3.1 Topography of the North Saqqara Plateau and Its Eastern Escarpment
Saqqara occupies the central part of the larger Memphite necropolis, spreading over c. 6.2 km bordered by Abusir in the north and by Dahshur in the south (Fig. 1).1 The Saqqara archaeological site can be subdivided into the North Saqqara and South Saqqara plateaus. The present study is occupied exclusively with the North Saqqara plateau.
The plateau is bound to the north and south by natural features: a series of wadi’s—former seasonal water courses—and a number of smaller plateaus and hills. Greater Saqqara covers the slope of the gebel and elevated desert plateau less than 3 km west of Memphis. The ruin hills marking the location of the core of the former capital city—the area including, but not limited to, the remains of the major temple structures, kings’ residences, and harbour area—are today located on the west bank of the Nile.2 Ancient Memphis perhaps should not be conceptualised as a single city, but rather as a dispersed urban conglomerate extending along the Memphite necropolises between the eastern branch of the Nile and the desert ridge in the west.3 The contemporary and archaeologically well-known city of Akhetaten (Tell el-Amarna) offers material for comparison. The built urban area extends, north to south, over an area of c. 7 km (built over the course of no more than twelve years), and two clusters of private tombs are located on its northern and southern extent, in the cliff sides of the hills east of the city.4 The North and South group of tombs may have been linked to the southern and northern suburbs of the city, where the tombs’ owners once resided. A similar situation may have existed at Memphis–Saqqara. In this way, the known situation at Akhetaten may help explain why the main clusters of tombs on the North Saqqara plateau were located where they are, perhaps partially linked to specific (sub-)urban areas (see Section 3.4). As is discussed further below, Memphis was initially founded on an island in between two branches of the Nile. This situation impacted how the landscape was experienced and navigated in the New Kingdom, even though at that time the western branch had lost most of its water supply. The formalised Bahr el-Libeini canal today represents the last remainder of that western branch.
Figure 17
The western side of the southern cliff of the Bubasteion
Photograph by the author, 2019
Today, the North Saqqara plateau rises to c. 40–45 m above the floodplain. The eastern escarpment is for the most part covered by wind-blown desert sand5 and the spoil heaps of early-modern excavators.6 Only in selected areas along the scarp of the plateau the steep cliffs of limestone can still be observed rising up from the floodplain. These are especially well pronounced at the site of the Bubasteion (Fig. 17). There being such a prominent landmark led to the suggestion that these white limestone cliffs lent the Early Dynastic (c. 2900–2545 bce) town its name: I҆nb.w-ḥḏ, ‘White Walls’.7 The Early Dynastic settlement was indeed located north of the present-day ruin hills of Memphis, upon the narrow stretch of land between the escarpment and the (former) western branch of the Nile. The bright limestone cliffs must have been well-visible to the residents of the early settlement. Further north, roughly opposite the modern-day village of Abusir, the cliffs were partially freed of sand as a result of the October 1992 earthquake.8 The presence of the steep scarp at this location may suggest that the whole eastern escarpment between Abusir and Saqqara shared the same morphology. The limestone cliffs can indeed be observed along various lengths of the eastern escarpment south of the Bubasteion, to a point as far south as the north face of the shallow wadi near the valley temple of Unas, which the last king of the 5th Dynasty used to lay down the causeway connecting the valley temple to the pyramid nearly 666 m west on the plateau (Fig. 18).
The North Saqqara plateau stands out on the flanks of the Western Desert, bounded to the west by wadi’s, while the (previously) seasonally inundated Nile Valley demarcates it on the east side. The North Saqqara plateau is further bound to the north by the prominent Wadi of Abusir and to the south by the Wadi Merire. The modern villages of Abusir and Saqqara that lent their names to the archaeological sites were established near the mouths of the two prominent wadi’s, founded upon natural elevations in the landscape. As elsewhere in the Nile Valley, settlements developed upon natural mounds in the floodplain (either old rover levees or wadi fans) that remained dry during the annual inundation. Such was also the situation at Saqqara, where the modern village developed upon the built remains of an earlier settlement.9 Geo-archaeological research on the ancient tell at Saqqara, carried out a little more than 20 years ago today, suggests that an ancient watercourse flowed along the mound’s east side. Whether this means that the village was founded on the west bank levee of this channel or that it was situated on a high area of the desert edge, remains to be studied, however.10
Figure 18
The eastern escarpment of the North Saqqara plateau
Photograph by the author, 2019
Figure 19
Aerial photograph of the former seasonal lakes to the east of the Old Kingdom pyramids at Abusir
The ucl institute of archaeology, Aerial Photographic Archive for Archaeology in the Middle East (AP 1329), Taken by the Royal Air Force, 1927
The Wadi of Abusir opens into the Lake of Abusir in the north.11 This lake could possibly be identified as the (semi-)permanent Lake of Pharaoh, known from post-New Kingdom sources.12 In more recent times, a series of seasonal lakes formed in this area, as can be clearly distinguished on old (aerial) photographs (Fig. 19). The Abusir lake was fed not by a canal connecting it to a surface water source such as (a branch of) the Nile, but by groundwater that collected in the bedrock during the Nile flood.13 In the inundation season, the flood contributed to a rise of groundwater, and its penetration on the surface created a shallow lake—or rather series of such lakes, because these existed not only at the mouth of the Wadi Abusir, but also in at least two other locations along the eastern escarpment. The first was east of the royal pyramid complexes of Sahure (c. 2428–2416 bce) and Nyuserre (c. 2402–2374 bce) at Abusir, and the second at the site of the valley temple of Unas (c. 2321–2306 bce) in the south.14 The latter seasonal lake can be observed in an aerial photograph of the pyramid of Djoser taken in 1924 (Fig. 20).15 In the Old Kingdom the lakes were bound to the east by a river levee. The natural lakes gradually transformed into marsh areas,16 and seasonal lakes were created annually by the inundation of the Nile. While the lakes are today no longer there, their former presence can be reconstructed by reviewing the modern-day palm groves scattered along the eastern escarpment of the plateau, because this palm thrives in 6 m or more of damp soil (Fig. 21).17
Figure 20
Aerial photograph of the pyramid of Netjerikhet/Djoser, 1924
After Firth, C.M., Quibell, J.E. (1935), The Step Pyramid, Excavations at Saqqara, Cairo: IFAO, II, PL. 6 [top], reproduced with kind permission
The floodplain on the eastern side of the Nile is markedly narrower than it is on the west side. To the east of the floodplain are situated the Tura-Massara limestone quarries that supplied stone for the many building projects at Memphis and its necropolises.18
Figure 21
Palm groves at the edge of the floodplain close to the foot of the escarpment of the North Saqqara plateau
Scan of a photograph (Edition photoglob 5210) held in the archive of the Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels © KMKG–MRAH, EGI.04372
3.2 The North Saqqara Wadi’s: A Network of Desert Roads
The Abusir Wadi extended southward to the site today occupied by the remains of the unfinished step pyramid of the 3rd Dynasty King Horus Sekhemkhet (2565–2559 bce). Just west of the pyramid (which stands on the western edge of the North Saqqara plateau), the wadi’s southern limit is marked by an outcropping ridge of gravelly limestone.19 This ridge runs through the southernmost section of the so-called Gisr el-Mudir20 and towards the escarpment of the North Saqqara plateau near the site of the pyramid of Sekhemkhet.21 A gap in this ridge,22 approximately halfway along its length between the escarpment and the south-east corner of the Gisr el-Mudir, opens into a more modest wadi running north-south and connecting to the Wadi Merire which discharges towards the inundation in the east (Fig. 22).
In the area located between the southern edge of the North Saqqara plateau and the Wadi Merire lie a series of smaller hills, today referred to as Tabbet el-Guesh.23 The area is divided approximately in half by the north-south running Wadi Gamal, which in the north connects to the east-west Wadi Sekhemkhet and in the south joins the Wadi Merire. The pyramid of Pepi I is situated on the northern edge of a small plateau bound to the north by the Wadi Merire and to the south by the broad Wadi Taflah. South of the Wadi Taflah extends the South Saqqara plateau.
Figure 22
The North Saqqara plateau and its network of wadi’s
Satellite images by Google earth (february 2007), adapted by the author
3.3 The River Nile and Its Changing Floodplain
Any study of the urban context of the Memphite necropolises requires an assessment of its riverine landscape through time. Memphis and the North Saqqara plateau may be fixed on the map (meaning that their physical locations have not changed over the last three millennia), yet the wider landscape (and the floodplain in particular) has changed markedly. Thus, in order to understand how people moved through the landscape, and explain the spatial patterning of tomb clusters on the plateau, it is necessary to consider how the landscape changed and what it may have looked like in the New Kingdom. Recent studies of landscape evolution allow us to redraw the maps of the Memphite region for subsequent periods. At least six geomorphological processes played, in complex interplay, roles in the shaping of the floodplain in the ‘capital zone’.24 These include sea-level fluctuations, migration of the delta head, lateral migration of the river (i.e. migrating over the width of the floodplain), vertical aggradation (and degradation) of the floodplain (i.e. the build-up and eroding of sediments), incursions of desert and wadi sand into the Nile Valley, and aeolian sand flux into the valley and the river.25
The following presents a summary of the changes in the Memphite floodplain, and sketches the reconstructed situation in the New Kingdom.26 In the Protodynastic and Early Dynastic period, two branches of the Nile ran through the Memphite floodplain, a main channel and a lateral distributary channel. The first was situated on the eastern side of the Nile Valley27 and the latter ran close to the western plateau. Early Dynastic Memphis (I҆nb.w-ḥḏ) was founded not on the east end of the floodplain, near the main Nile channel, but on the western end, probably on a levee, on the narrow stretch of land between the western branch and the eastern escarpment of the desert plateau.28 This location is not far from the mouth of the Wadi Abusir, the main ‘access road’ to the elevated desert plateau where the contemporary royal tombs and those of the high elite were situated. The latter were in fact built on the edge of the plateau, so that they were visible from the town in the valley below.
Through the Old Kingdom, the western branch of the Nile gradually shifted eastward, while the eastern branch moved in the opposite direction. In the time of Djoser, which witnessed major building activities on the western plateau, the western branch had migrated eastward close to the modern Shubrament canal. The lateral channel of the Nile migrated faster than the main channel because it was situated in an area of the floodplain that is at a relatively higher elevation, and the western channel would have dried out mid-winter when water flow in the Nile was low.29 The western channel shifted c. 1640 m eastward during the 500 years of the Old Kingdom, to a position immediately west of Kom el-Fakhry (one of the ruin mounds of ancient Memphis), a position today marked by the Mariyutiya canal, which in the 20th century replaced the Bahr el-Libeini canal that had formalised the remains of the western branch of the Nile.30 The main Nile channel previously running on the east side of the floodplain migrated westward. The two movements thus created a relatively narrow strip of land towards the centre of the floodplain, the Memphis Island, which was almost entirely enclosed by the two branches of the Nile. Fekri Hassan suggests that the northern part of the Memphis Island was already settled in the time of Djoser, which would place the king’s residence immediately opposite his pyramid complex.31 The decision to move the residence and centre of occupation from its previous position southward has been explained as a reaction to the shifting of the western Nile branch in combination with high floods. Cores taken on the northern side on the Memphis ruin field identified Old Kingdom pottery, indeed pointing to activity at that time. The Old Kingdom town perhaps included an early forerunner of the later temple of Ptah located at Kom el-Fakhry. According to Hassan, Pepi I established his pyramid town, known as ni҆w.t Mn-nfr Ppy/Mr.y-Rꜥ, on the western part of Memphis Island, close to the western branch of the Nile. Of all the pyramids situated on the eastern edge of the Saqqara plateau, Pepi I’s is indeed located closest to the projected Memphis Island. The pyramid town later lent its name to the royal residence, Mn-nfr. While Hassan situates both pyramid town and residence on the island, others, such as David Jeffreys and Jaromir Málek, argue that Pepi I’s pyramid town was located in the valley immediately east of his pyramid, and that the site only later joined with the temple area at Kom el-Fakhry.32 The presence of the western branch of the Nile would seem to render the latter interpretation impossible. The two sites simply cannot have joined physically, although they could have been at immediate opposite sides of the western Nile branch. Jeffreys suggests that the joining may have happened after the Old Kingdom, which witnessed a period of drought with very low Nile floods and encroachment of aeolian sand from the western desert.33 He mentions the Wadi Taflah as the source of the sand. The effects of the spreading of sand from the desert were drastic.34 The Survey of Memphis cores show that the Old Kingdom settlement was covered by at least 3 m of sand, and the western channel became silted. In combination with tectonic tilting of the floodplain, which diverted water to the eastern branch of the Nile, the western branch of the Nile would decrease to become a very shallow body of water that could probably even be forded in spring.35
The westward migration of the eastern or main branch of the Nile continued in the Middle Kingdom, and in the New Kingdom resulted in the situation drawn in figure 23.36 The Memphis Island was tightly enclosed by the two branches of the Nile. Indeed, during the annual inundation, Memphis would have very clearly stood out in the landscape as an island, reminiscent of the situation created annually before the construction of the Aswan High Dam (Fig. 24). In the New Kingdom, the difference in the elevation of the settlement (Memphis) and the surrounding floodplain was only about 2 m, which would have potentially led high floods to submerge parts of the settlement.37 The average water depth over the valley floor for the flood peak would have been around 1.5 m.38 From the early Ramesside period onwards, the eastern branch of the Nile migrated eastward again, which allowed the town to expand in that direction also.
Figure 23
Tentative reconstruction of the Saqqara–Memphis landscape during the New Kingdom.
Satellite image by google earth, adapted by the author
Figure 24
Aerial photograph of the North Saqqara plateau during the annual inundation of the Nile
The UCL institute of archaeology, Aerial Photographic Archive For Archaeology in the Middle East (AP 1342), taken by the Royal Air Force, date unknown
Figure 25
The North Saqqara plateau with its main clusters of New Kingdom activity
Composite google earth satellite image (Februari 2007), adapted by the author
3.4 A Scattered Cemetery?
To date, four areas with clusters of tombs dating to the New Kingdom have been identified at the North Saqqara plateau (Fig. 25). These are, from north to south:
-
the eastern escarpment above the modern-day village of Abusir;
-
the area north and east of the pyramid of 6th Dynasty King Teti (Teti Pyramid Cemetery);
-
the Cliff (dhn.t) of Ankhtawy,39 also known as the southern cliff of the Abwab el-Qotat (‘tombs of the cats’), the site of the later Bubasteion;40
-
the area south of the Unas causeway (‘Unas South Cemetery’).
This patterning gives the site the character of a scattered cemetery,41 although this image might be the result of chance discovery rather than reflecting the situation in the past. Each cemetery produced distinctive tomb architecture, which was to some degree influenced by specific local geological conditions, such as for example the (in)availability of a steep cliffside suitable for making rock-cut tombs. The choices underlying the formation of tomb clusters in exactly the four identified locations were likely prompted by a variety of phenomenological considerations.42 These included (but were not limited to) visibility, accessibility, interrelation, etc.43
Figure 26
View of the central part of the North Saqqara plateau from near the Bubasteion, facing south
Photograph by the author, 2019
The clusters numbered 1–3 are all situated in the same general area of North Saqqara plateau, whereas no. 4, the Unas South Cemetery, lies more isolated at the plateau’s southern extremity. There are reasons to believe that the former clusters formed part of a single cemetery, and that the latter formed a separate cemetery. The social-demographic make-up of the tomb clusters (to be explored in chapters 4 and 5) and the local geography are suggestive of this. Regarding the latter, the North Saqqara plateau has no flat surface, but is rather undulating, containing a series of markedly more elevated areas (Fig. 26). The main clusters of tombs of the New Kingdom, the Unas South Cemetery and the Teti Pyramid Cemetery, developed on the southern and northern such areas of the North Saqqara plateau, respectively. Thus, it appears that during the New Kingdom, tomb building concentrated on these more elevated areas of the plateau. There is no reason to believe the two cemeteries were at one point in the New Kingdom connected. Indeed, in the last 200 years, no remains of tombs of the period have been excavated in the areas in between the two cemeteries.44 For these reasons, the southern and northern cluster are treated separately in the following chapters 4 and 5.
3.5 The Necropolis as a Space Inhabited by the Living and the Dead
The necropolis was constructed and experienced as a space inhabited both by the living and the dead. Thus ancient Saqqara was populated by humans (priests carrying out the cult of the dead, workmen and artists making new tombs, people visiting family sepulchres, etc.), spirits of deceased humans—called the ꜥꜣ.yw n.w i҆mn.tt ꜥnḫ-tꜣ.wy, ‘blessed souls of the Western Anch-tawy’45—and deities.46 The deceased humans also included the deified kings who were revered in their pyramid temples (Old Kingdom)47 and in the temples of Millions of Years (New Kingdom), located nearby at the foot of the escarpment (see Chapter 6).
Foremost among the gods dwelling in the Saqqara plateau were the Memphite city-god Ptah and his living manifestation, the Apis bull, Sokar, Hathor, and Sakhmet. The mid-18th Dynasty naos-shaped stela of Paser [402], an overseer of the royal household (i҆m.y-r i҆p.t nsw), offers an early example48 for an offering formula in a private monument displaying the close connection between the Memphite gods and the necropolis:49
ḥtp-di҆-nsw Ptḥ-Skr-Wsi҆r nṯr ꜥꜣ nb R-sṯꜣ.w I҆npw i҆m.y-wt tp.y ḏw=f nb tꜣ-ḏsr ḥr.y-i҆b ḳꜣ.yt i҆mn.tt Ḥw.t-Ḥr ḥr.yt-tp sm.yt wn.t tpḥ.t n.y ꜣḫ.w
An offering which the king gives to Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, great god, lord of Rosetau (and) Anubis,50 who is in the wt (place of embalming), who is on his mountain, lord of the holy land (i.e. necropolis), who is in the midst of the western hill/high ground (i.e. the desert plateau) (and) Hathor, who is upon the desert/necropolis, opener of the cavern(s)/tomb(s) of the spirits (of deceased humans).
Festival processions staged in honour of the respective deities (especially Sokar) were occasions for the inhabitants of Memphis to walk about the elevated desert plateau (see Chapter 6).
In the New Kingdom, the superstructures of private tombs—varying in size and complexity, ranging from modest chapels to conspicuous temple-shaped monuments (see Fig. 14)51—were conceived as private mortuary temples (adopting the architectural design and layout of the temples built for gods and kings: ‘temple-tombs’) in which the tomb owners enjoyed the proximity to (a selection of) the (Memphite) deities and where the gods (Re-Horakhty, Osiris, etc.) could be worshipped in perpetuity.52 The tombs usually have an east-west main axis, and the preferred orientation of the tombs’ superstructures was to the east, facing the rising sun (Re-Horakhty) on the eastern horizon.53 A stela fragment from the tomb of the late 18th Dynasty army general Amenemone (005/usc) designates Re-Horakhty nṯr ꜥꜣ nb p.t ḥr.y-i҆b smy.t i҆mn.tt, ‘great god, lord of the sky, who is in the midst of the western necropolis’, emphasising the close link this god held to the Memphite necropolis.54
3.6 A Myriad of Tomb Numbering Systems (and Their Absence)
One of the major difficulties of working with the Saqqara New Kingdom necropolis is that the majority of tombs are ‘lost’.55 These were excavated in the early 19th century, and due to the shifting desert sands, soon thereafter disappeared from view and memory. The tombs excavated (including those subsequently lost) are usually not numbered, which makes it difficult to keep track of how many New Kingdom tombs we know of. At the same time, multiple numbering systems are in use for a small number of tombs. This practice differs from e.g. Thebes, where the majority of individual tombs have been assigned their unique tt (‘Theban Tomb’) number. Such a systematic numbering system prevents any possible confusion when referring to a certain tomb. For example, when a publication refers to “the tomb of Ptahmose at Saqqara”, there are at least 14 possible candidates. One could of course add one of the principal titles held by the individual in question; however, a unique number would end any possible doubt. In this section I propose to implement an all-encompassing numbering system for the Saqqara New Kingdom necropolis. Before introducing the system, let us first review in brief the existing numbering systems, almost all of which are tied to single excavation concession areas.
3.6.1 ls-numbers: C.R. Lepsius 1843
The Prussian expedition led by Lepsius was the first to systematically number the monuments encountered and uncovered. Thus, when working at Saqqara in spring 1843, the pyramids and tombs were assigned their unique ls (Lepsius Saqqara) numbers, 1–31, making no distinction in their date.56 The tombs dated to the New Kingdom are ls 8 (Meryre), ls 11 (nn), ls 12 (Huy), ls 13 (nn), ls 25 (Urkhiya), ls 26 (Iry), ls 27 (Maya), ls 28 (Raia), and ls 29 (Hormin).57 Numbers ls 8–13 are situated in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery and ls 25–29 in the Unas South Cemetery.
3.6.2 H-numbers: A. Mariette, 1889
In his monumental work Les mastabas de l’Ancien Empire, published posthumously, Auguste Mariette (1821–881) uses different letters to list all the known Memphite Old Kingdom tombs. The letter H lists the tombs Mariette designates as ‘caput-mortuum’. The entries also include blocks of New Kingdom date. The entry for H 8 presents the lower part of a rectangular stela inscribed for Iny,58 found on 8 February 1861 south of the grande Pyramide, i.e. the pyramid of Djoser.59 The entry for H 9 includes three fragments of relief-decorated blocks of limestone.60 Mariette found the blocks on 30 November 1850 among the Old Kingdom tombs south of the pyramid of Djoser. These blocks bear the name and titles of Meryneith. While the codes H 8 and H 9 refer to the respective tombs, the relief blocks were not found in situ.61
3.6.3 Loret-Tomb Numbers: V. Loret, 1897–1899
Victor Loret (1859–1946), on behalf of the Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte (sae), briefly excavated an area north of the pyramid of Teti,62 including the area now usually referred to as the Rue de tombeaux.63 During his work he uncovered six tomb structures of New Kingdom date, which he numbered 1–6. These are: Loret no. 1 (Ahmose); Loret no. 2 (Amenemone); Loret no. 3 (Penamun); Loret no. 4 (Tjay); Loret no. 5 (Mose); Loret no. 6 (Mahu).64
In addition to the structures of varying date, he also recorded 130 tomb shafts. These shafts span the Old Kingdom through to the Late Period. Since Loret never published more than a brief preliminary report, and since he did not excavate all shafts drawn on his map, it is presently impossible to know which of the tomb shafts recorded by Loret are of New Kingdom date. Yet it is still possible to single out some of the most likely New Kingdom tomb shafts by selecting their shape (rectangular shafts are characteristic of the New Kingdom, although not exclusively) and their height. The latter is indicated for every single tomb shaft, and it indicates the height difference between what Loret calls the Old Kingdom elevation and the highest point of the shaft. The elevations of the tomb shafts that are without any doubt New Kingdom—those of tombs Loret no. 2, Loret no. 5, Loret no. 6—range between 2.5 and 4.5 m. Thus, all rectangular shafts with a clearly marked rim situated between 2.5 and 4.5 m above the Old Kingdom level (i.e. those potentially dating to the New Kingdom) have been included in the present study. These are shafts no. 6 (Nebansu),65 8–12,66 18, 24, 52 (Tyay),67 53, 56, 71, 79.
The area excavated by Loret has more recently been re-excavated and further explored by more archaeological missions, including Macquarie University, re-excavating tomb Loret no. 2 of Amenemone,68 and the Supreme Council of Antiquities (sca). The latter mission relocated tomb Loret no. 5 of Mose,69 and further excavated Loret no. 1 of Ahmose.70 In addition, Loret shaft no. 55, located on the southwest edge of Loret’s excavation area, can now be paired with the tomb chapel of Pakharu.71 The chapel must have been accessible as early as the early 1840s, since a stela of that man was seen by Lepsius in the antiquities dealership of Youssef Massara (c. 1760–1842+) at Cairo.72
3.6.4 S2700s: sae-numbering System of J.E. Quibell 1912–1914
Working on behalf of the Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte, Quibell, assisted by A.G.K. Hayter, excavated for two seasons in two areas north of the pyramid of Teti: west of the mastaba of Mereruka, and east of the mastaba of Kagemni.73 The latter area partly overlaps with the area excavated earlier by Loret and Lepsius. The publication by Quibell and Hayter reports not just on the built superstructures of tombs, but for the first time also adds details about the ‘lesser’ burials, including individuals buried wrapped in palm-fibre and reed mats. The structures recorded in excavation were assigned S 2700 numbers. New Kingdom tombs with a built superstructure were excavated in the area east of the mastaba of Kagemni. These include S 2720 of Mernakht; S 2727 of Merya (Meryhor); S 2730 (possibly including S 2736) of Ipuia; S 2732 (NN); S 2733 (NN = ls 11); and S 2735 of Huy (= ls 12).
3.6.5 Bub.-Numbers: Mission archéologique française du Bubasteion, 1980–Present
The limestone cliffs of the southern escarpment of the later Bubastieion have been the focus of research by the Mission archéologique française du Bubasteion (MAFB) since 1980, led by Alain-Pierre Zivie. The mission recovered rock-cut tombs on two distinct levels of the cliff.74 The tomb structures situated on the lower level, some with a freestanding structure added to the cliff-side entrance, are numbered Bub. I.1–27. The tombs situated on a higher level are numbered Bub. II.1–7. Their numbering starts on the eastern edge of the cliff and continue towards the west. The numbering system does not differentiate between New Kingdom and earlier or later tombs. The tombs of New Kingdom date are Bub. I.1 of Aper-El/Aperia; Bub. I.3 of Resh; Bub. I.5 of Merysakhmet; Bub. I.6 of Nehesy; Bub. I.13 of Seth; Bub. I.16 of Netjerwymes/Parakhnawa; Bub. I.19 of Thutmosis; Bub. I.20 of Maia; Bub. I.21 of Penrennutet; Bub. I.27 of Raia(y)/Hatiay; Bub. II.3 (NN); Bub. II.4 of Meryre/Sennefer; and Bub. II.x of Ptahmose. In 2018, an archaeological mission of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, led by Mostafa Waziri and Mohammad M. Youssef, continued the clearance of the southern cliff in a westward direction. Three tombs found in course of the first season have been dated to the New Kingdom. The mission discontinued the numbering system employed by the mafb. Instead, a new numbering system was introduced, the New Kingdom tombs being sbw 18/I (Tomb no. 1); sbw 18/VI (Tomb no. 2); and sbw 18/II (Tomb no. 6).
3.6.6 Saqqara Tombs (st): Cairo University Expedition, 1984–Present
An archaeological mission of the Faculty of Archaeology of Cairo University has worked in the necropolis south of the Unas causeway since 1977. The large majority of funerary structures was excavated in 1984–1988, led by Sayed Tawfik (1936–1990), amounting to 36 tombs and burial pits, including the remains of Old Kingdom mastabas and later structures.75 The New Kingdom tombs were assigned st (Saqqara Tombs) numbers. The numbering system takes the monument of the Vizier Neferrenpet, st 0, as its centre. Those excavated to the north of st 0 are numbered st 1–9; those to the south st 101–108; to the west st 201–220.76 Work in the concession area resumed in 2005, under the direction of Ola el-Aguizy.77 Since then, an additional seven monumental tombs and smaller chapels have been uncovered. The first tomb excavated by the continued expedition, in 2006, was that of the Chief of Medjay of the King, Wadjmose, which was assigned number st 220, a number previously assigned to the anonymous tomb situated at the northern extent of the concession area. All of the tombs excavated afterwards have not been numbered, thus discontinuing the system started in the 1980s.
3.6.7 Macquarie University Archaeological Mission 1983–2010
The archaeological expedition of Macquarie University, Sydney, started work in the area north and northwest of the mastaba of Mereruka in 1983. The concession area partly overlapped and continued further west where Zaki Saad (1901–1982) excavated in 1942, and where Mahmud Abd el-Raziq worked on behalf of the Egyptian Antiquities Organisation (eao). The eastern extent of the concession area overlapped with the area where Loret worked almost a century before. Thus, in 1994–1995, the expedition relocated the tomb of the Chief of Craftsmen, Amenemone, which Loret had numbered tomb no. 2.78 It is thus far the only tomb of New Kingdom date found by the expedition that has been fully published. In 2007, the expedition redirected its attention to the central part of the Teti Pyramid Cemetery, further to the north and east of the tomb of Amenemone. The remains of four New Kingdom tomb superstructures with walls made of mud bricks were discovered in this area.79 These tombs had been largely dismantled in antiquity, possibly in conjunction with the construction of the stone-paved Serapeum Way, which left the tombs with little more than their lower courses of mud bricks. The four tombs were numbered tnm (Teti Cemetery North, Middle Section) New Kingdom Tomb nos 1–4. Their state of preservation meant that all four were found to be anonymous. Only the owner of tnm New Kingdom Tomb no. 2, of which only the tomb shaft remained, has been tentatively identified as Ptahmay, known, among other elements, from a statue group now held in the Berlin Egyptian Museum, äm 2297.
3.6.8 Varia
In addition to the above archaeological expeditions that worked at Saqqara in the last 180 years, various others employed different systems to document archaeological features. For example, the former (ees-)Leiden archaeological expedition working in the Unas South Cemetery employed a range of systems. Usually, only ‘minor’ tombs are referred to in publications by an archaeological feature number, while the larger temple-shaped tombs are referred to by the name of their main tomb owner. The current Leiden-Turin archaeological expedition, a continuation of the former, employs a different system, numbering according to archaeological contexts. As such, the three limestone chapels and one larger mud-brick tomb excavated immediately north of the tomb of Maya are referred to by one of their context numbers; one of the small chapels in that area consisting of a chapel (context no. 125) and tomb shaft (context no. 131) is referred to as ‘chapel 125’.80
3.7 Introducing a New Tomb Numbering System for the Saqqara New Kingdom Necropolis
In order to end confusion caused by the absence of a coherent tomb numbering system, it was decided for this study to introduce a new system that covers all New Kingdom tombs built at the North Saqqara plateau. The proposed numbering system reckons with the spatial distribution of tombs at Saqqara. Thus, tombs clustered in clearly demarcated areas of the North Saqqara plateau (see Section 3.4) are grouped together. The four clusters of tombs identified at the beginning of this study are (1) Unas South Cemetery; (2) Teti Pyramid Cemetery; (3) cliff of Ankhtawy; (4) cliffs opposite Abusir village. The tombs are listed in the catalogue at the end of this study.
As mentioned earlier, a substantial number of tombs are today lost. These tombs are also numbered, and in some cases their location could be reconstructed. There is also a large number of tombs known only by (fragments of) reliefs, stelae, statues, and other elements found in controlled excavations. These tomb elements point to the existence of a tomb in either of the two cemeteries, but their precise location cannot be ascertained. The distinction between tombs with a known location and those without has been made in the catalogue. In addition to this category of ‘lost’ tombs, there exists a considerable number of objects and architectural elements that are known to derive from Saqqara, but their exact provenance is unknown. These were mainly excavated in the 19th century and subsequently entered public and private collections around the globe. The provenance of these objects and tomb elements was not recorded by their excavators (often anonymous to us today).
In total, 509 tombs have been collected for the purpose of this study (Table 2):81
Table 2
New Kingdom tombs located on the North Saqqara plateau used in this study
|
Location |
Tomb numbers |
Total |
Share of total at the North Saqqara plateau |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Unas South Cemetery |
001–207 |
207 (128) |
40.7 % |
|
Teti Pyramid Cemetery |
208–351; 504–509 |
150 (80) |
29.5 % |
|
Cliff of Ankhtawy / Bubasteion |
352–367 |
16 |
3.1 % |
|
Lost |
368–501 |
134 |
26.3 % |
|
Above Abusir Village |
502–503 |
2 |
0.4 % |
|
509 |
100 % |
For the convenience of the reader, when referring to a certain tomb, its number will always be accompanied by the abbreviation of the cemetery where it is located, for example 046/usc for the tomb of the army general, Horemheb. The ‘lost’ tombs will be noted in square brackets, e.g., [479] for Kasa, general of the army.
3.8 Memphite Tombs and Tomb Clusters Not Included in This Study
This section briefly touches upon the tombs and tomb clusters situated immediately north and south of the study area. These tombs are not taken further into consideration in discussions of the growth and development of the Saqqara New Kingdom cemeteries. However, it is important to acknowledge that while the centre of (elite) funerary activity at Memphis was on the North Saqqara plateau, the adjoining areas also received built funerary monuments.
3.8.1 Rocky Outcrop in Northern Saqqara
The rocky outcropping located c. 1.5 km northwest of the Serapeum is probably best known for the enigmatic temple-like structure built for Khaemwaset, fourth son of King Ramesses II and high priest of Ptah. Archaeological excavations on the summit of the outcrop have revealed one substantial tomb of the New Kingdom to date. It was made for Isisnofret, who bears the title šps.t, ‘noble woman’.82 She has been identified as a daughter of Khaemwaset.83 A relief block found at the latter’s hilltop monument depicts both father and daughter.84 The superstructure of Isisnofret’s tomb, located c. 40 m northeast of Khaemwaset’s monument (probably a ka chapel), is oriented north to south. As such, the central axis of the tomb is oriented towards (and perpendicular to) the central axis of her father’s monument, which is oriented east to west. The arrangement suggests that the two monuments formed a unity. It also suggests that it concerns an isolated tomb, not forming part of a larger cemetery.
The tomb of Isisnofret is constructed of limestone, and comprises a pylon entrance, courtyard with colonnade, antechamber with four pilasters, three chapels in the west, and a pyramid situated due west of the tomb. Curiously, a sloping east-west passage that gives access to the burial chamber is situated outside the tomb’s perimeter, while the burial chamber, which still included a limestone sarcophagus,85 is situated underneath the pyramid. A funerary cache associated with this tomb was found c. 10 m north of the tomb. Possible objects deriving from the tomb surfaced on the antiquities market in the 1840s. Lepsius in his Denkmäler notes that he bought from Solomon Fernandez (fl. 1830–1860) in Cairo three small statuettes (shabtis) bearing the name of Isisnofret.86
3.8.2 Saqqara South
At a site northwest of the Firth Intermediate Period (c. 2118–1980 bce) pyramid of Qakare Ibi, itself located northwest of Shepseskaf’s Mastabat Faraun, Gustave Jéquier (1868–1946) found no fewer than 17 stelae that were reused as paving slabs in 1930.87 The reuse occurred “in recent times”, according Jéquier. It is not known where these stelae, all dated to the Ramesside period, originally stood. The stelae for which a name and title of the owner are preserved include the Sculptor (ṯꜣy bš, Chisel bearer), Iunu;88 the Scribe of the Treasury of the King and Scribe of the House of the King (sš n.y pr-ḥḏ n.y nb tꜣ.wy; sš pr-nsw), Amenmose;89 the Royal Scribe of the King (sš nsw n.y nb [tꜣ.wy]), Peniuny;90 the Chief of Servants (ḥr.y sḏm.w), Khonsu;91 and the Scribe of Accounts of the Cattle of Amun (sš ḥsb i҆ḥ.w n.w I҆mn), Sety.92
3.8.3 Dahshur North
Approximately 2 km north of the so-called Red Pyramid of 4th Dynasty King Snefru, the outlines of a New Kingdom cemetery have been unearthed in excavations carried out in the last three decades under the auspices of Waseda University.93 This cemetery developed over a late Middle Kingdom cemetery that possibly should be associated with the pyramid complex of Senwosret III (1837–1819 bce)—a structure that received renewed attention early in the New Kingdom.94 To date, the remains of two monumental tomb superstructures dated to the late 18th Dynasty have been uncovered, along with numerous pit burials. Their structures were thoroughly plundered for their stone building material, leaving little more than the lower courses of the mud-brick walls and the burial shaft leading to the underground complexes. Scattered relief-decorated blocks once set against the inner faces of the structures’ walls give us the identities of their owners. By far the largest tomb was constructed for the Royal butler, clean of hands (wbꜣ nsw wꜥb ꜥ.wy), and Steward (i҆m.y-r pr), named Ipay, whose name was stamped in the mud bricks with which the tomb was built. This man officiated during the reign of Tutankhamun. The tomb’s superstructure measures c. 47 × 17.7 m, oriented east to west. The tomb was built on an elevated platform, accessed via a sloping ramp on its east side—a feature also observed in select late 18th to early 19th Dynasty tombs built in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery (see Chapter 5).95 The tomb consists of a forecourt, inner courtyard with a tomb shaft giving access to the burial apartments, and three chapels in the west. The mud-brick walls once had a limestone revetment bearing relief decoration. The tomb’s excavator, Sakuji Yoshimura, tentatively suggests that Ipay might be the same man as Ipy [372],96 the Amarna-age chief steward of Memphis who followed in the footsteps of his father, Amenhotep Huy (141/usc).97 The tomb was reused in the Ramesside period, as attested by the sarcophagus and shabti of another steward named Mose. The title Overseer of horses of the king is attested on a canopic jar fragment, which might possibly belong to the same man as well. A hieratic jar docket mentions ‘the seventh year of Ramesses-Meryamun’, firmly dating the man and his reuse of the tomb to the early reign of Ramesses II.
The scanty remains of the superstructure of a second tomb were found c. 100 m to the west of Ipay’s. The limestone-built structure was set on a small mound and displayed a layout consisting of a courtyard with a shaft and chapels in the west. The fragments of relief blocks and funerary objects give the owner as Ta, wab priest and lector priest of Ptah (wꜥb ẖr.y-ḥb n.y Ptḥ).
The possibly earliest tomb in this area excavated to date belonged to an Overseer of all priests of the Two Lands (i҆m.y-r ḥm.w-nṯr nb.w tꜣ.wy), and High priest of Neith (ḥm-nṯr tp.y n.y N.t). His tomb stela was found in a shaft (numbered 17) northwest of the tomb of Ipay. This man is tentatively dated to the reign of Amenhotep III.
The ‘borders’ between the sites were much more fuzzy in the study period.
Gräzer Ohara (2020) offers a succinct overview of the archaeological site and its standing monuments, along with references to more detailed studies. The nine volumes of the Survey of Memphis (1985–2016) also provide a thorough introduction to the complex archaeology of Memphis. Pasquali (2011) offers a detailed overview of the Memphite cultic landscape through the New Kingdom. For a reconstruction of Ramesside Memphis, largely based on textual sources, see Kitchen (1991).
For a characterisation of this situation in the Old Kingdom (which likely continued, in one way or another, through the New Kingdom), see: Love (2003), 76–79 (with further references).
Stevens (2016), fig. 1.
The surface of the North Saqqara plateau can be characterised as limestone outcrops with a thin layer of aeolian sand.
In the course of the large-scale excavations of the Djoser complex, the Unas causeway, and the Jeremias monastery, huge amounts of sand were moved across the North Saqqara plateau, and these activities changed the face of the landscape considerably.
E.g., Jeffreys (1999), 15 (as quoted by Love 2006, 212), makes the suggestion based on a later description of Ibn Saʾid, a medieval Islamic traveler, who referred to nearby Fustat—situated close to the escarpment of Muqattam—as a “white city”. Jeffreys’s suggestion, further developed by Love, has also been welcomed with skepticism, see e.g., Verner (2012) 103–104, who supports the more widespread idea that the white walls in the toponym refer to the Memphite palace of the king.
Willeitner (1993), 258.
On his map of the Memphite necropolis, Perring (1839) indicates here “ancient mounds and substructions”. The village of Abusir (Abooseer e’ Sidr) is marked on his map as “ancient mound supposed site of Busirish”. Georg Erbkam, the surveyor of the Prussian expedition to Egypt led by Carl Richard Lepsius, on 19 May 1843 similarly notes in his diary that the modern village of Saqqara must have been built on an ruin mound:
Casey (1999), 24–25.
A recent study of the Lake of Abusir that should be mentioned here, is Earl (2010), cited in Bunbury (2019), 60, with fig. 4.2. I have not been able to consult this thesis myself. For a more recent assessment, see Toonen et al. (2020).
Nicholson (2016), 20. Geo-archaeological work (borings) by Earl suggests that in the later periods of pharaonic history it was a semi-permanent lake, suitable for breeding the ibises that were mummified and deposited in nearby galleries of the sacred ibis in large quantities: Earl (2010), 86 (cited by Nicholson 2016, 20).
Bárta (2013), 79.
Giddy (1994), 195; Jeffreys/Tavares, (1994), 156, 159.
More seasonal lakes existed in the Memphite floodplain further to the south. Casey (1999) concluded from the analysis of cores taken in low-lying areas adjacent to the causeways and valley temples of Pepi I, Djedkare-Isesi, and Pepi II that perennial standing water in these areas is unlikely, and that the theory of lakes associated with these pyramid valley temples appears to be untenable. The evidence from the lakes further north along the eastern escarpment support this view, and rather points to a seasonal character of the lakes.
It has been suggested that the ecosystem facilitated the breeding of the millions of ibises that were deposited in the underground galleries for the sacred ibis in the later periods of pharaonic history: Nicholson et al. (2013).
As noted by Bunbury (2019), 60. In the selected areas along the eastern escarpment, the damp subsoil results from the ancient lake beds and the abandoned western Nile channel. The river’s westernmost migration is today marked by the Bahr el-Libeini or Mariyutiya canal.
Harrell (2016).
This is one of the upper fossil-rich beds of the Giran el-Ful member of the Maadi Formation: Reader (2004), 63–68.
An Early Dynastic rectangular structure, the purpose and date of which remain debated (a funerary enclosure comparable to the structures known from Abydos in the south of Egypt?) See e.g., Čwiek (2021); Dodson (2016), 8–10.
Reader (2017), 2 and fig. 2.
Reader (2017), 2, 7, questions the natural character of this part of the ‘wadi’, opening up the possibility that it might represent a man-made feature. Note that the feature is also well pronounced in the map produced by the Prussian expedition led by Lepsius: LD I., pl. 33.
The four features are: hill Tb NE, koms Tb SE and Tb SW, and plateau. The name Tabbet el-Guesh (‘hill of the army’) derives from hill Tb NE, where the Egyptian army set up an observation and defence post in the 1960s (abandoned in the 1980s). The western hills have been the focus of archaeological investigations since 2000, which uncovered part of a cemetery dated to the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period. See: Dobrev (2017); Dobrev et al. (2016); Dobrev (2006).
Lehner (2006). The Memphite area corresponds to the northern end of the so-called ‘capital zone’, the narrow end of Nile Valley stretching from the Fayum entrance, near Maidum in the south, to the present-day apex of the Nile Delta, c. 80 km to the north near Giza. In this area were located the ‘capitals’ of various periods of Egyptian history, including Middle Kingdom Itjtawy in the south and Memphis in the north.
Bunbury et al. (2017), 73; Bunbury/Jeffreys (2011), 66. The latest reconstructions of the Memphite floodplain through time are the result of a combined effort of geo-archaeology (borehole recordings), remote sensing (satellite imagery) and the study of historic topography (topographic maps). Of particular interest are the publications of the Survey of Memphis and the Giza Plateau Mapping Project: all cited and reviewed in Lehner (2006).
For a concise outline of the shifting of the Nile channels through the pharaonic period, see Hassan et al. (2017), 67–68.
As such, the eastern, main channel of the Nile connected various important early sites (both settlements and cemeteries), including Tura and Helwan and, further to the north, Maadi and Heliopolis.
The site is today occupied by the dig-houses of the Egyptian antiquities organisation and the expanding village to the east. See e.g., Jeffreys (2012).
Described in Hassan (2010).
The main road to and from Cairo runs along the eastern and western side of the Mariyutiya canal.
Hassan et al. (2017), 68. Note, however, that there is no tangible archaeological evidence to support this view at present.
Jeffreys (2012), 228; Málek (1997), 95.
A situation not only known from historic sources, but also confirmed by analysis of cores taken in the Memphite floodplain.
Bunbury/Jeffreys 2011, 69, connect these events to the desertification of the Sahara.
Bunbury/Jeffreys (2011), 71–73.
Figure 23 is largely based on the observations presented in Lehner (2006), pl. 5, which takes its elevations from the 1977 Ministère de l’Habitat et de la Reconstruction (mhr) maps (scale 1:5,000), and reconstructions of the ancient courses of the Nile presented in Hassan et al. (2017). It must be stressed that the present study has taken no new geological measurements; the image merely serves to illustrate approximately the environment of Saqqara in the New Kingdom, based on the results of recent research. Additional future geo-archaeological research is highly desirable, however.
High floods were also a threat to the city in the Ptolemaic period. For example a papyrus from that period deals with flood-dyke reparations: Thompson (1988).
Lehner (2006), 98.
De Meulenaere (1960). The designation dhn.t ꜥnḫ-tꜣ.wy is found in the so-called “tomb with cow”: pm III/2, 592. It is a now-lost rock-cut tomb, described by W.M. Flinders Petrie (Sayce mss 22a: notes made by Petrie in 1880–1882, among the papers of the Reverend Archibald Henry Sayce, kept at the Griffith Institute, Oxford, see pm III, xxxiii) and indicated on the plan of the necropolis in the Baedeker guide of Egypt, 1897 (pl. after p. 126), close to the Valley Temple of Unas (similarly indicated in the map of the North Saqqara plateau by Dodson 2016, fig. 1.1). Petrie dates the tomb to the Late Period, while Málek (1981), 158 n. 17, proposes a Ramesside date, probably because of the name, Ramose (Zivie 2015 argues unconvincingly that this individual should be identified as King Ramesses I). Petrie notes “a huge Apis being sculptured standing out from the wall at right angles, beside the tomb well”. The description would suggest a representation of the goddess Hathor rather than the bovine Apis. In the Memphite necropolis, Hathor was also known the Lady of the Sycamore, Mistress of the Western necropolis, and Lady of the Valley, She who resides in the West, Lady of the Two Lands in the Sacred Land (i.e. necropolis): Staring (2015b), 245–246. The Ramesside tomb of Netjerwymes (359/Bub) contains the half-sculpted representation of a Hathor cow emerging from the living rock, which comes close to Petrie’s description. It opens up the possibility that the “tomb with cow” is actually the tomb of Netjerwymes, and that the positioning on the plan published in the Baedeker guide is incorrect. This suggestion is further corroborated by the fact that the tomb may have been accessible to visitors as early as the time of Muhammad Ali, as can be seen from the description of Pascal-Xavier Coste (1787–1879), who visited a tomb with the representation of the Hathor cow on 2 April 1820: Zivie (2015); (1998).
Some demotic papyri from the archives of funerary priests (choachytes) working at the site mention a ‘temple of the Peak of Ankhtawy’: Martin (2009), 49–50; Text 5a, line 11: P. Malcolm = P. bm ea 10384, dated to the Ptolemaic period. The peak could possibly be identified with the most elevated area of the plateau near the Bubasteion, reaching an elevation of c. 55 m asl.
After Tawfik (2003), 508.
That is, pertaining to people’s sensory experiences of landscape. Cf. Tilley (1994).
For these considerations in relation to the Saqqara necropolis, see also Sullivan (2020).
Note that the map of the Saqqara archaeological site produced by Jacques De Morgan (1897) suggests that there were more areas with substantial clusters of New Kingdom tombs, including east of the pyramid complex of Netjerikhet Djoser. This area has, to my knowledge, not been subjected to controlled excavations. The area has been covered by a geophysical survey conducted by a Scottish mission (sgsp). The survey map indicates the presence of subsurface structures. However, these cannot be dated with certainty to the New Kingdom, because the forms of the structures are not comparable to those of the tombs of this period excavated to date.
So in the graffito of the scribe Hednakhte (19th Dynasty, temp. Ramesses II, year 47): Navrátilová (2015), 108–111, 170–173 (M.2.3.P.19.3).
This is in line with how the ancient Egyptians conceptualised the created world overall, see: Lucarelli (2010).
For the New Kingdom graffiti in the pyramid complexes of the Old and Middle Kingdom, see e.g., Navrátilová (2015).
‘Early’ in the sense of an early New Kingdom example.
Stela Paris, Musée du Louvre C 80: Pierret (1878), 16. The text is inscribed on the right-hand side jamb. The stela entered the collection in 1857 and is of unknown provenance. The title held by the stela owner suggests it derives from the Unas South Cemetery.
On stela Berlin äm 7274 of Hormin (047/usc), the early 19th Dynasty overseer of the royal household at Memphis (i҆m.y-r i҆p.t nsw n.t Mn-nfr), Anubis is designated as sꜣ wsi҆r, ‘son of Osiris’.
For previous studies dealing with the architectural layout of Saqqara New Kingdom tombs, see e.g., Hays (2011); Raue (1995); Kitchen (1979).
For the Memphite temple-tombs, see: Van Dijk (1988), 42–45. See also Raue (1995), 258 n. 13.
A study conducted by two MA students (Andrea Tenconi and Mattia Zambernardi) in Landscape Architecture and Landscape Heritage at the Politecnico di Milano, School of Architecture and Urban Panning (2021), observed a strong correlation between the orientation of monumental New Kingdom tombs and the sun at dawn, suggesting that the tombs were built in such a manner that they received sunlight straight along their east-west axis during two days a year (Corinna Rossi, personal communication on 06.03.2021).
Stela fragment Paris, Musée du Louvre C 143: Pierret (1878), 49.
See Martin (1991), 199–205, for a far-from-complete list of the missing tombs.
LD, Text, I, 139–186.
LS 30 might possibly be of New Kingdom date also. It is described as a tomb shaft (Brunnen) “… wo man den Ring des Dr. Abbott mit dem Vornamen Amenophis’ II Aa-chepru-Ra gefunden hat”, LD, Text, I, 10 [18], 185. However, the find of a finger ring is not sufficient evidence to date the tomb shaft. The small object may just as well have fallen in.
Mariette (1989), 450. Also published in Mariette (1872), 20, pl. 62.b.
At Mariette’s time the causeway of Unas had not yet been cleared of sand.
Mariette (1889), 449.
In this respect it is worthy of note that an archaeological expedition of the Supreme Council of Antiquities led by Magdi el-Ghandour (1997a) in the mid-1990s found yet another block inscribed for Meryneith among the remains of a mud-brick mastaba located c. 200 m south of the site of the official’s actual tomb.
Loret (1899).
Following Capart (1907).
Loret does not assign a name to tomb no. 6. The identification with Mahu follows Gessler-Löhr (2007a), 76–80.
So identified by Gessler-Löhr (2007a), 18, 72–73, pl. 7.
One of the shafts 8–11 probably belongs to a man named Tjay, see: Gessler-Löhr (2007a), 73–74, with nn 66–71, pl. 8.
Singled out by Loret in his report. See also Gessler-Löhr (2007a), 74–75, with nn 72–80, pls 10–11.
Ockinga (2004).
Youssef (2017), 240–264, pls 127–145; Hawass (2003), 154–155, with fig. on p. 157.
Youssef (2017), 269–275, pls 150–154.
Youssef (2017), pls 110–113.
LD, Text, I, 17.
Quibell/Hayter (1927).
See e.g., Zivie (2013), pl. 1.
Tawfik (1991).
At this point, the description offered by Tawfik (1991), 406, conflicts with the map presented as pl. 1, because he notes that 18 tombs were excavated west of st 0 (i.e. numbered st 201–218), while the map also includes tombs st 219 and 220, extending the row of tombs in a northward direction. Tawfik offers no further details on the latter two tombs.
El-Aguizy (2007).
Kanawati/Hassan (1996), pl. 14; Ockinga (2000); (2004).
Ockinga (2011); (2012).
Del Vesco et al. (2019), 12–13.
This study only takes into account the presumed tomb structures; as such, the number (509) differs from the much larger number of Memphite individuals collected by Herzberg (2022, in press).
Kawai (2011); Yoshimura/Kawai (2010), 467–483; Kawai (2014). Isisnofret is not the same as the homonymous lady mentioned on a two-sided stela deposited at the tomb of Horemheb, 046/usc.
Note that a relief fragment bearing a representation along with a single, framed column of text in sunk relief mentioning Isisnofret has been found in the Cairo University concession area of the Unas South Cemetery, see: Leblanc (1993), pl. IB. Perhaps this block is to be associated with the tomb of Khaemwaset, which might be located in the vicinity of the monastery of Apa Jeremias, where more blocks bearing the latter’s name have been found.
Kawai (2011), fig. 4. She is probably to be identified as a daughter of King Merenptah. See Schneider (1996), 94–95, pls 99, 107–108; Raven et al. (2011b), 62 [34], fig. on p. 63.
The name of Isisnofret occurs only on the sarcophagus; the scanty remains of the tomb’s superstructure preserve no texts.
LD, Text, I, 16: “… Alle diese Totenstatuetten sind jetzt in Berlin (i.e. the Berlin Egyptian Museum) nicht mehr sicher nachzuweisen”.
pm III/2, 675; Jéquier (1935).
Jéquier (1935), 23 [19], pl. 22.
Jéquier (1935), 27 [3], pl. 18.
Jéquier (1935), 30 [12], pl. 20.
Jéquier (1935), 30–31 [13], pl. 20.
Jéquier (1935), 29 [10], pl. 17.
Yoshimura et al. (1998); Yoshimura/Hasegawa (1999); Yoshimura/Hasegawa (2000); Yoshimura et al. (2001); Yoshimura et al. (2005); Yoshimura/Baba (2015).
See e.g., Navrátolová (2013) on the New Kingdom graffiti left on the stone architectural elements of the pyramid complex., and Navrátilová (2017) on the Thutmoside graffiti in particular, attesting to a deep interest in the Middle Kingdom monument and its king, and the possibility that certain Theban monuments were inspired by those seen at Memphis.
These are 210/tpc (Ahmose), 225/tpc (Neferrenpet), and 229/tpc (Huy). The contemporary tomb of Ipuia, 212/tpc, may have also had this feature.
Yoshimura et al. (2001), 11.
The fact that Ipy dedicated a stela which features him sitting vis-à-vis his father, Amenhotep Huy, would rather suggest that he was buried in the Unas South Cemetery, perhaps sharing in his father’s tomb. On the other hand, various leads to date the tomb would seem to fit the time in which Ipy lived, including the blocks from which the tomb shaft was constructed, their measurements corresponding to the size of talatats (52 × 26 × 22 cm), a jar label giving a date of year 23 of Amenhotep III, and objects bearing the names of Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun.