA 81. On the Persian conquest of Egypt, see now also
Günter Burkard, “Literarische Tradition und historische Realität: Die persische Eroberung
Ägyptens am Beispiel Elephantine,” ZÄS 121 (1994), pp. 93–106 (first part), with bibliog-
raphy.
2 RichardA. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.–A.D. 75
(Providence, 1956), p. 14.
180
Leo Depuydt, Egyptian Regnal Dating under Cambyses and the Date of the Persian Conquest
2. Regnal Dating under Cambyses

Cambyses became king of Persia in August 530 and was still recognized
in April 522, in his Babylonian Year 8, but it is not known when in 522
he died. Because his Year 7 is astronomically fixed by a lunar eclipse
3
recorded in Ptolemy’s Almagest and in a Babylonian tablet, it is certain
that his Babylonian Years 1 to 8 began in the evening of the following
days, at first crescent visibility after a conjunction or astronomical new
moon: (Year 1) 12 April 529, (2) 1 April 528, (3) 21 March 527, (4) 9 April
526, (5) 29 March 525, (6) 17 April 524, (7) 7 April 523, and (8) 27 March
4
522. It follows that his Egyptian Years 1 to 8, according to predating of
postdating, would begin on the following days: (Year 1) 3 January 529, (2)
2 January 528, (3) 2 January 527, (4) 2 January 526, (5) 2 January 525, (6)
1 January 524, (7) 1 January 523, and (8) 1 January 522.
References to Egyptian regnal years of Cambyses are found in
5 6 7 8 9
Demotic and hieroglyphic Egyptian. In Demotic, the Years 2, 3, 4, 5,
10 11 12
6, and 7 are attested once and Year 8 twice. In hieroglyphic
13
Egyptian, the Year 5 is attested once and Year 6 twice, once in a Sera-
14 15
peum stela and once in an inscription from the Wadi Hammamat. In
these 11 attestations of regnal years, an important distinction should be
3 Richard A. Parker, “Persian and Egyptian Chronology,” AJSL 58 (1941), pp. 285–301, at
p. 294 n. 26.
4 Some dates might be off by one day. For the degree of accuracy, see Parker and
Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, p. 25.

5 For the evidence, see Henri Gauthier, Le livre des rois d’Égypte, vol. 4, MIFAO 25 (Cairo,
1916), pp. 136–38; Heinz-Josef Thissen, “Chronologie der frühdemotischen Papyri,”

Enchoria: Zeitschrift für Demotistik und Koptologie 10 (1980), pp. 105–25, at p. 113
(Demotic papyri written in the reign of Cambyses).
6 P. Cairo 50059,8. For transcription and translation of P. Cairo 50059, dated to Year 8 of
Cambyses, see Wilhelm Spiegelberg, Die demotischen Denkmäler. III. Demotische

Inschriften und Papyri (Fortsetzung), Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du
Musée du Caire, vol. 92 (Berlin, 1932), pp. 42–46; for this same papyrus, see also E.
Jelínková-Reymond, “Gestions des Rentes d’Office,” CdE 28/56 (1953), pp. 228–37. Year
2 probably also needs to be restored in P. BM 10792,6; for this document, see n. 12 below.
7 P. Rylands IX 21,7; for transcription and translation of this line, see Francis Ll. Griffith,
Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri in the John Rylands Library Manchester (Manchester
and London, 1909), vol. 3, pp. 105, 247. The latest date in P. Rylands IX is Year 9 of Darius I
(30 December 514 – 28 December 513). Since a few later events are mentioned, the text
was probably written down a couple of years after Year 9, in about 510.
8 P. Rylands IX 21,9. For transcription and translation of this line, see ibid.
9 P. Cairo 50060, column 2,1. For transcription and translation, see Spiegelberg,
Denkmäler, pp. 46–48; the text was reedited by E. Jelínková-Reymond, “«Paiement» du

Président de la Nécropole (P. Caire 50060),” BIFAO 55 (1955), pp. 33–55. Only traces of the
king’s name remain; for the paleographical justification for restoring Cambyses’ name, see
Jelínková-Reymond, “«Paiement»,” pp. 40–41.
10 P. Cairo 50062a. For transcription and translation, see Spiegelberg, Denkmäler, p. 52.
11 P. Cairo 50062c. The name of Cambyses is lost; Spiegelberg restores it. For transcription
and translation, see Spiegelberg, Denkmäler, p. 53.
181
made between year dates contemporary with the writing of the docu-
ment and year dates referred to in papyri of later date. Half of the dates,
the Demotic year dates 2, 3, and 4, and two of the three hieroglyphic year
dates, the Year 5 and the Year 6 in the Hammamat inscription, are men-
tioned in texts of later date.
It is especially surprising to find a Year 2 attested in the same texts,
in P. Cairo 50059 and in all probability in lacuna also in P. BM 10792, in
which Year 8 is also mentioned. Whatever the date of Cambyses’ con-
quest (see below), it did not occur as early as his Year 2, counting by any
imaginable calendar. But since not Year 2 but rather Year 8 is the date of
the document, what must have happened is that Year 2 is dated retroac-
16
tively and the last years of Amasis are annulled. It is unlikely that two
different dating methods were used in the same manuscript. Year 2 and
Year 8 are mentioned just two lines apart. There can therefore be little
doubt that it was possible to date Cambyses’ regnal years retroactively
17
to before the conquest.
Also the Years 3 and 4 in the well-known P. Rylands IX are puzzling,
for the Greek tradition (see below) claims that Cambyses became king
of Egypt in his fifth year according to an unspecified calendar. For this
reason, it has been suggested that the Years 3 and 4 were counted either
from Amasis’ death, disregarding Psammetichus III’s short reign, or from
18
Cambyses’ conquest of Egypt. Accordingly, the regnal dates higher
than 4 could be interpreted as dating from the day of accession and there
12 This date is found in two complimentary documents pertaining to the same subject
matter from the same archive, P. Cairo 50059,10 and P. BM 10792,8; Year 8 probably also
needs to be restored in line 1 of each document. For transcription and translation of P.
Cairo 50059, see n. 6; for transcription and translation of P. BM 10792, see A.F. Shore,
“Swapping Property at Asyut in the Persian Period,” Pyramid Studies and Other Essays
Presented to I.E.S. Edwards (London, 1988), pp. 200–206. On the contents of these docu-
ments, see now also Janet H. Johnson, “Ànnuity Contracts’ and Marriage,” For His Ka:
Essays Offered in Memory of Klaus Baer, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 55
(Chicago, 1994), pp. 113–32.
13 Louvre IM.4187, dated to Year 4 of Darius I. For text and translation, see Georges Posen-
er, La première domination perse en Égypte: Recueil d’inscriptions hiéroglyphiques,

Bibliothèque d’Étude 11 (Cairo, 1936), pp. 36–41.
14 Louvre IM.4133, edited by Posener, La première domination, pp. 30–35.
15 The inscription is dated to Year 12 of Xerxes I. For text and translation, see Posener, La
première domination, pp. 28–29.

16 Cf. also Parker, “Persian and Egyptian Chronology,” p. 301 with n. 42; id., “The Length
of Reign of Amasis and the Beginning of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty,” MDAIK 15 (1957),
pp. 208–12, at pp. 209–10 n. 3.
17 For a different interpretation of Year 2, see P.W. Pestman, “The Diospolis Parva Docu-
ments: Chronological Problems concerning Psammetichus III and IV,” Grammata Demo-
tika: Festschrift für Erich Lüddeckens zum 15. Juni 1983 (Würzburg, 1984), pp. 145–55, at
p. 154 n. 24; but it is not mentioned in this note that the same document also contains
Year 8.
182
19
would have been two regnal dating systems in use under Cambyses.
But is it possible to interpret Years 3 and 4 simply according to predating
of postdating, thus assuming a single regnal dating system for
Cambyses’ reign, the same as in the rest of the Persian period? To answer
20
this question, it may be useful to look at the text.
(6) Psammet-kmenempe son of Hor did not come to Teujoi until now, but
what he did was to send men to fetch his property, (7) until Year 44 of Amasis.
In Year 3 of Cambyses, Hor son of Psammet-kmenempe, the prophet of Amun,
came to (8) Teujoi, and stood with the priests… They went to (9) Psenah… and
wrote him the title… in Year 4 of Cambyses.
It is stated how a routine followed up to Year 44 of Amasis is inter-
rupted in Year 3 of Cambyses. The most straightforward interpretation
21
of the text is that, first, Year 44 is Amasis’ last, and second, Year 3
came immediately after Amasis’ Year 44. Can this be?
Year 44 of Amasis has been astronomically fixed to the wandering
year 2 January 527 – 1 January 526 on the basis of a double date in the
22
abnormal hieratic papyrus Louvre 7848. Not only the scenario in the
passage from P. Rylands IX above, but also two passages in one of the
texts on the verso of BN 215, whose recto contains the so-called
Demotic Chronicle, lead one to believe that Year 44 was Amasis’ last.
The text on the verso of BN 215, which deals with the compiling of laws
in the reign of Darius I, speaks of the matters “which were written in the
wt–book starting with Year 44 of Pharaoh Amasis up to the day on
which Cambyses became lord of Egypt,” and a few lines later in the text,
Darius is said to order the priests to “write the earlier law of Egypt up to
23
Year 44 of Amasis.”
If Year 44 is Amasis’ last, the rest of the wandering year 2 January
527 – 1 January 526 would be a regnal year of another king. In fact,
according to the predating of postdating system, Year 3 of Cambyses
coincides with the same wandering year, so that the portion of the wan-
24
dering year after Amasis’ death could be called Cambyses’ Year 3. In
this sense, Year 44 of Amasis and Year 3 of Cambyses follow one another
immediately within the same wandering year. Any other interpretations
18 For the first alternative, see Griffith, Catalogue, vol. 3, p. 106, and Parker, “Persian and
Egyptian Chronology,” p. 301 with n. 41. Parker later noted that counting from the con-
quest, instead of from Amasis’ death, cannot be excluded as a possibility (“The Length of
Reign of Amasis,” pp. 209–10 n. 3 end).
19 See Parker, “Persian and Egyptian Chronology,” p. 301; “The Length of Reign of Ama-
sis,” pp. 209–10 n. 3; Pestman, “The Diospolis Parva Documents,” p. 154.

20 P.Rylands IX 21,6–9 (after Griffith, Catalogue, vol. 3, 105).
21 Cf. Griffith, Catalogue, vol. 3, p. 63; Friedrich Karl Kienitz, Die politische Geschichte
Ägyptens vom 7. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert vor der Zeitwende (Berlin, 1953), p. 156.
22 Parker, “The Length of Reign of Amasis,” pp. 210–12.
183
of this sequence admit a gap of one or more years between Year 44 of

25
Amasis and Year 3 of Cambyses.
26
If Cambyses was not in Egypt as early as 527, which seems likely,
Year 3 must have been dated retroactively; a certain instance of such
dating is, as was seen above, Cambyses’ Year 2 in P. Cairo 50059. It must
also mean that Psammetichus III’s reign was disregarded. Here, a parallel
can be adduced: Psammetichus’ reign is ignored in the expression from
BN 215 quoted above, “starting with Year 44 of Pharaoh Amasis up to
the day on which Cambyses became lord of Egypt.” This formulation
suggests that there was an interval of some length between the two
dates. Since it appears Amasis died in his Year 44, Psammetichus III
would have reigned in this interval.
The identification of the Demotic year dates 3 and 4 with julian
years proposed above seems rather effortless. It explains the sequence of
events in P. Rylands IX, agrees with regnal dating throughout the
Twenty-seventh Dynasty and also has the advantage of assuming only a
single dating method in Cambyses’ reign instead of the traditional two:
23 Paris BN 215, verso, column C, lines 6–7 and 10–11. For transcription and translation,
see Wilhelm Spiegelberg, Die sogenannte Demotische Chronik des Pap. 215 der Biblio-
thèque nationale zu Paris nebst den auf der Rückseite des Papyrus stehenden Texten
(Leipzig, 1914), pp. 30–31.
Parker notes that, in BN 215, “there is twice mention of Year 44 of Amasis as some sort of
terminal point” (“The Length of Reign of Amasis,” p. 210 top), but he doubts the reading
of the year dates. These doubts seem to have come about as follows. Before Parker’s dis-
covery of the lunar date in Louvre 7848, it had been common to think that Amasis died in
his Year 44 and begun his reign in 569. But Parker’s correct interpretation of the lunar date
established that Amasis’ reign began a year earlier in 570. Consequently, retaining Year 44
as Amasis’ last would increase the distance between the end of his reign and the Persian
conquest, generally thought to have happened in 525, by a whole year. To keep the end of
Amasis’ reign close to the conquest in 525, Parker proposed that Amasis died in his Year
45, though the evidence from the Chronicle, if the number is read “44,” as well as that
from P. Rylands IX, points to Year 44 as Amasis’ last, as Parker acknowledges. In other
words, the perception that “44,” as number of the last regnal year, contradicts the astro-
nomical evidence, always the best in chronological matters, may have motivated Parker’s
doubts on the reading of the number. But now that 525 has itself become uncertain as a
date for the conquest (see below), an opportunity is created to reconcile the firm astronom-
ical evidence with the obvious interpretation of Year 44 as Amasis’ last.
Recently, Pestman has read “44” in BN 215, verso, column C, 6–7 (“The Diospolis Parva
Documents,” p. 149). It seems one can recognize the Demotic numbers 40 and 4 in both
instances, and this reading is confirmed by Janet Johnson, who was able to manipulate a
scanned photograph of the text with the help of computer graphics (personal communica-
tion).
24 Barta’s discussion of the date of the Persian conquest is based on the assumption that
Year 44 of Amasis and Year of Darius 3 cannot be identical (Datierungspraxis, p. 88 bot-

tom).
25 Parker, “The Length of Reign of Amasis,” p. 209.
26 Itwas suggested as a possibility that he was, though, by Gauthier (Livre des rois, vol. 4,
p. 137 n. 1), who realizes that it contradicts the Greek evidence (see below).
184
one might expect Demotic scribal tradition to have settled on a single

dating method. If only one dating system was used, P. Rylands IX con-
firms predating of postdating. It is not clear how such a system came
about in the middle of Cambyses’ reign, when he conquered Egypt.
Chronological evidence often arises from being able to place events
in some kind of numerical relation with one other. In this respect, one
27
item still deserves mention. According to stela Louvre IM.4187, Apis
XLIV (Mariette’s number) was born on Month 5 Day 29 of Year 5 of
28
Cambyses, died on Month 9 Day 4 of Year 4 of Darius I, and was buried
29
on Month 11 Day 13 in the same year. The traditional julian dates for
these three events are 29 May 525, 31 August 518, and 8 November
30
518. What is more, the time between birth and death of the bull is
given as 7 or 8 years, 3 months, and 5 days. Paleographically, the year
date may be either 7 or 8; there are eight strokes, but one is not as evenly
31
spaced as the others. If both Year 5 of Cambyses and Year 4 of Darius
are interpreted as predating of postdating, then 7 should be the correct
reading. Since Year 4 of Darius I can hardly be later than 518 by any reg-
nal dating system, the only way to justify 8 would be if Year 5 of
Cambyses was obtained by predating and not by predating of postdating.
At all events, the problem with the reading of the year date makes the
32
stela inconclusive as evidence.
3. The Date of the Persian Conquest

A Babylonian document dated to 22 Kislev of Year 6 of Cambyses, that
is, 31 December 524, and dealing with the sale of an Egyptian slave
woman said to be part of war booty, provides a reliable terminus ante
27 Posener, La première domination, pp. 36–41.

28 The day date is damaged, but the full date is also found in Louvre 355 and Louvre 366
(call numbers according to Posener, La première domination, p. 38).
29 This date is also recorded in Louvre 319 and 320 (call numbers according to Posener
1936, La première domination, p. 39).

30 The previous bull died on Month 11 Day [10?] of Year 6 of Cambyses according to Louvre
IM.4133; the reading of the day date is uncertain; “10” has been suggested by Posener ( La
première domination, p. 32). This means that there is a most unusual gap of a year and a
half between the birth of Apis xliv and the burial of its predecessor. For different explana-
tions of this much discussed gap, see my “Evidence for Accession Dating under the Achae-
menids,” JAOS (forthcoming). This gap might be connected with the incident of
Cambyses’ wounding the Apis, or perhaps even be relevant to the chronology of the period,
but I cannot quite see how at this point; on the Apis murder case, see “Murder in
Memphis: The Story of Cambyses’ Mortal Wounding of the Apis (ca. 523 b.c.e.),” JNES 54
(1995), pp. 119–26.
31 For a discussion, see Parker, “Egyptian and Persian Chronology,” pp. 286–87.
32 Ibid., p. 287.
185
33
quem. It seems the Egyptian campaign should have taken place
34
several months before that date.
The terminus ante quem can be moved back to June 15 of 525 by
35
means of P. Cairo 50060. This papyrus contains a list of dates in Year
5 of Cambyses. As it is difficult to imagine a calendar system in which
Year 5 would correspond to a wandering year later than that of 2 January
– 31 December 525, the earliest date in the list of dates, II prt [1?]6 and
36
20 should be dated [1?]5 and 19 June 525 at the latest.
A terminus post quem for the conquest is obtained from the fact
that Amasis died at the earliest in his Year 44, the wandering year 2 Jan-
uary 527 – 1 January 526. It has been suggested above that 527 was
Amasis’ last. But no month and day dates have surfaced for year 44 to
37
determine the date of death of Amasis more precisely. Meanwhile, it
can be concluded that the conquest began at the earliest in the year 527.
Any fine-tuning depends on a discussion of the Greek evidence, which
follows below.
Independently from these considerations of the terminus ante quem
and the terminus post quem, the traditional date of the conquest has
now for quite some time been the spring of 525. This date was obtained
38
by a clever combination of Greek and Demotic sources. On the one
hand, Greek sources report that:
(1) Cambyses undertook a campaign against Egypt in the third year of

39
the sixty-third Olympiad (Diodorus )
(2) Cambyses became king of Egypt in the fifth year of his reign over the
33 Bruno Meissner, “Das Datum der Einnahme Ägyptens durch Cambyses,” ZÄS 29
(1891), pp. 123–24. On this text, see also M. Stol, “Un texte oublié,” Revue d’assyriologie
et d’archéologie orientale 71 (1977), p. 96.
34 The slave woman had a three month old child. The soldier, if the child was his, would
have been in Egypt a year before in December 525, as Meissner already implied.
35 The date Month 5 Day 29 of Year 5 of Cambyses (29 May 525), found in stela Louvre
IM.4187, is not contemporary with the text in which it is found, and could therefore have
been dated retroactively.
36 The complete list is as follows: II prt [1?]6, 20, 22 of Cambyses’ Year 5; IV prt 24, 26, 27,
28, 29; I ßmw 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 16, [1]7. In 525, these dates would be as follows: [1?]5, 19, 21
June; 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30 August; 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 September.
37 The Hammamat inscription of Year 44 does not have one (Gauthier, Livre des rois, vol.
4, p. 120 with n. 2).

38 Cf. Posener, La première domination, p. 6 n. 1; Gardiner, “Regnal Years and Civil
Calendar,” p. 20; Kienitz, Politische Geschichte Ägyptens, pp. 156–57.

39 Pharaoh Amasis katevstreye to;n bivon kaq’ o}n crovnon Kambuvsh" ... ejstravteusen ejpi; th;n
Ai[gupton, kata; to; trivton e[to" th'" eJxhkosth'" kai; trivth" ojlumpiavdo", h}n ejnivka stavdion Par-
menivdh" Kamarinai'o" “passed away around the time when Cambyses . . . undertook a mil-
itary campaign against Egypt, in the third year of the sixty-third Olympiad, in which
Parmenides Kamarinaios won the stadion course” (I 68,6).
186
Persians, that is, probably not before August 526 (Manetho, according to
40
Africanus and Eusebius)
(3) Psammetichus III, whose reign Cambyses ended, ruled for six months
41
(Herodotus, Manetho )
On the other hand, Demotic sources seemed to show that Psam-

metichus III had a second year. Two papyri are dated to Year 2 of a king
called Psammetichus, one in Month 5; in a third papyrus, dated to the
42
same king, “2” for the year date is a plausible reading.
These Greek and Demotic sources were reconciled as follows. Psam-
metichus III can only reign six months and have a second year into its
fifth month if he came to the throne at the end of one wandering year
and ruled into the fifth month of the next and not much beyond that.
The report that Cambyses became king in the fifth year of his reign
(Manetho), which began at the earliest in August 526, allows one to
identify the two wandering years in question with 2 Jan 526 – 1 Jan 525
and 2 Jan 525 –1 Jan 524. In the second, Month 5 corresponds to 1 – 30
May. Around this time, then, traditional chronology dates Cambyses’
conquest. It is not contradicted by the terminus ante quem of [1?]5 June
525 mentioned above.
But recently, the three Demotic documents dating to king Psammet-
ichus have been discredited as evidence because they have been redated
about thirty years later and a rebel Pharaoh Psammetichus IV has been
postulated for the tumultuous period after the death of Darius I late in
43
486.
What is left, then, as evidence is the Greek tradition, already listed
above. This evidence is not contemporary and great caution always
needs to be exercised with dates provided by Greek historians for earlier
antiquity, certainly when it comes to establishing the exact year in
which an event occurred. Nevertheless, an attempt will be made to
interpret the Greek evidence in light of the contemporary evidence.
40 Kambuvsh" e[tei e, th'" eJautou' basileiva" Persw'n ejbasivleusen Aijguvptou (version of Eusebius,
through Syncellus) “Cambyses became king of Egypt in the fifth year of his reign over the
Persians” (W.G. Waddell, Manetho, The Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge, Mass., 1940],
pp. 174, 176).
41 mh'na" e{x “six months” (Herodotus III 14; Manetho, as reported by Africanus, through
Syncellus [Waddell, Manetho, p. 170]).

42 For the texts, see now Vleeming, The Gooseherds of Hou, nos. 4 (Year 2 Month 5), 7
(Year 2, Month 3 or 4), and 8 (Year 1, 2, 3, or ?4, Month 3). The readings of the dates are
Vleeming’s.
43 Pestman, “The Diospolis Parva Documents.” Cf. Vleeming, The Gooseherds of Hou, pp.
3–4. Pharaoh Psammetichus IV was first postulated by Eugene Cruz-Uribe, “On the
Existence of Psammetichus IV,” Serapis 5.2 (1980), pp. 35–39.
187
Interestingly, Diodorus notes that Cambyses began his Egyptian

campaign at the death of Amasis and he dates this development to the
third year of the sixty-third Olympiad, but he does not mention
Psammetichus III. As mentioned earlier, the Demotic evidence suggests
that Amasis died in 527. Can the information provided by Diodorus be
reconciled with this date?
The Olympic Games referred to by Diodorus are the ones held in
528, and one may assume that they took place in late summer, in August
44
or September. If one counts the games themselves as the beginning of
the Olympiad’s first year, the third year would begin in August or Sep-
tember of 526, at least several months after the date of death of Amasis
derived from the Demotic sources. But several calendars were used in
the Greek world, and as a result of the synchronizing of different calen-
dars, among one another and with the Olympiads, different ways of
45
counting came into use. One of them is from fall to fall, as in the
Macedonian calendar. Accordingly, the first year of the sixty-third
Olympiad would last from fall 529 to fall 528 and the third year from fall
527 to fall 526. Such a dating for Cambyses’ campaign would agree better
with the Demotic evidence, if it is assumed that Diodorus is correct in
dating the beginning of the campaign soon after Amasis’ death.
The Greek chronographic tradition is complex and the competence
of the present writer in these matters is not such as to warrant a defini-
46
tive statement. But at least Diodorus’ statement does not have to
mean that Cambyses’ campaign had to occur in 526/25, the common
equivalent for Olympiad 63,3. Much depends on the chronographer or
epitomator from whom Diodorus was excerpting for his account of the
late sixth century. It may well never be possible to determine the
circumstances under which the event came to be associated with the
third year of the sixty-third Olympiad in Diodorus’ much later account.
Manetho states that Cambyses became king in his fifth year. Since
Cambyses came to the throne in August 530, this would be the year
beginning in August 526. In comparing Diodorus and Manetho, it should
be noted that the former states that Cambyses “undertook a military
campaign” (ejstravteusen), the latter that Cambyses “became king”
(ejbasivleusen).
44 Friedrich Karl Ginzel, Handbuch der technischen und mathematischen Chronologie,

vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1911), pp. 354–56.
45 Ginzel, Handbuch, vol. 2, pp. 356–58. On Olympiads, see also E.J. Bickerman,
Chronology of the Ancient World (London, 1968), pp. 75–76, 91.

46 On the chronographic tradition, see, for example, Alden E. Mosshammer, The Chronicle
of Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition (Lewisburg, 1979).
188
One plausible scenario, not contradicted by any available evidence,

is that Amasis died some time in 527, that Cambyses began his cam-
paign soon after that, while Psammetichus began a short reign of about
47
six months, that final defeat came some time in 526, and that
Cambyses was crowned in the summer of 526.
What is a reasonable dating range for Cambyses’ conquest of Egypt?
This depends in part on the definition of “conquest.” But if taken as the
whole development, from mounting the military campaign in Persia and
Mesopotamia to the crowning of Cambyses, the period from 527–begin-
ning of June 525 seems certain—no later than 15 June 525, in accordance
with the terminus post quem established above, and not earlier than
early 527, the earliest date for Amasis’ death; Diodorus states that
Cambyses began his campaign around the time of Amasis’ death. The
campaign could have begun later than 527 or the conquest have been
completed several months before June 525. As in the case of the Arab
conquest of Egypt around 640 C.E., it could have taken many months.
It is not possible to determine exactly when Egyptian forces capitu-
lated or when Cambyses was crowned. For the dating of these events, it
is necessary to take into account Psammetichus III’s short reign after
Amasis’ death. The earliest date for the end of Psammetichus’ reign
would be several months after Amasis’ death in 527, that is mid to late
527. The Greek evidence suggests that Cambyses’ crowning was later in
526/25. Later than 527 is also suggested by the consideration that the
campaign must have had some extension in time.
It may be concluded that, if one wishes to use only year dates to refer
to the date of the conquest, the years 527–25 seem safe limits for the
time being.
Regnal Years of Cambyses according to the Egyptian Calendar
• Each regnal year is precisely 365 days long, except for (1) the “begin-
ning (of the reign),” a period named so for lack of knowledge how the
Egyptians called it, lasting from the day of accession to the first Babylo-
nian new year; (2) the first regnal year, lasting from the first Babylonian
new year to the first Egyptian new year after that—that is, the first or
second Egyptian new year of the reign, depending on when the king
came to the throne; (3) the last regnal year, lasting from the last Egyptian
new year of the reign to the death of the king.
47 Psammetichus (III) is mentioned as successor of Amasis in the well-known statue in-

scription of Udjahorresne (Posener, La première domination, pp. 1–26).
189
• Wandering years marked in italics, be they complete or incomplete,

include a julian 29 February. Julian leap years B.C.E. are those divisible
by four after subtracting one: 529, 525, 521, and so on.
• For details on predating of postdating as a regnal dating method, see
“Regnal Years and Civil Calendar in Achaemenid Egypt” (JEA 81, forth-
coming).
julian dates regnal year

a b c
[accession – 3 Apr 529 beginning]
[4 Apr 529dd – 1 Jan 528 1]c
[2 Jan 528 – 1 Jan 527 2]c

e
[2 Jan 527 – 1 Jan 526 3]
[2 Jan 526 – 1 Jan 525 4]e

f
2 Jan 525 – 1 Jan 524 5
1 Jan 524 – 31 Dec 524 6
1 Jan 523 – 31 Dec 523 7

g
1 Jan 522 – death 8
a For this date, see Parker and Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, p. 14.
b This is the day before the Babylonian new year (1 Nisan or 4 April in the year
529).
c Dates containing this regnal year can only be retroactive, since Cambyses’
conquest took place in the period from early 527 at the earliest to mid 525 at
the latest. The “beginning (of the reign)”(?) and Year 1 are not attested as retro-
active dates, Year 2 in all probability is found in P. Cairo 50059.
d This is 1 Nisan or the Babylonian new year. For this date, see Parker and
Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, p. 30; for the degree of accuracy of this
date, see ibid., p. 25.
e Dates containing this regnal year probably could only occur in documents by
using retroactive dating. But since Cambyses’ conquest began in early 527 at
the earliest and ended in early June 525 at the latest, the probability of encoun-
tering real dates increases as this period progresses. Year 3 and Year 4 are attest-
ed in P.Ryl. IX and are probably retroactive dates. Month 5 Day 29 of Year 5
found in Louvre IM.4187 occurs in a stela from Year 4 of Darius and could
therefore be a retroactive date; if it is not, the terminus ante quem for the con-
quest would be 29 May 525.
f Dates in the earlier part of this year could be retroactive if mentioned in doc-
uments of later date, for the terminus ante quem for Cambyses’ conquest is
June 525.
g Cambyses was still recognized according to the Babylonian records in April
522. The Behistun inscription indicates that he did not die till after 1 July 522.
See Parker and Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, p. 14.
b
190
14 DESROCHES-NOBLECOURT Page 191 Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:49 PM
Les Déesses et le Sema-Taouy
Ch. Desroches Noblecourt
A
u cours d’une de mes visites au Museum of Fine Arts de
Boston, j’entrai dans le bureau de Kelly lorsqu’il achevait la
présentation, sur velours noir, d’un élément d’orfèvrerie dont il
venait de faire l’acquisition. Il s’agissait de ce magnifique groupe de
Nekhabit et de Ouadjet aux ailes éployées (fig. 1). C’est ce souvenir,
choisi parmi d’autres instants amicaux vécus ensemble, qui m’incite à
dédier à notre cher collègue cette petite étude.
Fig. 1. Dessin du bijou de Boston.
Ces deux déesses,—les Deux Dames,—les Nebty, sont si fréquem-

ment utilisées dans le lot des symboles royaux qu’elles nous écartent par
cela même d’en vouloir cerner la profonde et complète signification.
Elles apparaissent, dans le protocole royal (fig. 2) dès les débuts de la
première dynastie,1 introduisant, comme on le sait, le second Grand
Nom du roi; mais que signifient-elles exactement? Faut-il se borner à in-
terpréter ce titre comme politique et considérer Pharaon comme intime-
ment protégé par les deux déesses, la tutélaire du Sud d’abord, Nekhabit,
et la Nordique conquise, Ouadjet?2 Ou bien ne doit-on pas reconnaître
le souverain comme issu de ces deux entités de géographie religieuse, ou
encore les incarne-t-il l’une et l’autre, de même qu’il est déclaré “Horus
1 Rec. de Trav. 17, p. 113; Piehl, PSBA 20 (1898), pp. 200–201; Petrie, Royal Tombs I, pl.
VIII, 1; pl. VIII, 9, etc.
Fig. 2. Dessin des deux Déesses 2 Rappelant, comme l’écrivait encore A. Gardiner en 1927 (Egyptian Grammar, p. 73), que:
Tutélaires sur les meubles de Hétep- “Probably Menes, the founder of Dyn. 1, was the first to assume the Nebty title, symbol-
Héres. Musée du Caire. izing thereby the fact that he united the two kingdoms (Unt. 3, 13).”
d’Or” ou “Celui du Jonc et de l’Abeille”? Il est un fait, ces deux animaux

femelles, l’une du domaine de l’air, l’autre voisine du marécage, vautour
et cobra, ne figurent pas seulement dans le protocole, mais, dissociées ou
à nouveau réunies, on les trouve près de Pharaon vivant ou bien encore
après son trépas.
Seule, on le sait, l’uræus figure au front du roi de son vivant, alors
qu’au dessus de lui le vautour étend ses ailes protectrices.3 En revanche,
sur les enveloppes de la momie royale, ainsi que les objets du trésor de
Tout-ânkh-Amon nous ont permis de le constater, on retrouve sur les
divers sarcophages, les chaouabtis (fig. 3), ou les bouchons de vases ca-
nopes (fig. 4) les deux animaux réunis, montrant en cela que, pour la re-
constitution du mort, les deux Déesses Tutélaires étaient assurément
nécessaires. Cette nécessité est si impérieuse que même les dais funérai-
res successifs (fig. 5), enfermant les divers sarcophages momiformes em-
boîtés, rappellent par leurs formes le profil des chapelles du Sud et du Fig. 3. Chaouabti de
Nord, habitats respectifs, dès les Hautes Epoques, de nos deux déesses. Tout-ânkh-Amon.
Sans doute faut-il poursuivre l’enquête en considérant de plus près

les plantes “héraldiques” intimement attachées à ces deux emblèmes
tirés de la si riche symbolique égyptienne, c’est à dire le pseudo-lis,
vraisemblablement, à l’origine, fleur du bananier sauvage éthiopien,4 et
le papyrus bien connu des rives du Nil et des marécages rencontrés
depuis le Haut Nil.5 Lorsque vautour et cobra sont posés sur les deux
bouquets formés de touffes de “lis” et de papyrus, il apparaît bien qu’il
soit question du domaine d’un monde qui prépare à la résurrection, à la
réapparition. Je n’en citerai que quatre exemples très typiques. Ainsi ce
décor très orienté encadrant l’entrée de l’escalier menant à la salle du
sarcophage (fig. 6) de la reine Nofrétari. C’est aussi une apparition,
Fig. 4. Bouchon de vase canope
moins récente—début du Nouvel Empire—de ces deux groupes figurés
de Tout-ânkh-Amon.
sur la lame de la hache votive trouvée dans les vestiges du trésor de la
reine Ia¢¢otep (fig. 7). C’est encore les deux déesses sur les deux plantes
que l’on retrouve dans le disque d’une ménat,6 lieu où réside le rejeton
d’Hathor promis à la renaissance. Enfin, à la Basse Epoque, cette vignette
du papyrus Jumilhac7 paraissant bien évoquer les divers avatars du mort
3A ce propos il faut souligner le vol du vautour de Nekhabit ornant le plafond central des
hypostyles ou encore celui ornant le toit du petit naos doré de Tout-ânkh-Amon: le
vautour suit le roi dans ses déplacements.
4 Musa ensete ou Ensete edule (V. Lorent-Tächolm en 1959), voir à ce propos W. Needler,
Predynastic and Archaic Egypt in the Brooklyn Museum (Brooklyn, 1984), p. 204, pl. 5 no.
57.
5 Voir le Sudd (Soudd) ou lac No, près du Bahr el-Ghazal, du Haut Soudan.
Fig. 5. Les chapelles archaïques du
6 S. Schoske–D. Wildung, Entdeckungen (Ägyptische Kunst in Süddeutschland) (Mainz,
Nord et du Sud, les dais funéraires de
1985), no. 70. Tout-ânkh-Amon leur correspondant.
192
Ch. Desroches Noblecourt, Les Déesses et le Sema-Taouy
Fig. 8. Papyrus Jumilhac (Louvre), séquence aboutissant à l’apparition d’Horus.
osirien en un nouvel Horus, dont le point de départ (à gauche, fig. 8) est

constitué par les deux plantes qui dominent les deux animaux sacrés.
Pour rencontrer, dès l’Ancien Empire, la réunion des deux plantes
héraldiques associées aux génies Hâpi, il semble nécessaire de se report-
er à la scène bien connue du Sema-Taouy, comportant la présence des
deux déesses, des deux plantes allégoriques et, aussi, des deux génies
Hâpi, remontant au règne de Mykérinus.8
Les scènes de Sema-Taouy ont généralement été comprises comme
celles qui sanctionnaient le couronnement de Pharaon, prenant ainsi
possession des deux régions, la méridionale et la septentrionale, du
domaine de la Couronne (fig. 9).
Faut-il se limiter à cette seule interprétation qui ne cadre pas avec
Fig. 6. “Lis” et papyrus confondus cette composition remarquablement décorative, rencontrée pendant
avec Nekhabit et Ouadjet, encadrant toute la durée de la civilisation pharaonique (fig. 10, 11, 12), et si l’on
la descente vers le caveau de
Nofrétari.
tient compte de l’évolution et du simple élargissement des concepts à
travers les siècles?9
En fait, le Sema-Taouy, depuis au moins l’Ancien Empire, figure
d’abord, et avant tout, sous les trônes et sièges royaux, ce qui ne signifie
nullement que ces représentations puissent évoquer ou rappeler au-
tomatiquement Pharaon à son couronnement, car les reines possédent
également des sièges ornés du Sema-Taouy.
En faisant appel aux monuments sur lesquels apparaissent ces
scènes du Sema-Taouy, on constate que presque toutes sont d’utilisation
jubilaire, statues ou décors muraux provenant de temples “de millions
7 J. Vandier, Le papyrus Jumilhac (Paris, 1961), pl. XVIII 1 à 15.

8 J. Baines, Fecundity Figures (Warminster, 1985), fig. 47 et 49.
9 J. Baines, op. cit., pp. 355–56: “It is as if the original purpose of fecundity figures, to bring
offerings to the main figure in a temple, were the only one easily compatible with person-
ification in its narrowest aspects. As a result, Zm£-t£wy groups remain ambiguous at all
Fig. 7. Hache du trésor de Iahhotep. periods.”
193
Fig. 9. Sema-Taouy de Khéphren. Fig. 10. Sema-Taouy de Sésostris Ier, Fig. 11. Sema-Taouy de Sésostris Ier,
les Hâpi. Horus et Seth.
Fig. 12. Sema-Taouy de Ramsès II Fig. 13. Vase Sema-Taouy de Tout- Fig. 14. Vase Sema-Taouy de Tout-
en Abou Simbel. ânkh-Amon, en forme d’Hathor. ânkh-Amon, avec les Hâpi.
Fig. 15. Table d’offrandes du Moyen Fig. 16. Couronnement de Ramsès II (Abydos).
Empire (Musée du Caire).
194
Fig. 17. Couronnement de Héry-Hor

(Temple de Khonsou à Karnak, d’après
Champollion). Fig. 18. Vache Hathor dominant la
nécropole thébaine (papyrus d’Ouser-
hat-mès, musée du Caire).
d’années,” depuis les puissantes effigies de Khéphren (fig. 9) jusqu’aux

derniers témoins ramessides. De surcroît, les vases en albâtre de Tout-
ânkh-Amon, taillés en forme de Sema-Taouy (fig. 13 et 14) sont bien de
destination funéraire.
Enfin, si l’on se réfère à certaines tables d’offrandes décorées du
Sema-Taouy (fig. 15), et remontant au Moyen Empire),10 on comprend
qu’il s’agit là d’une libation d’eau fraîche, avant tout liée au renouvelle-
ment du mort. Un dernier exemple: le Sema-Taouy sculpté sur une des
gargouilles du temple d’Edfou fait bien allusion à une “inondation”
venue du ciel! On en arrive tout naturellement à élargir la portée de ce
décor symbolique.
Les deux Hâpi ligaturant les deux plantes évoquent certainement la
période où les eaux de la crue se répandent sur la terre d’Egypte: moment
du Jour de l’An connu pour être celui du renouvellement annuel de
Pharaon et parallèlement celui du retour d’Osiris. Pharaon confirmé au
moment de ce retour cyclique est conforté en tant que réunissant en lui
Horus et Seth.11 Image qui le suivra tout le long de son règne, mais aussi
qui l’accompagnera dans l’autre monde. On se rapproche donc beaucoup
10L. Habachi, ASAE 55 (1958), p. 173, fig. 1 (la table d’offrandes citée est au Caire, JE
67858). Plusieurs autres, dont celle de la figure 10, sont conservées au même musée.
11 H. te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion (a Study of his role in Egyptian mythology and
religion) (Leyde, 1967), p. 71: “The annual inundation of the Nile can be compared with
the great mythical renovation, the integration of Horus and Seth: “I (H™py) am one born of
the underworld who establishes the head of Horus on Seth, and vice versa.”
195
plus de l’évocation de la nécessaire, primordiale inondation dont tout

dépendait, que du souvenir évoquant le couronnement.12
Il faut, maintenant, se reporter à la présence non seulement du pa-
pyrus, mais aussi du pseudo-lis se profilant derrière l’image de la vache
Hathor dominant la nécropole, dès la XXIe dynastie (papyrus d’Ouser-
hat-mès, Caire, fig. 18).13
Il faut encore considérer les images plus tardives des deux I¢y,14 fils
d’Hathor de Dendara (fig. 19 a et b), juchés sur des Sema-Taouy. Enfin il
est nécessaire de considérer avec attention le tableau, très longtemps
resté inaccessible, dans le couloir menant au mammisi de Philae.15 Sur Fig. 19a. Dédoublement de Ihy, fils d’Hathor, à
deux registres, la renaissance du dieu (et le renouveau de Pharaon) sont Dendara.
évoqués. Au registre inférieur le marécage composé de “lis” et de papy-
rus est habité par le dédoublement de la vache Hathor nourricière.16
Puis apparaissent, au dessus de deux bassins d’où surgissent deux lotus,
les deux I¢y, joueurs de sistres.
Ainsi donc, les deux plantes résident dans le domaine chthonien où
se reconstitue le dieu mort en tant que futur Horus. Gardons aussi
présent à l’esprit que “lis” et papyrus sont les supports et les symboles
des deux Mères Primordiales Nekhabit et Ouadjet, règnant dans les eaux
de la reconstitution.
Il ne suffit plus, alors, que de se reporter au vautour et au cobra
figurant sur le front du roi mort promis à la résurrection, ou aux deux
couronnes dominant (par l’intermédaire de l’uræus) les plantes sacrées,
offertes à Séthi Ier en Abydos pour sa renaissance (fig. 20): on saisit bien
que Nekhabit et Ouadjet, déesses tutélaires aux multiples symboles,
étaient nécessaires, avant tout, à la reconstitution du trépassé.17 Fig. 19b. Dédoublement de Ihy àà Philae.
12 Ce qui n’exclut pas qu’il ait pu, parfois, coïncider avec l’arrivée du flot comme le
préconisait Hatchepsout. On constatera, au reste, que sur les figurations du couronnement
de Ramsès II et de Héry-Hor (fig. 16 et 17), le Sema-Taouy ne figure pas.
13 Cette vignette du papyrus funéraire du Caire (palier de l’escalier du musée), remontant
à la XXIe dynastie, a souvent été reproduite comme étant ramesside et provenant d’une
chapelle funéraire thébaine.
14 I¢y-Noun et I¢y-Our.
15 Les dessins des deux groupes où figurent les I¢y, à Dendara, et le panneau du couloir du
mammisi de Philae, sont dûs à Isabelle Sauvé, de même que tous les autres dessins sauf
les fig., nos. 8 et 16.
16 De même, sous le lit d’accouchement de la reine Ahmès pour la naissance d’Hatchep-
sout à Deir el-Bahari. Cf; E. Brunner-Traut, Geburtshaus…, Taf. 12, Szene XII, L.
17 On remarquera ces deux déesses figurant au front de certains portraits de reines (depuis
la Grande Epouse royale Tiyi, XVIIIe dynastie, jusqu’à la reine Isis à la XXe dynastie). Cette
présence s’explique, naturellement, puisque la Grande Epouse royale portait, en son sein, Fig. 20. Les deux Mères Primordiales présentées
les héritiers de Pharaon. à Séthi Ier pour sa renaissance (Abydos).
196
Lorsque Pharaon monte “sur le trône d’Horus des vivants,” seule, on

le sait, l’uræus demeure à son front, la fraîche Ouadjet résultat du long
cheminement du flot nourricier qui a reconstitué son essence même.
Le jour du couronnement Pharaon peut être coiffé des symboles es-
sentiels rappelant ses origines: la couronne blanche (Nekhabit) et la cou-
ronne rouge (Ouadjet), formant le Pschent. Mais, par la suite, ce Pschent
dominera les statues jubilaires osiriaques.
Par le jeu de équivalences, la ¢edjet et la desheret, évoquant
Nekhabit du Sud et Ouadjet du Nord, font corps avec le “lis” et le papy-
rus retrouvés dans le Sema-Taouy. Ce symbole possède une connotation
chthonienne et avant tout jubilaire, en rapport des plus étroits avec l’in-
ondation et l’éternel cycle du renouvellement: notions évoquées d’une
manière particulièrement harmonieuses par le groupement des deux
animaux divins, aux ailes déployées, dont notre ami Kelly sut enrichir
son beau Musée de Boston.
b
197
15 EDEL Page 199 Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:50 PM
Studien zu den Relieffragmenten aus

dem Taltempel des Königs Snofru
Elmar Edel
D
er Taltempel des Königs Snofru wurde ausgegraben und
veröffentlicht von Ahmed Fakhry unter dem Titel The Monu-
ments of Seneferu at Dahshur, vol. II. The Valley Temple (Cairo,
1961). In diesem Tempel befanden sich 10 monolithe Pfeiler, deren Lage
in dem Grundrißplan auf S. 2 bei Fakhry gut zu sehen ist. Den
Ausgräbern bot sich wie sonst auch bei diesen Pfeilern ein chaotisches
Bild. Alle 10 Pfeiler waren zur Steingewinnung schon in alter Zeit
umgelegt und die größeren Steine abtransportiert worden. Zumindest
ein Teil der Pfeiler trug Reliefs und Inschriften; die Rückseite der Pfeiler,
also ihre Nordseite, trug keine Reliefs. Ansonsten konnten die Vorder-
seiten (also die Südseiten) sowie die Ost- und Westseiten reliefiert sein.
Alle Reliefsplitter lagen so chaotisch im Schutt des Tempels umher, daß
es für Fakhry unmöglich war, einzelne Reliefs einzelnen Pfeilern zuzu-
weisen.
Die 10 Pfeiler waren in Fünferreihen hintereinander angeordnet. Zu
den Ausmessungen der Pfeiler teilt Fakhry Folgendes mit: “their breadth
varied between 185 and 210 cms, but their depth was 120 cms in the five
pillars of the front row and 140 cms in the pillars of the back row.”
Daraus ergibt sich doch wohl, daß die Pfeilerquerschnitte der Front-
reihe, die dem von Süden Eintretenden am nächsten lag, etwas kleiner
waren als die der rückwärtigen Pfeilerreihe. Wir müssen also die Pfeiler-
breiten von 185 und 210 cm entsprechend auf die Pfeiler der rück-
wärtigen Reihe (210 cm) bzw. der Frontreihe (185 cm) verteilen, obwohl
dies Fakhry nicht ausdrücklich angibt. Der Grundriß des Tempels auf S.
2 läßt auch nur erkennen, daß die Frontseiten breiter sind als die Ost-
und Westseiten der Pfeiler. Infolge des kleinen Maßstabs lassen sich aber
keine genauen Nachmessungen im mm-Bereich durchführen. Eine
Übersicht über die Maße sähe so aus:
Breite der
Hintere Pfeilerreihe im Norden: Ost- bzw. Westseite 140 cm
Frontseite 210 cm
Vordere Pfeilerreihe im Süden: Ost- bzw. Westseite 120 cm
Frontseite 185 cm
Wir kommen auf diese Maßangaben noch einmal zurück und

erwähnen hier nur noch, daß die Einzelzeichnungen der Reliefs bei
Fakhry im Maßstab 1:6 gegeben werden (vgl. S. 62), während für die aus
diesen Einzelfragmenten gewonnenen Rekonstruktionszeichnungen bei
Fakhry leider Maßangaben fehlen.
1. Fakhrys Pfeilerseite C 2 (unsere Abb. 1)

Die beiden mehr oder weniger gut erhaltenen Pfeilerseiten, die Fakhry
C 1 (seine Fig. 58 auf S. 77) bzw. C 2 (seine Fig. 63 auf S. 80, unsere Abb.
1) nennt, schließen über die Eckkante aneinander an. C 1 ist die Front-
seite, C 2 die Ostseite nach Fakhry S. 77. Nur über C 2, das wir in Abb.
1 vervollständigt haben, ist hier zu sprechen. Zu Fig. 63 gibt es ein
wichtiges großes Zusatzstück, Fig. 64 auf Fakhrys S. 81, dessen Zuge-
hörigkeit zu Fig. 63 von Fakhry zu spät erkannt wurde, so daß es nicht
in Fig. 63 zur Anschauung kommt. Ich habe Fig. 64–67 im gleichen
Maßstab wie bei Fakhry (also 1:6) zeichnen lassen, um sie genauer
zusammenfügen zu können, als dies in Fakhrys Rekonstruktions-
zeichnung Fig. 63 der Fall ist. Dazu konnte ich noch die von Fakhry
völlig isoliert gebrachte Fig. 246 (Fakhry S. 161) in die vor dem Bild des
Königs verlaufende senkrechte Zeile einzeichnen lassen. Man beachte
dabei den etwas schräg zur Hieroglyphe w£∂ verlaufenden Teil des
königlichen Stabes, der genau die leichte Schräge des von Snofru gehalt-
enen Stabes weiterführt und somit beweisend ist für die Zugehörigkeit
von Fig. 246 zu Fig. 63 und 67. Fakhry hatte nur die Figur des Königs
etwas ergänzen lassen.
Titel und Namen des Snofru auf diesem Relief hat bereits Fakhry
besprochen. Nachzutragen wäre aber, daß über dem “Gold”titel noch
wie in Fig. 48 (Fakhry S. 71) n†r ™£ “der große Gott” gestanden haben
könnte. Die senkrechte Inschriftzeile beginnt mit dem Infinitiv m££
“sehen, betrachten, inspizieren,” wobei Fakhrys Zeichner in Fig. 63 das
Auge rechts von der m£-Sichel vergessen hat, das aber in der Einzelzeich-
nung 1:6 in Fig. 66 völlig deutlich dasteht. Von m££ ist abhängig jrd ™ß
w£∂ (zusehen) “wie die frische Pinie wächst.” Zu jrd mit j-Augment hat
Fakhry auf S. 85, Anm. 1, meinen ihm damals in Kairo gegebenen Hin-
weis auf Urk. I, 42,16 zitiert: m£ sw ¢m≠f jsn≠f t£ “da sah ihn Seine
200
Elmar Edel, Studien zu den Relieffragmenten aus dem Taltempel des Königs Snofru
Abb. 1. Fakhrys Fig. 63 mit neuen

Ergänzungen erweitert um seine Fig. 64
+ Fig. 246 + Fig. 275. Pfeilerseite C 2.
201
Majestät, wie er die Erde küßte.” Wegen des altertümlichen Wort-

zeichens bei rd “wachsen” vgl. Junker, Giza III, 181 und 209; es begegnet
auch in den Jahreszeitenreliefs des Niuserre, vgl. meine Arbeit in den
NAWG 1961,8 Abb. 13 mit S. 251.
Von den beiden als Subjekte zu rd “wachsen” hier genannten
Bäumen scheint der ™ß-Baum nur im Singular genannt zu werden,
während die ™(n)tjw-Bäume im Plural stehen. Zur Schreibung von ™ß mit
drei nw-Krügen vgl. man den Erklärungsversuch von Sethe in ZÄS 45
(1908), 11. Noch älter ist die Schreibung von ™ß mit drei nw-Krügen im
Grab des Hesire aus dem Anfang der 3. Dynastie belegt, vgl. Alten-
müller, SAK (1976), 16, Abb. 4.
Bemerkenswert ist die Schreibung von ™(n)tjw gleich aus mehreren
Gründen. Das n ist in der Schreibung unterdrückt worden genau wie in
der 6. Dynastie in der Inschrift des Sabni, Urk. I, 139,13. Das
Determinativ sollte ein Krug mit Handgriffen sein wie Gardiner, Sign-
list W 23 (“jar with handles”); so deutlich sichtbar bei ™ntjw Junker, Giza
III, 171, Abb. 30. Bei uns liegt dagegen ganz klar das Zeichen für jb
“Herz” vor, das genau dem Zeichen für jb in dem Namen Mrj-jb gleicht:
Junker, Giza III, S. 169, Abb. 30. Zu beachten ist auch, was Lacau dazu
sagt in Les Noms des Parties du Corps, Académie des Inscriptions et de
Belles Lettres (Paris 1970), S. 91 in dem Abschnitt über das Herz: “Il
semble que la figure de l’organe ait abouti, et cela dès les Textes des Pyra-
mides, à celle d’un vase. Y a-t-il jamais eu un vase de cette même forme
et de ce même nom?” Die Erklärung dürfte aber viel einfacher sein: Da
die Zeichen für “Herz” und für W 23 im Hieratischen so gut wie
identisch waren, wurden sie auch im Hieroglyphischen wohl laufend
verwechselt; vgl. dazu unsere Abb. 2, wo unter M zu verstehen ist
Möller, Hieratische Paläographie. Da der verfügbare Platz gut ausreicht,
müssen unter ™(n)tjw noch drei Körner als Determinativ ergänzt werden
wie in Pyr. 512b, wo außerdem noch das Gefäß W 23 als Determinativ
erscheint, das bei uns durch das “Herz” ersetzt wird.
Abb. 2. Verwechslung von Hieroglyphen bedingt durch die hieratischen

Zeichenformen.
Die drei Baumhieroglyphen—zwei davon ergänzt—die hinter ™(n)tjw

“Myrrhen” stehen, sind nun nicht etwa als Determinativa zu ™(n)tjw
aufzufassen. Sie sind vielmehr als ideographische Schreibung für den
202
Plural nhwt “Bäume” anzusehen. Urk. IV, 329,4 (Bericht der Hatschep-
sut über die bekannte Puntexpedition) zeigt, wie wir den Text bei Snofru
zu verstehen haben, wobei wir die Baumhieroglyphe durch B und das
“Korn” durch K symbolisieren: nhwtBBB nt ™(n)tjwKKK w£∂ “Bäume mit
frischen Myrrhen” (Hochstellung B und K weist auf den Gebrauch dieser
Zeichen als Determinative hin). Bei Snofru ist bis auf w£∂ “frisch” nach
Art des Kanzleistils alles umgestellt worden, wie ich das in Altäg.
Gramm. §§ 310–314 beschrieben und durch Beispiele belegt habe. Zum
Kanzleistil gehört auch, wie bei uns, die Weglassung des Genetiv-
exponenten nj/nt. Wie unnatürlich durch den Kanzleistil die Wort-
stellung umgeordnet wurde, zeigt sich gut an der Stellung des w£∂, das
nicht zu nhwt gezogen werden darf, sondern wie sonst stets die ™(n)tjw
als “frisch” bezeichnet, vgl. Urk. IV, 346,14; 706,11.
Ob ™ntjw wirklich “Myrrhen” bezeichnet, ist offen. Vgl. Germer,
Flora des pharaonischen Ägypten (Mainz, 1985), S. 107 (“mit größter
Wahrscheinlichkeit… Myrrhe-harz”), während Loret, Kemi 12 (1952),
17/18, ™ntjw—für mich wahrscheinlicher—für das wohlriechende
Olibanum hält, das von Boswellia Arten gewonnen wird.
Was schließlich die botanische Bestimmung des ™ß-Baums angeht, so
hat Loret, ASAE 16 (1916), 33 ff., gezeigt, daß das Wort sowohl die Tanne
(Abies cilicica) wie auch die Pinie (Pinus pinea) bezeichnen konnte. Im
ersten Fall habe man gerne die Bezeichnung ™ß m£™ “echter ™ß-Baum”
gewählt, im anderen Fall habe man sich mit der Bezeichnung ™ß allein
begnügt. Nun ist erstmalig durch eine Inschrift des Snofru-Tempels (Fig.
110, siehe im Folgenden Abb. 3) belegt, daß der ™ß-Baum eßbare Früchte
(pr-t ™ß) trug. Das ist bei den Koniferen nur bei der Pinie der Fall, womit
die botanische Bestimmung des ™ß-Baums eindeutig gesichert ist.
Die Übersetzung der Inschrift von C 2 lautet nun: “Schauen, wie die
frische Pinie (und) die Bäume mit frischen Myrrhen(?) wachsen.”
Es ist klar, daß der König, dem diese Beischrift gilt, die genannten
Bäume auch optisch vor sich gehabt haben muß. Die schmale Pfeiler-
seite gestattet natürlich nicht, eine Baumlandschaft vor dem König bild-
lich auszubreiten. Dafür aber hat man die Möglichkeit benutzt, unter
den hochgestellten rechteckigen Darstellungen jeweils ein flach-
liegendes Rechteck anzubringen, um den Bildinhalt der großen Dar-
stellungen, wenn auch in sehr viel kleinerem Maßstab, zu ergänzen. In
Fig. 43 und 110 (bei Fakhry S. 84 und 106, letzteres bei uns als Abb. 3)
kann man zumindest die Reste solcher ergänzenden Darstellungen
beobachten. Da ist nun Fig. 275 mit der Darstellung eines Baumes in der
rechten Bildecke, dem nach links weitere Bäume gefolgt sein können,
von größtem Interesse, zumal wenn man dazu die Beschreibung hält, die
203
Fakhry auf S. 165 von dem Baum gibt: “An unusual relief which shows
the leaves of a large tree; no similar representation is known to have ex-
isted in any temple of the O.K.” Wie aus unserer Zeichnung hervorgeht,
paßt der Baum bequem in den durch Fig. 110 vorgegebenen rechteckigen
Rahmen. Die ungewöhnliche Baumdarstellung, die Fakhry so auffiel,
paßt nun aufs beste dazu, daß der König laut Beischrift auf exotische, in
Ägypten sonst nicht vorkommende Myrrhenbäume blickt. Wir müssen
gedanklich die Baum- bzw. Bäumedarstellung nach links und in Augen-
höhe des Königs rücken, um den Bildinhalt des Ganzen voll ausschöpfen
zu können.
Zu den Maßen der Darstellung ist noch Folgendes nachzutragen: Die
Zeichnung wurde zunächst nach den Zeichnungen der einzelnen
Bestandteile in dem von Fakhry vorgegebenen Maßstab 1:6 hergestellt
und ergänzt. Die Größe des Königs betrug dann von den Füßen bis zur
Schädeldecke 29,7 cm, so daß das Original die sechsfache Größe, also
1,78 m, aufgewiesen haben muß. Von den Füßen bis zum obersten
Federnabschluß auf der Krone maßen wir 37,4 cm, was einer originalen
Größe des ergänzten Reliefs von 2,24 m entspricht.
Für die ungefähre Lokalisation des Pfeilers ist nun aber entscheidend
die Pfeilerbreite. Wenn wir hinter dem König nichts weiter ergänzen,
kommt man schon auf eine Pfeilerbreite von 23,6 x 6 cm = 139,8 cm.
Das entspricht genau den 140 cm, die Fakhry für die Ost- bzw. West-
seiten der hinteren (südlichen) Pfeilerreihe angibt, wie wir bereits sahen.
2. Fakhrys Pfeilerseite C 1
Die Seite C 1 ist bei Fakhry als Fig. 58 auf S. 78 abgebildet. Wir können
sie nicht weiter ergänzen und verzichten daher auf ihre Wiedergabe. Ihre
Breite wäre 210 cm, da es sich um die Frontseite eines Pfeilers der
hinteren Pfeilerreihe handelt, wie wir im Vorstehenden sahen. Das
schlecht erhaltene Relief zeigt den König nach links laufend. Vgl. dazu
den Kommentar bei Fakhry S. 77 und 80.
3. Fakhrys Fig. 110 (unsere Abb. 3)

Man könnte dieses Relief, dessen Ergänzung wir als Abb. 3 wiedergeben,
auch als *C 3 bezeichnen, da es sehr wahrscheinlich als Gegenstück zu
C 2 angesehen werden darf, und dazu würde passen, daß der König genau
wie auf der gegenüberliegenden Pfeilerseite C 2 nach rechts schreitet
mit Blickrichtung auf die Kapellen im Nordteil des Taltempels.
Während in dem hochgestellten Rechteck der König dargestellt ist, sind
in dem unteren liegenden Rechteck fünf Genien dargestellt, die dem
König ein “Gottesopfer darbringen,” wenn man sich die Darstellung
204
Abb. 3. Fakhrys Fig. 110 mit neuen

Ergänzungen. Pfeilerseite *C 3
205
nach rechts oben vor den König versetzt vorstellt. Zwei Genien sind
praktisch erhalten, während sich die Ergänzung der übrigen drei Genien
problemlos in die durch C 2 vorgegebene Breite des Rechtecks einfügt.
So wie in C 2 die Pinie als erster Baum in der senkrechten Inschriftzeile
vor dem König genannt wird, so werden auch die “Früchte der Pinie”
von dem ersten in Abb. 3 dargestellten Genius dargebracht. Das dürfte
wohl kaum ein Zufall sein. Der zweite Genius bringt “Feigen” (d£b)—
wohl ein Hinweis darauf, daß in der Baumpflanzung, die der König in C
2 in dem unteren liegenden Rechteck vor sich hat, auch andere Bäume
wie Feigenbäume usw. vertreten waren. So wie im unteren Rechteck
steht “Herbeibringen des Gottesopfers,” so wird in der anzunehmenden
senkrechten Inschriftzeile vor dem König im oberen Rechteck
gestanden haben “Empfangen des Gottesopfers bestehend aus Früchten
der Pinie (und) Feigen.”
Zum Schluß sollte man noch etwas festhalten, was Fakhry gar nicht
erwähnt hat. Snofrus Relief bezeugt indirekt, daß unter ihm eine
Expedition in das ferne Land Punt am Roten Meer etwa in die Gegend
des heutigen Suakin gesandt worden sein muß, um ™ntjw-Bäume zu
holen. Die früheste ausdrückliche Erwähnung einer Expedition nach
Punt zur Beschaffung von ™ntjw-Bäumen findet sich dann erst wieder in
den Puntreliefs und Inschriften der Königin Hatschepsut in der 18.
Dynastie im Tempel von Deir el-Bahari. Unter Ramses II. wird
ausdrücklich die Anlage von “vielen Gärten” (b™¢w) “mit jeder (Art von)
Baum, wohlriechenden Kräutern, den Pflanzen (rnpwt) Punts” bezeugt:
Kitchen, Ram. Inscr. II, 514,16. Das dabei verwendete Wort srd.n≠f b™¢w
™ß£w “er ließ viele Gärten wachsen, bepflanzte viele Gärten” (mit… den
Pflanzen Punts) ist das Kausativum von rd “wachsen” in der Snofru-In-
schrift. Vgl. auch srd n(j) ™ß n(j) Kbn “Pflanzung von Pinien aus Byblos”
CT I 268a, eine Stelle, die genau wie in dem Snofrutext den Abtransport
von Pinien aus Byblos und ihre Anpflanzung in Ägypten beweist.
4. Fakhrys Fig. 99 (unsere Abb. 4)

Fakhry beschreibt die von ihm rekonstruierte Pfeilerseite (Fig. 99) auf S.
101 so: “This side of the pillar which must have been on one of the east
or west sides (1) is among the best preserved scenes found in this temple
and preserves much of the ancient colours.” In Anm. 1 begründet Fakhry
seine Zuweisung des Reliefs zur Ost- oder Westseite so: “The neighbour-
ing side was left uninscribed, it was only painted red.” Fakhry übersetzt
die senkrechte Zeile vor dem König so: “Inspecting the two cattle stalls
(m∂t) of oryxes (m£¢∂).” Fakhry hat dabei das letzte Zeichen unergänzt
gelassen, das als Anchzeichen zu deuten ist, und hat verkannt, daß zwei
206
Abb. 4. Fakhrys Fig. l99 mit neuen

Ergänzungen
207
Ställe für ganz Ägypten etwas wenig wären. Man muß das oberste Frag-
ment mit dem Königsnamen nur etwas heben und gewinnt dadurch
Platz für die Ergänzung einer dritten m∂t-Hieroglyphe, wodurch man
eine Pluralschreibung für m∂t, also m∂wt “Ställe” erhält. Durch die
Hebung des obersten Fragments nach oben ergibt sich auch eine weniger
gedrängte Bildkomposition. Die Übersetzung der Inschrift lautet jetzt:
“Besichtigung der Ställe der lebhaften Säbelantilopen.” Das Partizip
“lebende, lebenskräftige, quicklebendige” findet sich nicht selten nach
Tiernamen, z.B. in Urk. IV, 891,5 “70 lebende Esel” (als Beute weg-
geführt).
In dem schmalen liegenden Rechteck, das wir nach dem Muster von
Abb. 1 und 3 eingezeichnet haben, werden sicherlich die Säbelantilopen
dargestellt gewesen sein, deren Ställe der König besichtigt. Die originale
Breite der Abb. 4 muß nach den 1:6 gezeichneten Einzelblöcken ca. 120
cm betragen haben. Damit gehört diese Pfeilerseite—sei es als Ost- oder
Westseite—zu den Pfeilern der vorderen Pfeilerreihe.
b
208
16 FAZZINI Page 209 Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:21 PM
A Statue of a High Priest

Menkheperreseneb in
The Brooklyn Museum
Richard A. Fazzini
W
illiam Kelly Simpson has long displayed an interest in
the art of the New Kingdom. This was evidenced early in his
Egyptological career by articles such as the one he wrote with
John D. Cooney on a section of an Amarna parapet composed of frag-
ments from the Metropolitan Museum’s collection and a larger section
1
belonging to The Brooklyn Museum. Later, during his seventeen years
as Curator of Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art at the Museum of
Fine Arts, Boston, that interest was reflected in his department’s numer-
2
ous acquisitions of New Kingdom art of various types. Indeed, in
addition to significantly enlarging Boston’s holdings of private statuary
of Dynasty 18, William Kelly Simpson also wrote an important article
that made many of the best of those sculptures better known and
3
understood.
Hence, although the New Kingdom and private statuary of Dynasty
18 are hardly the main fields of study of this book’s honoree, it is not
inappropriate, I hope, to discuss and illustrate here a private sculpture of
Dynasty 18 that has never been published in detail or in photographs,
presumably because it is lacking its head (not to mention parts of its
lower legs, feet and base). What is preserved, however, is of fine quality
and warrants more attention than the brief entry and drawing of its main
1 John D. Cooney and William K. Simpson, “An Architectural Fragment from Amarna,”
The Brooklyn Museum Bulletin 12, 4 (Summer, 1951), pp. 1–12. William Kelly Simpson
was the first to suggest that the Metropolitan and Brooklyn fragments belonged together.
He also realized, much later, that an Amarna relief in his possession most probably joined
a relief in Brooklyn (William K. Simpson, The Face of Egypt: Permanence and Change in
Egyptian Art, exh. cat. [Katonah, 1977], pp. 46 and 69, nos. 42–43), first loaning and then
kindly donating his relief to The Brooklyn Museum.
2 E.g., A Table of Offerings: 17 Years of Acquisitions of Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern
Art by William Kelly Simpson for the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Boston, 1987), pp. 24–
51.
3 Willian K. Simpson, “Egyptian Statuary of Courtiers of Dynasty 18,” BMFA 77 (1979),
pp. 36–49.
Fig. 1. Statue of Menkheperreseneb, high

priest of Amun. Red granite. The Brooklyn
Museum 36.613, Charles Edwin Wilbour
Fund. 3/4 right view. (All Photographs by
Dean Brown for The Brooklyn Museum.)
Illustrated courtesy of The Brooklyn
Museum.
210
Richard A. Fazzini, A Statue of a High Priest Menkheperreseneb in The Brooklyn Museum

priest of Amun. 3/4 left view. The Brooklyn
Museum 36.613.
211
inscription that appeared in T.G.H. James’ volume on pre-Ramesside

4
hieroglyphic texts in The Brooklyn Museum. The sculpture, illustrated
5
in Figs. 1–3, was acquired in the art market in 1936 with monies from
The Brooklyn Museum’s Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund and bears the
accession number 36.613.
The figure wears a skirt similar to one J. Vandier described as “demi-
6
longue, assez large et très apprêtée,” and the single column of text
down the center of the skirt, visible in fig. 3, and T.G.H. James’
previously published drawing (redrawn for fig. 4) reveals that the sculp-
ture represented a high priest of Amun named Menkheperreseneb. Until
recently, this sculpture has been identified as an image of the high priest
by that name who served in office during the later reign of Tuthmosis III
and into the early reign of Amunhotep II and owned two Theban tombs
7
(TT 86 and 112). However, Peter Dorman has recently argued compel-
lingly that there were two related high priests of Amun named Men-
kheperreseneb, both holding that office under Tuthmosis III, the later
Menkheperreseneb, owner of TT 112, perhaps succeeding his like-
named uncle and remaining in office until early in the reign of
8
Amunhotep II. As already indicated in James’ entry on the statue, a car-
touche containing the prenomen of Tuthmosis III adorns the leopard
9 10
skin on the figure’s left shoulder, where it is carved in raised relief.
There is nothing about the figure, however, that permits its specific
attribution to either Menkheperreseneb the elder or younger. On the
other hand, as Peter Dorman has also raised doubts about the long-
standing attributions of two other statues (British Museum 708 and,
especially, Egyptian Museum, Cairo CG 42125) to a high priest of Amun
4 T.G.H. James, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Inscriptions in The Brooklyn Museum 1, From
Dynasty I to the End of Dynasty XVIII, Wilbour Monograph 6 (Brooklyn, 1974), p. 83,
no. 192 and pl. L.
5 The writer wishes to thank Mr. Dean Brown, who photographed the statue for The
Brooklyn Museum, for his efforts with this work in red granite, never an easy stone to
photograph.
6 Jacques Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne 3, Les grandes époques: la statuaire
(Paris, 1958), p. 494.

7 E.g., Gustave Lefebvre, Histoire des grands prêtres d’Amon de Karnak jusqu’à la XXIe
dynastie (Paris, 1929), pp. 82–89; and Nina and Norman de Garis Davies, The Tombs of
Menkheperrasonb, Amenmose, and Another (Nos. 86, 112, 42, 226), The Egypt Explora-
tion Fund [Society], The Theban Tomb Series, 5th Memoir (London, 1933), pp. 1–34;
Daniel Polz, “Jamunedjeh, Meri und Userhet,” MDAIK 47 (1991), p. 285.
8 Peter Dorman, “Two Tombs and One Owner,” in J. Assmann, E. Dziobek, H. Guksch and
F. Kampp (Eds.), Thebanische Beamtennekropolen. Neue Perspektiven archäologischer

Forschung; Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 9.–13.6.1993, SAGA 12 (1995), pp. 148–
54. The writer is indebted to Peter Dorman for calling his attention to this article and for
an offprint of it.
9 T.G.H. James, Corpus … 1, p. 83, no. 192.
212

priest of Amun. Front view. The Brooklyn
Museum 36.613.
i
3
3fi
„™
fi
mØ
Á¤
¤
¤~
]¤n∆
Á
¤~
g
¤Á
⁄¢
Fig. 4. Inscription on the skirt
of Menkheperreseneb’s statue.
213
11
named Menkheperreseneb, Brooklyn’s Menkheperreseneb may be the
only known statue of either of the Tuthmoside Theban pontiffs of that
name.
Whichever of the two Menkheperresenebs is represented, Brooklyn
12
36.613 is 72 cm tall. The width of the figure at the shoulders is 26.5
cm and the width of the back slab is 32.5 cm. The maximum total depth
of the sculpture is 32.8 cm, the maximum depth of the figure (at the low-
est preserved portion of the right leg) being 24.5 cm. The depth of the
back slab varies from 7.8 cm near the top to 8.2 cm near the bottom.
Brooklyn’s Menkheperreseneb was depicted with his left leg
advanced, his arms pendant and his hands open against the outer sides
of his thighs, the pose that Jacques Vandier labeled P(rivé). N(ouvel).
E(mpire).I,D. It was extremely rare for male figures in the Old Kingdom,
13
but as Vandier’s P(rivé). M(oyen). E(mpire). II,a, became common in the
14
later Middle Kingdom.
An element of the statue with a longer history is the back panel, or
slab, wider than the normal back pillar, which certainly dates back to
15
the Old Kingdom, and is attested in private statuary of the later Mid-
16 17
dle Kingdom, Second Intermediate Period, and early Dynasty 18 pri-
18
or to its appearance on Brooklyn 36.613. The rear of our statue’s back
slab appears never to have been decorated, and much of it is now taken
10 I.E.S.Edwards has noted that cartouches of a king on a high priest’s leopard skin could
reflect the priest’s status as that king’s deputy: Treasures of Tutankhamun, exh. cat. (New
York, 1976), p. 105. However, such cartouches were not limited to high priests as indicat-
ed, for example, by a representation of two priests in a bark procession from
Tuthmosis III’s temple at Deir el Bahri (Jadwiga Lipinska, “List of the Objects Found at
Deir el-Bahari Temple of Tuthmosis III Season 1960/1962,” ASAE 59 [1966], p. 73, no. 18
and pl. VI). As Erich Winter has noted, cartouches on leopard skins of Dynasty 18 priests
are the harbingers of more elaborate inscriptions on sashes worn by leopard skin-clad
priests in later times: “Eine ägyptische Bronze aus Ephesos,” ZÄS 97 (1971), pp. 152–53.
Although different in concept, we might note that it is during the reign of Tuthmosis III
that owners of private statues began to have the cartouche of their sovereign carved into
the bare “flesh” on the statue’s shoulders or upper arms: Henry G. Fischer, in Edward L.B.
Terrace and Henry G. Fischer, Treasures of the Cairo Museum. From Predynastic to
Roman Times (London, 1970), p. 113.
11 Peter Dorman, “Two Tombs …,” pp. 151–52. If related to either of the high priests
named Menkheperreseneb, British Museum statue 708 would have represented him as
“second priest” in an early stage of his career.
12 The height of 59.5 cm given in James, Corpus … 1, is an erroneous figure taken from the
then-existing records for the statue.

13 Jacques Vandier, Manuel … 3, pp. 61, 227, 434.
14 In discussing a statue group of the time of Sesostris III, Henry G. Fischer has observed
(in Treasures of the Cairo Museum …, p. 81), “During the later half of the Twelfth
Dynasty, statuary becomes increasingly monumental in the literal sense of the word. The
attitude of men is frequently as passive as that of women—in the majority of cases they
no longer have one or both hands fisted, but hold their hands flat upon their lap or at their
sides.”
214
up by two large depressions that may indicate it was ultimately used as

a surface for crushing or grinding. Alas, we cannot determine how high
the back slab extended nor whether the top was straight, with or with-
out rounded corners, or round. What may appear in the illustration to be
the rounded upper left-hand corner of the back slab is actually a break.
Although the head is missing, enough of the neck and the shoulders
are preserved to make it certain that Menkheperreseneb was not wear-
ing the broad wig reaching down to or even covering part of each shoul-
19
der that was his era’s most common wig type. This means that
Menkheperreseneb was depicted with either a short wig, such as those
20
sometimes worn in Dynasty 17 and early Dynaty 18 or with a shaven
head, which is rare for Dynasty 18, and especially rare for early Dynasty
21
18 statues of adult males. William Kelly Simpson once wrote, at the
beginning of a catalogue entry on a headless Ramesside statuette whose
owner was depicted with a leopard skin and elaborate, pleated skirt, that
“frequently the accidental absence of a head is useful in drawing atten-
tion to the details of the body, in this case to an elaborate ceremonial
22
costume.” This holds true, as well, for Brooklyn’s Menkheperreseneb.
It is unfortunate, however, that we cannot determine whether the statue
was shaven-headed, like many New Kingdom relief representations of
15 Baudouin van de Walle, “Rückenpfeiler,” LÄ 5 (1984), col. 316.

16 In their publication of a 105 cm tall statue group of late Dynasty 12, (“Ein Denkmal zum
Kult des Königs Unas am Ende der 12. Dynastie,” MDAIK 31 [1975], pp. 93–97), Ahmed
Moussa and Hartwig Altenmüller observe (p. 94) that back slabs reaching to head height
are common for small figures of the Middle Kingdom, but are rare in large figures such as
the one of their publication.
17 E.g., Elisabeth Delange, Musée du Louvre. Catalogue des statues égyptiennes du Moyen
Empire, 2060–1560 avant J.-C. (Paris, 1987), p. 190 (Louvre E 22454) and possibly p. 217–
18 (Louvre AF 285).
18 E.g., Jacques Vandier, Manuel … 3, pl. CXXXVIII,2 (Turin, Museo Egizio 3061: statue of
Hapu, father of the high priest of Amun, Hapuseneb), and pl. CXLII,4 (Cairo CG 42118:
pair statue of the vizier User-Amun and his wife). The latter statue is also illustrated as
pl. XIa of Eberhard Dziobek, “Theban Tombs as a Source for Historical and Biographical
Evaluation: the Case of User-Amun,” in Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp. 129–40,
where he notes (p. 129) that User-Amun held office from Year 5 to circa Year 28 of
Tuthmosis III.
19 Jacques Vandier, Manuel … 3, pp. 482–84. See also William K. Simpson, “Egyptian Stat-
uary of Courtiers …,” pp. 36–45, with figs. 1–5, 7–8, 10–15, 17–19.
20 Jacques Vandier, Manuel …3, pp. 481–82. To the sculptures cited add, for example,
Pascal Vernus, “Trois statues de particuliers attribuables à la fin de la domination

Hyksôs,” in J. Vercoutter (ed.), Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire. Livre
du Centenaire, 1880–1980, IFAOM CIV (1980), pp. 184–86 and pl. XXVII: statue of ⁄™¢-
¢tp(.w); and Wilfried Seipel, Ägypten: Götter, Gräber und die Kunst 4000 Jahre
Jenseitsglaube 1 (Linz, 1989), p. 278, no. 455, Statue of Maa = Turin, Museo Egizio 3089.
21 Jacques Vandier, Manuel … 3, p. 481.
22 William K. Simpson, The Face of Egypt, p. 36, no. 28.
215
priests, including some from Menkheperreseneb’s general era who are

23
shown wearing leopard skins. If it were, it would be possibly one of the
earliest known three-dimensional images of a shaven-headed priest
wearing a leopard skin.
In fact, to this writer’s knowlege, there are no real three-dimensional
prototypes for The Brooklyn Museum’s Menkheperreseneb depiction as
a priest. The Musée du Louvre’s late Dynasty 12 group of high priests of
24
Ptah is very different in appearance, lacking a leopard skin and wear-
ing a very different type of calf-length skirt. Surely more relevant,
although hardly a close parallel, is Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 395, a
statue of King Amunemhat III as a leopard skin-cloaked priestly stan-
25
dard bearer. Given our present knowledge, it would seem to be the first
“priestly” statue with leopard skin and the last three-dimensional king’s
image wearing such a garment until much later in Dynasty 18 than the
26
reign of Tuthmosis III. This statue has been claimed as the possible
source for the depiction of a leopard skin cloak on Musée du Louvre
A 76, a block statue of a non-clerical official of late Dynasty 12 or
27
Dynasty 13.
The reign of Tuthmosis III provides us with another block statue
with leopard skin that represents a man who held a number of priestly
28
titles. Also of the reign and far closer in concept to Brooklyn’s
23 The painted relief from Tuthmosis III’s Deir el Bahri temple (Jadwiga Lipinska, “List of
the Objects …”) and reliefs of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III from Karnak: Pierre Lacau
and Henri Chevrier et al., Une chapelle d’Hatshepsout à Karnak (Cairo, 1977), pls. 7 and
9. A large-scale photograph of block 303 from pl. 9 is illustrated as fig. 20 on pp. 48–49 of
Ägyptens Aufstieg zur Weltmacht, exh. cat. (Hildesheim and Mainz, 1987).
24 Musée du Louvre A 47: Elisabeth Delange, Catalogue des statues … Moyen Empire,
pp. 81–83.
25 Henry G. Fischer, in Treasures of the Cairo Museum, pp. 85–88. On p. 85, Fischer notes
that “by the reign of Amenemhet III the leopard cloak had become an archaism that was
restricted to priestly use; specifically it is the setem-priest that wears such a cloak from
the Old Kingdom onwards.”
26 Musée du Louvre E 11609: Georges Bénédite, “Amon et Toutânkhamon (au sujet d’un
groupe acquis par le Musée égyptien du Louvre),” Fondation Eugène Piot. Monuments et
Mémoires 24 (Paris, 1920), pp. 47–68 with pl. I. For a better illustration of Tutankhamun’s
leopard skin on the statue, see Encyclopédie photographique de l’art. 1, Les antiquités
égyptiennes du Musée du Louvre (Paris, 1936), p. 79. Compare also Henry G. Fischer’s
comment (in Treasures of the Cairo Museum, p. 85), in connection with the statue of
Amunemhat III, that “in a very few paintings and reliefs of much later date (four to five
centuries later), it (i.e., leopard skin cloak) is again worn by kings in a context that clearly
indicates its priestly function.”
27 Elisabeth Delange, Catalogue des statues … Moyen Empire, pp. 86–88. On p. 88 she
notes, “la peau de panthère semble être inspirée de celle qui enveloppe la statue du roi-
prêtre provenant de Kiman Farés et identifiée à present comme étant Amenemhat III.”
The most recent publication of the statue is by Regine Schulz, Die Entwicklung und
Bedeutung des kuboiden Statuentypus: Eine Untersuchung zu den sogennanten “Würfel-
hocker,” vol. 1 (HÄB 33 [1992]), pp. 475–76; and vol. 2 (HÄB 34 [1992]), pl. 125a–d.
216
Menkheperreseneb statue, is Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 70038 from

29
Abydos, a frontal figure of the high priest of Memphis, Ptahmose I,
carved in bold relief. Although represented with a wig and sidelock,
Ptahmose, like Brooklyn’s Menkheperreseneb, also wears a leopard skin
mantle and a calf-length skirt. Moreover, from his belt hangs a pendant
element of attire that is one of Ludwig Borchardt’s examples of what he
interpreted as an instrument container carried by astronomers and sur-
30
veyors, about which more will be said below. Here suffice it to say that
the pendant element on the right side of the skirt of Brooklyn’s Men-
kheperreseneb is another example of Borchardt’s “instrument case.”
To be sure, there are significant differences between the statues of
Menkheperreseneb and Ptahmose. Nevertheless, the sculpture from
Abydos at least indicates that the statue of Menkheperreseneb as priest
was not a wholly unique monument of its era.
If there are no truly good prototypes for Brooklyn’s statue of Men-
kheperreseneb, it is itself a good harbinger of some later works. One
such sculpture is part of a block statue in Copenhagen’s Ny Carlsberg
31
Glyptothek, inscribed for a man named Paser. Carved half in the round
before the squatting Paser is a smaller, standing male figure who has at
least one hand open at his side and wears a leopard skin mantle arranged
in a manner similar to Menkheperreseneb’s. He also wears a calf-length
skirt and, like Menkheperreseneb, the “astronomer’s/surveyor’s instru-
ment case” to the right of the leopard’s head. To judge from published
photographs, the figure’s head may have been shaven. This statue has
32
twice been dated to Ramesside times, but R. Schulz has recently
argued that it should be ascribed to the Tuthmoside period in general
33
and to the reign of Amunhotep II in particular. If so, this figure, whose
identity remains uncertain, would provide the closest near-contempo-
34
rary parallel for significant aspects of the figure of Menkheperreseneb.
28 London, The British Museum 888: Regine Schulz, Die Entwicklung … kuboiden
Statuentypus, vol. 1, pp. 377–78, and vol. 2, pl. 98a–b.
29 Günther Roeder, Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte. Catalogue général des antiquités
égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Nos 70001–70050: Naos (Leipzig, 1914), pp. 126–29, and
pl. 40.
30 Ludwig Borchardt, “Die Instrumentasche der Astronomen und Feldmesser,” in Ludwig
Borchardt, Allerhand Kleinigkeiten (Leipzig, 1933), pp. 19–21. CG 70038 is no. 1 in his list
of examples of the object in question.
31 Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek ÆIN 661: Otto Koefoed-Petersen, Catalogue des statues et
statuettes égyptiennes (Copenhagen, 1950), p. 69, no. 44 and pp. 83–84 (full front and rear
views of the sculpture); and Regine Schulz, Die Entwicklung … kuboiden Statuentypus,
vol. 1, pp. 342–43, no. 195; and vol. 2, pl. 86c (3/4 front right view).
32 See Otto Koefoed-Petersen, Catalogue des statues …, p. 69, and Jacques Vandier,
Manuel … 3, p. 459.
33 Regine Schulz, Die Entwicklung … kuboiden Statuentypus, p. 342.
217
At least two statues of the reign of Amunhotep III represent priests

in priestly regalia. One is the statue of Taitai, high priest of Horus, lord
35
of Hebenu, that is probably from Middle Egypt. His leopard skin is
arranged differently than Menkheperreseneb’s, his hands are in a differ-
ent pose, and his “astronomer’s/surveyor’s instrument case” descends
directly from the head of his leopard skin. Nevertheless, it is a statue of
a high priest who is clearly shaven-headed and wearing a skirt similar to
Menkheperreseneb’s, if somewhat shorter, and is basically a related type
of priestly image. Far closer to Menkheperreseneb’s statue in many
36
details is Turin’s well-known statue of Anen, from Thebes. Although
Anen wears a shoulder-length wig, the pose of his statue, the shape of
his skirt, the basic arrangement of his leopard skin and its decoration
with star-shapes and with a cartouche containing prenomen, the posi-
tion and general shape of his “astronomer’s/surveyor’s case” and the
adornment of its lower section with another cartouche with prenomen
are all more or less closely prefigured in the statue of Menkheperre-
37
seneb.
Another statue with more than a passing resemblance to the Brook-
lyn Menkheperreseneb in terms of pose and attire is, unfortunately, an
uninscribed and unprovenanced Late Period image of a shaven-headed
38
priest now in Baltimore. First appearing in Dynasty 19 and common-
place in priestly images of the Late Period are inscribed bands or sashes
39
on leopard skins. The absence of such a sash on the Baltimore statue
34 Itis difficult simply to accept Schulz’s stylistic arguments for dating on the basis of the
published photographs, but it certainly seems possible that she is correct. Most difficult
to accept is her suggestion that the figure may be represent a statue of Paser, the subject
of the block statue, rather than one of his relatives or a superior.
35 Ägyptisches Museum, Staatliche Museen Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, no. 17021:
Betsy Bryan, in Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World, exh. cat. (Cleveland,
1992), pp. 248–49, illus.
36 Turin, Museo Egizio 5484. Normally published in a three-quarter right frontal view, a
good full frontal view of this statue was published in Claude Vandersleyen, et al., Das Alte
Ägypten, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 15 (Frankfurt am Main, Berlin and Vienna, 1975),
pl. 187b. For some of the many publications of this statue, see PM II2, p. 214, where it is
described as presumably from the area of Karnak’s Amun-Re-Horakhty temple because of
the appearance of a statue on a plate in Jean-Jacques Rifaud’s Voyage en Egypte, en Nubie,
et lieux circonvoisins, depuis 1805 jusqu’en 1827 (Paris, 1830), pl. 42, that resembles it
somewhat. The plate is captioned “statues en granit, découvertes par l’auteur dans les
fouilles à Thebes, à la partie est du grand temple de Karnak.” The statue in the plate, how-
ever, shows an un-Egyptian-looking back pillar rising high above the figure’s head, lacks
the inscription down the front of the skirt, reverses the writing of Amunhotep III’s
prenomen in the cartouche on the leopard skin on Anen’s shoulder, ignores the writing of
Amunhotep III’s nomen on the upper part of Anen’s “astronomer’s/surveyor’s instrument
case,” and includes a cartouche with Amunhotep III’s nomen at the bottom of that ele-
ment where Anen’s statue has the king’s prenomen. Betsy Bryan’s recent publication of the
Turin statue (Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, pp. 249–50, illus.) argues that Anen’s statue was made
for Amunhotep III’s mortuary temple.
218
has been seen as an archaizing element by the publisher of a Late Period

statuette of a presumably shaven-headed overseer of priests of Horus of
Hierakonpolis (possibly from that site) whose hands are open at his
40
sides, and who wears a leopard skin and a calf-length skirt. This sug-
gestion could very well be true. However, it is difficult to accept the
same author’s claim that the statuette’s plain skirt, which resembles
that of the Walters Art Gallery’s anonymous priest, is another archaizing
41
element adopted from the Old and Middle Kingdoms. The suggested
prototypes from those periods do not resemble the statuette’s skirt as
much as do the semi-long, broad and stiff skirts shown, for example, on
the statues of Menkheperreseneb, Taitai (shorter) and Anen.
Because it is difficult to cite works of Dynasty 25 or 26 that definite-
ly show a pendant element of attire like the one on the Walters Art
Gallery statue or its forerunners already cited, it is also conceivable,
although hardly certain, that the “astronomer’s/surveyor’s instrument
case” on the Walters statue is another archaizing element. To be sure,
Borchardt’s article on this “instrument case” included relief representa-
tions of Montuemhat and his son Nesptah on the stela forming the rear
of a pair statue, and on a statue of a priest of unknown provenance
42
attributed to the “Spätzeit.” However, Jean Leclant, no less reason-
43
ably, has interpreted the element in the first example as clerical bands.
44
Moreover, although it is sometimes accepted as Late Period, even
Borchardt was not always so sure of the date of his second example,
which he first published as “Spätzeit?,” which could be earlier, and
37 The cartouche on Menkheperreseneb’s “astronomer’s/surveyor’s instrument case” was

not noted in T.G.H. James, Corpus … 1. The writer would like to thank Donald Spanel and
Paul O’Rourke for assistance in checking the statue’s inscriptions and Mary McKercher
for assistance in documenting other aspects of the statue’s decoration. Menkheperre-
seneb’s statue does not appear to parallel Anen’s statue in having a small, horizontal car-
touche with his sovereign’s nomen further up on the “satchel.”
38 Walters Art Gallery 22.113; height complete: 61 cm. George Steindorff: Catalogue of the
Egyptian Sculpture in the Walters Art Gallery (Baltimore, 1946), p. 50, no. 147, and
pl. XXV; Claudio Barocas, “Les statues ’réalistes’ et l’arrivé des Perses dans l’Egypte saïte,”
in Gurura-jamañjarika-: Studi in Onore di Giuseppe Tucci (Naples, 1974), pp. 140, 143.
39 Erich Winter, “Eine ägyptische Bronze …,” pp. 153–54.
40 London, the Sir John Soane’s Museum CP 148535; preserved height 17 cm: Dagmar
Förster, “A Late Period Statue of an Overseer of Priests of Horus of Hierakonpolis,”

GM 111 (1989), pp. 47–55, including pls. I–III. For the Baltimore figure, see p. 48 and p. 50,
note 6.
41 Dagmar Förster, “A Late Period Statue …,” pp. 47 and 48 with notes 7 and 8 on p. 50.
42 Ludwig Borchardt, “Die Instrumentasche …,” p. 20, nos. 11 (Cairo CG 42241) and 12
(Cairo CG 904).
43 Jean Leclant, Montouemhat, quatrième prophète d’Amon, ’prince de la ville’, BdE 35
(1961), p. 81.
44 Jürgen von Beckerath, “Ein Torso des Mentem¢e-t in München,” ZÄS 87 (1962), p. 6.
219
whose “instrument case,” judging from the sketch he published, seems

45
less elaborate than many. Borchardt also identified an example of his
“astronomer’s/surveyor’s instrument case” on a Karnak stela of the
46
Dynasty 21 high priest Menkheperre. It seems difficult, however, to be
sure of the equation of the element on this figure, or of the similar pen-
47
dant element on a late Dynasty 20 image of Herihor as high priest,
with the element worn by Menkheperreseneb and Anen, which is rect-
angular and divided into several sections, and is suspended from cord-
like elements. Except for the Walters Art Gallery statue, none of the
Third Intermediate or Late Period images known to this writer show the
“instrument case” suspended from a cord tied around the waist or, as in
the statues of Anen and Menkheperreseneb, the division of the vertical
suspension elements into two zones, the divider on Anen’s statue bear-
ing a cartouche.
The lack of an inscription on the Walters Art Gallery statue means
it cannot be used to link the pendant element of attire under question to
more than priests in general. Borchardt identified it as an astronomer’s
or surveyor’s instrument case essentially because individuals shown
wearing it included people to whom those labels might possibly be
48
attributed, one of them being Anen, by virtue of his title wr-m£w. But
there is nothing in the titles of a number of individuals shown with this
49
element of attire, including Menkheperreseneb, that links them to
astronomy and surveying; and if Borchardt’s interpretation of the object
50
has still been accepted in relatively recent years, Borchardt himself
51
called his interpretation only an “attempted explanation.” It is hence
not surprising that Borchardt’s theory has sometimes been questioned.
45 Ludwig Borchardt, Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte. Catalogue général des antiquités
égyptiennes, Nos. 1–1294. Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleuten 3 (Berlin,
1930), p. 146.
46 Ludwig Borchardt, “Die Instrumentasche …,” p. 20, no. 10. For this stela, see Paul
Barguet, Le temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak. Essai d’exégèse, RAPH 21 (Cairo, 1962), pp. 36–
38 and pl. XXXIIb; and Karel Myåliewic, Royal Portraiture of the Dynasties XXI–XXX
(Mainz am Rhein, 1988), pl. IX,c.
47 The Epigraphic Survey, The Temple of Khonsu 2, Scenes and Inscriptions in the Court
and the First Hypostyle Hall, OIP 103 (Chicago, 1981), pl. 185. Is the element of attire
shown here the same as that worn by a later Third Intermediate Period image of the high
priest Osorkon? See The Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak 3, The
Bubastite Portal, OIP 74, (Chicago, 1954), pl. 28.
48 Ludwig Borchardt, “Die Instrumentasche …,” p. 20.
49 For Menkheperreseneb’s titles, see Peter Dorman, “Two Tombs …,” p. 152.
50 E.g., Matthias Seidel and Dietrich Wildung in Claude Vanderseleyen, Das Alte Ägypten,
pp. 248–49, entry 187 on Turin’s statue of Anen; and Regine Schulz, Die Entwicklung …
kuboiden Statuentypus 1, p. 345 on the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek’s ÆIN 661.
51 Ludwig Borchardt, “Die Instrumentasche …,” p. 21.
220
For example, in a discussion of what he termed “a peculiar satchel”

or “priestly satchel generally divided into three or more pockets(?)” in
paintings of priests in the Dynasty 19 Theban Tomb of Khonsu, called
To (TT 31), Norman de Garis Davies noted Borchardt’s theory and sug-
gested that it might have been meant for holding papyri for recitation
and that its use in the tomb “only by priests of Montu or of a royal cult
52
when engaged in rites … does not point to astronomy.”
The priests in the images Davies was discussing were all ¢m-n†r tpy
of the cults of regular deities or deceased kings, and the “instrument
case” or “satchel” has also sometimes been associated specifically with
“first prophets.” For example, Georges Legrain described it as it appears
on Cairo Egyptian Museum CG 42156, a statue of Paser, high priest of
53
Amun, as “la trousse du grand prêtre d’Amon.” And Etienne Drioton
believed it was shown worn (on the right side of a kilt with triangular
front panel) with a leopard skin mantle as the costume of the high
priests of Amun on Musée du Louvre E 11609, a statue of Tutankhamun
protected by Amun, even though it was not limited to the high priests
54
of Amun or other gods.
Considering the “instrument case” some sort of container, Norman
de Garis Davies noted a possible relationship between it and at least one
image of what he identified as a sporran worn by a relief figure of King
55
Amunhotep III when acting as priest. However, unlike the pendant
element of attire on the Louvre statue of Tutankhamun and Amun, the
royal regalia cited by Davies does not look like one of Borchardt’s
“instrument cases.” On the other hand, and as noted by Paul Barguet
and Jean Leclant, a pendant element of attire that Borchardt would pre-
sumably have considered an “instrument case” is suspended from a
leopard head on the front of the triangular panel of the kilt worn by one
of the standard bearer statues of King Amunhotep III in the Karnak
56
Precinct of Montu. In recent days the similarity between this element,
52Norman de Garis Davies, Seven Private Tombs at urnah, Mond Excavations at

Thebes 2 (London, 1948), p. 14, n. 3.
53 Georges Legrain, Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte. Catalogue général des antiquités
égyptiennes, Nos. 42139–42191. Statues et statuettes de rois et particuliers 2 (Cairo,
1909), p. 23.
54 Etienne Drioton, “Un second prophète d’Onouris: la statuette E. 11099 du Musée du
Louvre,” Fondation Eugène Piot. Monuments et Mémoires 25 (Paris, 1921–1922), p. 129.

For the Louvre statue of Tutankhamun and Amun, see the first two references in n. 26.
The best illustration of the “instrument case” on this sculpture is Georges Bénédite,
“Amon et Toutânkhamon …,” p. 50, fig. 3.
55 Norman de Garis Davies, Seven Private Tombs …, p. 14, n. 3.
56 Paul Barguet and Jean Leclant, Karnak-Nord 4 (1949–1951), FIFAO XXV (Cairo, 1954),
p. 160 and pl. CXLIV.
221
viewed as “presumably jeweled” and the “priestly ornaments” worn by

57
Amunhotep III on this statue has been reiterated. And the “instru-
ment cases” on statues such as those of Taitai and Anen have been rede-
fined as a “jeweled apron” and “an apron, presumably of precious
58
metal.”
While this may be the most recent and certainly reasonable interpre-
tation of this element of attire, it is not certain that they should all be
considered as similar as Borchardt considered them. For example, Luc
Limme, who accepts Borchardt’s interpretation of some of the “astrono-
mer’s and surveyor’s instrument cases,” has argued that this definition
would not be appropriate to the functions of Memphite high priests of
Ptah. He also notes that Borchardt mistakenly identified those priests’
“réseau de perles” as “instrument cases” in his two cited examples of
59
Memphite priests of Ptah wearing this element. One of Limme’s
instances of such a mistaken identity is on the bold relief image of
Ptahmose I (CG 70038) mentioned above and dated to the reign of
Tuthmosis III. And following Limme, this would make Brooklyn’s stat-
ue of Menkheperreseneb the earliest known appearance of the “instru-
ment case”/“apron” or, in the words of Elisabeth Staehelin, “Ein
60
Abzeichen höherer Priester.”
The most prominent preserved feature of Menkheperreseneb’s stat-
ue is the leopard skin mantle draped over his left shoulder. The leopard’s
head lies just below his waist level, its left foreleg dangling down past
the head and the right pulled around towards the right rear of Menkhep-
erreseneb’s upper torso, while the tail is visible hanging behind Men-
kheperreseneb’s left arm. This disposition of the garment is not
universal. Among the sculptures already discussed, for instance, it re-
sembles only that of the small figure on the front of the Copenhagen
sculpture of Paser, the Turin statue of Anen and the uninscribed Balti-
more statue of a priest. This general disposition of the leopard skin has
sometimes been associated with upper levels of the clergy (i.e., the
61
“first” or “second” prophets) from more than one site. However, it
57 ArielleKozloff, in Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, pp. 438–39.
58 Betsy Bryan, in Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, pp. 248, 249. Cf., also, Kozloff’s description
(pp. 438–39) of the “peculiar ornament” of Anen as being composed of plaques, chains and
“apparently stiff compositions resembling sheaves of papyrus stalks.”
59 Luc Limme, “Un nouveau document relatif à une famille memphite de basse époque,”
in F. Geus and F. Thill (eds.), Mélanges offerts à Jean Vercoutter (Paris, 1985), p. 211, n. 47.
Cf. Betsy Bryan’s “beaded sporran” label on a statue of a high priest of Ptah (Egypt’s
Dazzling Sun, p. 241) as opposed to her use of the term apron for the “corresponding”
element of attire on the statues of Taitai and Anen.
60 Elisabeth Staehelin, “Amtstracht,” LÄ 1 (1975), col. 231.
61 Etienne Drioton, “Un second prophète …,” pp. 128–29.
222
62
cannot be assumed that it was limited to such officials, and it was not
used for all images of high priests, including some already mentioned:
CG 70038 (Ptahmose I, high priest of Memphis) and Berlin 17021 (Taitai,
high priest of Horus, lord of Hebenu). Indeed, it has been observed that
the lack of a specific costume or title for the high priest of Amun is evi-
dence for the late appearance of this post (i.e., not until the beginning of
63
Dynasty 18) in comparison with high priesthoods of other cults. As for
the leopard skin in general, one might note Jürgen von Beckerath’s ob-
servation that “das Leopardenfell findet man seit dem Neuen Reich bei
einer Anzahl von Priestern höheren Ranges, ohne das man jedoch fests-
64
tellen könnte, welchen Rängen oder Tätigkeiten es spezielle zukam.”
As is visible in Figs. 1–3, the leopard skin on the Brooklyn statue of
Menkheperreseneb is adorned with stars carved in low relief, which, as
others have indicated, is not unusual for a work of the New Kingdom.
For example, it was over seventy years ago that Drioton observed that
rose-like shapes, a star, and a star within a circle were used since
65
Dynasty 18 to represent the natural spots of a leopard skin, and von
Beckerath has outlined the transformation of stars within circles into
66
rosettes on some leopard skins in Dynasties 25–26.
The appearance of stars on garments has sometimes been seen as a
67
possible reference to priest-astronomers in general. The stars on the
leopard skin of the Turin statue of Anen have often been linked to his
68
title of wr m£w m ¢wt-srw and, most recently, also to his claim in an
62 An interesting illustration of this point could be a scene in the Theban tomb (TT 48) of
Amunemhat, called Surer: Torgny Säve-Söderbergh, Private Tombs at Thebes 1, Four Eigh-
teenth Dynasty Tombs (Oxford, 1957), p. 41 and pl. XL. If this very poorly preserved com-
position is restored and interpreted correctly by Säve-Söderbergh, it depicts a row of eight
images of Surer, each wearing a leopard skin in the manner of Menkheperreseneb’s, a knee-
length skirt and an “instrument case.” Exactly how this costume relates to Surer’s various
associations with the cult of Amun—none of them as “first prophet” or “second
prophet”—remains uncertain. For Surer’s priestly titles, see Säve-Söderbergh, pp. 33–36.
63 Morris Bierbrier, “Hoherpriester des Amun,” LÄ 2 (1977), col. 1241.
64 Jürgen von Beckerath, “Eine Torso des Mentem¢e-t …,” p. 4.
65 Etienne Drioton, “Une second prophète …,” p. 126, with fig. 5.
66 Jürgen von Beckerath, “Ein Torso des Mentem¢e-t …,” p. 6. He also raises the interest-
ing question of whether or not most of the New Kingdom depictions of leopard skins may
have been of imitation leopard skins. Dagmar Förster (“A Late Period Statue …,” p. 48)
sees the use of rose-like forms instead of stars or stars within circles on the leopard skin
of the late statuette of a priest in the Sir John Soane’s Museum as another example of
archaizing on that figure, one that goes back to the statue of Amunemhat III cited in n. 25,
above. If he is correct, the Walters Art Gallery figure of a priest should be considered sim-
ilarly archaizing. However, as not all New Kingdom images of leopard skins bear stars,
stars in circles, or even rose-shaped markings, the presence of such markings in later
figures may not necessarily be archaizing.
67 Ludwig Borchardt, “Die Instrumentasche …,” p. 20: “Priester mit besternten Panther-
fellen—Astronomen?”
223
69
inscription to astronomical knowledge. While this may be true in
Anen’s instance, it does not necessarily follow that a star-spangled leop-
ard skin must have the same meaning on images of other individuals.
70
Many, but not all, representations of priests wearing star-studded
leopard skins are Theban. Yet even if one considers only Theban images,
one finds a variety of priests represented, including high priests of vari-
71 72
ous deities, such as Montu, and of the cults of deceased kings, and
73
priests of other ranks. The use of stars or stars within circles for the
markings on leopard skins is also found on actual garments from the
tomb of Tutankhamun, which included both real and imitation skins.
I.E.S. Edwards’ comments on these in the catalogue of the 1970s Tut-
74
ankhamun exhibition include a possible relationship between this
phenomenon and the king’s role as high priest of Heliopolis. He also sug-
gests that stars in circles, which resemble the hieroglyph for d(w)£t,
might otherwise only be found on images of high priests of the deceased
king, a suggestion that some of the references already given demon-
strates is not true. In the same place, Edwards further expressed the
belief that the use of both stars and stars within circles on one of Tut-
ankhamun’s garments was unique. However, not only does this combi-
nation appear on the leopard skin worn by the Louvre’s statue of
75
Tutankhamun before Amun, it also appears, for example, on an image
of the high priest, Khonsu, in the shrine in his tomb where he offers to
76
Osiris and Anubis; on a statue of an ¡t-n†r and sm-priest of
68E.g., Wolfgang Helck, “Priestertracht,” LÄ 4 (1982), col. 1105; Mohamed Moursi, Die
Hohenpriester des Sonnengottes von der Frühzeit Ägyptens bis zum Ende des Neuen
Reiches, MÄS 26 (Berlin, 1972), p. 156.
69 Betsy Bryan, in Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, p. 250.
70 E.g., a high priest of Osiris on a stela from Abydos = Etienne Drioton, “Un second
prophète …,” p. 129, fig. 8, and the figure Musée du Louvre E 11099, which is the focus of
Drioton’s article and is probably Thinite: see, most recently, Catherine Chadefoud, Les
statues porte-enseignes de l’Egypte ancienne (1580–1085 avant J.C.) (Paris, 1982), p. 107,
no. PE K6.
71 Norman de Garis Davies, Seven Private Tombs …, pl. XI).
72 Norman de Garis Davies, Two Ramesside Tombs at Thebes, Publications of The
Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition. Robb de Peyster Tytus Memorial

Series V (New York, 1927), pls. V and XI.
73 E.g., Karl-Joachim Seyfried, et al., Das Grab des Paenkhemenu (TT 68) und die Anlage
TT 227, J. Assmann (ed.), Theben 6 (Mainz am Rhein, 1991), pls. IV, XII–XV, show
Scene 11, a Dynasty 20 image of the deceased owner’s son as sm-priest before his parents.
Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 42208 (Georges Legrain, Statues et statuettes … 3 [Cairo,
1914], pl. XIV) is a Dynasty 22 statue of Nakhtefmut, for whose many titles see Ramadan
El-Sayed, “Nekhtefmout, supérieur des portes-encensoirs (II),” ASAE LXX (Cairo, 1985),
pp. 343–45.
74 Treasures of Tutankhamun, exh. cat. (New York, 1976), pp. 104–105, no. 4.
75 See the first two references in n. 26.
224
77
Dynasty 20; and on the Brooklyn statue of Menkheperreseneb, stars
and stars within circles appear in alternating rows. Whatever the mean-
ing of this combination of stars and stars within circles decorating leop-
ard skins, the Brooklyn Menkheperreseneb statue may provide its
earliest dated occurrence.
The provenance of Menkheperreseneb’s statue is not known. The
Brooklyn Museum’s accession records for the statue state that the ven-
dor claimed it came from Bedrashein which is, of course, near Memphis
and Saqqara. Given the current state of our knowledge, one cannot
exclude the possibility that it may once have stood in Memphis. How-
ever, even if Menkheperreseneb’s statue was at Bedrashein at one time,
it may have reached there from someplace further south, which is one
reason our old accession records also indicate that the vendor’s state-
ment was “probably untrue” and that a provenance of Thebes or Karnak
was more probable. Given the Theban provenance of the closest paral-
lels for elements of its form, the invocation of offerings from the offering
table of Amun on the text on the skirt, and the fact that both Menkhep-
erresenebs were high priests of Amun at Thebes, it is extremely tempt-
ing to ascribe the statue to that city. Moreover, even though the text on
the statue does not refer to Ipet-sut, the statue, if it is from Thebes, is
probably more likely to be from Karnak than the West Bank.
While the provenance of the Brooklyn statue of Menkheperreseneb
is uncertain, the statue itself is surely one of the relatively rare
78
Dynasty 18 private (as opposed to royal) statues in pink granite, which
is appropriate for a fine and, as we have seen, perhaps quite innovative
sculpture of the Tuthmoside era.
b
76 Norman de Garis Davies, Seven Private Tombs …, pl. XVIII. In other scenes in his tomb
(TT 31), and cf. n. 71, Khonsu’s skins are adorned with only one type of star.
77 Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 42187: Georges Legrain, Statues et statuettes … 2, pp. 54–
55 and pl. XLIX.

78 For the rarity of such sculptures, see Thierry de Putter and Christina Karlshausen, Les
pierres utilisées dans la sculpture et l’architecture de l’Egypte pharaonique. Guide
pratique illustré (Brussels, 1992), p. 85; and idem, “Why did Akhenaten forsake the use of
pink granite?,” GM 130 (1992), p. 21. Another private work in pink granite of the reign of
Tuthmosis III is Museum of Fine Arts, Boston 29.728, a statue of the Vizier Neferweben:
Dows Dunham, “Three Inscribed Statues in Boston,” JEA 15 (1929), pp. 164–65, and
pl. XXXII. If Karlshausen and De Putter are correct in characterizing pink granite private
sculptures as rare in Dynasty 18, it is more difficult to accept their contention that Akhen-
aten abandoned the use of that stone after his installation at Akhetaten. In Egyptological
literature, the terms pink and red granite often mean the same or essentially the same
stone. Reports on the excavations at Amarna include a reasonable number of references to
fragments of royal sculptures in such stone: e.g., John Pendlebury et al., The City of
Akhenaten 3, The Central City and The Official Quarters, The Egypt Exploration Society,
Forty-Fourth Memoir (London, 1951), pp. 37, 45, 46, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 72.
225
17 FECHT Page 227 Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:21 PM
Der beredte Bauer: die zweite Klage
Gerhard Fecht
H
errn Kollegen Simpson, dem bewährten Kenner und
Erschließer ägyptischer Texte sei diese Untersuchung der
zweiten Klage gewidmet. Sie sollte als Kostprobe einer
Gesamtbearbeitung der “Bauerngeschichte” aufgefaßt werden, die ich
noch zu leisten hoffe.
Auf die inzwischen vielfach erörterte Frage des zeitlichen Ansatzes
des Archetyps der “Bauerngeschichte” gehe ich nicht ein, doch werden
einige generelle Bemerkungen dazu wohl mit Recht erwartet. William
Kelly Simpson hat in GM 120 (1991), S. 95 meine Position als “opting for
a compromise” gesehen. Dem stimme ich gerne zu. Freilich möchte ich
den Kompromiß dahin interpretieren, daß der Archetyp doch wohl in
der Ersten Zwischenzeit anzusetzen ist, während das, was wir vor den
Augen haben, eben diverse—und dies im Wortsinn des lateinischen
diversus—mittelägyptische Bearbeitungen sind, die auf einer oder
mehreren Umarbeitungen des alten Textes in mittelägyptische Metrik
basieren und—in unbekanntem Ausmaß, vermutlich auch ohne rigo-
rose Konsequenz—mittelägyptische Sprache. Wir können nur hoffen,
daß bei aller Änderung die Gedankenführung als solche nicht zu sehr
beeinträchtigt worden ist. J. Assmann schreibt in Ma™at (München,
1990), S. 45, im Anschluß an Leo Oppenheim:
Ohne Kanonisierung läßt sich der ‘Traditionsstrom’ nicht stillstellen, er
verändert nicht nur den Bestand, sondern auch die Gestalt der Texte und ver-
lagert sein Bett mit jeder Epoche. Das ist das Problem der ägyptischen und der
mesopotamischen Überlieferung.
Wenn er dann aber auf S. 59 von den “Klagen des Oasenmannes” meint:
“Der Text gehört zu jenen Literaturwerken, die im späteren Mittleren
Reich entstehen, aber in die Erste Zwischenzeit zurückversetzt
werden”, so ist das widersprüchlich und etwas vorschnell. Ich fürchte,
daß mit den Fragen um Titel und Verbalformen die Archetypen nur
unter sehr günstigen Bedingungen zeitlich festgelegt werden können.
Unsere Basis ist ja schmal. Daß uns einiges von den einst in den Jahr-
hunderten des MR vorhandenen literarischen Handschriften überhaupt
greifbar blieb, ist doch das Ergebnis einiger sehr unwahrscheinlicher
Zufälle. Es genügt, auf die Darstellung aus der Hand Simpsons zu
verweisen: “Papyri of the Middle Kingdom”, in: Textes et langages de

l’Egypte pharaonique (ed. S. Sauneron), II, S. 63–72. Wenn nun in diesem
minimalen Restbestand immer wieder ganz erhebliche Unterschiede
zwischen den Textzeugen zu einem und demselben Literaturwerk auf-
fallen, müssen wir schließen, daß es einst bei solchen Werken eine
bunte Vielfalt von mehr oder minder stark voneinander abweichenden
Redaktionen gegeben hat. Ägyptische Literatur kannte keine Stabi-
lisierung wie die Homerischen Epen durch die Lesung bei den Pana-
thenäen, sie kannte keine frühen philologischen Bemühungen wie die
klassisch antike Literatur—“Philologie” ist nicht nur als Wort
griechisch—geschweige denn so etwas wie die Akademie von Alexan-
dria. Sie kannte auch keine Behandlung als Kanon heiliger Schriften, an
denen nichts geändert werden darf. All das ist nichts Neues, alle wissen
das. Zwischen dem MR und der Ersten Zwischenzeit (Nordreich) liegt
die Schwelle des Übergangs von der älteren zur jüngeren Form der
Metrik. Wo Handschriften des MR oder des NR erhalten sind, die die
ältere Metrik aufweisen, müssen wir zwar auch mit Modernisierungen
rechnen, doch dürften sich diese in etwas bescheidenerem Maß halten.
Darüber habe ich in Hommages à François Daumas geschrieben: Ptah-
hotep. Entsprechendes zu der Lehre für Merikare steht noch aus. Bei
unserem “Bauer” haben wir aber leider durchgehend MR-Metrik, wie
z.B. auch beim “Lebensmüden”. Ein Versuch, dem Verständnis
schwieriger Texte näherzukommen, bleibt immer sinnvoll. Und
vielleicht kommt man auf diesem Wege auch einmal zur Datierung des
Archetyps.
Umschrift nach B 1 (119–170)

Ich folge im Zweifelsfall der Umschreibung von R.B. Parkinson (1991).
Wo ich das ausnahmsweise nicht tue, setze ich einen Asterisk (*) vor die
Umschreibung. Das ist dann keine Kritik an Parkinson. Bei hieratisch
einander sehr ähnlichen Zeichen und bei fachsprachlichen oder sonst
ungewöhnlichen Wörtern ist damit zu rechnen, daß in einer der zeitlich
vorausgehenden Abschriften und möglicherweise im Archetyp der in B1
vorliegenden MR-Redaktion der “Bauerngeschichte” ein anderes, hier-
atisch ähnliches Zeichen gestanden hat. Im gegebenen Fall nehme ich
die zuletzt genannte Möglichkeit an. Es handelt sich also nicht um
abweichende Lesungen sondern um Emendationen.
Ich bleibe bei der alten Bezeichnung “Bauer” und “Bauern-
geschichte”, obwohl der Held dieser “Geschichte” kein Bauer war. Die
Alternative “Oasenbewohner” klingt so bürokratisch wie eine Volks-
zählung, und auch “Oasenmann” ist unbefriedigend (was ist dann seine
228
Gerhard Fecht, Der beredte Bauer: die zweite Klage
Familie—die Oasenfrau und die Oasenkinder?). Es steht hier ähnlich wie

beim “Pseudopartizip”, das alte Unrichtige ist manchmal das immer
noch ein klein wenig bessere, jedenfalls dann, wenn man für Fach-
genossen schreibt.
Die Wiedergabe der Hieroglyphen soll lediglich das jeweils gemeinte
Wort (/die grammatische Form) leicht erkennbar machen, ich bevorzuge
deshalb ausführliche Schreibungen. Rubra sind unterstrichen; daß sie,
wie so oft, als Gliederungselemente unbrauchbar sind, sieht man mit
einem Blick. Der Text ist metrisch, das heißt in Verse, Versgruppen und
Strophen gegliedert. Die links außen stehenden Ziffern zählen die 95
Verse der Klage durch. Rechts außen ist die Zeilenzählung nach Parkin-
son vermerkt.
Erster Teil: Rede des “Bauern” (35 V.) und Einwurf des Rensi (3 V.)
1 35 12 6 3 jwj. jn-rf-s∞tj-pn r-spr-n.f zp-snnw 38 (2 mal 19) 119

2 2 ∂d.f-jmj-r£-prw-wrj nb.j
3 2 wrj n-wrjw
4 2 ∞wd n-∞wdw 120
5 2 ntj-wn-wrj n-wrjw.f
6 2 ∞wd n-∞wdw.f 121
7 6 2 ¢mw n-pt
8 2 z£w n-t£ 122
9 2 ∞£jj f£jj-wdnw
10 2 ¢mw m-zbnw
11 2 z£w m-gs£w 123
12 2 ∞£jj m-jrjw-nwdw
13 11 7 3 nb-wrj ¢r-j†t m-jwtt-nb.s 124

14 2 ¢r-¢™∂£ ¢r-w™jw
15 2 flrwt.k m-prw.k
16 2 hnw-w™jw-¢nqt ¢n™-∞mtw-t’w 125
17 3 pw-tr pnqwt.k m-ss£t-tw£w.k 126
18 3 jn-mwt mwt ¢n™-flrjw.f
19 2 jn-jw.k-r-z’ n-n¢¢
20 4 3 ń-jw-js-pw jwsw-gs£w t∞-nnmw 127
21 2 mtj-m£™-∞prw m-tnbfl 128
22 2 mk-m£™t wt∞.s-flr.k
23 2 nß.tj m-st.s 129
24 12 6 2 srjww ¢r-jrt-jjjt
25 2 tp-¢sb n-mdt
26 2 ¢r-rdjt ¢r-gs
229
27 3 s∂mjjw ¢r-∞np j†j.f (*j†j.n.f?) 130

28 2 sj£†j-pw n-mdt
29 2 m-™q£-sj ¢r-jrt-rf-nwdw-jm.s 131
30 6 2 rdj-†£w ¢r-g£t-¢r-t£
31 2 srfw ¢r-rdjt-nßp.tw 132
32 2 psßw m-™wnw
33 2 dr-s£r m-w∂-jrj.tw.f (/jrjt.f) 133
34 2 dmj m-w∂nw.f
35 2 ∞sf-jw ¢r-jrt-jjjt 134
***
36 3 3 ∂d.jn-jmj-r£-prw-wrj Rnsj z£-Mrw

37 3 jn-™£t-pw n.k-jmjj ¢r-jb.k 135
38 2 r-j†j-tw ßmsw.j
Zweiter Teil: Rede des “Bauern”, zweites Thema (44 V.)

und Schlußermahnung (13 V.)
39 44 22 7 4 ∂d.jn-s∞tj-pn ∞£jw n-™¢™w ¢r-sj£†-n.f 57 (3 mal 19) 136

40 3 m¢ n-kjj ¢r-hqs-h£w.f
41 3 sßmw r-hpw ¢r-w∂-™w£.tw 137
42 2 (j)nmw-jrf ∞sf.f-bw-¢wrw
43 2 dr-nw ¢r-jrt-nwdw 138

44 2 ™q£-kjj ¢r-∞£bb
45 3 wf£-kjj jrj-jjjt: j(n)-tr-gmj.k-rk-n(j).k 139
46 15 7 2 ¢(w)™-∞sf £wj-jjjt 140

47 3 jwj-bj£ r-st.f nt-sf
48 2 w∂-rf-pw jrj(w)
49 2 n-jrrj r-rdjt-jrj.f 141
50 2 dw£-n†r-n.f-pw ¢r-jrr(w)t.f
51 2 njt-j∞t-pw tp-™w-stt 142
52 2 w∂-j∞t-pw n-nb-¢nwt
53 8 3 ¢£-£-£t s¢tm.s-pn™ m-rwj.k 143
54 2 ™nd m-£pdw.k
55 2 ∞b£ m-qb¢w.k 144
56 2 prj-m£w ßpw
57 2 s∂mw z∞w
58 3 sßmw ∞prw m-stnmw 145
59 2 *™n(b)-bdw jn-tr-*snb(£).n.k 146
60 2 jrr.k-r.k-jr.f r-mw 147
230
61 22 15 8 2 mk-tw-n∞t(.tj) wsr.tj
62 2 ™w.k-prjw jb.k-™wnw 148
63 3 zf-sw£(jw)-¢r.k n∞-wj m£r-skjj.k 149
64 3 twt.k n-wpwtj n-∞ntj 150
65 2 mk-tw-sw£j.tj ¢r-nbt-jdw 151
66 2 ńn-n.k ńn-n.s
67 2 ńn-(r).s ńn-r.k
68 2 ń-jrr.k-st ń-jrr(.s)-st 152
69 7 3 zf-nb-t’ n∞t(w) n-∞nr 153

70 2 twt-†£wt n-jwtj-j∞wt.f
71 2 ∞np(w)-j∞wt jn-∞nr 154
72 3 zp-bjn-jwtj-ßwjw ńn-rf-†zj.tw-jm.f ¢¢j-n.f-pw 155
73 2 jw.k-swt-s£jtj m-t’.k 156
74 2 t∞j.tj m-¢nqt.k
75 2 jw.k-∞wd.tj m-sßrw(?)-nbw 157
76 7 5 3 jw-¢r n-¢mjj r-¢£t

77 2 zbn-dpwt r-mrr.s 158
78 2 jw-njswt m-∞ntj
79 2 jw-¢mjw m-™w.k
80 2 rdj.tw-jjjt m-h£w.k 159
81 2 2 £wj(w)-sprw.j wdnw-fdq(w) 160

82 3 jßst-pw ntj-jm k£.tw
***
83 13 7 3 3 jrj-jbw(w?) snb-mrjjt.k mk-dmj.k-ßnw 161
84 2 ™q£-ns.k jm.k-tnmw 162
85 3 t£mw-pw n-z’ ™t-jm.f 163
86 4 2 m-∂dw-grg z£w-srjww
87 2 mndm-pw ™∂jjw-s∂mjjw 164
88 2 smw.sn-pw ∂d-grg 165
89 2 wn.f-jzjw ¢r-jb.sn
231
90 6 2 2 r∞-j∞t n-rm†t-nbt 166

91 2 jn-∞m.k m-h£w.j
92 4 2 dr-s£r n-mw-nb 167

93 3 mk-wj flr-mjtnw jw(jw) 168
94 2 mjnj-m¢j-nb ßdj-bg£w 169
95 3 fldr.k-wj m-h£w jr(j)-∂rw.k 170
Übersetzung nach B 1, 119–170

Erster Teil: Rede des “Bauern”, erstes Thema (35 V.) und Einwurf
des Rensi (3 V.)
12 1 3 Da-kam-nun-dieser-Bauer, um-ihn-anzugehen, zum-zweiten-

mal,
2 2 und-er-sagte:-Obergüterverwalter, mein-Herr,
3 2 Großer der-Großen,
4 2 Reicher der-Reichen,
5 2 dessen-Große einen-Großen-haben,
6 2 und-seine-Reichen einen-Reichen!
7 2 Steuerruder des-Himmels,
8 2 Tragbalken der-Erde,
9 2 Senklotschnur, die-das-Gewicht-trägt!
10 2 Steuerruder, gleite-nicht-vom-Kurs,
11 2 Tragbalken, neige-dich-nicht,
12 2 Senklotschnur, mache-keine-Abweichungen!
11 13 3 Der-große-Herr bemächtigt-sich dessen-das-keinen-Herrn-hat,

14 2 er-raubt von-dem-Alleinstehenden;
15 2 deine-Rationen sind-(doch)-in-deinem-Haus:
16 2 ein-Hin-Bier und-drei-Brote:
17 3 was-ist-es-(mehr), was-du-aufzuwenden-hast beim-Sättigen-
deiner-Klientel?
18 3 Der-Sterbliche stirbt zusammen-mit-seinen-Leuten,
19 2 (oder)-wirst-du-etwa-ein-Mann der-Ewigkeit-sein?
20 3 Ist-es-denn-nichts-Schlimmes, wenn-die-Waage-schief-ist, das-
Lot-abgeirrt,
21 2 der-wahrhaftige-Gerechte-geworden-ist zum-Verwirrer?
22 2 Siehe-die-Maat, sie-flieht-unter-dir-hinweg,
23 2 weil-sie-verdrängt-ist von-ihrer-Stelle!
232
12 24 2 Die-Beamten schaffen-Unheil,
25 2 (denn)-die-Norm(= Rensi!) der-Angelegenheit
26 2 gibt auf-die-(eine-)Seite,
27 3 die-Richter stehlen, weil-er(=Norm=Rensi)-wegnimmt
(/weggenommen-hat?)!
28 2 Das-bedeutet:-der-Verderber einer-Angelegenheit
29 2 ist-einer-der-sie-richtig(=normgemäß)-macht, indem-er-gerade-
Unrichtigkeit in-ihr-schafft:
30 2 Der-Luftgeber macht-das-Gesicht-des-Landes(=der Menschen)-
beengt,
31 2 der-Ruhe-geben-soll, läßt-die-Leute-schnaufen:
32 2 der-Teiler ist-ein-Habgieriger,
33 2 —der-Vertreiber-der-Not ist-einer-der-befiehlt-daß-sie-
geschaffen-wird,
34 2 der-(sonst sichere)-Hafen ist-seine-Wasserflut–,
35 2 wer-das-Böse-strafen-soll, schafft-Unrecht(/Unheil)!
**
3 36 3 Da-sagte-der-Obergüterverwalter Rensi, Sohn-des-Meru:
37 3 Ist-denn-etwas-Größeres dein-Eigentum in-deiner-Meinung,
38 2 als-daß-dich-packt mein-Diener?
***
7 39 4 Da-sagte-dieser-Bauer: Der-Messer der-Kornhaufen verkürzt-zu-
seinen-Gunsten,
40 3 der-füllen-sollte für-einen-anderen, mindert-dessen-Betrag,
41 3 der-führen-sollte gemäß-den-Gesetzen, befiehlt-daß-geraubt-
wird;
42 2 wer-denn wird-dann-die-Schlechtigkeit-bestrafend-abwehren?
43 2 der-vertreiben-sollte-Ohnmächtigkeit, macht-
Unregelmäßigkeiten:
44 2 der-eine-ist-richtig bei(/wegen)-Schurkerei, (= Nmtj-n∞tw)
45 3 der-andere(=Rensi)-stimmt-zu dem-der-Unheil-schafft: findest-
du-den-zu-dem-du-gehörst?
15 7 46 2 Wenn-das-Strafen-verkürzt-ist, dann-ist-das-Unheil-langwierig,
47 3 doch-eine-vorbildliche-Tat-kommt an-ihren-Platz von-gestern:
48 2 das-bedeutet-doch-daß-eine-Verfügung geschaffen-worden-ist
49 2 für-den-der-zu-handeln-hat, um-zu-veranlassen-daß-er-handle;
50 2 das-heißt-ihm-zu-danken für-das-was-er-tut,
51 2 das-heißt-etwas-zurückstoßen vor-dem-Schießen,
52 2 das-heißt-etwas-zu-befehlen einem-der-die-(betreffende)-
Tätigkeit-(schon)-ausübt.
233
8 53 3 Ach-daß-doch-ein-Augenblick ungeschehen-machte-die-
Umkehrung in-deinem-Garten,
54 2 die-Verminderung unter-deinen-Vögeln,
55 2 die-Abnahme unter-deinen-Wasservögeln!
56 2 Denn-es-wurde-schließlich-der-Sehende zum-Blinden,
57 2 der-Hörende zum-Tauben,
58 3 der-Leitende zu-einem-der-geworden-ist zum-Irreleitenden!
59 2 Der-du-den-Schmelztiegel-umfaßt-hältst, hast-du-das-Stäbchen-
durchgestoßen?
60 2 Warum-nur tust-du-das-gegen-ihn?
15 8 61 2 Siehe-du-bist-hart, du-bist-mächtig,
62 2 dein-Arm-ist-gewalttätig, dein-Herz-ist-gierig,
63 3 die-Milde-hat-dich-übergangen, wie-beklagenswert ist-der-
Elende-den-du-vernichtest!
64 3 Du-gleichst dem-Boten des-Krokodil-Todesdämons!
(Amphibolie)
65 2 Siehe-du-hast-übertroffen die-Herrin-der-Pestilenz! (Amphibo-
lie)
66 2 gibt-es-nichts-für-dich, so-gibt-es-nichts-für-sie,
67 2 gibt-es-nichts-(gegen)-sie, so-gibt-es-nichts-gegen-dich;
68 2 wenn-du-es-nicht-tust, so-tut-(sie)-es-nicht!
7 69 3 Milde-ist-der-Herr-des-Brots, (nur)-indem-er-hart-ist zugunsten-

des-Räubers;
70 2 —gebührend-ist-das-Wegnehmen für-den-der-seinen-Besitz-
nicht-hat,
71 2 nachdem-der-Besitz-geraubt-worden-ist von-einem-Räuber –;
72 3 die-Untat-aber-dessen-der-keinen-Mangel-leidet, wenn-man-
diese-nicht-anklagt, bedeutet-das-für-sich-
(Vorteile)-zu-suchen!
73 2 Du-nun-aber-bist-satt von-deinem-Brot,
74 2 sattgetrunken von-deinem-Bier,
75 2 du-bist-reich an-allen-kostbaren-Dingen(?)!
7 76 3
Das-Gesicht des-Steuermanns ist-zum-Bug-hin-gerichtet,
77 2
—und-das-Schiff-gleitet-vom-Kurs nach-Willkür;
78 2
der-König ist-im-vorderen-Teil-des-Palastes; (Amphibolie)
79 2
das-Steuerruder ist-in-deiner-Hand,
80 2
—und-Unheil-wird-gegeben in-deinem-Bereich (/Angelegen-
heiten).
81 2 Meine-Petition-ist-(ja-nun)-zugestellt, doch-abgerissen-ist-das-
Lotgewicht:
82 3 “Was-ist-los mit-jenem-da?” so-wird-man-sagen!
***
234
13 7 83 3 Sei-eine-Zufluchtstätte, damit-dein-Uferdamm-sicher-sei, denn-

siehe-dein-Hafen-ist-krokodilverseucht!
84 2 Deine-Zunge-sei-richtig, damit-du-nicht-in-die-Irre-gehest,
85 3 (denn)-Verschimmelung(?) des-Mannes bedeutet-ein-(von-
Schimmel-befallenes)-Glied-von-ihm.
86 2 “Lüge-nicht und-gib-acht-auf-die-Beamten!”
87 2 das-ist-das-Korb=Sieb, das-die-Richter-worfelt(/seiht),
88 2 (denn)-ihre-Beschäftigung ist-das-Lügen,
89 2 damit-sie-leicht-sei nach-ihrem-Verständnis(/Meinung).
6 90 2 Du-Wissender von-allen-Menschen,
91 2 bist-du-falsch-orientiert über-meine-Angelegenheit?
92 2 Der-du-abwendest-jede-Not des-Wassers,
93 3 siehe-ich-habe einen-Weg, der-abgeschnitten-ist,
94 2 der-du-an-Land-holst-jeden-Ertrinkenden, rette-den-
Schiffbrüchigen,
95 3 indem-du-mich-wegnimmst aus-einer-Angelegenheit, die-zu-
deinem-Bereich-gehört!
Kommentar
Erster Teil, (V.1–38), Thema: Pervertierung der Spitze führt zur

Pervertierung des Ganzen: Chaos. Einwurf des Rensi trennt vom
Zweiten Teil.
Erste Strophe (V.1–12): “Das Richtige”. In der ersten Halbstrophe von
sechs Versen (2+2+2) wird Rensi als besonders Großer und besonders
Reicher angesprochen. In seinem Umkreis ist das realistisch gesehen.
Jedoch ist das zunächst nur das Äußere. Deshalb entspricht in der
nächsten Halbstrophe zu sechs Versen (2+1, 2+1) in Vers 9 der Größe und
dem Reichtum die bildhafte Nennung seiner Rolle, zumal als Richter:
“Senklotschnur, die-das-Gewicht-trägt”, und in Vers 12 die daraus sich
ergebende Verpflichtung: “Senklotschnur, mache-keine-Abweichun-
gen!” Die Metapher “Senklotschnur” etc. ist identisch mit dem tp-¢sb
(in Vers 25) “Rechnen, korrekte Methode, Richtigkeit, Norm des Han-
delns”. “Schnur, die das Gewicht trägt” meint ja die Kontrolle der Rich-
tigkeit der Waage, denn sie muß mit dem “Zeiger” der Waage
übereinstimmen. Das ist der Maßstab der Maat, der “Weltordnung als
Gerechtigkeit”.1 Als Garant der Maat wird aber Rensi auch zum
“Steuerruder des Himmels” und zum “Tragbalken der Erde”: Vers 7 und
1 So mit Assmann, Ma™at, S. 34.
235
8, und er hat die daraus sich ergebenden Verpflichtungen: Vers 10 und

11. Der Autor denkt eingleisig prinzipiell-konsequent und kommt
damit folgerichtig zu unseren Formeln, die später gelegentlich in
Königseulogien belegt sind, aber gewiß nicht erst im beginnenden NR
geschaffen wurden. Ich sehe hier im Gegensatz zu J. Assmann, LÄ 2, 43
keine Ironie sondern allenfalls eine rhetorisch legitime Hyperbel als
Gedanken-Tropus.
Die Maat, für die Rensi einzustehen hat, ist offenbar empfindlich.
Sie zerbricht unter seinem Falschverhalten, wie dann Strophe 3 zeigt.
Dazu ist zu bedenken, daß es keine kodifizierte Gesetzes-Norm gab,
auch kein heiliges Buch mit verbindlicher Ethik. Es gab wohl geachtete
Schriften, zumal Weisheits- oder Lebenslehren, aus denen man zitiert,
aber—mit J. Assmann, Maat, S. 45—: “Ohne Kanonisierung läßt sich der
‘Traditionsstrom’ nicht stillstellen, er verändert nicht nur den Bestand,
sondern auch die Gestalt der Texte und verlagert sein Bett mit jeder
Epoche. Das ist das Problem der ägyptischen und der mesopotamischen
Überlieferung”. Hinzu kommt, daß zur Zeit der Niederschrift der
“Bauerngeschichte”—sicherlich des Archetyps des Textes—der Begriff
Maat verunsichert gewesen zu sein scheint. In der sechsten Klage (B1
282–283) steht:
2 m¢ nfr
2 ń-hqs ń-wbn-m£™t
2 Fülle gut,
2 ohne-daß-verkürzt-ist, noch-daß-überquillt-die-Maat!
Das kann keine Warnung vor Großzügigkeit sein, dahinter ist eher eine
Kraft zu vermuten, die mehr “gefüllt” bekommen wollte und dies als
Maat ansah.
In der achten Klage (B1 334–337) steht, noch deutlicher:
2 jrj-m£™t n-nb-m£™t
2 ntj-wn-m£™t nt-m£™t.f
3 ™rw ßfdw gstj-Î¢wtj
3 ¢rj.tj r-jrt-jjjt nfr-nfrt-nfr-rf
2 Tue-die-Maat für-den-Herrn-der-Maat,
2 dessen-Maat Maat-besitzt!
3 Du-Binse, du-Papyrus, du-Palette-des-Thot,
3 halte-dich-fern vom-Tun-des-Unheils, denn-gut-ist-das-Gute-eben-(nur)-
des-Guten!
236
Hier ist sowohl die Maat relativiert wie auch das “Gute”. Es gibt
offenbar eine Schein-Maat, die von gewissen Leuten als Maat angesehen
und propagiert wird, und man hat erlebt, daß etwas zunächst gut
Erscheinendes von Menschen ausgehen kann, in denen man keine
Guten sieht, und deren “Gutes” nicht gut sein kann, weil es bei
Unkritischen, also der Masse der Menschen, das Schlechte beliebt
macht.
Hinzu stelle ich einen geradezu krassen Spruch aus dem jw-ms-
Korpus der Admonitions (5,3–5,4):
3 jw-ms-m£™t ∞t-t£ m-rn.s-pwjj

3 jzft-pw jrr(w).sn ¢r-grg-¢r.s
3 Wahrlich-die-Maat ist-durch-das-Land-hin in-diesem-ihrem-Namen,

3 doch-Unrecht-ist-es, das-sie-tun, indem-sie-sich-auf-es-verlassen.
Gardiner2 hatte Zweifel an der ihm von Sethe vorgeschlagenen

Lesung m£™t, die jedoch auf meiner Infrarotfotografie des Papyrus ein-
deutig richtig ist. Hier haben wir also die Schein-Maat. Es bleibt bei
Sethes Vorschlag “dem Namen nach”, was im Zusammenhang meinen
muß: “nur der willkürlichen Benennung, nicht dem Wesen ent-
sprechend”. Der Name als äußerer Schein ist aber eine sonst aus
Ägypten nicht bekannte Vorstellung, es ist so extrem unägyptisch,3 daß
man stärkste Zweifel an der Echtheit hätte, stünde der Text irgendwo
isoliert. Gerade dies zeigt das Außergewöhnliche der gemeinten Situa-
tion, gewiß auch hinsichtlich ihrer geistigen Bewältigung.
Ich bin also überzeugt, daß der “Bauer” eine überwundene tief grei-
fende Umbruchszeit reflektiert. Dies bleibt auch dann gültig, wenn man
sich auf die beiden Belege aus der “Bauerngeschichte” beschränkt.4 Die
Bedrohtheit der Maat verschärft die Verantwortung des hohen Richters,
der als Norm des Handelns die Maat verwirklichen muß.
Zweite Strophe (V. 13–23): “Das Verfälschte”. In den ersten sieben
Versen (2,1+2+2): zunächst in einem Verspaar die schlimme Realität, der
Richter erweist sich als Räuber. Das Gut, das keinen Herrn als Schützer
hat, ist der von Nemtinacht geraubte Besitz des “Bauern”, der also auch
2 Alan H. Gardiner, The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage, S. 42.
3 P.Vernus in: LÄ 4, 320 zum Stichwort “Name” (Beginn des Artikels): “Point d’arbitraire
du signe chez les Egyptiens, mais, au contraire, la croyance en un lien essentiel entre le
signifiant et le signifié, entre le N. (rn) et ce qu’il désigne. Cela vaut pour toute réalité,
objets, institutions, plantes, animaux, hommes, rois et divinités. Jusqu’en Copte rn peut
se construire avec le suffixe possessif, comme les noms désignant ce qui est inné et qu’on
ne peut acquérir. Aussi, la nomination ne se dissocie pas de la création,…”.
237
der “Alleinstehende” ist, d.h. er hat keinen Patron, gehört nicht zu einer
Klientel. Nemtinacht ist ja “∂t“-Abhängiger des Rensi, man kann also
prinzipiell-abstrakt denkend behaupten, daß auch Rensi durch das Ver-
brechen sich bereichert habe. Es ist interessant, daß aus Deir el-
Medineh, d.h. aus dem späten Neuen Reich, der Grundsatz nachweisbar
ist, daß ein an der jeweiligen Verhandlungssache persönlich interessier-
ter Richter seine Funktion nicht ausüben darf.5 Das war offenbar zur
Zeit der “Bauerngeschichte” noch nicht so. Des Rensi Verstoß gegen die
Maat (Schutz des Schwachen, Schutz des Eigentums) ist—Verse 15–19—
umso unverständlicher insofern, als er alles besitzt, womit er seine
Klientel versorgen kann, was ja natürlich beinhaltet, daß er für sich
selbst ohnehin sehr gut versorgt ist. Die genannte knappe Ration von
einem Hin Bier und nicht ganz so kümmerlichen drei Broten6 zeigt, daß
der ganze Passus Vers 15–19 die Versorgung der Klientel meint.7 Die
Stelle setzt voraus, daß auch bei sehr Reichen die Versorgung der Klien-
tel problematisch sein konnte, und das heißt, daß es sehr große Klien-
telen gab.
Damit ist das Thema “groß und reich” abgehandelt, es folgt das
Thema “Steuerruder, Tragbalken, Lotschnur”, also: Verantwortlicher
für die Maat, die Himmel und Erde leitet und stützt. Die Waage ist
schief, das Lot der Waage abgeirrt, und diese Metaphern führen zur
direkten Aussage “der wahrhaftige Gerechte ist zum Verwirrer ge-
worden”. Damit kann nur Rensi gemeint sein, denn sich selbst sieht der
“Bauer” gewiß nicht als “Verwirrer” oder “Verwirrter”, wie wir auch
4 Anders, wie schon oben gesagt, J. Assmann, Ma™at, S. 56f., 59, 217. Ich halte aus vielerlei
Gründen die dort vorgetragene globale Lösung für unrichtig. In Fecht, “Der Vorwurf an
Gott in den Mahnworten des Ipu-wer” (1972) habe ich Datierungsfragen für dieses Werk
auf den Seiten 10–27 (mit Nachträgen) erörtert: Teile des Textes aus der Ersten Zwischen-
zeit, aus der 13. Dyn., aus der Ramessidenzeit (Endredaktion). Zur Datierung des Arche-
typs der “Bauerngeschichte” soll die vorliegende Untersuchung Hinweise erbringen, deren
Gewicht der Leser abwägen wird. Neferti kann nur aus der Zeit Amenemhet I. stammen,
in der Lehre für Merikare gibt es noch AR-Metrik (vgl. einstweilen Fecht, loc. cit. S. 223).
Wie kann man sich eine nur mündliche Überlieferung von Texten mit doch sehr unter-
schiedlicher und meist (auch) zeitgebundener Thematik über mindestens 200–300 Jahre
vorstellen, und dies im so schreibfreudigen Ägypten? Und wie können die meisten der
Texte “die These von der Lebensnotwendigkeit des Staates demonstrieren”? Falls sie
jemals demonstriert werden mußte, was ich nicht glaube.—Die Grundlage eines
Erklärungsversuches sehe ich vielmehr in dem ja von Assmann (Ma™at, S. 45) im Anschluß
an Leo Oppenheim formulierten Satz: “Ohne Kanonisierung läßt sich der ‘Traditions-
strom’ nicht stillstellen, er verändert nicht nur den Bestand, sondern auch die Gestalt der
Texte und verlagert sein Bett mit jeder Epoche. Das ist das Problem der ägyptischen und
der mesopotamischen Überlieferung”. Ich habe dies bewußt zum drittenmal zitiert.
Weiterhin im Verhältnis zwischen Umgangs- und Literatursprache, wobei die ungewohnt
persönliche Auseinandersetzungsliteratur der 1.ZZ. auch ungewohnt “fortschrittlich”
gewesen sein dürfte.
5 S. Allam, Das Verfahrensrecht in der altägyptischen Arbeitersiedlung von Deir el-
Medineh (Tübingen, 1973), 45ff.
238
übersetzen könnten. Unter diesen Umständen ist die Maat nicht mehr
bei Rensi, und es liegt nahe zu sagen, daß sie fliehe, weil sie von ihrer
richtigen Stelle verdrängt sei. Die lokale Bestimmung “unter-dir-
hinweg” ist nur zu verstehen mit dem Hinweis auf den königlichen
Thronsockel, der die Gestalt des Maat-Zeichens hat.8 Gewiß ist Rensi
nicht König, doch als Richter steht er der Maat-Seite des Königs extrem
nahe. Ich vermute, daß zur Zeit des “Bauern” die Beamten in Richter-
funktion auf solchen Maat-Sitzen thronten. Die richtige Deutung der
Stelle ist von der Richtigkeit dieser Annahme nicht abhängig. Es ließe
sich auch mit einer Metapher rechnen: du vertrittst den König, die Maat
flieht vor dir und damit auch vor dem König, dessen Thron auf dem
Maat-Urhügel ruht.
Dritte Strophe (V. 24-35): “Die Folge”. Diese Strophe mit dem Aufbau
1+2+1,2; 2,1+2+1 ist vom Gedanken der Konsequenz beherrscht. Rensi
stellt in seinem Verhalten die Norm, den Maßstab dar. In ihm war die
Maat sichtbar, erlebbar. Auch dann, wenn er die Maat verletzt, müssen
die ihm untergeordneten Beamten in dieser Maat-feindlichen Haltung
die richtige Norm sehen, an der sie sich orientieren. Als Folge sieht der
Redner das Chaos: die Beamten tun nun, im Glauben das Rechte zu tun,
das Gegenteil, nämlich Unrecht. Dahinter steht ein logisches Denken,
daß uns einseitig konsequent anmutet. Wir haben diese Art abstrakter
Logik schon oben, bei der Besprechung der zweiten Strophe erwähnt,
und wir kennen sie gut aus dem Abschnitt “Vorwurf an Gott” der
Admonitions.9
6 Wenn W. Helck (Das Bier im Alten Ägypten [Berlin, 1971], 46f.) Recht hätte, ist ein Hin
Bier etwa 1/2 Liter, während der “Bauer” täglich zwei ds etwa 5–6 Liter erhält nach B1 115.
Andererseits, ebenfalls W. Helck in: LÄ 3, 1206, n. 30 und 1213, n. 34, mögen zwei ds etwa
einen Liter ausmachen, was wahrscheinlicher wirkt. Beim Brot ist das Verhältnis 3:10.
H. Brunner, Lehre des Cheti, 198/9, pSallier II, 10, 6/7 werden zwei Hin Bier und 3 Brote
als für den Schüler genügend angesehen. Demnach ist die Ration von einem Hin (falls kein
Schreibfehler vorliegt) wirklich allzu knapp. Vielleicht handelt es sich bei den Rationen
nur um Zuschüsse, die an die Klienten ausgegeben werden.
7 Zur Bedeutung der Klientel vgl. Fecht, “Cruces interpretum”, in: Hommages à François
Daumas (Montpellier, 1986), 239–46 (Ptahhotep, Max. 14). St.J. Seidlmayer, Gräberfelder
aus dem Übergang vom Alten zum Mittleren Reich, z.B. S. 403–405, 412, 441.
8 Zum Maat (= Urhügel)-Thronsockel (seit AR belegt): H. Brunner, in: Vetus Testamentum
8, No. 4 (1958), 426–28; K.P. Kuhlmann, Der Thron im Alten Ägypten (Glückstadt, 1977),
Kap. 6.— Ein Beleg ohne Maat: CT VII 66g n-b†.f-flr.k ∂t; wer oder was dort nicht “unter
dir weg im Stich lassen” soll, ist nicht ganz klar (jmj-¢wt-Pt¢). Wenn, wie ich vermute,
Leinen (¢bsw-nfrw CT VII 65u) gemeint ist, wäre das leicht unter dem Toten zu denken.
239
Admonitions 12, 13–12,14 (s. Fecht, Vorwurf, 1972, S. 83):
2 Man-entspricht-dem was-du-befohlen-hast:
2 Wenn-drei-Männer-gehen auf-dem-Weg,
2 so-findet-man (nur-noch-) zwei-Männer;
2 die-Mehrzahl erschlägt-die-Minderzahl!
3 Gibt-es-denn-einen-Hirten der-das-Sterben-liebt? Dann-befiehl-
weiterhin-so-zu-handeln!
Weil Gott nicht sichtbar in das böse Handeln der Menschen ein-
greift, folgert man, daß er es befohlen habe. Unterlassen ist auch ein
Tun.—Die rhetorische Frage des letzten Verses hat übrigens ihre formale
Entsprechung im “Bauern”, dritte Klage, B1 179–182:
2 Weicht-etwa-ab die-Handwaage?
3 Urteilt-etwa parteiisch die-Standwaage?
3 Ist-denn-etwa-milde Thot? Dann-magst-du-weiterhin-Unrecht-tun!
Und eine dritte Parallele kenne ich aus Ìeqanakhte (James,

Ìe˚anakhte), pl. 6, 42/3:
2 (j)n-jw-¢m-w™jw-jm.†n r-w∞d
3 sr∞w-n.f ¢mt.f j∞-w∞d.j
2 Würde-denn-einer-von-euch geduldig-bleiben,
3 wenn-ihm-gegenüber-verleumdet-würde seine-Frau? Dann-werde-ich-
geduldig-bleiben!
Die rhetorische Frage des jeweils letzten Verses läßt auf eine unsin-
nige Prämisse die unsinnig-verfehlte oder unzumutbare Aufforderung
an den Angeredeten (im Brief: an sich selbst) folgen.
Mit den Passagen aus Ìeqanakhte und “Bauer” verbindet James,
Ìe˚anakhte, S. 10: Urk. 1, 205, 2–5 und 12–14.10 Es handelt sich offen-
sichtlich um eine rhetorische Floskel, die zu einer bestimmten Zeit be-
liebt war: Erste Zwischenzeit mit unscharfen Rändern.
Inhaltlich bietet unsere dritte Strophe nun keine Schwierigkeiten
mehr. Ich ergänze einige Bemerkungen. Die Gleichsetzung von srjjw
9 Vgl.dazu Seidlmayer, op. cit., S. 414, 422f., 429: “Es vollzieht sich also im späten AR ein
Wandel des Bezugspunktsystems für die Ausrichtung der Grabbauten von der Orien-
tierung an unmittelbar anschaulichen Größen hin zu einer abstrakten Norm” und: “Ein
‘wahres’ Wissen, das sich an einer gedanklichen Wirklichkeit orientiert und un-
bekümmert um die reale topographische Situation ideale Ausrichtungen (Kopf > Norden
Blick > Osten) vornimmt”, und: “Offenbar ist der Bezug der Beigaben zur Person des Toten
entschieden abstrakt geworden”.—Zur Dauer der 1.ZZ. s. id., ib., S. 378f., 438; zu ihrer Be-
deutsamkeit passim, z.B. 442.
240
und s∂mjjw z.B. auch in B1 163/4 (= unten, Vers 86/87). Ein gutes
Beispiel für tp-¢sb: Ptahhotep, pPrisse 8,5 (Dév. 227).11 Vers 28 sj£†j-pw
n-mdt nimmt natürlich Bezug auf Vers 25 tp-¢sb n-mdt. Vers 34 w∂nw
meint stets die gefährliche, bedrohliche Flut(-Welle); im “Bauer”: B1
175/6 und 188, sonst z.B. Siut III 30, IV 51, Admon. 13,4, TPPI § 16,4.
Vers 35 nimmt direkten Bezug auf Rensi und fordert die Unterbrechung
heraus. Real steht, wie sich leicht erkennen läßt, dahinter nur die Ab-
sicht des Autors, seinen gedanklich zweigeteilten Text auch formal
entsprechend aufzubauen. So läßt sich ja auch besser verstehen, daß
Rensi seine Drohung nicht ausführt und im folgenden nichts gegen die
um nichts sanfteren Anwürfe des zweiten Teils der Klage unternimmt.
*****
Zweiter Teil (V. 39–95) = zweiter Teil der Klage (V. 39–82) und
Schlußermahnung (V. 83–95)
Thema der Klage: Strafen. Unterteilung in A und B
A (V. 39–60), 7+15 Verse: Das Strafen, hinreichende Strafen und recht-
zeitige Strafen, das dem Richter obliegt, doch verabsäumt wird.
B (V. 61–82), 15+7 Verse: Härte und Milde, vom pflichtvergessenen
Richter pervertiert, amphibolisch verwoben mit der Strafe, die diesem
Richter droht von seiten schrecklicher Gottheiten und des Königs; in
der dritten Strophe ist dieses letzte Motiv, bis dahin amphibolisch im
Untergrund, noch zunehmend deutlicher beherrschend geworden.
10 Für James geht es um die Schreibung (j)n-jw, also ohne das j und um Gunn, Studies, Kap.
21.
Urk. 1, 205, 2–5 (AR-Metrik!):
3 j(n)-jw-mrjj.†n ¢zjj-†n njswt Wollt-ihr, daß-euch-begünstigt der-König,

2 prt-∞rw.†n m-flrt-n†r indem-eure-Opfer in-der-Nekropole-sind,
3 wnn-jm£∞.†n nfr(j) ∞r-ntr-™£ und-daß-eure-Versorgung vollkommen-sei beim-
Großen-Gott?
2 ∂∂.†n-n.j ™£-pn Dann-sollt-ihr-setzen-für-mich diesen-Deckel
2 n-qrs-pn ¢r-m’wt.f dieses-Sarges auf-seine-“Mutter”.
Urk. 1, 205, 12–14:
3 jn-jw-mrjj.†n ¢zj-†n njswt Wollt-ihr, daß-euch-begünstigt der-König,
2 wnn-jm£∞.†n nfr(j) und-daß-eure-Versorgung vollkommen-sei
3 ∞r-n†r-™£ nb-qrs m-flrt-n†r beim-Großen-Gott, dem-Herrn-der-Bestattung in-
der-
Nekropole
?
2 ∂∂.†n-n.j ™£-pn Dann-sollt-ihr-setzen-für-mich diesen-Deckel
2 ¢r-mºwt.f m-bw-mn∞j-n(.j?) auf-seine-“Mutter”, genau-gefügt(-für-mich dadurch?)
Von diesem Modell, das in der Frage noch nichts Absurdes aufweist, gehen unsere drei
Belege aus, die deutlich einen aggressiven Ton angenommen haben.
11 Letzte Übersetzung in meiner in Anm. 7 genannten Arbeit, S. 235–38.
241
Zweigeteilte Schlußermahnung (V. 83–95): Rensi und die Richter; Rensi

und der “Bauer”.
Erste Strophe: (V. 39–45): Wer wird strafend abwehren, wenn alles
pervertiert ist?
Diese Strophe zu sieben Versen beginnt mit einem Vers, der vier Kola
umfaßt. Synchronisch gesehen ist das eine “Ausnahme”, diachronisch
gesehen aber steht es in einem großen Zusammenhang und ist von
erheblichem Interesse. In der äyptologischen Linguistik ist man vielfach
bestrebt, Ausnahmen zu nivellieren, man strebt nach einheitlichen
Systemen. Tatsächlich gibt es niemals solche “idealen” Systeme, denn
überall ist Wandlung, stets gibt es sowohl Ansätze zu vielleicht einmal
sich konsolidierenden Neuerungen einerseits wie deutliche oder erst
unter der Angleichungsschicht freizulegende Reste älterer (Teil)-
Systeme andererseits.
So ist es auch hier, wir fassen Älteres in Spuren. Im “Bauern” und
im “Lebensmüden” gibt es—was wahrhaftig nicht “selbstverständlich”
ist—nur Verse mit zwei oder drei Hebungen.12 Die Ausnahme bilden
Verse, mit denen eine Rede beginnt. Ich habe über dieses Phänomen
schon in LÄ 4, Sp. 1140/1 gehandelt. Ich ergänze das hier.
In der Rahmenerzählung der “Bauerngeschichte” zeigt R zwei Vier-
heber dieser Art, die in B1 und Bt getilgt, also normalisiert sind zu Drei-
Kola-Versen (“Dreihebern”):
B1 33–34 (= Bt 39–40): 3 ∂d.jn-s∞tj-pn jrj.j-¢zjt.k nfr-mtn.j

R 8.5–8.6: 4 ∂d.jn-s∞tj.pn jrj.tw m-∂d.t.k nfr-mtn.j
B1 35–36: 3 ∂d.jn-Nmtj=n∞tw-pn jn-jw-n.k-ßm™.j r-w£jt
R 8.7–8.8: 4 ∂d.jn-Nmtj=n∞tw-pn jn-jw-n.k-jtj.j r-w£jt s∞tj
Die Abgrenzung der Verse ist stets eindeutig. Dazu ist nun unser Vers 39
zu stellen, leider ohne Vergleichsmöglichkeit mit R.
Ohne Vergleichsmöglichkeit mit anderen Handschriften sind leider
auch B2 118-120, also die ersten beiden Verse der kurzen Rede des
“Bauern”, die mit der Preisung des ersehnten Todes der Abschluß seiner
Bemühungen sein soll:
4 ∂d.jn-s∞tj-pn ∞sfw n-jbj m-mw

4 ∂£t-r£ n-flrd n-sbnt m-jr†t
12 Die extrem seltenen “emotionalen” Einheber, hier: des “Lebensmüden”, können
unberücksichtigt bleiben, sie sind eine bekannte Erscheinung. Siehe meine “Prosodie” in:
LÄ 4, 1139–40; zuletzt gute, wenn auch “akademische”, rhythmisch nicht wirkungsvolle,
Beispiele in Fecht, “Das Poème über die Qadesch-Schlacht”, in: SAK 11 (1984), S. 294–97,
spez. 296/7 (V. 161, 178).—In LÄ 4, 1140/1 auch zu den Vierhebern im Redebeginn.
242
Es folgt ntf-mwt… “so beschaffen ist der Tod…”—Weil der Text ein
wenig unübersichtlich ist, sei er übersetzt:
4 Da-sagte-der-Bauer: “das-Herankommen an-einen-Dürstenden mit-
Wasser,
4 das-Säugen eines-Kindes einer-stillenden-Mutter mit-Milch,
3 so-beschaffen-ist-der-Tod für-den-der-wünschte-ihn-zusehen, während-
er-aber-nicht-kam,
2 wenn-der-Zögernde-kommt, nämlich-sein-Tod”.
Das Wortspiel mit “Wasser” (*maw) und “Tod” (*ma- wa) ist nicht zu
übersehen.—Vierheber gab es also in R, B1, B2.
In “Lebensmüder”, Z. 55/6 hat die einzige erhaltene Handschrift den
einzigen Vierheber des gesamten Textes:
4 jw-wpj.n-n.j b£.j r£.f wßb.f-∂d.t.n.j
Der Kopist oder ein Besitzer des Papyrus hat sich wahrscheinlich
daran gestoßen. Der “sitzende Mann” von n.j ist, anders als die benach-
barten Zeichen, auffallend stark beschädigt. Dieser auffallende Befund
in zwei hohen (Archetyps-)Alters verdächtigen Literaturwerken schreit
nach einer Deutung. Ich gab diese in LÄ 4, Sp. 1140/1, wie schon
erwähnt, doch gehe ich hier nochmals kurz von einer anderen Seite her
darauf ein.
Erstens: Das Auftreten der Vierheber in spezieller Verumständung kann
kein Zufall sein. Die Texte sind lang, es finden sich keine weiteren
Vierheber.
Zweitens: Es bestand nicht der mindeste Zwang zu diesen außer-
gewöhnlichen Vierhebern, die Verse hätten ohne jede Schwierigkeit auf
drei Kola beschränkt werden können. Bei den Versen aus dem “Bauer”
zeigen das die B1-Varianten, beim “Lebensmüden” wäre auf das tren-
nende n.j ohne weiteres zu verzichten gewesen, die Gesprächssituation
ist eindeutig, das—wörtlich—: “damit-er-beantworte-das-was-ich-
gesagt-hatte” ist schon redundant.
Drittens: Das bedeutet, daß der Autor—bzw. in seinen Fußstapfen ein
Redaktor—diese Vierheber bewußt geschaffen, daß man sie gewollt hat,
daß man sie also als richtig im Redebeginn ansah.
Viertens: In den uns überkommenen Handschriften aus dem MR sind
die Vierheber im Redebeginn nur eine kleine Minderheit und sie sind im
Schwinden begriffen: B1 neben R, wohl auch der fast ganz getilgte
“sitzende Mann” im “Lebensmüden”. Offenbar sind diese Vierheber
Überreste, man hat es unterlassen, sie zu tilgen, sei es aus Flüchtigkeit,
Bequemlichkeit oder sonst einem uns unbekannten Grund.
243
Fünftens: In späteren Texten gibt es keine Vierheber im Redebeginn, zur

Zeit unserer Texte sind sie im Schwinden. Wenn sie jemals üblich
waren—und das müssen sie gewesen sein, sonst gäbe es sie nicht—,
dann muß das früh angesetzt werden.
Sechstens: Die Frage lautet also: Gab es frühe Schriften, in denen Reden
häufig waren und in denen Redeanfänge irgendwie vermehrt waren? Die
Antwort ist eindeutig: in Frage kommen nur die “Dramatischen Texte”,
“Ritualtexte”, “Mysterienspiele” oder wie man sie sonst benennen oder
unterteilen mag. Vor den jeweils ersten Versen von Reden waren die
Sprechenden genannt. Oft ist der Vermerk ∂d-mdwww-X Y “X spricht
zu Y”, doch gibt es auch die Nennung des Sprechenden allein, und über-
dies wissen wir nicht, ob das “X spricht zu Y” tatsächlich mit zwei Kola
gesprochen wurde (mit Einfügung des nie geschriebenen n “zu”), oder
vielleicht nur als Regievermerk “sprechen-X-Y”.
Daß diese “Dramatischen Texte” als Genus sehr alt sind, ist m.E.
unzweifelbar.13 Auch die Grabinschriften gab es ja vor dem, was wir
Literatur nennen, sie standen einstmals neben den “dramatischen” Tex-
ten und Ritualtexten, magischen Texten etc.—eben Texten des flrj-¢£b—
als älteste Korpora umfangreicher Niederschriften, zu denen sich könig-
liche und verwaltungstechnische Schriften stellten, z.B. Amtsein-
führungs- und Amtsbeschreibungstexte, die zusammen mit Elementen
anderer Herkunft, v.a. Vater-Sohn-Belehrung, die Ausgangsbasis für die
Weisheitslehren bildeten, dem ältesten Genus einer vom “Sitz im
Leben” abgelösten, aber noch unproblematischen, auf die Gemeinschaft
bezogenen “Literatur”. So standen schon im AR verschiedene Sorten
von Texten nebeneinander, jede Art mit den ihr eigenen Traditionen. Als
man in der Ersten Zwischenzeit problematisierende, stark individuelle
“Auseinandersetzungsliteratur” schrieb—greifbar in MR- bzw. NR-
Redaktionen: “Lebensmüder” und älteste Teile der “Admonitions”—
gestaltete man dieses Neue als Diskussionen (toter Mensch–Gott,
lebender Mensch–Ba) und konnte sich dabei nur an die Tradition der
“Dramatischen” Texte anschließen, denn diese bestanden weithin aus
Zwiegesprächen. Zunächst wird man Namen oder Bezeichnungen der
Redenden vor dem jeweils ersten Vers der Reden genannt haben, eben
nach dem bekannten Vorbild, doch man schrieb ja keine Textbücher für
Aufführungen, sondern Lesetexte, und so gerieten die Nennungen der
13 Ich sehe in CT IV, Sp. 312 ein zum Totentext entstelltes Spiel, das helfend und erklärend
in der 6. Dyn. bei Thronwechseln aufgeführt wurde, um die Frage zu beantworten, warum
der Thronfolger als Horus, “der Schützer seines Vaters”, diesen seinen Vater, den gestor-
benen König als Osiris, allein in das gefährliche Totenland gehen läßt.—H. Brunner, in:
ZDMG 111 (1961), 439–45 (mit älterer Literatur), entwickelt eine geistreiche Deutung des
Spruches, der ich im einzelnen wie im gesamten nicht immer zu folgen vermag.
244
Redenden notwendigerweise in das—auch metrische—Gefüge des

Textes hinein. Daraus ergab sich für eine unbekannt lange Übergangs-
zeit die Regel, daß erste Verse von Reden vier (anfangs wohl auch fünf)
Kola hatten. Daß man das schließlich aufgab, ist leicht verständlich. Wir
fassen Reste in der “Bauerngeschichte” und im “Lebensmüden”; in den
erst in einer Handschrift des späteren NR überlieferten “Admonitions”
ist natürlich keine Spur mehr davon zu finden. Die “Lehre für Merikare”
hatte keine Diskussionen, als “Lehre” folgte sie anderen alten Tradi-
tionen, nicht denen der “dramatischen” Texte.14
Wir kehren zurück zur ersten Strophe des zweiten Teils der Klage.
Isoliert in der Mitte der 7-Verse-Strophe, in Vers 42, wird das Thema
dieses zweiten Teils genannt: das Strafen. In den Dreiergruppen vor und
nach dem zentralen Vers stehen Beispiele für die schlimmen Zustände,
und zwar in einer auf Rensi zunehmend deutlicher zielenden
ansteigenden Linie. Jeweils im dritten Vers (also V. 41 und V. 45) ist
Rensi angesprochen, erst als “der-führen-sollte”, dann sehr spezifisch.
Die letzten beiden Verse stoßen scharf zu, sie konfrontieren Nmtj-n∞tw
mit Rnsj. Sie sind bisher nicht verstanden. Vers 45 endet mit der
rhetorischen Frage, ob Rensi “den zu ihm Gehörenden” (oder: “den, zu
dem er gehöre”) finde. Das n.k des Verses 45 kann ja auch immer n(j).k
sein, und das hat die beiden Bedeutungen, da die Nisbe nur die Zuge-
hörigkeit, nicht aber deren Richtung festlegt. Das Verb wf£ ist wohlbe-
kannt, aber es scheint nicht erkannt zu sein, daß sich wf£ zu f£j verhält
wie w†z zu †zj, beide mit der Grundbedeutung “hochheben” bzw.
“hochheben” = “tragen”. Über “hochheben” = “bekanntmachen” kom-
men beide zu positiven wie zu negativen Bedeutungen. Auf die Details
kann ich hier nicht eingehen. Es genügt festzustellen, daß in der Lehre
des Ptahhotep, Dév. 72, pPrisse positives wf£ hat (etwa “rühmen, positiv
sprechen über”), L2 dagegen negatives wf£. Prisse steht dem Archetyp
aus dem späten AR recht nah, hat noch AR-Metrik, L2 ist eine spätere
Bearbeitung (cf. die in Anm. 7 genannte Arbeit). Sinuhe B 40 hat schon
die negative Variante (etwas zwischen “anzeigen” und “verurteilen”),
doch aus der Ersten Zwischenzeit haben wir in n∂m-wf£.k-s(j), das
Gardiner mit “It were agreeable that thou shoudst support her” über-
setzt, einen wünschenswert eindeutigen Beleg für die positive Variante
aus einem Totenbrief.15 Hier ist unsere Stelle im “Bauern” anzu-
14 Zu den Vierhebern siehe auch den Exkurs am Schluß dieses Beitrags.

15A.H. Gardiner, “A New Letter to the Dead”, in: JEA 16 (1930), 19; cf. auch ibid., S. 22,
den Kommentar.—Die enge Verwandtschaft zwischen f£j und wf£ löst übrigens auch das
Problem, vor dem Posener stand, in: RdE 16 (1964), 42f.
245
schließen, wo wir dennoch zurückhaltend “zustimmen” gewählt haben;

“unterstützen” wäre deutlicher und nicht falsch.
Die nächste Strophe zu 7 Versen (V. 46–52) bildet mit der dann
folgenden von 8 Versen eine größere Einheit: richtig strafen, rechtzeitig
strafen—es ist hohe Zeit dazu. Die 7-Verse-Strophe (2, 2+[1+2]) stellt im
ersten Vers verkürztes Strafen kausal neben langwieriges Unheil. Die
Schreibung ¢™ für ¢w™ ist altertümlich, sie schließt sich AR-Schrei-
bungen an.16 Die Aussage des Verses 47 dürfte die erwünschte Wieder-
herstellung der rechten Ordnung meinen.—Das folgende Verspaar
(V. 48–49) wurde allgemein mißverstanden. Das jrj(w) Ende Vers 48
verknüpfte man mit Vers 49: “handle für den Handelnden, um zu veran-
lassen, daß er handle”. Die Metrik zeigt, daß mit jrj(w) ein Vers endet
und damit eine relative Sinneinheit, wie ich das seit den ersten Publi-
kationen zur Metrik stets formuliert habe. So versteht sich leicht, daß
der Autor aus seiner Beobachtung über die Wirkung einer “verkürzten”
(unzureichenden) Strafe einerseits und einer “vorbildlichen Tat”
andererseits den Schluß zieht, daß dies die Existenz eines (göttlichen)
Gebots erweise, das sich an den richte, der zu handeln habe, damit dieser
auch wirklich handle. Das pw nach dem rf ist explikativ: “das-bedeutet-
doch”. Die nächsten drei Verse (V. 50–52) geben drei Aspekte des Guten,
das sich aus dem Befolgen dieses Gottesgebots herleitet. In allen drei
Versen steht das richtige Handeln vor einem damit verbundenen ander-
en Handeln. In den letzten beiden Versen wird das präventive Handeln
gepriesen, das angesichts von Rensi’s Verschleppen durch Schweigen als
das extrem rechtzeitige Handeln gesehen wird.
Die nächste Teilstrophe von 8 Versen (V. 53–60) wird gegen Ende
etwas schwierig. Die ersten 6 Verse sind aber durchsichtig, wenn man
an die erste Klage zurückdenkt, die der ägyptische Leser noch frisch im
Kopf hatte, B1 84–102, speziell 92–93. Da hieß es, wenn Rensi auf dem
See der Maat segle, dann: “…daß-kommen-werden-zu-dir Fische ist-als-
zurückgehaltene(/gebannte), / daß-du-Vögel erlegen-wirst ist-indem-sie-
fett-sind” (Verspaar), d.h. der Gerechte wird mit Reichtum und Erfolg ge-
segnet. Wenn der “Bauer” nun darum fleht, daß doch ein Augenblick die
wirtschaftlichen Mißerfolge des Rensi in ihr Gegenteil umkehre, so
fleht er darum, daß aus dem Ungerechten (dem es ja wirtschaftlich
schlecht gehen muß) wieder ein Gerechter werde. Es folgt in drei Versen
die Bestätigung dieser Deutung, denn an drei Partizipialpaaren wird die
16 Siehe mein “Die Belehrung des Ba und der Lebensmüde”, in: FS W. Kaiser, MDAIK 47
(1991), 116 zu Vers 6: AR (Edel, AG, § 145) j.k für jw.k etc., ™£ für ™w£, ∞z(j) für ∞wz(j), s£j
für sw£j. Dazu Fecht: s£(j) für s£wj (Ptahhotep, Prisse, Dév. 526) und hier: ¢™ für ¢w™ (Bauer
B1 139).
246
Wandlung des Gerechten zum Ungerechten aufgezeigt. Zu beachten ist

“Augenblick” in Vers 53: es geht wieder um Schnelligkeit, wie oben,
Verse 51–52.
Das abschließende Verspaar erfordert eingehendere Behandlung. Es
muß im Anfang verderbt sein. Was dasteht ist das Wort ™nbr(w), das im
NR als eine Art Korb bezeugt ist: Jac. Janssen, Commodity Prices, 150,
an unserer Stelle aber keinen Sinn ergibt. Ich emendiere in *™nb-bd(w)
und denke dabei an b∂ “Schmelztiegel” (für Metalle) und ™nb, nach
Wb. 1, 192, 3–4 “verschließen (mit Mund, also auch mit den Zähnen),
umschlossen halten (vom Löwen gesagt, mit den Krallen)”, bei Osing,
Nominalbildung, Anm. 213 “um-, verschließen; fassen; binden, flech-
ten”; die Grundbedeutung dürfte sein “umschließen(d halten), be-
decken(d halten)”. Der Tiegel wird, wenn das Metall geschmolzen ist,
von einem Arbeiter gehalten, der es ausfließen läßt. L. Klebs, Die Reliefs
des alten Reiches, S. 84f., beschreibt das so: “Der Tiegel wird, da er
glühend ist, vorsichtig mit zwei Steinen(?) angefaßt. Dann wird eine
kleine Öffnung seitlich am Boden des Tiegels geöffnet, und die schwere,
reine Schmelze am Grund des Tiegels fließt aus. Ein Mann sitzt mit
einem Stäbchen in der Hand vor dem Gießenden, um die Schlacke
zurückzuhalten”. Sie bezieht sich auf die Darstellung bei Mereruka
(Klebs, l.c., Abb. 68), der hockende Mann scheint nur dort gezeigt (so
auch Drenkhahn, Die Handwerker, S. 27 V, VII, XIV, XX). Zweifellos
mißverstanden ist aber bei Klebs die Tätigkeit des hockenden Mannes.
Er hat gewiß mit dem Stäbchen die “kleine Öffnung seitlich am Boden
des Tiegels geöffnet”, wovon Klebs spricht, ohne auf die Art der Öffnung
einzugehen. Drenkhahn, l.c.: “Im AR hat der runde Tiegel ein seitliches
Ausgußloch am Boden”; sie verweist auf “die gefundenen Schmelz-
tiegel, MDAIK 18 (1962), Tf. 3–5”. Daß dieses Loch während des
Schmelzvorgangs provisorisch verschlossen war, ist selbstverständlich.
Es mußte vor dem Ausgießen rasch geöffnet werden: wie anders als mit-
tels eines Stäbchens, mit dem man den Verschluß durchstieß? Das
mußte ein zweiter Mann tun, und zwar direkt über dem Gefäß, in das
die Schmelze laufen sollte. Dies und nichts anderes ist bei Mereruka
gezeigt. Die Wahl des Verbs ™nb dürfte mit der besonderen Art
zusammenhängen, mit der man den glühend heißen Tiegel anfaßte:
(Klebs) “vorsichtig mit zwei Steinen(?)”.
Der Text geht weiter mit jn-tr-snb.n.k. Das letzte Wort kann nicht
snb “gesund werden” sein. Ich lese snb(£) und sehe darin eine Ableitung
von nb£ “Stange/Stab, Tragstange, Spindel” (Wb. 2, 243, 5–8; Osing,
Nominalbildung, Anm. 980). Als “Spindel” ist nb£ in den CT einmal
sicher bezeugt (III 133, drei Belege), vielleicht noch einmal in VI 61 d
247
(Verschreibung? zu tb£), indirekt wohl im Gottesnamen snb£.f (VI 245 k);

als “Stange” (o.ä.) einmal CT VI 1 l (zwei Belege), einmal in Tb 189 (Hor-
nung, Totenbuch, S. 523: wohl “Schöpfbalken in der Art des Schadûf”,
also vielleicht ähnlich wie das Feldbaugerät in CT VI 1), schließlich des
öfteren als Tragstange (Wb. 2, 243, 5–10 ab MR, für Kornsack, Sänfte,
Kapelle), und im Koptischen als S mpai u. Dv. “Spindel” und S ramp(e)i
“Ring(e) zum Durchstecken von Tragstangen” (B ara+* S mp(e)i). Osing
sieht in “Spindel” die Grundbedeutung, was aber wegen “Tragstange”
unmöglich ist, denn man kann wohl die “Spindel” als “Stange” bezeich-
nen, nicht aber die Tragstange als “Spindel”.17 Den etymologischen An-
schluß für nb£ “Stange, Stock” möchte ich über ein Verb *nb£ in b£
“hacken” suchen, wozu einerseits b£jj(w), b£b£(w) “Loch, Höhlung” ge-
hört, andererseits wb£ “bohren, öffnen”, sb£ “öffnen, *erhellen, unter-
richten”. Das Substantiv nb£ könnte einen “Grabstock” bezeichnet
haben. Das Verb nb£ verhält sich dann zur Wurzel b£ “Loch” wie ndb
“mit Horn verletzen” zu db “Horn” (Wb. 2, 367, 17; Wb. 5, 434, 3–7).
Das Kausativ ist als Ableitung unproblematisch. Neben nb£ “Stab,
Stock” steht nb£t “Pfahl, zwischen deren zwei der Strick bei der Grün-
dungszeremonie gespannt wird” (Wb. 2, 243, 10), sicherlich ein altes
Wort, wenn auch nicht früh belegt. Wie snb£ neben nb£ so steht snb£b£
neben nb£t, das von P. Lacau–H. Chevrier, Une chapelle d’Hatchepsout
à Karnak, nicht erkannt worden ist. Dort heißt es in einer Rede Amuns
an die Königin (Block 166, 4. Z. v.r.; Lacau–Chevrier, l.c., 107. 109. 111):
3 srwd.t-∞mw-n†rw snb£b£.t-t£-pw ¢r-mflrw.f

3 damit-du-herstellst-die-Tempel-der-Götter, damit-du-gründest-dieses-
Land18 samt-seinen-Bedürfnissen”.19
17 Osing, Nominalbildung, Anm. 980, S. 785f., sucht das zugrundeliegende Verb. Das
medizinische (pEbers) nb£ “in manischer Geistesverfassung sein” mag umgekehrt durch
nb£ “Spindel” zumindest beeinflußt sein. Wenn nb£b£ “sich drehen, winden” meint, was
plausibel wirkt, gilt dasselbe. CT VII 214 i übersetzt Osing £bn.n.j-pt “ich habe den Him-
mel gedreht”. Wegen der dortigen Parallele pn™ wird dieses £bn nicht heißen “in kreiselnde
Bewegung versetzen” (wie die Spindel) sondern eher etwas wie “umkippen”. Daß beides
von deutschem “drehen” zur Not abgedeckt werden kann—man würde freilich eher
“drehen” von “umdrehen” differenzierend unterscheiden—setzt den erheblichen Abstrak-
tionsgrad einer modernen Sprache voraus. Wenn man in nb£ “Spindel” mit Osing eine
Ableitung von £bn “drehen” (eher: umkippen) und den oben genannten nb£ und nb£b£
sieht, muß man “Spindel” und “Stab” eben, wie gesagt, etymologisch trennen.—Die
Etymologien um das Spinnen machen auch sonst Schwierigkeiten. In volkstümlichem
Sprachgebrauch übliches deutsches “spinnen” für “verrückt sein” möchte man
unwillkürlich mit der sich drehenden Spindel kombinieren, allenfalls macht das gleich-
falls volkstümliche “sich etwas zurecht spinnen” stutzig. “Spinnen” im Sinne von “ver-
rückt sein” kommt letztlich aus nicht so stark abwertendem verkürztem “Gedanken
spinnen”. Ein Beispiel aus einem etymologischen Wörterbuch: “Moritz ließ nicht ab…
fortwährend zu sinnen und zu spinnen” (Goethe, Ital. Reise, Dez. 1787, das. 27, 182). Dies
nur als Beispiel. Im Russischen gebraucht man das Wort für “flechten” im Sinne von “sich
etwas zurechtdenken”.
248
Wie auch immer die linguistische Entwicklung im einzelnen ver-

laufen sein mag—man muß z.B. auch mit der semantischen Einwirkung
von Substantiva auf Verba rechnen—, praktisch steht im Ergebnis neben
nb£t “Gründungspfahl” snb£b£ “Gründungspfahl in die Erde eintreiben”
(= “gründen”), und ebenso neben nb£ “Stange” snb£ “die Stange (in den
Tiegel) hineinstecken”.20 Dabei müssen wir offenlassen, ob in snb£ ein
kausatives Element spürbar ist. Kausative können auch etwa gleich-
bedeutend mit der Grundform sein.21 Es ist auch gleichgültig, ob wir
übersetzen “hast-du-das-Stäbchen-durchstoßen-lassen” oder “hast-du…
-durchgestoßen”. In Bildreden pflegt der Angesprochene als Handelnder
zu fungieren, auch wenn ein Kausativ angebracht wäre.—Die Schwierig-
keit und Verderbnis der beiden zuletzt erörterten Verse ist gewiß Folge
davon, daß in einer Bildrede Fachsprache gebraucht war und mit Vorstel-
lungen gearbeitet wurde, die Spezialisten unter den Handwerkern ver-
traut waren, aber kaum dem Schreiber-Kopisten. Die Übersetzung ergibt
sich nun und bringt den Gedanken zum Ausdruck, daß es höchste Zeit
sei zu handeln, weil sonst ein Unglück eintritt, wie es im Bild das
Erstarren der Schmelze im Tiegel wäre.
In der nächsten Teilstrophe von 8 Versen (V. 61–68: 1+2+1,
1+2+1), die mit der nachfolgenden (V. 69–75: 1+2+1, 2+1) eine relative
Einheit bildet, geht es zunächst gemäß den Stichwörtern im jeweils er-
sten Vers um den Mißbrauch der Härte, der Rensi angelastet wird, dann
um den Mißbrauch der Milde. Dabei folgt in der ersten Teilstrophe nach
der Aussage über die Härte eine ergänzende über die Milde, in der
zweiten Teilstrophe auf die Aussage über die Milde eine solche über die
Härte. —Man sieht, beide Teilstrophen sind kunstvoll verschränkt, doch
dies ist bei weitem nicht alles. Zugleich wird nun, durch Amphibolien
verdeckt, mit dem Eingreifen von gefürchteten Todes-Gottheiten gegen
Rensi gedroht. Und diese Drohungen sind tatsächlich das Hauptthema,
denn erstens führen sie das Thema “das Strafen”—nun Bestrafen
Rensis—weiter, zweitens sind die letzten drei Verse der ersten
Teilstrophe nur unter dem Aspekt der Drohung gegen Rensi verständ-
lich, und dasselbe gilt für die letzte Strophe des Zweiten Teils, die als
nächstes anschließt (V. 76–82). Zugleich ist der Text beider Teilstrophen
18 Zum Wortgebrauch vgl. Wb. 4, 178, 7–9.
19 BeiLacau–Chevrier, S. 109: “que tu restaures les chapelles des dieux, que tu protèges ce
pays grâce à sa (bonne) administration”; snb£b£ wird angeschlossen an nb£b£ (PT §§ 98a,
104a = Wb. 2, 243, 14), das aber nach Osing—s. hier Anm. 16—mit CT VII 480 g “dahin-
gleiten, sich winden” bedeutet, und nbnb (Urk. 4, 21, 12), das aber einfach das bekannte
“schützen” ist.
20 Auf snb£ in der hier für snb£b£ konstatierten Bedeutung dürfte snb als *snb£ “bauen”
(griech., Edfu und Dendera) hinweisen.

21 Vgl. Fecht, “Der Totenbrief von Nag™ ed-Deir”, in: MDAIK 24 (1969), spez. S. 116.
249
mitbestimmt von dem Willen des Autors, die beiden Amphibolien zu

verdeutlichen: beide Schlüssel-Verben sind je zweimal gebraucht, ein-
mal in der verschleiernden Bedeutung da, wo gedroht wird, einmal in der
dort gemeinten zweiten Bedeutung außerhalb des engsten Kreises der
Drohungen, der die Verse 64–68 umgreift.
Nun zum einzelnen. Vers 61 ist neutral, Rensi ist stark und mächtig.
Die beiden eng anschließenden nächsten Verse wenden das ins Nega-
tive: Mißbrauch. Im vierten wird daraus konkludiert, daß Rensi dem
Boten des ∞ntj, des Krokodil-Todesdämons gleiche (twt). Dieser schreck-
liche ∞ntj ist gut bezeugt,22 in ihm kulminiert der schreckliche Aspekt
des Krokodils, wobei zugleich—je nach Situation—ein Hinweis auf
Osiris (Wb. 3, 308, 6–7) mitklingen kann. An unserer Stelle weist das
“Bote” auf Osiris, denn Boten des ∞ntj, des unmittelbar zupackenden
Krokodils sind wenig wahrscheinlich, während die Boten des Osiris ja
wohlbekannt sind. Dennoch steht im Vordergrund hier sicherlich das
grausige Krokodil. Das vielseitige Wort twt kommt sechs Verse weiter
in der zweiten Teilstrophe nochmals vor, und zwar keine nominale oder
sonstige Ableitung des Verbs, sondern dasselbe Adjektivverb. In Wb. 5,
257 sind Bedeutungen des Wortes in der auch im “Bauer” vorliegenden
Konstruktion mit der Präposition n aufgelistet: a–b “gleichen, ähnlich
sein”, c “gebühren, angemessen sein, zustehen” (z.B. twt-n.f j£w “Lob-
preis ist gebührend für ihn”). Diese Konstruktion haben wir in Vers 70,
wo mit Selbstjustiz gedroht wird: 2 twt-†£wt n-jwtj-j∞wt.f “gebührend-
ist-das-Wegnehmen für-den-der-seinen-Besitz-nicht-hat”. Wenn wir
nun diese Bedeutungsschattierung des twt n- in Vers 64 einsetzen, ver-
stehen wir: “Gebührend-bist-du für-den-Boten des-∞ntj”, d.h. etwa: du
hast es verdient, vom Todesboten abgeholt zu werden.
Auf diese mit twt bewerkstelligte Amphibolie folgt der Vers 65, mit
dem eine neue Versgruppe von vier Versen beginnt: mk-tw-sw£j.tj ¢r-
nbt-jdw “Siehe-du-hast-übertroffen die-Herrin-der-Pestilenz”, eine
Aussage, die auf der Linie der voranstehenden liegt: “Du-gleichst dem-
Boten des-Krokodil-Todesdämons”. Die die Teilstrophe abschließenden
drei Verse, die ohne Zweifel Bezug nehmen auf Sachmet als die “Herrin
der Pestilenz”, schließen sich mit “übertreffen” aber zu keinem evi-
denten Sinn zusammen: “gibt-es-nichts-für-dich, so-gibt-es-nichts-für-
sie” etc. Wer Sachmet übertrifft, ist nicht abhängig davon, ob “es etwas
22 Vgl. Lüddeckens, “Totenklagen”, in: MDAIK 11 (1943), 107 (= Davies, Tomb of Nefer-
hotep 1, pl. 22); H. Brunner, (mit Hinweis auf Osiris), Lehre des Cheti, S. 42 (pSallier II 8,3);
Lebensmüder, 79; Admonitions, 5, 7-9 (= Fecht, in: ZÄS 100 [1973], 6–16); ◊ern≈–Gardin-
er, HO 1, pl. 38,2 vo.4/5 (s. unten im Text); sinngemäß auch Bauer, Erste Klage B1 91: n-
m£.k-¢r-sn∂w “du-wirst-nicht-sehen-das-Gesicht-des-Fürchterlichen”, scil. des Krokodils
beim Schiffbruch.
250
für sie gibt”! Das weist eben auf die Amphibolie. Das Verb sw£j ¢r- heißt
zunächst einfach räumlich “vorbeigehen an-” (“fern machen”), und
daraus entwickelte sich einerseits “übertreffen”, andererseits “nicht
berücksichtigen, nicht hinreichend beachten, sich nicht kümmern
um…” u.ä. (aus: “achtlos vorbeigehen, statt stehen zu bleiben und sich
zu kümmern um…”). Diese zweite Bedeutung hatten wir in Vers 63
“die-Milde-ist-an-dir-vorübergegangen” oder “…hat-sich-nicht-um-
dich-gekümmert”, “…dich-nicht-berücksichtigt”, das heißt: sie ist an
dir vorbeigegangen, ohne dich zu beeinflussen, in einem deutschen
Idiom: sie hat dich links liegen lassen. Wenn wir diese Bedeutung ein-
setzen in Vers 65, übersetzen wir: “Siehe-du-hast-nicht-hinreichend-
berücksichtigt die-Herrin-der-Pestilenz”, du hast bei deinen bösen
Taten nicht daran gedacht, daß diese rächend über dich kommen wird.
Die folgenden Verse sind nun durchsichtig: “gibt-es-nichts-für-dich, so-
gibt-es-nichts-für-sie”, d.h. wenn du nicht raubst, dann raubt sie dich
nicht; “gibt-es-nichts-gegen-sie, so-gibt-es-nichts-gegen-dich”, d.h.
wenn ihr nichts anzulasten ist (scil. die Tötung des Rensi), dann deshalb,
weil dir nichts anzulasten ist; “wenn-du-es-nicht-tust, so-tut-sie-es-
nicht”, d.h. wenn du nicht gewalttätig bist, so ist sie nicht gewalttätig
(gegen dich). Der Krokodilgott ∞ntj und die Löwengöttin Sachmet sind
hier Rachegötter für Verbrechen gegen die Maat, und das sind dieselben
Gottheiten, die zusammen mit dem distanziert nachstehenden Pta¢ in
dem Zitat älterer Literaturbruchstücke in Admonitions 5, 7–9, wo die
Sinnhaftigkeit des Opfers an Götter negiert wird, als groteske Opfer-
empfänger aufgeführt sind.23 Der Grundgedanke ist natürlich derselbe
wie in Merikare E 46–47 jrj-m£™t w£¢.k tp-t£ “Tue-die-Maat, damit-du-
dauerst auf-Erden!” oder wie in der dritten Klage des “Bauern”, B1 176–
77 z£w-tkn-n¢¢ mrj-w£¢ / mj-∂d-†£w-pw n-fnd jrt-m£™t “Hüte-dich-vor-
dem-Nahen-der-Ewigkeit, wünsche-zu-dauern, / gemäß-dem-(Sprich)-
Wort-‘Luft für-die-Nase ist-das-Tun-der-Maat’”, wo diesseitiges und
jenseitiges Leben nicht mehr zu trennen sind.
23 S.mein “Ägyptische Zweifel am Sinn des Opfers”, in: ZÄS 100 (1973), 6–16. Dort sind
∞ntj und Löwe (m£j) als groteske Beispiele für Opfer empfangende Götter genannt, denen
Ptah in rhetorisch geschickter Weise leicht abgesetzt folgt. Ich zitiere das Bruchstück aus
einem unbekannten Literaturwerk in Übersetzung:
3 Sei-es-das-Darbringen für-das-Todeskrokodil und-den-von-ihm-Zerrissenen,
2 sei-es-das-Schlachten für-den-Löwen,
2 das-Braten am-Feuer,
3 sei-es-das-Libieren für-Ptah, das-Herbeibringen-von-Opfertieren:
3 warum gebt-ihr-ihm? Es-erreicht-ihn-nicht,
2 Traurigkeit-hat-es-zur-Folge, daß-ihr-ihm-gebt!
“Opfertiere” im drittletzten Vers kann ich nun dank der Infrarotfotografie deutlich als
j£jjwt (+Tierfell) lesen.
251
Noch einige Bemerkungen zu den Amphibolien. Wenn wir die Verse

53–55 wieder ins Auge fassen, sehen wir, wie zunächst wirtschaftlicher
Mißerfolg des Rensi als automatische Konsequenz vorausgesetzt wird,
und wie dann (V. 64–65) die Bestrafung zur Frage nach Leben und Tod
wird. Wenn dieser Automatismus versagt, bleibt der Ausgleich aus—
oder: in—der postmortalen Existenz: Am Ende der neunten Klage will
der “Bauer” weggehen, um sich (im Jenseits) bei Anubis zu beschweren,
der schützend hinter ihm steht, wenn man seinen Namen ∞wj.n-Jnpw
-´ -́
(Aussprache des NR: *∞awinanapa/i) ernstnimmt. Auch dies ist eine
Drohung, die an die Todes-Boten denken läßt.—Auffallend ist die Deut-
lichkeit, mit der auf die Amphibolien hingewiesen wird, eben durch die
aufgezeigte Doppelung der beteiligten Verben. Das bestärkt den ohnehin
naheliegenden Schluß, daß für den Autor beide Interpretationsebenen
wichtig und richtig waren und daß diese Zweischichtigkeit als sachliche
Identität im Sinne von Kausalität realisiert werden muß. Das heißt, daß
in der Meinung des Autors derjenige, der sich dem Wesen gefährlich-
dämonischer Götter angleicht, diesen Göttern selbst als Opfer
anheimfällt. Das ist eine frühe Form eines uns wohlbekannten
mittelalterlichen, aber im Grunde nie veraltenden Motivs: des Paktes
mit dem Teufel.
Die zweite Teilstrophe (7 Verse, V. 69–75) ist in der neuen Über-
setzung nun wohl durchsichtig. Der “Herr-des-Brots” ist der Patron der
Klientel24 (vgl. oben V. 15–19), zu der wohl auch der Räuber Nemtinacht
gehört. Das vom “Bauern” geforderte Recht auf Selbstjustiz für den
Beraubten ist zwar zunächst die Reaktion darauf, daß Nemtinachts
Raub ein vorgetäuschter Akt berechtigter Selbstjustiz war. Rensi ist
milde nur gegenüber dem Räuber, in dessen Interesse er hart ist, er
unterstützt also das nicht durch Not sondern durch Gier motivierte
Rauben, das unbedingt angeklagt werden muß, weil ein Richter, der das
nicht tut, sich der selbstsüchtigen Beihilfe schuldig macht. Dem-
gegenüber wird die Selbstjustiz des Beraubten als passend, gebührend
bezeichnet. Das wirkt immerhin recht bemerkenswert, denn in Ägypten
war zumindest in der Theorie doch wohl der Prozess das einzig legale.
Die Stelle wirkt revolutionär oder doch in einem revolutionären Sinn
ausweitbar: principiis obsta.
Die letzte Strophe des zweiten Teils der eigentlichen Klage, der dann
noch der Schlußappell folgt, umfaßt wieder 7 Verse (V. 76–82). Die erste
Strophe dieses zweiten Teils (V. 33–45) hatte den Aufbau 2+1,1,1+2; in
ihr wurde Rensi mit Nemtinacht konfrontiert.
24 Englisch “Lord” hat bekanntlich die Grundbedeutung “Brotwart”.
252
Die letzte Strophe nun hat den Aufbau 2+1+2,2; in ihr wird Rensi
mit dem König konfrontiert. Metrisch haben beide Strophen (außer der
Siebenzahl) den isolierten, betonten Einzelvers gemeinsam, der einmal
zwischen zwei Dreiergruppen, einmal zwischen zwei Verspaaren steht.
Dieser Einzelvers gab als Vers 42 das Thema an, das auch in der letzten
Strophe noch gültig ist, wo er in Vers 78 das Thema der zweiten Ebene
angibt: Strafen seitens des Königs.
In den beiden um den Mittelvers gruppierten Verspaaren (V. 76–77,
V. 79–80) ist von Rensi gesagt, daß er ein Steuermann ist. Im
Gliederungsaufbau erkennt man eine Wiederaufnahme des Steuer-
Motivs der ersten Strophe der Klage (V. 7, V. 10), also ein zentrierendes
Element. Sachlich ist die Aussage insofern richtig, als Rensi in seiner
Eigenschaft als hoher Beamter leitet, also steuert. Weiterhin ist zweier-
lei gesagt. Erstens, daß das Schiff vom Kurs abgleitet, und (damit)
Unheil-Unrecht in dem Bereich (den Angelegenheiten) des Rensi
geschaffen wird. Zweitens wird gesagt, daß das Gesicht des Steuer-
manns nach vorn gerichtet ist, was auch stimmt, denn der Steuermann
schaut nach vorne, zum Bug (w£∂t oder ¢£t) des Schiffes hin, wo der
Lotse (/Pilot) steht, der den Kurs angibt, dem Steuermann durch Hand-
zeichen oder Zuruf anzeigt, wie zu steuern ist. Dieser Lotse kann in un-
serem Fall nur der König sein, der das Staatsschiff lenkt.25 Im
herausgehobenen Mittelvers (V. 78) steht nun, daß der König m-∞nt(j)
sei. Da ∞nt(j) ein geläufiger Ausdruck für den vorderen Teil des Palastes
ist, in dem er u.a. Beamte empfing26, wird man das mit “Haus” deter-
minierte Wort zunächst eben als “Palast” interpretieren: “der-König ist-
im-Palast”. Im Zusammenhang der Strophe ist diese Interpretation des
auffällig plazierten Mittelverses der 5 Verse einnehmenden Kon-
frontierung des Rensi mit dem König aber doch sehr schwach, und man
erkennt rasch, daß hier wieder eine Amphibolie steckt: “im Palast” ist
eine nichtssagende, harmlose Feststellung, “vorne”, wie man genauso-
gut übersetzen kann—m-∞nt(j) “vorne” kann auch mit dem “Haus”
determiniert werden—, ist dagegen sinnvoll, freilich keineswegs harm-
los. Es nimmt den König als Lotsen des Staatsschiffes mit in die Verant-
25 Beispiele für das (auch bei den Griechen beliebte) Bild vom Staatsschiff in den
Admonitions:
2,11 Wahrlich-das-Schiff-der-Südlichen (=Oäg.)-ist-in-Aufruhr, zerstört-sind-die-
Oberägypten-ist-geworden zu-wüsten…
Städte,
12,5 Es-gab-keinen-Lotsen (j™ß-¢£t) zu-ihrer-Stunde (/Dienstzeit).
Gemeint ist im zweiten Beleg der Schöpfergott: Fecht, Der Vorwurf an Gott, S. 17, 55.
26 Die Darstellung O. Berlevs “The King’s House in the MK” in den Trudy mezhdunarod-
nogo kongressa vostokovedov (1960), S. 142–48, spez. 147, ist immer noch orientierend.
253
wortung hinein. Es gibt dann zwei Möglichkeiten, entweder ist Rensi

illoyal, er verwickelt den König ohne dessen Wissen und entgegen des-
sen Weisungen in seine eigenen üblen Machenschaften, oder aber: der
König ist schuld. Für den “Bauer” konnte nur die erste dieser
Möglichkeiten die zutreffende sein: Rensi schaut auf den König, tut aber
dennoch Unrecht. Er wird als Verräter überführt und schwer bestraft
werden. Das ist die handgreiflichste Drohung, sie bricht zwar nicht aus
dem Unbegreiflich-Göttlichen rächend in das irdische Leben ein, sie
kommt aus dem diesseitig-realen Göttlichen und ist vernichtend.27
Hier sei eine Randglosse eingeschaltet. In der ägyptologischen Liter-
atur wird nicht selten die Meinung vertreten, daß in der “Bauern-
geschichte” Humor und Ironie eine beträchtliche Rolle spielten. Ich bin
nicht dieser Ansicht. An unserer Stelle freilich kann man derartiges ver-
muten, wenn auch nicht auf der Ebene der Argumentation, sondern auf
einer zweiten Ebene dahinter. Da, wo die Drohung in gefährlicher Weise
den König einbezieht, stellt sich für den orientierten Leser eine Realität
her, die keineswegs bedrohlich ist. Der König hat ja tatsächlich dem
Rensi Weisung gegeben, den “Bauern” hinzuhalten, um recht viele
Reden aus ihm herauszulocken. Der gebildete Leser hatte gewiß
Verständnis für das literarische Interesse des Königs, durch die Wahl
seiner Lektüre bewies er ja das gleiche Interesse, und für den Unterhalt
des “Bauern” und seiner Familie war auf das beste gesorgt. Der Leser
wird an diesem geistreichen Spiel mit den beiden Ebenen seine Freude
gehabt haben. Die Mehrschichtigkeit erinnert an die Amphibolien.
Und noch eine grammatische Bemerkung. In der gesamten Klage
gibt es keinen Adverbialsatz mit dem eigentlich obligatorischen jw-; die
Schlußermahnung ist frei von Adverbialsätzen. Die Ausnahme sind die
Verse 76–80, die Konfrontation mit dem König, denn hier steht jw-
dreimal, zweimal in einem Hauptsatz, dem ein Umstandssatz folgt, also
da, wo allenfalls ein zweites Tempus erwartet würde.
Die letzten beiden Verse der Strophe (V. 81–82) gehören vielleicht
noch in den “Königs”-Zusammenhang, “vielleicht” im Sinne einer
möglichen und naheliegenden, in der Sprache zwingend vorgegebenen,
Amphibolie. Der erste dieser Verse ist besonders merkwürdig miß-
verstanden worden, denn £wj “einreichen, überreichen, zustellen” steht
im Wb. 1, 15, 10–11; vgl. außerdem etwa: Hayes, Late M.K. Papyrus, S.
35f.; Helck, ZÄS 85 (1960), S. 32 (mit Liter.); wdnw nimmt Bezug auf
27 In B1 244–246 (4. Klage) heißt es: “Wenn-die-Augen-sehen, wird-der-Verstand(Herz)-in-
formiert:/Sei-nicht-hochfahrend gemäß-deiner-Macht, damit-nichts-Schlimmes-über-
dich-komme, /vernachlässige einen-Rechtsfall, und-er-wird-zu-zweien-werden”. Auch
hier ist mit dem “zweiten” Rechtsfall gewiß der gegen den Richter gemeint. Das scheint
bislang nicht verstanden.
254
Vers 9, wo Rensi als “Senklotschnur, die das Gewicht trägt” apostro-

phiert wird (Gewicht = wdnw). Der Adressat der Petition, Rensi, der die
Norm verkörpert, ist als solcher nicht mehr da, denn die Norm ist ja
zerstört, die “Senklotschnur, die das Gewicht trägt”, ist zerrissen. Bei
Vers 82 denkt man an Ptahhotep, Dév. 273/4, wo es auch um die richtige
Einstellung zu Bittstellern geht. Das pronominale Subjekt in k£.tw kann
sich auf “die Leute” beziehen, aber auch auf den König, Verweis auf den
König mit tw “man” gibt es im “Bauern”. Wenn der König gemeint ist,
dann muß “jener-da” Rensi sein, wenn “die Leute” gemeint sind, dürfte
dabei eher an den “Bauern” zu denken sein. Der Vers ist im Grunde auch
amphibolisch, und da die Aufmerksamkeit des Königs peinlicher für
Rensi eingeschätzt worden sein dürfte, wird das Gemeinte eben der
König sein.
***
Nun folgt die abschließende Ermahnung, rhetorisch die peroratio. Sie ist
zweigeteilt, sieben Verse (V. 83–89) zielen auf Rensi und die Beamten,
sechs Verse (V. 90–95) zielen auf Rensi und den “Bauern”, zusammen
macht das also dreizehn Verse aus.
Rensi soll eine Zufluchtsstätte gegen die Gefahren sein, die er selbst
heraufbeschworen hat. Lexikalisch zeigt Vers 83 keine Schwierigkeiten.
Was die Beschaffenheit der jbw-“Zufluchtsstätte” gegen Krokodile
angeht, sagen einige Verse aus einem Lobpreis Amuns aus ◊ern≈–
Gardiner, HO 1, pl. 38,2 vo., 4/5 immerhin ein weniges aus. Bei
Assmann, Äg. Hymnen und Gebete ist dieser Text nicht berücksichtigt.
In H. Brunners gehaltvoller Besprechung von HO (in: BiOr 15 [1958], S.
195–97) sind die ersten beiden Verse übersetzt, der dritte blieb unver-
standen—das Fremdwort dprw nicht erkannt—und daher falsch
übersetzt.28
2 £∞-sw r-jbw-mn∞
2 ¢r-m£st ntj-∞ntj
3 †£jj-dpjjw dprw r£.sn-wn(w)
3 k£p.n m-flnw.f ń-sn∂.j-n.w
Meine Übersetzung:
2 Nützlicher-ist-er als-ein-trefflicher-jbw-Schutzbau
2 auf-der-Uferbank des-Krokodils.
3 Die-Krokodile-packen die-Beutetiere mit-offenen-Mäulern,
28 Das bisher ungedeutete dprw (Determ.: Krokodil) muß Lehnwort aus dem Semitischen
sein: hebräisch trp
. reißen (vom Raubtier), t’
. répáh (vom Raubwild) zerrissenes Tier, täräp
.
Raub (des Raubwildes), das wohl das Vorbild unseres Wortes ist. Die Metathesis zu dpr
kann von dem Wort für “Krokodil” beeinflußt sein, darauf weist auch das Determinativ.
255
3 doch-unser-Versteck ist-in-ihm, und-ich-fürchte-mich-nicht-vor-ihnen.29

Daraus ist zu entnehmen, daß man vom jbw aus den Kampf der
Krokodile ungefährdet betrachten konnte. Das setzt Höhe und einen
soliden Unterbau voraus. Da Holz selten und teuer war, kam als Bau-
material nur Lehm, Schlamm in Betracht, zumal man diese jbw’s sicher
möglichst bei allen gefährdeten Anlegestellen errichtete. Vermutlich
waren es hinreichend hohe, solide runde Turmstümpfe aus Lehm mit
eingelassenen Trittlöchern und Handgriffen zum Ersteigen, mit einer
umwallten Plattform oben. In der “Bauerngeschichte” kommen diese
Schutzbauten noch in der 3., 4. und 8. Klage vor.
Vers 85 ist schwierig. Zunächst zu ™t-jm.f: die Bedeutung “ein Glied
von ihm (selbst)” ist eindeutig, s. A.H. Gardiner, AEO 1, S. 109* (einige
Belege aus PT, Dyn. 11 und ein unklarer aus Edfu; dazu noch Dyn. 11,
Clère–Vandier, TPPI, § 32). Die Konzentration der spärlichen Belege auf
die späte Dyn. 11 (drei von vier oder fünf Belegen, alle nach der Reichs-
einigung des MR) ist sehr auffällig; vielleicht liegt herakleopolitanische
Tradition aus der Zwischenzeit vor, die Belegverteilung erinnert etwas
an die der oben S. 240 besprochenen rhetorischen Floskel. Entscheidend
für das Verständnis ist das ungedeutete Wort t£mw. In B1 ist es mit
“Schlange/Wurm” determiniert, in R mit “Pflanze” (und Plural-
strichen). Ein etymologischer Anschluß läßt sich—lautlich und auch
semasiologisch—bei †£m “bedecken, sich bedecken, /verhüllen” finden
mit den Ableitungen “Binde, Nachsicht, Vorhaut”, und dazu kopt. S
twlM “beschmieren, sich bedecken, /Verunreinigung”; dazu dann tnm
(geschr. dnm) aus griechischer Zeit “Schmutz”. Die Konsonantenfolge
n-m wechselt ja gern dissimilatorisch mit l-m, und daß £ für l stehen
kann, ist bekannt.
Das griechische dnm “Schmutz” ist Schreibung für eine Substantiv-
bildung vom Stamm †£m aus, wahrscheinlich der substantivierte Infini-
tiv. Damit kann aber unser t£mw nicht einfach identisch sein, auch
abgesehen von dem auslautenden -w; es hat wohl die Entwicklung von
† zu t mit ihm gemeinsam, doch die Determinierungen (Schlange/Wurm
und Pflanze) weisen auf eine semantische Spezialisierung: etwas, das
man als pflanzlich oder als tierisch ansehen kann. Das paßt nun sehr gut
zu “Schimmel”, und dies wiederum stimmt zu unserem Kontext, denn
hier stehen sich “Mann” und “ein Glied von ihm” gegenüber, und es
geht um Verderbnis, die das Ganze überziehen wird. Daher die vorge-
schlagene Übersetzung, in der gesagt wird, daß von einem verderbten
Teil (Zunge) aus dessen Ganzes (Mann) verdorben werden kann, so wie
29 Vgl. Leidener Amunshymnen, III 19: “es-gibt-keine-Kraft des-Krokodils (∞ntj), wenn-
sein-Name-ausgesprochen wird”.
256
das bei Verschimmelung ja tatsächlich geschieht. Ähnliche Aussagen zu

diesem Thema gibt es bekanntlich, z.B. “Lehre des Ani”, Max. 34:
whn.tw-rm† ¢r-ns.f “der-Mensch-wird-zerstört von/wegen-seiner-
Zunge”; in der “Lehre des Amenope” handeln zehn Stellen von der
Zunge.30—Die Syntax des Verses 85 ist verkürzt aus t£mw-pw n-z’
t£mw-™t-jm.f, wie man das aus Vergleichen kennt (Gardiner, Eg.Gr.
§ 506,4).
Nun folgt der Abschnitt Vers 86–89 mit dem Bezug Rensi–Richter.
Vers 87 wurde in jüngerer Zeit noch falsch übersetzt, doch sind die
beiden Schlüsselwörter inzwischen eindeutig nachweisbar: ™∂j steht im
Wb. 1, 240, 3 mit der etwas unklaren Übersetzung “reinigen”, weiterhin
deutlicher bei Junker, Gîza 11, 160f.; Newberry, Beni Hasan 2, 6; Helck,
Das Bier, 26; und v.a. CT VI, 283 s, wo ™∂j zusammen mit mndm
genannt ist: jw.f-r∞w rn / n-mndm-pw ™∂∂w-jm.f “er-weiß den-Namen /
jenes-Korbs, in-dem-er-geworfelt-wird.31 Zu mndm: P. Posener-Kriéger,
Les Archives… Néferirkarê-Kakaï 2, 374 (d), wo mndm als alter Konso-
nantenbestand gesichert ist. Das Verspaar ist nun verständlich: nur
wenn Rensi nicht selbst lügt, kann er die Beamten kontrollieren, wobei
das Bild des Worfelns als des Trennens von Brauchbarem und Unbrauch-
barem mit einem großen Korb gebraucht wird. Das nächste Verspaar
weist darauf hin, daß gerade das Lügen, das Rensi dringend zu vermeiden
hat, den Richter-Beamten aus Bequemlichkeit so lieb ist. Wir denken an
den Passus vor der Ersten Klage (B1 75–80), wo die Richter als Beisitzer
dem Rensi eine sehr bequeme, aber lügenhafte Entschuldigung für den
Überfall des Nemtinacht auf den “Bauern” anboten. Diese Richter
müssen in dem Korb-Sieb geworfelt werden, wie das im Bilde gesagt ist,
sonst greift die moralische Verschimmelung um sich.
Schließlich noch die letzten Verse, in denen der “Bauer” für sich
selbst bittet und fordert. Es scheint ihm widersinnig, daß Rensi, der kun-
digste aller Menschen, nun gerade von seiner, des “Bauern”, Angelegen-
heit nichts wissen sollte, daß er also nicht über die wirklichen
Begebenheiten informiert sein sollte?32 Dann fordert er ihn in zwei
Verspaaren auf—wie wissend oder unwissend Rensi auch sein mag—, er
30 Es sei noch verwiesen auf den Artikel in
LÄ und den Aufsatz von S. Herrmann, “Steuer-
ruder, Waage, Herz und Zunge in äg. Bildreden”, in: ZÄS 79 (1954), 106–15, dort auch der
Hinweis auf das Neue Testament, Jacobusbrief 3,1ff. Dort heißt es in 3,6: “So wirkt die
Zunge unter unseren Gliedern: sie befleckt den ganzen Leib…”.
31 Die Verstrennung nach “Name” ist in Ordnung, weil hier diese Formel des Kennens des
Namens oft hintereinander gebraucht ist, “er-weiß den-Namen” ist voranstehendes

Formular.
32 Ich glaube, daß ∞m m- eine ähnliche Sonderbedeutung hat wie r∞ m- (Wb. 2, 445, 6).
Einen schlüssigen zweiten Beleg für ∞m m- kann ich hier nicht darlegen (“falsch orientiert
sein über etwas”).
257
solle die ihm als Richter und großem Herrn zukommende Retterfunk-
tion ausüben. Hier sind drei Stellen bisher nicht richtig erfaßt. Das
jw(jw)—es muß PsP. sein—kann nicht “schifflos sein” meinen, denn der
“Bauer” hat nicht “einen Weg, der schifflos ist”. Vielmehr ist zu über-
setzen “abschneiden, abtrennen” (Wb. 1, 48,1). Es geht um den
“abgeschnittenen Weg”, den der “Bauer” hat, d.h. er steht auf einem
Weg, dessen Fortsetzung von der Flut weggespült ist, auf einem Damm-
weg also. Dieses Bild muß real oder imaginär jedem Ägypter präsent
gewesen sein.
Das seltene fldr im letzten Vers hat G. Burkard behandelt in seinem
Textkritische Untersuchungen zu äg. Weisheitslehren (Wiesbaden,
1977), S. 193.33 Er meint fälschlich, das Wort sei nur Ptahhotep, Dév. 10
(pPrisse) belegt. Dort steht s∂r-n.f fldr(w) r™w-nb. Stattdessen haben
(Dév. 15) L2 s∂r-jb rmj(w) r™w-nb und C s∂r-jb wrd(w) r™w-nb. Daß fldr
ein altertümliches Wort ist, das L2 und C, beide wohl Dyn. 18 (letzte Ab-
schrift!), nicht mehr kennen, ist evident. Umso interessanter ist es, daß
das Wort im “Bauern” vorkommt. Papyrus Prisse konnte ich—in seinem
Archetyp, nicht etwa die letzte, uns zufällig erhaltene Kopie—in das
Alte Reich datieren, sei es in Teilen, sei es als Ganzes.34 Burkard meint,
die Bedeutung könne aus dem Zusammenhang mit dem Determinativ
des “schlechten Vogels” annähernd erschlossen werden. Ich zitiere: “Es
ist eine bekannte Erscheinung, daß man mit zunehmendem Alter oft
weniger Schlafbedürfnis hat, man “schläft schlecht”. Das ist m.E. auch
hier gemeint, als Bedeutung ist daher “schwerfallen, schlecht sein” o.ä.
anzunehmen; s∂r ist Infinitiv, fldr Pseudopartizip; …”. Ich glaube nicht,
daß dieser Schluß richtig ist. Ich bin sicher, daß auch Burkard zurück-
haltender gewesen wäre, hätte er sich an die “Bauerngeschichte” erin-
nern können. Denn dort ist auch ein solcher schlichter erster
Rückschluß konkreter eingebunden und damit aussichtsreicher. Wenn
der “Bauer” in seiner Schlußermahnung zu Rensi sagt fldr.k-wj, so ist
die Vermutung, daß er damit etwas wie “rette mich” oder “rette mich
heraus” meint, sehr naheliegend. Und tatsächlich sind wir damit der
Grundbedeutung des Wortes sehr nahe. Die ägyptischen Wörter für
“retten” haben auch immer eine zweite Bedeutung: n¢m a) (fort)neh-
men, rauben b) retten; ßdj a) (fort)nehmen b) retten; ™w£j a) (fort)nehmen,
rauben b) versorgen (wohl aus *retten).35 Die Grundbedeutung dürfte—
grob geschätzt—einfaches “nehmen” sein, daraus Weiterentwicklung in
33 Später, aber mit demselben Deutungsversuch, in einem Aufsatz “Ptahhotep und das
Alter” in: ZÄS 115 (1988), S. 19–30. Er hält in beiden Arbeiten den Text des pPrisse, den
wir hier analysieren, in der Abfolge der Verse für verderbt, er geht von L2 und C aus. Der
Beleg für fldr aus dem “Bauer” fehlt auch im ZÄS-Aufsatz.
34 Siehe meinen oben, Anm. 7, genannten Aufsatz.
258
zwei Richtungen: “wegnehmen, fortnehmen, rauben” einerseits,

“herausnehmen, retten” andererseits. Die Variante “retten” haben wir
im “Bauer”, Vers 95. Die Variante “wegnehmen, fortnehmen” in Ptah-
hotep, denn ein Aspekt des Schlafens ist im Ägyptischen das “Fortge-
nommensein”. Ich habe in SAK 1 (1974), S. 186f. gezeigt, daß s∂r
“schlafen” ursprünglich als Zustandsverbum “ferngehalten sein,
entrückt sein” heißt. Die Schlafenden befinden sich bekanntlich nach
ägyptischer Auffassung im Jenseits, der Unterwelt, bei den Toten.36 So
nennt sich Ptahhotep als altersschwacher Mann “entrückt”, d.h. er
schläft infolge der j¢w “Kindesschwäche” auch am Tag gelegentlich ein,
so wie das bei kleinen Kindern zu sein pflegt. Dieses Vor-sich-hin-
dämmern in Benommenheit, etwa: nach dem Essen, ist gewiß ein
Problem des Tags! Im Kontext ist der betreffende Vers Ende einer Teil-
strophe. Doch um Unsicherheiten auszuräumen, ist es wohl richtig, die
erste große Strophe zu dreißig Versen zu umschreiben. Es ist nämlich
auch hier möglich, ein wenig aus dem Zusammenhang zu schließen,
aber nur, wenn dieser Zusammenhang der ägyptische ist, d.h. als Mini-
mum zunächst einmal der metrische. Um mich so knapp wie möglich
zu halten, verzichte ich weitgehend auf die Übersetzung, wo um-
schreibende Inhaltsangabe wichtiger ist.
Ptahhotep, pPrisse, Dév. 1ff. (Metrik des AR und der 1.ZZ.–
Nordreich):
30 4 2 sb£jjt nt-jmj-r£-nwt Einleitung der Lehre

2 †£tj Pt¢¢tpw
3 ∞r-¢m n-jnzwbjt;Jzzj:
3 ™n∞w ∂t r-n¢¢
20 2 3 jmj-r£-nwt †£tj Pt¢¢tpw Einleitung der Rede
3 ∂d.f jtjw nb.j
5 2 tnj ∞prw Altersschwäche wegen Beginn der
Altersrede:
2 j£wj h£w Alter
3 2 wgg jwjw somit Minderung, die Alter = Schwäche
führt
2 j¢w ¢r-m£wj zu Erneuerung von Kindesschwäche
3 s∂r-n.f fldr(w) r™w-nb d.h. Schlafen am Tag wie Kind37
35 Weitere Belege: Wb. 1, 249,1 (Chassinat, Edfou 2, 200, 2); CT III, 345b; Graefe, MDAIK
31 (1975), S. 214; BiOr 35 (1978), S. 60; Fecht, MDAIK 24 (1969), S. 125f.
36 De Buck, De godsdienstige opvatting van den slaap, MVEOL 4; E. Otto, Mundöffnungs-
ritual 2, 57f.; ◊ern≈–Gardiner, HO 1, pl. 37 ro, 6f.
259
6 3 2 jrtj n∂sw Augen

2 ™n∞wj jmrw Ohren physische
3 p¢tj ¢r-£q n- Kraft
wrd-jb
3 3 r£ gr(w) n- Mund/Rede Fähigkeiten
mdw.n.f lassen nach
2 jb tmw Intelligenz geistige
2 n-s∞£.n.f sf Gedächtnis
5 3 3 qs mn-n.f n- Knochen: Rheuma =

£ww unbeweglich
3 bw-nfr ∞pr(w) “Gutes”: Sexuali-
m-bw-bjn tät(?)
2 dpt-nbt ßm.tj Schmecken Genußunfähigkeit
2 jrr(w)t-j£wj n- Folgen des Alters
rm†w
2 bjn(w) m-j∞t- sind übel, kein
nbt Genuß
2 3 fn∂ ∂b£(w) ń- Kurzatmigkeit Schluß der
ssn.n.f bei Altersrede:
2 n-tnw-™¢™ jeglicher
¢mst Bewegung = Dienstunfähigkeit
6 3 3 w∂.tw n-b£k-jm jrt-mdw-j£wj Stab des Alters

2 j∞-∂d.j-n.f mdww-s∂mjjw Lehrprogramm: Worte der
jetzt Hörenden,
3 s∞rw-jmjw-¢£t p£w-s∂m n-n†rw Gedanken der einst auf
Könige Hörenden,
3 2 j∞-jrj.tw-n.k mjtt damit auf den jetzigen
König gehört wird,
2 dr.tw-ßnw m-r∞jjt damit die Untertanen
2 b£k-n.k jdbwj und das ganze Land sich
gebührend verhalten
Man sieht nun, wie das “entrückt” oder “benommen” für fldr(w)
sich in den bewußten Zusammenhang einfügt. Auch grammatisch ist
klar, daß fldr(w) nicht, wie Burkard wollte, Pseudopartizip sein kann,
denn damit verliert das Suffix von n.f seinen Bezug, weil fldr(w) hier als
passives Partizip Subjekt ist.—Die Altersschilderung ist natürlich
topisch.
Das letzte Wort, das in der “Bauerngeschichte” offenbar Schwierig-
keiten macht, ist merkwürdigerweise ∂rw “Bereich” (Wb. 5, 586, 8–11
und öfters darüber hinaus). Das sinnvolle Spiel mit den Worten “meine
37 fldr(w) ist pass. Part.: “der Entrückte”.
260
Angelegenheit” (h£w.j, Vers 91) und “Angelegenheit, die zu deinem

Bereich gehört” (h£w jrj-∂rw.k, Vers 95), ist nicht zu übersehen. Es bildet
den eindrücklichen und rhetorisch überzeugenden Abschluß der
zweiten Klage.
Die Gesamtzahl der Verse ist 95 (5 mal 19). Die beiden großen
Themenkreise, die “Teile”, aus denen die Klage besteht, haben jeweils
die Gesamtverszahlen 38 (= 2 mal 19) und 57 (= 3 mal 19). Zwischen den
möglichen Teilungen 35:60 (dies fairerweise gewählt, weil der kleinere
Teil hier 38 ist) und 47:48 inclusive liegen dreizehn Möglichkeiten,
davon keine so angenehm einfach passend ist wie unsere 2:3-Auf-
gliederung.
Der erste Teil ist gegliedert: 35 (5 mal 7) und 3 (Unterbrechung durch
Rensi, Trennung der beiden Teile), die 35 Verse wiederum in 12–11–12.
Der zweite Teil ist gegliedert in 44 (zweites Thema) und 13 (Schlußer-
mahnung), die 44 Verse wieder in 22–22, diese beiden 22 in 7–15 und 15–
7, diese beiden 15 in 7–8 und 8–7. Die Schlußermahnung fällt dagegen
mit ihren 7 (3–4) und 6 (2–4) Versen etwas ab. Andere Redaktoren mögen
andere Lösungen gefunden haben. R weicht von B1, soweit erhalten, im
Schlußteil, aber auch in B1 152 ab. Leider ist von R nicht genügend
vorhanden, um die Gliederung zu erfassen.
Exkurs
Wegen der Bedeutsamkeit, die den Versen mit vier Kola im Redebeginn
zukommt, muß ich hier noch auf den Aufsatz von J. Osing,“ Die Worte
von Heliopolis”, in: Fontes atque Pontes, FS H. Brunner (Wiesbaden,
1983), S. 347ff. eingehen, der (S. 358, Anm. 29) fälschlich meint, zwei
Vierheber ansetzen zu müssen. Ich gebe meine Umschreibung des
Textes, also des Gebetes an Amon-(Re™), sodann Osings und meine Über-
setzung. Selbstverständlich bauen meine Beiträge auf Osings Leistung in
Lesung und Übersetzung auf. Es geht um die angeblichen Vierheber und
damit um die Gliederung des Gebets, und das heißt eben auch um die
gedankliche Gliederung.
Zunächst meine Umschreibung des Textes:
261
∂d-mdwww:
8 4 2 j-b£-ßpsj wtt-n†rw
2 jtjj n-qm£.n.f
2 rnp{tw}-n¢¢ nb-∂t
3 jmj.sn m-h£-sn∂ n-¢k£{m}w.f
4 3 ∞j-pw rnp-sw r-nw.f
2 £t{t}.n-Nwt r-trwj
3 dw£.tw r-n¢t.f r™-nb
2 ∞pr-k£t-nb jw-¢r-¢r.f
14 5 2 w∂-jrt jwtj-flnn.f
2 n-n†rw mj-rm†w
2 r-∞pr m-™(w.w)
3 Jwnw ¢r-m£r.f-¢™∂£ m-™-∞£swt
3 km(w)-rnpt w¢m.n.s-wpt n-jwd.n-∞£rww-¢r.f
4 2 wnn-t£ß.k r-r£-™-¢ptj
2 r-∂rw-†£w w£∂-wr
2 jn-jw-£r-tw m-∞nd.k
2 njs-n.k ¢£tjw-nbwt
5 2 mk£.tw ∞ft-s∂m.tw
2 tw£-tw Kmt-¢r.s
2 Ìq£-™∂ dmj(t).k-tn
2 Jwnwjj ¢q£-¢q£jj
3 nn-n¢t n-∞m.n.k-r.s wpw-zp-flzj
Ich lese das von Osing ungedeutete Wort in Vers 3 rnp{tw},

möglicherweise auch rnp.tw für rnp.tj, im Anschluß an die drei von
Osing vorgeschlagenen Lesungen. Die Wortverbindung ist zwar bisher
nicht belegt, aber ist doch evident richtig im ägyptischen Sinne. Der
Sonnengott macht die in periodischer Gliederung zu verwirklichende,
aktive Zeit (n¢¢) durch seine periodisch unendliche Aktivität—also
durch seine Tat—stets wieder jung, wie auch das Jahr rnpt “das Junge”
heißt, weil jedes neue Jahr als eine große Zeiteinheit neu und jung her-
beigebracht wird. Der Gott kann rnpj-n¢¢ sein, weil er Herr der ∂t-
Ewigkeit/Zeit ist, des ungegliederten, passiven, potentiellen Zeit-
Vorrats, der also “raumhaft” ist, aber nicht Raum. Das Nebeneinander
von rnp-n¢¢ und nb-∂t ist daher zwar nicht zu “erwarten”, es ist aber
sehr sinnvoll. Es mag mit der unbekannten Sonnen-Theologie von
Heliopolis verbunden sein.
Ich gebe Osings Übersetzung und damit Gliederung; die Umschrift
entspricht, sie erübrigt sich. Mit Ausnahme des eben erklärten rnp habe
ich ja Osings Umschreibung übernommen. Osing wendet meine Metrik
262
an, leider wie verbreitet ohne Kola-Striche, doch meint er zwei Vier-
heber finden zu müssen. Ich setze, was Osing nicht tat, über die
Gliederungseinheiten als Überschriften Osings Formulierungen, die ich
seinem Text wörtlich entnehme.
“Anbetung in der 2. Ps. (Vers 1–4)”

Worte sprechen: O erhabener Ba, der die Götter erzeugte,
Herrscher dessen, was er erschaffen hat,
? Ewigkeit, Herr der Unendlichkeit,
für dessen Zauberkraft das, was darin ist, Verehrung bezeugt!
“Prädikationen Amuns in der 3. Ps. (Vers 5–12)”

Er ist ein Kind, das sich zu seiner Zeit verjüngt,
das Nut gewartet hat Tag und Nacht.
Man ist früh auf, um zu ihm zu beten, jeden Tag,
und es geschieht alle Arbeit, indem das Gesicht auf ihn gerichtet ist.
Der zu tun gebietet, ungestört,
den Göttern und Menschen, damit dadurch etwas geschieht:
Heliopolis sagt: ‘möge er beseitigen das Rauben von Seiten der Fremdländer,
da nun das Jahr beendet ist und wieder den Scheitelpunkt erreicht hat, ohne
daß die Syrer davon ablassen.’
“Die eigentliche Bitte an den Gott wieder in der 2. Ps. (Vers 13–20)”
Sowahr deine Grenze bis zum Ende der Welt geht,
soweit Wind und Meer reichen,
sollen dich bedrängen an deinem Thron
und zu dir rufen die Nordvölker?
Möge man aufmerksam hören!
Darum geht dich Ägypten an, der Gau von Heliopolis und diese deine Stadt.
Du von Heliopolis, Herrscher der Herrscher,
nicht gibt es eine Bitte, welche du ignoriert hättest, einen unwürdigen Fall
ausgenommen.
Ich lasse nun meine Übersetzung folgen.
Vers 1–8: Theologische Grundlage der Bitte, erst in der 2. Ps. (Anrede), dann
in der 3. Ps. (die theologische Ausführung): Ältester und doch ewig
jung und stark, Urgott und doch als Sonnengott sich stets zum
Kind verjüngend, Ziel der Gebete, auf dessen Licht alles Wirken
angewiesen ist.
8 4 2 2 O-erhabener-Ba, der-die-Götter-erzeugte,
2 Herrscher-dessen, was-er-erschaffen-hat,
2 2 der-verjüngt-die-Ewigkeit, Herr-der-Unendlichkeit,
3 für-dessen-Zauberkraft das-was-darin-ist Verehrung-bezeugt!
263
4 2 3 Er-ist-ein-Kind, das-sich-verjüngt zu-seiner-Zeit,

2 das-Nut-gewartet-hat Tag-und-Nacht.
3 Man-ist-früh-auf, um-zu-ihm-zu-beten, jeden-Tag,
2 und-es-geschieht-alles-Werk, indem-das-Gesicht-auf-ihn-
gerichtet-ist.
Vers 9–22: Auf die Preisung folgt das Gebet, eingeleitet mit einer Fest-
stellung, die den Angerufenen als denjenigen ausweist, der
hier einspringen muß.
14 5 3 2 Der-du-zu-handeln-gebietest, ungestört,
2 den-Göttern und-den-Menschen,
2 damit-etwas-geschieht durch-sie!
2 3 Heliopolis-sagt: ‘möge-er-beseitigen-das-Rauben von-seiten-
der-Fremdländer,
3 da-nun-das-Jahr-beendet-ist und-wieder-den-Scheitelpunkt-
erreicht-hat, ohne-daß-die-Syrer-davon-ablassen!’
4 2 2 Sowahr-deine-Grenze bis-ans-Ende-der-Welt-geht,
2 soweit-Wind und-Meer-reichen,
2 2 sollen-dich-bedrängen an-deinem-Thron
2 und-zu-dir-rufen die-Nordvölker?
5 3 2 Möge-man-aufmerksam-sein, indem-man-zuhört(= erhört):

2 Ägypten geht-dich-darum-an,
2 der-Gau-von-Heliopolis und-diese-deine-Stadt!
2 2 Du-von-Heliopolis, Herrscher-der-Herrscher,
3 es-gibt-ja-keine-Bitte, welche-du-je-übergangen-hättest, mit-
Ausnahme-eines-unwürdigen-Falles!
Das Gebet hat 22 Verse (8+14) und 50 Kola. Für die Annahme von
Vierhebern gibt es keinen Grund. Die Verspaare sind nicht durchgängig,
sie sind angenehm aufgelockert durch die Dreiergruppen Vers 9–11 (2+1)
und Vers 18–20 (1+2); dabei sind alle Verse “relative Sinneinheiten”, so
wie auch Verspaare, Dreiergruppen, und selten selbst Einzelverse “rela-
tive Sinneinheiten” sind. Als Beispiele für solche Einzelverse sind in der
Zweiten Klage des “Bauern” z.B. die Verse 42 und 78 zu nennen.
Es gibt nur eine Bitte: in der ersten 5-Verse-Strophe, in Vers 12/13,
und es gibt eine Bitte um Erhörung dieser Bitte: in der zweiten 5-Verse-
Strophe, in Vers 18–20, und darauf folgt der Vortrag der Überzeugung,
daß diese Bitte als eine würdige erhört werde.
Ich kenne aus der Zeit nach der 1.ZZ. und dem MR einen Vierheber
im großen Amarnahymnus (Grab des Aja, M. Sandman, Texts from the
264
time of Akhenaten [Brüssel, 1938], S. 95, 8): ¢™pj jjj.f m-dw£t n-t£-mrj.
Dahinter kann ein Fehler stehen. Der Hymnus ist nur einmal über-
liefert, merkwürdig ist die Nennung der Duat. Vielleicht wollte aber
auch der königliche Verfasser seine Kenntnis alter Literatur ins Spiel
bringen, ohne freilich die Beschränkung der Vierheber auf den Rede-
beginn erkannt zu haben. In zwei Zweiheber aufzulösen ist der Vers
nicht, das zeigt u.a. die Großgliederung, die noch unpubliziert ist.—
Scheinbare Vierheber gibt es in den Leidener Amunshymnen (Zandee,
De Hymnen aan Amon van Pap. Leid. 1, 350 [Leiden, 1948]) in größerer
Zahl, wenn man die Verspunkte ernstnimmt, die aber nur bis Z. 11 der
zweitletzten Kolumne reichen, was auf Unfertigkeit oder auch Bewußt-
sein eigener Unfähigkeit hinweist, und die nicht alle richtig gesetzt
sind, besonders bei den Dreiverse-Gruppen. In den drei von mir metrisch
publizierten “Kapiteln” (ZÄS 91 [1964], S. 37–52) weisen zwei “Kapitel”
je einen Fehler auf. Natürlich gibt es (selten) Univerbierungen (feste
Genetive, einsilbiges Nomen regens), z.B. Km-n-£t “Augenblick” (Typ ™t-
nt-∞t, zp-n-jwtj, ¢m-n-, k£-n-, gs-n-jtrw etc.); in IV 21 ist Jmnw-R™w-Pt¢
eine Hebung, die drei werden ja als Eins gesehen. Das einzige wirkliche
Problem stellen Sätze wie II, 5 dar: pt m-nbw nwn m-∞sbd “der-Himmel
ist-Gold, der-Nun ist-Lapislazuli”, die in diesem Text gewertet werden
können als pt-m-nbw nwn-m-∞sbd, was die Gliederung überzeugend
zeigt. Daß hier aber das “größte Problem” (Regelliste I 5 in: Fecht,
Literarische Zeugnisse, S. 34f.) als Störfaktor wirkt, ist leicht zu erken-
nen. In einer Zeit, als die Metrik erlernt werden musste (von wievielen
Schreibern? Wie gut?), weil der Satzakzent sich in Richtung auf das
Koptische hin verändert hatte, dürfte z.B. die umgangsprachliche (neu-
ägyptische) Vorform des koptischen prwme swtm, also p£-rm† ¢r/m-
s∂m, als ein einziges Kolon gesprochen worden sein, während in der (tra-
ditionellen) Metrik noch zwei Kola gemessen wurden, wie die gesamte
Masse der metrischen, mehr oder weniger neuägyptischen Texte zeigt.
Daher ja die Verspunkte, die aber verständlicherweise längst nicht alle
richtig gesetzt sind. Daß damals die Phrase rmjw ¢r-jtrw oder rmjw-¢r-
jtrw (Regelliste I 5) “die-Fische(-)im-Fluß” per nefas übertragen werden
konnte auf das schriftlich damit identische “die-Fische(-!)sind-im-
Fluß”/“während-die-Fische(-!)im-Fluß-sind”, statt richtiger “die-Fische
sind-im-Fluß”, das liegt nahe. Wie weit der Verfasser der Hymnen (nicht
der Punkte-Schreiber) diese Ausweitung getrieben hat, muß die Einzel-
untersuchung bei eindeutiger Gliederung zeigen. (Ich habe darüber vor
Jahrzehnten mit Kollegen Derchain einen Briefwechsel geführt.) Wenn
III 4 K£-¢r-nwt.f m£j-¢r-rm†w.f richtig war, konnte von einem
“papierenen” Theoretiker auch III 19 †£w ¢r-∞sf sbj ¢r-™n
265
fälschlicherweise als Zweiheber gedeutet werden. Bei Schlüßen auf

Metrik aus Texten der Ramessidenzeit ist Vorsicht angebracht (vgl. z.B.
Fecht, “Das Poème über die Qadeß-Schlacht”, Fs. Helck = SAK 11 [1984],
S. 291f., 300, 309f., 324f.).
Postscript
Da oben die Zahl der Kola des Gebets aus Heliopolis (50) erwähnt wurde,
seien die entsprechenden Zahlen der Kola der Zweiten Klage des
“Bauern” hier noch nachgetragen.
Klage, Erstes Thema = 84 = 6 mal 14

Klage, Zweites Thema = 102 = 6 mal 17
Schlußermahnung = 30 = 6 mal 5
Insgesamt: 6 mal 36 = 6 mal 6 mal 6 (bzw. 8 mal 3 mal 9
oder 9 mal 3 mal 8) = 216 Kola
Diese Zahlen sind objektiv existent, sie sind richtig errechnet, sie sind
wissenschaftliche Fakten. Beurteilen mag sie jeder so, wie es ihm gefällt.
Daß Lesung, Umschreibung, Übersetzung nicht manipuliert sind, um
irgendwie interessante Zahlen vorzutäuschen, das muß jeder erkannt
haben. Gewiß sieht das alles nach Zahlenspielerei aus, doch “gespielt”
ist hier eben nichts. Deshalb kurz zu den Zahlen: 6: vgl. die “sechs
hohen Gerichtshöfe” (seit AR), Wb. 3, 4, 9–10; 7 (in: 14), 8, 9: das sind
die beliebtesten bedeutsamen Zahlen, jeder kennt sie im Bereich der
ägyptischen Religion, in der Metrik findet man immer wieder an ent-
scheidenden Stellen diese Zahlen; 17 ist beliebt, weil darin 7, 8 und 9
sich finden, 7 in Aussprache und Schreibung, 8 + 9 als Summanden. Ich
habe über all das geschrieben. Aber suum cuique, mit richtig oder falsch
in Übersetzung und Deutung haben diese Zahlen nichts zu tun.
b
266
18 FISCHER Page 267 Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:23 PM
Notes on Some Texts of the

Old Kingdom and Later
Henry G. Fischer
T
he following notes are offered as a token of appreciation,
however small, to the inaugurator of the splendid Giza Mastabas
series, and author of several other most useful publications con-
cerning the Old Kingdom. These remarks are not presented in chrono-
logical order, but rather in what I conceive to be their order of interest.
1. Another fragment from Coptos

The recent publication of an inscription from Coptos, Cairo JE 43290,1
may be supplemented by a fragment of identical date, provenance and
material, published by Petrie nearly a century ago (fig. 1).2 Like the larg-
er fragment in Cairo, this lists a series of items used in the temple rites;
and, although only a few signs of the three entries shown here are pre-
served, all may be restored, to some extent, from the larger fragment:
1. [∞t]-∞£sw “imported wood” (= Cairo IV, 1–2)
2. [ßps]t “ßpst vessel” (= Cairo I, 3–4)
3. £bw ™ m[-∞t] “ivory censer” (= Cairo I, 9)
The only new feature is that, in the last case, the material is not cop-
per, but “ivory.” The third sign of this word, the phonetic complement
of £b is ¢ , Gardiner’s Sign List, W 8, which he dates to Dynasty 11.3
The form of the censer is noteworthy for the same reason; there is
scarcely any other evidence for the armlike extension before the
Eleventh Dynasty.4
1 Hans Goedicke, “A Cult Inventory of the Eighth Dynasty from Coptos,” MDAIK 50
(1994), pp. 71–84.
2 W.M. Flinders Petrie, Koptos (London, 1896), pl. 12 (1). On p. 12 it is described as “a piece
of a basalt stela referring to officials of the temple and naming the month Epiphi,” and is
dated “after the XIIth dynasty.” There is no mention of it in PM V, and its present location
is unknown to me.
3 Although the sign begins to have this form as early as Dynasty 6: , on the lower
architrave above the false door of Q£r in the Cairo Museum (drawn from a photograph); cf.
Urk. I, 253 (7).
4 The example I have attributed to Dynasty 6 in JARCE 2 (1963), pp. 29–30 and fig. 1, has
now been redated to a point decidedly later than the Old Kingdom: Fischer, Dendera,
pp. 87, 170ff.
Fig. 1. Fragment of a decree from Coptos.
268
Henry G. Fischer, Notes on Some Texts of the Old Kingdom and Later
The interpretation of the remainder of the inscription raises several

questions because of its incompleteness, but the disparate phrases may
be translated as follows:
1 … as for any of the ∞nrt-people of the temple …a

2 … on behalf ofb the hereditary prince, the king’s son, the lector priest,
director of those in whom the gods are(?),c the overseer [of priests …
NN]d …
3 … It happened that the majesty of this gode came by water …
4 … [Year 1,]f third month of summer, day 1, accompanied …
5 … I have exempted the priests of this templeg from(?)h …
6 … in this temple formerly. I acquired chestsi of …
7 … for their sons’ sons, for their childrens’ children …
a In line 5 of the Cairo fragment this term for the temple personnel appears in the mas-
culine form ∞nrw.
b The initial ¢r-tp cannot belong to a title, for such a title would not take precedence over
the exalted titles that follow.

c For this title see Junker, Giza XI, p. 84.
d The first two titles are identical to those of the Ìtp-k£-Mnw of the Cairo fragment; he is
given none of the other titles listed here, but was undoubtedly the overseer of the priests
of Min, since that document was made in the presence of the inspectors of priests, imply-
ing that he was their superior. Quite possibly the same person is involved in both cases.
e It seems questionable whether the phrase “majesty of this god” would have been applied
to the king at so early a date as this fragment must be (cf. Goedicke, Die Stellung des
Konigs im Alten Reich [Wiesbaden, 1960], p. 41). One of the Eighth Dynasty Coptos
decrees mentions the making of a boat of Wsry, “Two Powerful Ones,” (Urk. I, 298),
doubtless referring to the twin gods of the nome, for which see my Coptite Nome, pp. 3,
46; and the passage under consideration may refer to the return of such a vessel from a
ceremonial voyage to visit a neighboring divinity. Alternatively, it might concern the visit
of a divine bark from a temple located elsewhere (discussed in Fischer, Dendera, pp. 125–
26).
f It hardly seems possible that the copy has misread fi
DF. The numeral is omitted in “first
year,” just as it is on the Cairo fragment.
g One would normally expect an exemption of this kind to be executed by the king, but
in this case one might expect the subject to be ¢m.¡ “my majesty.” Furthermore the fol-
lowing phrases, in the next line, seem more suited to the boasts of a non-royal person,
especially the statement concerning the acquisition of chests of goods, even though these
were evidently acquired for the temple. The exemption of the temple priesthood therefore
seems to be decreed by the overseer of priests himself.
h Reading m-™; but this group could be mk¡ “protect.”
i There is little doubt about the reading of hnw, despite the odd substitution of P for #.
The same substitution apparently occurs in the list of offerings on the Cairo stela (col. III,
6) where ™3 Pµ is evidently to be read mhr “milk vessel,” which, despite Wb. II, 115, is
attested as early as Dynasty 6 (Urk. I, 254, [15]). The reading mr could also be applied to a
jar for milk, but it seems doubtful that P was used as a phonetic complement as early as
the presumed date of the two Coptite fragments; as Gardiner notes (EG, Sign List, O 5),
this use follows its employment as a determinative in a Dynasty 12 occurrence of mrrt
“street.”
269
The large hieroglyphs at the bottom of the fragment are perplexing.

If the pair of strokes beneath Z
is correct, and not a mistake for or m
‹ , this word must be ¡m£∞y “revered,” written in a way that would be
unexpected much before the Eleventh Dynasty. The word nb would
then belong to the preceding sign rather than to nb ¡m£∞ “possesor of
reverence.” All of the signs face left, evidently belonging to the same
person, the individual for whom the stela was made, who addresses a
representation of the local god, or simply faces his temple, located be-
yond the stela.5 They most surprisingly seem to attribute to this individ-
ual a royal epithet, “given… all(?) dominion,” as well as the non-royal
epithet ¡m£∞y, or nb ¡m£∞ and this “revered” person is presumably the
overseer of priests.6
It is clear that the fragment, along with its counterpart in Cairo, is
to be dated beyond the end of the Eighth Dynasty, when the power of the
king had waned considerably in the southernmost provinces. Goedicke
has assigned the Cairo fragment to that dynasty, but while he rightly
compares the basalt false door of Wsr, who has similar titles, he ignores
indications that place the false door later, towards the end of the Hera-
cleopolitan Period.7 In the present case this late a date is confirmed not
only by the presumptuous combination of epithets that has just been
considered, but also the mention of the armlike censer and the sign for
£b; perhaps too the substitution of the sign P
in place of .8 #
2. Some links between u.e. nomes 7 and 14
Thanks to Torgny Säve-Söderbergh’s new publication,9 it is now possi-
ble to make a clearer comparison between the Sixth Dynasty tomb chap-
els of the cemetery hitherto known as Qasr es-Sayyad and those of other
sites. The excellent workmanship of the tombs at Meir seem to have
been a particular source of inspiration, even though the craftsmen fur-
ther upstream were somewhat less adroit. Among the motifs that were
borrowed, one may note, in the chapel of ⁄dw/Snn¡,10 the female figure,
5 Cf. my Orientation of Hieroglyphs (New York, 1977), pp. 20–25.
6 The closest parallel that occurs to me, as far as this period is concerned, is the addition,
to the names of nomarchs, of such tags as “life, prosperity, health,” “living for ever and
ever,” and “protection and life about him like Re for ever and ever:” Anthes, Hatnub,
passim. The last phrase is also adopted, in the Twelfth Dynasty, by the vainglorious W∞-
¢tp (Blackman, Meir VI, pp. 26, 28 and pl. 13), as well as an even more presumptuous state-
ment (p. 35 and pl. 17).
7 See my Coptite Nome, pp. 40–41; Dendera, p. 75, n. 307, p. 89 (13, 14).
8 Another late feature is the addition of a pair of arms to the signs and , which is
attested in the Eighth Dynasty Coptos Decrees: ibid., fig. 23 (6) on p. 133.
9 The Old Kingdom Cemetery at Hamra Dom (EL-Qasr wa es-Saiyad) (Stockholm, 1994).
10 Ibid., pl. 8, and Blackman, Meir V, pl. 28.
270
presumably the owner’s wife, who accompanies her husband in a

fowling scene; she points to the bird she wishes him to bring down and
emphasizes her request with the words “as you live for me!”11
The tomb of Ê£wty shows an even more striking borrowing from
Meir. A series of attendants carry small shrines of peculiar form, con-
taining jars as well as a standing figure of the owner.12 They are followed
by more attendants, carrying portable chests of cloth, and they echo
phrases such as “ho! cloth that is praised by Ê£wty!” The most elaborate
of these phrases rings an interesting change on the parallel at Meir, and
one that requires the latter to be reconsidered. The two versions13 are as
follows:
Q.S.
› 2fi Á‹
u``¡ !xxx~¡‹ ¢⁄§M‹@fi¤ fi
~¡¢ 2 „I TTT
Meir
›( I 2 m % ‹ Á‹
~¡¢ 2 „u``¡!
fi x m m ™ ¤ £ ¡< @
fi ¤fi TT
Blackman translates his version: “Any brightness which the nobles see
in the darkness is due to the cloth.”14 This interpretation is precluded
by the second version, in which “darkness” is paralleled by “lapis,” pre-
sumably because of the darkness of that stone. The correct translation
is evidently: “Any brightness that the patricians see is as darkness com-
pared to my cloth,” and: “Any brightness that the patricians see, it is
lapis compared to my cloth.”15 As Gardiner notes (EG, p. 129), the basic
meaning of the preposition ∞ft is “face to face with,” i.e., vis-à-vis. A
rather similar Old Kingdom example of this preposition, expressing
contrast, is:
$ ^ fi
'F ‹@
2 ¡ )` ™x„ fi ˙¡¢
“I never inflicted evil on a man, despite my power.”16
11 The scene at Meir, like many other motifs in its tomb chapels, occurs in the mastaba of
Mereruka at Saqqara, where the wife’s words similarly conclude with an “oath of assever-
ation:” discussed in ZÄS 105 (1978), pp. 44–47; 107 (1980), p. 86.
12 Säve-Söderbergh, op. cit., pl. 15; Meir V, pls. 19, 26. Also Duell, Mereruka, pl. 87 (lacking
the figurine), Smith, Sculpture, fig. 80, Jéquier, Tombeaux, p. 108, fig. 122.
13 Säve-Söderbergh, op. cit., pl. 17, and Meir V, pl. 26.
14 Ibid., p. 33.
15 Cf. Shakespeare, Midsummer-Night’s Dream, 3.2.141, where a woman’s hand is so
white that it turns snow to crow.

16 Urk. I, 72 (6–7). Although Edel does not note this use among those specified for ∞ft in
his Altäg. Gramm., § 766, he translates this passage much as I do in § 717: “...obwohl ich
dazu die Macht gehabt hätte.”
271
3. An ostracon from Helwan

The ostracon shown in fig. 2 is one of a pair published by Hans Goedicke
under the title “Two Lost Old Kingdom Ostraca,”17 on the basis of
photographs found among the papers of Bernard Grdseloff in 1958, or
somewhat earlier. They were not in fact lost, but are in the Cairo
Museum, where they bear the Journal d’Entrée numbers 88555 (shown
here) and 87192. I made copies of both of them in 1956, along with those
I have discussed in Orientalia 29 (1960), pp. 187–90, and Goedicke dis-
cussed this one with me at the museum when he came upon me at work.
On that occasion he thought that the place named in the heading should
be read Nst-Ìr “Throne of Horus.” I think he is right in abandoning
fi this
idea, but cannot agree with his present transcription: ∞√
< . The third
sign is indeed Ø <
, and not , while the first one is @
. His attempt to
see the presumed gst as a variant spelling of g¢st “gazelle” is therefore
to no purpose.
In view of the fact that the final Ø
can hardly be “Horus,” which
would be written Ø
£3
,or more probably Y
,18 the only interpretation
of Ôr-st-¢r that occurs to me is “under (my?) supervision.” Although
flr-st-¢r is not known to have replaced flr-¢r in this sense prior to the
Middle Kingdom (Wb. III, 316 [6]), some similar st-compounds were in
use earlier (Edel, Altäg. Gramm., § 260), and so the present example
would not be anomalous. For other toponyms introduced by flr one may
compare @ï and @p.19
Goedicke’s reading of the feminine name is likewise untenable, for
the first sign is not
O j
but . Pflr.s is not attested from other sources,
but a feminine name Pflr-nfrt is known from Dynasty 6,20 while Pflrt
(Ranke, PN I, 136.4 ) is attested for the Middle Kingdom, and from the
Old Kingdom we have its masculine counterpart Pflr (ibid., 420.14). The
name Pflr.s evidently identifies the mother of the deceased, who is men-
tioned thereafter. His rather unusual name, Ìbs, is likewise unknown
elsewhere.21 Both these names, like many others,22 may refer to the cir-
cumstances of birth; the first would then mean “she turns about” (par-
0 6
cm
17 Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen
Nationalbibliothek Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (Vienna, 1983), pp. 155–164.
18 Among the many names of estates mentioning Horus that are listed by Helen Jac- Fig. 2. Cairo ostracon JE 88555, from
Helwan.
quet-Gordon, Domaines, p. 480, only three have the phonetic writing: pp. 189, 383, 392.
The phonetic writing is usual in non-royal personal names, but is scarcely ever reduced to
Ø; for one such exception see Ranke, PN II, 296(1).
19 Karola Zibelius, Ägyptische Siedlungen nach Texten des Alten Reiches (Wiesbaden,
1978), pp. 192–194.

20 Incorrectly listed as Pflrt-nfrt by Ranke, PN II, 136(5); this misreading is explained in my
Egyptian Studies III: Varia Nova (New York, 1996), p. 66, n. 173.
272
alleled by “the beauty turns about”) and the second “one who is hidden”
(i.e., whose head is hidden by the caul).
Although I feel doubtful about the precise form of the final determi-
native, Goedicke is probably right in concluding that the orientation of
the outstretched human figure is reversed.23 This reversal is quite unex-
pected, for the recumbent figure of a corpse is normally shown with the
head forward.24 It should also be noted that a stream of blood appears to
emerge from the head—a detail that is known from one of the Helwan
ostraca published formerly.25
It does not seem necessary to comment on Goedicke’s lengthy
discussion of the “East Nome,” which is mentioned as the region in
which Ôr-st-¢r was located, except to express disagreement with his
conclusion that it likewise designates the province in which Helwan
was situated.
4. The reading of the Old Kingdom sign for “weaver”

I have already acknowledged in Egyptian Studies III: Varia Nova (New
York, 1996), p. 239, that the Old Kingdom sign representing a female
weaver cannot be read ¡n™t, as I had previously deduced, since ¡n™t is a
distinctively different title. That does not mean, however, that one
should revert to the reading ¡rjt, proposed earlier by Junker,26 for there
is further evidence that strongly favors another solution.
That evidence is provided by the meticulous drawings in Christiane
Ziegler’s Le Mastaba d’Akhethetep (Paris, 1993), p. 176, where the
object held in the lap of the seated woman is delineated in greater detail
than in any other example known to me (fig. 3).27 The object cannot be
a shuttle, as I have suggested elsewhere,28 nor can it be a spindle ( : j
Gardiner’s W34), as Ziegler proposes,29 or any other implement used in
21 But cf. Ìbsy, Ranke, PN II, 305(2), from a papyrus of the Second Intermediate Period:
Smither, JEA 34 (1948), p. 32 and pl. 7A, lines 4 and 11. There is some uncertainty about
the termination of this name.
22 Ranke, PN II, pp. 3, 30, 198.
23 I had myself thought that it might show the body on a bier, with a cloth ( ) thrown over
¢
the foot-board, as in Dows Dunham and W.K. Simpson, The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh
III (Boston, 1974), fig. 8.
24 Cf. Orientation of Hieroglyphs, p. 38 and fig. 41. Also the determinative of ¡z n k£.f in
Fig. 3. Weaver-sign, Urk. I, 71 (4, 6).
Louvre E 10958. 25 Orientalia 29 (1960), p. 188, where other Old Kingdom examples are cited.
26 Gîza III, pp. 210–11.
27 The unpublished examples in Giza tomb 1607 are incised and lacking in detail. The one
in the chapel of Mr(w)-¡b(¡) (LD II, 20a) is insufficiently intact, as I have seen from a
photograph kindly provided by Peter Der Manuelian.
28 Egyptian Women of the Old Kingdom (New York, 1989), pp. 10–11.
273
weaving.30 It is clearly the ¢ts-scepter, good examples of which are to be

found in the tombs of two queens of the Fourth Dynasty at Giza:
Mr-sy-™n∞ (fig. 4)31 and R∞t-R™ (fig. 5).32 Since it seems unlikely that the
scepter as such would be be placed in the lap of the weaver, it evidently
functions as a phonetic element, forming a composite hieroglyph of a
kind that is well attested in the Old Kingdom.33 And it is closely paral-
leled by a composite of this kind signifying ¢mt “servant” (fig. 6).34
The meaning of ¢ts, as applied to female weavers, is rather obscure.
Apart from its reference to a scepter,35 it occurs in the epithet wrt ¢ts,
with or without the addition of nbty “the Two Ladies,” referring to the
king, and is somtimes accompanied by wrt ¢zwt “great of praises,” Fig. 4. Ìts-sign, tomb of
which may convey much the same sense.36 This suggests that the weav- Queen Mr-sy-™n∞.
er called ¢tst may have been “one who is rewarded” or “adorned,” and
she is, in fact, repeatedly shown receiving costly ornaments in payment
for her services.37 In other contexts ¢ts also refers to “completing” a
period of time, and to “celebrating” a festival.38 I feel doubtful that this
meaning can be stretched to refer to weavers who were “finished” in
learning their craft, or who “finished” the process of weaving, as distin-
guished from those who assisted in preparing the rove, spinning the
thread, setting up the warp, and so on. But, at all events, the designation
¢tst seems to honor them as particularly skilled and well-paid workers.
b
Fig. 5. Ìts-sign, tomb of
29 Op. cit., p. 130. Not only is the shape different, but it would be upside-down, for the Queen R∞t-R™.
spindle is normally held by the shaft; cf. Fischer, Ancient Egyptian Calligraphy3 (New
York, 1958), p. 47.
30 All well displayed in H.E. Winlock, Models of Daily Life (New York, 1955), pl. 67.
31 From Grdseloff, ASAE 42 (1942), p. 114, fig. 18, probably from the west wall of the main
chamber: Dunham and Simpson, Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III, fig. 7.
32 From Hassan, Gîza VI/3, p. 5, fig. 3.
33 MMJ 12 (1977), p. 9. fig. 4.
34 MDAIK 16 (1958), p. 131.
35 Wb. III, 202 (7), referring to Pyr. 248.
36 Ibid., (9–10). Repeatedly in Dunham and Simpson, op. cit; and cf. Fischer, JEA 60 (1974),
pp. 95, 97. Although he adduces some interesting early evidence, Grdseloff’s interpretation
of this in ASAE 42 (1942), pp. 112–16, is unconvincing; cf R.O. Faulkner, Ancient Egyptian
Pyramid Texts (Oxford, 1969), p. 146; Fischer, loc. cit., n. 11. Fig. 6. Composite sign for
37 Junker, Gîza V, pp. 45–61. This meaning of ¢ts is actually attested, but not before the
¢mt “servant.”
Ptolemaic Period (Wb. III, 203 (5–7).
38 Wb. III, 202 (13–17).
274
20 FREED Page 297 Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:25 PM
Stela Workshops of Early Dynasty 12
Rita E. Freed
F
ew have made contributions to as many areas of Egyptology
as William Kelly Simpson. He is especially renowned for his
advancement of Middle Kingdom studies, and his pioneering vol-
ume, The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos,1 published in 1974, has
led many to look at Middle Kingdom stelae in new and useful ways.2
This study,3 offered in his honor and inspired by his research, represents,
in part, an attempt to address one of the questions posed by him in that
volume, namely whether it is possible to identify the work of individual
sculptors or workshops of relief sculptors.4
In a broader sense, it examines stelae for the information they can
provide about the organization of artisans in early Dynasty 12 and the
development of relief styles.5 Accordingly, works are grouped together
on the basis of their similar style or iconography. Stelae with significant
elements in common are considered to come from the same “workshop”
or “studio,” here defined as a group of artisans working cooperatively in
the same place over a period of time and observing a common model.6
Although written records are lacking, that such workshops existed
seems only logical, particularly in the Middle Kingdom, when large
1 William Kelly Simpson, The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos: The Offering Chapels
of Dynasties 12 and 13 (New Haven and Philadelphia, 1974).
2 For a review of literature on stelae since Simpson’s work, see C. Obsomer, “ D¡.f prt-∞rw
et la filiation ms(t).n/¡r(t).n comme critères de datation dans les textes du Moyen Empire,”
in C. Cannuyer and J.-M. Kruchten, eds., Individu, société et spiritualité dans l’Egypte
pharaonique et Copte. Mélanges égyptologiques offerts au Professeur Aristide
Théodoridès (Brussels, 1993), pp. 164–65.
3 For his many valuable editorial comments, I am grateful to Mr. Peter Shapiro.
4 Simpson, Terrace, p. 4 and n. 4.
5 Much of this material was presented by the author in a paper entitled “Abydene Stelae
Workshops of Early Dynasty XII” at the International Congress of Egyptology meeting in

Toronto, September, 1982.
6 Simpson considered the existence of such workshops in Terrace, p. 4, item 12, and the
concept was further developed for early Dynasty 12 by R. Freed, The Development of
Middle Kingdom Egyptian Relief: Sculptural Schools of Late Dynasty XI, with an
Appendix on the Trends of Early Dynasty XII (Ph.D. Dissertation, Institute of Fine Arts,
New York University, 1984), p. 207ff., and for the Second Intermediate Period by M.
Marée, “A Remarkable Group of Egyptian Stelae from the Second Intermediate Period,”
OMRO 73 (1993), pp. 7–17. D. Franke discusses workshops at Elephantine in Das Heilig-
tum des Heqaib aus Elephantine (Heidelberg, 1994), p. 105ff.
numbers of similar stelae found at the same site are dated or datable
within a relatively short period. This study covers a representative sam-
ple of workshops from approximately the beginning of Dynasty 12
through the reign of Amenemhat II.
Although stelae from that time have been found throughout the
Nile Valley,7 workshops may be identified with certainty only at
Abydos, Thebes, and Elephantine, owing to the number of stelae found
at those sites. The Theban and Abydene workshops are discussed here.8
While the primary focus of the study is art historical, inscriptional infor-
mation, particularly in the offering formula, is included when it pro-
vides information about the date of a stela or workshop. It is hoped that
further work will add more stelae to the workshops listed on the follow-
ing pages, uncover additional workshops, and refine those workshops
identified here.
Clarification of terminology
A stela workshop is defined here as three or more stelae sharing distinc-
tive aspects of composition or style which collectively set them apart
from others. Each workshop is given a name based on one or more of its
salient characteristics although stelae in a given workshop may show
considerable variety aside from their shared attributes. In virtually no
case are all of the distinctive attributes found on all the stelae.
Alternatively, stelae associated with certain workshops appear so
similar as to suggest the work of an individual artist. The “Vertical
Curls and Flower Group” is an example. Stelae in the same workshop
may span several decades.
Occasionally, architectural elements such as wall reliefs and false
doors are included in the workshops where they meet the appropriate
criteria. Most of the monuments discussed are decorated in relief, but a
few uncarved stelae which were painted (usually, although not necessar-
ily, in preparation for carving) are included, based on their similarity to
carved examples in a given workshop.
For each member of a workshop, an attempt is made to include at
least one primary or significant reference where additional information
about the piece may be found. Photographs of representative examples
of each group are also included.
7 Stelaewere also found at quarry sites beyond the Nile Valley.

8 For the Elephantine workshops, see Franke, Heqaib, p. 109ff. For a reference to a stela
found near Elephantine which I believe was made in Abydos, see “Packed Offerings
Group.”
298
Rita E. Freed, Stela Workshops of Early Dynasty 12
Generally, the provenance given is the one listed in the primary pub-
lication of the stela. All those in Simpson’s groupings in Terrace of the
Great God at Abydos are assumed to come from Abydos. He includes
examples from the great mid-nineteenth century collections of Athanasi
and Anastasi, sold at auction in London in 1837 and 1857 respectively.
Following Simpson’s model, other stelae from those collections not
included in his groupings are also treated as Abydene.9
As far as date is concerned, a stela is considered dated if it contains
a cartouche in or near its lunette or upper border, or if the context of the
cartouche otherwise implies that the stela’s owner lived during the reign
of the king mentioned.10 A stela is labeled “datable” (as opposed to
“dated”) if it belongs to the same owner as a dated stela or if its owner
is known through other sources, such as statuary or papyri, to be associ-
ated with a given king. Stelae listed together by Simpson in the same
group (see below) are considered to be approximately contemporary
when a product of the same workshop. Workshops are listed in approxi-
mate chronological order, although there is substantial overlapping.
Simpson Number refers to the number assigned by Simpson to a
given Abydos North Offering Chapel (ANOC) group in his Terrace of the
Great God at Abydos.
WORKSHOP NO. 1. Colorful Theban Group
Members Provenance Date Simpson no.

NY, MMA 16.10.333a Thebes, Asasif — —
(fig. 1a)
Cairo, JE 45626 Thebes, Asasif — —
(fig. 1b)
Cairo, JE 45625b Thebes, Asasif — —
(fig. 1c)
NY, MMA 16.10.327c Thebes, Asasif — —
(fig. 1d)
Florence 6364d Edfue — —
Vienna ÄS 202f (fig. 1e) — — —
a W.C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt I (New York, 1953), p. 331, fig. 219, where it is called
“probably Eleventh Dynasty.”
b M. Saleh and H. Sourouzian, The Egyptian Museum Cairo (Mainz, 1987), no. 79, where
it is attributed to Dynasty 11. Obsomer, “Critières de datation,” pp. 170, 197, is inclined
to place it in Dynasty 12.
9 Simpson, Terrace, pp. 5–6.

10 A cartouche in the context of a pyramid name is an example where the name of a king is
only a terminus post quem and not a specific date.
299
c Nofret—die Schöne. Die Frau im Alten Ägypten (Mainz, 1984), pp. 48–49, where it is
ascribed to Dynasty 12.
d S. Bosticco, Museo Archeologico di Firenze. Le Stele egiziane dall’Antico al Nuovo
Regno (Rome, 1959), pp. 23–24 and pl. 17, where it is ascribed to Dynasty 11.
e Purchased in Luxor (Bosticco, Stele, p. 23).
f I. Hein and H. Satzinger, Corpus antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum. Kunsthistorisches
Museum Wien 7, Stelen des Mittleren Reiches II (Mainz, 1993), pp. 140–44. It is dated
“11th or early 12th Dynasty,” although a date “from Amenemhet I through Sesostris I” is
favored on the basis on style and epithets (p. 141).
Date Range. Possibly as early as late Dynasty 11, although most are
more likely to be early in the reign of Amenemhat I. This is based on a
combination of style,11 inscription,12 and the archaeological record.13
Relief Style. Stelae in this group may be carved in either relatively
low, flat, raised relief, sunk relief with a deep outline, or painted only.
Regardless of the technique, they all preserve abundant and skillfully
painted detailing, particularly in the offerings. Males tend to be either
short and stocky or overly thin-waisted, and females may be quite slen-
der and high-waisted.
Shared Attributes. This group, which may be either horizontal or
vertical in format, is characterized by a large, figural field and an inscrip-
tion most often restricted to no more than two lines. Often the inscrip-
tion does not include an offering formula but only identifies the figures
depicted and names one of a variety of deities. Women and men share
equal prominence. Relatively large facial features are given extra empha-
sis through paint. Eyes and brows are placed particularly high on the face
and extend in thick, parallel cosmetic lines to the temples. Men often
sport short beards and carry staves with upturned ends.14 The offerings
represented are disproportionately large and few in number. They tend
11 For the low flat, raised relief style of MMA 16.10.333 and Cairo, JE 45626, which is char-
acteristic of Amenemhat I see R. Freed, “A Private Stela from Naga ed-Deir and Relief
Style of the Reign of Amenemhat I,” in W.K. Simpson and W. Davis, eds., Studies in
Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan (Boston, 1981), pp. 68–76.
12 The following are indicators of a date in Dynasty 12: d¡.f prt ∞rw on Cairo, JE 45626, (C.
Bennett, “Growth of the Ìtp-d¡-nsw Formula in the Middle Kingdom,” JEA 27 [1941],
pp. 78–91, but see also D. Spanel, “Ancient Egyptian Boat Models of the Herakleopolitan
Period and Eleventh Dynasty,” SAK 12 [1985], p. 253, n. 43 for a Dynasty 11 example), and
the orthography of n†r ™£ nb on MMA 16.10.327 (W. Schenkel, Frühmittelagyptische Stu-
dien [Bonn, 1962], pp. 30–31 [hereafter FMÄS], where there is also one Dynasty 11 example
listed).
13 The pottery found with MMA 16.10.327 (in TT 5A.R6 in the Assasif) is ascribed to
Dynasty 12 by Dr. Dorothea Arnold. Dr. Arnold considers the pottery found with MMA
16.10.333 (in TT 5A.R8) to be late Dynasty 11 or early Dynasty 12 (both oral communica-
tion). I am grateful to Dr. Arnold for her kind assistance in looking at this material.
14Such staves occur on stelae of Dynasty 11 to early Dynasty 12 date. See H.G. Fischer,
“Notes on Sticks and Staves in Ancient Egypt,” MMJ 13 (1978), pp. 9–10.
300
Fig. 1a. New York, Metropolitan

Museum of Art 16.10.333, stela of
Ddw. Courtesy of The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1916.
Fig. 1b. Cairo, JE 45626, Stela of ⁄mn-m-¢£t.

Courtesy Egyptian Museum, Cairo.
Fig. 1c. Cairo, JE 45625, Stela

of N¡t-pt¢. Courtesy Egyptian
Museum, Cairo.
Fig. 1e. Vienna, ÄS 202, stela of

Ôty. Courtesy, Kunsthistorisches
Museum Vienna.
Fig. 1d. New York, Metropolitan Museum

of Art 16.10.327, stela of ⁄ntf and Nsw-
mn†w. Courtesy of The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1916.
301
to be loosely packed and well balanced. There is at times an inventive-

ness seen, for example, in Cairo, JE 45626, where three figures on a chair
with two backs interlock arms (and legs) in an embrace.
Comments. Although generally not quite as fine, the style of paint-
ing and relief is remarkably similar to what is found in the tombs of
Dagy and Meketre at Thebes, which have recently been redated to
Mentuhotep III and the early years of Amenemhat I respectively.15 This
represents a continuation of a style seen on a group of Theban stelae
made during the reign of Mentuhotep II after the reunification.16 The
beginning of a dynasty, before its canons are established, is at times char-
acterized by the charm and playful inventiveness seen in this group.
Vienna ÄS 202 preserves traces of a full eighteen-square grid, perhaps the
earliest stela to do so.17 This fleshing out of the limited guidelines of the
Old Kingdom Achsenkreuz came about presumably as an attempt to
emulate Old Kingdom proportions at a time when Old Kingdom monu-
ments were again accessible.18 The fact that it is often impossible to dis-
tinguish between late Dynasty 11 and early Dynasty 12 material at
Thebes lends further support to Arnold’s theory that Amenemhat I ruled
from Thebes for a longer period than is generally realized.19 Both the
inscriptions and decoration of MMA 16.10.327, MMA 16.10.333, Cairo,
JE 45626, and Cairo JE 45625 may have been executed by the same hand.
WORKSHOP NO. 2. Few Standing Figures

London, BM 52881a W. Thebes — —
Berlin 22820b (fig. 2a) Kamala (17 km W. — —
of Luxor)
Florence 6378c (fig. 2b) Purchased in Luxor — —
Dufferin Collectiond Deir el Bahari — —
15 For the former, see J. Allen, “Some Theban Officials of the Early Middle Kingdom,” in
the present volume and, for the latter, D. Arnold, “Amenemhat I and the Early Twelfth
Dynasty at Thebes,” JMMA 26 (1991), p. 21ff.
16 Freed, Middle Kingdom Relief, pp. 181–84, 191–93.
17 These figures are standing. The earliest full grid for a seated figure (14 squares) appears
as early as the reign of Mentuhotep II following the reunification, on the stela of Intef,
Cairo, CG 20003 (Freed, Middle Kingdom Relief, pp. 83–84).
18 H.W. Müller, “Der Kanon in der ägyptischen Kunst,” in Der Vermessene Mensch
(Munich, 1973), pp. 15–18.
19 Arnold, JMMA 26 (1991), p. 14ff.
302

Stockholm, MM 18155e Purchased in — —
Sheikh abd el
Gurna
Oxford, Ashmolean — — —
1954.25f (fig. 2c)
Moscow 4160g — — —
Berlin 19582h — — —
Marseilles 21i — — —
Moscow 4159j — — —
Rome, Museo — — —
Barracco4k
Boston, MFA 25.659l Naga ed-Deir — —
Oxford, Ashmolean Dendera — —
A 149m
Los Angeles County Dendera — —
50.37.13 (fig. 2d)
New York, — — —
MMA 65.269n
Leiden V 124o Abydos — ANOC 37.1
Leiden V 125p Abydos — ANOC 37.2
Amsterdam, Allard — — —
Pierson 8789q
a Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae &C in the British Museum V (London, 1914),
pl. 3 (hereafter HTBM). It was found in Theban Tomb 62.
b R. Anthes, “Eine Polizeistreife des Mittleren Reiches in die Westliche Oase,” ZÄS 65
(1930), pp. 108–14 and pl. VII.

c Bosticco, Stele, pp. 25–26 and pl. 19. The stela is placed in Dynasty 11.
d I.E.S. Edward, “Lord Dufferin’s Excavations at Deir el-Bahri,” JEA 51 (1965), pl. 10, no. 2.
e B. Petersen, “Ägyptische Stelen und Stelenfragmente aus stockholmer Sammlungen,”
Opuscula Atheniensia 9 (1969), pp. 95–96. I am grateful to Dr. Edward Brovarski for bring-
ing this stela to my attention.
f Ashmolean Museum, Annual Report 1954, p. 23 and pl. IV.
g S. Hodjash and O. Berlev, The Egyptian Reliefs and Stelae in the Pushkin Museum of Fine
Arts, Moscow (Leningrad, 1982), no. 28, pp. 72, 75. It is ascribed to the first two reigns of
Dynasty 12.
h Unpublished.
i J. Capart, L’Art Egyptien (Brussels, 1911), pl. 141.
j Hodjash and Berlev, Egyptian Reliefs, no. 27, pp. 73–74, where it is attributed to
Dynasty 11.
k Museo Barracco di Scultura Antica. La Collezione Egizia (Rome, 1985), pp. 12–13 and
pl. 10.
l R. Freed, “Relief Style of Amenemhat I,” pp. 68–76.
m W. Petrie, Dendereh (London, 1900), pl. XI bottom left.
n Unpublished. The stela is sandstone, a material which was quarried south of Thebes.
303
o Simpson, Terrace, p. 19 and pl. 55 top.

p Ibid.,
p. 19 and pl. 55 bottom.
q W.M. van Haarlem, Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum. Allard Pierson Museum
Amsterdam (forthcoming), pp. 4–5.
Date Range. Based on the high, rounded relief style of some and the
jewel-like, incised detailing of others (see comments), it is possible that
a few stelae in this group are attributable to late Dynasty 11. According
to Hodjash and Berlev, the fact that the name of the owner of Moscow
4159 is separated from his titles by the epithet ¡m£∞ ∞r and the name of
the patron deity supports a date prior to Dynasty 12.20 The phrase n.f af-
ter prt.∞rw on Ashmolean A 149 is commonly found on Heracleopolitan
Period false doors and post-reunification Dynasty 11 monuments from
Thebes.21 On the basis of style and attributes, however, most stelae in
this workshop appear to be early Dynasty 12. Dated examples of the
bookroll with single tie, seen on Leiden V 125, are not known earlier
than the coregency between Amenemhat I and Sesostris I.22
Relief Style. These stelae display considerable variation of style.
The relief may be decidedly high and rounded or significantly lower and
flatter. One stela is carved in sunk relief. Musculature in legs and knees
are often exaggerated. Incised interior detailing is generally restricted to
wigs on both men and women. Figures tend to be canonical vertically
but males particularly may vary from canonical norm in breadth of
shoulders or girth.
Shared Attributes. The presence of a large-scale standing couple,
a triad of equal height, and less often, a single male bind these stelae
together as a group. With the previous Theban-based workshop it shares,
in most instances, a limited area for inscriptions. When present, offer-
ings tend to be relatively packed and restricted to the far side of the stela
by a visual barrier created by a walking stick. Additional shared
attributes include a large basin with tapering sides which either rests on
the offering table or replaces it, and a scepter with upturned end (also
seen on the previous group) held by many males. On a few stelae, the
offering table itself is quite tiny, and either the walking stick or a flower
stem may rest directly on it. In several instances the walking stick
20 Hodjash and Berlev note that this separation is unattested after Dynasty 11, Egyptian
Reliefs, no. 27.

21 E. Brovarski, The Inscribed Material of the First Intermediate Period from Naga-ed-Dêr
(Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1989).

22 Schenkel, FMÄS, p. 28. For additional comments on aspects of the inscription see n. 17.
304
Fig. 2a. Berlin 22820, stela of K£y.

Courtesy, Staatliche Museen zu
Berlin.
Fig. 2b. Florence 6378, stela of Mn-n∞t.

Courtesy Museo Egizio di Firenze.
Fig. 2d. Los Angeles County Museum of Art

50.37.13, stela of ⁄£mw. Courtesy Los Angeles
County Museum of Art, Gift of William Randolph
Hearst.
Fig. 2c. Oxford, Ashmolean 1954.25, stela of

Ddw-sbk. Courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum,
Oxford.
305
intersects the table. A triangle is either incised or cut out of the bottom
of the table leg.
On many, incised detailing draws attention to the wigs. Individual
curls on male wigs generally are arranged in horizontal rows or radiate
out from a central point on the skull and follow the contour of the head.
Female wigs may also be decorated. Either the hair is “braided,” as indi-
cated by cross-hatched lines, or it is pulled directly back from the fore-
head, as indicated by incised parallel lines.
Comments. The geographical spread of this stela group (Thebes to
Abydos) suggests the increasing popularity of stelae, as well as the great-
er ease of travel and communication in the post-reunification years. The
relief style and attributes of Los Angeles County Museum 50.37.13 are
very similar to those of Ashmolean A 149, which was also found at Den-
dera. These two stelae may well be the earliest known from the work-
shop or be from the hand of an artist trained prior to the reunification.
This is based on the non-canonical style of the Ashmolean stela and the
intricate interior detailing seen on both. The latter is found not only at
Dendera,23 but also in the tombs of Mentuhotep II’s minor queens at
Thebes, which predate the reunification,24 and in other contemporary
material.25
The bold, rounded, raised relief style of Moscow 4159 is also very
similar to what is found on Theban material dating prior to the reunifi-
cation.26 Conversely, the low, flat, raised relief style devoid of interior
detailing and the overall formality of MFA 25.659 from Naga ed Deir re-
flects the Northern influence on early Dynasty 12 material.
Although differences of style link certain stelae to specific sites,
overall there is a tendency toward standardization of format and sophis-
tication. Such features link these stelae more closely to later Twelfth
Dynasty works. Within the standardization, there is still room for cre-
ativity, as seen, for example, in Berlin 22820, where the owner K£¡ carries
a bow and arrows in the same manner as he would carry a walking stick
and scepter. He is also accompanied by his hunting dogs. The curved
stick held horizontally on several stelae in this group and the flower held
at the base of the stem on Marseilles 21 are features found on other
stelae from the end of Dynasty 11 and early Dynasty 12.27
23 W. Petrie, Dendereh, pl. XI, for example, and W. Barta, Das Selbstzeugnis eines alt-
ägyptischen Künstlers (Berlin, 1970), pls. VI–VII, nos. 17–18.
24 E. Naville, The XIth Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari I (London, 1907), pl. XVII C, F,
and Barta, Selbstzeugnis, pl. VIII, no. 20. See also Freed, Middle Kingdom Relief, p. 153ff.
25 From Gebelain: Barta, Selbstzeugnis, pls. III–V, nos. 14–16.
26 Barta, Selbstzeugnis, pls. III–VIII and Freed, Middle Kingdom Relief, p. 153ff.
306
London, BM 52881, Berlin 22820, the Dufferin Collection stela, Ash-

molean 1954.25, Marseilles 21, Museum Barracco 4, and Leiden V 125
appear to be the work of the same sculptor,28 irrespective of their differ-
ent provenances.29 Similarly, the decoration and text on Ashmolean
A 149 and Los Angeles 50.37.13 may also be by the same hand.
WORKSHOP NO. 3. Fleshy Feature Group

Paris, Louvre C 3a Abydos Year 9, ANOC 6.3
(fig. 3a) Sesostris I
Paris, Louvre C 19b Abydos datable ANOC 6.1
Amenemhat I/
Sesostris I
Berlin ÄGM 26/ Abydos datable ANOC 6.4
66c(fig. 3b) Amenemhat I/
Sesostris I
Cairo, CG 20756d Abydos — —
(fig. 3c)
Paris, Louvre C 1e Abydos Amenemhat I/ ANOC 6.2
Sesostris I
Munich ÄS 33f (fig. 3d) — — —
a Simpson, Terrace, p. 17 and pl. 15 top. For a discussion of this stela, see P. Vernus, “La
Stele C 3 du Louvre,” RdE 25 (1973), pp. 217–34.
b Simpson, Terrace, p. 17 and pl. 15 bottom left.
c H. Satzinger, “Die Abydos Stele des Jpwy aus dem Mittleren Reich,” MDAIK 25 (1969),
pp. 121–30. See also Franke, Dossiers, no. 282.

d H. Lange und H. Schäfer, Grab-und Denksteine des Mittleren Reiches im Museum von
Kairo IV (Berlin, 1902), pl. LVIII.
e Simpson, Terrace, p. 17 and pl. 14.
f S. Schoske and A. Grimm, “Eine Stele des Mittleren Reiches,” Im Blickpunkt, gallery
guide (Munich, 1991).
Date Range. Two stelae in this group are dated by cartouche to the
coregency of Amenemhat I and Sesostris I. Others belong to the same
owner or family group (ANOC) as the dated examples or were carved by
the same hand as the dated examples.
27 Fischer, MMJ 13 (1978), pp. 9–10.

28 Simpson attributes Leiden V 124 to the same sculptor as Leiden V, 125 (Terrace, p. 4,
n. 25), but I prefer to see them as the work of two different hands in the same workshop.
The somewhat better quality of Leiden V 125 suggests that it served as the model from
which Leiden V 124 was made. Both belong to the same owner.
29 When the capital moved to ⁄†-t£wy during the reign of Amenemhat I, it is likely that the
center of stela production also shifted northward.
307
Fig. 3a. Paris, Louvre C 3, stela of Mry. Cour- Fig. 3b. Berlin ÄGM 26/66, stela of ⁄pwy. Courtesy
tesy Musée du Louvre; photo Chuzeville. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.
Fig. 3d. Munich ÄS 33, stela of Ws∞w. Courtesy State collection

of Egyptian art Munich.
Fig. 3c. Cairo, CG 20756, stela of Wsr and

N∞t¡. Courtesy Egyptian Museum, Cairo.
308
Relief Style. With one exception all the stelae in this group were
carved in sunk relief or combine raised and sunk relief. Both types are
unmodeled and share rather coarsely incised linear interior detailing.
Proportions are often non-canonical. In the case of Berlin ÄGM 26/66,
two figures display the elongated legs, high waists, and small heads char-
acteristic of pre-reunification Dynasty 11.30 In other examples, torsos
are elongated or heads too large or too small.
Shared Attributes. Prominent pug noses and fleshy upper and
lower lips forming a horizontal “V” in the cheek are the most notable
features of this group. A pronounced hydrocephalic bulge and too thin
necks are often evident on males represented either in close-fitting wigs
or natural hair. The attribute they most frequently carry is a folded bolt
clutched to the chests. On women’s sheath dresses, a relief-carved band
generally delineates the upper border. In most instances, the offerings
are loosely organized, but the pairing of similar items indicates an inter-
est in symmetry. For example, on Berlin ÄGM 26/66 and Louvre C 3,
two geese lie hind-quarter-to-hind-quarter on an offering table, and their
heads hang limply but decoratively over the sides. On another (CG
20756) paired leeks are shown in a similar manner, and in yet another
(Munich ÄS 33) joined double breads ( ) are shown in pairs. This
type of bread31 appears on all but one stela in this group. Other shared
attributes not commonly found on stelae include a duck head among the
offerings, ducks in flight(?) restrained by a leash, and jars of sacred oils,
which are named.32 Many of the tables are noteworthy for their truncat-
ed conical tops with concave sides placed atop narrow legs. Two stelae
occasionally write horizontally oriented signs vertically,33 perhaps as a
space-saving measure. Others have additional inscriptional oddities
including confused signs, reverse orientation, and the sporadic use of
hieratic.
Comments. Many of these stelae belong to the same family group
(ANOC), as shown by Simpson, but additionally, the figural areas of
Louvre C 3, C 19, and Munich ÄS 33 are clearly by the same artisan,34
who also carved the inscription. This is one of the earliest of the Aby-
dene schools and differs from the approximately contemporary (or
30 W. Barta, Selbstzeugnis, pp. 75–76.

31 For a discussion of these breads see Vernus, RdE 25 (1973), p. 230.
32 For comments on the oils, ibid., p. 230.
33 On Louvre C 1 several n’s (¤ 3
) and one r ( ) are oriented vertically and there is one
vertical n on CG 20756. This occurs occasionally on stelae outside this workshop as well.
34 The presence of the same hand on Munich ÄS 33 and Louvre C 3 was already noted by
Simpson in Vernus, RdE 25 (1973), p. 230.
309
slightly earlier) “Colorful Theban Group” in its lengthier inscriptions

and, not surprisingly given its Abydene provenance, in both the mention
of Osiris and the inclusion of his multiple epithets. Also, incised linear
details replace the painted ones of the “Colorful Theban Group.”
WORKSHOP NO. 4. Vertical Curls and Flower

Cairo, CG 20256a — — —
(fig. 4a)
Berkeley, Hearst 93b — — —
(fig. 4b)
London, BM 560c Abydos (Anastasi) — —
(fig. 4c)
Cairo, CG 20516d Abydos Year 30, —
Amenemhat I/
Year 10,
Sesostris I
a Lange and Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine, pl. XIX.
b H.Lutz, Egyptian Tomb Steles and Offering Stones of the Museum of Anthropology and
Ethnology of the University of California (Leipzig, 1927), pl. 47, where it was considered
to be of “spurious origin.”
c HTBM II (London, 1912), p. 10 and pl. 35.
d Lange and Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine, pl. XXXV.
Date Range. All of the stelae in this group are stylistically and epi-
grahpically similar, as described below. The presence of the cartouches
of Amenemhat I and Sesostris I on CG 20516 therefore dates the group.
Relief Style. All were carved in sunk relief. Incised detailing is
mainly restricted to male wigs and flowers. Males are canonically cor-
rect, or nearly so. Women’s torsos and arms are often attenuated.
Shared Attributes. Men wearing close-fitting wigs meticulously
incised with rigid vertical rows of individual curls, and women carrying
straight-sided lotus flowers with short stems are among the many uni-
fying characteristics of this group. Almond-shaped eyes without incised
cosmetic lines or eyebrows, pointed noses, small straight mouths, and
relatively large ears with distinct inner ridges are also shared. Of the
three member stelae of this group which have offering tables (CG 20516,
CG 20256 and Hearst 93), the overall design is very similar. Each table,
for example, exhibits the unusual feature of a leg with its extra ring at
the bottom and top. The latter two stelae also share a meat offering of
roughly heart shape with a projection at the top, a shape seldom found
on stelae.
310
Fig. 4a. Cairo, CG 20256, stela of Nb.¡t.f. Courtesy Egyptian Museum, Cairo.
Fig. 4b. Berkeley, Hearst 93, stela of Itj(?). Courtesy Phoebe Fig. 4c. London, BM 560, stela of N∞t-¢rw and Pt¢-k£w.
Hearst (formerly Lowie) Museum of Anthropology, Univer- Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum.
sity of California at Berkeley.
311
Comments. In relief style, attributes, and epigraphy these stelae are

strikingly similar, and it is not out of the question that they were all
made by the same artist. Many of the stelae exhibit a slight awkward-
ness in execution, particularly in the proportions of female figures.
Various body parts are either too long, too thin, or too fleshy, as if the
sculptor was unfamiliar with any canon of proportion. This awkward-
ness can also be seen in the off-center table leg and mat on Hearst 93, a
feature that undoubtedly contributed to the initial belief that the piece
was spurious.35 The offerings radiating out from a central point on the
table of CG 20256 is also unusual. Further, the arrangement of hiero-
glyphs on many of the stelae in this workshop is uneven. All of these
things suggest they were made during a period of experimentation, as
one might expect at the beginning of Dynasty 12 at a site like Abydos,
which had previously lacked a strong tradition of stela production. For
Late Eleventh and Early Dynasty 12 parallels to the curved stick on
Hearst 93, see note 14 above.
WORKSHOP NO. 5. Packed Offerings Group

London, BM 152a Salt Collection “Year 10” —
(fig. 5a)
Cairo, CG 20315b Abydos — —
(fig. 5b)
Cairo, JE 36420c (fig. 5c) Aswan — —
Detroit 81.4d (fig. 5d) — — —
a HTBM II, pl. 34.
b Lange and Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine, pl. XXIV. Franke, Dossiers, no. 343 ascribes
this stela to “Anfang 12. Dynasty.”
c Freed, “Relief Style Amenemhat I,” p. 76 and fig. 7.
d Unpublished.
Date Range. Late Amenemhat I to early Sesostris I. No stela in this

group is dated by cartouche, but one (BM 152) has a year date of ten. On
the basis of its style and organization (see below under comments), it is
most likely to be Year 10 of Sesostris I. Other stelae in this workshop
exhibit strong stylistic similarities to BM 152. Additionally the contents
of the tomb in which Cairo, JE 36420 was found, including the coffin,
have recently been attributed to Amenemhat I.36
35 Lutz,
Egyptian Tomb Steles, p. 9 and pl. 47.
36H. Willems, The Coffin of Heqata. A Case Study of Egyptian Funerary Culture of the
Early Middle Kingdom (Leuven, 1995), pp. 21–25, esp. p. 25.
312
Fig. 5b. Cairo, CG 20315, stela of N∞t. Courtesy Egyptian Museum,

Cairo.
Fig. 5a. London, BM 152, stela of Nfr-twt.

Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum.
Fig. 5c. Cairo, JE 36420, stela of Msnw. Courtesy Egyptian Fig. 5d. Detroit 81.4, stela of Ôty. Courtesy Founders
Museum, Cairo. Society, Detroit Institute of Arts Founders Society
Purchase, Hill Memorial Fund and Contribution from
an Anonymous Donor.
313
Style. All were carved in low, flat raised relief. Interior modeling
was used sparingly and skillfully, especially to highlight leg muscles and
facial features. Interior detailing is restricted to jewelry and the essential
elements of offerings. Figures are canonically correct.
Shared Attributes. On all members of this group, the offerings are
artificially compressed, forming a compact, rigidly rectilinear unit.
Also, the offerings are balanced on reed leaves with overly tall stems
arranged on distinctive, split-foot splayed-leg tables. The tables addi-
tionally feature an extra ring between the leg and the table top. At least
one spoutless ¢s vase and a libation set lies below the table. The strict
academic symmetry apparent in JE 36420 may also have been present in
CG 20315, which is damaged.
Comments. The low, flat relief style and rigidly symmetrical com-
position which characterizes all the stelae in this group support a date
in the reign of Amenemhat I.37 At this time artisans had not yet
achieved the sophistication of stelae carving or subtlety of detail which
appears later in the reign of Sesostris I (see workshops following). Cairo
JE 36420 was found in Aswan, but because it bears such a striking resem-
blance to other stelae in this group, one of which comes from Abydos, it
seems likely the Aswan stela was also made in Abydos.38
WORKSHOP NO. 6. Large Male

Paris, Louvre C 2a Abydos Year 9, ANOC 29.1
Sesostris I
Paris, Louvre C 34b Abydos datable, ANOC 29.2
(fig. 6a) Amenemhat I/
Sesostris I
Cairo, CG 20473c Abydos datable, ANOC 29.3
Amenemhat I/
Sesostris I
Cairo, CG 20474d Abydos datable, ANOC 29.4
Amenemhat I/
Sesostris I
Leiden V 2e (fig. 6b) Abydos (Anastasi) Year 9, —
Sesostris I
37 Freed,“Relief Style Amenemhat I.”

38 One other stela, now Cleveland 21.1017, was also found in this tomb, but it, as well as
other early Twelfth Dynasty reliefs from Aswan, differs stylistically from this stela. Detlef
Franke excludes it from his Elephantine workshop but assigns it, as well as a few other
Elephantine reliefs, to “Königlichen Residenz-Handwerkern,” cf. Heqaib, p. 107.
314

London, BM 558f Abydos (Anastasi) — —
(fig. 6c)
London, BM 587g Abydos (Anastasi) — —
(fig. 6d)
London, BM 585h Abydos (Anastasi) — —
(fig. 6e)
a Simpson, Terrace, p. 19 and pl. 44.
b Ibid., p. 19 and pl. 43.
c Ibid., p. 19 and pl. 45 top.
d Ibid., Terrace, p. 19 and pl. 45 bottom.
e P. Boeser, Beschreibung der Aegyptischen Sammlung des Niederländischen Reichs-
museums der Altertümer in Leiden (Den Haag, 1909), pl. 7.

f HTBMII (London, 1912), pl. 14.
g Ibid.,
pl. 36.
h HTBM III (London, 1912), pl. 31.
Date Range. Late Amenemhat I to Sesostris I. Undated stelae are

dated on the basis of family relationship to dated examples or on the
basis of relief style. Offering formulae incorporate the classic hallmarks
of the first half of Dynasty 12.39
Relief Style. These stelae exhibit mainly raised relief, the height of
which varies from low and flat to a higher, more rounded surface.
Modeling is particularly noticeable on the face, torso and legs. Incised
interior detailing is sparingly and artfully used, particularly on wigs and
offerings. All figures are canonical.
Shared Attributes. The dominant presence of a male figure, usual-
ly alone and standing, unites most of these stelae. On many,
naturalistically rendered rolls of fat and a sagging breast symbolize pros-
perity. Offerings are organized into a discreet area. Although they fill the
available space, they are only loosely balanced, rather than being artifi-
cially compressed, as they are in the “Packed Offerings Group” above. A
conspicuously large eye may be further highlighted by delicately incised
lines or shallow depressions rendered above, below, and sometimes
encircling the orbit.
Comments. The hands of master artisans are evident on a number
of these stelae. For example, subtle modeling sets off the abdomen and
back muscles of the owner of Leiden V 2, and the neck muscle of the
deceased in Louvre C 34. Often the contrast between shallow and more
deeply carved incised detailing creates an almost three-dimensional ef-
39 Bennett, JEA 27 (1941), pp. 77–82. G. Rosati, “Note e proposte per la datazione delle stele
del Medio Regno,” OrAnt 19 (1980), pp. 269–78, and most recently Obsomer, “Critères de
datation,” pp. 163–200.
315
Fig. 6a. Paris, Louvre C 34, stela of Ìr.

Courtesy Musée du Louvre; photo
Chuzeville.
Fig. 6c. London, BM 558, stela of
Bmky. Courtesy Trustees of the
British Museum
Fig. 6b. Leiden V 2, stela of M-¢£t. Cour-

tesy of Rijksmuseum van Oudheden.
Fig. 6d. London, BM 587, stela of ⁄mn-m-¢£t. Courtesy Trustees of Fig. 6e. London, BM 585, stela of S£-rnnwtt. Courtesy
the British Museum. Trustees of the British Museum.
316
fect. Nowhere is it more beautifully done than on the feathered wings

and webbed feet of the duck on BM 585. There is also a sense of playful-
ness in the way the duck’s tail on BM 558 overlaps the side border and
in the manner that the foot of a figure on Louvre C 34 steps into the
inscription.
CG 20473 and CG 20474 are wall reliefs. The many stylistic simi-
larities between them and Louvre C 2 indicate that they were carved by
the same hand.40 On BM 558 and BM 587 the similar faces and natural-
istically rendered hair (including the hint of sideburns), also suggest they
were executed by the same artist.
Overall, the provincial, folk art quality of many earlier stelae is
absent in this group, but there is still a playfulness seen in the experi-
mentation with surface textures and the violation of borders. All of
these stelae appear to have come from Abydos and were most likely
made there by an experienced, well established school.
WORKSHOP NO. 7. Incised False Door

Cairo, CG 20515a Abydos Year 10, ANOC 30.1
(fig. 7a) Sesostris I
Cairo, CG 20751b Abydos datable, ANOC 30.3
Sesostris I
Cairo, CG 20263c Abydos datable, “ANOC 30”
Sesostris I “
Berlin 1192d (fig. 7b) Abydos Year 14, ANOC 31.2
Sesostris I
Cairo, CG 20470e Abydos — —
Cairo, CG 20088f Abydos — —
Cairo, CG 20708g Abydos — —
Paris, Louvre C 32h — — —
(fig. 7c)
Leiden V 85i (fig. 7d) — — —
Cairo, CG 20524j Abydos — —
Cairo, CG 20525k Abydos — —
Cairo, CG 20400l Abydos — —
Berkeley, Hearst 5-352m — — —
b Ibid., p. 19 and pl. 47 bottom.
40 As noted by Simpson, Terrace, p. 4, n. 25.
317
c Langeand Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine, pl. XX. This stela was added to ANOC 30 by
H. de Meulenaere in his review of Simpson, Terrace, in CdE 52 (1977), p. 80.
d Simpson, Terrace, p. 19 and pl. 49.
e Lange and Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine, pl. XXXIII.
f Ibid., pl. VIII.
g Ibid., pl. LIII.
h E. Gayet, Musée du Louvre, Stèles de la XIIe dynastie (Paris, 1886), pl. LVII.
i Boeser, Beschreibungen, pl. XI.
j Lange and Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine, pl. XXXVII.
k Ibid., pl. XXXVII.
l Ibid., pl. XXIX.
m R. Fazzini, Images for Eternity (Brooklyn, 1975), pp. 54–55.
Date Range. First half of the reign of Sesostris I on the basis of the
dated and datable stelae in the group and the stylistic similarity of the
undated stelae to the dated examples.
Relief Style. The stelae in this group exhibit a wide variety of relief
styles. Seven out of the thirteen were executed in a low, flat, raised
relief. Two combine this type of raised relief with a “silhouette” sunk
relief for the minor figures, where not just the outline but the entire fig-
ure is depressed considerably below the surface of the background. Two
are carved entirely in this sunk relief technique, and one is painted only.
Except for the leg muscles, there is virtually no modeling, but incised
details, including those articulating anatomical elements, may be abun-
dant. The proportions of all the main figures approximate canonical
norm, but there is great variety within the minor figures.
Shared Attributes. A false door incised on the bottom register of
five stelae (CG 20470, CG 20515, CG 20088, Hearst 5-352, and Berlin
1192) is the element for which this workshop is named. Two eyes adorn
the door’s lintel. Additional attributes shared by other stelae in the
group include the enumeration of offerings in the lunette, the
arrangement of offerings (especially ¢s jars and libation basins) beneath
the offering table, and the placement of a mirror or b£s jar beneath the
legs of a seated female. Reed leaves on offering tables have almost im-
perceptible stems. In general, offerings are relatively few and loosely
grouped. On or near the top of the offering pile, an over-large lettuce,
when present, tends to dwarf other items.
With two exceptions, all stelae feature at least one seated couple (a
man and usually his wife, but occasionally his mother or sister). On
many raised relief examples, shared details include horizontal registers
of curls on male wigs and parallel strands on the wigs of women. Tiny
318
Fig. 7b. Berlin 1192, stela of Db£w.s.

Courtesy Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.
Fig. 7a. Cairo, CG 20515, stela of N∞t.

Courtesy Egyptian Museum, Cairo.
Fig. 7d. Leiden V 85, stela of Ìr-¢r. Fig. 7c. Paris, Louvre C 32, stela of N∞t-
Courtesy Rijksmuseum van Oudheden. n∞y. Courtesy Musée du Louvre; photo
Chuzeville.
319
almond-shaped eyes devoid of eyebrows or cosmetic lines, a small nose,

either pointed or pug, and a narrow slit mouth are also present.
In addition to the main couple, most of these stelae have one or more
registers of auxiliary figures, usually identified as family members. In
most instances, they stand with both hands hanging empty at their sides
or with one raised in a worshipful gesture. On only a few stelae are aux-
iliary figures depicted in more active poses or bearing offerings.
Comments. The variety of proportions approximating canonical
norm seen on some of these stelae is to be expected in the early years of
Dynasty 12 because the bulk of canonical material of the North would
have been accessible to court artisans for relatively few years. Low, very
flat relief is also characteristic of this time. The custom of clasping a
lotus at or near the bottom of its stem (Leiden V 85 and Louvre C 32) is
a hold-over from the previous dynasty41 and is seldom found in
Dynasty 12. The facial features of the raised relief stelae are relatively
similar to what is seen on stelae dated to Sesostris I’s second decade in
the long-enduring “Many Active Figures group” (see below). Eyes appear
on lintels of false doors in the tomb chapels beginning in the late Old
Kingdom.42 Berlin 1192, CG 20263, and CG 20751 appear to be by the
same hand. Similarly one artisan likely produced, Louvre C 32 and CG
20515, as well as possibly CG 20470. Another hand was responsible for
both Leiden V 85 and CG 20524.
WORKSHOP NO. 8. Many Active Figures

Cairo, CG 20026a Abydos Year 10, —
Sesostris I
Alnwick 1932b Abydos Year 13, ANOC 31.1
Sesostris I
London, BM 586c — Year 14, —
Sesostris I
MMA 12.184d (fig. 8a) Abydos Year 17, —
Sesostris I
Paris, Louvre C 167e Abydos Year 25, ANOC 4.1
(fig. 8b) Sesostris I
Paris, Louvre C 168f Abydos datable, ANOC 4.2
Sesostris I
41 Brovarski,
Naga-ed-Dêr, pp. 237, 926, and 1039 n. 20.
42 A. Rusch, “Die Entwicklung der Grabsteinformen im Alten Reich,” ZÄS 58 (1923),
p. 116.
320

Cairo, CG 20561g Abydos datable, ANOC 4.4
Sesostris I
Leiden V 3h (fig. 8c) Abydos Year 33, —
Sesostris I
Leiden V 4i Abydos Year 44, ANOC 20.1
Sesostris I
Turin 1534j (fig. 8d) — — —
a H. Lange and H. Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine des Mittleren Reiches I (Berlin, 1902),
pp. 33–34.
b Simpson, Terrace, p. 19 and pl. 48.
c HTBM II, p. 7 and pl. 12.
d C. Ransom, “The Stela of Menthu-weser,” BMMA 8 (October, 1913), pp. 216–18 and
frontispiece.
e Simpson, Terrace, p. 17 and pl. 10 top, and R. Moss, “Two Middle Kingdom Stelae in the
Louvre,” in Studies Presented to F. LL. Griffith (Oxford, 1932), pp. 310–11 and pl. 47.
f Simpson, Terrace, p. 17 and pl. 10 bottom, and Moss, “Two Middle Kingdom Stelae,”
pp. 310–11 and pl. 48.
g Simpson, Terrace, p. 17 and pl. 11 bottom.
h H. Schneider and M. Raven, Die Egyptische Oudheid (Leiden, 1981), p. 66, no. 45.
i Simpson, Terrace, p. 18 and pl. 30.
j Museo Egizio di Torino. Civilta’ Degli Egizi. Le Credenze Religiose (Turin, 1988), p. 109,
fig. 144–45.
Date Range. Based on the numerous dated examples, and the stylis-
tic similarity of the undated pieces to the dated ones, this workshop
must belong in the four last decades of the reign of Sesostris I.
Relief Style. All member stelae are in relatively high raised relief,
which often includes interior modeling, especially in the area of the leg
muscles. Incised interior detailing, particularly emphasizing details of
offerings and attire, is abundant in some, but in others it is more
restrained. All figures are canonical.
Shared Attributes. Attendants carrying an interesting variety of
goods, as well as the presence of numerous, well-organized offerings on
tables characterize this group. The existence of separate baselines for
single figures on CG 20561 and MMA 12.184 and small tables for just a
few offerings provide further examples of the organizational tendencies
artisans of the group exhibit. The leg of the main table has two variants;
it is either slightly concave and narrower at the top with separate rings
at top and bottom, or broadly splayed and split at the foot.
The static appearance produced at first glance by the neat spacing of
offering bearers with their repetitive gestures (particularly on Louvre
C 167, C 168, and Alnwick 1932), is offset, however, by the rich variety
of offerings, many of which feature realistic details executed with
321
Fig. 8a. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 12.184, stela

of Mn†w-wsr. Courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Gift of Edward S. Harkness, 1912.
Fig. 8b. Paris, Louvre C 167, stela of ⁄ntf. Courtesy Musée du

Louvre; photo Chuzeville.
Fig. 8c. Leiden V 3, stela of ⁄ntf-¡˚r. Fig. 8d. Turin 1534, stela of ™b-k£w.
Courtesy Rijksmuseum van Oudheden. Courtesy Museo Egizio-Torino.
322
minute precision. The net bags in which women carry jars on CG 20561
and Louvre C 167 and the tapered vertical rows of curls on Leiden V 3,
V 4 and Turin 1534 provide delightful examples.
Facial features in this group tend to be relatively uniform. Eyes are
large and almond-shaped. Brows and cosmetic lines are often executed
in paint only, and ears are large and well defined. Especially on the minor
figures, the elongated and at times aquiline nose above a tiny upturned
mouth produces a profile with a slightly compressed appearance.
Comments. The dated stelae in the group demonstrate the tendency
for relief to become higher and more plastically modeled as the reign
progresses. Stela format has now become relatively standardized, and
although the overall organization is similar in earlier groups (for exam-
ple compare CG 20561 to MMA 65.269 in the “Few Standing Figures
Group,” or MMA 12.184 to BM 152 in the “Packed Offerings Group”),
there is often now a polished sophistication which sets them apart from
the somewhat provincial awkwardness and forced organization of earlier
examples. Both the overall design and the exquisitely carved details of
these stelae bear eloquent testimony to the skill of their artisans, who,
one might conjecture, were now part of a thriving community of arti-
sans at Abydos. It is likely that CG 20561, Louvre C 167,43 Louvre C
168, MMA 12.184 and Alnwick 1932 were carved by the same artist.
Similarly, Turin 1534, Leiden V 3 and Leiden V 4 may be a product of the
same hand.
WORKSHOP NO. 9. Elongated Skull

London, BM 572a Abydos Year 39, ANOC 5.1
Sesostris I
London, BM 562b Abydos Sesostris I ANOC 5.3
London, BM 581c Abydos datable, ANOC 5.2
Sesostris I
Cairo, CG 20539d Abydos Sesostris I —
Boston, MFA 1980.173e — Sesostris I/ —
(fig. 9a) (false door) Amenemhat II
Munich GL. WAF 35f — Year 13, ANOC 20.2
Amenemhat II
London, BM 571g Abydos (Anastasi) — —
43 Simpson also ascribes CG 20561, Louvre C 167, and C 168 to the same hand (Simpson,
Terrace, p.4, n. 25).
323

Vienna 90h (fig. 9b) — datable late —
Sesostris I/
early
Amenemhat II
Cairo, CG 20425i Abydos — —
Kansas City 33–16j — — —
(fig. 9c)
Cairo, CG 20592k Abydos — —
Cairo, CG 20456l Abydos — —
Cairo, CG 20458m Abydos — ANOC 24.1
Cairo, CG 20033n Abydos — ANOC 24.2
(fig. 9d)
London, BM 564o Abydos — ANOC 24.3
b Ibid., p. 17 and pl. 12.
c Ibid., p. 17 and pl. 12.
d Lange and Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine, pls. XLI–XLII and S. Sauneron, “Les Deux
statues de Mentuhotep,” Karnak V 1970–1972 (Cairo, 1975), p. 72 and pl. XXVIII.

e W. K. Simpson, “Mentuhotep, Vizier of Sesostris I, Patron of Art and Architecture,”
MDAIK 47 (1991), pp. 331–40 and pl. 47.

f Simpson, Terrace, p. 18 and pl. 30, right.
g HTBM II, pl. 16.
h W.K. Simpson, “The Steward Iey’s Son Anhurhotpe in Vienna (Stela Inv. 90) and the
Reisner Papyri,” SAK 11 (1984), pp. 157–64, where the stela is dated on the basis of the
owner’s presence in the Reisner Papyri.
i Lange and Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine, pl. XXX.
j Handbook of the William Rockhill Nelson Gallery of Art (Kansas City, 1933), p. 116, low-
er left.
k Lange and Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine, pl. XLVII. In Franke, Dossiers, no. 778 the ste-
la is ascribed to “ca. Sesostris I” and “Anfang/Mitte 12. Dynastie.”
l Lange and Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine, pl. XXXII.
m Simpson, Terrace, p. 18 and pl. 36 right.
n Ibid., p. 18 and pl. 36 bottom.
o Ibid., p. 18 and pl. 36.
Date Range. Late Sesostris I through early Amenemhat II, based on

dated examples and the stylistic similarity of the undated stelae to the
dated ones. Also n ¡m£∞ (rather than n k£ n ¡m£∞) on many of these stelae
is an expression found only rarely after Amenemhat II.44
Relief Style. On all of these stelae, the relief style is quite distinc-
tive. They were carved in sunk relief made by cutting a deep outline, and
(in most instances) rounding the surface of the cut inward and up to
background level, so that little of the interior of a figure or object was
44 Bennett, JEA 27 (1941), p. 79, and later, A. Obsomer, “Critères de datation,” pp. 186–87.
324
Fig. 9a. Boston, MFA 1980.173, false door of Mn†w-¢tp. Courtesy

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
Fig. 9b. Vienna 90, stela of ⁄y. Courtesy

Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna.
Fig. 9c. Kansas City 33–16, stela of S™n∞y. Fig. 9d. Cairo, CG 20033, stela of Rn-™n∞.
Courtesy The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Courtesy Egyptian Museum, Cairo.
Art, Kansas City, Missouri (Purchase: Nelson
Trust).
325
actually recessed. An elegant attenuation marks many figures, particu-

larly the attendants, but it seems clear this was done deliberately rather
than in an unsuccessful attempt to produce canonically correct figures.
This elongation is echoed in the exaggerated thinness of many of the
offerings and even in the long, narrow shape of many of the stelae them-
selves. Lyrically curved lines offset the vertical emphasis. This is seen,
for example, in the pronounced curve at the back of the skull of males
in cap wigs (the feature after which the group was named), the upturned
legs of tables, and the curvilinear shape of many of the vessels.
Incised interior detailing is sparse and, for the most part, restricted
to offerings. Modeling is used with great skill, particularly to highlight
musculature in the arms, legs, abdomen, and even the neck, which is
marked by a vertical depression on five stelae in this group.
Shared Attributes. In addition to the pronounced bulge at the back
of the head and the deeply split table leg with upturned ends mentioned
above, many of these stelae display offerings piled loosely around tables
with no pretense of balance, and a wide variety of jar shapes. Generally
the number of offerings is quite limited. Male owners are often over-
weight, and this is represented by abstract horizontal cuts on the chest
and a pendant breast. (On only the false door fragment, MFA 1980.173,
is this rendered with any degree of naturalism.) Most seated men wear a
wrap-around kilt exposing part of the thigh. On women’s dresses, a lock
of hair substitutes for at least one shoulder strap. The nose is the most
prominent facial feature and is either long and decidedly aquiline or
comes to a point.
Comments. The large size of this group reflects, at least in part, the
increasing demand for stelae at Abydos toward the end of Sesostris I’s
reign. Because of the demand, there is also a tendency toward mass pro-
duction, and that may account for the wholesale substitution of sunk
relief for the more time-consuming raised relief, as well as the absence
of meticulously carved detail. Instead, the skill of the artisans is
expressed in their use of abstract curvilinear forms, which have their
own decorative impact. Simpson noted that BM 572, BM 562, and
BM 581 were carved by the same hand.45 To this list should be added
Vienna 90, Kansas City 33–16, CG 20425, CG 20539, CG 20458, and
CG 20456 Recto at least as far as the decorative areas are concerned. It
seems likely, however, that in this instance, several different scribes
were responsible for the inscriptions.46 Based on their epigraphic idio-
45 Simpson, Terrace, p. 4, n. 25.
46 This follows Franke’s suggestion that two people, a sß-kdwt (draughtsman) and a gnwty
(sculptor) work on a single stela (Franke, Elephantine, p. 105.
326
syncrasies, it appears one hand “wrote” BM 572, BM 562, and BM 581,

while another “wrote” Vienna 90, Kansas City 33–16, CG 20425, and
CG 20456 Recto (CG 20539 and CG 20458 appear to have unique “hand-
writing” as far as this workshop is concerned.)
WORKSHOP NO. 10. Attenuated Figures

Paris, Louvre C 172a — Year 3, —
Amenemhat II
London, BM 828b Abydos (Anastasi) Year 3, —
(fig. 10a) Amenemhat II
Berlin 1183c Abydos Year 3, —
Amenemhat II
Cairo, CG 20531d Abydos Amenemhat II ANOC 23.1
Paris, Musée Guimet Abydos datable, ANOC 23.3
11324e Amenemhat II
London, BM 576f — datable —
Amenemhat II
or later
Berlin 1200g (fig. 10b) — “Year 24” —
Cairo, CG 20090h Abydos “Year 24” —
Cairo, CG 20546i Abydos — ANOC 2.2
London, BM 162j Abydos — ANOC 2.3
Berlin 1188k (fig. 10c) Abydos — ANOC 8.2
Paris, Louvre C 176l Abydos — ANOC 21.1
Cairo, CG 20526m Abydos — ANOC 30.2
(fig. 10d)
Cairo, CG 20567n Abydos — ANOC 39.1
Cairo, CG 20568o Abydos — ANOC 39.2
Cairo, CG 20288p Abydos — —
Cairo, CG 20063q Abydos — —
Cairo, CG 20091r Abydos — —
Cairo, CG 20094s Abydos — —
Cairo, CG 20139t Abydos — —
Cairo, CG 20285u Abydos — —
Cairo, CG 20300v Abydos — —
Cairo, CG 20566w Abydos — —
Cairo, CG 20589x Abydos — —
Cairo, CG 20676y Abydos — —
Cairo, CG 20697z Abydos — —
327

Cairo, CG 20750aa Abydos — —
London, BM 241ab Abydos (Athanasi) — —
(fig. 10e)
London, BM 839ac Abydos (Athanasi) — ANOC 42.1
London, BM 971ad — — —
(fig. 10f)
Paris, Louvre C 180ae — — —
Paris, Louvre C 181af — — —
Paris, Louvre C 184ag — — —
Paris, Louvre C 245ah — — —
Paris, Musée Guimet 4ai — — —
Paris, Musée — — —
Guimet 10aj
NY, MMA 12.182.1ak — — —
Chicago, Oriental — — —
Institute 9920al
Berlin 7280am — — —
a Mentioned most recently in C. Obsomer, “La date de Nésou-Montou (Louvre C1),” RdE
44 (1993), p. 118, n. 58.
b HTBM II, pl. 21, and K. Piehl, “Explication d’une stèle datant du Moyen Empire,” Sphinx
2 (1898), pp. 131–36.

c H.W. Müller, MDAIK 4 (1933), pl. 33.
d Simpson, Terrace, p. 18 and pl. 35 bottom.
e Ibid., p. 18 and pl. 35 top.
f HTBM II, pl. 10. The owner of the stela was an ¡ry-™t of Amenemhat II.
g E. Varga and S. Wenig, Ägyptische Kunst. Sonderausstellung der Ägyptischen Abteilung
der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin (Budapest, 1963), p. 9, no. 50 and pl. V. The year date on
this stela is crudely incised below the baseline, following a line of hieratic. It may post-
date the figural carving.
h Lange and Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine, pl. IX. The year date on this stela is at the bot-
tom of a crudely incised column of hieratic. It may be a later addition, as on Berlin 1200.
i Simpson, Terrace, pp. 14–15, 17 and pl. 6 left, and Franke, Dossiers, nos. 93, 100, and 379
where the stela is dated “end Amenemhet II” to “somewhat earlier (than Sesostris III).”
j Simpson, Terrace, pp. 15, 17 and pl. 6 right, and Franke, Dossiers, no. 100, where the stela
is ascribed to “beginning/middle 12th Dyn. (before Sesostris III).”

k Simpson, Terrace, pp. 17, 23 and pl. 17 bottom, and Franke, Dossiers, no. 496, where the
stela is ascribed to “middle 12th Dyn.”

l Simpson, Terrace, p. 18 and pl. 32 upper left, and Franke, Dossiers, no. 267, where the
stela is ascribed to “beginning of Dynasty 12.”

m Simpson, Terrace, p. 19 and pl. 47 top. Simpson dates this stela to Year 10, Sesostris I
(Terrace, p. 19), based on the fact that its owner, the sß kd, N∞t is the son of the owner
depicted on Cairo CG 20515, which is dated to that time, and Franke, Dossiers, no. 338,
agrees. I would, nevertheless, argue for a later dating for Cairo CG 20526 on the basis of
its stylistic similarities to members of this stelae group (see following paragraphs), which
are dated or datable to late Sesostris I – Amenemhat II.
328
nSimpson, Terrace, p. 20 and pl. 57 left. Franke, Dossiers, no. 308 ascribes it to “early/
middle Dynasty 12.”
o Simpson, Terrace, p. 20 and pl. 57 right. Franke, Dossiers, no. 308 ascribes it to “early/
middle Dynasty 12.”
p Lange and Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine, pl. XXII.
q Ibid., pl. VI.
r Ibid., pp. 110–12.
s Ibid., pl. IX.
t Ibid., pl. XII.
u Ibid., pl. XXII.
v Ibid., pl. XXIII.
w Ibid., pl. XLV, and Franke, Dossiers, no. 566 (“early/middle Dynasty 12”).
x Lange and Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine, pl. XLVII.
y Ibid., pl. LI.
z Ibid., LIII. A dog sits under the owner’s chair on this stela. Pflüger’s claim that this is not
found on stelae after the reign of Sesostris I has been proven incorrect by Obsomer,
“Critères de datation,” p. 183, where he cites an example from the reign of Amenemhat II.
aa Lange and Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine, pl. LVIII.
ab HTBM III, pl. 36.
ac Simpson, Terrace, p. 20 and pl. 61 left. Franke, Dossiers, no. 597 ascribes the stela to
Sesostris I.
ad HTBM III, pl. 37. Franke, Dossiers, no. 345 ascribes it to “beginning 12th Dyn.”
ae Gayet, Stèles, pl. XXXV.
af Ibid., pl. XXXVI.
ag Ibid., pl. L.
ah Unpublished.
ai A. Moret, Catalogue du Musée Guimet. Galerie Egyptienne (Paris, 1909), pl. III.
aj Musée Guimet, pl. IX.
ak Hayes, Scepter I, pp. 333–34 and fig. 221. Franke, Dossiers, no. 391 ascribes it to
Sesostris I, and Obsomer, “Critères de datation,” p. 191, places it at the end of the reign of
Sesostris I or in the reign of Amenemhat II, based on filiation designated by ¡r(t).n.
al D. Silverman, “The Chamberlain NJ-SW ÓWJ,” Serapis 3 (1975–76), pp. 35–40 and pl. I.
am I. Müller in Priese, ed., Ägyptisches Museum, pp. 56–57, where the provenance is listed
as “Abydos?”
Date Range. Late Sesostris I – Amenemhat II. Three stelae are dated
by both the King’s name and a year date (see above) to Year 3,
Amenemhat II. Another bears that King’s cartouche. (The Year date of
24 found on Berlin 1200 and CG 20090 is, in my opinion, a later addition
because in both cases the numerals and their accompanying hieratic
signs are crudely incised in comparison with the rest of the text and dif-
fer from it in size, and are not placed in an area where an inscription is
generally found.) Others in this workshop are stylistically similar (or
even by the same artisan) to the dated examples. Franke includes eleven
of the non-dated stelae in his Dossiers, where he dates them from
Sesostris I to late Amenemhat II, including “beginning/middle 12th
329
Fig. 10b. Berlin 1200, stela of S£-rnnwtt.

Courtesy Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.
Fig. 10c. Berlin 1188, stela of

Wsr-tsn. Courtesy Staatliche
Museen zu Berlin.
Fig. 10a. London, BM 828, stela

of S£-mn†w. Courtesy Trustees
of the British Museum.
Fig. 10d. Cairo, CG 20526, stela of Fig. 10e. London, BM 241, stela of Fig. 10f. London, BM 971, stela of M£-¢s£-
N∞t. Courtesy Egyptian Museum, N∞t¡ and Ónt-flty-¢tp. Courtesy wsr. Courtesy Trustees of the British
Cairo. Trustees of the British Museum. Museum.
330
Dyn.” (see Workshop no. 10, notes i–o, w, ac–ad, and ak), on the basis of
other sources of information about the people represented.
The presence of the title nbt-pr (Woman of the House) on two of the
stelae (Berlin 1188 and Guimet 11324), has often been used as an argu-
ment for a date of Amenemhat III or later. However, noting the relative-
ly frequent occurrence of the title in the context of dated tombs from the
reign of Mentuhotep II on, Obsomer argues for a pre-Amenemhat III date
for their appearance on stelae.47 Additionally, many of these stelae pref-
ace the name of the owner with n ¡m£∞, rather than n k£ n ¡m£∞, which,
as noted earlier, is rare after Amenemhat II.48 As far as a terminus post
quem for this workshop, many of these stelae indicate filiation by ¡r(t).n
rather than ms(t).n. According to Obsomer, this places them at the end
of the reign of Sesostris I at the earliest, or the reign of Amenemhat II.49
In short, art historical, philological and administrative criteria all
point to a date from Late Sesostris I through Amenemhat II for this
workshop.
Relief Style. The stelae in this group share a strikingly similar carv-
ing style. For the most part, they are in sunk relief with an occasional
element in raised relief to provide contrast. This is seen, for example, on
CG 20566 with the owner and his wife, the main offering table on
CG 20091 and CG 20094, and a pile of offerings on Oriental Institute
9920 and BM 576. There is an angularity evident in the carving,
produced by outlining figures and objects with a deep, sharp line, and
making a second cut from the interior, which meets the first at approx-
imately a 45° angle. No attempt was made however, to smooth the sharp
edge left where the second cut meets the interior surface, as was done in
the “Elongated Skull Group.”
The angularity is carried over into the shape of the figures, particu-
larly those of the male attendants whose torsos are reduced to a triangle
from which thin straight arms hang limply downward. Often the arms,
not only of the minor figures, but of the owner and his wife as well, are
overly long, and in that sense they are non-canonical. The offering table,
the offerings, and even the hieroglyphs (Musée Guimet 10) may assume
the same attenuated form. Incised interior detailing and modeling is
virtually non-existent on both main and minor figures, although the
essential elements of offerings are occasionally indicated, perhaps to
identify them.
47 Obsomer, “Critères de datation,”pp. 166–67, where all the previous discussions are
summarized.
48 See note 44.
49 Ibid., pp. 180–91.
331
Despite the overall angularity, a number of stelae make use of curves

in an ingenious way. On CG 20531, CG 20546 and BM 162, the top few
lines of hieroglyphs curve to echo the rounded tops of the stelae them-
selves.
Even and generally fairly ample spacing of the figures, whether car-
rying offerings or empty-handed, as well as the tendency toward similar
gestures, give these stelae an overall repetitive and somewhat sterile
feeling. They are easily recognizable as a group.
Shared Attributes. The majority of stelae in this large group fit
into a few basic models. Most commonly the owner, always male, sits
while his wife stands some distance behind and clasps him on his far
shoulder. A column of inscription between them identifies her. Less
commonly he sits alone. On a few stelae only standing figures are
shown. The last group is generally devoid of both offerings and an offer-
ing formula.50
Additionally, most stelae feature six or more family members who
stand on subsidiary registers with their arms hanging limp and empty-
handed at their sides. Most are identified by their relationship to the
stela owner. Occasionally, attendants bring one or two items of food or
drink, and this contrasts sharply with the more heavily laden offering
bearers seen on stelae from other workshops, for example, in the
“Incised False Door Group.”
Seated males most often wear a closely wrapped kilt which extends
to their knees. Standing males wear a kilt of similar length, but with an
overlapped front flap projecting forward in a triangle, and the interior
edge hanging in an elongated triangle pendant between the legs. Male
wigs generally fall into two categories; one type falls in a gentle curve
from the forehead to well below shoulder level and is occasionally dec-
orated with parallel horizontal striations. On the other type, a horizon-
tal line extends beyond the profile and delineates bangs. The rest of the
hair falls in a pronounced curve from in front of the ear to just below the
shoulders.
Women wear sheath dresses on which both shoulder straps are
generally indicated. The straps increase dramatically in width from
shoulder to bodice, forming a wide “V” which is bisected by a lock of
hair.
A concave-leg offering table supporting stemless reed leaves is a
prominent feature of this group. The leaves may be either wide-bladed,
50 Presumably another element of the offering chapel would have contained an offering
formula. For a discussion of these stelae particularly as individual components of Abydene

stela chapels, see Simpson, Terrace, p. 15.
332
usually eight in number, or tall and narrow, in bundles of as many as six-

teen. To its right, and beneath or beside it may rest a tall ¢s jar or libation
set. To the left of the table leg, db¢t-¢tp (offerings) is frequently in-
scribed, and above, often ∞£ (thousand) signs accompany the hieroglyphs
for the foods and material goods enumerated in the offering formula.
Less often, a thin mat or a low table placed above or beside the reed
leaves contains additional items.
Comments. The “Attenuated Figures Group” is both the largest and
chronologically the latest of the workshops presented here. Its member
stelae are also the most homogeneous in both relief style and attributes.
There is less variation in the positions of figures and greater spacing
among them.There is also a tendency toward carelessness which is
particularly noticeable in the angular cutting of the minor figures. The
compositions are generally spare, including few offerings and showing
little attention to individual detail. Although they are not unappealing,
their simplicity and overall sameness suggests that they were hastily
carved.
Within that uniformity, a few individual hands may nevertheless be
noted. Clearly CG 20546 and BM 162, (both ANOC 2) were carved by the
same artist, who may have also carved BM 839, Berlin 1188, CG 20091,
CG 20094, CG 20285, and CG 20531.
Similarly, CG 20567 and CG 20568 (both ANOC 39), are from the
same hand,51 also possibly responsible for Louvre C 172. Another hand
carved CG 20091 and CG 20285. Another: CG 20090, Berlin 1200, and
Guimet 11324. Another: CG 20526. Another: Berlin 1183, Louvre C 176,
Louvre C 181, BM 576, and BM 828. Another: BM 241, Louvre C 180, and
Guimet 10. Another: Oriental Institute 9920, CG 20697, and BM 576.
Because so many more stelae have survived from this workshop
than from any other, because so many individual hands can be identi-
fied, and because the variation in composition and attention to detail
and execution is so dramatically reduced, one may infer that by the reign
of Amenemhat II a greater demand for stelae has led to short cuts in the
stela-making process. These shortcuts include the widespread use of
sunk relief, the sameness of pose, a lack of time-consuming intricate de-
tails, and an overall simplicity of format. Moreover, a number of stelae
contain names and titles in hieratic (CG 20090) or in hieroglyphs that
seem cursorily rendered compared to the hieroglyphs of the offering for-
mula (CG 20300), or to precisely executed figural carving (CG 20139).
51 Ibid.
333
This suggests that at least some stelae were now available from a ready-
made, generic stock, which could be personalized after purchase.
On the basis of the dated stelae, this workshop endured for at least
twenty years.
Conclusion
In addition to what they show us about the make-up of stela workshops,
private stelae from the reigns of Amenemhat I, Sesostris I, and
Amenemhat II provide a rich illustration of the art historical creativity
of the time and mirror its political changes.
Of the 123 stelae in this study, twenty-three are dated by cartouche,
thirteen are datable on the basis of the identity of their owners or specif-
ic aspects of style, attributes, or inscriptional information, and an addi-
tional eighty-seven are attributed to a given reign (or reigns) based on
their inclusion in a dated or datable workshop. When not only dated ste-
lae, but also stelae in dated or datable workshops are considered, much
more material is available from which trends may be observed.
Stela workshops discussed here fall roughly into three groups, corre-
sponding approximately to the three reigns. The earliest workshops,
specifically the “Colorful Theban Group” and “Few Standing Figures
Group” were headquartered at Thebes, where the capital was presum-
ably still located. The former follows very closely the style of painting
and relief found in the tombs of the royal courtiers, Dagy and Meketre,
believed to date to the reign of Mentuhotep III and Amenemhat I respec-
tively.52 It is possible both workshops were established in Dynasty 11
and continued into Dynasty 12. Whether or not the earliest member
stelae were made in Dynasty 11, their debt to the post-reunification
style is readily discernible. Although both groups may be contemporary,
the “Few Standing Figures Group” bears the stamp of Northern influ-
ence in its relief style, and it is this style that prevails, with some mod-
ification, well into the reign of Sesostris I.
When the capital moved northward to ⁄†-t£wy, it appears that the
center of stela production also shifted northward, but only as far as Aby-
dos. Regardless of whether it preceded the move, it is not surprising that
the “Fleshy Features Group,” probably the earliest Abydene workshop,
reflects a Theban influence in its occasional non-canonical proportions.
It is noteworthy that fully seven stelae included here are dated by
cartouche and year date to Year 9 or 10 of the reign of Sesostris I. These
seven stelae belong to five different workshops (“Fleshy Features,” “Ver-
52 See discussion on p. 302 of this article and especially n. 15.
334
tical Curls and Flower,” “Large Male,” “Incised False Door,” and “Many
Active Figures”), and they clearly demonstrate the extent of experimen-
tation and creativity that followed the move northward and the royal
building projects a new capital and necropolis demanded. At no point
later in the dynasty does such a diversity of styles exist at the same time.
Politically, the middle years of the reign of Sesostris I were a time of
stability, and stela workshops appear to have flourished. Although dif-
ferent workshops are identifiable, there is also much more similarity
among them, particularly in relief style, than previously. The mature
raised relief style of Sesostris I (seen particularly in the “Large Male,”
“Incised False Door,” and “Many Active Figure” workshops) is higher,
thereby permitting more plastic modeling. On the face of the owner of
Leiden V, 2, for example (“Large Male” workshop), a depression sur-
rounds the eye, parallels the nose, and separates the face from the neck.
A fold of flesh marks the corner of the nostril. Such realistic modeling is
often accompanied by delicate touches of incised detail, as the feather-
ing of a duck’s wing on British Museum 585 in the “Large Male Group,”
and the painstakingly executed jars carried in net bags on Louvre C 167
or Cairo, CG 20561 (both in the “Many Active Figures” workshop).
These skillfully executed touches demonstrate a confidence derived
from experience in relief carving. Virtually all include canonical figures.
The combination of plastic modeling and finely incised detailing
which unites the Abydene workshops after the first decade of
Sesostris I’s reign is characteristic of both royal and private works of the
same period made elsewhere. On the White Chapel of Sesostris I at
Thebes, for example, the reliefs are covered with painstakingly incised
detail.53 The face of the nomarch Ukh-hotep in his tomb at Meir54 is
marked by plastic modeling similar to what is seen on Leiden V 2.
Although reliefs from each region maintain some of their own idiosyn-
crasies, these broad characteristics bear testimony to a trend toward
country-wide artistic unity.
There is also a tendency for the content of a stela to be more com-
plex at this time and to feature more figures in a greater variety of poses.
For example, Leiden V 4 from the “Many Active Figures” workshop
shows figures in a series of “action poses,” one mashing grain, another
trussing a bull, and numerous male and female attendants bringing a
wide variety of offerings. The “Incised False Door Group” is so named
because of the inclusion, on four of its member stelae, of a complete
53 P. Lacau and H. Chévrier, Une Chapelle de Sésostris I à Karnak (Cairo, 1951), plates.
54 A. Blackman, The Rock Tombs of Meir II (London, 1915), pl. XXXV, no. 1, for example.
335
false door in miniature in the center of the bottom register. The combi-
nation of the false door, the offering bearers, and the scenes of daily life
means that most of the repertoire of an entire chapel is included within
these stelae.
In the reign of Amenemhat II, the high, plastic modeling, intricate
detailing, and complex compositions which characterize the workshops
flourishing under Sesostris I give way to a less detailed, more mechani-
cal style, probably as the result of increased demand. This is seen partic-
ularly in the “Elongated Skull” and “Attenuated Figures” workshops.
All those stelae were executed in sunk relief, which is both easier and
faster to carve than raised relief. In the latter workshop particularly, not
only is the amount of detailing reduced, but there are fewer figures and
fewer offerings. The repertoire of poses is limited, and generally the fig-
ures assume more passive positions, thereby demanding less creativity
on the part of the artisans. By far the largest workshop, with thirty-nine
stelae carved by several identified hands, the “Attenuated Figures
Group” exhibits a decided carelessness with regard to the canon, each
artisan seeming to have his own variant. Accordingly, within the same
workshop, legs, arms, torsos, and necks may be too long or too short, or
too fat or too thin, particularly on the minor figures.
No workshop can be dated exclusively to the reign of Sesostris II,
although it is not out of the question that the “Attenuated Figures”
workshop continued that late. Following that reign, the production of
stelae, like pottery, grave goods, and many other aspects of the material
life of Egyptian society underwent significant changes reflecting the
wholesale reorganization of the country that occured under Sesostris III,
and the new world vision that was promulgated.55
55 Foran overview of these changes and their reasons, see J. Bourriau, “Patterns of Change
in Burial Customs during the Middle Kingdom,” in S. Quirke, ed., Middle Kingdom
Studies (New Malden, Surrey, 1991), pp. 3–20, especially pp. 10–12.
336
21 FRIEDMAN Page 337 Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:26 PM
Notions of Cosmos in the

Step Pyramid Complex
Florence Dunn Friedman
I
offer this contribution with much gratitude to Prof. William
Kelly Simpson for his encouragement and interest in my study of the
Step Pyramid complex.
That notions of cosmos can be elucidated by the architectural and
sculptural program of the Step Pyramid complex rests on recent work on
the relief panels of King Djoser found under the pyramid and south
tomb,1 the results of which are reviewed below.2
The Step Pyramid complex, oriented north–south, was constructed
for Djoser, known exclusively at this time by his Horus name
Netjerykhet (N†ry-flt), meaning the Divine,3 or Most Divine One of the
Corporation (of gods),4 this being the earliest royal appellation that iden-
tifies a king with the notion of n†r.5 Djoser’s funerary complex, built
during his reign of 196 (but possibly as long as 30)7 years, underwent
numerous alterations and expansions, some possibly intended from the
start,8 revealing in part the deliberate adoption and revision of many
1 F.D. Friedman, “The Underground Panels of King Djoser at the Step Pyramid Complex,”
JARCE 32 (1995), pp. 1–42.

2 A modified version of this paper was delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American
Research Center in Egypt, Atlanta, April, 1995.

3 J. Baines, “Origins of Egyptian Kingship,” in D. O’Connor and D.P. Silverman, eds.,
Ancient Egyptian Kingship (Leiden, New York, Köln, 1995), p. 143.

4 E. Hornung, Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt, English translation by John Baines
(Ithaca, New York, 1982), pp. 46, 221–22.

5 Baines, “Origins,” p. 143; but note that Hornung, Conceptions, pp. 44–46, gives nineteen
private Early Dynastic names (cited from P. Kaplony, Die Inschriften der ägyptischen
Frühzeit [Wiesbaden, 1963], pt. 3 and idem, Kleine Beiträge zu den Inschriften der
ägyptischen Frühzeit [Wiesbaden, 1966], pp. 40–41) that are construed with n†r.
6 According to the Turin Papyrus, he had a nineteen-year reign: J. von Beckerath, “Djoser,”
LÄ I, col. 1111.
7 N. Swelim, ”Rollspiegel, Pierre de Taille and an Update on a King and Monument List of
the Third Dynasty,” in Ulrich Luft, ed., The Intellectual Heritage of Egypt, Studies
Presented to László Kákosy, Studia Aegyptiaca XIV (Budapest, 1992), p. 551. A thirty-year
reign seems more likely given the size and complexity (both above and below ground) of
his funerary monument.
8 J.-Ph.
Lauer, “Sur certaines modifications et extensions apportées au complexe funéraire
de Djoser,” in J. Baines et al., eds., Pyramid Studies and Other Essays Presented to I.E.S.
Edwards (London, 1988), p. 11.
earlier architectural forms and their attendant meanings. Perhaps the

most significant architectural adoptions and revisions are the use of the
rectangular Abydos enclosure form, with antecedents in the early First
Dynasty (Djer),9 and the mimicking, in the placement of the original
mastaba, of Khasekhemwy’s placement of a mound in the northwest
quadrant of his Second Dynasty enclosure (the antecedents for which
may go back to the Temple of Hierakonpolis).10 Numerous other adop-
tions and revisions draw on Saqqara as well as Abydos traditions.11
Djoser’s complex is located on the highest ground of the Saqqara
plateau,12 suggesting a desire to incorporate into his funerary monu-
ment the regenerative notion of the primeval hill, a mythological form
also manifested in the pyramid. This great rectangular complex is
surrounded by a niched palace wall enclosing structures that include the
pyramid, heb sed court to the east, the south tomb below the southern
wall, and a great ws∞t-broad court to the south of the pyramid, in which
were two sets of territorial markers around which Djoser was under-
stood (as illustrated on the underground reliefs) to have run as part of the
sed festival.
Statues played a major role in the complex, where they appear to
have been vehicles for regeneration.13 Abundant niches suggest that
much statuary, most now lost, originally filled the architecture, includ-
ing the famous statue base with the king’s feet subjugating the Nine
Bows and the r∞yt,14 a typical palace theme akin to the smiting scene,
the subject of which is underscored by the limestone heads of foreign
prisoners also found in the entrance colonnade.15 The statue—of which
9 D. O’Connor, “New Funerary Enclosures (Talbezirke) of the Early Dynastic Period at

Abydos,” JARCE 26 (1989), p. 81.
10 D. O’Connor, “The Status of Early Egyptian Temples,” in R. Friedman and B. Adams,
eds., The Followers of Horus, Studies Dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman (Oxford, 1992),
pp. 85–86.
11 See most recently W. Kaiser, “Zur unterirdischen Anlage der Djoserpyramide und ihrer
entwicklungsgeschichtlichen Einordnung,” in Gegengabe: Festschrift für Emma Brunner-

Traut (Tübingen, 1992), pp. 168–90; Lauer, “Sur certaines modifications…,” pp. 5–11; and
Friedman, JARCE 32, esp. pp. 8–10, n. 44. See also B. Adams, Ancient Nekhen, Egyptian
Studies Association Publication No. 3 (Whitstable, Kent, 1995), pp. 71–72 (refer also to fig.
23) for comparisons of the layout of the complex with that of the Temple of Nekhen at Hi-
erakonpolis and for further comparisons with the Khasekhemwy enclosure at Abydos.
12 C.M. Firth and J.E. Quibell, Excavations at Saqqara: The Step Pyramid (Cairo, 1935),
vol. I, p. 1. For a plan, see Lauer, La Pyramide à Degrés: L’Architecture (Cairo, 1936), vol. II,
pl. III.
13 Cf. D. Arnold’s comments on the role of Fifth and Sixth Dynasty pyramid complexes as
a site for the victory of the king over his enemies and as a place to ensure his continued
existence in the form of his statues: “Rituale und Pyramidentempel,” MDAIK 33 (1977),
esp. pp. 13–14.
14 Firth and Quibell, The Step Pyramid, vol. I, pp. 65–66; vol. II, pls. 58–59.
338
Florence Dunn Friedman, Notions of Cosmos in the Step Pyramid Complex
only the base survives—probably stood in a niche in the southeast side

of the entrance corridor, an area thought to be a palace of sorts, its form
borrowed from late Second Dynasty Abydos enclosures.16 The subject of
the statue base proclaims the usual royal responsibility to dominate,
with its cosmic implication that the king, once standing above, is the
maintainer of Maat by imposing order over chaos. Using an interpreta-
tion of the pedestal inscription based on a Pyramid Text reading, Helck
suggests that the king was reborn as an £∞ through this statue by means
of the effective actions of Horus and Thoth, “the two brothers of bjtj,”
who he believes are mentioned in the inscription.17 An even clearer ex-
ample of statuary as a vehicle for rebirth is the serdab statue to the
northeast of the pyramid, which faced the Circumpolar Stars, site of re-
generation in the Pyramid Texts.18
Sculpture once filled the heb sed court, where its shrines, doorways
and niches show that statuary, whether of king or gods, was predomi-
nantly oriented to the east (on the west side of the court) and to the
south (on the east side of the court).19 These orientations are relevant to
our understanding of the relief sculpture beneath the pyramid and south
tombs. For about 30 m below and to the east of both the pyramid and
South Tomb are corridors that are entered from the north. Each corridor
has three doorways that contain relief panels showing the king standing
or running. The relief images, each set almost a meter off the ground as
though on a pedestal, I believe, are to be undersood as statues.20 The pe-
rimeter of each doorway is surrounded with the titulary of the king,21
while the design of the corridor with recessed doorways recalls his pal-
ace facade, the design of which is repeated in a variant and larger form
on the enclosure wall above ground.
The subjects of the relief panels (figs. 1a–f) are Djoser’s ritual acts
during the Sed festival, as he stands in the shrines of the gods, runs the
15 For a discussion of these and related heads probably also from the complex, see B.V.
Bothmer, “On Realism in Egyptian Funerary Sculpture,” Expedition 24:2 (1992), pp. 29–
31.
16 I.e., the Abydos enclosures of Peribsen and Khasekhemwy. See W. Kaiser, “Zu den
königlichen Talbezirken der 1. und 2. Dynastie in Abydos und zur Baugeschichte des
Djoser-Grabmals,” MDAIK 25 (1969), pp. 9; 19, n. 6; W. Helck, “Zu den ‘Talbezirken’ in
Abydos,” MDAIK 28 (1972), pp. 95–99; D. Arnold, Lexikon der ägyptischen Baukunst
(Munich, Zurich, 1994), p. 68.
17 “Zum Statuensockel des Djoser,” in Gegengabe, pp. 143–50.
18 E.g., Pyr. 1080b, 1454b, 1760b.
19 I thank Mark Lehner for pointing out these orientations.
20 Most citations for the following discussion of the reliefs are omitted, since they are
detailed in JARCE 32 (1995), pp. 1–42.

21 See Lauer, “Remarques sur les Stèles Fausses-Portes de l’Horus Neteri-khet (Zoser) à
Saqqarah,” Mon. Piot 49 (1957), esp. pp. 6–12.
339
ritual race, seizes the two lands, possesses the two skies, and stands
recrowned as eternal monarch of Egypt. The reliefs replicate subject
matter (and sometimes format) from the Early Dynastic ticket labels
(e.g., the race between territorial markers on a Den label) and sed-related
Palermo Stone year entries (e.g., for a statue of Khasekhemwy), as well
as from the Narmer Palette (the theme of subjugation and victory) and
the Narmer Macehead (the race between markers that later becomes
part of the sed festival).22 The reliefs are to be read in sequence from
right to left, that is, north to south, in the direction in which the king
faces, just as in the contemporary tomb of Hesy-Re, one reads and walks
from left to right in the direction in which Hesy faces (i.e., south) as he
stands or sits within the niche doorways of his corridor. Read from the
right, the Djoser reliefs show the king as he stands, runs, runs, runs,
stands, and stands again. Very briefly, the first panel (fig. 1a) shows the
king standing in what is labeled the shrine of Horus the Behedite. The
inscriptions in four of the panels (figs. 1 a, b, e, f) label as a shrine the site
in which Djoser stands or runs, and in all six panels I believe he is un-
derstood as though within a shrine. And just as the images of Hesy are
oriented south in the direction he faces, but are also understood frontal-
ly, which is east,23 so Djoser’s standing and running images are to be un-
derstood in dual orientation, i.e., south in the direction in which he faces
and east toward the viewer.
Two signs always situated behind the king ( ) have been shown
24
to be abbreviated sky glyphs, the dual form suggesting the upper and
netherworlds,25 pt and Nwt,26 whose mirror-imaged sky vaults bracket
the cosmic stage on which Djoser is the main player. The object on the
standard preceding the king is identifiable as a throne cushion based on
several appearances in Niuserre’s Fifth Dynasty Sun Temple texts where
22 Friedman, JARCE 32, esp. pp. 1–8, and 42 for summary.

23 W. Wood, “A Reconstruction of the Reliefs of Hesy-Re,” JARCE 15 (1978), esp. p. 17, and
see Friedman, JARCE 32, p. 13.

24 A.J.Spencer, “Two Enigmatic Hieroglyphs and Their Relation to the Sed-Festival,” JEA
64 (1978), p. 54.
25 W.K. Simpson, “Poetry from the Oldest Religious Literature,” in W. K. Simpson, ed., The
Literature of Ancient Egypt (New Haven and London, 1973), p. 272, n. 16, notes in the
Cannibal Hymn that the two pt-skies around which the king is said to have traveled (Pyr.
406C) are the upper world and netherworld. Elsewhere the king is told, “You shall ascend
to the sky … the sky is given to you, the earth is given to you” (Pyr. 1009c; 1010b; 1985a).
26 On Pyramid Text use of pt in opposition to Nwt, see Pyr. 149a–b, cited in James P. Allen,
Genesis in Egypt: The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts, Yale

Egyptological Studies 2 (New Haven, 1988), p. 4, and pp. 1–7 for a fuller discussion of this
and other aspects of the Egyptian universe; and idem, “The Cosmology of the Pyramid
Texts,” in W.K. Simpson, ed., Religion and Philosophy in Ancient Egypt, Yale Egypt-
ological Studies 3 (New Haven, 1989), pp. 1–28.
340
Fig. 1a–f. Relief Panels under the Pyramid

and South Tomb. Drawings by Yvonne
Markowitz as published in F.D. Friedman,
JARCE 32 (1995), figs. 2a and b.
it is upheld by the ¢m st, throne priest,27 signaling that a critical subject

of Djoser’s drama is the king’s recrowning and enthronement.
In the middle panel under the pyramid (fig. 1b), the king runs, hold-
ing the mks container, inside of which is understood to be the ¡myt-pr,
a document that gives Djoser claim over Egypt. He runs between the
∂nbw-terrritorial markers, symbols of the land’s expanse that are recon-
structed today above ground in the great ws∞t court. The king here is un-
derstood as running above ground in the great court, both around the
territorial markers by means of which he reclaims Egypt, and out of the
gate on the south wall, which is closely aligned with the panels under-
ground. Through that gate he could run around the complex in the pflr
¢£ ¡nb ritual of circuiting the capital walls, which occurred at the acces-
sion of the king and as a renewal of his reign in the sed festival. Egypt is
27F.W.F. von Bissing and H. Kees, Das Re-Heiligtum des Königs Ne-woser-re (Rathures),
vol. II (Leipzig, 1923), Blatt 16, 39, Blatt 12, 32.
341
thus taken and the capital reclaimed by the recrowned king, justly
termed a “territorial claimant.”28
In the next panel (fig. 1c), the king continues to run; pt, Nwt and the
land signs flank him, suggesting that they are, have been and will be tak-
en, an already-but-not-yet principle that pervades this ritual stage. In the
first panel under the south tomb (fig. 1d) the king completes the run, the
orientation of all glyphs but one shifting direction in order to signal his
change of direction around the markers above ground.29 He is under-
stood to have run across the court above ground (fig. 4) in order to circuit
the markers and/or run out of the dummy gateway on the south wall.30
The final two reliefs (figs. 1e–f) show the king after the completed run as
he ™¢™-stands in shrines, crowned as king of Lower and then Upper Egypt.
The shrines in which the king is depicted have their three-dimen-
sional correlate above ground in the heb sed court. Though there is no
one-to-one correlation between the underground relief shrine references
and the above ground actual shrines, the statue context for both links
them closely. The southern and eastern orientations of the panel statue
figures underground correspond to the mainly southern and eastern ori-
entation of the doorway and niche statuary that once stood in the heb
sed shrines or embedded in the pedestals on which the shrines sit31
above ground. The relationship is purely schematic, however, without
any correlation in size between the panel figures and doorway or niche
dimensions. (And some of the shrine statuary was surely of gods.32)
The doorways of the underground reliefs of the king are bordered by
the royal titulary and surrounded by greenish-blue faience tiles in the
form of bound reeds.33 The reed motif recalls both the earthly reed mat-
28 A term used by Barry J. Kemp in Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization (London and
New York, 1989), pp. 59–62, esp. p. 62.
29 The designer obviously realized that to reverse the orientation of the sign with the cor-
ner of the buttressed wall would have rendered the glyph illegible.
30 Sed festival statues of a running king are best represented by the figures of Tuthmosis III
in the tomb of Rekhmire: N. de Garis Davies, The Tomb of Rekh-mi-re at Thebes (New
York, 1943; reprinted by Arno Press, 1973), pls. 36, 37.
31 M. Lehner, The Complete Pyramids (Thames and Hudson, forthcoming), manuscript
p. 17.
32 See D. Wildung, “Two Representations of Gods from the Early Old Kingdom,” in
Miscellanea Wilbouriana, The Brooklyn Museum (Brooklyn, 1972), pp. 145–60.

33 Lauer, PD I, pp. 34–38; idem, Histoire monumentale des Pyramides d’Egypte I (Cairo,
1962), pp. 76–79. On the tiles, see S. Schliegl, “Investigation on Faience Tiles from the
Walls of Djoser’s South Tomb in Saqqara: An Approach to Reveal the Technique of Their
Manufacture,” in Abstracts of the Fifth International Congress of Egyptologists (Cairo,
1988), pp. 242–43; P. Vandiver, “The Manufacture of Faience,” in A. Kaczmarczyk and
R.E.M. Hedges, Ancient Egyptian Faience: An Analytical Survey of Egyptian Faience from
Predynastic to Roman Times (Warminster, Wiltshire, 1983), esp. A–83–85; J. Vandier,
Manuel, Tome I** (Paris, 1952), fig. 584, pp. 883–87.
342
ting of the archaic palace of the king and the afterlife abode of the Field
of Reeds, the s∞t ¡£rw, a domain that in Pyramid Texts is important
enough for the king to receive it along with the sky and earth.34 With
their w£∂-green color of regeneration35 and glistening surface, the tiles
also evoke the primeval waters, already alluded to in the watery vaults
of pt and Nwt. Djoser’s predecessor, Khasekhemwy, may have had such
notions in mind when he used smaller similarly glazed plaques in his
Abydos tomb.36 And such ideas may also have been relevant for the
dwelling of the gods, as illustrated by palm tree and other vegetal inlays
or tiles from the archaic Osiris temple at Abydos,37 the archaic temple
at Hierakonpolis, and earlier as well as contemporary temple tiles at
Elephantine.38 Djoser was thus drawing on an already established
faience tradition and the regenerative meaning it probably carried in ear-
ly tomb and temple contexts.
All facets of regenerative watery creation are indicated in the Djoser
complex: the primeval ocean in the tiled rooms,39 the watery vault of
heaven above, and (fig. 2) its netherworld counterpart below. But there
is also the terrestrial plane of earth, Egypt, which the king assumes in
his run,40 below which is an underworld plane with the two tombs41
(fig. 3). The sky above, the sky below, and earth and underworld are
understood in an accordion-like vertical expansion of layered planes.
34 Cf. Pyr. 1010b and 1985c.

35 For the multiple meanings of w£∂, see most recently F.L. Vergès, Les Bleus égyptiens: de
la pâte auto-émaillée au pigment bleu synthétique (Louvain, 1992), pp. 17–18. The author
wonders whether the blue was intended to ensure the protection of the king or merely
arose from the manufacturing technique. But examples of Djoser faience tiles with origi-
nally reddish brown glaze (A.J. Spencer, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British
Museum V: Early Dynastic Objects [London, 1980], Cat. 524, EA 2444; Cat. 525, EA 2445),
presumably furniture inlays, show that other colorants could have been used and thus sug-
gests that the blue-green glaze of the Djoser tiles was deliberate.
36 See Spencer, Catalogue, nos. 502–507 for Khasekhemwy glazed plaques, and thirteen
glazed plaques from an inlay (no. 508) from Sakkara, Tomb 3504, mid-First Dynasty, reign
of Djet. Cf. earlier use of inlays in a temple context at the temple of Osiris (nos. 500–501)
and tiles from the same (nos. 509, 511, 512; Metropolitan Museum of Art 59.107.7, illus-
trated in G. Dreyer, Elephantine VIII: Der Tempel der Satet (Mainz am Rhein, 1986),
pl. 62 g; and at Hierakonpolis (e.g., J.E. Quibell and F.W. Green, Hierakonpolis, pt. II [Lon-
don, repr. 1989], p. 43 and pl. 32, upper right image showing an especially interesting tile
whose underside carries the imprint of the palm-leaf mat on which it rested while drying).
37 See palm tile in Spencer, Catalogue, 501 and other examples of tiles from the Osiris
Temple from Dynasties 1 and 2 in previous note.

38 Dreyer, Elephantine VIII, esp. pls. 47–50.
39 Cf. also the so-called Lepsius blue rooms just to the east of the pyramid burial chamber,
found on plan in Lauer, PD II, pl. XVI.

40And cf. Pyr. 1167a–b, which enjoins the king to “Run your course, Row over your
waterway like Re on the banks of the sky,” suggesting that at the Step Pyramid Complex
the racetrack arena might be comparable to a celestial Nile.
343
In addition to this cosmic layering and expansion of features, there

is a circular rhythmic nesting of above- and below-ground features, one
within the other, that cannot easily be illustrated graphically: below
ground, inside a palace corridor are shrines within whose doorways are
statue images of the king; just as, above ground, within the palace walls,
are heb sed shrines, within whose doorways and niches were statues (at
least in part) of the king.
Within the larger palace walls are also smaller palace structures, like
the one in the entrance corridor, Temple T42 beside the sed court, possi-
bly the south tomb itself,43 and the building north of the pyramid44
(more often called the mortuary temple), as well as the underground pal-
ace equivalents in the corridors beneath the pyramid and south tomb.
There are ws∞t-broad courts that echo across the superstructure, from
the huge moat in the form of a ws∞t-glyph that encloses the complex,45
to ws∞t-glyph-shaped corridors in the heb sed shrines, to the ws∞t-
courts northeast and south of the pyramid, to those between the heb sed
shrines, and others south of the House of the North and south of the
House of the South. Ws∞t is further echoed in the substructure in what
I believe are ws∞t-glyph references on two of the relief panels, the most
southern beneath the pyramid and the most northern beneath the south
tomb (figs. 1c and d).46 The nesting of form within form, idea within
idea, yields intensified resonating notions of each, from below ground to
above and above ground to below.
There are also architectural and sculptural features with comple-
mentary orientations, such as the south tomb oriented east–west and its
complement the pyramid tomb oriented north–south, so that Djoser’s
spirit ascends from the south tomb into the west and from the pyramid
tomb into the north, the west and the northern Circumpolar Stars being
two celestial afterlife abodes in Old Kingdom religious thinking. The
west and north also complement the subterranean relief orientations,
namely, south and east, thus enabling the king to move toward all four
41 E. Hornung discusses the three aspects of the watery depths in Idea Into Image (New
York, English edition, 1992), p. 96: “the watery sphere of the primeval ocean, the earthly
depths of the underworld, and the heavenly realm above.”
42 O. Goelet, Two Aspects of the Royal Palace in the Egyptian Old Kingdom (University
Microfilms International, 1982), pp. 391–92; Lehner, The Complete Pyramids, pp. 17, 22–
23.
43 Z. Hawass, personal communication, Giza, September, 1992; Friedman, JARCE 32, esp.
pp. 14, 16, 40, 42.

44 D. Arnold, Lexikon, pp. 68–69.
45 N. Swelim, “The Dry Moat of the Netjerykhet Complex,” in Baines et al., eds., Pyramid
Studies, pp. 12–22.

46 Friedman, JARCE 32, pp. 40–41.
344
N LY R K
N O W O
I O RT
S IT L A
P O I N A
R
FO ORIG
S E
U
Fig. 2. The complex with pt above and Nwt below. Drawing by

Peggy Sanders. Data base for complex provided by Mark Lehner.
345
N LY R K
N O W O
I O RT
SI T L A
P O I N A
R G
FO ORI
E
US
Fig. 3. The complex with an additonal underworld plane bear-
ing the tombs. Drawing by Peggy Sanders.
346
cardinal points. And finally, the great court markers south of the pyra-
mid are oriented to a southern gate, complemented by (originally two)
markers in the court of the House of the South oriented to what was
once a northern gate.47
And there are parallel features, like the north–south orientation of
both the south tomb and pyramid corridors and their panel images; or
the great court to the south of the pyramid with a statue chamber in its
southwest corner that may have originally been planned to parallel the
court to the north(east) of the pyramid with a southwest statue chamber
(i.e., the serdab). Complementary and parallel features encompass all
four cardinal points as well as up to down and down to up (as when the
subterrranean panels of the king are to be understood above and below
ground); and not necessarily sequentially, but at one and the same time,
so that the complex is experienced as a single narrative. These layered,
complementary and parallel features suggest an attempt on the part of
the designer to “raise to a higher coefficient of reality”48 all cosmic ele-
ments necessary to ensure the King’s eternal life in the terrestrial and ce-
lestial, earthly and divine realms.
Considering the Dynasty 0 and Early Dynastic sources from which
Djoser borrowed architecturally and sculpturally, it would not be
surprising to find antecedents for this layered, cosmic construct. I
identify one such antecedent in the Narmer Palette, a monument that
established, as Baines notes, “an iconographic definition of the Egyptian
cosmos, which set the pattern for later periods.”49 It is a monument that
incorporates, repeats and modifies subjects from earlier palettes that
cannot be discussed here. Baines analyzes the palette as a description of
the ordered cosmos in which the human/cow heads (i.e., Bat), along with
the Horus (sky god) serekh at top, denote the sky realm; the central relief
areas, with king and subjugation scenes (and entwined symbolic beasts
on the front), denote the ‘world;’ and the fleeing enemies on the lowest
register refer to “what is outside and ‘beneath’ the ordered cosmos.”50
Interpreting Baines’s description graphically (fig. 5) yields a three-part
separation of the two-dimensional registered scenes into a tiered spatial
conception in which the sky51 lies above the world/earth, which in turn
47 Ibid.,p. 14 and n. 77.

48 Using a phrase of Bernard Berenson on Florentine Renaissance art.
49 J. Baines, “On the Status and Purpose of Ancient Egyptian Art,” CAJ 4:1 (1994), p. 76.
50 J. Baines, “Communication and display: the integration of early Egyptian art and writ-
ing,” Antiquity 63 (1989), p. 475. For his subsequent discussions of the same, see, in addi-
tion to CAJ 4:1 (1994), p. 76, Baines, “Origins of Egyptian Kingship,” in D. O’Connor and
D.P. Silverman, eds., Ancient Egyptian Kingship (Leiden, New York, Cologne, 1995),
p. 120.
347
lies above a netherworld outside the ordered universe. The king partici-
pates in all these realms—as the implicit Horus falcon in heaven, as king
and subjugator in the world, and as repeller of chaos in the sphere be-
yond order52—and he is the dominant player in this cosmic schema.53
Djoser expands and modifies the cosmic construct inherent in the
Narmer Palette within a process of repetitions and revisions that echo
throughout the complex, all of them part of a long “chain of replica-
tions,”54 to use a phrase from Davis in his analysis of late predynastic
palettes.55 Davis shows how the palettes repeat and revise one another’s
graphic and metaphoric vocabulary with the result that each can only be
fully understood within the “replicatory sequence.”56 Djoser’s monu-
ment is, I believe, part of such a sequence. In the underground panels he
drew on the format and subject matter of Early Dynastic ticket labels
and sed-related Palermo Stone entries, and borrowed subject matter
from the Dynasty 0 Narmer Palette and Narmer Macehead.57 Architec-
turally, he borrowed and expanded on the plan of the Early Dynastic
enclosures at Abydos, among many other sources. But from the Narmer
Palette (and undoubtedly from other yet unidentified monuments), he
does more than adopt themes. He borrows and expands on its very cos-
mic construct. From a formal point of view, the complex is much like a
gigantic Narmer Palette, whose registers have been separated into suc-
cessive layers and then dramatically expanded into three dimensions.58
But while the Narmer Palette has a verso (like most palettes) that
must be turned over and read in conjunction with the front, the two
sides usually understood as a unit, Djoser’s complex cannot be inverted.
It must be read by moving in all directions on a single level as well as
through the layered images from above and below at the same time, em-
bracing multiple parts above ground and below ground, including visible
images (statues) and invisible images (the running figures in the court;
51 Possibly a dual, as suggested by the two Bat heads on each side of the palette.
52 See Baines, Antiquity 63 (1989), p. 475.
53 The primacy accorded the king is also emphasized by his magnified view on the back of
the palette. And see W. Davis, Masking the Blow (Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford, 1992),
pp. 123–24.
54 Ibid., passim and esp. pp. 8–20 and Chs. 2–6.
55 E.g., the Oxford, Hunter’s, Battlefield and Narmer Palettes.
56 Ibid., p. 6.
57 Friedman, JARCE 32, passim and esp. p. 42.
58 It seems unlikely that such a cosmic construct should have been used architecturally
only by Djoser. Since Djoser’s is the earliest surviving stone complex, the others in more
perishable materials may not have survived well enough to reveal such an intent. One may
speculate that other monuments, possibly the Abydos or other rectangular enclosures at
Saqqara, may have been originally designed with such inherent cosmologies.
348
Fig. 4. Illustration showing the underground relief panels with

running figures of the king (from under pyramid and south
tomb) as though the figures were running in the great court
above ground. Drawing by Peggy Sanders.
349
Fig. 5. Narmer Palette separated into three cosmological layered

segments. Drawing by Peggy Sanders. Data base for palette pro-
vided by Mark Lehner.
350
see fig. 4) that together comprise a single reading of a multi-directional

cosmic whole. It is Djoser, through his images above and below ground,
who, like Narmer, links and integrates the parts.
And as Narmer takes center stage as the king writ large on the back
of his palette, so Djoser takes center stage in the Great ws∞t-Court as a
projected statue presence. But here he is more than a subjugator of
enemies and territorial claimant: this Netjerykhet, the “Divine One of
the Corporation (of Gods),” is a cosmic claimant, seizing heaven and
earth and the eternal office of kingship, and thereby effecting his royal
and cosmic role as maintainer of Maat. And as he maintains this
cosmos, so is he regenerated by it—through its primeval hill, primordial
reed-filled waters, celestial and underworld heavens, and the once abun-
dant statuary within its palaces, niches and shrines.
b
351
22 GOEDICKE Page 353 Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:28 PM
A Special Toast
Hans Goedicke
A
lthough the Egyptians were ardent lovers of beer from
the earliest times on, it was certainly not the only beverage they
cherished. Wine as well has a very long history in Egypt. While
extensive information is available about the preparation of these two
drinks, much less is known about others, and this applies not only to
their preparation but also to their degree of appreciation in the society.
A rare bit of information is contained among the inscriptions in the
tomb of a certain Sw-m-n¡wt, who was closely attached to the retinue of
Amenophis II.1 It is my intention to offer the following observations as
an Egyptological toast to the jubilee celebrant with my sincere wishes.
As far as I am aware, the texts in Sw-m-n¡wt’s tomb have not
received much attention.2 The activity which the text annotates is car-
ried out by men on ladders apparently involved in harvesting, and
depicts as well trays with the fruits of this labor in booths. Sw-m-n¡wt
attends this activity in his capacity as “king’s butler” (wb£ (n) nswt)3
with the recurrent laudatory epithet “clean of hands.”4 What makes it
so interesting is the implication that officials in personal contact with
the king were required to adhere to specific standards of purity. Such an
obligation would make it most likely that he was excluded from any
physical involvement in the preparation of royal condiments and that
his role was one of supervision.
1 TT 92; PM I/12, pp. 187–89.

2 Urk. IV, 1449. Basically, there is the translation by Wolfgang Helck, Urkunden der 18.
Dynasty, German edition (Berlin, 1961), p. 103 and its English version by Barbara
Cumming, Egyptian Historical Records of the Later Eighteenth Dynasty, Fascicle II
(Warminster, 1984), p. 144f.
3 Alan H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I (London, 1947), p. 43*f.
4 It is apparent, of course, that it might refer to the man’s cleanliness in executing his of-
fice. However, while hygienic concerns might be implied, it would seem likely that the
epithet conveys more than the fact that Sw-m-n¡wt was in the habit of keeping his hands
clean. It seems rather likely that the epithet reflects a specific degree of purity, but it could
also be interpreted metaphorically as “with clean hands,” i.e., free of improper actions.
The continuation of the epithet w™b ™wy as wdnw n ⁄mn (Urk. IV, 1459.19) suggests that
Sw-m-n¡wt observed ritual purity in his service to the king, as would have been necessary
for him in his capacity for offering to Amun.
This supervisory role on the upper part of the tomb’s west wall is
specified as m££ bw-nfr nw pr-nswt ∂srw ¡£tt, and accompanies various
activities connected with the preparation of beverages, the whole filling
five registers.5 It concerns the making of beer from the measuring of
grain for making bread to its fermentation in huge vessels. An obviously
different kind of drink is contained in smaller jars of a different type. Sw-
m-n¡wt’s activity was understood by Helck as “Inspizieren des Guten
des Königspalastes, des Milchgetränks durch… S,” while B. Cumming
gave for it “Inspecting the good things in the royal palace, milky ale, by
… S.”
Considering the associated array of activities it can be assumed from
the outset that the attached annotation is summary in nature. This,
however, does not confirm the previous renderings which disregard the
pictographic record in their lack of any reference to the depicted
comestibles. While ∂srw and ¡£tt are indicated as beverages, the preced-
⁄J iW
ing = is not. Neither Helck’s “das Gute des Königspalastes”
nor B. Cumming’s “the good things in the royal palace” appear to cap-
ture the full meaning. Bw-nfr is in a genitival connection with pr-nswt;6
the use of the plural genitival adjective nyw makes it clear that bw-nfr
is a plural (or collective). The term, which might have its origin in the
vernacular, is rare before the Ptolemaic Period.7 Like English “goodies”
bw-nfr appears to denote especially cherished edibles and requires a ren-
dering “delicacies.” It would seem doubtful that pr-nswt denotes here
specifically the “royal palace,” as this would narrow its application
unnecessarily. As Sw-m-n¡wt in this connection holds the epithet “royal
follower at his moves on southern and northern foreign countries,” it
would seem better to take pr-nswt as inclusively as possible, i.e., denot-
ing any place of the king, which does not rule out the existence of an
ideal fare associated with the royal household, just as there are Western
traditions about “royal cuisine.”
5 Walter Wreszinski, Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte I (Leipzig, 1923), pls. 295,
296.
6 This fact stands against the rendering by B. Cumming.
7 A Late Egyptian occurrence is pLansing 15, 2 “everybody who acquaints you in festivity
is with goodies;” the rendering differs somewhat from that by A.M. Blackman and T.E.
Peet, “Papyrus Lansing: A Translation with Notes,” JEA 11 (1925), p. 298 and Ricardo A.
Caminos, Late Egyptian Miscellanies (London, 1954), p. 421 in separating the two
prepositional adjuncts. The latter had connected both with the addressee as “whoever be-
holds you is festive with good cheer.” Instead, I understand the passage to mean that any-
body who gets in touch with the celebrating teacher is instantly invited to partake of the
goodies. Wb. I, p. 452.9 lists bw-nfr with the meaning “Brot,” but the occurrences, such as
Edfu I, 91, 92, etc. suggest a more inclusive meaning of the term.
354
Hans Goedicke, A Special Toast
Îsrw ¡£tt has occurred as a compound since the Fourth Dynasty8 al-
though it has also been considered as two separate items. There is some
justification to this, as ¡£tt denotes a milk product while ∂srw applies to
beer. Helck combined the two into a “Milchgetränk” followed by B.
Cumming as “milky ale.” The notion of combining milk with beer
made of fermented bread is technically improbable and fantastic as far
as taste is concerned. Any addition of milk to a fermented or fermenting
brew would make it curdle instantly. ⁄£tt does not denote “milk” proper,
but rather the result of a process the milk goes through. The latter has
two distinct stages: one is the raising of the cream to the top, the other
the settling of the firm parts from the whey. In either case there is a dis-
tinction between a lower and an upper layer; it is the latter which I en-
vision denoted as ¡£tt.9 As for ∂srw, it is not the common term for
“beer,” which is ¢nqt. This suggests that ∂srw denotes something spe-
cial in the beer production.10 The term is probably connected with the
verb ∂sr, “to separate” or “to raise,” and might reflect the fermentation
process when the liquid separates from the mash. Caminos11 rendered it
“strong ale,” but it might denote a particular, apparently cherished stage
in the making of beer. I would surmise it to be specifically the initial fer-
mentation of the cereal material, i.e., the time when the alcohol content
was the highest. The attached specification ¡£tt could apply, as pointed
out before, when the separation had taken place and the beverage was at
its best. To reflect these particulars a rendering “cream ale” might be ap-
propriate.
The second scene, depicted on the east wall, shows Sw-m-n¡wt in-
specting harvesting activity. Despite the seemingly horticultural nature
of the depicted activity, its ultimate purpose is the preparation of a bev-
erage. It is again a result of Sw-m-n¡wt’s position as “king’s butler” that
he supervises, at least theoretically, this activity. The scene, to judge
from a photograph taken by the late Siegfried Schott (see fig. 1),12 is not
easily understandable in its details, so that the accompanying brief text
is of special importance. Helck13 rendered this text as “Inspizieren der
8 Winfried Barta, Die altägyptische Opferliste, MÄS 3 (Berlin, 1963), p. 43.

9 While the writing with the sign ¬ is not entirely clear, it would seem feasible to connect
the word either with ¡£t, “kom, mount” or with ¡£w, “aged.” Either one would seem appro-
priate for the process milk passes through.
10 Cf. Hildegard von Deines and Wolfhart Westendorf, Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Dro-
gennamen, Grundriß der Medizin der Alten Ägypter VI (Berlin, 1959), p. 604.
11 Op. cit., p. 425.
12 Iwish to thank Professor Dr. Erich Winter for supplying me with the photograph from
the archive held at the University of Trier.
13 Op. cit., p. 103.
355
Fig. 1. Theban tomb of Sw-m-

n¡wt (TT 92), detail of east
wall. Photograph by Siegfried
Schott.
Mahlzeit des Trinkgelages des Palastes, das für Pharao (L.H.G.) gemacht
wird, ausgestattet mit allen guten Dingen, um den Herrn der beiden
Länder zu erquicken und den guten Gott zu erfreuen, durch den…”, and
B. Cumming,14 “Inspection of provisions for the drink supply of the Res-
idence which is carried out on behalf of Pharaoh, L.P.H., is being provi-
sioned with all (kinds of) good things to refresh the lord of the Two Lands
and to delight the good god, by…” Both translations contain aspects
which seem open to improvement. The theme of the connected picture
does not support a reference to a “meal” as the focal point in the descrip-
tion. Equally unlikely is the notion of a “drinking bout” (“Trinkgelage”),
especially its performance “for Pharaoh” (“das für Pharao gemacht
wird”), which would give the impression of a drinking competition in
honor of the Pharaoh. That the shown activity is “for the drink supply
of the Residence” would require a rather limited number of residents or
a vast production to satisfy a sizable population. Neither appears likely,
nor that it was “carried out on behalf of Pharaoh,” whose concern for the
thirst of the people in the Residence is hard to imagine.
14 Op. cit., p. 144.
356
The object of observation or inspection is given as ™bw- m . Al-

|
2
3
though given in this form in the Urkunden, Helck subsequently emend-
ed it to ™bw- m .15 This term is repeatedly attested and rendered as
2
“Mahlzeit, Frühstück.”16 While the occurrences in the offering list do
not provide a basis for establishing the nature of the repast meant by
™bw-r£, its mention among ⁄n£n£’s and Sn-m-¡™¢’s inscriptions helps
somewhat in advancing the question. ⁄n£n£ brags,17 “As I am in the favor
of His Majesty daily, I am supplied from the king’s table with bread of
the king’s ™bw-r£ and beer, likewise fat meat, vegetables and various
fruits, honey, cakes and wine, as well as oil.”18 Since “bread and beer”
are usually associated in the offering list as integral parts of the king’s
™bw-r£, the same should be assumed here. Not clear is if the other food-
stuff should be seen as typical of the ™bw-r£ or if it was an unusual exten-
sion beyond the customary. In either case the fare would seem
excessively heavy for “breakfast” if it is considered the initial food in-
take in the morning.19 Similar doubts about the nature of ™bw-r£ as
“breakfast” result from Sn-m-¡™¢’s claim “one brought me servings20 at
the time of day and night with things of the king’s ™bw-r£.” It would
seem unlikely that one distributed items of the royal breakfast by night.
Both passages suggest that ™bw-r£, lit. “cleaning the mouth,” is more an
elegant term for a fancy repast, especially the king’s, without the impli-
cation of a specific time when it was consumed.21
15 This reading is repeated by B. Cumming.

16 Wb. I, p. 175.19; R.O. Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian (Oxford,
1962), p. 40 “breakfast.” Occurrences are Urk. IV, 59.7; 506.10; Siut I, 51. It is attested on
the coffin of M¡n-∞™≠f (G 7430 = Cairo JdE 48852) in ßns n ™b-r£; cf. William St. Smith, “The
Coffin of Prince Min-khaf,” JEA 19 (1933), p. 150ff., specifically p. 151 and pl. 22; and Anna
Maria Donadoni Roveri, I sarcofagi egizi dalle origine alla fine dell’antico regno (Rome,
1969), p. 117ff., pl. 33. For other occurrences of ßns n ¡™w-r£, see Barta, op. cit., p. 48.
17 Urk. IV. 59.6-10; see also Eberhard Dziobek, Das Grab des Ineni: Theben Nr. 81,
AVDAIK 68 (Mainz am Rhein, 1992), p. 54, rendering the passage concerning us “indem
ich ernährt wurde vom Tisch des Königs mit Brot vom ‘Frühstück’ des Königs und Bier
desgleichen und fettem Fleisch, verschiedenem Gemüse und Obst, Honig, Kuchen, Wein
und Öl.”
18 The final mention of “oil” makes sense only when seen as ointment, because oil would
not make sense as part of a meal. I wonder if 5⁄µM ≤ might not be an error for qb “jar”
(Wb. V, p. 25.3ff.).
19 Cf. Hermann Kees, Ägypten, Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orients (Nördlingen and Mu-
nich, 1933), p. 67; Wolfgang Helck, LÄ III, col. 1164f.; also Hans Goedicke, The Report
about the Dispute of a Man with his Ba (Baltimore, 1970), p. 140.
20 Urk. IV, 506.9–10. Wb. I, p. 430.15 gives “ein Gebäck” for b£kb£k, which was repeated
by Faulkner, op. cit., p. 79. From the following m ∞t nt ™bw-r£ it is clear that b£kb£k con-
sisted of things of the royal repast, thus requiring a more inclusive meaning of b£kb£k. Us-
ing b£k, “to serve,” as the root from which the reduplicated word might be derived, a
rendering “serving (of food)” would not only suit the context but also the etymology.
21 One could possibly compare it with degustation which has a wide range of applications.
357
3
Tempting as the proposed emendation might seem, the epigraphic
situation is unambiguous (see fig. 1). The signs m and m have noth-
|
ing in common, neither in the hieroglyphic nor in the hieratic, which
could inspire a confusion. Disregarding the possibility of a freak error,
which, of course, is always a remote possibility, it seems necessary to
take the extant text seriously. That the term is a compound is certain as
is the first element ™bw “cleansings.” It is also certain that it ultimately
concerns a beverage as it is destined for a “drinker” (n swr¡). The ideo-
|
graphic spelling m allows only reading ¢nn or, less likely, b™¢. A literal
rendering of the compound term would be “cleansing the phallus.” Its
mention on the wall can be interpreted in two ways. It is either an in-
tentional, sarcastic substitute for r£ “mouth,” or else the topic of the
scene is the preparation of a beverage to increase the consumer’s poten-
cy. As we do not know what it is made from, the question has to remain
open. What Sw-m-n¡wt is observing is thus not the preparation of the
king’s breakfast, which would have gotten him into the orchards at a
very early hour. The depicted activity, however, has a specific recipient
indicated as n p£ swr¡ n flnw and does not refer to a drinking orgy of the
palace, as Helck’s translation might suggest. This “drinker of the Resi-
dence” is nobody else than the tomb’s owner Sw-m-n¡wt. The determi-
native does not concern the activity of drinking, but rather
indicates its doer, who was paying a visit to his estate in the countryside.
In the following are two participial qualifications which are inter-
u
twined, thus causing some difficulty for the previous translators. Helck
apparently connected 3¡with p£ swr¡, in which B. Cumming fol-
lowed him. The participle should qualify the last preceding masculine
word, i.e., flnw, which, of course, would make no sense. The idiom ¡r¡ ¢r
has the meaning “to act on behalf of someone” and not “for someone.”22
It results that the participle qualifies the gentleman for whom the repast
is being prepared by describing his former activity.23 This specification
is divided by an intrusive reference to the repast being prepared and
should be recognized as ¡rw ¢r pr-™£ ™n∞ w∂£ snb… r s∂£y-¢r n nb-t£wy
s∞m∞-¡b n n†r-nfr, “who acted on behalf of Pharaoh, L.P.H., in order to
amuse the lord of the Two Lands and distract the heart of the n†r-nfr.” If
22 B. Cumming was aware of this aspect and thus rendered p£ swr¡ n flnw as “the drink sup-
ply of the Residence.” It should be noted that swr¡ n flnw is introduced by p£, which would
seem to have here the force of a demonstrative, i.e., “this drinker of the Residence,” thus
making it even clearer as a reference to Sw-m-n¡wt; for the use of p£, see Burkhart Kroeber,
Die Neuägyptizismen vor der Amarnazeit (Diss. Tübingen, 1970), p. 9ff.
23 ⁄rw certainly would seem a past participle, thus concerning Sw-m-n¡wt’s former
activity, rather than an imperfective one, which would concern his ongoing activity.
358
the different forms of referring to the king have any significance, or if

they are mere synonyms remains an open question.
Embedded in the description of Sw-m-n¡wt’s activity is the qualify-
ing statement ™pr m ∞t nbt nfrt. It is connected neither with the imme-
diately preceding, nor with what follows.24 Its only antecedent is, of
course, ™bw-r£, i.e., the “repast” which was “furnished with every good
thing.”25 What they were is not detailed, but according to the picture,
fruit is only a part of the repast prepared for the butler Sw-m-n¡wt.
In a very clever fashion the scenes and their annotations combine
the description of the man’s professional pursuit as king’s butler with his
personal outlook towards a permanent record of his interest in good liv-
ing. It is especially the second scene discussed here that portrays Sw-m-
n¡wt as an onlooker of the preparation for a repast worthy of the king,
which he seems to anticipate for his own enjoyment. In his office he act-
ed on behalf of Pharaoh for the ruler’s pleasure,26 but ultimately he
wants to pursue the pleasures he had experienced in the Residence in his
own retirement, on earth and hereafter.
The epicurean mood of Sw-m-n¡wt is the topic of the wishes
addressed to him: “To your ka, O my father! Drink, get drunk, celebrate
a pretty day, O favorite butler!”
b
24 Helck and B. Cumming both linked it with what follows as if ™pr m ∞t nbt nfrt was for
the purpose of amusing the lord of the Two Lands. Such an interpretation, however, leads
to some contradictions. First, the “repast” observed by Sw-m-n¡wt is “for the drinker of
the Residence,” i.e., himself, so that the reference to the ruler could not concern the meal
readied for the tomb’s owner. Second, the past nature of ™pr would be contradicted by the
intentional r + infinitive, except if the furnishing would have been done with the purpose
of amusing the ruler. If the intention had been to mention things which normally were
used for the king’s amusement, it should be construed with a genitive.
25 For the use of ™pr, cf. Wb. I, p. 180.17.
26 The reflective mood of the inscription is well illustrated by the claim ¡r ¢sst ¡my ™¢ m
flrt hrw n r™ nb, “who did what the one in the palace always praised in the course of every
day.”
359
23 HARVEY Page 361 Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:31 PM
A Decorated Protodynastic Cult Stand

from Abydos
Stephen P. Harvey
I
n honor of the distinguished Egyptological career of William
Kelly Simpson, I would like to discuss an object that reflects his
involvement with Abydos as Co-Director (with David O’Connor) of
the University of Pennsylvania–Yale University Expedition to Abydos,
as well as his former position as Curator of the Department of Egyptian,
Nubian, and Ancient Near Eastern Art of the Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston. I have had the privilege to work for Kelly in Boston, to study
with him at Yale, and participate in the work of the Pennsylvania–Yale
Expedition, and have greatly benefited in all instances from his teaching
1
and leadership.
An important and representative group of objects from the excava-
tions of W.M.F. Petrie in the “Osiris Temple” at Abydos in southern
Egypt was distributed in 1903 to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
Among the finds from the earliest levels of the temple site was an
unusual ceramic jar stand, decorated just below its rim with the figure
of a ram (figs. 1–2). The ram is surrounded by a row of incised triangles
and by numerous partly excised triangles and ovals. Four large fenestra-
tions are placed around the body of the stand. Already in 1902, heavy cal-
careous accretions obscured the decoration of the lower half of the
stand, as can be seen from a contemporary photograph.2
In the course of reorganization and inventory of the storage areas
belonging to the Department of Ancient Egyptian, Nubian, and Near
1 An earlier version of this paper was originally presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Research Center in Egypt, held in Philadelphia, April 23, 1989. I would
especially like to thank Dr. Rita Freed for permission to publish this object, as well as
Dr. Peter Lacovara for his tremendous help. Carol Warner, formerly an intern in the
Museum of Fine Arts’ Objects Conservation Laboratory, and currently a conservator at the
National Park Service Cultural Resources Center, Lowell, Massachusetts, was responsible
for painstakingly and skillfully conserving the stand. Yvonne Markowitz provided the ex-
cellent illustrations, and Pamela Hatchfield aided in its conservation photography. For
suggestions and advice, I would also like to thank Mrs. Barbara Adams, Ms. Brigit Crowell,
Dr. Günter Dreyer, Dr. Henry G. Fischer, Ms. Renée Friedman, Dr. E. Christiana Köhler,
Dr. Patricia Podzorski, Dr. Ann Macy Roth, Mr. Josef Wegner, and Dr. Richard L. Zettler.
Dr. David O’Connor, Dr. David P. Silverman, and Ms. Barbara A. Porter have been
extremely helpful in reading drafts of this paper.
Fig. 1. Jar stand from Abydos, Museum of Fine Arts 03.1959.

Gift of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1903 (courtesy Museum
of Fine Arts, Boston).
Eastern Art in 1987, the ram stand was relocated and identified. Having
noticed traces of an incised inscription beneath the concreted surface,
Dr. Edward Brovarski arranged for the stand to be conserved and,
through the skill and hard labor of Carol Warner, formerly of the Objects
2 W.M.F. Petrie, Abydos Part II (London, 1903), pl. 12, no. 273. Apart from a mention in the
Egypt Exploration Fund’s yearly exhibition of finds (Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities

Found by Prof. Flinders Petrie at Abydos, 1903 [London, 1903], p. 14, the stand appears not
to have received further notice, with the exception of an illustration in A. Rowe, The Four
Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan, Part I, The Temples and Cult Objects (Philadelphia,
1940), p. 53, fig. 10, no. 2.
362
Stephen P. Harvey, A Decorated Protodynastic Cult Stand from Abydos
Fig. 2. Profile of jar stand; drawing by Yvonne

Markowitz.
Conservation Laboratory of the Museum of Fine Arts, the accretions

were dissolved with nitric acid.
Surprisingly, the cleaning exposed extensive incised decoration over
the lower half of the stand (figs. 2–3). Two of the four spaces between the
large triangular fenestrations had been decorated before firing with the
images of a giraffe standing on a base line and facing a tree. Attached to
the back of the neck of one of the giraffes is a rectangle containing three
hieroglyphs (figs. 3–4). Three excised triangles fill the third panel
between fenestrations, while the fourth area contained an incised
363
Fig. 3. detail of decoration on the jar stand; drawing by Yvonne Markowitz.
decoration of two triangles joined in a diamond pattern. The stand bears

the accession number MFA 03.1959.
While its findspot suggests a cultic function, the information from
Petrie’s excavation does not allow for precise dating of the stand. Based
on excavated parallels, however, it is likely that it was made and
decorated before Dynasty 1, during the period defined in archaeological
terms as Naqada IIIa2–IIIc1.3 Thus, the decoration of the stand (includ-
ing applied, excised, and incised elements) is of considerable interest as
an example of the art of Naqada III, a period which is only now being
defined through excavation and analysis. The image of the giraffe and
plant with inscription attached may in particular provide further insight
3 See now the usefully annotated chronology in J. Kahl, Das System der ägyptischen
Hieroglyphenschrift in den 0.–3. Dynastien, Göttinger Orientforschungen 29 (Wiesbaden,

1994), pp. 7–10.
364
Fig. 4. Detail of giraffe and inscription

(courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston).
into the interaction of art, symbol, and sign during this early phase of
writing in Egypt.
Manufacture and Function

Sixty-nine centimeters tall, with a maximum diameter at the rim of 17.8
centimeters, the profile of the stand swells towards the base, creating a
365
Fig. 5. Detail of ram figure (courtesy

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston).
nearly bell-shaped profile.4 The fabric is Nile silt with straw inclusions,
and the black core visible in the break at the rim is indicative of firing
at a low temperature. The body was probably built by hand, and the rims
at both ends display rilling indicative of the use of a slow wheel or tour-
nette. While the stand was leather hard, four large triangles were cut
through, and numerous triangles and ovals were partly excised using a
knife or spatula. The incised decorations were made with the point of a
tool, and the ram figure was made separately and applied to the incised
rectangular area near the top of the stand (fig. 5). Interestingly, an area of
excess clay near the edge of one of the excised triangles preserves the im-
pression of woven cloth, perhaps from cloth used in wiping the surface
smooth. Considerable abrasion around the inside of the mouth of the
stand implies that it was actually used to support vessels in antiquity.5
The porosity of the clay and the shape of the stand suggest that its
function may have been to cool liquids (perhaps wine or water) through
evaporation. Early models and representations of stands indicate that
4 The profile is closely paralleled by another stand (British Museum 38092) from the early
levels of the “Osiris Temple” at Abydos; Petrie, Abydos II, pl. 44, no. 104, and pl. 12, no.
270; A.J. Spencer, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum, vol. 5, Early
Dynastic Objects (London, 1980), pl. 42, no. 339 and p. 48, there called “Probably Second
or Third Dynasty.”
5I am indebted to Carol Warner for providing insights into the manufacture and conserva-
tion of the stand.
366
they could be used to support closed-mouth jars, bowls, and tables.6 It is

also possible that incense or other materials may have been burned in a
censer atop such a stand, but there is no evidence of burning preserved
on this example.
Archaeological Context
Due to the complex nature of the site of the “Osiris Temple” at Abydos,
Petrie created a building sequence for the temple with reference to the
superposition of walls and objects, the elevations of which were record-
ed in inches above an arbitrary datum. Petrie assumed a First Dynasty
date for the ram stand on the basis of the level at which it was found (178
inches above arbitrary zero).7 A sealing of King Qa™a, the last king of the
First Dynasty, was also found at the same elevation in the general area,
which Petrie took as an indication of contemporaneity.
Barry Kemp’s study of Petrie’s excavation, making use of publica-
tions and notes, has demonstrated the great extent to which Petrie’s re-
liance on relative elevations was insufficient.8 In itself, the elevation of
the stand is not very meaningful for precise dating and only implies that
the deposition of the stand predates a structure of the Sixth Dynasty
(Building H in Kemp’s nomenclature), the floor of which lay well above
the stand.9 Based on architectural and textual studies, O’Connor and
Brovarski have independently identified Building H as a “ka-chapel” of
the Sixth Dynasty,10 although other scholars prefer to view it as one of
the cult structures devoted to the local god Khentyamentiu.11
6 For faience models of closed-mouth jars on stands, see the following examples: from the
“Osiris Temple” at Abydos: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston 03.1736 (unpublished), from the
deposit of votive objects known as M69; in the Kofler-Truniger collection, Lucerne, and
reportedly from illicit excavation in the “Osiris Temple:” H.W. Müller, Ägyptische
Kunstwerke, Kleinfunde und Glas in der Sammlung E. und M. Kofler-Truniger, Luzern,
MÄS 5 (Munich, 1964), p. 43, A 64a–g ; and reportedly from the same source, W. Needler,
Predynastic and Archaic Egypt in the Brooklyn Museum, Wilbour Monographs 9 (Brook-
lyn, 1984), p. 303 and pl. 52, nos. 226 and 227; from Hierakonpolis: University College
15011, B. Adams, Ancient Hierakonpolis (Warminster, 1974), p. 33, nos. 163 and Ash-
molean E206 and literature there; pls. 24 and 31, nos. 163; from Elephantine, see Dreyer,
Elephantine 8. Der Tempel der Satet. Die Funde der Frühzeit und des Alten Reiches
AVDAIK 39 (Mainz am Rhein, 1986), p. 83 and pl. 41, no. 274.
7 W.M.F. Petrie, Abydos II, pl. 59.
8 Barry J. Kemp, “The Osiris Temple at Abydos” in MDAIK 23 (1968), pp. 138–55; “The
Osiris Temple at Abydos: A Postscript to MDAIK 23 (1968), 138–155,” in GM 8 (1973),

pp. 23–25.
9 Kemp, “The Osiris Temple at Abydos,” pp. 148–51.
10 David O’Connor, “The Status of Early Egyptian Temples: An Alternative Theory,” in R.
Friedman and B. Adams, eds., The Followers of Horus: Studies Dedicated to Michael Allen
Hoffman 1944–1990, pp. 83–97; E. Brovarski, “Abydos in the Old Kingdom and First Inter-
mediate Period, Part II” in D.P. Silverman, ed., For His Ka: Essays Offered in Memory of
Klaus Baer, SAOC 55 (Chicago, 1994), pp. 15–44, esp. pp. 17–20.
367
Whatever the precise nature of Building H during the Sixth Dynasty,

there is considerable evidence of earlier activity on the site. Thus, Kemp
observed that, “Beneath the floor [of Building H] was found a confused
sequence of brick walls and sand beds, no doubt partly foundations and
partly the remains of earlier temples, perhaps extending back to the First
Dynasty.”12 Inscriptions of kings Aha, Den, and Qa™a beneath the Old
Kingdom structure provide evidence of activity in the area during the
First Dynasty. Early cult activity is implied by the type of objects found
by Petrie in the levels below Building H, including incense burners, hes-
vases, and numerous tall jar stands.13 The faience, stone, ivory, and
ceramic objects from the votive deposit below Building H known as
“M69” are often given an Early Dynastic date and they may provide
evidence of cultic activity on the site during the earliest dynasties. How-
ever, the objects were deposited during the late Old Kingdom, or possi-
bly even later, as Kemp has cautioned.14 Votive deposits appear to be a
feature of early Egyptian temples, as similar finds from Hierakonpolis
and Elephantine demonstrate.15 The context and dating of these
deposits and their contents underscore the need for caution in dating
finds from early levels of temple sites at Abydos and elsewhere.
In all likelihood, the Abydos ram stand was used in the presentation
of offerings, a cultic function of tall stands that is well documented dur-
ing most phases of pharaonic civilization.16 A representation of a temple
dating to the First Dynasty depicts a jar stand inside of the building.17
Ceramic stands are also encountered in funerary contexts in Egypt,
either at the entrance to graves18 or in the actual burial chamber.19
11 For example, B.J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization (London, 1991),
pp. 77–79.
12 Kemp, “The Osiris Temple at Abydos,” p. 150.
13 Numerous stands indicated in Petrie, Abydos II, pl. 52, below the floor level of “Building
H;” a black-topped redware hes-vase from 215 inches below arbitrary zero, and thus below
Building H, now in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, acc. no. 03.1955 (cf. op. cit., pl. 44,
nos. 93 and 94); and a copper handle for an incense burner, Boston MFA 03.1789 from the
“Osiris Temple,” most likely to be identified with the object in op. cit., pl. 21, 2. I would
like to thank Dr. Ann M. Roth for her identification of this object as the handle of an in-
cense burner, and for drawing my attention to a similar example from Giza, Boston MFA
13.2951.
14 Kemp, “The Osiris Temple at Abydos,” pp. 153–55.
15 For similar examples of votive objects dating as early as Dynasty 1 and deposited during
the Old Kingdom, see Günter Dreyer, Elephantine VIII. See also the discussion of temple
deposits in Kemp, Ancient Egypt, pp. 72–79. Note also a tall painted stand with geometric
designs and figures of birds, among the cultic equipment from the pre-Fifth Dynasty levels
of the Satet Niche, W. Kaiser et al., “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine: Siebter Grabungs-
bericht,” MDAIK 33 (1977), pl. 20d.
368
Date of the Stand

In an early work on the interrelations between Egypt and Mesopotamia
as reflected in ceramic finds, Henri Frankfort stated that jar stands did
not exist in Egypt prior to the First Dynasty.20 A review of more recent
literature indicates that stands were already used during the Naqada III
period, some 150 years before the traditional start of Dynasty 1.21 Bowls
or beakers with pedestalled bases, which occur already in the Naqada I
phase, do not come under consideration here.22
A significant early group of tall Egyptian stands occurs as imports in
the series of elite A-Group burials excavated at Qustul by the Oriental
Institute, which can be dated, on the basis of their contents, to the late
Naqada III period, just before Dynasty 0.23 Although more slender in
profile than the Abydos stand, the Qustul stands provide interesting
comparanda, since they include examples decorated with rows of
excised triangles,24 applied ceramic relief,25 and incised decoration.26
16 P.P. Betancourt et al., “Ceramic Stands: A Group of Domestic and Ritual Objects from
Crete and the Near East,” Expedition 26:1 (Fall, 1983), pp. 32–37. For ceramic and stone
stands found in temple contexts, cf. Ahmed Fakhry, The Monuments of Sneferu at
Dahshur, vol. 1: The Bent Pyramid (Cairo, 1959), pp. 84–87 and pl. 32; Linda Hulin,
“Pottery Cult Vessels from the Workmen’s Village” in B.J. Kemp et al., Amarna Reports I
(London, 1984), chapter 12, pp. 165–77. For other examples of pottery stands in situ, cf.
H.G. Fischer, “Offering Stands from the Pyramid of Amenemhet I,” MMJ 7 (1973), p. 126,
n. 7.
17 Represented on the Narmer Macehead from Hierakonpolis, first published in J.E.
Quibell and W.M.F. Petrie, Hierakonpolis, Part I (London, 1900), pl. 26B.
18 Offering vessels (hes jars) and stands were found at grave-side (often inscribed with the
name of the deceased) during the First Intermediate Period; cf. G. Brunton, Qau and
Badari II (London, 1928), p. 6 and pl. 92, no. 96W; R.A. Slater, The Archaeology of
Dendereh in the First Intermediate Period, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsyl-
vania, 1974, p. 43.
19 The earliest examples of ceramic stands in a burial context known to me date to
Naqada III; cf. Naqada Tombs 17 and 112, Petrie, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 82; B. Williams,
The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L, OINE III (Chicago, 1986), pp. 76–79
and figs. 46–47; p. 155 and pls. 93–94.
20 H. Frankfort, Studies in Early Pottery of the Near East I. Mesopotamia, Syria, and Egypt
and their Earliest Interrelations, Royal Anthropological Institute Occasional Papers no. 6
(London, 1924), pp. 127–30.
21 For a discussion of the chronology of Naqada III–Dynasty 1, cf. Rainer M. Boehmer,
Günter Dreyer, and Bernd Kromer, “Einige frühzeitliche 14C-Datierungen aus Abydos und
Uruk,” MDAIK 49 (1993), pp. 63–68; also see note 3 above.
22 An early example is Metropolitan Museum 07.228.182, a black-topped Naqada I beaker
with fenestrated base (provenience unknown).

23 B. Williams, A-Group Royal Cemetery, pp. 76–79 and figs. 46–47; p. 155 and pls. 23–24;
pls. 93–94; the dating of the tombs is discussed, pp. 163–65.

24 Ibid., fig. 47b; fig. 181b and pl. 24e.
25 Ibid., fig. 46c and pl. 23.
26 Ibid., fig. 46b; fig. 47d and e; for incised and painted decoration on Naqada III pottery
from Qustul, see also B. Williams, Decorated Pottery and the Art of Naqada III, MÄS 45
(Berlin, 1988).
369
Rectangular or polygonal stands from Qustul also bear rows of excised

or cut-through triangles, as well as incised and painted decoration, in-
cluding representations of animals.27
Decoration in the form of rows of excised and cut-through triangles
occurs on early stands from a variety of contexts. Very close in style to
the Abydos ram stand is a fragment of a sculptured ceramic support, pos-
sibly in the shape of an animal, from the settlement (“Osiris Town”)
excavated by Petrie in the vicinity of the “Osiris Temple” at Abydos.28
A circular hole in the top of the fragment may have been used to support
a jar, and the exterior is decorated with triangles, both excised and in-
cised. A number of fragments of tall stands with excised triangles have
been found at Hierakonpolis Locality HK–29a, in a pit dated to early
Dynasty 1, which had been cut into the earlier oval “cult structure.”29
Dr. Christiana Köhler has kindly shown me an example of excised
triangle decoration on a cylindrical vessel (possibly a stand) which de-
rives from Level IIIe at Buto, a context dated to Naqada IIIa2/b1.30
Although not securely dated, a fragment of a stand from the temple
at Coptos (fig. 6) provides an intriguing parallel to the Abydos ram
stand.31 Rows of impressed triangles surround a human figure, the head
of which was carried out in applied ceramic relief, with details of the
27 B. Williams, A-Group Royal Cemetery, pls. 93, 94; (excised and cut-through triangles,
painted giraffe(?) and wavy lines); pls. 96a, 97 (excised triangles and incised cobra).
Williams suggests that the animal represented is a bubalis, Decorated Pottery, p. 17.
28 University College 17384, from level 112 “in the ‘Osiris Town,’” unpublished, called
“Archaic.” (I would like to thank Mrs. Barbara Adams of the Petrie Museum for permis-
sion to mention this object.) The area of settlement excavated by Petrie appears to have
existed prior to the First Dynasty, and survived into the First Intermediate Period, cf.
W.M.F. Petrie, Abydos I (London, 1902), p. 9; see also B.J. Kemp, “The Early Development
of Towns in Egypt,” Antiquity 21 (1977), pp. 185–200. Supports in the shape of animals are
known as early as Naqada III, cf. Ashmolean 1895.776, a sculpted ceramic stand in the
shape of a reclining ram from Naqada, tomb 115 (probably Naqada III in date), Elise J.
Baumgartel, The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt I (London, 1955), pl. 12, no. 5.
29 Renée Friedman, paper presented at symposium on early Egypt, British Museum,
London, July 22, 1993. For the “temple site” of HK–29a, see R. Friedman, “Hierakonpolis.
Locality 29A,” Bulletin de Liaison du Groupe International d’Etude de la Céramique
Egyptienne XIV (1990), pp. 18–25; and a plan and reconstruction drawing in B. Adams,
Ancient Nekhen: Garstang in the City of Hierakonpolis (New Malden, 1995), pp. 36–41.
Note also excised triangles on ceramic from Hierakonpolis temple, date unknown, B. Ad-
ams, Ancient Hierakonpolis Supplement (Warminster, 1974), p. 40.
30 E. Christiana Köhler, Buto III, AVDAIK (forthcoming), pl. 57, no. 1; another example
with rows of excised triangles derives from the “Early Dynastic Pit” at Buto, pl. 57, no. 2.
31 W.M.F. Petrie, Koptos (London, 1896), p. 5 and pl. 5, no. 3. See discussion in B. Adams,
Sculptured Pottery from Koptos in the Petrie Collection (Warminster, 1986), pp. 19–20,
and pls. I and VII. Although Petrie read the human head in profile as the hieroglyph tp, fol-
lowed by a phonetic complement of p, the incised decoration below the head almost cer-
tainly represents the body of a seated or standing human, to judge from the photographs
and drawing in Adams, ibid.
370
Fig. 6. Fragment of a stand with applied relief

and impressed triangles from Coptos; repro-
duced from B. Adams, Sculptured Pottery
from Koptos in the Petrie Collection
(Warminster, 1986), pl. 7. Courtesy Barbara
Adams, Petrie Museum.
face and hair incised with a sharp tool, while the rest of the body was
indicated by means of incised lines. As in the case of the Abydos stand,
the context of the Coptos fragment in the lower levels of the Min Tem-
ple is too general to allow close dating, but the similarity in decoration
and technique of the Coptos fragment to examples from the Naqada III/
Dynasty 0 horizon implies to me a date in this range.
As can be seen from the parallels cited above, repeated rows of small
excised or impressed triangles seem to be a common feature of many
early stands. Petrie (discussing an undated tall stand from Dendera with
rows of fully cut-through triangles) suggested that such triangles repre-
sent a lattice effect “copied from stands made of crossing reeds bound
together, and plastered with mud,” but no actual examples of organic
prototypes have survived.32 Large open fenestrations such as those in
32 W.M.F. Petrie, Dendereh (London, 1900), pp. 23–24, pl. 16, no. 38 (there called “undat-
ed,” but similar to an example of the First Intermediate Period from the same site, op. cit.,
pl. 16, no. 28). Petrie’s suggestion for the origin of “cut-out” decoration is repeated in Do.
Arnold and J. Bourriau, eds., An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery (Mainz am
Rhein, 1993), p. 88, which makes reference to the same example from Dendera.
371
the Abydos stand certainly also had a function as a means of ventilation,

perhaps for the cooling of jars containing liquids.
Similar fenestrations and rows of excised triangles are a feature of
Mesopotamian stands of the Early Dynastic I phase from cultic contexts,
a fact which which led P. Delougaz, following Frankfort, to suggest
influence from Mesopotamia on Egyptian potters.33 Based on recent dis-
cussions of synchronisms between Egypt and Mesopotamia, however,
Early Dynastic 1 in Mesopotamia is partly synchronous with Dynasty 1
in Egypt, and therefore the examples of stands with excised triangles
from Buto and Qustul dating to the Naqada III period actually predate
the Mesopotamian examples.34
Decoration and Text

Despite the intriguing nature of the newly revealed incised decoration
representing giraffes and plants, the figure of a ram at the top of the stand
is clearly the dominant image, as it is carried out in applied relief and
enclosed in its own rectangular field (figs. 1, 3, and 5). The variety of ram
is identifiable through its distinctive straight corkscrew horns, thick
mane below the neck, and long tail as the archaic ram, Ovis longipes
palaeoaegyptiacus.35
A number of Predynastic and Early Dynastic representations in both
animal and anthropomorphic form reflect the early significance of
rams.36 Further, several Early Dynastic objects from Abydos explicitly
suggest divine connotations for the animal form of the ram.37 This im-
pression is strengthened by the existence in early texts of the names of
several deities (most significantly Khnum) worshipped in later times in
the form of a ram.38 The name of the god Ôrt¡ is determined with a re-
clining ram as early as the Second Dynasty, as is the name of the related
deity Ê£¡-zp-f, who is known from the First Dynasty.39 Both of these
deities are known from later texts, in which they appear to relate to the
protection of the granary and the herd, according to Kaplony.40 The
33 P.Delougaz, Pottery from the Diyala Region, OIP 63 (Chicago, 1952), p. 134, and pls. 45
and 173. For “cut ware” in Early Dynastic contexts in Mesopotamia, cf. B. Pongratz-
Leisten, “Keramik der frühdynastischen Zeit aus den Grabungen in Uruk-Warka,”
Baghdader Mitteilungen 19 (1988), p. 296. I would like to thank Dr. Richard L. Zettler of
the University of Pennsylvania for this last reference, and for discussing the Mesopo-
tamian examples with me.
34 See, for example, R.M. Boehmer et al., “Einige frühzeitliche 14C-Datierungen;” cf. also
P.R.S. Moorey, “On Tracking Cultural Transfers in Prehistory,” in M. Rowlands et al., eds.,
Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World (1987), pp. 36–45.
35 L. Keimer, “Remarques sur quelques représentations de divinités-béliers et sur un
groupe d’objets de culte conservés au Musée du Caire,” ASAE 38 (1938), pp. 297–331; L.
Störk, “Schaf,” LÄ 5 (Wiesbaden, 1984), cols. 522–24; P. Behrens, “Widder,” LÄ 6
(Wiesbaden, 1986), cols. 1243–45.
372
striding ram also serves as a hieroglyph in Egyptian texts from earliest

times and it has a variety of possible readings.41 In the absence of an
inscription, it is unclear which, if any, of these gods are to be associated
with the ram of the Abydos stand. In later tradition, Abydos was not a
major cult place for any ram deity.42 However, it is still most likely that
the ram on the Boston stand depicts a deity, perhaps Khnum.
The pair of giraffes facing plants incised on the lower portion of the
stand certainly form the other major symbolic element of the Boston
stand (I use here the term symbolic to refer to an image or sign evoking
36 For examples in relief similar to the ram on the Boston Abydos stand, see the row of
rams on the obverse of the “Libyan Palette,” Cairo CG 14238 (Naqada III in date), M. Saleh
and H. Sourouzian, The Egyptian Museum, Cairo (Mainz am Rhein, 1987), no. 7, fig. 7a.
From Abydos, see rams on a painted bowl from the “Osiris Temple,” Petrie, Abydos I, pl.
50, no. 23; and ram-headed human figures (anthropomorphic ram gods?) in relief on either
side of a limestone model of a shrine containing the goddess Repit, reportedly from the
“Osiris Temple,” Abydos, H.W. Müller, Ägyptische Kunstwerke, Kleinfunde und Glas, no.
A31, p. 29 (certainly fully ram-headed and not a mixed form “à tête d’oiseau” with “cornes
de bélier,” as asserted in H Schlögl, ed., Le don du Nil: Art égyptien dans les collections
suisses [Zurich, 1978], p. 27). See also discussion of this piece in W. Kaiser, “Zu den Wfi“
der älteren Bilddarstellungen und der Bedeutung von rpw.t,” MDAIK 39 (1983), pp. 275–
78. Note the presence of a standing ram(?) incised alongside Narmer’s serekh on the Berlin
statue of a baboon, R. Krauss, “Bemerkungen zum Narmer-Pavian (Berlin 22607) und sein-
er Inschrift,” MDAIK 50 (1994), pp. 223–30.
37 An ebony label from the tomb of King Den depicts a ram atop a shrine surrounded by
enclosure walls, W.M.F. Petrie, The Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties, Part II
(London, 1901), pl. 7, no. 8. The type of shrine depicted is the Lower Egyptian variety and
is unlikely to indicate a locale in Upper Egypt. W.B. Emery suggested that the shrine
shown on this label might be the temple of the god Harsaphes at Heracleopolis, Archaic
Egypt ( Baltimore, 1961), p. 75. Note also a faience plaque from the “Osiris Temple”
depicting a ram grasping the w£s scepter, Petrie, Abydos II, frontispiece and pl. 5, no. 36,
which recalls examples of cobra and vulture goddesses grasping the same emblem.
38 P. Kaplony, Die Inschriften der ägyptischen Frühzeit II, p. 1066, n. 1863; see also E. Otto,
“Chnum,” LÄ 1 (Wiesbaden, 1975), cols. 950–54.

39 Kahl, System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift, p. 473, suggests this name be read
as B£-zp-f when determined with the ram sign.

40 P. Kaplony, “Cherti,” LÄ 1 (Wiesbaden, 1975), cols. 944–45, and idem, “Das Hirtenlied
und seine fünfte Variante,” CdE 44 (1969), pp. 27–59.
41 Cf. Kahl, System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift, pp. 472–73 for examples of
ø
read as Ônm, b£, or sr. Kaplony almost invariably takes the standing ram as Ônm, (cf. “Das
Hirtenlied und seine fünfte Variante,” p. 35). The usual word in Egyptian for “ram” is sr
(srt, “ewe”), Wb. 3, pp. 462–63. An example of a name on an Early Dynastic private stela
from Abydos (MMA 01.4.93), ˆ ø may indicate a reading of sn for the ram sign, if the sur-
¤
rounding signs are taken as phonetic complements. The name was read by W. Hayes as
“Se’n-Ba;” cf. W.M.F. Petrie, Royal Tombs II, pl. 26, no. 62 and pl. 29, no. 62; W.C. Hayes,
The Scepter of Egypt, Part I, From the Earliest Times to the end of the Middle Kingdom
(New York, 1953), p. 37 and fig. 25. Note also Y¢ø fi srt-Ìr(?), Louvre E 21710, from the
time of Den, mentioned in Kahl, System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift, Qu. 1238
and p. 473.
42 Khnum may have played a role in the Osiris mysteries at Abydos, albeit a minor one;
J. Spiegel, Die Götter von Abydos: Studien zum ägyptischen Synkretismus (Wiesbaden,
1973), pp. 82–88.
373
culture-specific meanings in the viewer). The motif of giraffes and trees

is known from a variety of finds ranging in date from Naqada III to the
First Dynasty. Thus, pairs of giraffes flanking palm trees occur on several
slate ceremonial palettes attributed to the Naqada III period,43 as well as
on a painted bowl of Naqada IIIb date from Qustul,44 and on a cylinder
seal from Helwan dated to the First Dynasty (possibly Aha).45 Unlike
these examples, the giraffes of the Abydos stand do not face one another,
but consist of a single giraffe before a tree, which in neither instance on
the Abydos stand resembles the palms depicted on slate palettes.46 The
spiny branches of one of the trees indicate that the acacia is more likely
intended, and its leaves are known as a favored food source of the
giraffe.47 Aside from its use as a determinative in a few Egyptian words,
giraffes (unlike falcons, vultures, rams, or other animals) appear to have
evoked few, if any symbolic associations during the pharaonic era, per-
haps partly due to the scarcity of giraffes in Egypt in dynastic times.48
Although it is conceivable that the giraffe and plant motif is purely
decorative, the placement of an inscription against the neck of one of the
giraffes implies a more overt level of symbolism. It is important to note
that the rectangle enclosing the inscription was not merely squeezed
into the remaining space left between giraffe and fenestration. Rather,
all incision was carried out before firing, and the line that forms the
right-hand side of the rectangle continues in an unbroken stroke as the
neck and one of the forelegs of the giraffe. The giraffe and inscription
thus form an integrated unit. The giraffe seems almost to carry the
inscription on its neck, in a fashion reminiscent of the later tradition of
“personified estates,” which bear names of funerary domains on their
43 Examples include the “Two Dogs Palette,” H. Asselberghs, Chaos en Beheersing: Doku-
menten uit Aeneolitisch Egypte (Leiden, 1961), pl. 73; the reverse of the “Battlefield
Palette,” op. cit., pl. 87, (lower part) and pl. 89, fig. 154 (upper); and two fragments in Ber-
lin, op. cit., pl. 89, fig. 156 and pl. 91, fig. 161. W. Kaiser suggested that the flanking giraffes
might symbolize the unification of the two lands, but he does not adequately explain why
a pair of giraffes would have come to represent Upper and Lower Egypt, “Einige Bemerk-
ungen zur ägyptischen Frühzeit III,” ZÄS 91 (1964), p. 116.
44 B. Williams, A-Group Royal Cemetery, pls. 88–92 and pp. 154–55. See also idem,
Decorated Pottery and the Art of Naqada III, MÄS 45 (Berlin, 1988).
45 Z. Saad, The Excavations at Helwan (Norman, Oklahoma, 1969), pl. 95.
46 I. Wallert, Die Palmen im Alten Ägypten, MÄS 1 (Berlin, 1962), pp. 66–73, discusses the
plants represented on the palettes and the Helwan seal as examples of the palm and repeats
the idea that the motif might symbolize unification.
47 Berthold Laufer, The Giraffe in History and Art (Chicago, 1928), p. 6. I would like to
thank Peter Lacovara for this reference.

48 Cf. E. Brunner-Traut, “Giraffe,” LÄ 2, cols. 600–601. For the frequent assertion that the
giraffe determinative in the verb sr, meaning “to foretell” (Wb. 4, pp. 189–90) relates to the
giraffe’s ability to see far in the distance, see Chr. Cannuyer, “Du nom de la girafe en
ancien égyptien et de la valeur phonétique du signe œ,” GM 112 (1989), pp. 7–10.
374
heads.49 Juxtaposition often implies possession or relation in Egyptian

art, as for example when animals (representing deities or concepts) grasp
symbols or tools, or stand atop inscriptions.50
An important group of painted marks on jars from the recently
discovered elite tomb U-j (Naqada IIIA2 in date) in the U cemetery at
Abydos may perhaps elucidate the meaning of the giraffe and plant
motif. The ink inscriptions, which consist mostly of the graphic device
of an animal or animal part (e.g. fish, bull’s head, scorpion, sea shell)
alongside a plant have been explained by Dr. Günter Dreyer as the
names of royal plantations or other economic entities. This requires
taking each animal or animal part as a previously unattested royal name,
perhaps of rulers of a local Thinite dynasty preceding the kings of
Dynasty 0, while the plant is considered to denote “plantation.”51
Rather than extend Dreyer’s interpretation to the ram stand and suggest
the existence of a plantation of “King Giraffe,” whose existence is
entirely unattested, I prefer to interpret all instances of the combination
“animal + plant” as graphic emblems that denote particular domains
(i.e., “the giraffe domain,” etc.).
Support for an interpretation of the giraffe and plant pair as a graphic
device for an estate may be provided by the inscription at the giraffe’s
neck. The absence of the vertical lines of the palace façade rule out the
reading of the rectangle as a serekh, and the rectangle is best understood
(¢wt, Gardiner Sign-list 06).52
as an early writing of the enclosure
Q
Although ¢wt in general can refer to economic, administrative, or
religious institutions, the names of funerary domains during the Old
49 Cf. H.K. Jacquet-Gordon, Les noms des domaines funéraires sous l’Ancien Empire
égyptien, BdE 34 (Cairo, 1962).
50 For example, the Horus falcon atop the serekh, the vulture grasping the ßn sign and w£s
scepter, or the animals atop the fortified towns on the Libyan Palette (cf. note 36). For the
related phenomenon of composite hieroglyphs, which employ juxtaposition of elements,
see H.G. Fischer, “The Evolution of Composite Hieroglyphs in Ancient Egypt,” MMJ 12
(1978), pp. 5–19.
51 G. Dreyer, “Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof 5./
6. Vorbericht,” MDAIK 49 (1993), p. 35, also pl. 8a–c. I would like to thank Dr. Dreyer for
discussing his finds with me.
52 There are numerous examples of rectangles (as well as circular enclosures) containing
signs in early inscriptions, interpreted variously as names of temples, palaces, and

domains, cf. P. Kaplony IÄF II, pp. 816–17, notes 809 and 810; W. Helck, Untersuchungen
zur Thinitenzeit, ÄA 45 (Wiesbaden, 1987), pp. 204–205, also 212–14; also J. R. Ogdon,
“Studies in Archaic Epigraphy II. On the Nature of √√√∆∆∆ ,” GM 57 (1982), pp. 41–47; idem,
“Studies in Archaic Epigraphy IV. On Architectural Design for Names of Constructions in
Archaic Hieroglyphs,” GM 62 (1983), pp. 55–61. For examples of a rectangle written with-
out the characteristic square in the corner, cf. Kahl, System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphen-
schrift, sign list o2.
375
Kingdom are usually formed of the phrase “¢wt + royal name” (com-
posed of the royal name written inside the ¢wt sign).53
Turning to the three signs within the rectangle, the group is not par-
alleled elsewhere, which makes any interpretation particularly difficult.
No less of a problem is the fact that the study of early incised inscrip-
tions on ceramic vessels (“potmarks”) has come to be separated from
research into the more readily comprehensible inscriptions found on
seals, sealings, labels, and written in ink on vessels, despite some over-
lap between the two general categories.54 Although parallels can be
drawn between each of the signs on the stand and signs that occur as
both “potmarks” and “early hieroglyphs,” their meaning is still
elusive.55
The uppermost element, which consists of what is usually interpret-
ed as human arms pointing downwards, with three fingers on each hand,
is usually read as either k£ or s∞n and is well attested as the Horus name
of a ruler of Dynasty 0 (here called King “Ka”). Since the name of King
“Ka” of Dynasty 0 may occur with arms pointing either up or down,
(according to the location of the lines of the palace façade within the
serekh), it is possible that the inscription on the Abydos stand may re-
late to a ¢wt, or cultic foundation of King “Ka.”56 This attribution
agrees well with the date for the stand based on finds from Qustul,
Hierakonpolis, and Buto (see discussion above).
53 For example, in the example of the generic term for all of the estates of Sneferu, ¢wt-
Snfrw, to which are added individual identifying names for each estate, Jacquet-Gordon,
Domaines funéraires, p. 5, and pp. 57–79.
54 Note, for instance, the same groups of signs found both as “potmarks” and on a jar seal-
ing from Abydos, cited in E.C.M. van den Brink, “Corpus and Numerical Evaluation of the
‘Thinite’ Potmarks,” in R. Friedman and B. Adams, eds., Followers of Horus, p. 265.
55 Although the combination of three signs on the ram stand is precisely paralleled neither
in the corpus of “early inscriptions” nor among “potmarks,” similar signs occur as “pot-
marks,” cf. van den Brink, “Corpus and Numerical Evaluation…,” p. 282, Group III (
“arms”), Group VII ( ˆ “arc”), Group X ( “dagger”), and note also the occurrence of ”pot-
marks,” p. 283, group XXX, which recall the diamond pattern incised between fenestra-
tions on the lower portion of the stand.
56 Kaiser noted that the arms may point either up or down inside the serekh, according to
the location of the lines of the palace façade, and reads both instances as k£: “Einige
Bemerkungen...,” pp. 92–93. Kaplony, however, reads the arms as s∞n, citing the higher
frequency of arms pointing down rather than up, “Sechs Königsnamen der 1. Dynastie in
neuer Deutung” Orientalia Suecana 7 (1958), pp. 54–57. Helck, on the basis of a compar-
ison of incised and painted inscriptions and seal impressions prefers to interpret the
“arms” as a kind of cloth with fringed ends, Untersuchungen, p. 92. Kahl, System der
ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift, pp. 38–40, tabulates all examples and provides a useful
overview of the debate. Note also the variability of orientation of this sign on Egyptian
“potmarks” of the same period and later, E.C.M. van den Brink, “Corpus and Numerical
Evaluation…,” p. 286, Group III.
376
If, however, the uppermost sign in the inscription may be read as k£,
it is also possible that, together with the enclosing rectangle as ¢wt, the
two signs form a writing of ¢wt-k£ or “ka-chapel.” While ¢wt-k£ gener-
ally seems to denote a funerary complex,57 and is not attested as a term
until the late First Dynasty, it is perhaps possible to read the rectangle
and arms in this manner.58 Considering the evidence for a ka-chapel of
Dynasty 6 above the findspot of the Abydos stand, this reading might
imply that the stand formed part of the equipment of an earlier ka-
chapel.59 The term ¢wt-k£, however, is usually followed by the name of
a king or (rarely) a private person, a situation which leads us to a discus-
sion of the final two signs of the Abydos stand.
The sign directly beneath the arms pointing down is a tall arc that
¢
may be an early writing for the folded cloth, (Gardiner Sign-list S29),
the uniliteral sign with the value of s. Its form, with both sides of equal
length, is attested frequently in the Archaic period.60 The sign directly
beneath the arc consisting of a stroke penetrating the top of an elongated
triangle is difficult to read, although numerous examples of similar signs
have been interpreted by Kaplony as y
(Gardiner sign-list T22) read as
sn.61 In many instances, the sn sign is written already during the First
¢
Dynasty with the phonetic complement of .62 The resulting reading of
the inscription thus might be ¢wt-k£ Sn (“the ka-chapel of Sen”), taking
Sn as a private name,63 or ¢wt sn-k£ (perhaps “the ¢wt (called) venerat-
ing the ka”),64 taking the verb as an infinitive.65
Whatever the exact reading of the signs, I believe it is likely that the
decoration of the ram stand simultaneously employs two forms of early
57 See now D. Franke, Das Heiligtum des Heqaib auf Elephantine, SAGA 9 (Heidelberg,
1994), pp. 118–27. I would like to thank Dr. Dorothea Arnold of the Metropolitan Museum
of Art for this reference.
58 Compare Second Dynasty writings of ¢wt-k£, Petrie, Royal Tombs II, pl. VIII, nos. 10 and
11, and discussion in Helck, Untersuchungen, pp. 63–64. Note also the intriguing
occurrence of a “potmark” which might be read ¢wt-k£, W.B. Emery, The Tomb of
Hemaka (Cairo, 1938), pl. 39, no. 98.
59 See above, note 10.
60 Note also the occurrence in Old Kingdom representations of the folded cloth with ends
of either equal or unequal lengths, H.G. Fischer, “An Elusive Object within the Fisted
Hands of Egyptian Statues,” MMJ 10 (1975), pp. 14–15. Note the objections to interpreting
the archaic form with sides of equal length as s, in J. R. Ogdon, “Studies in Archaic
Epigraphy V. Some Reflections on the Logogram ¢ and its meanings,” GM 64 (1983),
pp. 53–59.
61 For example, Kaplony, IÄF III, figs. 41, 107, 361, 371, 382, 467, 474, 475, 495, 497, 528,
537, 539, 551, 554, 558, 599, 607, and 610.

62 Ibid.
63 Cf. numerous examples of names with sn, Kaplony IÄF. Note also the stela from Abydos
naming an individual called ˆ ø, which might be read as sn (note 41 above).

¤
64 For this meaning of sn, cf. Wb. 4, p. 154, 16.
377
signing. Thus the giraffe and plant motif is an emblem, recalling both
the “animal + plant” markings on vessels from Umm el-Qa™ab Tomb U–
j and similar incised markings on the Coptos Min colossi.66 In all these
cases, I interpret the emblems to denote domains, and I do not believe
that the animal element is likely to reflect any royal name. The attached
rectangle with signs within, however, is an instance of an early hiero-
glyphic inscription, which seems to provide a specific name for the
domain, whatever its reading. The juxtaposition of hieroglyphic signs
and symbolic emblem agrees well with what we know of the develop-
ment of the interaction of symbol and text in Egyptian art from Proto-
dynastic, and indeed Dynastic, times.
The final issue to be considered here is the overall meaning of the
stand, taking into account its cultic context, and the apparent reference
that its decoration makes to a domain or estate. Most likely, the stand
was used in the ritual of a ram deity such as Khnum, which would have
taken place in an early temple predating the “Osiris Temple” at Abydos.
The graphic elements of giraffes and plants in the stand’s decoration
probably refer to a specific domain of this cultic complex, perhaps
known as “plantation of the giraffe.” The signs at the back of the neck
of one of the giraffes appear to name a specific endowment (¢wt), wheth-
er royal or not in nature, and provide a unique hieroglyphic complement
to an emblematic representation. While much that has been set forth
here remains speculative, future excavation of Protodynastic cult sites
will certainly provide better information on the mechanics of cult in
early Egypt and the existence of cultic and administrative entities in this
period of state formation.
b
65 It is also possible, however, that the third sign is to be taken as an early form of the later
dagger *, with the value of tp (Gardiner Sign-list T8). A similar sign occurs frequently as
an incised “potmark,” cf. van den Brink, “Corpus and Numerical Evaluation…,” p. 289,
ˆ
Group X ( ) , in combination with both the “arc” sign, ( ) p.289, X5 and with the “arms,”
( ), p. 289, X7. The third sign on the ram stand inscription lacks the horizontal line cross-
ing the vertical typical of the examples cited, however, and sn thus seems a more likely
reading.
66 For the Coptos colossi, see B.J. Williams, “Narmer and the Coptos Colossi,” JARCE 25
(1988), pp. 35–59; B.J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt, fig. 28, pp. 80–82; and G. Dreyer, “Die
Datierung der Min-Statuen aus Koptos,” in Kunst des Alten Reiches (Mainz am Rhein,
1995), pp. 49–56.
378
24 HAWASS Page 379 Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:29 PM
The Discovery of the Satellite Pyramid

of Khufu (GI–d)
Zahi Hawass
I
t gives me great pleasure to dedicate this new discovery to
Professor William Kelly Simpson. I have known Kelly since 1969,
when he was the Co-Director of the Pennsylvania–Yale Expedition
at Abydos. I was Inspector of Antiquities for the Expedition then, and
after that association became a very close friend of Kelly’s. In 1975 he
invited me to visit the Museum of Fine Arts and see the excellent col-
lection of which he was curator. Kelly had been publishing the mastabas
that Reisner discovered in the eastern and western fields by the Great
Pyramid at Giza, and when I became Inspector of Giza, I was able to see
him at work on his superb volumes of Giza Mastabas. In 1992, Kelly
was in Egypt and came to the site to see the recent discoveries on the
plateau. We had just discovered the new pyramid discussed below, and
Kelly was impressed with this find, even more so because it was unex-
pected. While Giza has supplied several discoveries about which I could
write in honor of Prof. Simpson, it is perhaps this one that might mean
the most to him, and I offer my article in honor of his scholarship and
friendship.1
The Antiquities Department of Giza, of the Supreme Council of
Antiquities, decided in 1991 to work on the east side of the Great
2
Pyramid of Khufu. George Reisner excavated this site and recorded
most of the architectural components known on the east side of Khufu’s
3
pyramid. The Antiquities Department also worked in this area and,
under Selim Hassan, cleared over 10 meters of sand located on the east
face of the pyramid, in addition to excavating the Upper Temple of
1 I would like to thank Mark Lehner, David P. Silverman, Jennifer Hauser, and Peter Der
Manuelian for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. In particular, Mark
Lehner deserves special thanks for reviewing much of the data presented below.
2 This work was done by a team from the Giza Inspectorate of Antiquities: Alaa el Din
Shahat, archaeologist; Abdel Hamid Koteb and Nevien Mohammed Mustafa, architects;
Mostafa Waziry, Josef Nabieh and Esmat Abdel Ghany, assistant archaeologists; and
Hasabala el-Taib, photographer.
3 G.A. Reisner, A History of the Giza Necropolis 1 (Cambridge, Mass., 1942); G.A. Reisner
and W.S. Smith, A History of the Giza Necropolis 2. The Tomb of Hetepheres, Mother of
Cheops (Cambridge, Mass., 1955).
4
Khufu (see figs. 1–3). After Hassan’s excavation, the Antiquities Fig. 1. Overview plan of the Great Pyramid
Department prepared the site for visitors and erected a paved road in the and Eastern Cemetery, showing the loca-
tion of the satellite pyramid (no. 11).
area flanking the northern and southern part of the Upper Temple.
Recently, as part of an effort to prepare the site properly for visitors,
and to clean and restore the existing monuments, the Antiquities
Department decided to remove this road, thereby preventing cars and
4 S. Hassan, Excavations at Giza 10. The Great Pyramid of Khufu and its Mortuary Chapel
(Cairo, 1960); H. Abu-Seif, “Dégagement de la face est de la pyramide de Chéops,” ASAE

46 (1947), pp. 235–43; Maragioglio and Rinaldi, L’Architettura delle Piramidi Menfite 4
(Rapallo, 1965).
380
Zahi Hawass, The Discovery of the Satellite Pyramid of Khufu (GI–d)
5
buses from driving on the basalt pavement of the Upper Temple. Dur-
ing this work, the satellite pyramid of Khufu was discovered. It is locat-
ed about 25.5 m southeast of the southeast corner of the Khufu Pyramid
and about 7 m west of the subsidiary pyramids GI–b and GI–c. The sat-
ellite pyramid shares the same orientation to the cardinal directions and
is found at nearly the same level as the Khufu Pyramid.
1. Description of the Pyramid

The ruins of the satellite pyramid cover an area approximately 24 m
square (fig. 4). The remains include fine, Tura-quality limestone blocks
from the pyramid’s outer casing and perimeter foundation, some of
which remained in situ (see below), large blocks of cruder limestone and
debris that filled the core of the pyramid, and a passage and chamber cut
into the bedrock. All the masonry of the pyramid core had been removed
from above the substructure when we excavated the pyramid. We found
the passage and chamber unroofed and open to the sky.
1.1 Superstructure
What remained of the core of the superstructure as we found it was a U-
shaped block of crude masonry and fill of debris that surrounded the sub-
structure on the west, south, and east, and was open to the north. Two
courses of irregular blocks remained of the core with debris fill between
the blocks. The east and south sides had the most preserved foundation
slabs and casing blocks of fine, Tura-quality limestone.
East side
On the east side, nine foundation slabs are in situ, with clear traces
of the original pyramid baseline across their top surface. Five casing
blocks are also in situ, but the foot of their outer sloping faces is broken
away. A bottom course of squared-off core blocks is also preserved,
standing above the foundation platform along much of the east side.
South side
We found eleven foundation slabs in situ on the south side of the
pyramid with the pyramid baseline visible across their top surface.
Farther in toward the core, there was a mass of debris and large irregular
limestone pieces along the south side. Closer to the burial chamber,
there are large limestone core blocks that were better squared and joined
than those near the edge.
West side
Only one foundation slab remains in situ on the west side. The orig-
inal pyramid baseline is clear on its upper surface. North and south of
5 The publication of this work with a map of the eastern field will appear shortly.
381
Fig. 2. The Upper Temple and Great Pyramid of Khufu, looking west; excavation in
February, 1940.
Fig. 3. The Upper Temple of Khufu, looking northt; excavation in February, 1940.
382
Fig. 4. Plan of the satellite pyramid of Khufu (GI–d).
383
Fig. 5. View of the satellite pyramid

substructure, looking south.
this slab there are broad cuttings in the natural rock which served as em-
placements for missing foundation slabs. We found a mass of limestone
and mortar debris that composed part of the core along the west side
and, closer to the burial chamber, there are large limestone pieces that
are very irregular in shape and position.
North side
We found the northeast corner foundation slab in its original posi-
tion, but any trace of builders’ lines had been worn off its upper surface.
None of the original foundation slabs remains along the rest of the north
side, except for one slab toward the west end, just short of the original
corner. This slab revealed a very rough indication of the baseline. Along
the north side there are cuttings in the rock floor that were emplace-
ments for missing foundation slabs.
Other comments
On the south (back) side of the pyramid (see fig. 5), there is an in-
scription in red paint on the north side of a core block facing toward the
burial chamber. The graffito reads: ¡my rsy s£, “which is on the south
(back) side” (see fig. 9).
We found several blocks of the outer casing that were not in their
original position. One of these was a casing block of the southeast cor-
ner, probably from the second course above the foundation platform. We
found many casing blocks toppled out of place along the south side.
384
Reconstruction of the pyramid base

The original baseline, or setting line, marking the foot of the lowest
course of casing blocks, is preserved on five foundation slabs of the east
side, and seven foundation blocks on the south side. We found no re-
mains of the original baseline on the north side where most of the foun-
dation slabs were missing. When the foundation slabs are missing, one
can see sockets or emplacements cut into the rock floor to receive the
individual slabs. However, these do not help determine the exact posi-
tion of the original pyramid baseline. On the west side there is only one
foundation block in situ that carried the baseline.
This single block on the west side allowed us to ascertain the origi-
nal base length of the pyramid, 21.75 m, by measuring to it from the pre-
served baseline on the east (the values here are measured graphically off
the 1:50 plan). This is a bit less than 41.5 cubits. This reconstruction of
the base puts the center of the pyramid .20 m north of the south (upper)
edge of the burial chamber. The north–south center axis of the pyramid
falls about .15 m east of the best approximation of the north–south cen-
ter axis of the passage and chamber.
Apex
On the south side of the pyramid we found a large piece of fine, Tura-
quality limestone with three exterior sloping faces of the pyramid (fig.
13). An examination of this piece indicates that it formed a little more
than the south half of the third course below the apex of the pyramid. It
is 2.70 m long and .56 m thick. The exterior faces are coated with a light
brown patina from their exposure when they formed part of the complet-
ed pyramid. The mean slope of the preserved faces is 52.40°. The under-
side of the block is flat, but the top surface was shaped as a concavity.
When it completed the square of the top of this course of the pyramid,
there were four triangular planes sloping toward one another to form the
lines of the diagonals of the square. The four triangular planes also
sloped 2.6° to the center of the original square of the top of this course.
The diagonal lines must have helped the builders control the squareness
of the pyramid, to make sure the sides of the pyramid met at a point.
This concavity of the top surface was intended to receive the convex un-
derside of the block(s) forming the second course down from the top.
Here, obviously, the pyramid superstructure is all casing, with no fill or
core material, as it narrows to the apex.
The block or blocks of the second course down from the top are
missing, but later we found the actual apex stone of the satellite pyra-
mid, a single piece of fine, Tura-quality limestone. It is the second oldest
pyramidion ever found, the earliest belonging to the North Pyramid of
385
6
Sneferu discovered by Rainer Stadelmann at Dahshur. The underside of
the pyramidion was convex, with four triangular faces sloping outward
7.3° to the center point of the base. This protruding convex base was
meant to fit into the concavity of the second course from the top, just as
the blocks of the second course had evidently fit into the convex top sur-
face of third course down (of which the block of the southern half is de-
scribed above). The edge along the base of the pyramidion was broken
away, as was the top, but Joseph Dorner established the mean slope of
the faces as 51° 45'.
This evidence allows us to conclude that the mean slope of the sat-
ellite pyramid was almost exactly that of Khufu’s main pyramid (51°
51'), a slope of 28:22, a seked of 5 palms two fingers, with a 7:11 propor-
tion between height and base of the pyramid. The original height of the
7
satellite pyramid was 13.80.
1.2 Substructure
The passage is closely aligned north–south. The upper end of the passage
begins 3.75 m from the reconstructed north base line. The width of the
passage between the rock-cut walls is 1.05 m (2 cubits). It slopes down-
ward at an angle between 25° and 28° (measured on the section draw-
ings, fig. 6), for a length of 5.25 m (10 cubits) to its opening .55 m above
floor level of the chamber. At the upper edges along both sides of the
passage there are cuttings to receive the blocks that flanked and covered
the passage. These emplacements are cut to depths ranging from 45 to
85 cm, and widths ranging from 75 cm to 1.40 m from the edges of the
passage.
The passage and chamber together have the T-shape normal for sat-
ellite pyramids subsequent to this newly discovered one of Khufu. The
chamber is cut to a depth of 2.85 m. The long walls of the burial chamber
lean inward, so that the top of the chamber is narrower than the floor
line. A similar situation exists in the eleven galleries under the east side
8
of Djoser’s Step Pyramid at Saqqara. The chamber is 7.92 m long (east–
west). The east end of the chamber is 3.35 m wide at the floor and 2.35 m
wide at the top, while the west end of the chamber is 3.40 m wide at the
floor and 2.45 m wide at the top.
6 See Z. Hawass, “The Discovery of the Pyramidion of the Satellite Pyramid of Khufu,”Gs.
Abdel Aziz Saleh, (San Antonio, forthcoming).
7 The estimation of the pyramid angles was based on the remaining stones found in situ
on the east and south sides, and also on the remains of lines found in the three corners
(east, west, and south). Still, the figures are approximate.
8 W.S. Smith, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, revised by William K. Simpson
(Harmondsworth, 1981), pp. 53–62.
386
Fig. 6. Sections of the satellite pyramid There is a cutting in the floor of the burial chamber, one meter wide,
substructure.
immediately in front of the opening into the chamber of the entrance
passage. The bottom of the cutting slopes to a depth of .25 m and ends
at a vertical face. The cutting probably received the end of the first block
with which the passage was plugged.
At the west end of the chamber there are four small holes, a pair in
the north and south walls respectively. The backs of the holes are round.
They are about .10 m deep, and spaced, in each pair, about 1.45 m apart.
Located a certain height above the floor, they appear to be sockets for
wood cross-beams, perhaps for lowering or covering an object in the
west end of the chamber.
Since the upper part of the burial chamber is no longer extant, and
no ceiling blocks remain, the original shape of the chamber remains a
mystery. The inward slope of the north and south walls forms an unusu-
al tent shape. No part of the walls is smoothed or polished. There are
387
traces of red mortar on the floor of the burial chamber, and traces of red
on the south side. The mortar could indicate an original limestone pave-
ment.
1.3 Restoration
In order to give visitors an idea of the original appearance of this small
pyramid and its place in the architectural context of the site, as well as
to preserve the loose and crumbling core material, we restored parts of
9
the satellite pyramid with new masonry.
Our restoration began on the east side of the satellite pyramid where
much of the first casing course was in situ (see fig. 14). The blocks that
we recovered allowed us to establish the inclination angle of this side as
well as that of the northeast and southeast corners. The restoration team
began by making a new corner block for these corners. Displaced and in
situ casing blocks, as well as the in situ core block on the east side,
allowed us to reestablish the heights of the courses.
On the south side of the pyramid (see fig. 15), the architect first re-
placed a section of missing foundation slabs so as to complete the pyra-
mid baseline which was partially preserved on this side. During the
course of the excavation, large stone blocks which came from the first
casing course on the south side were collected, studied and measured, Fig. 7. Detail of the satellite pyramid
substructure, looking south.
and it was possible for the architect to place a few of them back into
their original locations. As we re-established the southeastern corner,
we based the angle of inclination of the restored upper course of casing
on the blocks that we recovered, on those in situ on the eastern side, as
well as on the angle of the limestone block of the third course below the
pyramid apex (see above).
On the north side (see fig. 16), we had to replace most of the founda-
tion platform between the only in situ foundation slabs, one at the
northeast corner and another toward the west end. We established the
north pyramid baseline by taking the pyramid width as given by the
preserved baseline on the east side and the single slab with baseline on
the west side, and then measuring this width from the preserved base-
line on the south side.
On the west side (see fig. 17), we extrapolated from the baseline pre-
served on the single in situ foundation slab, and found the intersection
with our reconstructed north baseline.
We also replaced missing limestone blocks in front of the entrance
to the passage and along the sides. We added a lintel across the top of the
9 The restoration work on the pyramid was done by Abdel Hamied Koteb and Nivien
Mohammed Mustafa, the architects of the Giza Inspectorate of Antiquities. Miss Nivien
did the daily restoration and was responsible for all the work completed.
Fig. 8. Detail of the satellite pyramid
substructure, looking east.
388
Fig. 9. Inscribed core block on the back

(south) side of the satellite pyramid.
southern end of the trench of the passage, where it meets the pit of the
burial chamber.
2. Other Constructions on the east side of Khufu’s Pyramid

Scattered around Khufu’s pyramid are several constructions whose func-
tions are unknown. They include, in the order in which they are dis-
cussed below:
1. The “neben-pyramid”
2. GI–X (the unfinished pyramid)
3. The trial passage and the narrow trench
2.1 The “neben-pyramid”
This structure was found and named by Junker during his excavations in
the GIS cemetery south of the Great Pyramid.10 It lies about 21.50 m
south of the base of the pyramid, 42 m from the pyramid’s southeastern
corner and just outside the second enclosure wall. It is cut into the rock
of the plateau and consists of a 4.30 m long descending passage that
slopes to the north and ends in a small room measuring 1.5 m x 1.2 m x
0.8 m. The passage measures 0.9 m in height and 1 m in width. The top
of the room is 1.3 m below the surface of the bedrock and lies under the
second enclosure wall.11
10 Junker, Gîza 10, pp. 9–12, fig. 6.

11Maragioglio and Rinaldi, L’Architettura 4, pp. 74–75, pl. 2, fig. 4; M. Lehner, The
Pyramid Tomb of Hetep-heres and the Satellite Pyramid of Khufu (Mainz am Rhein,
1985), p. 37.
389
Junker and Reisner believed that this structure was planned as a

queen’s pyramid. Possibly for topographical reasons, it was abandoned
and rebuilt to the east.12 Reisner noted that before and after Khufu’s
time, the location of the queens’ pyramids was to the south of the main
pyramid, for example: the South Pyramid complex of Sneferu at
Dahshur and the pyramid complexes of Khafra and Menkaura at Giza.
Both he and Junker believed that the “neben-pyramid” was abandoned
because of the proximity of the quarry to the south of the Khufu
Pyramid.13
Maragioglio and Rinaldi originally suggested that it was a tomb
(Reisner, type 9) which predated the Great Pyramid and was abandoned
when the pyramid was built. Later they rejected this theory and pro-
posed that the “neben-pyramid” was a serdab similar to the one found Fig. 10. The satellite pyramid area, looking
south of the pyramid of Khafra.14 Brinks, however, felt that the “neben- west.
pyramid” was built as the substructure for a satellite or ritual pyramid
for Khufu.15
Recently, we found at Giza two sections of a supply ramp located on
the south side, extending to the southwest corner of the Great Pyra-
16
mid. Its presence suggests that the area to the south of Khufu’s pyra-
mid was free of structures during the building of the pyramid. The
“neben-pyramid” had no apparent relationship to Khufu’s pyramid.
Most likely it was dug before or after Khufu’s reign and has nothing to
do with Khufu’s burial as either a satellite or queen’s pyramid.
2.2 The unfinished pyramid (GI–X)
Reisner found the substructure of an unfinished pyramid just east of
Pyramid GIa. About 12.70 m north of this, almost on the east–west axis
of Khufu’s pyramid is the shaft of Hetep-heres I, G 7000x.
Maragioglio and Rinaldi offered another alternative explanation for Fig. 11. The satellite pyramid area, looking
GI–X, namely that it represents a trial cutting designed to test the east.
process of laying masonry onto bedrock for the entrances of the small
pyramids.17
12 Junker, Gîza 10, pp. 9–12, fig. 6; Reisner, Giza Necropolis 1, p. 72.
13 Ibid.
14 Maragioglio and Rinaldi, L’Architettura 4, pp. 174–76, obs. 56.
15 J. Brinks, Die Entwicklung der königlichen Grabanlagen des Alten Reiches, HÄB 10
(Hildesheim, 1979), pp. 113–22, pl. 5.
16 The publication of the newly discovered ramp will appear shortly. See the discussion on
the ramp in Lehner, Satellite Pyramid, p. 81. See also the discussion of the serdab south of
Khafra in A.H. Abdel-Al and A. Youssef, “An Enigmatic wooden object discovered beside
the Southern Side of the Giza Second Pyramid,” ASAE 62 (1977), pp. 103–20, and ASAE 62
(1979), pls. 1–2. Cf. P. Lacovara and M. Lehner, “Brief Communication: An Enigmatic
Object Explained,” JEA 71 (1985), pp. 169–74.
17 Maragioglio and Rinaldi, L’Architettura 4, p. 182, obs. 76.
390
GI–X is a T-shaped cutting in the rock, consisting of an open trench

sloping from north to south measuring 6.35 m wide, and a 3.75 m long
corridor descending from north to south which measures 0.54 m high
and 0.85 m wide. Reisner believed that this cutting was abandoned
18
when the nearby tomb of Hetep-heres I was dug. Lehner offers a differ-
ent explanation for the existence of GI–X. On the basis of the relation-
ship he sees between GI–X and G 7000x, he suggests that the two were
features of the same subsidiary complex. According to his theory,
G 7000x was dug first and GI–X was started later, only to be abandoned
19
when the plan of the eastern field was changed.
Fig. 12. The satellite pyramid area, looking 2.3 The trial passages and the narrow trench
south. North of the causeway of Khufu, beside the secret tomb of Hetep-heres I
are corridors cut out of the rock. These passages, called the “trial passag-
es,” lie 87.50 m from the eastern base of Khufu’s pyramid and 43.50 m
north of the east–west axis. They are oriented north–south, with careful-
ly cut and well-squared blocks, some of which were cased with mortar.
The passages have a total length of 22 m and a total vertical depth of
10 m. At the north end, an opening in the bedrock is cut in steps. It be-
comes a sloping passage 1.05 m wide and 1.20 m high, which continues
at an angle of 260˚ 32' for a distance of about 21 m. At a point about 11
m from the north entrance to this passage, a second passage of almost
identical cross-sectional dimensions begins. This second passage
ascends southward at approximately the same angle as that by which
Fig. 13. Block forming the south half of the the first passage descends. At 5.80 m from its beginning, this second pas-
third course below the apex of the satellite sage reaches the surface of the bedrock and widens into a corridor which
pyramid.
is open to the sky. A square shaft, about 0.72 m in width was cut verti-
cally from the surface of the bedrock to the point where the two passages
meet.20
About 6 m west of the trial passages is another long corridor called
the “narrow trench.” This runs parallel to the other passages and is
almost exactly equal in width to the vertical shaft in the trial passages.
It measures 0.15 m deep at the north end and 0.43 m deep at the south
end. It is 0.71 m wide and 7.35 m long.21
The function of these trial passages has been debated by scholars
since their discovery by Perring and Vyse, who believed that they were
18 Reisner,Giza Necropolis 1, p. 70.

19 Lehner,Satellite Pyramid, pp. 71–74; 35–40.
20 Maragioglio and Rinaldi, L’Architettura 4, pp. 160–62; 58, 68–70; Lehner, Satellite
Pyramid, pp. 45ff., fig. 10.

21 Maragioglio and Rinaldi, L’Architettura 4, p. 70; Lehner, Satellite Pyramid, pp. 45–46.
391
Fig. 14. East side of the satellite pyramid,

looking southwest.
part of the substructure of a fourth queen’s pyramid that was left with-
22
out a superstructure.
Petrie, who examined and mapped these passages, noted the similar-
ity between them and the passages inside the Great Pyramid. He sug-
gested that the trial passages functioned as a model for the interior of the
Great Pyramid and noted that the trial passages had the same height and
width (although shorter in length) as that of the passages in the Great
23
Pyramid.
The trial passages reproduce in form the following features of the
pyramid passages: the descending corridor, the ascending corridor, the
northern end of the grand gallery with the lateral branches and the mid-
dle horizontal corridor.24
22 H.Vyse, Operation carried on at the Pyramids of Giza 2 (London, 1841), pp. 63ff.
23 W.M.F. Petrie, The Pyramids and Temples of Giza, with an update by Z. Hawass
(London, 1990), pp. 15–16.
24 Maragioglio and Rinaldi, L’Architettura 4, p. 68.
392
Fig. 15. South side of the satellite pyramid,

looking northeast.
Lehner lists several objections to the theory that these are model
passages: flaws in the sides of the passages would not have been covered
with plaster if they were not meant to be used; the lower part of the
ascending passage narrows as if to provide a resting place for plugging
blocks, a situation that implies a superstructure and a burial; the north
opening of the descending passage is cut in steps as if to provide a place
for the masonry of a superstructure; and the narrow trench appears to
mark the north–south axis of a pyramid. On the basis of these points, he
reconstructs a pyramid over the area.25 This pyramid would have been
comparable in size to GI–a, b or c, and would have lain on their north–
south axis. The upper temple, the causeway, and the fifth boat pit were
cut into the hypothetical area of this pyramid, indicating that it was nev-
er built.26 Lehner suggested that this pyramid might have been planned
as a satellite or ritual pyramid for Khufu. He thinks that it might have
25 Lehner, Satellite Pyramid, pp. 50–51.

26 Ibid., pp. 63ff., figs. 9 and 15.
393
been planned to be twice as large as the eventual queen’s pyramids and

assumes that it was abandoned for topographical reasons.27 Lehner also
suggested that the three queen’s pyramids were planned at the same
time as the building of this pyramid. According to his hypothesis, this
pyramid was never completed, probably due to the expansion of the up-
per temple and the change in route of the causeway. At this point,
Lehner thinks that the queen’s pyramid GI–a was taken over as the ritual
pyramid. He chooses this pyramid because of its proximity to Khufu’s
upper temple and the absence of any traces of a mortuary temple associ-
ated with it.28
Lehner’s theory that the trial passage was originally in the substruc-
ture of a satellite pyramid is based on the fact that many of the satellite
pyramids have interiors which echo the interior of the main pyramids
29
with which they are associated. Lehner later assigned GI–a to the
burial of Khufu’s mother, Hetep-heres I and GI–b as a satellite pyramid.
The most likely scenario for the subsidiary pyramids of the eastern
side of the Great Pyramid seems to be the following: Khufu planned the
four subsidiary pyramids on the east side, the trial passages as the sub-
structure of the satellite pyramid and the other three pyramids as
queen’s pyramids.
In year 5, Khufu changed his cult and appointed himself as Re, then
he enlarged the upper temple to accommodate the new subjects of the
wall reliefs as well as the new cult.30 The satellite pyramid was aban-
doned. At this time, GI–a was the pyramid for the original burial of
Queen Hetep-heres.31
We assumed that GI–c was a satellite pyramid because this pyramid
did not have a boat pit on the south side, as did GI–a and b. We excavated
the south side of GI–c and found no evidence of boat pits. Queen Henut-
sen died and was buried inside GI–c, but apparently the pyramid was not
finished, a fact we determined based on the cross lines we found through
clearance on the west side of the pyramid. The satellite pyramid was
planned in the southeast corner. Its location suggests that it was built at
the end of Khufu’s reign in year 23, and the method of construction
27 Ibid.,pp. 78–85.
28 Ibid.,p. 39.
29 Ibid., p. 81; see also Jéquier, Les pyramides des reines Neit et Apouit (Cairo, 1933),
pp. 10–11.
30 Z. Hawass, “The Great Sphinx at Giza: Date and Function,” International Congress of
Egyptology 2 (Turin, 1993), pp. 177–95.

31 See Lehner, Satellite Pyramid, pp. 30–31; Z. Hawass, The Funerary Establishments of
Khufu, Khafra and Menkaura during the Old Kingdom, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Penn-
sylvania (1987), pp. 101–111.
394
Fig. 16. North side of the satellite pyramid,

looking southwest.
indicates that it was built in a hurry and further suggests that it was
built a few days after the death of Khufu.
The style of T-shaped burial chamber of the recently discovered sat-
ellite pyramid is typical of that of most of the satellite pyramids.
Stadelmann determined that GIII–a of Menkaura’s subsidiary pyramid
32
was a satellite pyramid because of its T-shaped burial chamber. Khafra
followed his father in building his subsidiary pyramid with a T-shaped
structure, but he built it to the south on the north–south axis of his
33
pyramid. He did not follow his father Khufu in the location of the
pyramid. Khafra chose the southeast corner, a location that became the
standard location of the satellite pyramids of Dynasties 5 and 6.
32 R. Stadelmann, Die ägyptischen Pyramiden. Vom Ziegelbau zum Weltwunder (Mainz
am Rhein, 1985), pp. 146–47.

33 U. Hölscher, Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Chephren (Leipzig, 1912), pp. 34–35 and
pl. 13.
395
Fig. 17. West side of the satellite pyramid,

looking northeast.
3. Location of the Old Kingdom Subsidiary Pyramid

Subsidiary pyramids have been discovered in the complexes of most of
the pyramids of the Old Kingdom. A debate exists over whether these
represent queen’s pyramids or satellite pyramids; i.e., pyramids built for
the owner of the main tomb. While several of the subsidiary pyramids at
Giza definitely belonged to queens, the newly discovered satellite pyra-
mid which is the subject of this paper did not. It has been suggested that
these subsidiary pyramids developed from the southern tomb of King
34
Djoser of Dynasty 3.
The southern tomb of Djoser, which lies below the southern wall
surrounding his complex, west of the north–south axis of the Step Pyra-
mid, is in the form of a mastaba. The burial chamber, which is not
34 H. Ricke, Beiträge zur ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde 4: Bemerkungen
zur ägyptischen Baukunst des alten Reiches 1 (Zurich, 1944), pp. 106–107; Lehner,
Satellite Pyramid, p. 75; J.P. Lauer, Histoire monumentale des pyramides d’Egypte 2: Les
pyramides à degrés (IIIe dynastie) (Cairo, 1962), pp. 132–33; Jéquier, Pepi II 1 (Cairo,
1936), p. 9, note 2.
396
thought to be large enough for an actual interment, was empty. Other

internal chambers contained the remains of a wooden box and quanti-
35
ties of pottery and stone vessels thought to have held milk and beer.
The most significant finds, those in a long north–south gallery, were
three paneled niches decorated with reliefs portraying Djoser himself,
36
clearly identified by the inscriptions. These stelae, along with the
small burial chamber, strongly suggest that this tomb was built for the
use of Djoser, and not for a member of his family.
The southern tomb of Sekhemkhet also lies on the north–south axis
of the main pyramid, but inside the enclosure wall. It was never fin-
ished, but was also in the form of a mastaba. Within the tomb were
found the remains of a gilded wooden coffin, dated stylistically to the
Old Kingdom, associated with the skeleton of a child.37
The subsidiary pyramid at Meidum is also located south of the main
pyramid. There were no finds in this pyramid, except for a fragment of a
stele that bears part of a falcon. Interpreted as part of a royal stele, this
discovery would suggest assigning the small pyramid to the owner of the
38
main pyramid.
In the Bent Pyramid complex at Dahshur, a subsidiary pyramid was
built south of the main pyramid, on its north–south axis. The interior of
this pyramid was empty, but a stele bearing the names and titles of
Sneferu next to a representation of the king seated on a throne was found
outside the northern entrance.39 No trace of a subsidiary pyramid has
yet been found in the northern complex at Dahshur.40
In the complex of Djedefra at Abu-Rawwash, a subsidiary pyramid
41
was started in the southwest corner of the complex. Khafra has one
subsidiary pyramid, south of the main pyramid and on its central north–
south axis. Inside this pyramid several items were found: ox bones, frag-
42
ments of wood, and a jar-sealing bearing the name of Khafra. It has
35 J.P. Lauer, La pyramide à degrés 1 (Cairo, 1935), p. 20; C.M. Firth, J.E. Quibell and J.P.
Lauer, La pyramide à degrés 2 (Cairo, 1936), pp. 62–63; Lehner, Satellite Pyramid, pp. 76–
77.
36 Lauer, Pyramide à degrés 1, pp. 18–20; ibid. 2, pp. 105–109, pls. 31–36.
37 Lehner, Satellite Pyramid, p. 77; Lehner, “Récherche et découverte,” pp. 101–102.
38 Maragioglio and Rinaldi, L’Architettura 3 (Rapallo, 1964), pp. 26–28, 44ff.; Lehner,
Satellite Pyramid, p. 75; Cf. Petrie, MacKay and Wainwright, Meydum and Memphis 3
(London, 1910), pp. 10–12.
39 A. Fahkry, Sneferu 1, pp. 89–96; Maragioglio and Rinaldi, L’Architettura 3, pp. 74ff., 116,
pl. 15, and figs. 1–2.

40 Stadelmann, “Snofru,” pp. 437–49; idem, “Die Pyramiden des Snofru in Dahschur:
Erster Bericht über die Grabungen an den nördlichen Steinpyramide,” MDAIK 38 (1982),
pp. 379–93.
41 Lepsius, Denkmaeler 1, p. 23; Lehner, Satellite Pyramid, p. 76.
42 U. Hölscher, Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Chephren (Leipzig, 1912), pp. 34–35, 57, 64.
397
43
been referred to as both a queen’s pyramid and a satellite pyramid.
44
There are subsidiary pyramids south of Menkaura’s pyramid. These
are, again, usually referred to as queen’s pyramids, but it has been sug-
45
gested that either GIII–a or GIII–c were satellite pyramids. Userkhaf’s
complex contains one subsidiary pyramid, which is located to the south
46
of the west side of the main pyramid. Almost all of the remaining Fifth
and Sixth Dynasty pyramid complexes contain one subsidiary pyramid,
and these are always, except in the case of Niussera, whose subsidiary
47
pyramid is on the east end of the south side, east of the main pyramid
48
and south of the upper temple. The only evidence of attribution in any
of these later subsidiary pyramids is from the small pyramid in the com-
plex of Neit. A group of model vessels bearing the name of the queen
49
herself was found in the pyramid, suggesting that it as well as these
later subsidiary pyramids were satellite pyramids dedicated for the use
50
of the owner of the main pyramid. The fact that many of the Sixth
Dynasty queens had their own pyramids and complexes (including as in
the case of Neit, subsidiary pyramids) renders the identification of any
of these later subsidiary pyramids as queens’ pyramids highly unlikely.
Thus it seems that the satellite pyramid existed as a part of the pyramid
complex of the Old Kingdom since Dynasty 3.
b
43 Hawass, Funerary Establishments, pp. 163–68.

44 G.A. Reisner, Mycerinus. The Temples of the Third Pyramid at Giza (Cambridge, MA,
1931), pp. 55–68.
45 Ricke, Bemerkungen 2, p. 126; Stadelmann, “Pyramiden,” pp. 137–38; J.P. Lauer, “Sur
le dualisme de la monarchie égyptienne et son expression architecturale sous les
premières dynasties,” BIFAO 55 (1955), p. 168. However, I believe that GIII–c is a satellite
pyramid; see Hawass, Funerary Establishments, pp. 283–85.
46 Firth, “Excavations,” p. 66; J.P. Lauer, “Le temple haute de la pyramide du roi Ouserkaf
à Saqqarah,” ASAE 53 (1956), pp. 119–33.

47 Borchardt, Ne-user-re™, pp. 108–109, pl. 18.
48 Lehner, Satellite Pyramid, p. 76; J.P. Lauer, Le mystère des pyramides (Paris, 1974),
pp. 133–71; Cf. Stadelmann, Pyramiden, figs. 51–52, 55, 59, 61, 63, and 67.
49 Jéquier, Neit et Apouit, pp. 10–11.
50 Jéquier, Pepi II 1, p. 2; Lauer, “Temple-haut,” pp. 167–69; Lauer, Les pyramides à degrés
(IIIe dynastie), pp. 132–33; Ricke, Bemerkungen 1, pp. 106–107; idem, Bemerkungen 2,
p. 125.
398
25 HAYNES Page 399 Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:29 PM
Redating the Bat Capital in the Museum

of Fine Arts, Boston
Joyce L. Haynes
T
he Department of Ancient Egyptian, Nubian, and Near
Eastern Art of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, possesses a large
red granite capital adorned on two faces with a woman’s head
with cow’s ears (figs. 1–2). The date of this capital and the goddess rep-
resented on it have long been a matter of dispute.1
From the Early Dynastic Period through the First Intermediate
Period, the image of the goddess Bat, identified by a woman’s face with
cow’s ears, adorns a variety of objects. These include her nome standard,
the king’s kilt,2 and pendants of royal officials, to name only a few. In
these early uses Bat, the goddess of the seventh Upper Egyptian nome,
has no obvious connecting link to the goddess Hathor, the goddess of the
eighth Upper Egyptian nome.3
It is not until the Bat fetish came to be incorporated into the s∞m sis-
trum4 in Dynasty 11 that the images of Bat and Hathor first became
associated. The unadorned sistrum had long been in use both for secular
and religious purposes.5 In particular it was carried by the priestesses of
Hathor when they were in her service.6 As far as our evidence shows, the
1 Bat Capital: red granite, Dynasty 19, reign of Ramesses II, ca. 1290–1224 b.c.; from the
Temple of Bubastis, Hypostyle Hall, Gift of the Egypt Exploration Fund; MFA 89.555; max.
h. 1.7 m; max. w. 1.37 m.
2 Narmer’s bead apron and the girdle of King Djoser.
3 The capitals which L. Borchardt and H. Ricke, Ägyptische Tempel mit Umgang, BÄBA 2
(Cairo, 1938), pl. 10, show from a Princess’s tomb in Sakkara near the Step Pyramid, dating
to Dynasty 4, are not precursors to the Hathor column. These columns are actually miss-
ing the portion that these authors attribute to being faces. All that remains are two side
pieces which look rather leaf-like, which they have called hairstyles. Actually no hairstyle
compares with these two side pieces of the capital. Further, as is noted here, the hairstyle
was not added to the Bat image until Dynasty 12 and the connection to Hathor was made
in Dynasty 11. Overall, there is no direct link to Bat, Hathor or the sistrum in these
capitals. Apparently the leafy sides of the earlier style of column reminded New Kingdom
architects of their Bat-headed capitals, as they used the Old Kingdom examples as a model
for those built in the Hathor shrine in Deir el Bahri, which explains the strange wooden
horn, and kheker frieze, which both shrines share.
4H.G. Fischer, “The Cult and Nome of the Goddess Bat,” JARCE 1 (1962), fig. 6.c; L.
Habachi, “King Nebhepetre Mentuhotep: His Monuments, place in History, Deification,
and unusual Representations in the form of Gods,” MDAIK 19 (1963), p. 26, fig. 8.
Fig. 1. Bat capital, frontal view. MFA

89.555. Courtesy Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston.
Bat image was added to the sistrum in Dynasty 11. It is seen possibly for
the first time in a relief in Mentuhotep’s chapel to Hathor in Dendera.
Here Hathor herself holds a Bat-faced sistrum.7
5 Hathor and the sistrum are linked at least since the reign of Tety, as evidenced by the
inscription to Hathor, Lady of Dendera, which appears on a sistrum handle dating to his
reign (N. de Garis Davies, “An Alabaster Sistrum Dedicated by King Teta,” JEA 6 [1919],
pl. 7). Fischer, “Bat” p. 15, also notes numerous stelae of priestesses of Hathor from
Dendera dating to the Old Kingdom holding the plain s∞m sistrum.
6 L. Klebs, “Die verschiedenen Formen des Sistrums,” ZÄS 67 (1931), p. 60.
7 Habachi, MDAIK 19, p. 26, fig. 8.
400
Joyce L. Haynes, Redating the Bat Capital in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
Fig. 2. Bat capital, three-quarter view. MFA

89.555. Courtesy Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston.
When Bat’s face, ears and horns were applied to the double faces of
the sistrum her image remained relatively unchanged. The shape, func-
tion and the name of the sistrum also did not change when the face of
Bat was incorporated. The sistrum was still used for accompanying sing-
ing and dancing as well as for religious ceremonies.8
8 Klebs, ZÄS 67, p. 61. A separate sistrum does appear called the Bat-frame sistrum which
serves a musical function (see A. Blackman, Meir I [London, 1914], pl. II). According to
Klebs, this is the only sistrum which is played with other musical instruments. This vari-
ety is short-lived, as it is only used in the Middle Kingdom. Another sistrum type, the Bat-
Loop sistrum, is not known before Dynasty 18; C. Ziegler “Sistrum” LÄ 5 (1984), cols.
959–60.
401
What prompted the merging of the image of Bat onto Hathor’s cult
objects is not certain.9 J. Bourriau suggests that it might relate to an
assimilation process between the seventh and eighth Upper Egyptian
nomes.10
The image of the Bat-sistrum in Dynasty 11 and early Dynasty 1211
is not the definitive development of the instrument. In the reign of
Sesostris III a relief in the tomb of Ukhotep, son of Ukhotep,12 may offer
evidence for the first hairstyle added to the Bat head. Here, however, the
Bat image is not used on a sistrum, but as a capital on top of a slender
column supporting a kiosk.13
In the reign of Amenemhat III the first examples of the “Hathoric”
or upturned hairstyle appear on Bat’s head in the tomb of Neferewptah
at Hawara,14 and also on a Bat image in the form of a decorative gold
inlay on a wooden box from Lahun.15
This hairstyle that has been termed “Hathoric” is seen only on the
double-faced head of Bat, while the goddess Hathor is never seen wearing
it herself. Furthermore, the Bat sistrum is never worshipped as Hathor.16
The function of the Bat-faced sistrum is well defined. It maintains the
status of a fetish, or cult object and is not treated as, or called Hathor.
The origin of this hairstyle is clearly not related to Hathor. There are
numerous hypotheses concerning the derivation of this style suggesting
Egypt17 or the Near East.18
9 The Bat head is also placed on mirror handles as early as Dynasty 12, and also provides a
double-faced surface to accommodate this image; see W.M.F. Petrie, Illahun, Kahun and
Gurob (London, 1891), pl. 13.
10 J. Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals. Egyptian Art in the Middle Kingdom (Cambridge,
1988), p. 148. The cult of the goddess Bat “was in the process of becoming assimilated to
that of Hathor, and by the New Kingdom Bat’s attributes and epithets had all been adopted
by Hathor.”
11 Habachi, MDAIK 19, p. 26, fig. 8; and Blackman Meir I, pl. 10.
12 Blackman, Meir VI (London, 1953), pl. 11.
13 As the scene is partially broken the style of the hair cannot be ascertained. However, it
could be short and straight as that seen in the reign of Amenemhet III, G. Jéquier, Consid-
erations (Neuchatel, 1946), fig. 85, or with the curled-up ends as in the tomb of Neferew-
ptah at Hawara (N. Farag and Z. Iskander, The Discovery of Neferwptah [Cairo, 1971],
cover). The Bat image as a capital has a history reaching back to Dynasty 4, where a relief
in prince Nebemakhet’s tomb at Giza shows that the Bat symbol was utilized as a capital
over a catafalque at least as early Dynasty 4, well before Bat appears on sistra (S. Hassan
Gîza IV [Oxford,1943], p. 140, fig. 81). Also see L. Borchardt “Sistrumsäulen,” ZÄS 35
(1897), p. 168; and compare P. Newberry, Beni Hasan III (London, 1893), pl. 5, No. 81.
14 Farag and Iskander, Neferwptah, cover.
15 G. Brunton, Lahun I (London, 1920), pl. 8. This latter arrangement is unique, not only
because of the hairstyle, but also because it is an extremely rare occurrence of the Bat head
crowned with a sun disc and horns, the customary crown of Hathor. It is noteworthy that
this box was assembled from many fragments and there is no way to ascertain if indeed
these crowns belong to these images.
402
The earliest example of a woman wearing the “Hathoric” hairstyle

is in the reign of Sesostris I. It is worn by two non-royal women who
flank a high official, Senweseretankh.19 Many other non-royal women
such as these also wear this style throughout Dynasty 12.20 In the reign
of Sesostris II this coiffure is first seen on a Queen, as Neferet’s statues
from Tanis are adorned with this style.21 From her reign throughout
Dynasty 12 this coiffure is the one most commonly seen on royal
women.22
16 Only in very rare instances is Bat given the name or the crowns of Hathor. One of the
anomalies of the Bat image labeled Hathor is in E. Naville, The XIth Dynasty Temple at
Deir El Bahari III (London, 1913), pl. 32. Note that this is a very small fragment of a stele
which was reconstructed. There are few instances of Bat wearing Hathor’s crown of sun
disk and horn: the box of Sit-Hathor-Iunet from Lahun, now at the MMA which was
entirely reconstructed, see G. Brunton Lahun I, pl. 8; two sistrophorus statues, one in the
Ägyptisches Museum, Leipzig, Ägyptisches Museum der Karl Marx Universität (Leipzig,
1987), no. 65; another in the Pelizaeus-Museum, Ägyptens Aufstieg zur Weltmacht
(Hildesheim, 1987), no. 176; an ivory clapper in the Lowie Museum of Anthropology,
Ancient Egypt (Berkeley, 1968), p. 68. The sistra are also occasionally worshipped in Dyn.
18 and 19; see D. Wildung “Zwei Stelen aus Hatshepsuts Frühzeit,” in Festschrift Ägyp-
tisches Museum Berlin, (Berlin, 1974), pp. 255–68. Note that here the sistra are not called
Hathor on the stele; when named they are called “the goddess,” or “the great goddess.” It
would make sense that the commanding architectural elements of the sistrum-capitals
would be revered and worshipped by the locals.
17 W.S. Smith suggests that the hairstyle of the two seated limestone figures from Hiera-
konpolis (pl. I) anticipates the Hathoric wig as the two front locks are large and marked by
horizontal lines (The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt [Middlesex, 1958], p. 27).
However, a royal prototype seems unlikely. Research on hairstyles (J. Haynes, “The De-
velopment of Women’s Hairstyles in Dynasty XVIII,” JSSEA 8 [1977], p. 18ff.) has shown
that in Dynasty 18, the women of lower social status are the first to be depicted with new
hairstyles. For example, in tomb paintings and reliefs the women who were not of high so-
cial rank were the ones who wore the newest and most elaborate fashions. The wife of the
deceased usually wears a more conservative style, especially early in Dynasty 18, and the
mother of the deceased is almost invariably portrayed in the most traditional old-fash-
ioned tripartite fashion. This has also been shown with the “Hathoric” hairstyle of the
Middle Kingdom, where it first is shown on the non-royal women and later on the royal.
This general trend would suggest that queens as well as goddesses would be the last to be
depicted with a new fashion. Therefore, a royal prototype for this hairstyle would seem
highly unlikely.
18 Similar hairstyles with upturned ends were worn by several Near Eastern goddesses
from the late third millennium b.c. onwards. Some scholars have argued for a Mesopo-
tamian origin, as J. Pritchard, Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain Goddesses
Known Through Literature (New Haven, 1943), pp. 40–41, and E. Brunner-Traut, Die
altägyptischen Scherbenbilder (Wiesbaden, 1956), p. 27.
19 J. Vandier, Manuel III (Paris, 1958), p. 257, pls. 90–93.
20 For other non-royal women wearing this hairstyle in Dynasty 12 see S. Wenig, The
Woman in Egyptian Art (New York, 1969), pl. 27b; P. Newberry, El Bersheh I (London,
1892–3), pl. 26; Vandier, Manuel III, pls. 76–6, 81–7, 84–1, 84–3, 84–5, 85–2, 89–4, 90–6.
21 W.S. Smith, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, pl. 67. Bourriau dates a bust of
a queen with this hairstyle to the reign of Sesostris I or Sesostris II (Pharaohs and Mortals,
p. 26). If it is the earlier date, it would be the earliest royal example of this hairstyle.
22 Vandier states that all queens except Berlin no. 14475 and MMA 08.202.7 wear the
“Hathoric” style in Dynasty 12 (Manuel III, p. 254).
403
The column and capital together represent monumental stone

sistra, the capital being a replica of the Bat-sistrum after the wig has
been added to the sistrum. A correlation between the evolution of the
sistrum and the capital can be traced.23
Edouard Naville found two sets of four Bat capitals in the hypostyle
hall of the great temple of Bastet in Bubastis.24 The double-faced capital
in the Museum of Fine Arts is one of the larger set of four, measuring
over seven feet in height (see the site photograph in fig. 3). The other
three of this group are in the Louvre, British Museum, and Egyptian
Museum, Berlin.25 The face has an elaborate upcurled hairstyle that has
diagonal markings indicating braided locks, and hair bands at chin level
on both front tresses.26 The eyes are encircled by a thick rim with cos-
metic lines extending back nearly to the ears. The ears are separated
from the edge of the face by a thick ridge. Below the chin is a neckline,
but no wesekh collar is indicated. Upon the head is a rectangular cornice
arrangement around which is a frieze of uraei crowned by sun disks.27
On the sides of the MFA capital, uraeus serpents are carved in raised
relief. Below them are smooth rectangular spaces inscribed with
Osorkon II’s cartouches.28 The capitals were originally painted, as
Naville describes how the red color of the lips was still adhering when
one of the capitals was first lifted from the ground. This group of four
came in two sets of two capitals, one set representing the North and the
other the South.29 The MFA capital has the northern iconography, iden-
tified by the two uraei wearing red crowns that flank the face, peering
behind the ears of the goddess. On the sides of the capital, centered
between the tales of the uraei stands the papyrus plant in raised relief.
23 Compare the sistrum in G. Jéquier, Considerations, fig. 85, with the capital from Deir
el Bahri, in Naville, The Temple of Deir el Bahari III, pl. 68.
24 E. Naville, Bubastis (London, 1891), p. 34. It is noteworthy that these capitals can be
found at temples dedicated to a variety of goddesses including Bastet, Anukis and Nekh-
bet. Sistrophorous statues holding the Bat head are also dedicated to a variety of deities.
25 Naville, Bubastis, p. 11.
26 The same braiding style can be seen on the sidelock of youth worn by Rameses II as a
child sun god; P. Montet, “Les Statues de Ramsès II à Tanis,” in Mélanges Maspero I.2,
MIFAO 66 (1938), pl. II.
27 See Naville, Bubastis, pl. 15, for the statue of Ramesses II crowned with a frieze of uraei.
28 To have the uraei in raised relief and a blank area beneath is a visually unappealing, and
an illogical space for the Egyptian artist to leave blank. The uraeus as a decorative motif
is known to expand or contract to fill any available space. Therefore, one would expect
that if no cartouches were intended in the original design, then the uraei would have coiled
in a large deep curve to accommodate the available space beneath them. For this concept
see D. Wolfe Larkin, The Broken Lintel Doorway of Ancient Egypt and its Decoration, un-
published Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1994.
29The other set of four Bat-sistrum capitals is smaller and simpler than the first group,
with no uraei on the cornice.
404
Fig. 3. Site view of the Hypostyle These capitals have been dated by Naville,30 Habachi,31 Jéquier,32
Hall, Temple of Bubastis, taken
Badawy,33 Smith,34 and others to Dynasty 12, and some scholars narrow
about 1887, showing the Bat capital
at the left; after E. Naville, Bubastis down the date to the reign of Sesostris III. This dating would make these
(London, 1891), pl. 5. by far the earliest monumental sistrum columns. It is noteworthy that
even when the naos is not included on flat, cornice-topped capitals, such
as these, clearly the naos-sistrum was intended.35 Naville gave the first
attribution to the Middle Kingdom, based on the proximity of an archi-
trave and door jamb of Sesostris III, which he felt were architecturally
30 Naville, Bubastis, pp. 11–13.
31 L.Habachi, Tell Basta, ASAE Supplement 22 (1957), pp. 62, 110, 111.
32 G. Jéquier, Manuel d’Archéologie Egyptienne (Paris, 1924), p. 184.
33 A. Badawy, A History of Egyptian Architecture II (Giza, 1966), p. 88.
34 W.S. Smith, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, 2nd Rev. ed. (Middlesex, 1981),
p. 168.
35 “Hathor masks with volutes should perhaps be interpreted as a naos sistra even if no
naos is shown;” G. Pinch, Votive Offerings to Hathor (Oxford, 1993), p. 155.
405
related.36 His date was never challenged, although he made it clear that
the archaeological context was not secure.37
There are several iconographic features of the sistrum-capitals that
do not belong in Dynasty 12. The iconography of the capital does not
resemble that of the contemporary Dynasty 12 Bat-sistrum. For
instance, as mentioned earlier, in the reign of Sesostris III, the sistrum
had not yet appeared with a hairstyle. It is not until the reign of
Amenemhet III that the Bat image on the sistrum is given a wig. Also,
the elaborate diagonal crossed marks on the wig of the capital that
denote braided or crossed tresses do not correspond to any of the numer-
ous Dynasty 12 hairstyles. At this time, the markings are either horizon-
tal or vertical lines, typified by those seen on Queen Nofret.38
Another iconographical feature which is not in keeping with
Dynasty 12 is the image of the lily on the sides of one of the capitals of
the South.39 It has a fairly unusual shape, with two drops hanging from
each of the petals. This form of lily is not common before the New
Kingdom.40
The frieze of uraei wearing sun disks surrounding the cornice of the
Bubastis capital is also not a Middle Kingdom feature. The earliest use
of large groupings of uraei in this form is in Dynasty 18. This is clearly
noticeable in the reign of Amenhotep III,41 but as an architectural fea-
ture it is not prominent until the Amarna Period.42
The design of Bat’s ears is another aspect of the Bubastis capitals that
is out of keeping with a Dynasty 12 date. The inside of the ear on the
36 E. Naville, Bubastis, pp. 11–13.
37 Ibid., p. 13: “This attribution may be questionable particularly as regards the Hathor and
palm-leaf columns.”
38 Considering the number of Hathoric styles that exist in Dynasty 12, it is significant that
none matches the Bubastis capital style. The treatment of the tresses does correlate with
that on a sidelock of the child sun god on a statue dating to the reign of Ramesses II from
Tanis; P. Montet, “Les Statues de Ramsès II à Tanis,” in Mélanges Maspero I.2, pl. II,
pp. 497–508.
39 L. Habachi, Tell Basta, pl. 20.
40 This style of lily is shown on a capital of Ramesses III from Tell Horbet, in the Pelizaeus-
Museum, Hildesheim (H. Kayser, Ägyptisches Kunsthandwerk [Braunschweig, 1969],

p. 115). It is also seen in the tomb of Ibi at Thebes dated to Psametik I (N. de Garis Davies,
The Rock Tombs of Deir el Gebrâwi I [London, 1902], pl. 25 and pp. 36 , 37). Davies dis-
cusses this flower and states “a lily with water drops hanging from it … a type only known
from a late date.” He does not offer a specific date. Cf. K.P. Kuhlmann and W. Schenkel,
Das Grab des Ibi (Mainz am Rhein, 1983), pls. 30 and 105b.
41 K. Lange and M. Hirmer, Egyptian Architecture, Sculpture and Painting in Three
Thousand Years (New York, 1968), pl. 154.

42C. Aldred, Akhenaten and Nefertiti (New York, 1973), p. 214. Aldred states that “disk
crowned cobras decorate the friezes of … many architectural elements (at Amarna).” A
column which is encircled by uraei adorned with sun disks, dates to the Amarna period.
See W.M.F. Petrie, Amarna (London, 1894), pl. 17.
406
early Bat faces43 and Bat capitals44 is composed of a V-shaped design

with rays of lines extending from it. However, beginning in the New
Kingdom, likely the reign of Ramesses II, an additional element is added
to this part of the ear. Just inside the V-shape a small globe or circle is
added from which the lines emanate.45 This can be clearly seen on the
Bubastis capitals, and those dating to the reigns of Rameses II,46
Achoris,47 and Ptolemy.48 In the Ramesside Period this becomes a
standard addition to the design of the interior of the ear.49 This feature
dates the capitals to Dynasty 19 at the earliest.50
Both stylistic and iconographic evidence points to a date no earlier
than Dynasty 19 for the capitals. The capitals have more in common
with the style of the sistra of this period and those of a later date than
the sistra of an earlier date.51 This date range is more in keeping with
the pharaohs who constructed and or rebuilt portions of this hall,
namely: Rameses II, Osorkon I and Osorkon II.52 Dedication inscrip-
tions of Osorkon I to Bastet are engraved on the bottom of some of the
Bat-sistrum capitals where they abut the column, a hidden and unusual
spot.53 In addition, the cartouches of Osorkon II are etched into the side
of the Boston capital.
43 Sistrum and capitals dating from Dynasty 12 to 18.

44 New Kingdom capitals at Deir el Bahri: Naville, Deir el Bahari II (London, 1913), pl. 66;
at Serabit el Khadem: W.M.F. Petrie, Researches in Sinai (London, 1906), figs. 102–104; and
at Elephantine: W. Kaiser, “Stadt und Temple von Elephantine, ”MDAIK 31 (1975),
pl. 42.c.
45 One example on a sistrophorous statue is earlier, inscribed with the cartouche of Thut-
mose IV (R. Krauspe Ägyptisches Museum der Karl Marx Universität [Leipzig, 1987],
no. 65).
46 H. Bakry, “A Family of High Priests of Alexandria and Memphis,” MDAIK 28 (1972),
pl. 22.
47 A. Varille, Karnak I (Cairo, 1943), pl. 92.
48 Jéquier, Manuel, p. 188, pl. 32. As further verification of the value of this feature as a
dating mechanism, this trait can be followed in the ears of the Hathor cow as well. None
of the numerous representations of the Hathor cow in Dynasty 18 shows the design which
includes the globe. See E. Naville, The Eleventh Dynasty Temple I (London, 1907), pls. 25e,
31, 94.
49 J. Vandier-D’Abbadie, “Deux tombs ramessides à Gournet-Mourraï,” MIFAO 87 (1954),
pls. 14, 26.

50 Interestingly enough, it is seen on the Narmer palette, but goes out of fashion, then
reappears in Dynasty 19.

51 M. Mogensen, La Glyptothek ny Carlsberg (Copenhagen, 1930), pls. 31, 72; H. Hick-
mann, Instruments de Musique, CCG Vol. 101 (Cairo, 1949), pl. 49, no. 69310.
52 Habachi, Tell Basta, pl. 20; Naville, Bubastis, pp. 48–52.
53 Naville, Bubastis, pp. 47, 48: “engraved underneath the Hathor capitals, in places where
they could not be seen, and where it was not possible to engrave them unless the monu-
ment was lying on the ground and had not yet been raised.” They were dedicated to Bastet,
Lady of Bubastis, who protects her father, Re.
407
The MFA’s capital has many features in common with those dating
to the time of Ramesses II.54 However, the final reinstallation and
inscription of the cartouches55 was done by Osorkon II.56 These capitals
likely date to Ramesses II at the earliest, and Osorkon I at the latest, and
they can no longer be considered Middle Kingdom creations.
b
54 Bakry, MDAIK 28, pl. 22.
55 As Naville notes, the cartouches of Ramesses II and Osorkon II are very similar.To make
the cartouche of Ramesses II into Osorkon II the Re of Weser-Maat-Re-Setep-en-Re was

changed into an Amen of Weser-Maat-Re-Setep-en-Amen. Under the Weser sign there was
room for a reed leaf, and the disc of Re was made into a men sign. Unfortunately the area
of the cartouches is badly worn on the MFA capital. While there does not appear to be
evidence of reinscription of Ramesses’ II name by Osorkon II, it is possible that the entire
surface may have been cut down and recarved.
56 According to Naville, Bubastis, p. 47, Osorkon I began the reconstruction of the temple,
beginning with the eastern hall, but the temple was not completed until after Osorkon II.
408
26 HORNUNG Page 409 Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:32 PM
Zum königlichen Jenseits
Erik Hornung
D
as Mittlere Reich ist von einer “Demokratisierung” des
Jenseitsglaubens geprägt, die Klaus Koch kürzlich wieder in
seiner Religionsgeschichte hervorgehoben hat. Fast alles, was
im Alten Reich den königlichen Jenseitsglauben geprägt hat, ist jetzt in
1
die private Sphäre übernommen. Es gibt keine spezifisch königlichen
Jenseitstexte mehr, und allein die Bauform der Pyramide, mit ihren
zugehörigen Kultanlagen, bleibt noch bis zum Beginn des Neuen Reich-
es der königlichen Sphäre vorbehalten. Erst die 18. Dynastie gibt ein-
erseits die Pyramidenform zum “Allgemeingebrauch” frei, baut aber
zugleich systematisch eine neue Hierarchie auf, die bestimmte Texte,
Bauformen und Abmessungen exklusiv für Pharao reserviert.
Die Frage ist, ob diese erneuerte Hervorhebung von spezifisch
königlichen Formen auch die Ausgrenzung einer rein königlichen
Jenseitsregion aus dem allgemeinen Jenseits bedeutet. Aussagen darüber
sollte man vor allem in den königlichen Jenseitstexten erwarten, findet
sich aber durch die Unterweltsbücher enttäuscht. Nur ein einziges Mal,
in der sechsten Nachtstunde des Amduat, werden die “Könige von Ober-
und Unterägypten” erwähnt und symbolisch dargestellt (mumien-
gestaltig mit Kronen); im Text wird ihnen vom Sonnengott Königtum
und dauernde Versorgung in der Unterwelt verheißen. An dieser Stelle,
direkt neben der Vereinigung von Ba und Körper in der tiefsten Unter-
welt, geht es wohl um eine Begegnung mit den Vorfahren und
Vorgängern des verstorbenen Königs, und mir scheint auch dieses Motiv
dafür zu sprechen, daß es sich beim Amduat von Anfang an um einen
königlichen Totentext handelt, nicht um eine sekundäre Übertragung
auf Pharao. Bei allgemeinen Aufzählungen der Bewohner des Jenseits,
wie sie sich z. B. im Buch von der Nacht mehrfach finden, erscheinen die
Könige nicht; sie sind entweder unter den Göttern oder unter den Ach-
Wesen einbegriffen.
1 KlausKoch, Geschichte der ägyptischen Religion (Stuttgart, 1993), S. 209ff. Zu ergänzen

wäre im diesseitigen Bereich noch die plötzliche Beliebtheit von Personennamen, die
ihren Träger als “Sohn” oder “Tochter” einer Gottheit bezeichnen, was im Alten Reich
noch königliches Privileg war.
Der Sonnengott in seiner Barke wird von den Verstorbenen durch die
Unterwelt gezogen; so zeigen es Amduat und Pfortenbuch, und in den
Sargkammern von Haremhab, Ramses I. und Sethos I. werden die
Ziehenden durch Gewänder und Bart deutlich als menschliche, nicht als
göttliche Wesen gekennzeichnet. Der Wesir Useramun (TT 61) läßt sich
in seiner Fassung des Amduat (4. und 8. Stunde) am Zugseil darstellen,
angetan mit seiner Amtstracht. In späterer Zeit werden auch ver-
schiedene Zugtiere (Schakale, Uräen, Paviane) vor der Sonnenbarke
2
gezeigt. Einzig im Buch von der Nacht aber erscheint Pharao als
Ziehender, obwohl Ramses II. in der großen Weihinschrift von Abydos
zu seinem Vater Sethos I. sagt: “deine Arme ziehen Atum im Himmel
und in der Erde (= Unterwelt), wie die Unermüdlichen und Unvergäng-
3
lichen (Sterne),” ihn also als ziehend voraussetzt.
Gemeinsam ist dem königlichen wie dem nichtköniglichen Bereich
der Wunsch des Verstorbenen, in der Barke des Sonnengottes mitzu-
fahren und dadurch immer in seinem Gefolge zu sein. Seit Merenptah
(im Kenotaph von Sethos I. in Abydos) läßt sich der König gerne an-
betend in der Sonnenbarke darstellen, und im Totenbuch kommt dieser
Wunsch in einer ganzen Anzahl von Sprüchen zum Ausdruck, vor allem
in den Sprüchen 99 bis 102, 130/131, 134 und 136; auch hier ist User-
amun bahnbrechend, wenn er sich in nahezu jeder Stunde des Amduat
in der Barke, meistens sogar am Steuerruder, darstellen läßt; nur in der
2. Stunde vermeidet er dies, da Isis und Nephthys hier als gefährliche
Schlangen in der Barke erscheinen.
Die Mitfahrt in der Barke bezieht den Verstorbenen in den täglichen
Sonnenlauf mit ein und erfüllt damit eine der großen Jenseits-
hoffnungen; noch direkter geschieht dies in einem Bildmotiv, das den
Namen des Königs in die Sonnenscheibe einschreibt und damit bildhaft
das völlige Aufgehen des Königs in der Sonne zum Ausdruck bringt, wie
es die alte Umschreibung für den Tod eines Pharao in aller Kürze for-
muliert: “er wurde zum Himmel entrückt und vereinigte sich mit der
Sonne.” In der Sonnenlitanei vom Anfang der 18. Dynastie begegnet die
deutliche Gleichsetzung “Ich bin du, und du bist ich, dein Ba ist mein
4
Ba, dein Lauf ist mein Lauf durch die Unterwelt.”
L. Kákosy hat auf ein Stelen-Fragment aus Deir el-Medine aufmerk-
sam gemacht, das den Thronnamen von Ramses II. neben dem Gott
2 Eine neue Edition dieses Buches hat Gilles Roulin abgeschlossen (Le Livre de la Nuit,
Dissertation Basel, 1995).
3 KRI II, 333, 12f.
4 Erik Hornung, Das Buch der Anbetung des Re im Westen, I (Genf, 1975), S. 101f.; diese
Stelle mit der Gleichsetzung übernimmt auch Useramun!
410
Erik Hornung, Zum königlichen Jenseits
5
Amun in der Sonnenscheibe zeigt, doch gibt es bereits von Amen–
6
ophis III. ein analoges Bild (ohne Amun), und in beiden Fällen ist die
Scheibe mit dem Königsnamen in die Sonnenbarke hineingesetzt, so daß
auch die Idee von der Mitfahrt in der Barke beschworen ist. Aber anders
als Useramun und die Privatleute im Totenbuch fährt hier der König als
Re dahin! In der Sargkammer von Ramses III. findet sich eine dritte,
etwas anders gestaltete Fassung; dort umschließt ein doppelter Uroboros
den Geburtsnamen des Königs (mit dem Element mes “geboren” genau
in der Mitte!), der ja auch die Sonnenscheibe enthält, mit einer weiteren
7
Sonnenscheibe und den zwölf Stundengöttinnen. Hier wird Pharao
nicht nur in das Wesen des Sonnengottes aufgenommen, sondern dazu
in den größten denkbaren Zeit-Horizont eingeschlossen, den die
Dualität von Neheh und Djet verkörpert. Seine Jahre, “Millionen” und
“Hunderttausende,” sind die Jahre des Re, seine Lebenszeit die der
Sonne, wie es immer wieder in den Wünschen der Götter für Pharao for-
muliert ist. Die gleiche Idee wird, “demokratisiert” und in anderer
Form, auf Särgen der 21. Dynastie gestaltet, wenn man direkt hinter
dem Kopf des Toten, auf der Innenseite des Kopfendes, eine Sonnenlauf-
Szene anbringt und ihn so unmittelbar in den Lauf des Gestirns hinein-
nimmt. Bei Sethos I. geschah das bereits auf seinem Alabastersarg, der
an dieser Stelle das Schlußbild des Pfortenbuches aufweist.
Eine weitere Gemeinsamkeit beider Medien ist die Gliederung des
Jenseits durch Tore. Diese werden im Amduat am Ende jeder Nacht-
stunde bereits vorausgesetzt, aber nicht dargestellt, während sie im
Pfortenbuch sichtbar und gut bewacht erscheinen. Im Totenbuch sind
die Sprüche 144 bis 147 den Jenseitstoren und ihren Wächtern gewid-
met, und Nefertari nähert sich durch eine Auswahl aus diesen Sprüchen
soweit als möglich der Dekoration der königlichen Grabkammer mit
dem Pfortenbuch an, das selbst sie nicht verwenden darf. Dabei unter-
scheiden sich Unterweltsbücher (mit zwölf) und Totenbuch (mit sieben
oder 21) in der Zahl der Pforten, die sichtlich von sekundärer Bedeutung
ist.
Dagegen besteht ein wesentlicher Unterschied in der Situation des
Verstorbenen vor den Toren. Im Totenbuch begehrt er als “Osiris NN”
Einlaß, befindet sich “im Gefolge des Stiers des Westens” und betet in
den Vignetten die Torwächter an. Der Spruch und “dieses Bild, das
5 ZÄS 100 (1973), S. 38f. mit Abb. 1.

6 W. Raymond Johnson, in: Lawrence Michael Berman, ed., The Art of Amenhotep III: Art
Historical Analysis (Cleveland, 1990), S. 38f., Drawing 5 (Krugverschluß).
7 Erik Hornung, in: Jahrbuch Eranos 50 (1981), S. 466f. nach Jean-François Champollion,
Notices descriptives I (Paris, 1835–1872), S. 422f.
411
gemalt ist” sollen verhindern, daß er an den Toren der Unterwelt abge-
wiesen und von den Torwächtern bedrängt wird. Der Tote legitimiert
sich durch Kenntnis der Namen und durch Reinheit, dazu tritt er als
Horus und getreuer Sohn des Osiris auf, denn die Tore sollen hier in
erster Linie Osiris schützen.
Ganz anders im königlichen Pfortenbuch! Dort bedarf es nur einer
kurzen Aufforderung durch Sia, um Tor nach Tor für den Sonnengott
und seine Durchfahrt zu öffnen, und die Meinung ist natürlich, daß mit
ihm auch der tote König jedes Tor durchzieht. Im Tor der fünften Stunde
findet das Totengericht statt, wobei der thronende Osiris schon durch
die ungewöhnliche Doppelkrone, die er dort trägt, auf seine Identität
mit dem verstorbenen König hinweist. Das letzte Tor ist durch Isis und
Nephthys als Uräus-Schlangen noch zusätzlich geschützt, um den Son-
nenaufgang keinen Gefahren auszusetzen.
Eines der vordringlichen Themen der Jenseitshoffnung ist die mate-
rielle Versorgung, die der König ebenso erhofft wie alle anderen Men-
schen. Beliebte Garantin dafür ist die Baumgöttin, die nur ein einziges
Mal im Königsgrab dargestellt wird (bei Thutmosis III.), während sie in
den Beamtengräbern zu den beliebtesten Motiven gehört und auch in
Totenbuch-Papyri erscheint. Signifikant ist wohl, daß Ramses III. in
Medinet Habu Vignetten aus dem Totenbuch verwendet, die mit der
jenseitigen Ernährung zu tun haben, dabei neben dem “Binsengefilde”
von Spruch 110 die sieben Kühe und ihren Stier, “die den Verklärten
Brot und Bier geben und die Westlichen speisen” (Totenbuch 148). Ein
nahrungspendendes Kuhbild, die “Opferherrin, die über die Dat
gebietet,” zeigt auch das Amduat im mittleren Register der neunten
Stunde (Nr. 669), und auf dem Sarkophag von Nektanebos II. im British
Museum hat diese Szene einen Zusatz, der dem König Brot und Bier
verheißt.
Bei der Nachtfahrt der Sonne vollzieht sich in den Unterwelts-
büchern am tiefsten Punkt, in der sechsten Nachtstunde, die Ver-
einigung des Sonnen-Ba mit seinem Körper, der zugleich Osiris ist; beide
sind überdies Ba und Körper des verstorbenen Pharao. In der nicht-
königlichen Sphäre entspricht diesem Motiv die Vereinigung von Ba und
Körper in Spruch 89 des Totenbuches, der besondere Beliebtheit auf den
Särgen der Spätzeit erlangt, aber bereits auf dem Alabastersarg Sethos’ I.
verwendet ist. Die älteste Darstellung des “vereinigten” Re/Osiris,
offenbar für das Grab der Nefertari geschaffen und in einigen anderen
Gräbern der 19. Dynastie verwendet, illustriert nicht die königliche
Sonnenlitanei, sondern den Anfang des Totenbuch-Spruches 180, der
aus der Sonnenlitanei adaptiert wurde.
412
Erik Hornung, Zum königlichen Jenseits
Bannung von Gefahren und Überwindung von Feinden begegnen in

vielen Sprüchen des Totenbuches, wobei die Sprüche 7, 39 und 108 spez-
iell der Überwindung des Erzfeindes Apophis dienen, der in den Unter-
weltsbüchern immer wieder von der Sonnenbarke abgewehrt wird.
Neben ihm begegnen andere feindliche oder gefährliche Schlangen in
den Unterweltsbüchern wie im Totenbuch, also wiederum in beiden
Bereichen.
Bisher haben sich das königliche und das nichtkönigliche Jenseits
nur in Nuancen unterschieden. Der einzig signifikante Unterschied
liegt in der Darstellung von Strafen. Zwar zeigt das Totenbuch den
ominösen “Feuersee” in der Vignette zu Spruch 126 und nach der
Amarnazeit das drohende Untier “Totenfresser” beim Totengericht,
aber die Bestrafung von “Feinden” wird in keiner Vignette direkt dar-
gestellt; überdies gehört die einzige Erwähnung der “Vernicht-
ungsstätte” (¢tmyt) im Totenbuch (127, Vers 26) eigentlich zur
königlichen Sonnenlitanei. Dagegen bilden die Höllenbilder der
8
Bestrafung, die gerne in der “Vernichtungsstätte” lokalisiert sind, seit
dem Amduat einen festen Bestand der königlichen Unterweltsbücher,
ohne daß man daraus folgern darf, es gäbe Bestrafung nur im königlichen
Jenseits. Vielmehr gilt wohl, daß nur Pharao dieser destruktiven Realität
des Bösen begegnen kann, die das Totenbuch der Privatleute sich scheut,
im Bilde zu beschwören und damit zur Realität zu erheben.
Bei aller detaillierten Beschreibung des Jenseits in den Unter-
weltsbüchern bleibt der Ort Pharaos eigenartig unbestimmt und vage.
Es geht offensichtlich nicht darum, wo Pharao sich befindet, sondern
um seinen status. Er ist “vermischt” mit Sternen und Mond (Ramses II.
9
über Sethos I.) und von den Göttern “nicht zu unterscheiden” (Tut-
10
anchamun); sonnenhaft leuchtet sein Ba “unter denen mit dunklem
11
Gesicht” (Ramses II.) und “er wird Verwandlungen machen wie Re”
8 Dazu Erik Hornung, “Schwarze Löcher von innen betrachtet: Die altägyptische Hölle,”
in: Erik Hornung und Tilo Schabert, Hrsg., Strukturen des Chaos, Eranos, Neue Folge 2
(München, 1994), S. 227–62; englische Fassung, übersetzt von David Warburton: “Black
Holes Viewed from Within: Hell in Ancient Egyptian Thought,” Diogenes No. 165 (1994),
S. 133–56.
9 KRI II, 333, 11f.
10 Alexandre Piankoff, Les chapelles de Tout-Ankh-Amon (Cairo, 1951), pl. II, rechts oben.
11 Erik Hornung, Das Buch der Anbetung des Re im Westen II (Genf, 1976), S. 42 zu Nr. 62.
413
12
(Ramses VI.). Es scheint, daß er die Unterwelt nur durchzieht, ohne
dort zu verweilen, auch darin dem Sonnengott gleich.
Die Existenz von königlichen wie von nichtköniglichen Jenseits-
beschreibungen erlaubt es, für das Neue Reich die Frage nach einem
spezifisch königlichen Jenseits zu stellen. Dabei zeigt es sich, daß die
Hauptmotive des Jenseitsbildes in beiden Bereichen praktisch gleich
sind, denn das erhoffte selige Fortleben gilt im Prinzip für alle
Menschen—sogar, wie das Pfortenbuch in der 30. Szene vor Augen führt,
für die Fremdvölker, die dort ägyptischen Schutzgottheiten unterstellt
werden und jenseitige “Lebenszeit” zugeteilt erhalten.
Pharao betritt bei seinem Tod das gleiche Jenseits wie alle Wesen,
aber sein status ist ein anderer. Wie er auf Erden die Rolle des Sonnen-
gottes spielt, so handelt er auch im Jenseits als Re. Und was ihn von
allen anderen Toten unterscheidet, ist die Ausübung von Herrschaft.
Nur er erhält von den Göttern die Insignien von Szepter und Flagellum,
erhält den “Thron seines Vaters Geb” und das Königtum des Horus,
während selbst Königin Nefertari sich damit begnügen muß, einen
“Platz” im Totenreich zu erhalten, in welchen sicher auch ihre soziale
Stellung einbegriffen ist. Zu diesem erhöhten status gehört weiter, daß
es allein dem König vergönnt ist, eine endlose Kette von Sedfesten zu
feiern, die sich über den Tod hinaus in das Jenseits fortsetzt oder sogar
erst dort ihren Anfang nimmt. Sein Fortleben vollzieht sich in anderen,
kosmischen Dimensionen. Wohl deshalb hält man auch im Neuen
Reich daran fest, nur in königlichen Grabbauten (mit Einschluß der
Königin) die Decken als gestirnten Himmel auszugestalten, während
sich die Beamten mit Ornamenten begnügen müssen
Für den Beamten, der seit jeher nach Königsnähe strebt, bedeutet der
Jenseitsweg Pharaos die Hoffnung auf eine zyklische Wiederbegegnung
im Reich der Toten. Mit dem nächtlichen Sonnengott darf er immer aufs
neue seinen verstorbenen Herrscher wieder begrüßen und ihm wie zu
Lebzeiten zurufen “Du bist Re.” Als “Osiris NN” begegnet er in der
Nachtsonne, die ihn zu neuem Leben weckt, auch seinem König wieder.
Beide umschließt die gleiche Unterwelt, aber wie im Anfang der
ägyptischen Geschichte scheint Pharao keine feste Residenz zu haben,
sondern durchzieht unermüdlich seinen jenseitigen Herrschaftsbereich.
b
12 Alexandre Piankoff und Nina Rambova, The Tomb of Ramesses VI (New York, 1954),
pl. 132, Zusatz zur Szene D 13 im Buch von der Erde. Darstellungen und Namen des
Königs beteiligen ihn in diesem Buch an allen wesentlichen Vorgängen, worauf Friedrich
Abitz in einer noch ungedruckten Arbeit Pharao als Gott in den Unterweltsbüchern des
Neuen Reiches hinweist.
414
27 JAMES Page 415 Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:33 PM
Howard Carter and

Mrs. Kingsmill Marrs
T.G.H. James
A
useful contribution to the sparse history of Howard
Carter, during the years just before and after he was engaged by
the Earl of Carnarvon as his “learned man,” is made by a group
of his letters preserved in the archives of the Massachusetts Historical
Society, and recently published in part in the Miscellany of the Society.1
The correspondence extends from October 1908 to June 1914, addressed
to Mr. and Mrs. Kingsmill Marrs of Wayland, Massachusetts, a couple
who devoted their time to travel, the collection of books, and, in the case
of Mrs. Marrs most notably, European prints. Mr. Marrs died in Florence
in 1912, and his widow survived him until 1926. The letters, seemingly
part only of a larger exchange over several years, now form part of the
Grenville Norcross Autograph Collection in the Massachusetts Histori-
cal Society (M.H.S.). Norcross was the brother of Mrs. Marrs.
It is clear from the earliest letters that the Marrs had got to know
Howard Carter during a winter visit to Egypt, probably made in the early
months of 1908. It is reasonable to assume that they, with a friend
named Mr. Barker, made use of Carter as a professional guide to the
monuments of Thebes, and were among those who purchased water-
colors by him, some from stock, and some commissioned for later exe-
cution and dispatch to the U.S.A. The six Marrs watercolors in fact
represent the largest identifiable group of paintings purchased from
Carter by a single client (apart from archaeological commissions) during
the years before his association with Lord Carnarvon.2
1 M.H.S. Miscellany, no. 59 (Boston, fall, 1994), p. 3f.: Howard Carter to Mrs. Kingsmill
Marrs, October 25, 1908; January 16, 1909; June 23, 1911; June 12, 1914, Grenville H.
Norcross Autograph Collection, Massachusetts Historical Society. I am firstly indebted to
Dr. Robert Brier, Chairman of the Philosophy Department of the C.W. Post Campus of
Long Island University, who drew my attention to this notice of the letters. I am further
grateful to Sharon DeLeskey, library assistant at the M.H.S., who made the initial identi-
fication of the letters, provided me with photocopies of the texts, and tracked down the six
watercolors to the Worcester Art Museum. Mr. Louis L. Tucker, Director of the M.H.S.,
has generously given me permission to publish the letters here.
The first letter, dated 25 October 1908, was written from Medinet
Habu, probably from the Antiquities Service house which had once been
Castle Carter I, again made available to Carter by Maspero in 1908—
apparently a cause for some annoyance with Arthur Weigall, at the time
Chief Inspector at Luxor.3 It is chiefly a business letter, but includes a
passage of colorful description of the kind Carter was inclined to write
from time to time. It also contains a rapid pen-and-ink sketch of the
head of Queen Nefertari, to remind Mr. and Mrs. Marrs of one of the sub-
jects he was completing for them (figs. 1 and 6).
Letter 1
Dear Mr. Marrs
Just a line to say that the drawing of this Queen with her blue pots is finished
& makes I think a good drawing[.]4 Now please let me know whether you
would like me to send it or wait till I have finished the one of Seti I in his
Tomb.5 If so the exact address you would like me to forward to? I shall await
your instructions.
The Nile this Autumn is really manificentsic—still at a very high level—the
whole country under water with only little patches of land appearing above
the surface & carpeted in green, the villages standing clear as small islands un-
der palms & mimosa trees—the latter covered coveredsic with thousands of
yellow balls, they being full in flowers. In the calm of the eve, it is really love-
ly, the sun just dipped below the horizon, the after glow flooding the place
with colour—one is often puzzled to tell where the heavens & earth meet, the
whole being lost in dreamy atmospheric colour giving the appearance of an
enormous opal, picked out only here & there by a distant hill looming out of
mystery like an amethyst, the flood full & stretching far away, rippled &
bespeckled by pelicans, storks & heron, making in all a wonderment beyond
imagination. In Luxor and Karnak temples, where you walked, you now must
2 These watercolors are now in the Worcester Art Museum, Massachusetts. I am grateful
to David Acton, Curator of Prints and Drawings at the Museum, for providing me with the
photographs of the paintings which illustrate this article, with permission to publish, and
also with detailed information on the individual paintings. It came as some surprise to me
to find that in the published catalogue of the Worcester paintings, referred to below, the
compiler of the entries for the Carter items credits myself with having provided the Egyp-
tological identifications for five of the paintings. I retain no memory of having done so, but
it would have taken place in the early 1970s, many years before I began an active interest
in Howard Carter. I am gratified that in only one case have I been able to improve on my
first identifications.
3 See James, Howard Carter (London, 1992), p. 157.
4 An almost full-length figure of Queen Nefertari from a scene on the east wall of the cor-
ridor descending to the sarcophagus chamber in her tomb, in which she is shown offering
nw-pots to Hathor, Selkis and Maat. No. 1925.144 in the Worcester Art Museum; see list-
ing below and fig. 6.
5 Probably the painting of Iunmutef, now in the Worcester Art Museum; no. 1925.141 in
the listing below; fig. 3.
416
T.G.H. James, Howard Carter and Mrs. Kingsmill Marrs
Fig. 1. Part of the first page of swim—the pavement now a mirror reflecting the columns, in fact making
Letter 1, including Howard an …(?)6 foundation.
Carter’s sketch of the head of Please tell Mrs. Marrs that I have received her nice letter & that I have not
Queen Nefertari. Courtesy of gone of late to Luxor—hard at work & cut off by the water—but will do so &
the Massachusetts Historical write.
Society.
Nichol7 left me last week & is now at Karnak.
With every regard to all,

Yours very sincerely
6 Reading uncertain. The transcript in the M.H.S. Miscellany, p. 4, offers “aural” without
confidence—palaeographically possible, but making poor sense. Carter occasionally mis-
used words, especially when writing “for effect.”
7 Probably Michael Nicholl (1880–1925), ornithologist and Assistant Director of the Giza
Zoological Gardens, 1906–1924; also mentioned in Letter 2 below. He was the author of
Handlist of the Birds of Egypt (Cairo, 1919), and his papers formed the basis of R.
Meinertzhagen, Nicholl’s Birds of Egypt, 2 vols. (London, 1930). A memoir of Nicholl by
Meinertzhagen is included in vol. I, pp. v–x. Carter’s interest in birds is well attested, as
also are his visits to the Giza Zoo, where he observed and drew birds. Nicholl would have
been an obvious friend and a welcome guest in Thebes, although he is not mentioned else-
where in Carter’s papers, as far as I have been able to check.
417
Fig. 2. Guests at a banquet; from the tomb

of Ramose; courtesy of the Worcester Art
Museum (1925.140).
Howard Carter
Letter 2
Medinet Habu,
Luxor, Jan 16th 1909
Dear Mrs. Marrs
So very many thanks for the photocards & the most excellent stuffed prunes.
They arrived here today in good condition & I am already beginning to …8
Mr. Marrs’ letter of the 22nd inst reached me also today—I do so hope you re-
ceived my letter also & also do. (ditto) for Mr. Marrs enclosing two small
sketches in reply to his good thoughts for me.
What a wonderful place for vegetation & flowers yours must be—It makes me
quite envious—the desert has its charms but I fear no flowers.
Luxor goes on as usual just passed through a spell of cloudy weather, ending
yesterday in a small shower of rain, a sharp gust of wind & today bright, cold,
& sunny—everything looking the better & clean after the washing by the rain.
At the Tombs of the Kings Mr. Davis found a small tomb pit but nothing of
great interest in it beyond some gold foil.9 Prof Petrie is pegging away on the
8 A wavy line in the original—a device Carter sometimes used to indicate something
slightly improper; here perhaps nothing more indelicate than “wolf them.” The British
have always considered prunes to be helpful against constipation, a reference to which
should possibly not be ruled out here, even though the condition is not one commonly
suffered in Egypt.
418
Fig. 3. Iunmutef priest from the tomb of

Sethos I; courtesy of the Worcester Art
Museum (1925.141).
north end of the necropolis but as yet not fortunate.10 I have just been offered
an enormous fee by Lord Carnarvon to undertake a months excavation (Feb-
9 Surely K.V. Tomb no. 58, found for Davis by E. Harold Jones on 10 January, 1909, and sub-
sequently, but erroneously, identified as Tutankhamun’s tomb, and published as such in

T.M. Davis et al., The Tombs of Harmhabi and Toutânkhamanou (London, 1912); see also
C.N. Reeves, Valley of the Kings (London, 1990), p. 72ff., p. 311. At the time of writing this
letter—six days after the discovery—Carter presumably would not yet have had an oppor-
tunity to see what had been found.
419
ruary) at Drah abou’l Neggeh11—a site no doubt you will remember, between
Deir El Bahari & the mouth of the valley of the Tombs of the Kings—to try &
find the Tombs of Amenhotep I & Aahmes Nefertari (the founders of the 18th
Dynasty) which the Abbotsic papyrus mentions to be in the neighbour-
hood12—the circumstances being so good & such an interesting rest for a short
time from ones work I have accepted & shall try & do my best. There are cer-
tainly possibilities of finding those tombs—but I’ll say nothing towards prob-
abillitiessic—time will show. Can’t you with your 3 spades come & assist—3
1/2 piastres per diem for all willing workers. I’ll give 4 to Mr. Barker because
he can photograph. I will let you know how things go.
Great preparations are being made for the Khedive & the Duke of Connaught
who are coming up to open the Esneh Barrage just completed. Luxor is getting
under bunting the natives shelling out with these splendours & discordant
noises being made by band tuning accompanied by the donkies—Luxor is
really happy as you will well imagine.
Before I forget Mr. Nicol13—who is staying here wishes all his salaams to be
sent to you all.
My household has increased by six fluffy yellow goslings & I hear suspicious
noises from under the other geese but I dare not count before hatching. Mr.
Tyndale14 is going to Japan to do a similar book of this country like last. He is
now at Deir el Bahari & sends his regards. I do so hope that this summer you
will come to England where I hope to be for a few months.
With every regard to yourself & all

Believe me yours very sincerely
Howard Carter
10 For the results of this campaign, see W.M.F. Petrie et al., Qurneh (London, 1909); the
later part of the season was more successful than the earlier.
11 The first recorded precise mention of the beginning of Carter’s association with the Earl
of Carnarvon, although the date—early 1909—can be deduced from other evidence, see
T.G.H. James, Howard Carter. The Path to Tutankhamun (London, 1992), p. 139ff. On the
matter of the “enormous fee,” it may be noted that in 1911 Carnarvon told P.E. Newberry
“You must remember I pay Carter £200 per mensem,” loc. cit., p. 163. Such a rate of pay,
if it had been the same in 1909, would indeed have been considered “enormous.”
12 Carter’s wish to discover this tomb went back to the years when he was Chief Inspector
for Upper Egypt. He interested Lord Amherst in the project, but made little progress before
being moved to the Inspectorate of Lower Egypt in late 1904; see James, op. cit., p. 93ff. It
was not until early 1914 that he was able seriously to return to the search, the results then
being published as “Report on the tomb of Zeser-ka-ra Amenhotep I, discovered by the Earl
of Carnarvon in 1914,” JEA 3 (1917), pp. 147–54. This article is referred to in Letter 4
below.
13 See note 7 to Letter 1 above.
14 Undoubtedly Walter Frederick Roofe Tyndale (1856–1943), RI (Royal Institute of Paint-
ers in Watercolours, elected 1912), an artist, principally in watercolor, who wrote and
illustrated a number of topographical-travel works, including Below the Cataracts
(London and Philadelphia, 1907). L’Egypte d’hier et d’aujourd’hui (Paris, 1910), Japan and
the Japanese (London, 1910), and with Harriet Taylor, Japanese Gardens (1912). The first
of these volumes, which is probably the one referred to by Carter, contains reproductions
of sixty of Tyndale’s paintings in color, including scenes of Cairo street life, views of stan-
dard monuments and of figure subjects from reliefs and paintings.
420
A gap of over two years separates Letters 2 and 3. There may have
been no exchange between Carter and the Marrs before he was sent the
cuttings mentioned below.
Letter 3
Swaffham – Norfolk
June 23rd 1911
My dear Mrs. Marrs
It was so nice to hear once again from you & that Mr Marrs’ health is improv-
ing. I have often wondered how you all have been & only wished you were in
Egypt last winter.
The cuttings you enclosed are most interesting & the first I had heard of the
new theory regarding the poor old Sphinx.15 The dating & still more the nam-
ing of an unnamed monument such as the Sphinx must always be a matter of
vague conjecture—a possible reason why Herodotus ignored it altogether. And
the so called “Riddle of the Sphinx” seems as great an invention of modern
times as the Sphinx itself invented by the ancients. Reisner’s theory is very
possibly a correct one, though one cannot help but think that the evidence for
so emphatic a statement is small. Certainly it has great probabilities of being
somewhere near the mark. For on that plateau we have nothing that is not
purely mortuary & the mass of the stuff there pertaining to the Old Kingdom.
Mr. Higgins contentions, who ever the man may be for I have not heard of him
before & for the moment shall call him “Juggins”,16 is as celestial as his starry
hypothesis. However true his theory of the origin of the Sphinx formation may
be, it gives no reason why any one king should not adopt the form when wish-
ing to represent himself. The hundred and one monuments we have from the
earliest to the very latest period of kings of Egypt representing themselves as
human headed lions crushing their enemies—a common symbol of power
used among the symbolical sculptures of the ancient Egyptians—is a fact Mr.
Higgins seems either not to know or to have forgotten.
There can I think be little doubt that the Sphinx did represent some reigning
monarch & most probably of the Old Kingdom. The topographical position is
strongly in favour with Reisner’s supposition but I think him most wrong in
making his statement so emphatic.17
I am so glad that you liked Miss Rathbone. Your statement was correct, but
you see her height enabled her to look over my head.
15The newspaper debate on the Sphinx was apparently brought to a conclusion—as, no

doubt, he would himself have claimed by Dr. George Reisner in an article “Solving the
Riddle of the Sphinx,” Cosmopolitan Magazine 53 (New York, 1912), pp. 4–13. I have not
seen the various contributions to this controversy.
16 A late Victorian-Edwardian term for a simpleton, usually written without a capital J. as
in “Yah! Wot a old juggins he is!,” Punch (July 17, 1818).
17 An interesting comment by Carter. Reisner was much given to making dogmatic judg-
ments, especially in his later years—well attested by his assistants and colleagues, Dows
Dunham and William S. Smith.
421
Fig. 4. Queen Ahmose, mother of Hatshepsut; courtesy of the Fig. 5. Daughter of Menna, standing in the prow of a boat; courtesy
Worcester Art Museum (1925.142). of the Worcester Art Museum (1925.143).
422
Fig. 6. Queen Nefertari offering nw-pots; courtesy of the Worcester Art Museum (1925.144).
423
You ask whether we had finds this year. Yes we were certainly lucky & found
a very large tomb of the Middle Empire, which had been reused as a hiddingsic
place for later burials ranging between the Hyksos Period and the early Eigh-
teenth Dynasty.18 It was full of most interesting stuff having 64 separate & un-
touched burials in it, the cache being made by some pious officials of the
necropolis for their safe keeping from the thieving workmen who disturbed
them in making some alteration or when clearing the ground in constructing
some new monuments. I am now occupied in getting out a publication of the
three seasons results which will be fully illustrated & I hope in the course of
the year to be able to send you a copy which will better describe to you the
whole finds than I shall be able to do here.19 I think our pearls were a harp of
the Hyksos time and a delightful little portrait figure of a boy in electrum of a
period of Amenhetep Ist.20
My chateau is built & awaiting you,21 and I am now home for a holiday of
three months after a strenuous two years of painting, building and excavating.
Please give my best wishes to all & with every kind regards to yourself
Yours most sincerely

Howard Carter
The Constitutional Club
Northumberland Avenue
will find me ’till Sept 15. Then the same old Luxor.
H.C.
The fourth letter, written not long before the outbreak of the Great
War, is written on black-edged writing paper. It is not clear whom Carter
may have been mourning in this way; not Mr. Marrs, surely, who had
died in 1912; possibly one of his brothers, the dates of death of some of
whom have not yet been established by the genealogists of the Carter
family. The only matter of Egyptological interest touched on in this
18 Tomb 37 in the Carnarvon-Carter excavations, described in their Five Years’ Explora-
tions at Thebes (London, 1912), p. 64ff.

19 The volume, as published, covered not only the three years of Carter’s work for Carnar-
von (1909–1911), but also the results of the two preceding years when Carnarvon worked
alone under the general supervision of Arthur Weigall, the Upper Egyptian Chief Inspector.
The volume, subtitled A Record of work done 1907–1911, contains no specific mention of
the change in direction of the Carnarvon excavations, which has led generally to the mis-
conception that Carter began working for Carnarvon in 1907, and not in 1909 as the Marrs
correspondence makes clear.
20 The harp is described by Carter, op. cit., p. 82f., and illustrated on pl. LXXI, bottom. It
is now in the Cairo Museum, see H. Hickmann, Instruments de musique (Cairo, 1949),
p. 168, pl. CVII (JdE no. 43161, Catalogue Général, no. 69424). The “electrum” statuette
of Amenemheb, described and illustrated by Carter, op. cit., p. 75, frontispiece and
pl. LXVII, is now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, no. 26.7.1413. It is not of electrum
but of copper, with the lotus bud in the left hand of silver, cf. W.C. Hayes, Scepter of
Egypt II (New York, 1959), p. 61; N. Reeves and J.H. Taylor, Howard Carter before Tut-
ankhamun (London, 1992), p. 99.
21 Castle Carter II on the hill Elwat el-Diban was completed and occupied by Howard
Carter in January–February 1911; for contemporary comments and opinions on it, see
James, Howard Carter (London, 1992), p. 159.
424
letter is Carter’s work on the tomb of Amenophis I, see note 12 on Letter

2 above.
Letter 4
June 12. 1914

Turf Club
Cairo
Dear Mrs. Kingsmill Marrs
Thank you so much for your two very kind letters. I have been long in answer-
ing them, but I have been moving about Egypt, letters have followed me & I
have had really little chance of answering them.
Your kind invite to stop at Florence was most inviting but I must get straight
back to England—I hope by next week’s mail.
It has been abnormally hot this May & June, in fact the hottest experienced
for many years, which naturally makes one long to get away from it.
I hope soon to have another publication out of our latter work including the
discovery of the royal tomb of Amenhetep I. The latter discovery has been of
great interest owing to the ancient records of the King’s tomb in legal papyrus
recording the ancient robberies. In years we have tried to find its where abouts
from these early statements—but not until this last autumn were we
successful.
With every kind wish & regards to both Mr. Barker & yourself
Yours most sincerely

Howard Carter
Mrs. Kingsmill Marrs (Laura Norcross, 1845–1926) was undoubtedly

one of the most discriminating of those who purchased watercolors from
Howard Carter. Before her visit to Egypt with her husband in 1908—
possibly a second visit—she had built up over many years an important
collection of European prints, initially under the guidance of Sylvester
Rosa Koehler, the first Curator of Prints in the Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston. Koehler had died in 1899, but Mrs. Marrs continued collecting,
and her print collection was ultimately bequeathed to the Worcester Art
Museum at her death.22 Her switch of allegiance from Boston to
Worcester had started not long after Koehler’s death, and over the years
she and her husband gave numerous items from their collections to
Worcester. The six Howard Carter watercolors were donated in 1925,
the year before her death. They had undoubtedly been well regarded by
22 See Timothy A. Riggs, “Mr. Koehler and Mrs. Marrs: the formation of the Mrs.
Kingsmill Marrs Collection,” Journal of the Worcester Art Museum I (1977–78), pp. 3–13.
I owe this reference to David Acton.
425
Fig. 7. A view in the temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu; courtesy of the Worcester Art Museum (1925.145).
426
Mrs. Marrs, and not thought of as simple souvenirs of a visit to Egypt.

The subjects are mostly taken directly from Theban monuments, one
being a view, the others careful, but not slavish, copies of figures from
tombs and temples. They represent a good collection of Howard Carter’s
work in this genre. All are watercolors on prepared board, apart from the
view of Medinet Habu, which is watercolor on paper. In the list below
they are described in the order of museum numbering, rather than
chronologically.23
1925.140 (fig. 2). Heads of two men at a banquet (38.2 cm x 49.3 cm); see
N. de G. Davies, The Tomb of the Vizier Ramose (London, 1941), pl. VIII
(lower left). Signed and dated: Howard Carter 1909.
1925.141 (fig. 3). Iunmutef priest (53.3 cm x 37.8 cm); see E. Hornung,
The Tomb of Seti I. Das Grab des Sethos’ I (Zurich & Munich, 1991),
p. 208, fig. 144 left. Signed and dated: Howard Carter 1909. Not fully
identified in the Worcester catalogue.
1925.142 (fig. 4). Queen Ahmose, wife of Tuthmosis I and mother of Hat-
shepsut (57.8 cm x 40.5 cm); it seems to be an invention of Carter’s,
based on various representations of the queen in the temple of Deir
el-Bahri, e.g., E. Naville, The Temple of Deir el Bahari II (London, 1897),
pl. XLIX; V (London, 1906), pl. CXLVII. Dated 1908, but not signed with
Carter’s usual signature; signed instead in careful capitals. The head of
the queen, taken from the first of the two references above was a favorite
subject of Carter’s. His original painting, now in the offices of the Egypt
Exploration Society, was reproduced in op. cit., III (London, 1898),
pl. LXVII. He repeated it for clients on many occasions in later years.
1925.143 (fig. 5). Daughter of Menna, from a boating scene (56.2 cm x
39.5 cm). This well known detail from Theban Tomb no. 69 is much
reproduced, e.g., in color, in A. Mekhitarian, Egyptian Painting (Geneva,
Paris, New York, 1954), p. 93. Signed and dated: Howard Carter 1907.
1925.144 (fig. 6). Queen Nefertari offering nw-pots (70.5 cm x 47 cm).
For a color photograph of the scene in the queen’s tomb, see G. Thausing
and H. Goedicke, Nofretari (Graz, 1971), fig. 53. Signed and dated:
Howard Carter 1908.
23 The non-Egyptological details given here are drawn from the entries of St. John Gore,
responsible for the section on the British School in European Paintings in the Collection
of the Worcester Art Museum (Worcester, 1974), pp. 8–10; also from museum records, cop-
ies of which were kindly supplied by David Acton.
427
1925.145 (fig. 7). A view in the temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu
(59.6 cm x 42.5 cm). The Worcester catalogue contains this comment,
provided by Professor G.R. Hughes of the Oriental Institute, Chicago:
“The artist was standing between and slightly behind the square pillars
numbered 26 and 27 and was looking directly at the columns 20 and 21;”
see the plan XLVII in Porter-Moss, Topographical Bibliography II, 2nd
ed. (Oxford, 1972). Signed and dated: Howard Carter 1909.
b
428

Studies Simpson 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studies Simpson 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studies Simpson 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

001-a Contents vol.

1 Page i Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:55 PM

William Kelly Simpson

Peter Der Manuelian

Department of Ancient Egyptian,

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Title page illustration: A document presenter from the Old Kingdom

Edited, typeset, designed and produced by Peter Der Manuelian

Copyright © Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1996

Printed in the United States of America

Bibliography of William Kelly Simpson, 1963–1996 . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson

Florence Dunn Friedman

Jean Leclant and Catherine Berger

Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson

Peter Der Manuelian

Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson

Author Address List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875–877

Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson

1 A.R. Schulman, JARCE 6 (1967), p. 175.

In 1970, a year after completing a three-year tenure as Chairman of

Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson

Bibliography of William Kelly Simpson

This document was created with FrameMaker 4.0.4

Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson

Bibliography of William Kelly Simpson

Fig. 2. Archaeological team at Toshka, 1961.

Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson

Fig. 3. Studying rock shrine on south

Bibliography of William Kelly Simpson

Fig. 4. At Abydos, 1969.

Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson

b. “The Tomb of Heka-Nefer, ‘Child of the Nursery’ of Tutankhamun’s Court: An Ameri-

Bibliography of William Kelly Simpson

Fig. 7. With Omar Sharif by the colossal

Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson

Fig. 8. In the garden of Presiden Sadat

Bibliography of William Kelly Simpson

Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson

Bibliography of William Kelly Simpson

Fig. 9. With Zahi Hawass in front of the

Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson

Bibliography of William Kelly Simpson

This document was created with FrameMaker 4.0.4

Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson

Bibliography of William Kelly Simpson

This document was created with FrameMaker 4.0.4

Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson

Bibliography of William Kelly Simpson

Some Theban Officials of the

Fig. 1. The Theban Necropolis in the early Middle Kingdom.

James P. Allen, Some Theban Officials of the Early Middle Kingdom

H. E. Winlock, “The Court of King Neb-¢epet-re- ™ Mentu-¢otpe at the Shat. t. er Riga-l,”

Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson

MMA 517 = TT 240 (Meru)

MMA 516 = TT 315 (Ipi)

Mentuhotep II; after Arnold, Das Grab des Jnj-jtj.f, pl. 1.

MMA 505 = TT 310

James P. Allen, Some Theban Officials of the Early Middle Kingdom

Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson