4.4.1 A Mud-Brick Structure of Amenhotep II

The earliest New Kingdom building activity at the site is found c. 40 m south of the Unas causeway. There lies the excavated portion of a mud-brick wall of massive proportions.³⁵ It is c. 2.5 m wide and was excavated over a length of 22 m, oriented roughly east-west (Fig. 30).³⁶ The structure which the wall formed part of is situated partly in the area where the superstructure of the 2nd Dynasty tomb of Ninetjer would have stood. A connection with the former royal tomb seems unlikely, however. The drastic anthropogenic interventions in the built landscape south of the pyramid complex of Djoser in the late Old Kingdom had altered the Early Dynastic landscape to the extent that little, if anything, of the previous buildings was visible on the surface. The Old Kingdom interventions included the construction of the pyramid of Unas on the spot where the 2nd Dynasty tomb of Hetepsekhemwy/Raneb would have stood, the construction of the Unas causeway, and the making of a series of stone-built mastaba tombs in the area.

The mud-brick wall of Amenhotep II was built directly on the bedrock. It is not known exactly what sort of structure the wall was part of. What we do know, however, is that it was built in the reign of Amenhotep II, because the bricks used in its construction were stamped with a cartouche and the king’s prenomen, ꜥꜣ-ḫpr.w-Rꜥ.³⁷ The combination of the stamped bricks bearing the name of a king and the monumental dimensions of the wall strongly suggest that it was a building made under royal patronage, most likely a temple. This suggestion can be further corroborated by evidence for this king’s building activities elsewhere in the Memphite necropolis.

View Full Size

Figure 30

East-west section of the massive wall made with bricks stamped with the name of Amenhotep II.

After Lacher-Raschdorff, C. (2014), Das Grab des Königs Ninetjer in Saqqara: Architektonische Entwicklung Frühzeitlicher Grabanlagen in Ägypten, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, PL. 42F. Image © Dai Cairo / Claudia Lacher-Raschdorff

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

First of all, and located closest to the Unas South Cemetery, is the foundation of a temple built with mud bricks stamped with the king’s prenomen, excavated atop the prominent rocky outcrop in the desert between Saqqara and Abusir, west of the Serapeum.³⁸ This site offers a terrific panoramic view of the Memphite necropolis and the Nile Valley beyond. It has seen major building activity since at least the 3rd Dynasty, when a layered stone structure was built against the southern slope of the hill.³⁹ Statues of leonine goddesses found ritually buried inside the structure’s subterranean chambers suggest the presence of a cult of a leonine goddess.⁴⁰ Saqqara is indeed known for the veneration of two aspects of the same leonine goddesses, Bastet and Sakhmet. The former is closely tied to the Saqqara-Abusir necropolis, and more specifically to Ankhtawy.⁴¹ The veneration of Bastet took monumental shape in the later period of pharaonic history with the construction of the Bubasteion on the eastern escarpment of the North Saqqara plateau, east of the pyramid of Teti. In the New Kingdom, Sakhmet was considered the consort of Ptah at Memphis, and in the mid-18th Dynasty she became the recipient of a cult in the pyramid of Sahure at Abusir, known as Sakhmet-of-Sahure.⁴² Whether the structure built by Amenhotep II atop the rocky outcrop was also connected to this or a leonine deity is not known at present.

The second possible parallel for the king’s structure is found at Giza, where Amenhotep II built a mud-brick temple dedicated to the sphinx as Hor-em-akhet, ‘Horus in the Horizon’.⁴³ The central axis of this temple is oriented on the sphinx (i.e. the entrance looks out to the sphinx), reinforcing the connection between the two structures. The mud-brick temple was fitted with limestone elements, including door jambs, and its centrepiece was a large, round-topped stela dedicated by the king to the sphinx.⁴⁴ It measures 4.25 × 2.53 m, is made of limestone, and was found in situ. Numerous votive stelae dedicated by private individuals, some specimens embedded in a mud-brick wall, and numerous so-called ear stelae and other ex voto’s of New Kingdom date, attest to a popular cult for Horemakhet at the site.

The dimensions of the walls of the king’s temple at Giza compare very well with those of the Saqqara structure. This leads us to hypothetically reconstruct a similar, modest structure, with the plan of the Giza temple superimposed on the Saqqara wall (Fig. 31).

View Full Size

Figure 31

The structure of Amenhotep II near the causeway of Unas

Image by the author

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The two Memphite parallels for the Saqqara-structure of Amenhotep II suggest that the place south of the Unas causeway held special significance, which the king marked by constructing a temple. Precisely what significance this place held is not known. The structure is surrounded by monuments built by the royal ancestors, so perhaps a connection to the deified kings might be a possibility. By building a temple, the king ‘inscribed’ himself into (the history of) this sacred landscape. One may also think of a possible connection to (Ptah-)Sokar(-Osiris). This god had an important role in the mortuary cults of the New Kingdom tombs built in this cemetery.⁴⁵ Moreover, Saqqara was first and foremost the ancient abode of this Memphite deity. Perhaps this structure is connected to this deity, and to the annual procession staged for him. We also know that the Unas South Cemetery lay on the route to the Serapeum, the burial place and centre of veneration of the Apis bull, the living manifestation of the Memphite city god Ptah, which from a religious point of view was the most significant site at New Kingdom Saqqara. The temple of Amenhotep II would have stood on this route, and therefore a connection with this feature cannot be excluded either.

The evidence for Amenhotep II further suggests that he may in fact have constructed more than one temple, because bricks stamped with his prenomen have been found at locations scattered all over the Unas South Cemetery, up to c. 400 m south of the abovementioned wall found in situ. One brick was found north of the exterior west wall of the tomb of Horemheb (046/usc);⁴⁶ four bricks were reused as fill of a low bed or platform for burials dated to the early Ptolemaic period inside the northern lateral magazine (in publication referred to as ‘Magazine B’) of the tomb of Horemheb;⁴⁷ one brick was found during excavation of the tomb of Tia (057/usc);⁴⁸ one brick found in the area between the tombs of Horemheb (046/usc) and Iniuia (009/usc);⁴⁹ 20 (fragments of) bricks found in the fill (deposited post early 19th Dynasty) of the tomb shaft of Ry (038/usc), at a depth of 3–5 m;⁵⁰ and two mud bricks found southeast of New Kingdom shaft no. 5 (112/usc), c. 200 m south of the tomb of Ry (038/usc).⁵¹

Although not entirely impossible, it would seem unlikely that the bricks found at the southern end of the Unas South Cemetery, at the head of the gradual slope towards the inundation, all derive from the monument built on the northern edge of the cemetery. It would be more obvious if the bricks were taken from a standing structure in the direct vicinity. One may also note that the find spot is at the ‘entrance’ to the cemetery, which means a prominent location for a (hypothetical) temple. On the other hand, the fact that a relief-decorated block from the tomb of Meryneith/re (032/usc) was found reused at the same location, suggests that the mud bricks could derive from further north also. In this case, further north might be close to the cluster of tombs in the Leiden-Turin concession area rather than the king’s structure on the northern edge of the cemetery. In the 2015 excavation season, the expedition unearthed a number of unbonded wall segments, one of which numbered 2015/4 (108/usc), in the southern extent of the concession area (Fig. 32–33).⁵² The wall segments have not been excavated further and are unpublished.⁵³ However, the size of the wall suggests that it formed part of a sizeable structure. Perhaps another temple structure of Amenhotep II? The large number of mud bricks stamped with the prenomen of Amenhotep II (indeed the largest number of such loose bricks found at the site) were recovered from the fill of the tomb shaft of Ry (038/usc), which is located less than 20 m to the northwest of wall 2015/4.⁵⁴

View Full Size

Figure 32

Unas South Cemetery, Leiden-Turin concession area, during the mid-late 18th Dynasty, temp. Amenhotep II (?)

Image by the author

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

View Full Size

Figure 33

Large mud-brick wall (108/usc) visible in the southern section of the Leiden-Turin concession area

Photograph by the author, 2017

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Evidence for a Memphite temple of Amenhotep II is additionally found in the tomb stela (Leiden AP 9) of the Royal Butler, Ipu [373]. On stylistic grounds, the stela can be dated to the reign of Tutankhamun. Another holder of the same title, royal butler, from the reign of Akhenaten–Tutankhamun, named Ptahemwia (025/usc), built his tomb in the Unas South Cemetery, a little northeast of Ry. The presence of his tomb strongly suggests that Ipu, perhaps Ptahemwia’s successor in office, built his tomb in the same general area of the cemetery. Ipu’s father, Neferhat, is also depicted on the stela, and he bears the title Lector priest of Aakheperure (the prenomen of Amenhotep II). The title likely references the king’s temple of Millions of Years. The quarrying of limestone, at the Tura–Massara quarries, destined for this temple is recorded on a stela found at the quarry (Birch no. 2) of the Overseer of works in the temples of the gods of Upper and Lower Egypt, Minmose, dated to year 4 of the king.⁵⁵ The official, Minmose, also served Amenhotep II’s father, Thutmosis III.⁵⁶ One of the temples built for Amenhotep II at Saqqara (if indeed two temples were built) might possibly be identified as a temple of Millions of Years. In this respect it is interesting to point out that another official from the reign of Tutankhamun, the General of the Army Amenemone (005/usc) also acted as an i҆m.y-r pr m tꜣ ḥw.t Mn-ḫpr-Rꜥ, Steward in the temple of Menkheperre (Thutmosis III). His tomb is today lost; however, there are strong indications that the tomb of Ry (038/usc) was built against that of Amenemone. If this scenario proves correct, the tomb of Amenemone was built immediately west of the structure 108/usc, which we tentatively identified as a mid-18th Dynasty monument.

In connection to the temple of Amenhotep II at Saqqara, we may also briefly turn to a large quartzite stela (2.85 m high) of the same king found at Memphis (Kôm el-Rabîʾa).⁵⁷ The 34 lines of text carved on the stela describe one of the Asiatic campaigns of the king, and is dated to year 7 of this king. The stela was found reused as a roofing slab in the tomb of one of the 22nd Dynasty high priests of Ptah, named Sheshonq (like the others a descendant of Ososkon II), located just outside the southwestern corner of the perimeter wall of the temple of Ptah.⁵⁸ It is generally assumed that the makers of the tomb removed the stela from a nearby temple structure at Memphis. The suggestion is based on a parallel stela carrying a text of the same nature found in the temple of Amun at Karnak.⁵⁹ The attribution to the temple of Ptah at Memphis is indeed convincing, the more so since the lunette depicts a mirrored image of the king offering to both Amun (on the left) and Ptah (on the right). However, the find context of the stela also opens up the possibility that the stela in fact derived from Saqqara. A number of the tombs of the 22nd Dynasty high priests were made using building materials taken from tombs—most likely tombs from Saqqara. These include the lid and bottom of the red granite sarcophagus of Amenhotep Huy [382], mayor of Memphis in the reign of Ramesses II, found reused in the tomb of Petiese,⁶⁰ an anthropoid sarcophagus of the same man found in the tomb of Harsiese,⁶¹ and four relief-decorated blocks and a lintel inscribed for the 19th Dynasty high priest of Ptah, Iy-iry, from the reign of Seti II, found reused in tomb W.⁶² The tomb of Amenhotep Huy’s predecessor in office, Ptahmose (027/usc) is located halfway between the find spot of the 20 stamped mud bricks of Amenhotep II (tomb shaft of Ry, 038/usc) and the king’s wall found further north. If the builders of the Third Intermediate Period (tip) high priestly tombs at Memphis quarried this area of the necropolis for building material, they could have also taken the large stela of Amenhotep II. It is hoped that future archaeological work at Saqqara will further enlighten us on the nature of the structure(s) of Amenhotep II.

4.4.2 A Temple of Thutmosis IV?

Amenhotep II appears not to have been the only king of the mid-18th Dynasty who expressed special interest in the Unas South Cemetery. A limestone architrave fragment, measuring 1.8 × 0.9 m, bearing the prenomen of Thutmosis IV, Mn-ḫpr.w-Rꜥ, was found reused as a trough in the nearby Coptic monastery of Apa Jeremias.⁶³ The trough/architrave stood in the middle of what Quibell terms the Court of Octagons (Fig. 34). Betsy Bryan suggests that the architrave formed part of a shrine dedicated to Ptah, at Memphis, and points out that the size of the preserved fragment befits a building of impressive dimensions.⁶⁴ Although not entirely impossible, a Memphite provenance seems unlikely, however. It is difficult to comprehend why the builders of the monastery would take the trouble of transporting this block all the way from Memphis, c. 3 km to the east, whereas stone building materials were abundantly available close to where the monastery stood. It seems more plausible, then, that this architectural element offers the only remaining evidence for a temple built by the king at Saqqara, either on the plateau or at the foot of the escarpment. The former deserves preference, and we may hypothesise that Thutmosis IV built a structure similar to that of Amenhotep II. Like Amenhotep II, Thutmosis IV also expressed an interest in the rocky outcrop between Abusir and Saqqara,⁶⁵ and in the sphinx at Giza, where among other things he had a stela installed between its paws (the so-called dream stela).⁶⁶ That we do not have any additional material remains of this temple⁶⁷ (or any other Saqqara New Kingdom temple, for that matter) should perhaps come as no surprise, given the huge numbert of limestone blocks processed in the construction of the Coptic monastery.⁶⁸ Just the Court of Octagons alone in its ruined state still contains an impressive number of limestone blocks, and it is very unlikely that these were quarried at distant Tura-Massara. In relation to the Saqqara temples, we may also want to point out the stela which was reused as a threshold to its southern entrance (Fig. 34). This quartzite stela derives from the tomb of the Chief Steward in Memphis, Amenhotep Huy (141/usc), one of Amenhotep III’s top-officials in the north of the kingdom. Among a list of other things, he was responsible for the construction of the temple of Millions of Years of the king. There are strong indications that his tomb stood close to the king’s memorial temple—perhaps in an area where more royal temples of the New Kingdom once stood (Chapter 6).

View Full Size

Figure 34

The location of the Court of Octagons in the ruins of the monastery of Apa Jeremias in relation to the New Kingdom necropolis south of the Unas causeway

Image by the author

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

4.4.3 A Lost Mid-18th Dynasty Cemetery in the Former Collection of Giuseppe di Nizzoli

The royal structure(s) did not stand alone in this area of the necropolis. Well-off private individuals of the mid-18th Dynasty appear to have built their tombs there also. Yet the problem with assessing the structure and development of the cemetery through the first half of the 18th Dynasty, is that no material remains of tomb structures have been found in controlled archaeological excavations. We mainly have the incidental accounts of early-modern excavators who were exclusively interested in assembling antiquities collections of their own. Now that part of the cemetery has been excavated in modern times, we can deduce in which areas the earlier diggers operated. Museum objects assembled for some of the early 19th century private collectors can be linked to rediscovered tombs, i.e. tombs that were unearthed in the early 19th century and subsequently lost.

Drawing on the evidence presently available to us, not all early collectors are as reliable a source. For example, the agents and diggers who provided Giovanni d’Anastasi with antiquities excavated in multiple sites across the North Saqqara plateau. Thus it is rather difficult to pinpoint where exactly his diggings were concentrated and, by extension, from whence many of the current museum objects were taken. We are on firmer ground with Giuseppe Passalacqua, whose diggers concentrated their work in the area south of the pyramid of Djoser. Indeed, all the tomb elements unearthed by them, now held in the Berlin Egyptian Museum, that can be linked to more recently excavated tombs are exclusively located in the Unas South Cemetery. The earliest dateable items from Passalacqua’s collection are late 18th Dynasty, and therefore not relevant to the present section. For the earlier 18th Dynasty, we need to turn to the former collections of Giuseppe di Nizzoli, chancellor of the Austrian Consulate in Egypt from c. 1818–1827.

Nizzoli amassed three collections that he sold in Europe. The first was bought in 1820 by Ernst August Burghart on behalf of the Emperor Franz I of Austria,⁶⁹ which now forms part of the Ägyptisch-Orientalische Sammlung of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. The second collection was sold in 1824 to the Grand Duke Leopold II of Tuscany (1824), and now forms part of the Museo Egizio di Firenze in Florence. The third collection was sold to the painter Pelagio Palagi (1831) and, since 1860, constitutes the core of the Egyptian collection of the Museo Civico Archeologico in Bologna.⁷⁰ The excavations carried out in spring 1826 are, for the time, well-documented, because Nizzoli’s wife, Amalia Sola, directed work at Saqqara.⁷¹ She wrote in a diary form about her experiences and observation while living in Egypt. Her account was eventually published in 1841.⁷² The publication offers important information regarding the excavations ‘a Saccarah, villagio situate presso l’antica Menfi’.⁷³ At the village of Saqqara she was provided with accommodation replete with house staff, and stayed there for the duration of the work, which lasted 40 days. Objects unearthed in the course of this campaign formed Nizzoli’s third collection. These included a column fragment from the tomb of Amenemone (005/usc), a pilaster from the tomb of Ptahemwia (025/usc), five relief-decorated blocks from the tomb of Horemheb (046/usc), and one relief block from the tomb of Hormin (047/usc). All these tombs form part of a relatively small cluster of above-ground monuments in the Unas South Cemetery. With the re-discovery of the tomb of Horemheb in 1975 and Ptahemwia in 2007, the precise provenance of these items is now known. Thus, as far as the New Kingdom necropolis is concerned, Sola directed the excavations not too far from where she resided at Saqqara village.

One of the tombs excavated on behalf of Nizzoli before 1826 was that of Amenhotep Huy (141/usc), the chief steward in Memphis. A number of the items found at the tomb and inside the burial chamber entered the second collection sold to Florence. The items include a granite pyramidion, the limestone stela depicting Huy vis-à-vis his son, Ipy, two calcite jars, a calcite cubit measure, and a calcite model palette.⁷⁴ This important discovery is also referred to in Sola’s publication.⁷⁵ Not all items found during excavation were carried off. She narrates that it was impossible to remove the stone sarcophagus of Amemhotep Huy, and that it was left behind in the burial chamber. In Section 4.4.2 we learned that another stela of Amenhotep Huy had been found reused in the monastery of Apa Jeremias, in the so-called Court of Octagons. The find of this heavy stela, repurposed as a threshold, suggests that the tomb from which it was taken, stood close by. This area, on the edge of the plateau, is locally referred to as the Ras el-Gisr, ‘head of the embankment’, which, in Quibell’s words, is “that much-dug area on the desert edge at the end of the dyke leading from Bedrashein”.⁷⁶

The links between the items held in Nizzoli’s second and third collections and the tombs re-located by modern archaeology suggest that Nizzoli exploited the same area of the plateau later supervised by his wife before 1826. These observations tentatively offer context to the items of Nizzoli’s second collection now held in Florence. This collection includes a small number of items from the tombs of officials who lived before the reign of Amenhotep III (Table 3). These provide indications for the (former) presence of tomb structures built in the mid-18th Dynasty, spanning the reigns of Thutmosis III, Amenhotep II, and Thutmosis IV. The evidence, albeit scanty, strongly suggests that these tombs stood in the Unas South Cemetery.

4.4.4 The Tomb of the Vizier Thutmosis on Saqqara’s “Chain of Hills”

One item from the former collection of Nizzoli is of particular interest, because the Italian offers firsthand information about the find context (in situ), which is quite remarkable for the time.⁷⁷ The information pertains to the Old Kingdom inspired false-door stela of the Lower Egyptian Vizier Thutmosis [491],⁷⁸ who served under Thutmosis IV–Amenhotep III (Fig. 35):⁷⁹

Il tableau n. 1 rapressentante la porta di un tempío, fu ritrovato durante i miei scavi a Saccarah vicino a Menfi, sulla catena delle colline che dividono la sponda sinistra del Nilo, dalle sabbie dei deserti. La città di Menfi non è distante da questo luogo più d’un quarto d’ora, ed è prossima alla detta sponda del Nilo. Il detto tableau era situato in una parete di prospetto d’un tempietto rovinato, ed era alla superficie del terreno ossia della roccia.⁸⁰

View Full Size

Figure 35

False-door stela of Thutmosis, vizier during the reigns of Thutmosis IV and Amenhotep III, Florence, Egyptian Museum inv. no. 42565–ME2565

Photohraph su concessione del museo archeologico nazionale di firenze (Direzione regionale musei della toscana)

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The description suggests that the stela was set in a freestanding, above-ground tomb chapel that was most likely constructed of mud bricks. That Nizzoli mistook the tomb chapel for a “small temple” hints at its size, which must have been larger than the roughly contemporary small chapels known from the Teti Pyramid Cemetery (Chapter 5). The stela likely stood in or against the west wall of the structure. The observation that the structure stood “at the surface of the ground or of the rock” is interesting, because it reminds one of the temple wall of Amenhotep II, which was indeed built on the bedrock (see Section 4.4.1). The question is whether the tomb of the Vizier Thutmosis stood in close proximity to the temple of Amenhotep II, which, in turn, might have seen the nearby construction of a temple of his successor, Thutmosis IV, if indeed the lintel (reused as a trough in the Coptic monastery’s Court of Octagons) has been identified correctly (see Section 4.4.2). It is perhaps more likely that the tomb stood further to the southeast, close to the ‘head of the embankment’ where Nizzoli also found the tomb of Amenhotep Huy. This is also closer to where the large quantities of mud bricks stamped with the prenomen of Amenhotep II were found, near structure 108/usc. This site better fits Nizzoli’s description of siting the tomb structure “on the chain of hills”, which might be a reference to the hills flanking the Wadi Gamal (also known as the Wadi Tabbet el-Guesh).

One of the hills flanking the wadi to the west, labelled kom Tb sw, has indeed been used as a cemetery. Burials, rock-cut tombs and above-ground superstructures dated to the late Old Kingdom–fip and the Late Period–Greco-Roman period have been excavated there since 2000.⁸¹ No New Kingdom remains have been found there, however. Tombs dated to that period might perhaps be found on one of the hills flanking the wadi to the east, kom Tb se. That is if we base ourselves on the information provided by the map published by Jacques De Morgan in 1897.⁸² On the hill are indicated the locations of two Old Kingdom structures (coloured red) and several structures that De Morgan dates to the New Kingdom (coloured dark green). Could these be the tombs that Nizzoli describes as being located “on the chain of hills that divide the left bank of the Nile from the sands of the deserts”? Today, there is nothing on the surface of the hills east of the wadi that would reinforce this suggestion.

It is not just the location of the Tabbet el-Guesh cemetery that fits the description given by Nizzoli; the fip tomb structures also have false door stelae that might provide an indication for the architectural setting of the mid-18th Dynasty specimens. The characteristic fip tombs are called ‘house mastabas’.⁸³ The tombs’ superstructures are built of mud bricks, are white plastered, and have a rectangular niche cut in their eastern side in which the false door stela is set—some with a lintel added over the stela and an offering table on the floor in front—, and have a small courtyard to the east of the structure.⁸⁴ The owners of the Tabbet el-Guesh house mastabas were priests serving in the pyramid of Pepi I, which stood nearby to the south, at the mouth of the wadi.⁸⁵

The combination of the cemetery location and the architectural layout of the house mastabas at Tabbet el-Guesh flags the hypothesis that the mid-18th Dynasty tomb structures were inspired by structures in the local mortuary landscape.

4.4.5 The Vizier and High Priest of Ptah, Ptahmose: The First Occupant of a New Cemetery?

A predecessor of Thutmosis in the office of northern vizier, a certain Ptahmose [418], in the reign of Thutmosis III simultaneously held office of high priest of Ptah at Memphis. He too is attested by an Old Kingdom-inspired false door stela, made of red granite (Leiden am 1-a).⁸⁶ The stela derives from the collection of Giovanni d’Anastasi, who, as we know, was not personally involved in excavations, but mostly bought from dealers and local excavators. The exact provenance of the stela is therefore uncertain; yet a setting similar to that of the stela of Thutmosis is to be expected.

To our present knowledge, Ptahmose is the earliest New Kingdom vizier for whom a Memphite tomb can be reconstructed with certainty.⁸⁷ He is attested by a range of funerary items and tomb elements. These include, apart from the stela, the fragment of a seated statue made of limestone (Brooklyn 37.1512E)—a material one would associate with a tomb context rather than a temple context—, four canopic jars (Louvre N 2986–2989; ex-coll. E.A. Durand, 1825), a cubit measure (Leiden AD 54; ex-coll. G. d’Anastasi, 1828), and a greywacke scribe’s palette (Louvre N 3026; ex-coll. Comte d’Hauterive, 1832). All these items entered the private collections at around the same time that Nizzoli excavated at Saqqara.

The central panel of his impressive stela depicts the deceased tomb owner seated at an offering table. The stela is made of granite, a hard stone quarried at Aswan in the south of Egypt. The material suggests that the stela was a gift of the king. After all, quarrying for hard stones such as granite was royal monopoly. The Old Kingdom-inspired stela, in combination with the material it is made of, provides a link to the contemporary Upper Egyptian vizier, Rekhmire. Two false door stelae occupied a central place in his rock-cut tomb (TT 100) at Sheikh Abd el-Gurna in Western Thebes. The two stelae were superimposed in the 8 m high west wall of the tomb’s main corridor.⁸⁸ The lower stela, measuring just over 4 m high, is carved from the rock. The second stela was originally placed directly above the rock-cut specimen, and is now housed in the collection of the Musée du Louvre in Paris (inv. no. C 74). It is made of red granite and has approximately the same dimensions as the stela of his colleague in the north, 146 × 81 cm.⁸⁹ The stelae of Ptahmose and Rekhmire are strikingly similar, although various iconographic details clearly differentiate the two.

In the reign of Thutmosis III, the vizierate became a dual function. The vizier responsible for the administration of the South resided at Thebes, and the vizier of the North resided at Memphis. The fact that the two viziers of Thutmosis III who, for the first time, shared the office availed themselves of nearly identical stelae to be set in their private tombs can hardly be a coincidence. Moreover, the two viziers were not alone in having false door stelae in their houses of eternity. The king, too, had a similar monument made for his temple of Millions of Years, located on the western bank of the Nile at Thebes on the edge of the floodplain opposite the cemetery of Sheikh Abd el-Gurna. The large stela had been removed long ago for reuse elsewhere in Western Thebes, and it has recently (2020) been re-installed against the westernmost wall of the structure.⁹⁰

Unfortunately nothing is known about the architectural context of Ptahmose’s stela, nor do we know anything about the spatial context in which the tomb stood. Yet the parallel offered by the tomb of Rekhmire invites us to have a closer look at the location selected for the tomb, and the spatial relationship to the king’s temple of Millions of Years. Rekhmire clearly selected a spot that offered a direct visual link to the monument of the king he served. Such spatial relationships are not at all uncommon. To the contrary, the location of the tombs of certain officials were very deliberately selected in order to emphasise their relationship to the king.⁹¹ With a total lack of archaeological evidence for Memphite temples of Millions of Years, it is difficult to ascertain a connection between the royal temples and the private necropolis(es) as observed in Thebes. However, as we will further explore in Chapter 6, all the available information leads us to hypothesise precisely the same landscape setting. Thus, the tomb of Ptahmose, whatever form it may have had, was probably sited at such a place where it created a visual link to the temple of Millions of Years of Thutmosis III. The latter temple is known from textual sources, perhaps most significantly in the present context from the titles held by the army general Amenemone (005/usc). He served in the reigns of Tutankhamun–Horemheb, but held the office of i҆m.y-r pr m tꜣ ḥw.t Mn-ḫpr-Rꜥ, ‘steward of the temple of Menkheperre’, a royal monument that was already c. 100 years old when he held the title.

4.4.6 The Vizier Thutmosis

The successor of Ptahmose in the office of vizier of the north was yet another man named Thutmosis [492], who is dated to the reign of Amenhotep II.⁹² He is known from a stela held in the collection of Lord Nugent, acquired in Egypt in 1844. The item’s present location is unknown. The limestone stela is round-topped and so differs from that of both his immediate predecessor and successor in office. The scene in the upper register of the stela depicts Thutmosis, wearing the two-row Gold of Honour, seated at an offering table, while his son, the wꜥb n.y Ptḥ, ‘Wab Priest of Ptah’, Amenhotep, faces him from across the offering table, raising his arm in a gesture indicating speech.

The form of the stela suggests that its architectural setting differed from that of the viziers before and after him, who both had a rectangular false door stela. The stela may have stood against the west wall of a chapel with a vaulted roof. If indeed the case, the measurements of the stela (c. 70 × 40 cm) point to a rather modestly sized chapel.

The mid-18th Dynasty owners of tombs in the Unas South Cemetery are listed in table 4.

4.5.1 Pit-Burials Marked by an Above-Ground Structure

The earliest archaeologically attested and well-documented burials are two pit graves dated to the reign of Amenhotep III, excavated south of the tomb of Horemheb (046/usc) (Fig. 36).⁹³ The two pits contained one individual each. The individual interred in pit grave 048/usc lay in a gabled rectangular wooden coffin, and the individual interred in pit grave 083/usc lay in a wooden anthropoid coffin. Both graves were marked above ground by a slab of limestone that stood vertically at the grave’s head end. The head stone of burial 048/usc was supported by a platform made of chunks of limestone and mud bricks that was plastered over (Fig. 37). The headstone stood vertically against the platform’s west face to a height of c. 70 cm. The upper surface of the plastered mud-brick platform was shaped so as to serve as a receptacle of offering goods, such as food, libation, or perhaps burning incense.⁹⁴

View Full Size

Figure 36

Unas South Cemetery, Leiden-Turin concession area: pit-burials, temp. Amenhotep III

Image by the author

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The title associated with the individual buried in pit grave 083/usc was that of ḥr.y sḏm-ꜥš, Chief servant (burial 99/5). This burial was found undisturbed, and the mummy of a 30–40 year-old male was still adorned with various items, including a bronze signet ring and heart scarab with remains of a pectoral, and the individual’s head still rested on a wooden headrest. The burial was positioned directly opposite a niche made in the south exterior wall of Horemheb’s tomb, replete with limestone threshold.⁹⁵ The recessed niche served to hold a round-topped stela. This stela was not recovered during excavation, however. The excavators tentatively suggest that the niche may have held a stela dedicated to the chief servant buried in this pit grave. If such were the case, the stela could have only been mounted in the wall long after the individual had been buried, because Horemheb started construction of his tomb in the very early years of Tutankhamun’s reign—in other words, at least 20 years after the pit for 083/usc had been dug. So, if the stela recess is to be associated with a burial predating the building of the tomb of Horemheb, it tells us something about the long-term attention the pit grave received from the living.

View Full Size

Figure 37

Pit-burial of Hesynebef (048/usc) marked above-ground by a headstone supported by a built platform

Photograph courtesy of the Rijksmuseum Van Oudheden, Leiden

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

It is currently impossible to determine whether the two burials formed part of a larger cemetery composed of relatively modest tombs equipped for the so-called ‘lower classes’, although it would be remarkable if this were not the case. It would indeed be more exceptional if the two pit burials proved to be isolated cases. It has been suggested that later development of the cemetery, which saw the introduction of more monumental structures, obscured or even completely erased all traces of this earlier phase of use.⁹⁶ It is equally well possible that these pit graves represent the northernmost extent of a more elaborate cemetery composed of such graves. Whichever of the two scenarios were the case, it is noteworthy that the modest and rather fragile above-ground platform of 048/usc remained intact, in spite of the large-scale construction works on the tomb of Horemheb at a distance of only 53 cm to the north.

4.5.2 Indications for the Architectural Form and Layout of Tomb Chapels: The Stela of Hatiay

With a complete lack of archaeological remains to inform us about the architectural form and layout of more substantial tomb chapels in this cemetery dated to the reign of Amenhotep III, we need to turn to the leads offered in funerary iconography. The single tomb stela to lift the veil somewhat for us is today housed in the collection of the Museo Egizio in Florence (inv. no. 2593) (Fig. 38). It was excavated on behalf of Nizzoli, and sold in 1824. The stela’s pedigree suggests that the tomb was located in the Unas South Cemetery, the area extensively explored by Nizzoli. The suggestion is further strengthened by the high-ranking title held by the stela owner. The object was made for Hatiay [454], an overseer of the cattle of Amun (i҆m.y-r i҆ḥ.w n.w I҆mn). The tombs of at least twelve officials with the same title are known through their tomb elements. These all point to a tomb located in this area of the necropolis, spanning the late 18th Dynasty until the end of the reign of Ramesses II.⁹⁷ Hatiay represents the first (known) overseer of cattle of Amun who built a tomb in the Memphite necropolis.⁹⁸ His successor in office would have been Iniuia (009/usc), who is dated to the late Amarna and immediate post-Amarna period. Horemheb (046/usc) built his tomb immediately north of Iniua’s. The tomb chapel of Hatiay should probably be sought further to the south.

View Full Size

Figure 38

Round-topped stela of Hatiay, the overseer of cattle of Amun in the reign of Amenhotep III, Florence, Egyptian Museum inv. no. 42593–ME2593

Photograph su concessione del museo archeologico nazionale di firenze (Direzione regionale musei della toscana)

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The stela of Hatiay is round-topped. The protruding frame is inscribed with two offering formulae, and the central panel is divided into two registers, showing scenes carved in sunk relief. The scene in the upper register depicts Hatiay standing in adoration before the gods Re-Horakhty and Osiris, an early expression of the parallelism between Re and Osiris in private tomb iconography.⁹⁹ For the purpose of this study, let us shift focus to the scene in the lower register. It depicts the owner kneeling before a tree goddess. Hatiay’s ba, depicted as a human-headed bird with arms, is positioned behind him atop a structure that could be identified as the façade of his tomb chapel. It is a rectangular superstructure surmounted by a torus moulding and cavetto cornice. One may argue that the form of the façade is rather generic, and that the representation is not necessarily true to nature. Still, the depiction closely resembles the sort of tomb chapels excavated in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery (Chapter 5).¹⁰⁰ Thus, the structure’s façade depicted on the stela of Hatiay presumably represents his tomb, from which his ba has just come forth by day in order to receive food and drink from the tree goddess. The form of the stela, round-topped, suggests that it stood in a chapel with a vaulted roof, set against the west wall. The semi-circular form of the vaulted roof is graphically illustrated in the contemporary stelae of Nebneteru [437] (Leiden am 8-b; see Fig. 72) and Mahu (218/tpc; Cairo je 33256), for example. In both cases, the ‘lunette’ is positioned atop the naos-shaped rectangular stela that is surmounted by a torus moulding and cavetto cornice. The latter stela was found in situ by Victor Loret a the mud-brick tomb chapel located in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery. The provenance of the former is unknown, although all indications point to the same cemetery north of Teti’s pyramid. The stela depicts the tomb owner flanked by his wife and mother emerging from the chapel, leaving it by day in order to receive offerings. Thus essentially, the stela of Nebneteru illustrates a theme very similar to that illustrated in the lower register of the stela of Hatiay. The form and iconographic layout of the stela of Hatiay—round-topped with a protruding frame inscribed with two offering formulae, and the central panel divided into two registers, showing scenes carved in sunken relief—finds a parallel in the contemporary stela of Amenma (214/tpc; Berlin äm 7320), guardian of the house (palace) of His Majesty, and Sa [464] (Berlin äm 7272), scribe of documents of the chief steward.¹⁰¹ Lepsius found the former stela in situ in a small chapel made of mud bricks, located in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery. The provenance of the latter stela is not known. However, given the stela’s date, the chief steward mentioned in the title, albeit unnamed, can probably be identified as Amenhotep Huy (141/usc), whose tomb stood in the Unas South Cemetery. The comparisons between the stelae deriving from the Teti Pyramid Cemetery and the Unas South Cemetery (Table 5) indicate that, in the reign of Amenhotep III, the architectural form and layout of tomb superstructures in both cemeteries were to a certain extend comparable. The social standing of the tomb owners differed, however, as is discussed in Chapter 5.

4.5.3 The Burial(s) of an Influential Memphite Family

The evidence for mid-18th Dynasty tombs in the Unas South Cemetery thus far explored in this study, suggests that these clustered in the south end of the cemetery. The few tombs identified for this period were made for viziers and high priests of Ptah, and date to the period between the reigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep III. Much of the evidence for the suggested location of the tombs and architectural setting of the stelae revolved around the Lower Egyptian Vizier Thutmosis [491], owner of stela Florence 2565. This vizier offers a link to the ensuing reign of Amenhotep III, because he was the father of Ptahmose [412], high priest of Ptah,¹⁰² and Meryptah [429], steward in the temple of Amenhotep III. The family relations are based on the following two items:

Stela Florence 2565

The central panel depicts the High Priest of Ptah, Ptahmose, standing at an offering table before his seated father, the Vizier Thutmosis. Ptahmose is immediately recognisable as a high priest, as he wears the leopard skin and the characteristic side lock of hair. The column of text below his figure identifies him with the titles i҆m.y-r ḥm.w-nṯr n.w Šmꜥ.w Mḥ.w sm wr-ḫrp-ḥmw.w, Overseer of priests of Upper and Lower Egypt, Sem and High priest of Ptah. It thus follows that Ptahmose held the highest priestly office in the temple of the Memphite city god, Ptah, already at a time when his father held office as vizier of the North. The Thutmosis–Ptahmose family must therefore have been among the most influential at Memphis. The next item further reinforces this image.

View Full Size

Figure 39

Fragment of the upper part of the stela of Meryptah, Leiden, National Museum of Antiquities ap 11

Photograph courtesy of the Rijksmuseum Van Oudheden, Leiden

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Stela fragments Leiden ap 11 (84 × 95 × 30 cm) and London, Petrie Museum uc 14463 (80.3 × 55 × 9 cm) (Fig. 39).¹⁰³

This naos-shaped stela is now broken in at least four pieces, one of which is lost. The upper part of the stela came to Leiden as part of the collection of Giovanni d’Anastasi (1828). Presumably, the agent(s) working on behalf of d’Anastasi left the fragments of the lower part of the stela at Saqqara, if indeed seen at the time, and took only the more ‘interesting’ fragment with the half-sculpted figures for inclusion in the private collection. The London fragments were bought in 1913 by University College, and previously formed part of a teaching collection of William Matthew Flinders Petrie (1853–1942).¹⁰⁴ It is not entirely clear how he came into possession of the fragments. It would seem that Petrie either found them at Saqqara—even though he did not excavate there—,¹⁰⁵ or bought them from dealers. The Leiden and London fragments do not join directly; a strip of c. 12 cm is missing, depicting a mirrored offering scene in sunk relief. The complete stela measured c. 176.3 cm in height, larger than any of the known Memphite tomb elements known to have been made up to that date.

The fragment of the upper part of the stela is of special interest, because it depicts a sort of ‘family portrait’. Five individuals carved as half statues are represented as if exiting the naos.¹⁰⁶ The individuals are all identified through short lines or columns of text carved on their garment. They are, from left to right:

mw.t=f nb.t pr Tꜣ.wy mꜣꜥ.t-ḫrw nb.t i҆mꜣḫ

His mother, Lady of the House Tawy, true of voice, possessor of reverence.

sꜣ i҆m.y-r ni҆w.t ṯꜣ.ty Ḏḥw.ty-ms ḥm-nṯr i҆m.y-r pr n.y tꜣ ḥw.t Nb-mꜣꜥ.t-Rꜥ mr.y-Ptḥ [mꜣꜥ-ḫrw]

Son of the Vizier Thutmosis, the Priest and Steward of the Temple of Nebmaatre, Meryptah [true of voice].

sꜣ i҆m.y-r ni҆w.t ṯꜣ.ty Ḏḥw.ty-ms sm wr-ḫrp-ḥmw.w Ptḥ-ms mꜣꜥ-ḫrw

Son of the Vizier Thutmosis, High Priest of Ptah, Ptahmose, true of voice.

prr.t nb.t ḥr wḏḥ.w n.y Wnn-nfr n kꜣ n.y ṯꜣ.ty Ḏḥw.ty-ms mꜣꜥ[-ḫrw]

All that which comes forth upon the offering table of Wennefer for the ka of the Vizier, Thutmosis, true of voice.

wr-ḫrp-ḥmw.w Ptḥ-ms sꜣ ḥm-nṯr Mn-ḫpr

High Priest of Ptah, Ptahmose, son of the Priest Menkheper.

The stela is centred on the two brothers, sons of the Vizier Thutmosis who officiated in the reigns of Thutmosis IV–Amenhotep III. The offering formulae carved on the lintel and jambs are distributed equally between Ptahmose and Meryptah. The Appeal to the Living carved along the top of the cavetto cornice and the text carved over the seven lines in the lower part of the stela, on the other hand, centre solely on Meryptah. This son of Thutmosis served as high priest and steward in the Memphite temple of Millions of Years of Amenhotep III.¹⁰⁷ This temple was constructed under the supervision of the Chief Steward in Memphis, Amenhotep Huy (141/usc), in the third decade of Amenhotep III’s reign.¹⁰⁸ It is quite likely that the tomb(s) of the brothers Meryptah and Ptahmose stood in close proximity to that of Amenhotep Huy.

The third high priest represented in the stela, Ptahmose [413] son of the priest Menkheper, likely succeeded Ptahmose, son of Thutmosis, as high priest of Ptah at Memphis. He might be the priest offering to the two seated individuals (also priests, as can be deduced from the tails of their leopard skins) sitting back to back in the scene underneath the ‘family portrait’, now largely lost. Ptahmose is otherwise known only from a block statue now held in Florence (inv. no. 1790), dedicated by the High Priest of Ptah, Pahemneter, the son of Mahu(y), who held office in the 19th Dynasty. The father of Ptahmose, Menkheper, might be the same man as the owner of stela Leiden ap 53 [423].¹⁰⁹ This stela, which dates to Thutmosis IV–Amenhotep III, identifies him as i҆m.y-r pr n.y ṯꜣ.ty, steward of the vizier. The Lower Egyptian vizier whom he served is not mentioned by name. Yet the date of the stela would strongly suggest that it was Thutmosis [491].¹¹⁰ The scene in the lower register of stela Leiden ap 53 offers support to this identification, because it links Menkheper’s social circle to the Memphite temple of Millions of Years of another king, Thutmosis III. The scene depicts two couples seated at a single offering table. They are Thutmosis, the i҆dnw n.y pr Mn-ḫpr-Rꜥ, ‘deputy of the temple (lit. house) of Menkheperre (Thutmosis III)’ and his wife Mahu; and Amunemmeruef, another deputy of the temple of Menkheperre, with his wife Ir. The precise nature of their relationship to Menkheper is unknown.

4.5.4 Development towards Monumental Tomb Architecture

The reign of Amenhotep III witnessed a development towards monumentalising tomb architecture. The evidence mainly revolves around the inscribed and decorated stone elements deriving from the tomb of the High Priest of Ptah, Ptahmose [412], just discussed, and the Chief Steward of Memphis, Amenhotep Huy (141/usc). The latter tomb was excavated in the 1820s, when items entered the collections of various Europeans including d’Anastasi and Nizzoli. Although its exact location has subsequently been lost, the description given by Nizzoli (see Section 4.4.3) combined with the find-spot of a tomb stela reused in the monastery of Apa Jeremias (Fig. 34)¹¹¹ strongly suggests that it must be sought in this part of the necropolis. Whether we should imagine it as a completely freestanding structure or as a rock-cut tomb (which may have had a freestanding part added to it), cannot be ascertained. The fact that no relief-decorated blocks deriving from the tomb are known today,¹¹² provides an indication that it differed somewhat from the so-called temple-tombs so well-known from the (post-)Amarna period at Saqqara.

4.7.1 The Tomb of Iniuia

The first new tomb in this area after Akhenaten appears to be that of Iniuia (009/usc) (Figs 41–42). It looks as if he started construction of his comparably modest tomb late in the Amarna period. The tomb stela set against the west wall of the inner chapel identifies him as a scribe of the treasury of silver and gold of the Lord of the Two Lands (sš pr-ḥḏ n.y ḥḏ-nbw n.y nb tꜣ.wy). The title of ‘scribe’ may possibly obscure a more elevated office in the state treasury. The style observed in the relief decoration of the inner chapel certainly ‘leans’ against the Amarna art. However, since the accompanying inscriptions additionally identify Iniuia as an overseer of cattle of Amun (i҆m.y-r i҆ḥ.w n.w I҆mn), a date in the second half of the reign of Akhenaten seems out of the question. One of the scenes on the interior walls of the inner chapel forge a link to the tomb of Meryre I at Amarna (ta 04).¹²⁰ The scene depicting Iniuia supervising the unloading of amphorae from boats, on the north wall of the chapel, was inspired by a scene centred on the king (Akhenaten) visiting the Aten temple at Akhetaten as depicted in the Amarna tomb of Meryre. The link opens up the possibility that relief-decoration in both tombs was made by the same conceptual artists or sculptor, although the hypothesis needs further exploration. If such were indeed the case, one could also hypothesise that the same artists continued work in the Memphite tomb of Meryneith. In light of that possible scenario, it warrants noting that on stylistic grounds the reliefs in the tomb of Iniuia would seem to predate those in the tomb of Meryneith, Phase 2.

View Full Size

Figure 41

The Unas South Cemetery, Leiden-Turin concession area, in the late 18th Dynasty, late Amarna/immediate post-Amarna period

Image by the author

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

View Full Size

Figure 42

Tomb of Iniuia (009/usc) after excavation in 1993, facing north-east

Photograph courtesy of the Egypt exploration society/Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The tomb of Iniuia was also decorated in at least two stages, possibly three. The second phase of decoration coincided with a change in the architectural lay-out of the tomb. The interior walls of a second, vaulted chapel, situated in the northwest courtyard, contains decoration painted on a mud layer.¹²¹ The style of the figures represented on the walls differs from those in the west chapel, and suggest that these were added later in the reign of Tutankhamun. In order to make place for the new chapel, part of the north wall of the courtyard and the north slope of the pyramid enveloping the first, western chapel had to be removed. One wonders why the architect chose to construct this chapel largely within the confines of the existing structure, which necessitated the removal of portions of the mud-brick structure. If we take the tomb out of isolation, and view it in spatial context, it becomes clear this had to do with the presence of the tomb of Horemheb, which, in the meantime, was under construction at less than 2 m to the north.

The style of the relief-decoration in the entrance doorway to the courtyard of Iniuia’s tomb also points to a date later in the reign of Tutankhamun or Ay.¹²² Here, Iniuia bears the additional title of (great) steward of/in Memphis (i҆m.y-r pr m/n.y Mn-nfr). He likely succeeded Ipy [372] in this office, who was the son of Amenhotep Huy (141/usc). The title of steward is also recorded on the two stelae flanking the entrance of what had become the southwest chapel of Iniuia.

4.7.2 A Cemetery for Tutankhamun’s Court Officials

The next stage in the development of the cemetery is marked by the arrival of high-ranking officials of Tutankhamun’s court (Figs 43–46). First and foremost among them was the king’s regent (i҆r.y-pꜥ.t), the commander-in-chief of the king’s army (i҆m.y-r i҆m.yw-r mšꜥ nb tꜣ.wy), Horemheb (046/usc). As is argued in the next section, his tomb was made in two main phases, 1a–b and 2. The sheer size of the project, especially in terms of making the relief decoration, would suggest that the expert artistic workforce available at Memphis was occupied with this quasi-royal monument for a while. The location selected for the monument lay at the then northern extent of the New Kingdom cemetery.

View Full Size

Figure 43

The Unas South Cemetery, Leiden-Turin concession area, in the late 18th Dynasty post-Amarna period, temp. Tutankhamun, early

Image by the author

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

View Full Size

Figure 44

The Unas South Cemetery, Leiden-Turin concession area, in the late 18th Dynasty post-Amarna period, temp. Tutankhamun

Image by the author

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

View Full Size

Figure 45

Tomb of Maya (028/usc), after excavation by the ees-Leiden expedition in 1986, seen from atop the entrance pylon, facing west

Photograph courtesy of the egypt exploration society/Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

View Full Size

Figure 46

The Unas South Cemetery, Leiden-Turin concession area, in the late 18th Dynasty post-Amarna period, temp. Tutankhamun–Horemheb

Image by the author

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

At one point, the architect of Horemheb’s tomb decided to move the eastern wall of the building further to the east, so that the first court could be transformed into a peristyle courtyard. The entrance was turned into a more substantial pylon gateway. The change of plan must have been realised within the 9-year reign of Tutankhamun, as the relief-decoration on the east end of the newly constructed courtyard walls, still date to his reign.

When work on the tomb of Horemheb was under way, the next truly monumental tomb-building project was started less than 20 m to the north, for Maya (028/usc). Even though the tomb was excavated 35 years ago, the building and decoration processes have not been subject to thorough study. However, one can easily distinguish more than one style in the execution of the relief decoration, which is also present in spaces of the subterranean complex—highly unusual. It would seem that the decoration spans from the early reign of Tutankhamun (e.g., reliefs in the inner courtyard) to the reign of Horemheb (e.g., scenes in the subterranean chambers). More detailed study of the reliefs should enable a more precise date of the work in progress.

It is likely that much of the work in the tombs of Horemheb and Maya was largely carried out simultaneously. Changes of plan in the one tomb influenced work in the other. The Phase 2 forecourt of Horemheb, for example, was ‘modelled’ after the pre-existing forecourt of Maya, which is wider than the western part of the tomb, and which includes relief-decoration on the north and south walls of the entrance gateway. Decoration in Maya’s gateway was finished, whereas the limestone revetment blocks in Horemheb’s entrance gateway were left undecorated. The peculiar orientation of the subterranean complex of Maya may have been modelled after that of Horemheb in Phase 2 (see below).

To the south of the Amarna-period tombs, the party excavated wall numbered 005/usc is tentatively identified as the tomb of Amenemone, an army general. It should be noted that there is no inscriptional evidence to confirm the identification at present. The tomb of the Troop-commander Ry (038/usc), built against the north wall of structure 005/usc, offers a relative date. The fact that Ry built his tomb against a pre-existing building to the south may be indicative of a professional relationship to his neighbour. One candidate would be the General of the Army Amenemone (005/usc), well known from numerous high-quality relief-decorated blocks now spread over many collections worldwide. Whether this really was his tomb cannot be ascertained at this moment, however. Ry built his tomb early in the reign of Tutankhamun, so 005/usc should be earlier. This date fits well with Amenemone, who succeeded Horemheb as commander-in-chief when the latter general became king rather unexpectedly.¹²³ It is possible that Amenemone had already started the construction of his tomb before his promotion.

The tombs of Pay (017/usc), overseer of the royal household, and Ry (038/usc), chief of bowmen and overseer of horses, were also built at this time. A preliminary analysis of the style and iconography of Ry’s tomb revealed very close ties with those of Pay, Iniuia, and Horemheb.¹²⁴ Thus the impression is that the number of tombs that were worked on at this time grew as the reign of Tutankhamun progressed. The tombs of Pay and Ry were sited in an open area bound by the tombs built just before the Amarna period and the monumental tomb of Horemheb.

The rather a-symmetrical plan of Ry’s tomb was likely due to a desire to make use of an already extant tomb shaft. The peculiar shape was also the result of reckoning with already extant structures and the passageways between them used by the living. One of the pre-existing structures to reckon with, was 108/usc, in this study cautiously dated to the reign of Amenhotep II or III. By shifting the entrance to his courtyard as far as possible to the north, Ry created an axial approach to his tomb. Thus, in its current position, it does not ‘hide’ behind the older structure from people arriving from the east.

Pay started construction of his tomb shortly after Ry had started. The main axis of former’s tomb is slightly titled to the north, thereby accommodating Ry’s tomb, which at that time was only just under construction. The tomb’s builders made use of an existing Old Kingdom shaft, which is not neatly positioned in the centre of the courtyard. The deviating position is worthy of note, given that tomb architecture generally tends to strive for symmetry. The whole structure could easily have shifted north, in order for the shaft to be neatly in the centre of the courtyard. That this was not done has to do with the neighbour to the west, Iniuia. Should Pay have built his tomb somewhat further to the north, Iniuia’s much smaller structure would have disappeared from view and practically cut off from its access route. Iniuia was still alive when Pay started construction, so the eventual position may have been arrived at in negotiation.

Towards the end of the reign of Tutankhamun the cemetery became increasingly more densely built. The spaces between the tomb superstructures were reduced by the addition of new structures and the expansion of existing ones. Most strikingly, the tomb of Horemheb was enlarged with about a third of its size by adding a forecourt to the east. In its final form, the south tower of the mud-brick pylon almost touches on the west side of the pyramid of Meryneith’s tomb. Still, the spaces all around most tombs allowed the living to easily access the individual structures and to navigate the cemetery freely.

The spaces in between the extant monumental temple-shaped tombs became increasingly built-in with more modest structures—although these were still large compared to the funerary arrangements of the large majority of the population at the time. In the east, a tomb (082/usc) was set in the area between the tomb of Ptahemwia and an earlier tomb, still unexcavated.¹²⁵ The erstwhile owner of 082/usc is not known. The chapel has been stripped off all limestone revetment, perhaps removed by early 19th-century excavators.¹²⁶ A noteworthy feature of this tomb are the two returns flanking the entrance between the two ‘pylon towers’. The same feature can be observed in the tomb of Ramose (039/usc), built in between the tombs of Horemheb and Maya. Ramose was a deputy of the army (i҆dn.w n.y pꜣ mšꜥ) and chief of bowmen of the army/the king (ḥr.y-pḏ.t n.y pꜣ mšꜥ/nb tꜣ.wy).

At around the same time, Meryneith partly closed off the area to the east of his tomb by building a wall between the southeast corner of his monument and the southwest corner of that of his neighbour, Ptahemwia. The wall was built to enable the placement of stelae inside six or seven niches. Four such stela niches were previously also built against the west exterior wall of Ptahemwia.¹²⁷ The forecourt area was not closed off in the north, likely with an eye to accessibility.

4.8.1 A Brief History of Exploration and Excavation

The origin story of the former ees-Leiden expedition to Saqqara has already been addressed at the start of this chapter. The quest for the tomb of Maya (028/usc), Tutankhamun’s treasurer, resulted first in the (re-)discovery of the tomb of Horemheb. The spectacular find was made in the first week of fieldwork, yet it would take the expedition another five seasons of work before the final report could be written, eventually published in 1989. In the 1970s, the structure was not unearthed in its entirety, however. In 2006, the Leiden expedition redirected attention to the sand hill in front of the tomb of Horemheb, cleared it in the course of one season, and revealed a large the forecourt, stretching all the way to Horemheb’s neighbour in the east, Meryneith (032/usc).

The modern archaeological exploration merely re-discovered the long-lost tomb of Horemheb. It was previously accessible to antiquities collectors as early as the 1820s. At that time, large numbers of statues and relief-decorated elements were removed and later dispersed to museum collections around the world.¹³⁴ Until recently, it was believed that the last recorded visit to the tomb before it was lost under the sand, was when Emmanuel de Rougé (1811–1872) copied the grand stela with a hymn to the sun god Re, which stood in situ against the west wall of the peristyle court.¹³⁵ An unpublished notebook of Auguste Mariette suggests that he stood in the tomb and copied various inscriptions as late as March 1875.¹³⁶ Mariette was certainly not the final visitor to the tomb before it disappeared under the sand, because at some point after his last recorded visit, the stela was smashed to pieces. The fragments were subsequently collected and taken to the Cairo Egyptian Museum.¹³⁷ Soon after the French scholar visited (the accessible part of) the tomb it slowly disappeared under the shifting desert sand. We have no later record of its existence—not until 1975—exactly 100 years later.

4.8.2 Architectural Lay-Out of the Superstructure and Burial Complex

The accessible superstructure of the Memphite tomb of Horemheb measures roughly 65 m from east to west. The architectural lay-out mirrors that of contemporary temples made for gods and kings. It is entered through a massive pylon gateway, followed by an open courtyard, a second pylon, peristyle courtyard, a statue room flanked by lateral chapels (in publication casually referred to as ‘magazines’), an inner peristyle courtyard and three chapels in the west. The central chapel is divided in two by screen walls, creating an antechapel and inner chapel. A naos-shaped stela would have stood against the chapel’s west wall.¹³⁸ The thick mud-brick walls, screen walls, two columns,¹³⁹ lintel, and roofing slabs presumably supported a pyramid structure topped by a pyramidion. No traces of the latter two elements have survived, however. The walls of the tomb are built of mud bricks throughout, and limestone is used for architectural elements such as columns, lintels, and paving stones. The interior walls of the monument west of the forecourt were fitted with a limestone revetment bearing fine relief-decoration. In select areas, such as the inner courtyard, the relief-decorated wall measures up to 3 m in height. Making and decorating the tomb must have been a massive operation involving large numbers of specialists such as painters and sculptors.¹⁴⁰

The tomb has two burial shafts that were used in the New Kingdom. The shaft located in the first peristyle courtyard (117/usc) was not used—or rather reused—until the Ramesside period, and did not form part of the initial tomb’s design.¹⁴¹ Horemheb’s burial apartments are accessed from a 10 m deep shaft situated in the inner courtyard (shaft no. iv). The builders reused a shaft that had previously belonged to an Old Kingdom mastaba tomb. No trace of the former superstructure survived, while the subterranean structure was adapted to facilitate the burial of the new user. The newly created complex was made in two stages, and reaches a depth of c. 28 m beneath the tomb’s pavement.

4.8.3 The Subterranean Complex

The subterranean complex accessed from shaft iv in the inner courtyard consists of a series of shafts, corridors, stairways and rooms. The complex can be divided in two levels. The upper level complex constitutes the original design, and the lower level signals a change of design. The precise date of when this happened is subject to discussion.

The tomb shaft (iv) leads to what used to be the Old Kingdom burial complex (M, L). This part of the complex was adapted by the New Kingdom builders, who enlarged the complex further south. The corridor between the shaft (iv) and room L was closed off with limestone blocks and sealed, following a burial. The south end of the room L has a side chamber (B) in the east and a descending corridor (A) opening to the west. This corridor leads to a second shaft (C), c. 6 m deep. At the bottom of the shaft, a corridor (E) leads west to a burial chamber (F) with barrel-vaulted ceiling and a rock-cut false door on the two short walls. A rectangular pit sunk in the floor was intended for depositing the nested wooden coffins, of which only the decayed remains were found upon excavation. The east end of the corridor (E) was closed off with limestone blocks and subsequently sealed, following a burial in chamber (F). An opening high up in the north wall of the shaft (C) gives access to a corridor leading further north. At the end of this corridor a third shaft (D) opens. A corridor (G) at the bottom of the shaft leads west towards a rectangular room (H), originally intended as the main burial chamber, and situated metres underneath the central west-chapel of the superstructure. The west and east long walls are carved with a panelled ‘palace façade’, and the rock of the north and south short walls are carved to represent naos-shaped stelae. A doorway and stairs in the northeast corner of the ‘sarcophagus’ chamber lead to a stairway (I) descending east to a chamber (J) followed by another short passage (K) that opens into a large, square pillared hall (N), the ceiling supported by four large pillars hewn from the rock. This room was still filled with limestone chips from the unfinished chamber (P). Also diorite pounders used by the workmen to bruise the rock were found when entered in the 1970s. The ancient workmen had started creating a passage in the east wall of the hall, but it was never finished. A fourth shaft (O) descends from between the two pillars on the south side of the hall, accessing the unfinished rectangular burial chamber.

4.8.4 A New Proposal for the Development of Horemheb’s Tomb

Geoffrey Martin and Kenneth Frazer, the ees-Leiden expedition surveyor, concluded that the tomb was made in three phases.¹⁴² In their interpretation, they were heavily influenced by what was already known about the historical persona of Horemheb from textual sources. Thus, the stages of his career are linked to phases of construction. There is a discrepancy between the description offered by Martin and the figures drawn by Frazer to illustrate the construction phases. Jacobus van Dijk already signalled the discrepancies, and proposed a somewhat different development of the structure.¹⁴³ When both Martin and Van Dijk published their observations on the development of the Memphite tomb of Horemheb, the eastern forecourt with entrance pylon had not yet been excavated.¹⁴⁴ Thus, both scholars based their reconstruction on two-thirds of the above-ground architecture. Today, we also have to our advantage access to a substantial number of archaeologically surveyed tombs in the Unas South Cemetery and elsewhere on the North Saqqara plateau. Martin had to make do with less than a handful of parallels from Saqqara. The currently available parallels can also be analysed in their spatial context. The life histories of individual tombs are all closely tangled, and architects and patrons had to reckon with what had been built before. Thus, certain choices made with regards to the architectural lay-out can only be comprehended when taking the wider spatial context into consideration. This study takes into account the wider spatial and temporal setting of Horemheb’s tomb, and arrives at a slightly different interpretation of the building phases. Newly identified scenes of Horemheb’s iconographic programme help to adjust the image even further. The relief decoration, albeit not nearly preserved intact, offers a sound chronological framework for the tomb construction project. The present study identifies two main stages in construction: Phase 1a and 1b, and Phase 2, and proposes that in Horemheb’s life, the tomb was used once for burial of his wife, queen (Amenia-)Mutnodjmet.

We know little with certainty about Horemheb before he became Tutankhamun’s regent.¹⁴⁵ Yet in light of the exceptional position he held at court (as regent), it seems reasonable to assume that he had occupied an elevated position at the court of Akhenaten. It means that he would have resided at Akhetaten, where he may have had a tomb under construction in the cliffs east of the town. One of the tombs in the southern group at Amarna, ta 24, may have been made for him.¹⁴⁶ Construction of this rock-cut tomb was only at an early stage. The project was abandoned when the court moved from Akhetaten back to Memphis, where various high-ranking officials started to construct a tomb in the Memphite necropolis. It is very likely that his necropolis neighbour at Saqqara, May(a) (028/usc), did the same. He had started a tomb construction project in the same southern tomb group at Aketaten (ta 14), and after moving to Memphis he had to start all over again. Others, such as Meryneith alias Meryre (032/usc), resumed work on their funerary monuments, which they had started earlier in the reign of then-king Amenhotep IV.

The monumental dimensions of the spaces in the Phase 1 structure of Horemheb at Saqqara suggest that it was designed from the beginning as the funerary monument of the regent. The tomb’s size excludes the possibility that its construction had started before Tutankhamun became king. Thus, when Horemheb arrived at Saqqara, the tombs of Iniuia (009/usc), Ptahemwia (025/usc), and Meryneith (032/usc) were already under construction. Horemheb selected a plot of land not far from the standing monuments of his peers, officials that had made a career in the reign of Akhenaten.

Phase 1a (Fig. 43)

One of the first works carried out at the construction site of Horemheb’s tomb would have been adapting the Old Kingdom burial chamber and further excavating the subterranean complex.¹⁴⁷ This complex included two spaces that were destined to be used as burial chambers: F and H. The material excavated from the subterranean spaces was deposited on the surface where the tomb was to be built. The stratigraphic sequence observed in a test trench set against the exterior south wall of the Phase 1 superstructure demonstrates that the foot of the wall is located at a depth of about 1.5 m below pavement level inside the tomb (Fig. 47).¹⁴⁸ The tomb’s flagstones were positioned at a level c. 80 cm higher than the contemporary desert surface outside the tomb. Thus, the material excavated from the subterranean complex was used to raise the surface level upon which the tomb stood.

Phase 1 of the tomb’s superstructure covers the structure from the chapels in the west to the comparatively thin east wall. At a certain moment during construction, the latter wall was removed. Its remains are still visible underneath the pavement of the first peristyle courtyard, and in the brickwork of the adjoining perimeter walls. The Phase 1a structure measures c. 40 m from east to west. Construction was started in or soon after year 1 of Tutankhamun, although the precise date cannot be pinned down based on present evidence.

The sculptors probably started work on the limestone revetment soon after the mud-brick walls had been set in place. They started work in the eastern part of the tomb: first the central west-chapel (the focus of the cult for the deceased and thus the most important part of the structure) and the walls of the inner courtyard.

View Full Size

Figure 47

Schematic cross section of the tomb of Horemheb (046/usc).

Image by the author, adapted From Raven, M.J., Verschoor, V., Vugts, M., Van Walsem, R. (2011B), The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb Commander in Chief of Tutankhamun, V: The Forecourt and the Area South of the Tomb with Some Notes on the Tomb of Tia, Palma 6, Turnhout: Brepols, Fig. I.14.

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Phase 1b (Fig. 44)

Phase 1b merely represents a change in design of the original tomb layout. We must remember that at this time, the ‘typical’ Memphite temple-tomb was conceptually very much in development. It means that there were few pre-existing examples that the architect could draw on, while at the same time measures would have been taken to differentiate Horemheb’s monument from those of his peers. The tomb built for Tutankhamun’s regent had to stand out from those made for all the other high officials and courtiers.

At this stage, the thin east wall was demolished and rebuilt further east as a massive entrance pylon. The change of design created a peristyle courtyard. When exactly the change was implemented cannot be known. What we do know is that it happened within the 9-year reign of Tutankhamun. The clue lies in a fragmentarily preserved portion of the south wall of Horemheb’s peristyle courtyard.¹⁴⁹ At its east end it includes a scene executed in raised relief, depicting a Window of Appearances and the adjoining walls of the king’s Memphite palace wall decoration.¹⁵⁰ To the right-hand side of the window, there is a scene depicting the king, Tutankhamun, identified with a cartouche, wearing the khepresh (or blue) crown. He is seated on a cushioned stool while he shoots a bow and arrow, taking aim at an ingot target. The depiction of Tutankhamun’s Memphite palace strongly suggests that the scene was carved in his reign. It is unlikely that Tutankhamun’s palace would have been included in the iconographic programme of a tomb post-dating his reign, not only due to the later damnatio memoriae campaign which targeted the Amarna rulers, but also because it would simply lack relevance. After all, officials wished to underline their close proximity to the reigning king. The proposed date of this scene also sheds new light on the identities of the individuals depicted on the opposite north wall of the peristyle courtyard. This wall contained the much-contested depiction of a non-royal individual presenting the Gold of Honour to another official. If the decoration in this part of the tomb was made during the reign of Tutankhamun, the individual awarding the Gold of Honour can only be Horemheb in his role as regent; the individual receiving the honour is not known by name.¹⁵¹

For dating of the construction phases, the important conclusion can be drawn that all decoration in the superstructure of the tomb was produced within the 9-year reign of the King Tutankhamun—spanning the time when Horemheb acted as regent. The fact that the scene with Tutankhamun’s palace was left unfinished, suggests that work on the decoration stopped when the king died. The event marked the end of Horemheb’s role as regent, which may have meant that the sculptors assigned to work on his monument were (temporarily) put to work elsewhere.¹⁵² The fact that the scene was not finished in the course of the 14-year reign of Horemheb suggests that no work was carried out at all during his time on the throne. The reason is obvious: Horemheb was no longer a private individual, and as king, he would have had no reason to continue work there. He redirected attention to his royal tomb in the Valley of the Kings at Thebes.

Phase 2 (Fig. 46)

For the same reasons it is equally unlikely that the Phase 2 grand forecourt was created when Horemheb was king.¹⁵³ The limestone revetment of the entrance gateway contains no finished decoration; only roughly scratched outlines of scenes. If this addition to the tomb was created under royal patronage of Horemheb, one would perhaps have expected that the decoration had advanced further. It rather suggests that the forecourt was also created during the reign of Tutankhamun, left unfinished like the decoration in the first peristyle courtyard.

The Phase 2 forecourt was made in conjunction with the enlargement of the subterranean complex (Fig. 48). The enlargement of the underground structure clearly represented a change in design, and the same can be argued for the superstructure. The initial entrance pylon was cased in limestone, and the mud-brick walls of the new forecourt were simply built against the east face of the façade. The material excavated from the underground complex was deposited in front of the phase 1 eastern pylon entrance, raising the level of the surface to match that of the rest of the tomb.

The change of design of the subterranean complex affected the burial chamber H, which was likely where Horemheb was supposed to be buried had he not become king. It is unclear when the underground complex was changed, and precisely why this happened. Perhaps the whole tomb project was nearing completion only a few years into the reign of Tutankhamun. It opened up the possibility to amplify the monument, both above ground and underground. The untimely death of the king terminated the project rather suddenly.

The project was abandoned when Tutankhamun died. It was never finished because Horemheb’s ascension to the throne made the burial complex obsolete.¹⁵⁴ The king started a new project in the Valley of the King at Thebes (kv 57), like his predecessors in office before him. The Memphite tomb of Horemheb would ultimately be used to receive the burial of Horemheb’s wife, the queen Mutnodjmet.¹⁵⁵ She was buried in burial chamber (F), which was intended for her use from the start.¹⁵⁶ The funeral is dated by the hieratic dockets mentioning year 13 of King Horemheb.

View Full Size

Figure 48a

Superstructure and subterranean complex of the tomb of Horemheb (046/usc), Phase 1

Image by the author

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

View Full Size

Figure 48b

Superstructure and subterranean complex of the tomb of Horemheb (046/usc), Phase 2

Image by the author

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

4.8.5 Burial and Later Life of the Tomb

The pottery recovered from the spaces in the upper level subterranean complex include mainly small vessels.¹⁵⁷ These in all likelihood contained valuables such as fine unguents and perfumes. The pottery also includes a series of blue-painted wares and a number of plain and polychrome amphorae which contained wine, some of which bear hieratic dockets. Very few storage vessels were found.

The pottery found in the lower level, more specifically shaft (O) and room (P), consists overwhelmingly of large storage vessels (total n=32). These vessels likely contained dry foodstuffs such as cereals, grain, and flour. The plates and dishes recovered from the same contexts were probably used as the lids of the storage vessels. room (P) also held miniature dishes, which were not found in the upper level.¹⁵⁸ By contrast, room (P) contained neither blue-painted tableware nor small vessels, and included only three wine amphorae.

According to the pottery experts, the neat distribution between the upper and lower levels shows that the two pottery groups complement one another, and that these formed part of a single assemblage. This suggests that all material should be assigned to a single burial. The fine wares and containers that once held expensive commodities were placed closest to the burial in room (F), either inside the burial chamber or in close proximity to it, such as the corridor (E). The larger storage jars that held bulk material were deposited farther away. Janine Bourriau and David Aston point out that a very similar distribution pattern of pottery types can be observed in the contemporary tomb of Maya (028/usc).¹⁵⁹ There the large storage jars (n=12) were deposited in a room (labelled ‘L’) situated off a corridor leading towards the burial chambers.¹⁶⁰ Outside of the Memphite necropolis, in the tomb of Tutankhamun in the Valley of the Kings, kv 62, a similar distribution of objects has been observed, which allows for a division of tomb space in a ‘funerary sphere’ and a ‘quotidian sphere’.¹⁶¹

Bourriau and Aston argue that the two pottery groups belonged to a single tomb group associated with a single burial. The only material evidence for a burial was found in room (F). The most likely candidate for the individual interred there is Mutnodjmet, because fragments of a calcite vase inscribed with her name were found in that room.¹⁶² Bourriau and Aston also point to the fact that room (P) was evidently intended as the main burial chamber, but that its unfinished state may have influenced the choice for burial in room (F). It is in the latter room that the fine painted pottery, furniture, and other fine objects were stored, and perhaps more items were placed in the adjacent rooms. The burial chamber (F) did not provide enough space for the inclusion of the large storage jars, which were instead placed down in room (P). That room would no longer have been required for a burial since Horemheb had become king.¹⁶³

In my view, the wife of Horemheb mentioned and depicted in the iconographic programme of the superstructure, Amenia, is the same individual as Horemheb’s queen, Mutnodjmet, who first enters our sources the moment her husband ascends the throne.¹⁶⁴ Amenia adopted a new name on the occasion of her husband ascending the throne of Egypt, because the career jump of her husband also affected her status. Her example is not unique in Egyptian history. In fact, there is strong evidence to suggest that her example was followed very soon afterwards—c. 15 years later, to be precise. The wife of Horemheb’s immediate successor on the throne, Ramesses I, did exactly the same. Tia changed her name to Satre when her husband, the military official Ramessu, became king.¹⁶⁵ Seti I, son of Ramesses I, named his daughter after his mother, Tia. The name of one of the daughters of Ramesses II, grandson of Ramesses I, lends further support to the hypothesis, as she bears the compound name Tia-Satre.¹⁶⁶

Following the burial of Amenia-Mutnodjmet and the death of Horemheb soon after, the Memphite tomb was turned in a sort of memorial temple. The images of Horemheb are changed to royal images by the addition of a uraeus to his brow. The tomb’s offering cult was cared for by a family of priests, who erected two limestone plinths supporting recumbent statues of the jackal-god Anubis in the west-end of the so-called statue room for the sake of their own memorial. Pottery evidence further suggests that the cult remained operational well into the 19th Dynasty.¹⁶⁷ Large numbers of graffiti scratched in the limestone revetment of the entrance doorway and elsewhere in the tomb testify to the ancient visitors to the tomb-turned-memorial temple of this deified king.¹⁶⁸

4.10.1 The ‘Lost’ Tomb of Hormin

The tomb of Hormin (047/usc), overseer of the royal household of Memphis (i҆m.y-r i҆p.t nsw n.yt Mn-nfr), now lost, was accessible from the early 1820s until the late 1850s, when it was gradually stripped off much of its relief-decorated blocks, statues, and stelae. These elements are now housed in museums in Europe and Egypt. The relief block now held in the Musée du Louvre is perhaps best known, because it depicts the king, Seti I, standing at the Window of Appearances of his palace as he awards Hormin with the Gold of Honour.¹⁸² The only indication for the tomb’s location is offered by Lepsius. The Prussian expedition noted an ‘inner door’ (innere Thüre), which was given tomb (ls) 29.¹⁸³ On the map of Saqqara, the tomb’s location is indicated to the northwest of ls 27, the tomb of Maya (028/usc),¹⁸⁴ rediscovered by the ees-Leiden expedition in 1986.¹⁸⁵ By reckoning with the known location of the tomb of Maya, it is possible to identify the structure of Hormin’s tomb on the magnetometric survey map of the area west of Maya, produced by the Glasgow Museums Saqqara Geophysical Survey Project (sgsp) in 2009.¹⁸⁶ The survey map shows distortions in the local, subsurface magnetic field. These distortions are caused by the presence of mud bricks (limestone blocks do not show up when using this method). Thus, the shapes defined by the black contour lines can be identified as the mud-brick walls of structures (presumably tombs) covered by the desert sand. The survey map covers an area to the west and north of the current Leiden-Turin concession area and partly overlaps with what is now the south extent of the Cairo University concession area. One of the largest structures recognizable in the latter area has been excavated in 2010: the tomb of Ptahmose (027/usc). The shape of the structure detected beneath the sand, matches the actually excavated structure seamlessly, underlining the value of the survey technique. By overlaying the survey map onto the plan of the cemetery (showing the actually excavated tombs), and adding the locations of tombs given by Lepsius, it is possible to identify the lost tomb of Hormin (Fig. 53). Lepsius marked the locations of a few tombs on his map of what is now referred to as the Unas South Cemetery, including that of Maya (ls 27). We know that Lepsius’s location of this tomb is not correct; the actual tomb was found c. 20 m north of the spot marked by the Prussian expedition. If we assume that all tombs were mapped with the same margin of error,¹⁸⁷ all ls-numbers should be shifted northwards accordingly. If we project the corrected ls-numbers on the geophysical survey map, the dot indicating ls 29, Hormin, coincides precisely with the black-lined contour of a large mud-brick structure. Even when we allow for a larger margin of error, this structure would come closest to where Lepsius indicated its location. From what we can gather from the survey image, the tomb of Hormin displays an architectural lay-out and size comparable to the tombs of Maya (028/usc), Ptahmose (027/usc), and Urkhiya (004/usc). From east to west, we can recognize an open forecourt,¹⁸⁸ a space usually referred to as the statue room, flanked by lateral chapels, an inner courtyard, and three chapels in the west. The northern lateral chapel is densely coloured black, which may indicate that it is either well-preserved, including its (presumably) vaulted roof, or the space is filled with the mud-bricks of the collapsed roof. Lepsius’s dot to mark the tomb’s location is placed on the west end of the southern lateral chapel, which may indicate that the ‘inner door’ seen by him can be identified as the southern doorjamb of the doorway between the inner courtyard and the statue room.¹⁸⁹

View Full Size

Figure 53

The long-lost tomb of Hormin (047/usc) identified on the sgsp geophysical survey map

Image by the author, adapted from the map produced by the Glasgow Museums Saqqara Geophysical Survey Project, 2009, reproduced with kind permission by jOhn Dittmer, and the elevation map produced by the 3D survey group, Politecnico di Milano/Leiden-Turin expedition to Saqqara, 2019

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

4.10.2 Funerary Monuments of Urkhiya and Ptahmose

Urkhiya (004/usc) and Ptahmose (027/usc), two prominent officials during the reigns of Seti I and Ramesses II, built their tombs c. 50 m north of the tomb of Maya, on a slight elevation of the plateau (Fig. 54).¹⁹⁰ Both men held close ties to the king. Urkhiya served as the first steward in the Theban temple of Millions of Years of Ramesses II (i҆m.y-r pr m ḥw.t Wsr-mꜣꜥ.t-Rꜥ-stp.n-Rꜥ [m] pr I҆mn), better known as the Ramesseum, and Ptahmose held the same office in the king’s Memphite temple (i҆m.y-r pr wr m tꜣ ḥw.t Rꜥ-ms-s(w) mr.y-I҆mn m pr Ptḥ). Ptahmose in addition held senior offices that can be connected to large-scale building activities at Memphis. For example, he served as steward in the temple ‘Beneficial is Seti-Merenptah’ in the house of Ptah (i҆m.y-r pr m ḥw.t nṯr ꜣḫ-Stẖy-mr-n-Ptḥ m pr Ptḥ). The temple can be identified as the great hypostyle hall that Seti I built in the temple of Ptah at Memphis, quite comparable to what he did in the temple of Amun at Karnak.¹⁹¹ His son, Ramesses II, probably continued work in that part of the temple, and further extended it in an eastward direction, which was made possible due to the eastward migration of the Nile.

View Full Size

Figure 54

The tomb of Ptahmose (027/usc) during excavation by the Cairo University expedition in 2013

Photograph by ola El-Aguizy, reproduced with kind permission

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The two tombs of Urkhiya and Ptahmose are nearly identical in their architectural lay-out and size. They are both built of mud bricks and present a variation to the plan of Maya’s tomb.¹⁹² Both tombs measure c. 40 m in length, have three chapels in the west (the central one topped by a pyramid), a peristyle inner court, a ‘statue chamber’ with four lateral chapels, and a forecourt that is wider than the eastern part of the tomb. Two of the lateral chapels are accessed from the forecourt and two are accessed from the inner courtyard. The tomb shaft is accessed from the latter space.

Like the tomb of Hormin, the tomb of Urkhiya, also known as Hatiay,¹⁹³ a military official, who bore the titles of troop commander (ḥr.y-pḏ.t n.y nb tꜣ.wy) and general (i҆my-r mšꜥ wr), has been visited by the Prussian expedition led by Lepsius, numbered (ls) 25.¹⁹⁴ A brief description is provided in the text volume of his Denkmaeler:

… Es waren hier 5 Säulen, sie sind bis auf eine weggeschleppt worden, eine ist in Sakkara, 3 sind in Tura. Die zurückgebliebene ist zerbrochen.

The djed pillar seen in the village of Saqqara stood in front of the house of the mayor. It was taken for the Cairo Egyptian Museum in 1935 and entered the collection as je 65061.¹⁹⁵ The tomb itself has been re-discovered by the Cairo University expedition in 2018, and awaits full publication.¹⁹⁶ It contains textual and decorative evidence for use over two generations. The son of Urkhuya/Hatiay, named Hatiay, further embellished the tomb. It is not certain whether the better-known son, Yupa (011/usc), also known as Ramessesnakht, was also buried in the tomb of his father, however. His long and successful career, spanning most of the reign of Ramesses II, can be traced in the objects and inscriptional documents that bear his name. Thus, in the so-called ‘Louvre Leather Roll’, dated to Ramesses II’s fifth year in office, Yupa is mentioned as one of 40 members of the great stable of Ramesses-Mery-Amun (i҆ḥw ꜥꜣ n.y Rꜥ-ms-sw-mr.y-I҆mn).¹⁹⁷ Towards the end of his life, Yupa is attested by an inscription at Armant, near Thebes, as he proclaims the ninth Sed festival of Ramesses II, in year 54.¹⁹⁸ Yupa further succeeded his father as steward of the Ramesseum. Bearing that title, he is depicted on the stela of the Troop commander (ḥr.y-pḏ.t), Pahemneter from Sedment.¹⁹⁹ Even though Yupa is featured in the tomb of his father, the iconographic programme is very much focused on Urkhiya as tomb owner, and the pyramidion, the capstone of the tomb’s pyramid, only bears his name and title.²⁰⁰ This suggests that Yupa may have built his own funerary monument elsewhere in the same cemetery. A statue of Yupa seen at Saqqara may lend support to this hypothesis. The dyad statue of Yupa seated alongside his wife, Nashaia, was seen in 1983, sticking out of the desert sand in a shallow depression marking the open courtyard of a sanded-in tomb, roughly halfway between the tomb of Tia (057/usc) and the boat pits along the causeway of Unas.²⁰¹ The dyad statue seen in 1983 has not been found during excavation of Urkhiya’s tomb, which is a further indication that it stood in another structure. The sgsp survey map reveals the contour lines of a somewhat smaller tomb alongside Urkhiya’s to the north, which is precisely halfway between Tia and the boat pits. If Yupa’s tomb was built somewhat later in the reign of Ramesses II, a location north of Urkhiya fits well with the general northward expansion of the cemetery through time.

4.10.3 Continued Transformation of the 18th Dynasty Cemetery

At the time when the cemetery grew laterally to the north, the ‘old’, 18th Dynasty cemetery continued to be transformed also. Spaces in between the large superstructures were further filled with more modest funerary buildings. The lack of inscriptional evidence paired with the fact that very few of these later structures were fully excavated and only minimally published, makes it difficult to pinpoint them chronologically. Thus, some of the developments observed in Section 4.9 may in fact be dated slightly later, in the early 19th Dynasty.

The memorial chapel of Peraaerneheh (024/usc), a priest of Maya, was added to the south exterior wall of his (deceased) patron. The fact that multiple such chapels were built against the south exterior wall of this tomb, may be suggestive of considerable ‘traffic’ crossing the cemetery at this point, because these small buildings were meant to attract the attention of the living and receive offerings.

In the east end of the Leiden-Turin concession area, a freestanding chapel (085/usc), situated west of a burial shaft, was built right in front of the tomb of Ptahemwia. The position was likewise strategically chosen, ‘forcing’ visitors to the tomb of Ptahemwia, arriving from the east, to walk past the new chapel, to see it, and eventually leave offerings in it.

View Full Size

Figure 55

The Unas South Cemetery in the 19th Dynasty, first three decades of Ramesses II

Image by the author

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

4.11.1 A Cemetery Increasingly Crowded in the North

Two more tombs excavated in the Cairo University concession area can also be dated to the first half of Ramesses II’s reign. The monument of Ptahemwia, great overseer of cattle of Amun in the Ramesseum (i҆m.y-r i҆ḥ.w wr m tꜣ ḥw.t Wsr-mꜣꜥ.t-Rꜥ-stp.n-Rꜥ m pr I҆mn), is built very close to the tombs of Urkhiya and Ptahmose. The eastern part of the building was excavated in 1859 by Auguste Mariette, and photographed by his assistant Théodule Devéria.²⁰⁴ The doorway was relocated in 2018 by the Cairo University expedition led by Ola el-Aguizy.²⁰⁵ The excavation of the building west of the doorway is currently in progress, so we do not yet know its full architectural lay-out.²⁰⁶ Even so, it is obvious that the building is considerably smaller than its northern and eastern neighbours. The tomb was clearly aligned with those of Ptahemwia’s illustrious predecessors, who may have still been alive when he started building it. From a landscape phenomenological point of view, it is interesting to note that visitors could only enter the tomb through the narrow passage between the monuments of Urkhiya and Ptahmose. It is practically hidden behind their eastern pylon façades. One wonders if the unknowing, contemporary visitor to the site would have been able to locate the tomb of Ptahemwia at all when standing in front of the two larger buildings to the east. Judging from the present-day situation, it would seem that only those who knew about the tomb’s existence were able to reach it—if not by sheer accidence. The siting of the structure at this hidden location also suggests that the ‘blind spot’ between the Leiden-Turin and Cairo University concession areas, as well as the area to the north, were already tightly packed with tombs at this time. This situation led ‘late-comers’ to the cemetery to select less advantageous locations for their burials—at least with regards to visibility and accessibility. Association by proximity may have been just as important, as witnessed by the example of Ptahemwia.

Northeast of Urkhiya we find the tomb of Wadjmose (013/usc), chief of Medjay of the king (wr n.y mḏꜣy.w n.w nb tꜣ.wy). It was excavated in 2007 and awaits publication.²⁰⁷ It is notable that its main axis is tilted south in comparison to the earlier Ramesside tombs in this part of the cemetery, both to the north and the south. The reason for its divergent orientation is unknown.

4.11.2 Tia Wedged between Maya and Horemheb

The development of the cemetery in the south is further characterised by filling of spaces between the pre-existing monumental superstructures. The most eye-catching addition at this time concerns the tomb of Tia (057/usc), who married the daughter of Seti I, also named Tia. He held a range of titles, including great overseer of cattle (i҆m.y-r i҆ḥ.w wr), overseer of the treasury (i҆m.y-r pr-ḥḏ), and overseer of the treasury of the Ramesseum (i҆m.y-r pr-ḥḏ m tꜣ ḥw.t Wsr-mꜣꜥ.t-Rꜥ-stp.n-Rꜥ m pr I҆mn-Rꜥ). He attained these offices in the reign of his brother-in-law, Ramesses II. A mud brick stamped with Tia’s name was found not far from the Ramesseum,²⁰⁸ and a relief-decorated block depicting him has been excavated in the chapel of the memorial temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri, where it had been reused during the Coptic period.²⁰⁹ On the relief block, Tia bears the titles overseer of the treasury of the Ramesseum and fan bearer on the right of the king. He is positioned standing behind the larger-scale representation of Ramesses II. The king’s nomen is written as [Rꜥ-m]s-s(w), which points to a date early in the reign of that king. Tia also held office as i҆m.y-r pr-ḥḏ n.y nb tꜣ.wy, overseer of the treasury of the Lord of the Two Lands, i.e. the chief treasurer of the country’s central administration.²¹⁰ In that office, he succeeded Suty, who had made a career in the army, somewhere after year 16,²¹¹ and he himself was succeeded by Panehsy, who was in office in year 24,²¹² a date that serves as a terminus a quo for Tia’s death. Panehsy did not hold office as overseer of the treasury of the Ramesseum. Instead, that office was transferred to Ptahemwia (026/usc).

The tomb of Tia presents the earliest available example of a New Kingdom private tomb on the North Saqqara plateau built throughout of limestone blocks. Until that time, all structures had mud-brick walls, with relief decoration on a limestone revetment. The funerary monument of Tia is wedged between the pre-existing monuments of Maya (028/usc) and Horemheb (046/usc). Its construction had consequences for the extant structures in this part of the cemetery, where space was becoming increasingly limited. The new structure also altered paths crossing the cemetery, as we will see below. As to the choice of location, it is noteworthy that the tomb was built against the north exterior wall of Horemheb, thereby forging an association with the former private monument of the founder of the Ramesside dynasty. The wished-for association to Horemheb is neither emphasized further in the iconographic programme, nor in the inscriptional evidence, however. Instead, one inscription reveals that the king, Ramesses II, had the tomb made as “his monument for his father Osiris”.²¹³

View Full Size

Figure 56

The freestanding pyramid of Tia (057/usc) built in the courtyard of the tomb of Ramose (039/usc)

Photograph by the author, 2017

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

In building the tomb, part of the north wall of Horemheb’s forecourt was taken down and replaced by a stone wall to demarcate Tia’s forecourt. The tomb does not touch on the northern neighbour, Maya, even though the stela of the priest Peraaerneheh (024/usc) hints at a relationship between the cults performed in the tombs of Tia and Maya. A very narrow passage was left between the pylon façades of Tia and Maya, allowing people to still reach the small memorial chapels built against the south wall of Maya, and navigate the cemetery further to the west. Tia’s construction project most drastically affected the tomb of Ramose (039/usc), built in the reign of Tutankhamun. Tia situated his freestanding pyramid in the forecourt of Ramose (Fig. 56). In the process, much of the latter’s east wall and part of the south wall of the forecourt were demolished. Even so, the cult for the deceased (Ramose) appears to have continued after the radical changes made to its superstructure. A newly created entrance doorway, replete with limestone doorjambs, in the north wall of the forecourt makes clear that the tomb continued to receive visitors. A number of figural graffiti incised in these doorjambs are the silent witnesses of some of its former visitors.²¹⁴ In the same north wall, on its exterior, a little to the west of the new entrance, a niche was created for embedding a stela. It was inscribed for a man named Suherawyamun (053/usc).²¹⁵ The stela records no titles of this man, so the exact nature of his relationship to Ramose remains unknown. It is possible, however, that he was a priest in service of the offering cult of one of the tombs in this area, like Yamen and Peraaerneheh, who built their memorial chapels on the opposite north side of the same narrow ‘street’ from which the tomb of Ramose could now be accessed.

Paser (021/usc) offers a second case of association by proximity to the tomb of Horemheb. He built the north and south walls of his forecourt against the exterior west wall of the latter’s northwest and central chapels, respectively. The west wall of Horemheb thus served as the east wall of Paser’s forecourt. The forecourt is accessed from the south.²¹⁶

Paser was an overseer of builders of the king (i҆m.y-r ḳd.w n nb tꜣ.wy), a member of a rather well-known Memphite family: his brother was Tjunery (201/usc), overseer of works on all monuments of the king (i҆m.y-r kꜣ.t m mn.w nb n.y nb tꜣ.wy).²¹⁷ He also had a tomb at Saqqara, which is now lost. It is where Mariette found the celebrated Saqqara king-list,²¹⁸ featuring (nearly) all kings up to and including Ramesses II. As a Chief Lector Priest, Tjunery was responsible for the cult of the deified kings from the past. This may explain why his brother (and likely Tjunery also) selected their burial place in close proximity to Horemheb, the ‘founder’ of the Ramesside dynasty.

4.11.3 Redirecting Routes in the (Former) 18th Dynasty Cemetery

At the ‘core’ of the 18th Dynasty cemetery, more precisely the area built in the reign of Tutankhamun, the walking surface was gradually raised in the spaces between the larger monuments. It was the result of the accumulation of wind-blown sand, refuse thrown out of the interiors of tombs that were still maintained, and tafl (marl) from the excavation of underground burial spaces of the various chapels of Ramesside date that increasingly start to dot the map.²¹⁹ One such chapel was built roughly halfway the east wall of Ry (038/usc) and the west wall of NN (082/usc). It belonged to Tatia (056/usc), a chief of goldsmiths of the gold house in the temple of Ptah (ḥr.y nby.w n.w ḥw.t-nbw m pr Ptḥ) and wab priest of the front of Ptah (wꜥb n.y ḥꜣ.t n.yt Ptḥ).²²⁰ His two-room chapel was built against the north wall of the unexcavated structure, probably dated to the reign of Amenotep III or earlier.

View Full Size

Figure 57

The anonymous chapel 084/usc built in the passageway between the tombs of Ptahemwia (025/usc) and an anonymous official (082/usc)

Photograph by the author, 2017

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Further east, and probably sometime after the chapel of Tatia had been built, a now anonymous individual ordered the construction of a chapel (084/usc) right in the passageway between the tombs of NN (082/usc) and Ptahemwia (025/usc) (Fig. 57). The construction of this chapel had far-reaching consequences for the area further west, because it had become almost impossible to reach it. Thus, the entrance to the tomb of Ry would have been hidden from view. It would have become increasingly more difficult for casual visitors to the cemetery to find the tomb. Perhaps as a reaction to this development, a north-south porch was added to the exterior of the north tower. The new construction ‘funnelled’ visitors from the north towards the south, and fenced off the tomb entrance from the rubble and tafl accumulating outside (Fig. 4.58–59). Those responsible for making this new entrance porch may have also made the low platforms in the west end of Ry’s courtyard, on either side of the doorway into the chapel. These platforms were used to store offering pottery no longer used in the service of the cult of the deceased.

View Full Size

Figure 58

The newly added ‘porch’ built in front of the entrance to the tomb of Ry (038/usc)

Photograph by the Leiden-Turin Expedition to Saqqara, 2015

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

View Full Size

Figure 59

Anonymous chapel 105/usc

Photograph by the author, 2017

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

4.12.1 A Cemetery of Ramesses II’s Senior Officials

The area north of the tomb of Wadjmose (013/usc) saw the establishment of a row of tombs, which continued as far north as where the plateau slopes down to the causeway of Unas. These tombs are sited c. 15 m west of the extant stone-built mastaba of Minnefer, a vizier from the late 5th Dynasty reign of Unas, which towers high above the Ramesside cemetery (Fig. 61). The choice of location so close to this mastaba is remarkable, because the Old Kingdom monument obstructs the Ramesside tombs from the view of visitors arriving from the east. Possibly, these tombs were not so much oriented towards a fixed point in the landscape (e.g., a monument), but rather reckoned with the predominant point of access to, or perhaps rather exit from the cemetery. If thus interpreted correctly, the space between the façades of these tombs and the west wall of the mastaba of Minnefer served as a main route crossing the cemetery. This street later moved further east, c. 75 m east of the mastaba of Minnefer—a move prompted by the construction of the highest office-holders of that time. The presence of their tombs shifted the cemetery’s ‘centre of gravity’ eastward. The street west of Minnefer thus became of secondary importance, and was subsequently filled up by tombs of 20th Dynasty officials (see Section 4.13).

View Full Size

Figure 61

The stone-built mastaba of Minnefer

Photograph by the author, 2019. Reproduced with kind permission by Ola El-Aguizy/Cairo University

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

4.12.2 Ramesside Tombs Fronted by a ‘Main Street’

A total of four tombs have been excavated along the main street (a processional way?) east of the mastaba of Minnefer. Two of these tombs, 118/usc of unknown ownership, and 045/usc of Huynefer, partly lean against 030/usc, the tomb of Nebnefer and his son Mahu.²²¹ It leads to the conclusion that the former two tombs were built later than those of Nebnefer and Mahu. Thus, the tombs of Nebnefer and Mahu, and the anonymous tomb 119/usc, the northernmost structure excavated in the Cairo University concession area, were built first.

Nebnefer and Mahu both held a range of titles pertaining to the administration of the temple of the Memphite city god Ptah and the king, including that of chief steward of Ptah (i҆m.y-r pr wr n.y Ptḥ), steward of the Memphite Ramesseum (i҆m.y-r pr m tꜣ ḥw.t Rꜥ-ms-sw mr.y-I҆mn m pr Ptḥ), and a royal messenger (wpw.ty nsw [ḥr ḫꜣs.wt nb.wt]). A number of the Memphite titles held by Nebnefer were previously held by Ptahmose, whom he succeeded in these offices.²²² Mahu subsequently followed in the footsteps of his father. The iconographic programme identifies Nebnefer and Mahu both as ‘main’ owners, which makes 030/usc an example of synchronous dual occupancy.²²³ The status of the two high-profile tomb owners is mirrored in the architectural lay-out, which includes three courtyards: until then only seen in the tomb of Horemheb (046/usc). The tombs later built to the north and south adopted the same architecture.

Huynefer, owner of 045/usc, has been considered another son of Nebnefer.²²⁴ He held office as overseer of the ḫtm of the wꜣḏ-wr (i҆m.y-r ḫtm n pꜣ wꜣḏ-wr), a title he has in common with Nebnefer.²²⁵ According to Said Gohary, who published the tomb, Huynefer usurped the tomb of his father, as he supposedly erased the name of Nebnefer from the tomb stela, and replaced it with his own name.²²⁶ In a more recent re-analysis of the tomb’s inscriptional evidence, focusing on the genealogical information, Ola el-Aguizy arrived at a slightly different reconstruction.²²⁷ She argues that Huynefer and Nebnefer were brothers, and that Mahu was a grandson of the original owner of tomb 045/usc (st 217). It would suggest that 045/usc predates 030/usc, which is impossible in view of the stratigraphic sequence described above. A further indication that 045/usc was built later than 030/usc can be found in a palaeographic peculiarity. The name of Huynefer is followed by the so-called cloaked man determinative. This sign originated from Memphis, and is first observed in inscriptions of Khaemwaset, fourth son of Ramesses II, and his circle, around this king’s year 30.²²⁸ The cloaked man determinative is absent from the inscriptions in the tomb of Nebnefer and Mahu. So, whatever the nature of the relationship might have been between the owners of tombs 030/usc and 045/usc (if indeed any), the former predates the latter. The cloaked man determinative additionally offer a clue as to when this ‘street of tombs’ was completed, namely after year 30 of Ramesses II.

4.12.3 The Cemetery Fanning Out

The cluster of Ramesside tombs east of the mastaba of Minnefer is more difficult to unravel. The large majority of these structures is of unknown ownership, because the structures were heavily quarried for their stone blocks. Moreover, the relief decoration and inscriptions preserved on the walls is usually damaged. The whole cemetery was covered in a 7-page article by Sayed Tawfik, who, due to his untimely death, never had the possibility to publish the tombs in full.

At a first glance, the spatial distribution and positioning of the funerary monuments may present us with some leads. For example, the entrances of the six tombs on the far east are all neatly aligned, as if they were built along an existing path crossing the cemetery. However, if we take the elevation of the plateau into consideration, it becomes clear that these tombs are situated with the entrances at the edge of an escarpment. The plateau drops c. 8 m to the depression where the later Coptic monastery of Jeremias was built.²²⁹ At approximately 70 m south of the southernmost tomb located in the Cairo University concession area (049/usc), Quibell recovered the remains of possibly a Ramesside chapel (091/usc) more than a century ago (in 1908–1910; Fig. 62). This chapel was probably partly demolished to make way for the half underground tomb-church that was part of the monastery of Apa Jeremias. The elevation of the plateau drops further on the east side of the church, which is suggestive of a natural slope in this area. It probably indicates that this area marked the easternmost extend of the cemetery in the New Kingdom. Tomb 059/usc built for a ‘priest’ named Djehutyemheb, dated to Ramesses II, stands at the northeast corner of the plateau. A few metres to the north, the terrain drops c. 11 m towards the causeway of Unas.²³⁰ Since the edge of the escarpment was not selected for the burials of earlier tombs—these are all sited further to the west—it is clear that the ridge with its view over the valley was not necessarily prime necropolis real estate. It rather seems that the cemetery in this area followed the general northward expansion also observed in the south. The row of tombs ‘started’ by Horemheb and Maya in the late 18th Dynasty continued further north, while at the same time the cemetery fans out towards the east/northeast, eventually bound by the edge of the escarpment. Two tombs in the cluster of at least 16 sizeable superstructures can be dated with more precision. Their owners are identified by the inscriptions, and they are also known from other sources.

View Full Size

Figure 62

The excavation of the half underground tomb-church of the monastery of Apa Jeremias by James Quibell, 1908–1910

After Quibell, J.E. (1912), Excavations at Saqqara (1908–9, 1909–10): The Monastery of Apa Jeremias, Cairo: IFAO, PL. 18.2

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The first is Amenemone, who was the royal scribe of letters of the king (sš nsw šꜥ.t n.y nb tꜣ.wy), the king’s private secretary.²³¹ He also held a number of titles associated with the state treasury, including those of overseer of the treasury of the king (i҆m.y-r pr-ḥḏ n.y nb tꜣ.wy) and overseer of the treasury of Upper and Lower Egypt (i҆m.y-r pr-ḥḏ Šmꜣ.w Tꜣ-mḥ.w). In that office, he probably succeeded Panehsy (the successor of Tia), who was attested in year 24 of Ramesses II. Paytenheb is attested as the treasury overseer in year 53, and he may have been Amenemone’s successor.²³² Since no inscription pertaining to Amenemone contains a date, those of Panehsy and Paytenheb provide the earliest and latest possible limits for Amenemone, who probably served during Ramesses II’s fourth and fifth decades on the throne. He additionally served in the administration of the Theban Ramesseum.²³³ He was overseer of the treasury of the Ramesseum (i҆m.y-r pr-ḥḏ pꜣ /// pr Rꜥ-ms-sw mr.y-I҆mn ḥr.y-i҆b wꜣ.t i҆mn.tyt Wꜥs.t), also in the king’s fourth to fifth decade. In this office, he succeeded Khay (194/usc), whose tomb is now lost, and preceded Khnumhotep, buried at Thebes (TT 26). Amenemone additionally served as the Ramesseum’s chief steward (i҆m.y-r pr (wr) [m] tꜣ ḥw.t Wsr-mꜣꜥ.t-Rꜥ-stp.n-Rꜥ m pr I҆mn) in the sixth decade of Ramesses II’s reign. In this office, he succeeded Yupa (011/usc), and preceded a man named Neferrenpet, of whom no tomb is yet known. The dates known for this official suggest that the eastern edge of the plateau this far north was reached at around the early sixth decade of Ramesses II.

The second tomb owner for whom we have fixed dates, is Neferrenpet. He served as high priest of Ptah (sm wr-ḫrp-ẖmw.w) and vizier of the north (i҆m.y-r ni҆w.t ṯꜣ.ty). He first attained the latter office at around year 50 of Ramesses II. He held the high priestly title in the sixth²³⁴ or seventh²³⁵ decade of the king’s reign. In both offices he succeeded (Pa-)Rahotep (020/usc), who was buried at Sedment, and who is known to have built a ka chapel in the Unas South Cemetery, somewhat south of the tombs of Pay (017/usc) / Raia (042/usc) and Ry (038/usc). The dates available for Neferrenpet suggest that he started construction of his tomb somewhere in the sixth decade of Ramesses II, at a time when he had attained the first of these high offices.

One statue derived from his Memphite tomb, now in Leiden (ast 16), was usurped by Neferrenpet’s namesake (035/usc), the vizier from the 20th Dynasty reign of Ramesses IV.²³⁶ It suggests that the later Neferrenpet embellished the tomb of his predecessor for his own use. Jacobus van Dijk even suggests that the 20th Dynasty Neferrenpet added a forecourt to the former’s tomb, because from this court, a tomb shaft gives access to the burial chamber.²³⁷ A tomb shaft situated in the forecourt is indeed unusual, and its presence there may point to the fact that it concerns a secondary burial—i.e., a burial following that of the main tomb owner, and not concerning his immediate family members, who would normally have been buried in the subterranean complex accessed from the same tomb shaft. The tomb shaft in the forecourt was therefore likely introduced at a later stage. The suggestion of a forecourt added later seems highly unlikely, however, because tombs 055/usc, of the royal butler (wbꜣ nsw) Tasahui, which dates to the reign of Ramesses II, and 006/usc of Amenemone, reckon with the tomb of Neferrenpet as a whole. The northwest part of the tomb of Amenemone appears to be built against the south exterior wall of the inner and outer courtyard of Neferrenpet—although, alternatively, Neferrenpet might possible have built over part of Amenemone’s tomb; either way, the two tombs were built close in date. The fact that Tasahui built his tomb north of the area occupied by the forecourt of Neferrenpet, and not further south, in front of the supposed Phase 1 structure of the vizier, suggests that the forecourt was already there when Tasahui started building his tomb.

In conclusion, the order of appearance of tombs in this Ramesside cemetery is difficult to ascertain. The cemetery grew in a northward direction, as well as from west to east. Thus, in those instances where multiple tombs are built in front of one another, it is most likely that the westernmost tomb was built first and the one to the east later. This is clear from the example of Amenemone, where the southwest corner of the tomb pyramid is built on the entrance porch of 036/usc of Neferhotep, a chamberlain of the king (i҆m.y-r ḫnt n.y nb tꜣ.wy). The order of appearance of the three tombs north of Neferrenpet would thus logically be 065/usc (anonymous), followed by 033/usc (Nebmehyt, general), followed by 055/usc (Tasahui, royal butler).

4.12.4 Amplification of Tomb Space: The Example of Tia and His Household

The amplification of funerary architecture is best exemplified with the tomb of Tia (057/usc), the brother-in-law of the king (see also Section 4.11.2). The initial forecourt contained two burial shafts each associated with a stone-built chapel. The shaft and chapel in the south were built for Iurudef (003/usc), a scribe of the treasury (sš n.y pr-ḥḏ). He was a subordinate to Tia in the state treasury. Further monuments of the Tia’s from Kafr el-Gebel also feature Iurudef,²³⁸ bearing the title of overseer of works of His Lord in Rosetau (i҆m.y-r kꜣ.t n.y nb=f m r-sṯꜣ.w), attesting his close personal relationship to his superior. This relationship was further materialised when Iurudef was given burial space in Tia’s tomb, replete with a memorial chapel. Iurudef also features on a stela along with Amenemheb Pakharu, the main dedicator, together adoring their superior, Tia.²³⁹ This stela might originate from the destroyed chapel opposite that of Iurudef in the north of the forecourt (116/usc),²⁴⁰ or it may derive from the Kafr el-Gebel monument. It is not known when the funerals of Iurudef and Amenemheb took place. Their respective tomb shafts received multiple burials. The burial spaces accessed from the chapel of Iurudef accommodated at least nine members of his family.²⁴¹ Another two burial complexes were accessed from shafts located in the forecourt of the tomb. The newly added forecourt was made of mud bricks and likely dates to the second half of the reign of Ramesses II. Since the forecourt did not form an integral part of the original tomb plan, the superstructure was expanded to create additional burial space not foreseen upon initial construction. The extant north wall of the forecourt of Horemheb served as the new court’s south wall, while little more than a doorjamb was added to the north face of Horemheb’s north pylon tower to make the south end of the east wall. Two burial shafts were cut in the northeast (115/usc) and southeast (114/usc) corners of the courtyard. The lower half of a stela associated with the northern shaft depicts various individuals who, according to the text labels, were members of a single family.²⁴² The half stela does not offer information regarding their relationship to Tia. Perhaps these individuals served in Tia’s household, like Iurudef did, or, given the rather late date of the creation of their burial space, they serviced the offering cult of their patron and took care of the general upkeep of the building. The example shows that in the course of the Ramesside period, various burial spaces and cult places within a single tomb complex could serve to accommodate the extended household²⁴³ of a single high-status main owner.²⁴⁴ The available evidence indicates that the household included not just the family members of the high-status main tomb owner, but also his subordinates in office and their respective family members.

4.12.5 Segmentation of Space in the ‘Old’ 18th Dynasty Cemetery

In the second half of Ramesses II’s reign, the segmentation of available cemetery space in between the existing tombs continues further. The difficulty with evaluating the development, is that most structures antedating the larger monumental superstructures cannot be dated with any precision. In publication, these are usually considered ‘Ramesside’, ‘late 19th Dynasty’, or ‘19th–20th Dynasty’. It is possible, therefore, that some of the structures discussed in the next section, covering the late 19th Dynasty to the end of the New Kingdom, were actually built earlier, in the second half of Ramesses II’s reign.

In the area immediately north of the tomb of Maya (028/usc), a small cluster of three modest tomb chapels are being excavated at the moment of writing this book. These structures are founded on a surface that is 1.60 m higher than the floor level of Maya’s forecourt, which goes to show that the landscape outside the large tombs changed drastically in the course of almost one century. The smallest of the three chapels, 087/usc, is built at the outer corner of the northern lateral chapel and the forecourt. This corner may have served as a sort of courtyard for the burial of the anonymous owner of 087/usc. The chapel measures only 1.05 × 1 m, with an inner space of no more than 80 × 80 cm.²⁴⁵ The relief-decorated slabs of limestone served as the chapel’s north, west, and south walls, preserved to a height of less than a metre. A tomb shaft east of the chapel gives access to the subterranean burial chamber.

The owners of the two other Ramesside chapels in this area, 088/usc and 089/usc, are also anonymous to us. Their chapels are fragmentarily preserved, and their tomb shafts have not been excavated at the moment of writing. Chapel 088/usc is divided in two by screen walls, and has a north-south oriented rectangular shaft to the east. Chapel 089/usc has one room, with the bases of pillars preserved at the east side, which results in a very narrow opening into the chapel area. Little remains of the iconographic programme; however, the lower part of the stela in the west wall preserves half statues of (presumably) the tomb owner with his wife and child (two mirrored groups), with a row of seated deities represented as half-sculptures above.²⁴⁶ One of the two sculptures of the male individual represent him with shaven head, which suggests that he served as a priest. The sculpture as a whole is reminiscent of Old Kingdom wall statues found in mastaba tombs. One may also think of the stela depicting the Ptahmose–Meryptah family portrait from the reign of Amenhotep III (see Section 4.3.3). An east-west oriented rectangular shaft lies to the east of the chapel.

The three chapels in this area were all built on the approach to the now-anonymous early 19th Dynasty tomb 090/usc. Chapel 088/usc is even situated right in front of its entrance doorway, a mere 2 m to the east. Visitors on their way to the larger tomb, undoubtedly built for a high-status patron, were required to pass the Ramesside chapel, thus maximising its visibility and exposure to possible visitors and bringers of offerings.²⁴⁷ The location right in front of the entrance doorway may have been prime choice, suggesting that 088/usc was built first, followed by 089/usc and finally 087/usc, set up in the remaining nook of the formerly open space around the tomb of Maya. The possible identification of the male individual buried in 089/usc as a priest might perhaps suggest that the owners of these chapels were priests, including those in service of the offering cults of one or more of the nearby monumental tombs. Indeed, one of the few chapels for which we have a known owner, 056/usc, was built for a priest (of Ptah), Tatia. Another individual associated with the temple of Ptah, Raia (041/usc), a chief singer of Ptah Lord of Maat (ḥr.y ḥsw.w Ptḥ nb Mꜣꜥ.t), built his comparably-sized, single-room chapel against the south wall of the tomb of Paser (021/usc). The rim of the burial shaft east of the chapel lies alongside the entrance doorway to Paser’s forecourt. The positioning suggests that Raia reckoned with future visitors (foremost of whom priests) to Paser’s tomb to walk past (and potentially see and visit) his.²⁴⁸

Not only priests or other staff of the temple of Ptah were in a position to build funerary chapels in this part of the cemetery. The large tomb shaft south of Raia’s chapel belongs to a man named Nennaemdiamun (037/usc), who was a head of sandal-makers (ḥr.y ṯb.w). The stela identifying this man was found on the pavement of the destroyed chapel west of the shaft.

Further to the west, also partly touching on the tomb of Paser, the remains of a larger tomb structure were noted (007/usc), but not fully excavated. Djed pillars likely deriving from this tomb identify the owner as Amenmose, head of guardians of the documents of the king (ḥr.y sꜣw.ty [n.y] sš.w n.w nb tꜣ.wy). Only a corner of the superstructure was unearthed in excavation, and the surrounding area has not been further investigated. Yet, the fact that this tomb was built so close the pre-existing building of Paser suggests that available space was becoming scarce in this area also.

In the cemetery further east, in between the monumental late 18th Dynasty tombs, the surface level was raised by natural and anthropogenic actions, on average 60 to 90 cm. A variety of funerary structures were built in this area later in the New Kingdom. Thus, a man named Amennakht (008/usc) set his stela against the east face of the north wing of Horemheb’s entrance pylon. His stela was founded on a rubble floor level. The tomb shaft likely associated with the stela may be located in the unexcavated area further to the east.

The late 19th Dynasty stela of an anonymous individual (104/usc) was similarly set against the north exterior wall of Raia’s forecourt (Fig. 63).

View Full Size

Figure 63

The stela of an anonymous individual (104/usc) set against the north wall of the forecourt of Raia (042/usc)

Photograph courtesy of the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The custom of building a chapel against the walls of an extant funerary monument is rather widespread at this time. The eastern façade of the tomb of NN (082/usc) saw the construction of two chapels, one against the east side of the north wing of the entrance pylon, and another to the south. Only the base once supporting a stela remained of the northern chapel, and a small, anepigraphic fragment survived in situ. The associated tomb shaft lies immediately to the east. The southern chapel was found better preserved. It was built of limestone blocks, and preserved the limestone pavement supporting a stela, found in situ. It identifies the owner of this small chapel as Merymaat (031/usc), controller of the divine offerings (sš ḫrp ḥtp.w n.w nṯr). The tomb shaft belonging to this chapel has not yet been located.

A better preserved chapel (105/usc), albeit anepigraphic in its present state, was built against the east side of the south wing of Ry’s (038/usc) pylon façade (see Figs 57–58). This chapel was fitted in the space between the annex built in front of Ry’s entrance and the wall belonging to a yet unidentified tomb in the south. The rims of two tomb shafts were found to the east, although it is unlikely that either of the two belonged to the chapel originally. The larger tomb shaft appears to predate it (and perhaps even predate the tomb of Ry), whereas the smaller shaft could possibly be dated to the Late Period.

Roughly halfway between the tombs of Ry (038/usc) and Meryneith (032/usc) stood a four-sided stela, measuring 82 × 45 × 45 cm. There are few parallels for stelae inscribed and decorated on all four sides. The stela of Samut apparently stood there not associated with a built superstructure, its rectangular tomb shaft situated to the east. Such a remarkable monument would have stood out in this part of the cemetery, which became increasingly crowded with chapels. The uniqueness of the monument, and the fact that it could be seen and read from four sides, may have increased its efficiency in attracting future visitors. The monument is inscribed for Samut (052/usc), a stone mason (ẖr.ty nṯr). Such a craftsman was in a pre-eminent position to produce such a unique monument. Note that Tia (057/usc) had two near-identical (albeit larger) four-sided stelae made for his monument at Kafr el-Gebel (ancient Rosetau) near Giza,²⁴⁹ one of which is now in the Cairo Egyptian Museum (je 89624).²⁵⁰ It is hypothetically possible that Samut was involved in making the stelae for Tia.

4.12.6 A ‘Temple of Eternity’ for the Vizier and High Priest of Ptah, (Pa-)Rahotep

A number of monuments of unknown provenance point to the existence of a memorial chapel at Saqqara built for the Vizier and High Priest of Ptah, (Pa-)Rahotep (020/usc), who held office in the second half of the reign of Ramesses II.²⁵¹ This high official is well known for his tomb at Sedment, located c. 90 km south of Memphis near the entrance to the Fayum.²⁵² One of the monuments include a stela, now in Cairo.²⁵³ The rectangular stela is made of red granite, measures 157 × 83 × 34 cm, and is inscribed on all four sides. The two broad sides contain text and image, and the two narrow sides are each inscribed with an additional three columns of text.²⁵⁴ It includes an Appeal to the Living, and reveals that the vizier and high priest had a ‘temple of eternity’ (ḥw.t n.t nḥḥ) at Saqqara. The text is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. The present section explores the provenance of (Pa-)Rahotep’s monument.

The Memphite provenance of the stela is recorded in the Journal d’Entrée of the Cairo Egyptian Museum. To the entry was added that the object had been in the museum since the time of Mariette.²⁵⁵ Many years after Mariette, additional inscribed stone elements bearing the name and titles of (Pa-)Rahotep were unearthed, likely deriving from the very same monument. These finds can help us narrow down the area where the monument might have stood. The first indication is given by a find made in 1955. Zakaria Goneim, who excavated the step pyramid of Horus Sekhemkhet to the west of the New Kingdom cemetery, found a red granite naophorous statue (with an image of Ptah) near the site of the monastery of Apa Jeremias.²⁵⁶ Jean-Philippe Lauer reported the find in the following year:²⁵⁷

Cette statue fut probablement érigé en l’honneur de Rahotep dans un petit sanctuaire de Ptah édifié en ce point. Quelques blocs de calcaire des murs de ce temple ont, en effet, été trouvés près de la statue.

Goneim did not move the statue from where it was found. It was only in 1972 that the Saqqara inspectorate returned to the find spot, removed the statue, and transferred it to the open air museum at Mit Rahineh, where it has been on display since 1972.²⁵⁸ According to their report, the statue was found 275 m south of the Unas causeway and 130 m southwest of the ruins of the Jeremias monastery,²⁵⁹ which allows us to suggest that the statue was found c. 30 m south of the tomb of Pay (017/usc). The siting of (Pa-)Rahotep’s monument in this general area of the cemetery is further corroborated by the finds of additional stone elements inscribed for the vizier. The former (ees-)Leiden expedition found a red granite fragment, probably part of a pyramidion, in the surface debris near the south wall of the tomb of Horemheb,²⁶⁰ and a limestone column fragment in the fill of the Late Period shaft 99/I, situated immediately south of the tomb of Horemheb.²⁶¹

The reconstructed location of (Pa-)Rahotep’s chapel is somewhat remarkable, because near the end of the reign of Ramesses II, the ‘centre of gravity’ of the cemetery had moved northward. It is there that we find the tombs of the country’s highest administrators. The southern end of the cemetery contained the century-old monuments of long-dead officials. Increasingly fewer people would have known who these officials were, and it is likely that some structures located in this area started to fall into disrepair. The cemetery also transformed into a quasi-labyrinth which became more and more difficult to navigate. That (Pa-)Rahotep built his chapel in this part of the cemetery suggests that it still saw many passers-by, arriving either from the south or from the east (see further in Chapter 6).

4.13.1 The North Extent of the Cemetery in the 20th Dynasty

The cemetery extended as far north as the causeway of Unas, just west of the complex’s boat-shaped pits (Fig. 64; Table 12). The cemetery appears not to have extended north of the causeway, as none of the excavations carried out in that part of the cemetery recorded architectural remains of tombs dated to the New Kingdom. The area between the south enclosure wall of Djoser and the causeway of Unas was extensively used for tomb building in the Old Kingdom. In one of the mastaba’s in this area, that of Niankhba, located immediately north of the causeway of Unas, the tomb construction dossier of a scribe named Buqentuf was found by Quibell.²⁶² The dossier records the first stages of the tomb construction project for a royal scribe (sš nsw) and general (i҆m.y-r mšꜥ) named May (168/usc), dated to year 15 of Ramesses III (20th Dynasty). It is the only such document known from the Memphite New Kingdom necropolis. Unfortunately, it is not known where the tomb of May stood, and this individual is not otherwise known to us. The find spot of the dossier, on the northern extent of the New Kingdom cemetery, suggests that the tomb of May stood close by. This suggestion is corroborated by the fact that the cluster of Ramesside tombs east of the mastaba of Minnefer includes a tomb built for an official bearing the same office title (i.e., Nebmehyt, 033/usc),²⁶³ and that no more than c. 20 m south of the mastaba of Niankhba stood the tomb of another official of the 20th Dynasty.

View Full Size

Figure 64

The Unas South Cemetery at the end of the New Kingdom

Image by the author

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The western part of the limestone superstructure of the royal scribe (šs nsw), chief steward of the king (i҆m.y-r pr wr n.y nb tꜣ.wy), and overseer of works (i҆m.yr kꜣ.t) named Djehutynakht was excavated by the Freie Universität Berlin/Universität Hannover expedition in 2000–2001.²⁶⁴ The tomb was situated right on the edge of the rocky ridge cut in the time of Unas in conjunction with the construction of his causeway.²⁶⁵ The excavated western part of the tomb consists of a freestanding limestone pyramid, a tripartite chapel area, and a tomb shaft accessed from the courtyard. The burial chamber still contains the red granite sarcophagus. Only the foundations of the south and west wall of the tomb, and part of the foundation blocks delineating the three chapels were preserved; the rest had been disassembled long ago. Various fragments of relief-decorated blocks and other items were recovered in excavation.

The tomb of Djehutynakht is surrounded by late New Kingdom tomb shafts, dotting the map between the tomb’s remains and the monument of Amenhotep II, c. 27 m to the southwest. The shafts penetrate the subterranean galleries of the 2nd Dynasty tomb of King Ninetjer, adapting the existing spaces and turning them into burial chambers facilitating multiple burials.²⁶⁶

The 19th Dynasty cemetery lies c. 65 m southeast of the west end of Djehutynakht’s tomb superstructure. In this section of the cemetery, spaces between the large tombs made by high-ranking administrators of Ramesses II started to be filled in with new structures. Most notably, the ‘street’ west of the mastaba of Minnefer became locked in. Three tombs were located in the limited space available. The available space, or rather the lack thereof, influenced the orientation and architectural lay-out of the tombs. Thus, the tomb blocking the north end of the street, made for Tjairy, also known as Ramessesnakht (058/usc), the 20th Dynasty (temp. Sethnakht–Ramesses III) overseer of the royal household of Memphis (i҆m.y-r i҆p.t nsw wr n.yt Mn-nfr), has a main axis oriented north to south instead of the usual east-west. The entrance is facing north, perhaps built along a much-trodden path accessing the cemetery from this direction. One may perhaps imagine something similar to the situation today, where a foot path leads up against the face of the slope from the causeway of Unas c. 11 m below.

The positioning of the tomb of Tjairy (058/usc) in the street to the west of the mastaba of Minnefer affected the accessibility of the anonymous tomb (118/usc), which, given its dimensions, will have belonged to a high-profile official of Ramesses II’s reign. The tomb of Tjairy is built right in front of its entrance doorway (Fig. 65). Yet, judging from the published plan of the tomb by Tawfik,²⁶⁷ as included in the total map of the concession area, 118/usc remained accessible—albeit via the tomb of Tjairy, through an opening in the west wall of the pillared courtyard.

View Full Size

Figure 65

The ruinous remains of the tomb of Tjairy (058/usc)

Photograph by the author, 2017. Reproduced with kind permission by Ola El-Aguizy/Cairo University

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The two tombs south of 118/usc are of unknown ownership. Very little remains of 077/usc, situated in the middle. The southern tomb, 078/usc, is somewhat better preserved. The structure is built right against the west wall of the mastaba of Minnefer, which meant that it could not be entered from the east. It is interesting to note that the entrance to the tomb’s single courtyard is not in the south, opening towards the cluster of tombs made for high-profile officials of Seti I–Ramesses II, but to the north. Here, a very narrow alley offers access to 078/usc. Ancient visitors would have passed the east exterior walls of 058/usc and 077/usc on their way south. This alley did not continue further south, because the positioning of the east wall of 078/usc leaves no space to the adjoining mastaba of Minnefer. The tomb’s position did not turn the alley into a dead-end road, however, because it would have made a 90 degrees turn west, opening towards the tomb of Wadjmose (013/usc). A number of limestone chapels were made in the area between 078/usc and 023/usc. These all date to the later New Kingdom.²⁶⁸ In their choice of location, the owners of the chapels took the living visitors to the extant structures in this area into consideration. Thus, chapel 110/usc (the name of the owner not preserved) was built in the space between the north wall of the tomb of Wadjmose and the south wall of the tomb of Huynefer (045/usc), thereby closing the street between the two.²⁶⁹ The chapel possibly built for a man named May (029/usc) is built right in front of the entrance to the tomb of Wadjmose. The extension of the west wall to the north, which has the appearance of a sort of annex, may have been built so shield off the space between the chapel and the larger tomb to the west, thereby ‘forcing’ people to walk past the entrance of 029/usc on their way to 013/usc.

The rims of at least five tomb shafts were recorded in this area of the cemetery, three of which are dated to the New Kingdom. In their present state of preservation, these are not associated with remains marking the burial above ground. Given the date late in the New Kingdom, their possible superstructures would have been made of limestone blocks, removed from their original positions long ago. No information is available about the two shafts situated west of 078/usc. If the eastern one of the two proves to be of New Kingdom date, its location is noteworthy, because an associated chapel or freestanding stela would have stood in the middle of the alley leading from the corner of 078/usc and the mastaba of Minnefer in the east to the tomb of Wadjmose in the west: a further example of a tomb owner ‘laying claim’ to a highly visible and much-frequented spot in the cemetery.

More tomb shafts are located in the part of the cemetery east of the mastaba of Minnefer. There is not much information available about these features. Two burials were set in between the larger, extant superstructures. The first, 067/usc, lies in the space between 002/usc of the Royal Butler (wbꜣ nsw) Ianefer and 036/usc of the Chamberlain of the King (i҆m.y-r ḫnt n.y nb tꜣ.wy), Neferhotep. No remains of a possible superstructure associated with the shaft were noted in the preliminary excavation report.²⁷⁰ A possible chapel would have ‘blocked’ the street between the two larger structures. The second burial in this part of the cemetery, 066/usc, lies between the west ends of 036/usc and 034/usc, the tomb of the Vizier and High Priest Neferrenpet. The location is rather curious, because it could not have been accessed from the east at its time of construction, since the ‘street’ is closed by the skewed position of the tomb of Amenemone, 006/usc. This would suggest that the chapel was accessed from the south. The choice of location in close proximity to the tomb of Neferrenpet may have been of greater concern than a wish for optimum accessibility or visibility from the point of view of the living.

4.13.2 The Old 18th Dynasty Cemetery in the 20th Dynasty

The patterning of burials in the southern extent of the Unas South Cemetery attained the form of an increasingly complex labyrinth. At this stage of the cemetery’s life, no more large tombs were added; instead, the increasingly scarce available spaces in between the larger 18th Dynasty and more modest 19th Dynasty tombs are claimed by individuals of lower rank. The majority of burials recorded in excavation are anonymous, because in general very little remains of the structures that marked them above ground.

In Section 4.11.2 we saw that Tia (057/usc) built his tomb against the north wall of Horemheb’s tomb (046/usc), and in the process partly disassembled the east part of the superstructure of Ramose (039/usc). The arrival of Tia’s tomb created an open ‘square’ bound by the tombs of Ramose, Tia, and Horemheb, and the wall built by Irdjedy (012/usc) in the west. This largely locked-in space could only be accessed from the north, via the new doorway in the north wall of Ramose’s forecourt and the now-demolished south wall. In the 20th Dynasty, this space was used to construct a small family burial complex, consisting of the tripartite chapel of Pabes, troop commander of merchants of the house of Ptah (ḥr.y-pḏ.t šw.ty n.y pr Ptḥ), and the two-room chapel of Khay, gold-washer of the king/the treasury (i҆ꜥw nbw n.y nb tꜣ.wy/pr-ḥḏ) and merchant of the treasury of the king (šw.ty n.y pr-ḥḏ n.y nb tꜣ.wy). Pabes identifies himself as son of Khay.²⁷¹ The genealogy would normally suggest that Khay built his chapel before Pabes.²⁷² The former chapel is indeed situated at the most prominent spot, right across the entrance into the forecourt of Ramose. Khay positioned himself next to Ramose, thereby extending the forecourt. The chapel was built on a deposit of tafl, raising it above the forecourt, thereby adding to its visibility from the entrance area in the north—and possibly even beyond, from the street between Maya and Ramose. Khay did not build his chapel against the north exterior wall of Horemheb’s inner courtyard. In not doing this, he may have reckoned with the chapel of Irdjedy (012/usc) further to the west, which could only be accessed by passing through the space left between Khay and Horemheb. Pabes, son of Khay, later used the open space to the west to create his chapel, thereby blocking Irdjedy off from any possible future visitors. The space in between Pabes and Khay, bound by the exterior north and south walls of Ramose and Horemheb, respectively, turned into a forecourt.

The titles given to publications of many a monumental elite tomb (such as ‘The Tomb of N’) suggest that they were built to accommodate only the tomb owner—and his wife. The tomb decoration often paints a rather different picture, as it depicts the owner alongside his family and/or those otherwise related to him.²⁷³ Their presence would suggest that they too were buried in the same complexes.²⁷⁴ The skeletal material often found in the tombs’ subterranean spaces appears to confirm the suggestion that multiple individuals were buried there. Yet it is often impossible to match the physical remains with the individuals mentioned in tomb decoration—also noting that it is often very difficult to tell which skeletal remains were associated with the tomb owner and his family, since almost without exception all shafts in the cemetery were accessed in later periods for (mass) burial, and by robbers.²⁷⁵ Nevertheless, in the skeletal remains uncovered from the burial chambers of the chapels of Khay (43 individuals) and his son Pabes (15 individuals), family relations have been suggested. A more detailed morphometric study that could reveal features of blood relationship is pending, however.²⁷⁶ Despite the inconclusive state of the evidence, there is scholarly consensus that family commemoration was indeed a vital part of tomb complexes.²⁷⁷

Elsewhere in the former 18th Dynasty cemetery the decreasing available space was used for the installation of above-ground burial markers. These take the form of small chapels—of which often very little remains today—or stelae set against the exterior walls of the extant larger tombs. Since generally so little survives of these structures, the archaeological reports often mention little more than their approximate dimensions and indicate their location on a plan of the excavation site.²⁷⁸ The tomb shafts are usually not fully excavated, which means that we do not have access to possible information from the funerary material (e.g., shabtis) to tell us something about the identity or social background of the deceased. The chapels are certainly in need of a more thorough study, and it is indeed rather contradictory that we know so little about the most commonly attested tomb types in the cemetery. After all, there are more small chapels of later New Kingdom date than monumental 18th Dynasty tombs. Part of the problem is the state of preservation, while another part are the priorities and main interest of the excavators. It suffices here to note that there existed a large variety of chapel forms and sizes, suggesting a wide social demographic range in the group of individuals who were able to have their burials marked above ground in this part of the cemetery at this time. The spatial patterning of the shafts (once associated with a chapel or stela) allows us to make statements about the use of space, both with regards to the placement of burials as well as the (ever-changing) movement of people through the cemetery.

All around the tomb of Meryneith (032/usc), to the north, west, and south, the rims of tomb shafts are visible, sometimes with the remains of their associated chapels. 100/usc is noted above in connection with the construction phases of Horemheb’s tomb (046/usc). The shaft and its appertaining chapel were presumably wedged between the north wall of Meryneith’s chapel area and the south wall of the largely unexcavated tomb 120/usc. The chapel’s position would have closed one of the eastern approaches towards the tomb of Horemheb—a strategic choice in view of attracting the attention of visitors. Until the end of the New Kingdom, the tomb of Horemheb featured a cult for the deified king, and graffiti scratched into the wall surfaces on the interior and exterior indicate that people indeed visited the monument.²⁷⁹ Building a memorial chapel or tomb structure along one of the routes leading up to the former private tomb which turned into a memorial temple would have been in high demand.

The scanty remains of more chapels with associated tomb shafts were found further to the east, along the north walls of the tomb and fenced-off forecourt of Meryneith. The position of 101/usc is noteworthy, because at some stage, a c. 1 m wide opening was created by cutting through the mud-brick wall of the forecourt. The resulting opening was not further furnished with door jambs as was the case in the opposite south wall of the forecourt, created at an earlier stage. If the creation of the opening proves to date to the late New Kingdom, it may be related to the increasing level of difficulty the visitor to the tomb of Meryneith would have faced in attempting to reach it.

At least two stelae were set up against the exterior east side of the pylon towers of Horemheb’s tomb. The 19th Dynasty stela of Amennakht (008/usc) was set against the east side of the north tower, and the stela of [Pen]dua (019/usc) and his family stood against the southern tip of the south towers’ east side (Fig. 66a–b). The associated tomb shaft, which lay to the east, occupied the available space between the western slope of Meryneith’s tomb pyramid and the pylon wall of Horemheb. At the time when [Pen]dua selected this spot for burial and commemoration, the narrow space between the two extant late 18th Dynasty structures would have served as one of the few means to reach the cluster of tombs to the south. It means that people who wished to visit the tombs built for Pay and Raia (017/usc; 042/usc), Ry (038/usc), Meryneith (032/usc), and Hatiay (044/usc)—and their families, households, and descendants—as well as the numerous more modest chapels and stelae (106/usc and 102/usc were built at this time), were required to pass the stela of [Pen]dua. In so doing, curiously people also had to step over his tomb shaft, which was covered by stone slabs.

View Full Size

Figure 66a

The late 19th to 20th Dynasty stela of Pendua (019/usc)

Photograph courtesy of the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

View Full Size

Figure 66b

Stela of Pendua (019/usc), excavation no. sak 2003—R083

Photograph courtesy of the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

At this time, the only remaining possibility to access the above-listed cluster of tombs, was via the space between the east wall of Iniuia (009/usc) and the west wall of Pay (017/usc). All other approaches from the south and east had been closed by extensions of existing tomb superstructures and tombs built in the remaining spaces between them. It is in the area east of Iniuia, that (a) priest(s) named Penaa and/or Sementawy excavated a burial shaft.²⁸⁰ The shaft was associated with a tafl platform supporting the two remaining slabs of limestone that formed the pavement of a small chapel. One slab was found to have a shallow rectangular recess, indicating the position of a stela. This stela, unfinished and anepigraphic, was found in the vicinity. To the west of this shaft, The area was fenced off by erecting a mud-brick wall between the northeast corner of Iniuia’s tomb and the south wall of Horemheb. Another wall was built against the eastern façade of Iniuia, extending its south wall to the east, in the direction of the neighbouring tomb of Pay. The new wall appears not to have extended to the west wall of Pay—at least not in its present state; the wall may have been cut at a later state in order to create a passage between the largely closed-off area to the east and the hitherto unexcavated area to the south.

The cutting through of standing walls has been observed before, when due to the pyramid of Tia (057/usc) a new entrance needed to be made in the north wall of Ramose’s (039/usc) forecourt. Something similar can be observed further south, where the western side mass of the tomb pyramid of Ry (038/usc) was cut away in order to create a narrow passage between this tomb and its western neighbour, Raia (042/usc) (Fig. 67). It opened the largely closed-off area from the south, and allowed people to access the tomb of Horemheb further north—on their way stepping over the tomb shaft of [Pen]dua, as we have just seen.

View Full Size

Figure 67

In the 20th Dynasty, the mud-brick pyramid of Ry (038/usc) was cut away in order to create a passage between this tomb (bottom) and its eastern neighbour, Raia (042/usc) (top)

Photograph courtesy of the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Another passage was created by cutting a doorway in the south-western wall of the courtyard of Ry’s tomb (038/usc; Fig. 67). The creation of a doorway could possibly be linked to the foundation of a modest chapel (080/usc),²⁸¹ built against the north face of the wall of tomb 005/usc, in this study tentatively identified as the late 18th Dynasty tomb of Amenemone.

Along the passageway created by cutting through the pyramid of Ry stood a late 19th to 20th Dynasty chapel. It was built against the southeast corner of the tomb of Pay. This space used to be practically locked off, being surrounded by the superstructures of Pay (017/usc), Raia (042/usc), Ry (038/usc), and 005/usc (Amenemone?), all built one against the other.

Finally, the area south of Horemheb’s inner courtyard saw much activity later in the New Kingdom. This is also where the earliest burials excavated thus far are located: the pit graves 048/usc and 083/usc from the reign of Amenhotep III. The area continued to be used to bury individuals belonging to the lower strata of society (at least in comparison to the country’s highest-ranking officials buried in monumental temple-shaped tombs). In this area were found the remains of chapels set on raised platforms (made from the material excavated from the burial shafts), and shallow burials in reed mats, laid along the south exterior wall of Horemheb’s tomb.

4.13.3 The Beginning of a New Chapter in the Life of a Tomb: Reuse for Mass Burial

Towards the end of the 19th Dynasty and the 20th Dynasty, the general upkeep of the fabric of some of the monumental tombs of the former 18th Dynasty cemetery was no longer being taken care of. This could have had various causes. For example, the line of descendants may have died out, or they no longer had funds to maintain the tombs and their offering cults. If the tombs, with their gradually deteriorating conditions, were also increasingly difficult to access, the buildings could potentially be repurposed. This is what has been observed in the tomb of Ptahemwia (025/usc). Towards the end of the 19th Dynasty, roughly 150 years after its construction, the now-abandoned tomb of the royal butler of kings Akhenaten and Tutankhamun was used for mass burial.²⁸² Select spaces in the superstructure were reappropriated to accommodate the burials of dozens of individuals. They are all anonymous to us, because they were not found with texts associated with them. Judging from the simple means of burial—wrapped in mats made of palm ribs and reed—they were of low social standing. The remains of 23 individuals were identified in the tomb’s northwest chapel, three in the central chapel, and 56 in the southwest. The pottery associated with the burials suggests a date for the secondary burials in the late 19th and 20th Dynasties, and perhaps even continuing into the tip (c. 1076–723 bce).²⁸³ It is noteworthy that about 60 % of the individuals laid to rest in the chapels were children, mostly babies and juveniles.²⁸⁴ The lowermost course of burials consisted exclusively of juveniles who were mummified and placed in yellow-painted wooden coffins.