5.1 Setting the Scene
The New Kingdom cemetery in the northern part of the North Saqqara plateau developed in an area well-known for its Old Kingdom funerary monuments. Two Old Kingdom pyramids dominate this part of the landscape, and the popular cults of its respective deified kings, Teti and Menkauhor, continued in the New Kingdom.1 Whether the large numbers of burials that clustered in this area were the result of the existing popular cults, thereby acting as a sort of magnets for tomb construction, or whether the kings’ revived popularity was the result of the growing cemetery, is difficult to tell.2 From a landscape phenomenology perspective, the pyramids and adjoining New Kingdom cemetery were ideally located at the entrance of the elevated desert plateau, along the route leading up to the Serapeum—the burial place of the sacred Apis bulls, the earthly manifestations of the Memphite city god Ptah.3 The presence of multiple religiously significant places added to the sacredness of the place, which will have made it a highly sought after place for burial. This included the area southeast of the aforementioned pyramids, which from the Late Period to the Greco-Roman period was the centre of the cult for the leonine goddess Bastet/Sakhmet, better known as the Bubasteion, which may have had a New Kingdom precursor. Sakhmet was the consort of Ptah, and together with Nefertem formed the Memphite triad of gods. It is in the southern limestone cliff, known as the Cliff (dhn.t) of Ankhtawy, that a number of rock-cut tombs were made during the New Kingdom for high-ranking individuals. This place, with its prominent cliff of bright limestone which peaked over the surrounding landscape, may have been situated along the procession route which connected Memphis and its temple of Ptah to the Serapeum.4
Figure 68
Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom monuments in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery
Image by the author
Figure 69
A view down the Rue de tombeaux, facing south
Photograph by the author, 2019. Reproduced with kind permission by Mohammad M. Youssef/Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, Saqqara
5.2 A New Kingdom Cemetery Founded on the Remains of the Old Kingdom
North of the pyramid of 6th Dynasty King Teti lay a closely-knit cemetery of mastaba tombs built for his courtiers, including the multi-room superstructures of viziers Kagemni5 and Mereruka (Fig. 68).6 These were first fully unearthed in 1893 by Jacques de Morgan (1857–1924) on behalf of the Egyptian Service des Antiquités.7 The mastaba tombs were laid down on a sort of grid forming various streets, including the so-called Rue de Tombeaux,8 first excavated by Victor Loret on behalf of the Service des Antiquités (Fig. 69).9 Burials continued to be introduced north and east of Teti’s pyramid, well into the Greco-Roman period. This long-lived cemetery grew not only laterally, spreading over an increasingly larger area, but also vertically. As a result of the continuous accumulation of sand and rubble in between the tomb structures, by the time of the early New Kingdom, roughly 800 years later, the streets between the mastaba tombs had completely filled in, and largely covered the structures to their roofs. Little if anything would have remained visible of the celebrated Old Kingdom mastabas. Ancient visitors to the site would have seen not much more than the pyramids of kings Teti and Menkauhor—both no longer in pristine condition—as well as the upper parts of the eroded queens’ pyramids.10
The area covered by (pre-)modern archaeological excavations since the mid-19th century is roughly rectangular in shape and measures approximately 100 m north to south, and 230 m east to west. The area further to the north remains largely unexcavated, although early to mid-19th century diggers thoroughly worked this area over in search of collectable objects. A surface survey carried out by a Japanese-Egyptian mission to North Saqqara in 2016–2017 yielded finds pertaining to New Kingdom burials from the mid-18th Dynasty reign of Thutmosis III until the Ramesside period—the latter period yielding the largest quantity of remains.11 The spatial distribution of the surface finds suggests that the cemetery grew laterally in a northward direction, with the core of the cemetery being closest to the pyramid of Teti.
5.3 Methodological Problems with Virtually Recreating a Largely Lost Cemetery
The main problem with assessing the growth of the Teti Pyramid Cemetery is that a comparatively small amount of material remains have been preserved in situ. This problem is closely tied to the early exploration of the site. A large part of the cemetery was excavated in the (early) 19th century. The excavators generally made no records of their finds. The decontextualised objects and tomb elements subsequently entered the private collections of (initially) wealthy Europeans, and with the later sales of their collections, the elements of single tombs became dispersed over many public and private collections around the word. Subsequent early modern and later excavators shifted their focus to the much better preserved Old Kingdom cemetery that existed below that of the New Kingdom. It meant that the later tombs, built on a thick deposit of sand and rubble, were removed in their entirety to fully uncover the underlying mastaba field. The early excavators recorded and documented the later tombs and simpler burials in a rather haphazard way. The sheer number of archaeological teams involved in the excavation of this relatively small area in the last 150 years presents another complicating factor.12 The concentration of so many different expeditions in this small area over so many years has led to a considerable fragmentation of data, both published and (importantly) unpublished. The quality and completeness of documentation also differs considerably from one publication to the other. Bearing these problems in mind, the first step towards analysing the growth of the cemetery is to produce the first complete map of the New Kingdom cemetery.13 This involves mainly overlaying and matching all available maps and plans pertaining to the study area.14 Not all documentation proves to be equally precise. For example, the distance between certain features (e.g., tomb structures) differs from one published map to the other. The actual locations of numerous structures can no longer be confirmed on site, because a large part of the former New Kingdom necropolis has long been removed. Moreover, the research project underlying the present work did not allow for a survey of the area, which ideally would geo-reference all structures still in situ. To overcome this problem, this study uses Google Earth satellite images and the information published in The North Saqqara Archaeological Site: Handbook for the Environmental Risk Analysis (2003), to rectify the available maps and plans. For all reasons just mentioned, it should be stressed that the reconstruction map of the Teti Pyramid Cemetery presented in this study claims no absolute accuracy. It serves the purpose of digitally recreating the lost New Kingdom cemetery in order to assess its structure and development.
5.4 Notes on the Extent of the Cemetery
The New Kingdom cemetery extended beyond the roughly rectangular area more or less systematically excavated north and east of the pyramid of Teti. It likely continues further to the north and west. A number of chance finds further afield corroborate this hypothesis. In 1843, Lepsius’s expedition recorded the location of a seemingly isolated tomb superstructure (ls 8), c. 300 m northwest of the spot where they excavated near the northeast corner of the mastaba of Kagemni.15 The tomb belonged to a 19th Dynasty head of guardians (ḥr.y sꜣw.ty), named Meryre (221/tpc) (see below, Fig. 84). The area of the cemetery where the tomb of Meryre lies, according to Lepsius, has been subjected to the sgsp geophysical survey.16 The survey map highlights the subsurface structures of an extensive Old Kingdom necropolis. Possible tombs of the New Kingdom cannot be identified with certainty. The ‘typical’ Memphite temple-shaped tomb cannot be recognised in the structures detected below the surface. Simpler burials (i.e. those without a structure to mark their location above ground) are with certainty spread over a much larger area of the North Saqqara plateau. Early New Kingdom burials and material remains pointing to burials of Ramesside date have also been excavated further north of the pyramid of Teti, covering the area of the Early Dynastic cemetery.17 Numerous individuals were buried in pit graves cut into the interior spaces of Old Kingdom mastaba tombs, such as that of Khentika, called Ikheki, east of the pyramid of Teti.18 Such burials stretched over a large area, all the way to the Serapeum, located c. 1 km west of the Teti Pyramid Cemetery. Located roughly halfway to that landmark, immediately north of the enclosure wall of the Djoser pyramid complex, the Old Kingdom mastaba of Rashepses (ls 16) proved to contain a number of simple burials of New Kingdom date.19 Further afield, closer to the Serapeum, a number of shaft tombs were recorded in excavation more than 80 years ago today,20 and these may have formed part of a larger cemetery with similar burials clustered in that area. In conclusion, it is safe to say that the area of the Teti Pyramid Cemetery under study in this chapter forms just a small part of a much more extensive burial field. Therefore, the conclusions drawn from the material excavated in this spatially restricted section of the plateau, accessible through largely summary publications, may not be entirely representative for the cemetery as a whole.
5.5 A Cemetery of Pit-Burials
The earliest available New Kingdom evidence for burials in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery are pit graves (Fig. 70).21 These are attested from the very beginning of the 18th Dynasty, and as such represent a continuation of burial practices from the preceding Second Intermediate Period (c. 1759–1630 bce).22 Individuals buried in shallow pits (e.g., laid in wooden coffins or wrapped in reed mats) cover practically the entire surface later occupied by New Kingdom tomb superstructures.23 The pits were dug into the thick deposit of sand and rubble covering the earlier mastaba tombs, and the deceased are usually found at a level flush with the roofs of these earlier structures. The three clusters of pit graves visible in figure 70 do not necessarily represent the historic reality, because not nearly all archaeological expeditions that have worked in this area published data pertaining to the post-Old Kingdom strata. The spatial distribution of pit graves suggests that the New Kingdom surface covering the large mastabas such as Mereruka, Kagemni, etc., was not used for interring individuals in shallow pits. This may not have been the case, however. It is perhaps more likely that the ‘gaps’ in the map are the result of gaps in the published record.
Figure 70
Spatial distribution of New Kingdom pit-burials in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery, projected on the earlier Old Kingdom cemetery
Image by the author
From an economic and organisational point of view, pit graves offer the low-budget end of the spectrum of burial customs. The graves are easily dug and do not necessarily require the involvement of specialists.24
The individuals interred in the pit graves north of the pyramid of Teti were variously laid in wooden coffins—either rectangular or anthropoid—or wrapped in palm-rib and/or reed mats. The number of objects associated with the burials is generally rather low and the graves are typically dated on account of the ceramic evidence or by objects bearing a king’s name, such as scarab amulets. The majority of burials are single burials, dug to bury the body of one individual. There are also cases of multiple burials, with coffins containing the bodies of up to six individuals.25 The multiple burials are perhaps suggestive of some form of above-ground markers, because if the individuals were not interred together at the same time, the pits needed to be re-excavated at a later time, perhaps years after the first or previous burials had taken place. Relocating the precise burial spot would have been easiest if it were marked above the ground. In the contemporary non-elite cemeteries at Akhetaten (Tell el-Amarna), indications have been found for burials marked with a cairn of limestone boulders, and scattered pieces of mud brick may be all that is left of possible built superstructures.26 Similar customs may have existed at Saqqara also. Frequent visits to the cemetery, in order to tend to the graves and present offerings, for example, would also have safeguarded that the locations of the burials were remembered.
The earliest securely dated pit burials of the New Kingdom are of the mid-18th Dynasty reign of Thutmosis III.27 The sample of burials excavated so far indicates that the majority of such burials date to the period before the late 18th Dynasty.28 Burials of the late 18th Dynasty until the 20th Dynasty are fewer in number.29 The picture appears to be slightly different further afield, as far as 500 m north of the pyramid of Teti. The surface finds made in this area are suggestive of greater numbers of burials of the Ramesside period in comparison to those of the 18th Dynasty.30 These observations, albeit limited in scope, suggest that the core of the New Kingdom cemetery lay in the area immediately north/northeast of the pyramid of Teti. Over time, this cemetery grew laterally to the north, west, and southeast, while at the same time spaces in between the earlier graves were filled with later burials. Interestingly, there are very few cases of burials that were accidentally cut when new pits were dug. It suggests that some form of above-ground grave markers existed, because if the precise locations of the burials were not marked, one would expect to see more disturbed burials. On the other hand, there are also examples of pit burials later built-over by more monumental superstructures.31
5.6 Evidence for Above-Ground Markers of Pit-Burials
5.6.1 Grave Markers of Non-durable Material
The material remains associated with one pit-burial excavated in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery suggests that such graves were (sometimes) equipped with simple above-ground markers. Burial number 9, excavated during the 1988 archaeological fieldwork season by Macquarie University, was found c. 3 m above, and 7 m northwest of the Old Kingdom mud-brick tomb of Tjetetu, which corresponds to a location c. 30 m north of the northwest corner of Mereruka’s mastaba.32 This location is consistent with the westernmost extent of the rectangular strip excavated by archaeologists since the mid-19th century. The burial is described as containing a well-preserved skeleton, in supine position, with the head to the southeast, laying with the head and shoulders elevated on a small mound of sand and rubble. No remains of a coffin or matting were recorded. However, the remains of the individual did contain pieces of woven wrapping material still attached to various parts of the body. Most strikingly, the excavators also found a wooden stick positioned upright behind the head of the deceased. In its preserved condition, the stick projected to a height of 27 cm above the skull, which suggests that it may have served as a grave marker. At the base of the stick was found the broken base of a conical pot, measuring 18 cm in height, and containing traces of organic material. It is likely that grave markers of non-durable materials such as wood did not generally remain on the surface for long, unless the graves were regularly attended and kept free of the shifting sand. One could also imagine that animals such as dogs and jackals were fond of such grave markers. The chances of survival of such markers in the archaeological record are therefore rather slim. Burials marked by sticks might be the low-cost version of burials marked by stelae.
5.6.2 Burials Marked by Stelae
The above-ground markers of pit burials discussed thus far—including the mud-brick platforms in the Unas South Cemetery dated to the time of Amenhotep III (see Section 4.5.1)—would have required little if any specialised workmanship in their production. More expertise of skilled artists would have been required in the production of headstones decorated in paint or relief, with or without inscriptions. In the Teti Pyramid Cemetery, the Macquarie University archaeological expedition found at least one example of a stela that served as a headstone to mark a pit burial (303/tpc).33 It was excavated in the vicinity of the tomb of Amenemone (213/tpc), the overseer of craftsmen and chief of goldsmiths of the king (i҆m.y-r ḥmw.t n.t nb tꜣ.wy; ḥr.y nbw.w n.w nb tꜣ.wy), and was marked by a round-topped stela crowned by a pyramidion, measuring 54.6 cm in height.34 The ensemble was also associated with “two or three pots”, although it is not clear where these were placed. The stela’s pyramidion bears an image of Anubis recumbent on a shrine, and the apotropaic wedjat eye. The surface of the stela below the pyramidion contains two scenes arranged in two registers. The upper register depicts a certain Penamun, shown offering to the seated god Osiris,35 and the scene in the lower register depicts three females and two young boys standing with one hand raised in adoration. The wigs, garments, and proportions of the bodies of all the individuals depicted in the stela point to a date in the post-Amarna period. The stela was associated with a pit burial containing just one individual, who—we may assume—was Penamun, the individual most prominently featured on the stela. The other individuals were not identified by text labels, so we can only guess what their relationships to Penamun may have been, although most likely members of his family (e.g., wife, sister, mother, children). Since the stela marked the burial of only one individual, we may ask where the others depicted on the stela were eventually buried. One possibility would be that they were interred in pit graves dug in the direct vicinity of Penamun’s burial marked by a stela. If such were the case, the one burial marker may have served as the focal point for the offering cult of a complete family.36
A second stela (316/tpc) may have stood in a similar context close by.37 It was recovered from the fill of the shaft of Amenemone’s tomb. The round-topped stela measures 56 cm in height and contains scenes divided in two registers. In the top register, three males and a female are depicted standing in adoration before the god Osiris, who is seated. The first male individual holds a censer over the offering table. In the lower register, a female, seated on a high-backed chair, receives offerings from another female, while a third, a girl, and four boys stand behind her. All individuals are provided with text labels containing their names. The main characters, the male censing to Osiris and the seated female receiving offerings, are named Mahuy and Bay, respectively. No titles are included. The find spot of the stela and the style and quality of its relief decoration might suggest that title-less owners of this stela, and of burial 303/tpc, had been (professionally) affiliated in life with Amenemone (213/tpc), or any of the other officials buried in this cemetery who held similar offices.
5.7 The Earliest Evidence for Tomb Chapels: Reign of Amenhotep III
The earliest evidence for built superstructures marking a burial in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery dates to the reign of Amenhotep III (Fig. 71; Table 13).38 These tomb chapels are all made of mud bricks, and display some variation in their architectural lay-out. The chapels for which their owners can be identified, were made for the Guardian of the house of His Majesty (sꜣw.ty n.y pr ḥm=f), Amenma (214/tpc),39 the Guardian of ‘I҆tn-ṯḥn’ (sꜣw.ty n.y I҆tn-ṯḥn), Nebansu (223/tpc),40 the Guardian of the treasury of Memphis (ḥr.y sꜣw.ty pr-ḥḏ n.y Mn-nfr) and Miller of incense of Amun-Re, of All the Gods of White Walls (i.e. Memphis), of the Ennead, and of the Palace (nḏ snṯr n.y I҆mn-Rꜥ n.y nṯr.w nb.w I҆nb.w-ḥḏ n.y psḏ.t n.y pr nsw), Mahu (218/tpc),41 and a man named Neferher (224/tpc), for whom no titles are recorded.42 The son of Neferher, Hatiay, bears the title of guardian (sꜣw.ty).
Three of the four chapel owners dated to the reign of Amenhotep III, all bearing the title of guardian (sꜣw.ty), were professionally affiliated with the king’s palace at Memphis, which, given the title held by Nebansu (223/tpc), may have been named ‘Dazzling Aten’ (I҆tn-ṯḥn).43 This king’s Theban palace at Malkata bore the same name.44 The clustering of tombs built for middle management palace officials in this part of the North Saqqara plateau may perhaps suggest that the king’s palace stood nearby. The Memphite palace may have had an associated settlement where palace craftsmen worked and lived, as observed in Thebes.45 This may explain why, in the late 18th Dynasty, so many individuals involved in ‘the arts’ (craftsmen, goldsmiths, sculptors, etc.) built their tombs in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery. This hypothesis is explored further in Chapter 6.
Figure 71
The Teti Pyramid Cemetery (north) in the late 18th Dynasty reign of Amenhotep III
Image by the author
Table 13
List of tomb owners in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery, mid-late 18th Dynasty
|
Tomb no. |
Date |
Name |
Titles |
|---|---|---|---|
|
214/tpc |
Thutmosis IV–Amenhotep III |
Amenma |
Guardian of the House of His Majesty |
|
218/tpc |
Mahu |
Chief Guardian of the Treasury of Memphis, etc. |
|
|
223/tpc |
Amenhotep III, second half |
Nebansu |
Guardian of the ‘Splendour of the Aten’ |
|
224/tpc |
Amenhotep III |
Neferher |
? |
|
235/tpc |
Amenhotep III |
Tjay |
? |
Not all tomb chapels built in the reign of Amenhotep III are accessible for research today, which hampers any study of their form and architectural lay-out. The chapels of Amenma (124/tpc) and Mahu (218/tpc) were removed by their excavators, Lepsius and Loret, respectively. Their documentation, however summary, is still informative.
Lepsius recorded the stela of Amenma (now Berlin äm 7320)46 at a level c. 1.6 m (etwa 5 fuss)47 higher than the Old Kingdom stela of a man named Gemankh, situated northeast of what Lepsius initially designated as “Grosses Psammetichgrab mit Brunnen” (ls 10),48 later identified as the mastaba of Teti’s vizier, Kagemni. The stela was found standing in “einer aus Nilziegeln verbauten Kammer”, in other words, a chapel made of mud bricks. The shape of the stela, round-topped (h. 83 cm), suggests that the chapel had a vaulted ceiling. The stela would have stood against the chapel’s west wall. Similarly shaped chapels have indeed been uncovered in the same general area of the necropolis, dating to the late 18th Dynasty.49 Lepsius also noted a wooden, anthropoid coffin containing the mummified bodies of two individuals, one placed on top of the other, found in loose sand in front of Amenma’s stela.50 Underneath the head of the lower mummy a bronze mirror51 and a calcite dish, shaped as a pomegranate, were placed.52 Also loose in the sand and possibly associated with the coffin were a wooden container which included various scarabs bearing the names of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep III,53 and a glass vessel.54 If indeed the coffin and objects are to be associated with the chapel of Amenma, its position is remarkable. It is more common for chapels to have a burial shaft situated to its east. The shaft, usually a couple of metres deep, provided access to the subterranean burial chamber. No such shaft was noted by Lepsius, neither in the sketch map nor in the text report.
The tomb of Mahu was excavated by Victor Loret in 1898–1899, working on behalf of the Egyptian Service des Antiquités. He described this tomb as “la plus élégante de toutes”, yet dedicated few words to this find in his report.55 The tomb plan published by Loret, albeit not sufficiently detailed, suggests that the chapel area was divided in two, forming an inner chapel and a somewhat wider antechapel, fronted by two columns. The columns may have supported a lintel. A burial shaft is indicated east of the chapel, and the area is walled-off, forming a proper open forecourt, entered from the east. In the tomb, Loret found several limestone elements, which were transferred to the Cairo Egyptian Museum: a stela (Cairo je 33256), an offering table (Cairo je 33257), a doorjamb (Cairo je 33259), and a relief-decorated panel (Cairo je 33260). The stela is naos-shaped and surmounted by a torus moulding and cavetto corniche, and further topped by a lunette. The measurements of the stela are 112 × 73 cm, which may correspond to the height and width of the inner cult chapel.56 The offering table likely lay in front of the stela to the east, and the doorjamb—of which there would have been two specimens—furnished the chapel doorway. These were placed perpendicular to the revetment blocks set against the chapel north and south walls. The relief-decorated block, depicting in the upper register the tomb owner and his wife as they enter the tomb while being libated, must have decorated the chapel north wall. Its pendant from the opposite south wall is missing. This single revetment block is preserved to its full height, and measures 121 × 45 cm. The scenes in the upper and lower register are not fully preserved on the left side, suggesting the north wall contained two limestone revetment blocks positioned side by side.
The chapel of Mahu offers the earliest material evidence for a Memphite tomb structure with mud-brick walls bearing a relief-decorated limestone revetment—so characteristic of the later 18th Dynasty and early 19th Dynasty tombs at Saqqara.57 The chapel of Neferher (224/tpc), excavated in the mid-1990s by the Supreme Council of Antiquities (sca) expedition, had the exact same disposition of stone-made elements.58 Yet curiously, the chapel appears not to have had walls made of mud bricks.59 The relief-decorated limestone slabs formed the chapel’s north, west, and south walls.
The Teti Pyramid Cemetery may have seen more chapels built for Amenhotep III’s treasury officials.60 The Scribe of the Treasury (sš pr-ḥḏ), Nebneteru [437], had a stela (of quartzite) comparable in shape to that of Mahu: naos-shaped, surmounted by a torus moulding and cavetto corniche, and topped by a lunette (Fig. 72).61 The iconography is different, however. Three half-statues representing Nebneteru, his wife Merytnub (on his right), and his mother, Tiry (left), are positioned standing on a plinth just outside the naos, which represents the façade of the tomb chapel. As such, the three individuals are seen leaving the tomb during the day in order to receive offerings. Interestingly, the stela of Nebneteru has one direct parallel, namely the quartzite stela made for the Chief royal sculptor (ḥr.y sꜥnḫ.w), Bak, who was the son of the Chief royal sculptor, Men. Bak spent a significant part of his working career in Akhetaten, where there was galore for sculptors.62 His stela, now held in the Berlin Egyptian Museum, is of unknown provenance. Information regarding the genealogical and professional backgrounds of the two sculptors suggests that they may have had a tomb in the Memphite necropolis.63 First, the mother of Bak, Ry, came from Heliopolis. Second, his father, Men, was involved in the making of the colossal seated statues of Amenhotep III, destined for the king’s Theban temple of Millions of Years. These so-called ‘Memnon colossi’ are made of quartzite quarried at Gebel Ahmar near present-day Heliopolis. As will become clear in the next section, the Teti Pyramid Cemetery was the place of choice for burials of those involved in ‘the arts’.
Nebneteru, Men, and Bak, probably worked under the supervision of Amenhotep Huy (141/usc), the chief steward in Memphis and overseer of works on the Memphite temple of Millions of Years of Amenhotep III.64 Amenhotep Huy was also in charge of work in the stone quarries, as suggested by his title Overseer of the desert areas in the entire land (i҆m.y-r ḫꜣs.wt m tꜣ r ḏr=f). The possible relationships between the individuals buried in the two cemeteries of the North Saqqara plateau are touched upon further in the next chapter.
Figure 72
The round-topped stela of Nebneteru [437], late 18th Dynasty, temp. Amenhotep III, Leiden am 8-b
Photograph courtesy of the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden
Figure 73
The Teti Pyramid Cemetery (north) in the late 18th Dynasty, Amarna and immediate post-Amarna period, temp. Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten–Tutankhamun
Image by the author
Table 14
List of tomb owners in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery, late 18th Dynasty, Amarna and post-Amarna period
|
Tomb no. |
Date |
Name |
Titles |
|---|---|---|---|
|
211/tpc |
Tutankhamun |
Ipy |
Overseer of Honey Production of the Temple of Amun |
|
212/tpc |
Tutankhamun |
Ipuia |
Overseer of Craftsmen, Chief of Goldsmiths of the King |
|
213/tpc |
Tutankhamun |
Amenemone |
Overseer of Craftsmen of the King, Chief of Goldsmiths of the King |
|
215/tpc |
Tutankhamun |
Penamun |
Royal scribe, Overseer of craftsmen |
|
216/tpc |
Tutankhamun |
Pakharu |
Chief of Goldworkers |
|
220/tpc |
Tutankhamun |
Merya (Meryhor) |
Merchant |
|
227/tpc |
Tutankhamun–Horemheb (?) |
Hatiay |
Maker / Chief of Makers of Lapis Lazuli |
|
228/tpc |
Tutankhamun |
Hatiay |
Chief of Craftsmen of Ptah |
|
230/tpc |
Akhenaten, late–Tutankhamun, early |
Huy |
Head of Merchants of the Temple of the Aten, etc. |
|
250/tpc |
Tutankhamun (?) |
nn |
? |
|
251/tpc |
Tutankhamun (?) |
nn |
? |
|
252/tpc |
Tutankhamun (?) |
nn |
? |
|
253/tpc |
Tutankhamun (?) |
nn |
? |
|
254/tpc |
Tutankhamun (?) |
nn |
? |
5.8 Late 18th Dynasty: Amarna and Post-Amarna Period
During and immediately after the Amarna period, the Teti Pyramid Cemetery became increasingly crowded with individuals engaged in ‘the arts’ (Fig. 73; Table 14). They include, among others, overseers (i҆m.y-r) of craftsmen (ḥmw.w) and chiefs (ḥr.y) of gold workers (nby.w). The officials were affiliated with workshops serving the crown (nb tꜣ.wy) and the local temples of the Aten (pr I҆tn, ḥw.t pꜣ I҆tn) and Ptah (pr Ptḥ).65
A number of the earliest datable tomb chapels in this area of the necropolis were excavated in the 1990s by Egypt’s sca under the direction of Saqqara’s respective Chief Inspectors Holeil Ghaly and Zahi Hawass.66 These excavations were resumed in 2020.67 The New Kingdom finds in this area are the subject of the PhD thesis by Mohammad M. Youssef, which is as yet unpublished.68 This material promises to shed much new light on the architectural development of tombs at Saqqara, and the continuously changing use of space in the cemetery.
The cluster of anonymous, modest chapels made of mud bricks (250–254/tpc), located directly south of the tomb of Mahu (218/tpc), is tentatively dated to the reign of Tutankhamun.69 One of the tombs in that cluster, 230/tpc, dates very early in the reign of that king, and may have been started in the late Amarna period. It was built for Huy, head of merchants of the temple of the Aten (ḥr.y šw.tyw n.w tꜣ ḥw.t pꜣ I҆tn). Auguste Mariette first recorded the stela of Huy in April 1860.70 In the 1990s, the sca expedition re-discovered the mud-brick chapel from which the stela had been taken 130 years before. The structure also included two inscribed door jambs and two relief-decorated slabs of limestone.71 The latter decorated the chapel’s north and south walls. As for the date, the orthography of the Aten’s name, inscribed on the right-hand jamb of the stela, points to year 9 of Akhenaten, or later.72
Two more chapels in this closely-knit section of the cemetery date to the reign of Tutankhamun. Ipy (211/tpc) was an overseer of honey production of the temple of Amun (ḥr.y bi҆.tyw n.y pr I҆mn), and Pakharu (216/tpc) a chief of gold workers (ḥr.y nby.w). The latter chapel was found replete with its cult stela.73 The stela not only mentions Pakharu and his wife, the Lady of the House (nb.t pr), Amenemopet, but also a man named Pakana, and his wife Maia. In the lower register of the stela, the mummy of Pakana, standing upright, is the recipient of offerings and rituals performed by an anonymous individual. It is unclear what the relationship between Pakana and Pakharu might have been. The chapel of Pakharu had been accessible in the time of Lepsius’s expedition, in 1843, because in his Denkmäler he makes note of Pakharu’s stela in the antiquities dealership Youssef Massara in Cairo.74 Since the interior space of the chapel offers room for only one stela, it is possible that the specimen seen by Lepsius was in fact part a doorjamb or revetment block, not a stela.
The catalogue at the end of this study lists a number of contemporary ‘lost’ tombs that might be sited in this area of the necropolis. These include, for example, Ptahmay (309/tpc), head of makers of gold foil of the temple of Aten (ḥr.y i҆r.w nbw pꜣḳ n.y pr I҆tn),75 and Khaemwaset (334/tpc), chief of wood workers/carpenters of the king (ḥr.y mḏḥ.w nsw).76 It has long been thought that their tombs were located in a now-lost New Kingdom cemetery at Giza, further to the north.77 The suggestion was made at a time when practically nothing was known about the structure of the Saqqara New Kingdom necropolis. Taking into account what we now know about the diachronic development of the cemetery, and the social-demographic make-up of its deceased inhabitants, it is much more likely that these individuals made their chapels in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery, sited amongst their peers.
All these modest sized chapels are located in the area south and southeast of the pyramid of 6th Dynasty queen Khuit, still partly visible in the New Kingdom. The larger tombs built in the reign of Tutankhamun are located to the north of the pyramids of Iput and Khuit. These include the monuments built for Ipuia (212/tpc) and Amenemone (213/tpc), who both held office as overseer of craftsmen (of the king) (i҆m.y-r ḥmw.w n.y nb tꜣ.wy) and chief of goldsmiths of the king (ḥr.y nbw.w n.y nb tꜣ.wy). The latter official is also attested in the tomb of Maya (028/usc),78 who, as overseer of works and overseer of the treasury, acted as his superior in office. There might possibly be more cases of professional affiliation between an official buried in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery and his superior in rank buried in the Unas South Cemetery. Userhat Hatiay [493] represents one such example. He held office as chief sculptor of the king (ḥr.y ṯꜣy-mḏꜣ.t n.y nb tꜣ.wy), and in that capacity worked on a number of high-profile construction projects throughout Egypt. The sites of his documented activities include the capital-under-construction, Akhetaten (Tell el-Amarna), and the Valley of the Kings in Thebes. He may also have been responsible for making the relief-decoration in the tomb of Maya,79 who was his superior for whom he worked at the various sites across the kingdom.80 The brother of Userhat Hatiay, named Sa (350/tpc), who held the same title, chief sculptor of the king, had a tomb chapel in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery. In 1862, Auguste Mariette recorded Sa’s stela along with three fragments of a door jamb.81 Mariette also recorded the find of a wooden socle of a statue, inscribed for a man named Userhat, who bore the title ‘one with access to the Lords of Thinis/Abydos’ (ꜥḳ(.w) n nb.w Tꜣ-wr).82 The combination of the title and name strongly suggest that this man is to be identified as Userhat-Hatiay, who may have had a tomb in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery, likely close to that of his brother, Sa.
Two more chapels built in the reign of Tutankhamun are situated at a short distance from the closely-knit cluster of chapels, east of the tomb of Mahu (218/tpc). Both tombs were excavated by the sca expedition in the 1990s. The titles held by their owners link them to the individuals buried further to the southwest. Tomb 227/tpc was built for Hatiay, chief of makers of lapis lazuli (ḥr.y i҆r.w ḫsbḏ), and 228/tpc belongs to the Chief of Craftsmen of Ptah (ḥr.y ḥmw.w n.y Ptḥ), Hatiay. The two tombs are situated immediately north of the area hitherto unexcavated. It suggests that more tombs built for contemporary officials who were professionally affiliated with the arts can be expected in the area along the later perimeter walls of the Anubieion.
The three ‘late 18th Dynasty’ tombs (Table 14) located north of Amenemone (213/tpc) may in fact date to the reign of Tutankhamun. These tombs, excavated by the Macquarie University expedition, were thoroughly dismantled in the (ancient) past. Not much more than the foundations and lowest courses of the walls’ mud bricks were preserved, and it is unknown who their owners were. The size and lay-out of tombs 243/tpc and 244/tpc are comparable to 213/tpc (Amenemone), which hints at them being roughly contemporary.
Figure 74
The Teti Pyramid Cemetery (north) in the late 18th Dynasty, temp. Tutankhamun–Horemheb
Image by the author
Table 15
List of tomb owners in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery, late 18th Dynasty, temp. Tutankhamun–Horemheb
|
Tomb no. |
Date |
Name |
Titles |
|---|---|---|---|
|
210/tpc |
Late 18th Dynasty, temp. (Tutamkhamun–)Horemheb |
Ahmose |
Scribe of the Army of the King |
|
219/tpc |
Late 18th/early 19th Dynasty |
Mernakht |
? |
|
229/tpc |
(Tutankhamun–) Horemheb |
Huy |
Scribe of the Army of the King, etc. |
|
242/tpc |
Late 18th Dynasty |
nn |
? |
|
243/tpc |
Late 18th Dynasty |
nn |
? |
|
244/tpc |
Late 18th Dynasty |
nn |
? |
The late 18th Dynasty after the reign of Tutankhamun is not widely represented in the archaeological record (Fig. 74; Table 15). Three tombs can be (partly?) dated to the reign of Horemheb.
The tomb of Ahmose (210/tpc), a scribe of the king’s army (sš mšꜥ n.y nb tꜣ.wy) is situated immediately west of the closely-knit cemetery of modest chapels dated to the (post-)Amarna period. Its architecture differs significantly from the tombs built until that point in time. It is built on an elevated platform, which is accessed by an ascending ramp.83 The western extent of the rectangular courtyard is built on a thick deposit of sand and rubble which filled the ‘street’ between the west perimeter wall of the complex of Khuit’s pyramid, and the east wall of the mastaba of Neferseshemre.84 The tomb was first recorded by Victor Loret, 1898–1899 (tomb Loret no. 1), and was further excavated and documented by the sca expedition led by Zahi Hawass.
The tomb of Mernakht (219/tpc) was recorded by Quibell (tomb S 2720), who excavated the area immediately west of Loret’s former concession area in 1912–1914. The tomb lies directly west of Ahmose’s. Its entrance in the east was apparently not seen by Quibell—it was at least not drawn on the map. Part of the eastern façade may have almost touched on the west wall of Ahmose. The chapel still contained stone revetment bearing relief decoration. Quibell noted that these included the “feet of figures dressed in XVIIIth and XIXth dynasty style”. Moreover, a doorpost (in situ?) and another “big block” (found loose) contained an inscription which according to the excavator mentioned the name of the tomb owner, Mernakht, not associated with any titles. Quibell only noted that four loose blocks were found here, including “a pleasant picture of a goat about to browse on a bush”. The relief has not been illustrated with a photograph or drawing, and it is not known where the blocks, of “no great importance”, are at present. Another interesting observation is that the blocks apparently included modern notes in Arabic, which points to the fact that this structure, and possibly numerous others in the same general area of the cemetery, had been unearthed before Quibell, as he himself suggests. The possibility of earlier diggers involved in the excavation of this tomb leads Quibell to doubt whether the limestone statue of a crocodile (representing the god Sobek; 1.12 m in length) found there originally belonged to this structure. It bore a hieroglyphic inscription mentioning the Chief of Bowmen (ḥr.y-pḏ.t), Amenemwia.
The tomb of Huy (229/tpc), like Ahmose, scribe of the king’s army (sš mšꜥ n.y nb tꜣ.wy), was partly built on the deposit covering the Old Kingdom mastabas of Nedjetempet and Ptahshepses, north of the tomb of Ipuia (212/tpc). Like its neighbour, the tomb of Huy is no longer extant. It was removed in order to access the Old Kingdom levels below.85 Another complicating factor in reviewing the structure, is that parts of it were recorded by various expedition in the past. The tomb has not been published in its entirety. Lepsius was the first to make record of (part of) the tomb (ls 12), and published a relief block found at the site.86 Quibell further excavated the tomb in 1912–1914 (tomb S 2735), and published an incomplete plan, suggesting he saw only part of the tomb.87 He also found additional relief-decorated blocks. In 1986, the Egyptian expedition led by Mahmud Abd el-Raziq recorded part of what was probably the western extent of the tomb, including the second courtyard and tripartite chapel.88 The eastern part of the tomb was excavated in 1994–1995 by the Egyptian expedition led by Ali el-Khouli and Ali Hassan. The Old Kingdom mastaba of Nedjetempet, lying partly under the forecourt of Huy, was later published by Naguib Kanawati.89 The area east and north of the tomb were subsequently excavated by the Australian expedition of Macquarie University. Thus, more blocks deriving from Huy’s tomb were found in 1994–1995, published in preliminary form by Boyo Ockinga.90
The plan of Huy’s tomb in figure 74 attempts to include all scattered information about the tomb.91 The architectural lay-out of the tomb displays similarities to Ahmose (210/tpc), who was also an army scribe in the late 18th Dynasty. Most notably, a ramp with a low balustrade gives access to the entrance doorway of the courtyard.
5.9 Ramesside Period
The development of the Teti Pyramid Cemetery after the 18th Dynasty is reviewed in one section as the number of archaeologically attested tombs dated to the 19th and 20th Dynasties is comparatively low. At this time, the spaces available between the extant late 18th Dynasty chapels are further filled by constructing new tombs and digging new pit burials. At the same time, the cemetery appears to have grown laterally to the north, west and south. It was noted in Section 5.4 that the 19th Dynasty tomb of Meryre (221/tpc) was recorded by Lepsius c. 300 m northwest of the mastaba tomb of Kagemni. It is unlikely that it stood there in isolation. A number of the now-lost Ramesside tombs listed in the catalogue may have stood in this northern section of the cemetery. A glimpse of the Ramesside cemetery can be caught from the Teti pyramid temple area, indicating that the whole area between the pyramids of Teti and Menkauhor had been used for building tombs by that time.
5.9.1 Cluster North of the Pyramid of Teti
The former 18th Dynasty cemetery north of the pyramid of Teti continued to be used for constructing tombs in the Ramesside period (Figs 75–76; Table 16). The later additions are all situated towards the edges of the area excavated to date, suggesting that the cemetery expanded laterally.
Figure 75
The Teti Pyramid Cemetery (north) at the end of the New Kingdom
Image by the author
Figure 76
A view of the Teti Pyramid Cemetery (north)
Photograph by the author, 2019, Reproduced with kind permission by Mohammad M. Youssef/Ministry of tourism and antiquities, Saqqara
Table 16
List of tomb owners in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery, north, Ramesside period
|
Tomb no. |
Date |
Name |
Titles |
|---|---|---|---|
|
217/tpc |
Early 19th Dynasty |
Ptahmay |
Wab Priest of the Heret of the Lord of Truth, etc. |
|
222/tpc |
19th Dynasty, temp. Ramesses II, late |
Mose |
Scribe of the Treasury of Ptah, etc. |
|
225/tpc |
19th Dynasty, early |
Neferrenpet |
? |
|
236/tpc |
19th Dynasty, first half |
Tjay |
Scribe of the Store-room |
|
238/tpc |
19th Dynasty, early |
Djehutyemheb |
Royal Scribe, etc. |
|
239/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
241/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
249/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
265/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
266/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
267/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
269/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
270/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
271/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
272/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
273/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
274/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
275/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
276/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
277/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
278/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
279/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
280/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
281/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
282/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
283/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
284/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
285/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
286/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
287/tpc |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
Amongst Egyptologists, the tomb of Mose (222/tpc), scribe of the treasury of Ptah (sš pr–ḥḏ n.y Ptḥ), is best known because of its lengthy legal text, carved on one of its tomb walls.92 The structure was first recorded in 1898–1899 by Loret (tomb no. 5). The tomb plan he published is rather puzzling, and perhaps suggests that extant mud-brick walls of multiple tombs were mixed up and integrated into the plan of Mose. It is also clear that Loret did not draw the complete structure, because the tomb elements now held in the Cairo Egyptian Museum and elsewhere do not fit in the spaces indicated. Thus, it is likely that the southern half of the tomb structure is missing from the drawing.93 This is perhaps the result of earlier digging activity. Note for example, that in 1862, Sir Charles Nicholson (1808–1903) acquired seven djed pillar fragments from the tomb, which he subsequently took with him to Sydney, Australia.94 The tomb was relocated in the 1990s by the sca expedition led by Hawass, and eleven additional relief-decorated blocks were found.95 Mose may have been a relative of Tatia (056/usc), a chief of goldsmiths of Ptah and priest of the front of Ptah.96
Directly north of the tomb of Mose stood the tomb of Tjay (236/tpc), scribe of the store-room (sš n.y ꜥ.t ḥnḳ.t), also recorded by Loret (tomb no. 4). The plan of the tomb published by Loret is incomplete. The structure did contain a stela, which was taken to the Cairo Egyptian Museum.97 The object can be dated to the 19th Dynasty.
On the southern extent of the cemetery, two tombs were built against the exterior north wall of the late 18th Dynasty structure of Ahmose (210/tpc). The tomb of Neferrenpet (225/tpc) represents a smaller version of the former. It was also built on a raised platform and is accessed by a ramp with balustrade. Probably not long after, the tomb of Djehutyemheb (238/tpc) was built against the north wall of Neferrenpet. Djehutyemheb was a royal scribe (sš nsw).
Further to the north are the remains of three anonymous structures that were incompletely excavated. 249/tpc was built against the north exterior wall of Mernakht (219/tpc). In 1912–1914, Quibell recorded the remains of a mud-brick structure, which appear to include the south half of a chapel and antechapel.98 This structure should probably be associated with the rectangular tomb shaft no. 71 recorded by Loret in 1998–1999.99
239/tpc was also recorded by Quibell in 1912–1914. He saw nothing more than what must be interpreted as the mud floor of a courtyard, with scanty remains of the mud-brick walls. It stood in the area between 219/tpc and 249/tpc, and Merya (220/tpc). The presence of 249/tpc indicates that the missing part of 239/tpc lay to the west, which is where the chapels are to be expected. This is in the area later, in the early 1920s, excavated by Cecil Mallaby Firth (1878–1931) who, like Quibell, worked on behalf of the Egyptian antiquities service.100 There, he found the badly preserved remains of the Old Kingdom ‘Mastaba A’. No remains of New Kingdom date that could possibly linked to 239/tpc were recorded in this area.101
The anonymous tomb 241/tpc is situated directly west of Ipuia (212/tpc) and Amenma (214/tpc), largely built over the area covered by the Old Kingdom tomb of Ptahshepses. The mud brick walls lined with limestone blocks on their interior were first noted by Lepsius, in 1843, who describes it as a “Stein Grabkammer”.102 The tomb was numbered ls 11, but not further excavated. Lepsius observed that the tomb stood at a slightly higher elevation than the stela of Amenma, which may suggest that 241/tpc stood on a raised platform, as observed with the tombs of Huy (229/tpc), Ahmose (210/tpc), and Neferrenpet (225/tpc). Quibell later recorded additional walls of the tomb as well as pillars bases.103 One of the shafts recorded by Abd el-Raziq in 1986 can probably be associated with 241/tpc.104 Perhaps most interestingly about this tomb is the fact that it cannot have been accessed from the east. In the reconstruction in figure 75, the entrance has been tentatively situated in the south wall.105 The position selected for the tomb may be indicative of the fact that the cemetery in this area had already become rather crowded. Similar deviating orientations of tomb entrances have also been observed in the Unas South Cemetery during the 20th Dynasty (see Section 4.13).
The open space at the centre of the cemetery is noteworthy. One wonders whether the apparent absence of tombs reflects the actual situation in the New Kingdom, or whether this is the result of variations in the preservation of tombs throughout the cemetery. The tomb shafts across the centre of the open space, excavated by Loret (268/tpc–272/tpc) may be suggestive of the latter scenario. Nothing of their above-ground structures had been preserved in situ. The same goes for shaft 217/tpc, excavated in 2008 by the Macquarie University expedition, which Boyo Ockinga tentatively links to loose tomb fragments found in the vicinity, and a statue group now held in the Berlin Egyptian Museum (äm 2297), made for the early 19th Dynasty Wab Priest of the Heret of the Lord of Truth (i.e. Ptah) (wꜥb ḥr.t n.yt nb mꜣꜥ.t), Ptahmay (217/tpc). The tomb’s superstructure had been completely dismantled, possibly in antiquity. Some stone elements of tombs located in this area were found reused in the Serapeum, c. 1 km to the west. This happened, for example, with the relief-decorated block from the tomb of Amenemone (213/tpc) bearing the representation of King Menkauhor (Louvre B48; see Fig. 7).106 The thoroughness of the despoliation of the tomb in this area, where in some cases even the upper 3 m of blocks that formed the walls of the tomb shafts were removed, has been connected to the redevelopment of the Serapeum and its stone-paved processional way in the 4th century bce (reigns of kings Nectanebo I and II).107 The later amplification of the Serapeum sacred landscape in the Ptolemaic period, with its monumental infrastructure, may have contributed further to the dismantling of extant tomb structures, all quarried for their stone building material.
5.9.2 Cluster between the Pyramids of Teti and Menkauhor
The remains of New Kingdom tombs east of the pyramid of Teti were found in conjunction with the excavation of the king’s temple, which occupies much of the space towards the neighbouring (and earlier) pyramid of Menkauhor to the east (Fig. 77–79; Table 17). The earliest documented explorations of the pyramid, by John Perring (1813–1869) in 1839108 and Lepsius’s expedition in 1843, were rather superficial and did not engage much with the area east of the pyramid. The first archaeological exploration of this area can be credited to Gaston Maspero (1846–1916), in his capacity of Director General of the Egyptian Antiquities Service. Maspero previously worked at the site of the pyramid of Unas, where he found the king’s burial chamber with its walls covered in Pyramid Texts. He subsequently instructed the Italian Alexandre Barsanti (1858–1917) to clear the area east of the pyramid of Unas, where he uncovered the associated temple. Maspero suspected the pyramid temple of Teti should still be hidden under the sand also. Thus, he ordered Barsanti to excavate this area and locate the pyramid temple.109 The excavations also yielded New Kingdom material, including the large, naos-shaped stela of Meryptah (late 18th Dynasty, temp. Amenhotep III), found in the area of the cult chapel, pointing to the deified king’s cult at the time of the late 18th Dynasty reign of Amenhotep III.110
Figure 77
A view of the pyramid and temple of Teti, facing south
Photograph by the author, 2017
In April 1905, Quibell arrived at Saqqara as chief inspector of antiquities and continued Barsanti’s work in this area.111 He started his exploration of the site near the edge of the plateau, east of the pyramid, so as to make sure that no archaeological remains of importance would later be covered by the detritus of the planned large-scale excavation of the pyramid temple. His excavations recorded the remains of various superstructures, shafts, and simpler burials of New Kingdom date, all located immediately east of the pyramid of Teti, on a deposit covering the satellite pyramid (which Quibell refers to as the “Neferkare pyramid”) and inner temple area. One of the chapels was built for a royal butler (wbꜣ), named Qenherkhepshef (234/tpc), identified by the lower fragment of a stela.112 The information about the tomb’s superstructure is given as follows:
Figure 78
The Teti Pyramid Cemetery (south) in the Ramesside period
Image by the author
Figure 79
The Teti Pyramid Cemetery at the end of the New Kingdom
Image by the author
Table 17
List of tomb owners in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery, between the pyramids of Teti and Menkauhor, Ramesside period
|
Tomb no. |
Date |
Name |
Titles |
|---|---|---|---|
|
208 |
Early 19th Dynasty, temp. Seti I–Ramesses II |
Akhpet |
Overseer of embalmers, etc. |
|
232 |
20th Dynasty |
Hekamaatreneheh |
Royal butler of the king |
|
234 |
Ramesside |
Qenherkhepshef |
(Royal) butler |
|
245 |
Ramesside |
nn |
? |
|
246 |
Ramesside |
nn |
? |
|
247 |
Ramesside |
nn |
? |
|
248 |
Ramesside |
nn |
? |
|
256 |
Ramesside |
nn |
? |
|
257 |
Ramesside |
nn |
? |
|
258 |
Ramesside |
nn |
? |
|
259 |
Ramesside |
nn |
? |
|
260 |
Ramesside |
nn |
? |
|
261 |
Ramesside |
nn |
? |
|
262 |
Ramesside |
nn |
? |
|
263 |
Ramesside |
nn |
? |
|
264 |
New Kingdom |
nn |
? |
|
504 |
Ramesside |
nn |
? |
|
505 |
Ramesside |
nn |
? |
|
506 |
Ramesside |
nn |
? |
|
507 |
Ramesside (Ramesses II?) |
Paser |
? |
|
508 |
Ramesside |
nn |
? |
|
509 |
Ramesside |
nn |
? |
In front of it were the bases of several pillars in two rows and before these, on the same level, a large stone-lined shaft, the mouth of which had only been covered by slabs. These all clearly belonged together. Five metres south was another wall, running 7 m to the west; only one block of the face remained (south face) but this bore in low relief the feet of two figures wearing sandals with turned up toes: the wall reappeared further west, above the west wall of the pyramid yard and there turned south. Here again were fragmentary sculptures and before these walls was a pavement, above which a considerable number of pieces of inscription were found. One of these bore a cornice with two short columns of inscription Rꜥ-ms-s(w)-wsr-ḫpš and ṯꜣy-ḫw ḥr wnm.y n.y nsw sš nsw.113
The latter tomb is numbered in this study as 226/tpc. Quibell makes note of “a considerable number of pieces of inscription”. It is not known where these blocks are currently located.
Excavation of the area east of Teti’s pyramid was later continued by Quibell’s successor at Saqqara, Firth, whose work in this part of the cemetery (1924–1927) is still largely unpublished. The papers of Batiscombe Gunn (1883–1950) held in the Griffith Institute of the University of Oxford make record of finds dated to the New Kingdom, including stone-built tomb superstructures. The name of the tomb owner Hekamaatreneheh (232/tpc), a royal butler (wbꜣ nsw n.y nb tꜣ.wy), points to a date in the 20th Dynasty (the official was named after King Ramesses IV).114 The structure was disassembled after excavation, and its precise location is not known at present. It probably stood in the south-east corner of Teti’s pyramid temple, directly west of the 19th Dynasty tomb of Akhpet (208/tpc), overseer of embalmers of the king (i҆m.y-r wt.w n.w nb tꜣ.wy), also now lost. The tomb’s rectangular burial shaft was found situated at the south end of the north-south oriented entrance hall of Teti’s pyramid temple, just beyond the entrance doorway connecting the temple with its causeway. The red granite anthropoid sarcophagus of Akhpet, inscribed with scenes and texts, was found in situ inside the burial chamber at a depth of 5–6 m, and was left there by the excavators.115 Above ground, the excavators recorded the scanty remains of the tomb’s superstructure—consisting of limestone paving slabs, wall blocks bearing relief decoration, and a column base.116 The pavement slabs of Akhpet’s tomb were situated c. 1.90 m above the Old Kingdom pavement.117 This observation gives us important information about the way in which the plateau was accessed at this time. The information regarding the stratigraphy indicates that the causeway at its western end was obscured from view by a thick deposit of sand and rubble in the New Kingdom. This structure raises the question in how far the Old Kingdom infrastructure to access the plateau was still in use in the New Kingdom. This point is explored further in Chapter 6.
The pyramid temple of Teti became the focus of renewed archaeological interest in the 1960s by a French expedition led by Jean-Philippe Lauer and Jean Leclant (1920–2011). The results of their work were published in a monograph which focused exclusively on the architectural remains dated to the Old Kingdom.118 The introduction to this publication makes note of a future second volume, which will focus on the remains of periods post-dating the Old Kingdom.119 This would include the New Kingdom tomb of Akhpet (208/tpc), thus far only mentioned in various brief preliminary notes.120
The northeast corner of the pyramid temple was excavated in the 1980s by an archaeological expedition of the ees led by David Jeffreys and Lisa Giddy. Their work concentrated on the post-New Kingdom Anubieion temple and associated settlement.121 Its massive, mud-brick perimeter wall was built partly over the New Kingdom cemetery, which in turn was built on a deposit covering the remains of the Old Kingdom temple. The ees expedition excavated the scanty remains of nine New Kingdom tombs (256/tpc—264/tpc), all much denuded of their stone elements.122 All tombs in this area were dated to the Ramesside period, and were found to be made of stone taken from the Teti pyramid complex.123
5.10 Rock-Cut Tombs in the Cliff of Ankhtawy
5.10.1 Notes on the State of Excavation and Publication, and Dating
The southern cliff has been used for making rock-cut tombs since the Old Kingdom (Fig. 80).124 At the time, these tombs were sited along a section of the causeway connecting the valley temple of Userkaf (2435–2429 bce), first king of the 5th Dynasty, to his pyramid, located on the plateau, within the northeast corner of the pyramid complex of Netjerikhet Djoser. The 2018 discovery of the well-preserved and elaborately decorated rock-cut tomb of Wahty, a Royal wab priest (wꜥb nzw.t), dated to the 5th Dynasty reign of Neferirkare (2415–2405 bce),125 globally made headlines in the news.126
Most tombs situated in the southern cliff of the Bubasteion, excavated by the Mission Archéologique Française du Bubasteion (mafb) since 1986, still await full publication. The plans and precise locations of a few excavated rock-cut tombs are not published at all. Thus, the location of 356/Bub (Meryre/Sennefer), 357/Bub (Merysakhmet), 358/Bub (Nehesy), 361/Bub (Resh), and 364/Bub (nn) are only approximately indicated in dashed lines. The tomb of Ptahmose (354/Bub) is partly cut by the tomb of Netjerwymes (359/Bub); however, its precise location is not indicated on any published map, and is therefore missing on the map used in this study.127 The state of publication makes it difficult to assess the tombs’ precise dating.
The sca opened excavations in the southern cliff in 2018, working westwards from the cliffside excavated by the mafb. A stela found reused in a secondary, dry-stone wall in front of one of the rock-cut tombs can be dated, on stylistic grounds, to the early reign of Amenhotep III, or earlier.128 This stela may have belonged to one of the rock-cut tombs located in this cliff side, although it cannot be excluded that it derived from atop the plateau, from the nearby Teti Pyramid Cemetery.
The earliest New Kingdom tombs cut in the southern cliff of the Bubasteion, excavated until now, date to the reign of Amenhotep III, or perhaps slightly earlier (Fig. 81; Table 18).129 The tomb of Nehesy (358/Bub) is an outlier with its suggested date in the mid-18th Dynasty reign of Hatshepsut–Thutmosis III,130 which is roughly 70–100 years older than the earliest, archaeologically attested tomb chapels on the North Saqqara plateau. Alain-Pierre Zivie argues that Nehesy is, “in all likelihood”, the homonymous official who led the Punt-expedition of Hatshepsut, as described and illustrated on the walls of the queen’s temple at Deir el-Bahri, on the west bank of the Nile at Thebes.131 Neither the extant texts and decoration inside the tomb, as far as accessible in publication, nor the titles held by Nehesy support such an identification, however.132 A date in, or close to, the reign of Amenhotep III would be more in line with the general development of the cemetery in the cliff side. Indeed, the majority of tombs in this area (seven out of twelve tombs of which the owner is known to us) date to this king’s reign. The careers of three tomb owners started in the reign of Amenhotep III and continued in that of his son, Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten. They are the Vizier, Aper-El (352/Bub), whose son, Huy, general of the army (i҆m.y-r mšꜥ wr n.y ḥm=f) shared in the tomb of his father; the Chief Outline Draughtsman in the Place of Truth, Thutmosis (363/Bub); and the Royal Butler, Seth/Setesh (362/Bub). Given the date, the latter official, Seth, would have been the predecessor in office to Ptahemwia (025/usc), who, in the early years of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten, started building his temple-shaped freestanding tomb structure in the Unas South Cemetery.
Figure 80
The Cliff of Ankhtawy in the Old Kingdom
Image by the author
Figure 81
The Cliff of Ankhtawy in the late 18th Dynasty, temp. Amenhotep III
Image by the author
Table 18
List of tomb owners in the Cliff of Ankhtawy (Bubasteion), mid-late 18th Dynasty
|
Tomb no. |
Date |
Name |
Titles |
|---|---|---|---|
|
352/Bub |
Amenhotep III–Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten |
Aper-El |
Vizier, etc. |
|
354/Bub |
Amenhotep III |
Ptahmose |
Scribe of the Cadaster |
|
356/Bub |
Amenhotep III |
Meryre/ Sennefer |
Steward of His Majesty, etc. |
|
358/Bub |
Hatshepsut–Thutmosis III (?), or later 18th Dynasty, temp. Amenhotep III |
Nehesy |
Chancellor, etc. |
|
361/Bub |
Thutmosis IV–Amenhotep III |
Resh |
Chamberlain; Child of the Nursery, etc. |
|
362/Bub |
Amenhotep III–Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten |
Seth/Setesh |
Royal Butler, etc. |
The decoration on the interior walls of the rock-cut tombs constituted either relief-decorated blocks positioned against the unworked rock, carved directly from the living rock, or decoration and texts were painted on a layer of mud plaster. Interestingly, the practice of positioning relief-decorated blocks against the interior walls of rock-cut tombs begins at around the same time when the relief-decorated revetment blocks start to appear in the freestanding tomb chapels located on top of the North Saqqara plateau. In the cliff side, this practice is perhaps best observed in the tomb of Meryre (356/Bub), also known as Sennefer. The reign of Amenhotep III thus clearly marked a change in burial customs for the elite. Before this king’s reign, stelae (albeit low in quantity) represent the single stone-made elements associated with tombs. It is uncertain whether other means of decoration existed in the mid-18th Dynasty tombs—if indeed there were built superstructures so early in the New Kingdom at Saqqara. One possibility would be that the hypothesised chapels had painted decoration on a layer of mud plaster. This type of decoration is known from a select number of freestanding Saqqara tomb chapels of the Amarna and post-Amarna period.133
5.10.2 A Cemetery of Amenhotep III’s Senior Palace Officials
The rock-cut tombs in the southern cliff of the Bubasteion were made for senior palace officials and high-ranking state administrators. They were the superiors in rank to the individuals who built freestanding tomb chapels on the plateau north of the pyramid of Teti. The spatial distribution of tombs, with a cluster of ‘middle management’ administrators on the plateau and the top administrators in the cliff side, suggests that the latter location was held in higher esteem than the former. In terms of landscape phenomenology (e.g., visibility, accessibility), and from the perspective of the living who accessed the plateau on their way from Memphis, the (partly) rock-cut tombs occupied the most prominent burial spots available in this area. The east-end of the southern cliff presented the most prominent location. This is where the earliest tombs are found, all dated to the reign of Amenhotep III. The highest ranking official to have made a tomb in the dhn.t of Ankhtawy was Aper-El, and he selected the spot furthest to the east, likely closest to the existing route(s) ascending the plateau. The bright limestone cliffs must have stood out as a landmark in the wider landscape, visible from afar. Moreover, the steep cliffs lay at the foot of what was referred to in the Ptolemaic period as the Peak of Ankhtawy (Thny n.y ꜥnḫ-tꜣ.wy), which was the site of a temple of Bastet.134 That the area may have had an association with Bastet/Sakhmet as early as the late 18th Dynasty is perhaps suggested by the name of one of the tomb owners in the immediate post-Amarna period, Merysakhmet (357/Bub).135 By the time he built his rock-cut tomb, the centre of gravity had shifted to the Unas South Cemetery, where his peers built their freestanding funerary temples. The association of this area with Bastet/Sakhmet can also be deduced from one of the sacerdotal titles held by Meryre/Sennefer (356/Bub), who was an overseer of priests of Sakhmet (i҆m.y-r ḥm.w-nṯr n.y Sḫm.t).136
Two owners of tombs in the southern cliff of the Bubasteion were engaged with the upbringing of the king’s children. Meryre, also known as Sennefer (356/Bub), held the title of overseer of the royal nurses (i҆m.y-r mnꜥ.t), var. ‘of the king’ (n.t nṯr nfr). He was the foster father or tutor of prince Sa-atum, a brother of Amenhotep III or Amenhotep IV.137 The fragment of a stela from the tomb of Meryre, now held in Vienna (äs 5814), depicts him alongside his wife, seated on a chair, as he holds the prince, seated on his lap.
In the immediate post-Amarna period, the Royal Nurse (mnꜥ.t nsw.t), Maia (355/Bub), had a tomb built in the southern cliff. She is the only female who is known, with certainty, to have had a tomb built exclusively for her own use. Maia was the nurse of Tutankhamun.
The tomb of the Royal Nurse, Senetruiu [496], from which the false door stela Cairo je 20221 derives, may possibly be located in the cliff side also. If so, her case presents a second example of a tomb built exclusively for a female. The stela is dated to the time just before the reign of Amenhotep III.138 It depicts Senetruiu breast-feeding a prince named Amenemope, who sits on her lap. According to Betsy Bryan, the prince was most likely a son of Amenhotep II.139 This individual is also known from a stela (C) set up at Amenhotep II’s temple facing the sphinx at Giza.140 Bryan suggests that the stela should antedate the time when Senetruiu breast-fed the prince, which results in a date of the stela (and tomb) in the reign of Thutmosis IV.141
Figure 82
The Cliff of Ankhtawy in the late 18th Dynasty, immediate post-Amarna period, temp. Tutankhamun
Image by the author
Figure 83
The Cliff of Ankhtawy in the Ramesside period
Image by the author
5.10.3 The Cliff of Ankhtawy in the (Post-)Amarna Period
Based on the currently available data, the reign of Amenhotep III marked a peak in the appropriation of the dhn.t of Ankhtawy for making rock-cut tombs (Fig. 5.82). These tombs occupy the eastern half of the southern cliff. The cliff side further to the west, up to the Old Kingdom tomb of Wahty, was used for making tombs in the late 18th and 19th Dynasties (Table 5.7; Table 19). Eight tombs can be dated to this extended period of time, which is low compared to the seven tombs dated to the immediate pre-Amarna period, built in a smaller number of years. It may perhaps suggest that the dhn.t of Ankhtawy lost its attraction amongst the high-ranking officials residing in Memphis, who, from the Amarna/immediate post-Amarna period onwards, built their tombs in the Unas South Cemetery.
Table 19
List of tomb owners in the Cliff of Ankhtawy (Bubasteion), late 18th Dynasty, post-Amarna, and 19th Dynasty
|
Tomb no. |
Date |
Name |
Titles |
|---|---|---|---|
|
353/Bub |
Late 19th Dynasty, temp. Merenptah |
Penrennutet |
(First) Royal Butler |
|
355/Bub |
Late 18th Dynasty, temp. Tutankhamun |
Maia |
Royal Nurse, etc. |
|
357/Bub |
Late 18th/early 19th Dynasty |
Merysakhmet |
Overseer of the Double Granary of the King, etc. |
|
359/Bub |
19th Dynasty, temp. Ramesses II, 2nd/3rd decade |
Netjerwymes/ Parakhnawa |
Chief Steward of Memphis, Royal Messenger |
|
360/Bub |
Late 18th Dynasty, temp. Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten (2nd half), and immediate post-Amarna |
Raia/Hatiay |
Scribe of the Treasury of the Temple of the Aten in Akhetaten (and) Memphis |
|
363/Bub |
Amenhotep III–Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten |
Thutmosis |
Chief Outline Draughtsman in the Place of Truth, etc. |
|
365/Bub |
18th Dynasty |
nn |
? |
|
366/Bub |
18th Dynasty |
nn |
? |
|
367 |
18th Dynasty |
nn |
? |
Construction and decoration of three tombs was started in the late reign of Amenhotep III and continued in the reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten (Table 18). Huy, the general of the king’s army (i҆m.y-r mšꜥ wr n.y ḥm=f), shared the tomb of his father, the Vizier Aper-El (352/Bub).142
Construction and decoration of the tomb of the treasury scribe of the Memphite temple of the Aten, Raia/Hatiay (360/Bub), was started in the second half of Akhenaten’s reign and continued in the immediate post-Amarna period.
Figure 84
The North Saqqara plateau north: Teti Pyramid Cemetery and Cliff of Ankhtawy in the New Kingdom
Image by the author, Projected on the map produced by the Ministère de l’Habitat et de la Reconstruction (MHR) SHEET H 22, Le Caire
The single tomb firmly dated to the reign of Tutankhamun, was made for Maia (355/Bub), who had acted as his nurse (see previous section). The tomb of Merysakhmet (357/Bub), overseer of the double granary of the king (i҆m.y-r šnw.ty n.y nb tꜣ.wy), probably dates to the end of the 18th Dynasty or perhaps the early 19th Dynasty. One tomb scene was clearly inspired by a scene from the tomb of Maya (028/usc),143 which indicates that the tomb cannot predate the reign of Horemheb. The tomb of the Chief Steward of Memphis (i҆m.y-r pr wr n.y Mn-nfr) and Royal Messenger to all Foreign Lands (wpw.ty nsw r ḫꜣs.t nb.t), Netjerwymes (359/Bub), also known as Parakhnawa, also includes relief-decoration inspired by scenes from the tomb of Maya (Fig. 83).144 This official is more easily dated, because he is known from the peace treaty Ramesses II signed with the Hittites in year 21 (‘Karnak peace-treaty’).145 Thus, the tomb was probably built in the second or third decade of Ramesses II’s reign.
The last New Kingdom tomb built in the southern cliff was made for Penrennutet, a first royal butler (wbꜣ nsw tp.y) of Merenptah, dated to the late 19th Dynasty.
Morales (2006); Málek (2000).
See Málek (2000) for the Old Kingdom kings as local saints in the Middle Kingdom.
One of the names for the Serapeum in ancient Egypt was Kemet: Gauthier (1928), 199–200. The Serapeum is not considered in detail in the present study, which focuses primarily on the Saqqara private tombs. Note that a not insignificant number of the high-ranking individuals buried at Saqqara (mainly in the Unas South Cemetery), are attested through e.g. shabtis and stelae with the burials of individuals Apis bulls. For a study of these individuals from the Ramesside period, see Frood (2016). The Serapeum was excavated by Auguste Mariette in the early 1850s, published as Mariette (1857). The Musée du Louvre has resumed research in the so-called Lesser Vaults, created during the reign of Ramesses II.
See e.g., Marković (2018); (2017); Jurman (2010), for the Apis cult and burial in relation to the wider sacred landscape of Memphis in the Late Period.
Harpur/Scremin (2006); Von Bissing (1905–1911).
Kanawati et al. (2011); Duell (1938).
The northeast corner of the mastaba of Kagemni had already been located by the Prussian expedition led by Lepsius half a century before, in 1843: LD, Text, I, 145–146 (ls 10: ‘Grosses Psametichgrab mit Brunnen’). The same expedition had also seen the tomb of Mereruka, as indicated by the production of squeezes (Abklatschen) of select reliefs: Pieke (2013).
Capart (1907).
Loret (1899).
This situation is not reflected in the reconstructions offered by Sullivan (2020). She situates the New Kingdom chapels on the same elevation as the Old Kingdom mastabas, not taking into account the thick deposit of sand and rubble that had accumulated since the Old Kingdom. This reconstruction creates the false impression that the landscape had not changed, whereas in reality, it had changes considerably; the New Kingdom chapels were built in a landscape that was very different from that seen and experienced in the Old Kingdom.
Kawai (2021a); (2021b), 331; (2020).
Duell (1938) offers a succinct overview of archaeological work in this area of the necropolis until the mid-1930s.
Gessler-Löhr (2007a) laid the groundwork for a reconstruction of the New Kingdom necropolis north/northeast of the pyramid of Teti, focusing on the tombs dated to the pre-Amarna period.
Abd el-Raziq/Krekeler (1987), fig. 1; De Morgan (1897); El-Khouli/Kanawati (1988), pl. 1; Firth/Gunn (1926), pl. 51; Giddy (1992), pl. 5; Giddy (1992), pls 1–4, Hawass (2000), fig. 8; (2010), fig. 1, 2; (2011), figs 4, 6; James (1953), pl. 4; Kanawati/Abd el-Raziq (2001), 35; Kanawati et al. (2006), pl. 2; Kanawati/Hassan (1996), pl. 1, Kanawati et al. (1984), pl. 1; Lauer/Leclant (1972), pl. 35; LD, Text, I, fig. on pp. 145, 146; Loret (1899), pl. 1; McFarlane (2003), pl. 1; Ockinga (2012), fig. 1; (2011), fig. 2; (2004), pl. 51; Quibell (1909), fig. 4; Quibell/Hayter (1927), pls 1–2; Sowada et al. (1999), pl. 2; Università di Pisa (2003); Youssef (2017), pl. 12.
LD, Text, I, 144. Lepsius notes that this tomb had been excavated by Solomon Fernandez, and that only a few blocks had remained in spring 1843. Lepsius copied two of the blocks found in situ in the tomb. The blocks were not taken back to Berlin, and may still lie at the site.
Mathieson/Dittmer (2007).
Kawai (2021a); (2021b), 331; (2020); Ayers (2020); Bourriau (1991).
James (1953).
Al-Tayeb (2015); Höflmayer et al. (2013); Quibell (1909), 23; LD, Text, I, 165–170.
Macramallah (1940), 71–76.
Parker (2017); Ockinga (2012), fig. 1; Ockinga (2011), figs 1–2; (2004), 124, pl. 52; Sowada et al. (1999); El-Khouli/Kanawati (1988), 42–48, pls 1, 41–49; Kanawati et al. (1984), 59–80, pls 1, 39–47; Quibell/Hayter (1927), 6–10, pl. 1; Firth/Gunn (1926); 66–83, pls 42–46.
Sowada et al. (1999), in the area northeast of the mastaba of Nedjetempet. For ‘burial 21’, cut into the exterior west wall of the mastaba of Tjetji, a date range of late Second Intermediate Period to early 18th Dynasty has been proposed: Kanawati et al. (1984), 65, pl. 41. The practice of interring the deceased in shallow pits has been observed in this area as early as the late Old Kingdom.
See, for example, the telling photograph of Quibell’s excavation in progress: Quibell/Hayter (1927), pl. 6.1. It illustrates the incredible density of individuals once interred in shallow pits in this area of the necropolis (mainly of the Late Period and later).
Compare to the early 20th century account by Winifred Blackman (2000), 115, of burial customs in rural Egypt. The pits cut along the low desert were not usually prepared beforehand, but only dug at the moment the funerary procession arrived at the grave site.
E.g., Parker (2017): wooden coffin containing three individuals. In the 1984 excavation season, the Macquarie University archaeological expedition found seven cases of multiple burials in the area north of the mastaba of Mereruka. In some cases, multiple individuals were laid in a single wooden coffin. One grave contained six individuals; four graves had two individuals; and two graves included three individuals.
South Tombs Cemetery: Stevens (2018), 106–109, fig. 6. For the mud-brick platforms marking pit burials in the Unas South Cemetery, see Section 4.5.1. Also note that a number of the late 19th to 20th Dynasty infant burials in the western chapels of the late 18th Dynasty tomb of Ptahemwia (025/usc) were lined and covered with loose mud bricks, or covered by rubble and chunks of limestone: personal observation; Raven (2020), 20, figs. I.10, VIII.11. For the mud-brick structures, see also parallels in the Theban necropolis: Kampp (1996), I, 107, fig. 81.
E.g., Parker (2017).
See n. 21 for the references.
It should be noted that the ‘simple’ burials have never been comprehensively studied collectively, and that many of the burials excavated by early archaeologists such as Quibell still await proper study and publication.
Kawai (2021a); (2021b), 331; (2020).
See the example of a gabled coffin under the floor of the tomb of Ipuia (212/tpc): Quibell/Hayter (1927), 9, no. 2746. See also the stratigraphic observations in relation to the tomb of Amenemone (213/tpc) by Karin Sowada in Ockinga (2004), 122–125.
El-Khouli/Kanawati (1988), 44, pl. 48. The find spot has not been marked on the published map, and neither has a date been proposed for this burial.
Ockinga (2004), 110–111, pls 38a, 80a. The grave’s precise location is not indicated.
The object is published as no. tne 95: F109, found during the 1995 season of fieldwork. Unfortunately, the precise archaeological context has not been documented. For stelae crowned by a pyramid(ion), see Tawfik (2015).
The inscription associated with the man reads: ‘made for the one greatly favoured of Osiris, Pa(en)Amun’.
Compare Polz (2007), 231–245; (1995), for observations on early 18th Dynasty tomb chapels and surrounding pit burials in the Theban necropolis.
Ockinga (2004), 111–112, pls 38b, 80b: tne 96: 121.
Gessler-Löhr (2007a). The lost chapel of Tjay (237/tpc), overseer of horses of the king (i҆m.y-r ssm.t n.yt nb tꜣ.wy), was probably situated between Loret shaft no. 9 and the west wall of the pyramid of Iput, i.e. one of the shafts numbered 8–11: Gessler-Löhr (2007a), 73–74. pm III/553 erroneously assigs the statue of Tjay (Cairo je 33255) to tomb Loret no. 4, which actually belongs to a homonymous official (235/tpc).
LD, Text, I, 154, 156. According to Gessler-Löhr (2007a), 71 and n. 44, the ‘house’ in the title must refer to the Memphite estate of the reigning king, either Thutmosis IV or Amenhotep III. Pasquali (2011), 7–8 (A.14), suggests it refers to the palace of Thutmosis I, known from a range of sources, including the restoration stela of Tutankhamun (Karnak; now Cairo cg 34183), situating the king in ‘in his palace that is in the pr of Thutmosis I (Aakheperkare)’.
Loret (1899) does not signal the remains of a tomb superstructure, only a tomb shaft (no. 6).
The identification of tomb Loret no. 6 as that of Mahu follows the suggestion by Gessler-Löhr (2007a), 76–81.
Youssef (2017), 43–59, pls 44–51.
I҆tn-ṯḥn was also an epithet of Amenhotep III: Johnson (1990), 38; Bickel (2002), 68.
Gessler-Löhr (2007a), 73, also notes that the name is reminiscent of the Theban palace, yet suggests that in this case, it refers either to the military company stationed in the north, or to the royal barque. She argues that if I҆tn-ṯḥn in the title of Nebansu referred to the palace, one would have expected the man’s tomb to be located in Thebes rather than Memphis. Alternatively, according to Gessler-Löhr, it may suggest that Nebansu originated from Memphis and spent at least part of his career in Thebes.
The settlement associated with the Malkata palace at Thebes, in the media popularly referred to as the ‘Lost Golden City’, has recently been re-excavated in 2020–2021, see: Hawass (2021a, b).
Limestone, 83 × 50 × 15 cm. LD., Text, I, 146, 154, 156; Gessler-Löhr (2007a), 71–75, no. 4.
The unit of measurements in the Denkmäler are given in pre-1872 Prussian feet, which is problematic, because no definite Prussian standard is known. Following Cardarelli (1997), the Prussian foot measures 31.3857 cm.
LD, Text, I, 145–161.
Youssef (2017); Hawass (2003).
Labelled f in the sketch of plan 1, LD, Text, 145 = Erbkam, Skizzenbuch I 102 (11/12 March 1843).
Berlin, Egyptian Museum äm 39.
LD, Text, I, 155 fig. 2 and 1, respectively (Berlin äm 1267).
LD, Text, I, 155 figs. 5, 7, 8 (Berlin äm 1935, 5097, 7991). The wooden container has no inv. no., which suggests it was left behind in Saqqara. It is noted that a headrest was found loose in the sand, also: LD Text, I, 155 figs. 11, 12 (Berlin äm 4704). Its provenance is indicated with a question mark, so it remains unknown whether it should be associated with the coffin and container.
LD Text, I, 155 fig. 3; Nolte (1971), 171 (with fig. 4), dates the vessel to Amenhotep III–Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten, and suggests it was produced in the palace area of Amenhotep III at Malkata or by the same manufacturers as those active at Amarna.
Loret (1899). The tomb and its individual stone-made elements are treated by Gessler-Löhr (2007a), 76–81.
Unless the stela was positioned atop a base, which is not unlikely. If it were placed on a raised platform, the roof would have been somewhat higher also.
Merymery [431] was a contemporary bearer of the title guardian of the treasury of Memphis (sꜣw.ty pr.w-ḥḏ n.y Mn-nfr) in the reign of Amenhotep III. He likely had a tomb chapel comparable to, and sited not far from, that of Mahu. Merymery is well-known for two relief-decorated limestone panels now held in the Leiden Museum of Antiquities (ap 6-a, 6-b). These must have decorated the south and north walls of his mud-brick chapel, which was somewhat larger than Mahu’s, as the panels measure 160/161 × 90 cm.
Youssef (2017), 43–59, pls 44–51.
The set-up is reminiscent of certain late Old Kingdom chapels found in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery. Compare, e.g., the 6th Dynasty chapel of Mesi (temp. Pepi I): El-Khouli/Kanawati (1988), pl. 20.
There are even more candidates in addition to the ones discussed in this paragraph. One of them would have been the Overseer of the treasury Sapair [467], known from a now-lost epigraphic document which derived from his now-lost tomb at Saqqara. See: Staring (2021), 39–40; Málek (1989).
Leiden am 8-b, ex-coll. G. d’Anastasi, 1828. Measurements: 102 × 63.5 cm. Staring (2021a), 28; Giovetti/Picchi (2015), cat. V.32.
Berlin äm 31009. See e.g., Krauss (1986).
Staring (2021a), 28.
Staring (2021a), 27–28.
In reality, the crown and the temple were two sides of the same coin, which made that, in effect, all artists in some way or another operated under the charge of the king.
See e.g. Hawass (2003), 154–155.
Hawass et al. (2021); press report: ‘Egypt to announce huge archaeological discovery in Luxor this March: Zahi Hawass’, in: Daily News Egypt, 28.02.2021
Youssef (2017). I am grateful to Mohammad Youssef for sharing his thesis with me, and for allowing me to cite from it. Four stelae discussed in his thesis are now published, see: Youssef (2021); (2020).
It is possible that, upon closer study of the material, some of these chapels may prove to be slightly earlier in date.
Cairo, Egyptian Museum Cairo je 10174 = cg 34182.
Pasquali (2017), 269; Youssef (2017), 83–105, pls 56–64; Ockinga/Binder (2013), 506–509; Lacau (1909–1916), 222–224, pl. 69; Mariette (1872), 18, pl. 56b.
Cf. Raven/Van Walsem (2014), 50.
Youssef (2017), pls 110–113.
LD, Text, I, 17.
Zivie (1975).
Zivie-Coche (1976).
For a detailed discussion of the leads and arguments, see Staring (2021a), 37–43.
LD III, 241b; Ockinga (2004), 19–20; Berlandini-Grenier (1976), 312.
He is depicted and named in the tomb of Maya: LD III, pl. 242b (scene now lost).
For an overview, also with references to previous publications on the topic, see Staring (forthcoming).
Cairo, Egyptian Museum je 21772 and je 18927. See Pasquali (2017), 571–572; Gaballa (1979).
Compare the epithet to those attested for him on the stela and door frame now held in Leiden, National Museum of Antiquities ap 12 and ap 14: Willems (1998).
Youssef (2017), 269–275, pls 150–154; Hawass (2000), fig. 8; Loret (1899), 11. Various relief-decorated blocks were found in situ by the sca expedition. The ascending ramp was first noted in the tomb of Ipay, the royal butler and steward of Tutankhamun, who built his tomb, measuring c. c. 50 m in length, at Dahshur North (see Section 3.8.3).
For the mastaba, see: Kanawati et al. (1998).
Photographs of the excavation in progress, taken by Mahmud Abd el-Raziq, now held at the Saqqara inspectorate, and were incorporated in the thesis of Mohammad M. Youssef (2017), pls 100–109. Additional photographs of the excavation led by Ali el-Khouli and Ali Hassan were taken by Elizabeth Thompson in 1994, now held at the Australian Centre for Egyptology, Macquarie University, Sydney (shown to me by Boyo Ockinga).
LD, Text, I, 161. The block is now held in the Berlin Egyptian Museum, äm 2087. See the study by Wenig (1974).
Quibell/Hayter (1927), 20–21, pl. 2.
Abd el-Raziq/Krekeler (1986), fig. 1. The chapel area is visible in the unpublished photographs of Abd el-Raziq. The New Kingdom tomb shaft cut through the superstructure of Hesi, labelled on the plan of Abd el-Raziq and Krekeler as ‘Huy-a?’, cannot be part of Huy’s tomb. It lies too far west, and thus goes with another, yet anonymous tomb (267/tpc).
Kanawati/Hassan (1996).
Ockinga (2012), 374–377, figs 1–3; (2004), 110, pls 37b, 81g.
Note that no tomb shaft is indicated; it has not been mentioned by any of its excavators.
Gaballa (1977a).
Multiple reconstructions of the tomb have been proposed: Gaballa (1977a), pl. 1; Málek (1981), fig. 2; Pieke (2016), fig. 7. None of these plans are realistic, however. Most importantly, the authors make the tomb too large, and as a result the reconstructions do not fit in the actual space available to the south, towards the extant late 18th Dynasty tomb of Mahu (218/tpc).
Sydney, Chau Chak Wing Museum, The University of Sydney (Nicholson Collection) nmr 1131–1133; 1134.1, 4; 1135, 1137 (formerly the Nicholson Museum of the University of Sydney). Sowada (2006), 1–13; Nicholson (1891), 93–112, pls 1–4. Nicholson visited Egypt again in 1862. At that visit, he bought antiquities from Hanna Massara, a dragoman for the British Consulate who ran an antiquities dealership in Cairo. Hanna Massara was a relative of Youssef Massara, perhaps his brother; see Málek (1986).
Hawass (2003), 154–155. The results of the excavation are yet to be published; perhaps the new finds allow for a more accurate reconstruction of the tomb’s superstructure. Note that more elements entered public and private collections in the time between the excavations of Loret and Hawass: see catalogue entries.
Oeters (2017); (2012).
Assem (2012b); Gessler-Löhr (2007a), 74, pl. 9.
Quibell/Hayter (1927), pl. 2.
Loret (1899), pl. 1.
Firth/Gunn (1926), II, pl. 51.
The tomb shaft no. 109 in Firth/Gunn (1926), II, pl. 51, is situated below what is the centre of the New Kingdom floor. However, the publication makes no mention of any possible link between the two features, and the shaft’s shape (square) is not indicative of a New Kingdom date (such shafts are usually rectangular).
LD, Text, I, 145, 161.
Quibell/Hayter (1927), 11, pl. 2.
Shaft spp-a: Abd el-Raziq/Krekeler (1986), fig. 1. Note that the excavators also recorded a mud brick stamped with the prenomen of King Seti I along with early 19th Dynasty pottery (Id., 219, pl. 31b) in one of the nearby shafts (pb-b).
Following Kitchen (1979), fig. on p. 283.
pm III/2, 820; Ockinga (2004), 73–74.
Ockinga (2011), 137–138.
Perring (1842), pl. 7.
For a concise summary of archaeological work on the site, see: Lauer/Leclant (1972), 1–7.
Cairo, Egyptian Museum je 34188: Barsanti (1914); Lacau (1909–1916), pl. 71.
Quibell (1908); (1907).
Quibell (1908), 4.
Quibell (1908), 4.
Málek (1985). The tomb of another 20th Dynasty Royal Butler, Hori (231/tpc) stood in the same general area of the necropolis, also excavated and later disassembled by Firth: Málek (1988).
Leclant (1966), 15: “granit rose”. A good photograph of the burial shaft, that has the appearance of a ‘chimney’ of loosely stacked limestone blocks, is published in Lauer (1966), pl. 4.
Lauer/Leclant (1972), pl. 4.
Lauer (1966), 32.
Lauer/Leclant (1972).
Lauer/Leclant (1972), v. This second volume has not been published yet.
Lauer (1976), 178–179, with n. 180, pl. 153; (1966), 32–34, pl. 4; Leclant (1968), 105, pls. 18–19; (1967), 189, pls. 26–28; (1966), 15, pl. 3. See also: pm III/2, 558–559; Giddy (1992), 4, pls. 2, 4; Málek (1985), 43–60, fig. 10.
Jeffreys/Smith (1988).
Giddy (1992).
Giddy (1992), 4.
Waziri/Youssef (2019).
Waziri/Youssef (2019) 84–86, tomb no. 7 = swb18/VII. At the moment of writing, the tomb of Wahty represents the westernmost structure excavated in the southern cliff.
It also led to the 2020 Netflix documentary ‘Secrets of the Saqqara Tomb’, featuring the archaeological expedition’s 2019 season of work.
A glimpse of the tomb of Ptahmose can be caught from a breakthrough in one of the walls of the tomb of Netjerwymes, showing that the former was cut at a lower level of the cliff.
Waziri/Youssef (2018). On stylistic grounds, the stela could perhaps be dated to the reign of Amenhotep II: Beatrix Gessler-Löhr, personal communication.
Zivie (2012).
Zivie (2007), 140.
Zivie (1984), 247. The official named Nehesy in the Hatshepsut temple reliefs (dated to regnal year 9) bears the title i҆m.y-r ḫtm, overseer of the seal.
Note that the tomb, excavated in 1993, has not yet been published.
For an overview (by now incomplete, due to newly excavated examples), see Martin (2001b).
Martin (2009), 49–50; Text 5a, line 11: P. Malcolm = P. BM EA 10384 (Ptolemaic period); Jeffreys/Smith (1988), fig. 1.
Note that the tomb is as yet unpublished, which means that the list of titles given in the catalogue may not be complete.
On the other hand, note that Amenhotep Huy (141/usc), Amenhotep III’s chief steward in Memphis, also held the title of overseer of the priests of the temple of Sakhmet (i҆m.y-r ḥm.w-nṯr m ḥw.t Sḫm.t). This study suggests that his tomb was located not in the dhn.t of Ankhtawy, but in the Unas South Cemetery.
Zivie (2007), 141.
The stela was found by Auguste Mariette in November 1862: Pasquali (2017), 573. Unfortunately, we do not know where at Saqqara it was unearthed.
Bryan (1991), 65–66, pl. 2 (figs 6a–b). Alternatively, Amenemopet could have been a son of Thutmosis IV.
Hassan (1953), 187–192, fig. 41.
Bryan (1991), 65–66.
Zivie (2014b).
Staring (2014), esp. figs 6–7.
Staring (2014), 494; Zivie (2003), 120–121.
Zivie (2005).