THE BULLETIN OF

THE AUSTRALIAN CENTRE

FOR EGYPTOLOGY

VOLUME 24 ▪ 2013
 Editor Dr Susanne Binder

Editorial Board Professor Heike Behlmer, Göttingen

Assoc. Professor Colin A. Hope
Professor Naguib Kanawati
Professor E. Christiana Köhler, Vienna
Dr Ann McFarlane
Assoc. Professor Boyo Ockinga
Dr Yann Tristant

The articles in this journal are peer reviewed.

All rights reserved

ISSN 1035-7254

ISBN 978-1-74138-408-6

Copyright 2013
The Australian Centre for Egyptology
(A Division of the Macquarie University Ancient Cultures Research Centre)
Macquarie University, Sydney NSW 2109, Australia

Printed by
Ligare Book Printers, 138 Bonds Road, Riverwood NSW 2210, Australia
www.ligare.com.au
 CONTENTS
BACE 24 (2013)

Editorial Foreword 5

Bon Appétit! Bread and Reed in the

Funerary Repast Imagery of the
Old and Middle Kingdom Andrea Kahlbacher 7

Ptah-Sokar-Osiris Statuettes
from the Mallawi Museum Heba Mahran 21

Asiatics and Abydos:

from the Twelfth Dynasty to the
early Second Intermediate Period Anna-Latifa Mourad 31

Egyptology and the Study of Art History Maya Müller 59

Egypt in Late Antiquity:

the evidence from Ammianus Marcellinus Alanna Nobbs 81

Dictation revisited:
The Admonitions of Ipuwer
9.14–10.2, 13.4 and 14.1–4 Marina Sokolova 89

The Egyptianisation of the Pan-Grave Culture:

a new look at an old idea Aaron de Souza 109

Chronological Considerations:
fragments from the Tomb of Hetepet at Giza Alexandra Woods,
Joyce Swinton 127

3
 CHRONOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS:
FRAGMENTS FROM THE TOMB OF HETEPET AT GIZA

Alexandra Woods and Joyce Swinton

Macquarie University

Several fragments housed in the Neues Museum Berlin and the Liebieghaus
Museum in Frankfurt are inscribed with the name Hetep or Hetepet.1
According to Porter and Moss the Hetepet blocks were removed from the West
Field at Giza by the Menas Expedition to Egypt led by Kaufmann in 1909.2
The exact location of the tomb was not recorded by the excavator and apart
from noting that the mastaba contained two false doors, a common feature
from the late 4th Dynasty to the early 6th Dynasty in the Memphite cemeteries,
no indication of the original architectural design of the tomb is preserved. The
limestone blocks, carved in raised relief that vary in quality and height, depict
the following scenes: the tomb owner seated on a chair supervising a flax
harvest (Figure 1); Hetepet on a pleasure cruise in the marshes (Figure 2); two
blocks with female offering bearers carrying jewellery, lotus flowers or ritual
vessels (Figures 3–4) and two false doors both belonging to Hetepet (Figures
5–6). The fragments provide very little evidence about the tomb owner's
identity and family background, yet they are of interest to scholars because
they contain many distinctive and unparalleled motifs that are unique to the
Old Kingdom. Such motifs have frequently been commented on and in turn
have presented a real challenge for scholars seeking to date the assemblage. It
is therefore the intention of the present paper to examine these six blocks to
not only show the methods available to date Hetepet and her tomb but also to
explore what the scenes may tell us about the lady and her place in Old
Kingdom society.
The inscriptions on the blocks list the tomb owner's name as @tp.t,3 a name
seldom attested in the Old Kingdom. This name is only written once as
with the second t on false door 1 (Figure 5) while all remaining versions of the
name omit the t ending.4 On the drum of false door 1, Hetepet is referred to as
nb.t imAx.w xr nTr aA 'Possessor (fem.) of reverence before the great god',5
which is an epithet rarely attributed to Old Kingdom male or female
individuals. The drum also lists Hetepet's offices, which include: rx.t nsw.t
'acquaintance (fem.) of the king';6 Hm(.t)-nTr @w.t-@r 'priestess of Hathor',7 and
xnt.yt-S 'body-guard'.8 The latter office of xnt.yt-S is rare among women in Old
Kingdom Egypt. Only 11 individuals with this title are known to the authors

127
 BACE 24 (2013)

and date from early Dynasty 5 to late Dynasty 6 in the capital and provincial
cemeteries.9 The outer jambs of false door 2 (Figure 6) represent Hetepet's
parents who are designated as mw.t=s 'her mother' and it=s Nf… 'her father
Nef…'. The carving of the latter name is often thought to be unfinished,10
however the remaining signs of the name may have been completed in paint, like
the inclusion of four birds and a butterfly in the pleasure cruise scene.11 Several
other individuals – Seneb, Pery, Mesu, Reri and Hesi12 depicted on the false door
jambs and/or the flax harvest – are named. Equally, the female offering bearers
are designated as Iret-nefer, Nefer-iret-Hathor, Hawet and Nefer-seshem.13 The
exact relationship between these individuals and the tomb owner is not clear,
yet Seneb and Pery offer Hetepet refreshments and incense, which in offering
scenes are activities frequently reserved for a tomb owner's son.

Dating Hetepet and her tomb: Previous work and aims

The dating of this tomb has been discussed by numerous scholars most of
whom highlight the many unique and unparalleled motifs represented, such as
the 'floating' lotus flowers and buds in the pleasure cruise scene or the tomb
owner receiving refreshments while overseeing the harvesting of flax.
Identifying parallels for such details has proven problematic, which has
resulted in these fragments being roughly assigned to a broad time period.
Some scholars have dated the tomb to the 4th Dynasty while others have
suggested a date as late as the end of the Old Kingdom and even the First
Intermediate Period. An overview of the various dates proposed by scholars is
presented below:
Wresinski14 was the first to assign a date in the 4th Dynasty, which was also
followed by Wenig15 and von Droste zu Hülshoff16 in the respective museum
catalogues. Cherpion proposed a date no later than the reign of Djedefre in
Dynasty 4, which was based on an examination of the following features: the
inclusion of the short wig with 'scull-cap' and 'Ra-hetep' kilt, the long panther
skin robe worn by Hetepet on her false door panel, the shape of the medu staff
carried by her father and the use of Tura limestone at Giza.17
A Dynasty 5 date is preferred by Hamann,18 while Schäfer and Andrae,19
Porter and Moss20 and Seyfried21 suggest a broader time frame of Dynasty 5 to
6. Junker dated the reliefs of Hetepet to late Dynasty 6, based on the many
iconographic similarities with the tomb of the dwarf Seneb (which he dated to
the same period).22 Finally, Harpur rightly highlights the difficulty in dating
these fragments as few comparisons can be drawn from the artistic
representations. Accordingly, she places Hetepet's tomb in the 6th Dynasty,
possibly extending to the late Old Kingdom and early First Intermediate
Period.23

128
 WOODS AND SWINTON, THE TOMB OF HETEPET AT GIZA

Figure 1. Hetepet supervising the harvestin of flax (Berlin 15421)

Figure 2. Hetepet on a pleasure cruise in the marshes (Berlin 15420)

Figure 3. Female offering bearers Figure 4. Female offeirng bearers

(Berlin 15419) (Berlin 15421)

129
 BACE 24 (2013)

Figure 5. Elements of false door, Berlin 15416-15418 (false door 1).

130
WOODS AND SWINTON, THE TOMB OF HETEPET AT GIZA

Figure 6. False door, Liebieghaus 722 (false door 2).

131
 BACE 24 (2013)

This date is based on the absence of parallels for Hetepet receiving

refreshments while supervising a flax harvest,24 the 'exaggerated' vegetation in
the pleasure cruise scene as well as the depiction of Hetepet seated before a
flax harvest that is similar to examples dating to the late Old Kingdom and
First Intermediate Period.25 Despite this conclusion, Harpur does note how the
long row of bracelets and manner of holding the lotus is typical of Dynasty 4
and suggests this could be a form of archaising,26 where an artist decorating a
mastaba deliberately copies the artistic style and form found in earlier tombs.
As we have no information regarding the original location or the architectural
design of the tomb and as there is no general agreement in the scholarship, the
dating of these fragments has to rely largely on iconographic details from the
surviving scenes, namely the offering table, pleasure cruise and flax harvest
scenes, as well as the structure and design of the two false doors and the
inscriptions. The aim of the present paper is to examine these features in order
to propose a refined date for the tomb by: (1) analysing the many unusual and
unique details that have no currently known parallel and contrasting these with
scenes presenting similar themes that may be considered the 'norm'; and (2)
examining commonly represented iconographic details that are useful for
dating purposes.

1. Examination of unusual and unique iconographic detail

When analysing the scenes and inscriptions on the fragments belonging to
Hetepet most authors tend to focus on the motifs that are distinctive, unique
and have few or limited parallels from the corpus of Old Kingdom decorated
tombs. The following paragraphs identify these unusual details and compare
these with what is considered in the literature as the more typical composition,
design and/or form.

Pictorial data
(a) The pleasure cruise in the marshlands
The tomb owner is represented on a so-called pleasure cruise in the marshes
(Figure 2), which is a relatively uncommon scene in the Old Kingdom period
with only 12 other examples currently known.27 The rare or unique details in
the present scene are:

▪ Exuberant/profuse foliage with large lotus flowers and buds appearing to

float in space. Lotus buds and flowers are frequently included in clap-net
scenes to indicate the contents of the river28 and may be shown beneath the
water line, attached to the river bed or occasionally appearing to float on
the water line. Certainly flowers and buds never occupy the background to

132
 WOODS AND SWINTON, THE TOMB OF HETEPET AT GIZA

a scene where a major figure is shown in the marshlands. In Hetepet's case

this arrangement may be an artistic device to evoke the feeling that the
skiff is in isolation 'in front' of the papyrus thicket. Rather, the flowers'
placement suggests the major figure is surrounded and engulfed by the
plant life of the thicket, possibly also evoking the scent of the lotus
flower.29
 An attendant presents refreshments to the major figure in a marsh scene.
Male or female figures are often represented in several (sub)-registers and
can carry spare fowling sticks, spears, wooden chests or sandals,30 yet
there are no known parallels for an attendant standing on the skiff and
offering refreshments to the tomb owner in a marsh scene.31
 A punter on the prow of the boat in marsh scenes with a major figure. A
punter, and occasionally a paddler, is frequently shown on the papyrus
skiff in an active pose holding a long pole, which is thrust against the
riverbed to propel the boat forward. Punters are more frequently
represented in papyrus rattling and pleasure cruise scenes and are
normally positioned on the stern of the boat.32 In rare instances a punter is
on both the prow and stern of the skiff,33 but there are no known parallels
for only one on the prow.34
 The major figure wears a lotus flower garland: While tomb owners' wives
occasionally wear a lotus garland in marsh scenes where their husband is
the focal point of the scene it is rare for the major figure to wear a garland.
Only two other examples are attested, in the pleasure cruise scenes in the
tombs of Iufi at El-Hammamiya and Iyi-nefert at Giza.35 As garlands are
more commonly associated with women, the absence of this feature in the
corpus of Old Kingdom tombs is possibly linked with the small number of
marsh scenes representing female major figures in comparison to those
showing male major figures.
 A wide papyrus thicket presents a wall of stems: The papyrus thicket
positioned in front of the major figure is common to scenes representing
the king, queen or tomb owner spearing-fish, fowling or on a pleasure
cruise in the marshes, yet the width of the thicket is normally half or less
than the length of the papyrus boat.36 Hetepet's pleasure cruise scene is the
only example where the thicket is considerably wider than the length of
the boat.
 The body of water below the boat is depicted as an extremely narrow
band. Normally, the body of water is deeper to enable the inclusion of
plants and aquatic life, such as in the spear-fishing scene of Kagemni at
Saqqara.37 The only two other parallels with such a shallow body of water

133
 BACE 24 (2013)

can be found in the pleasure cruise scene of Iyi-nefert and the papyrus
rattling scene of Kaiemankh at Giza dating to the reigns of Niuserre and
Djedkare-Unis respectively.38

(b) The harvesting of flax

The tomb owner is shown seated facing the harvesting of flax for the
production of linen (Figure 1), which is relatively commonly attested in the
Old Kingdom with a total of 48 scenes from tombs.39 The following
description lists the rare or unique details in this scene:
 The tomb owner seated and viewing the harvesting of flax shown at almost
the same scale as minor figures. The tomb owner viewing (mAA)40 outdoor
activities, such as desert, agricultural or marshland pursuits, is first
attested in the early 4th Dynasty tombs at Meidum and is a commonly
represented scene type throughout the Old Kingdom period.41 In such
scenes, the tomb owner is the major figure shown larger in scale who
watches a series of minor figures in much reduced scale performing
activities arranged in a series of horizontal registers.42 In the present
example, the tomb owner, Hetepet, is depicted on a scale only a little
larger than that of the rest of the figures harvesting flax and the attendant
offering her a bowl. There is no exact parallel in the corpus of Old
Kingdom tombs for the reduced scale of the tomb owner in this context,
and the scene does not include a caption which may well have assisted our
understanding of the scene. The only comparable examples are found in
the tombs of Itet at Meidum43 and Ka-aper at Saqqara44 in scenes where
the tomb owner is seated and views a series of men pulling a clap-net and
drag-net respectively.
 The tomb owner receives refreshments while viewing the harvesting of flax.
A tomb owner is often shown smelling an unguent jar or lotus flower, yet the
consumption of or even touching food stuffs is rarely represented in Old
Kingdom tomb decoration.45 The earliest known examples of this motif show
close relatives of the tomb owner (on a reduced scale) touching or eating food
in either an offering table46 or banquet scene.47 Minor figures performing
hard labour in the outdoors occasionally receive refreshments such as in
agricultural or desert hunt scenes48 as well as marshland and sea-faring
activities.49 Yet, there is no known parallel for a male or female tomb owner
receiving refreshments while viewing outdoor activities.50
 Associated inscription of rDi.t mHA.t 'Giving the flax'. The caption probably
relates to the field hand bundling the flax to give to the specialist who will
tie the flax together before transportation. The only other example of this
exact caption is attested in the tomb of Akhet-hetep at Saqqara.51

134
 WOODS AND SWINTON, THE TOMB OF HETEPET AT GIZA

Textual data
(a) Aspects of the offering lists
 Offering lists occupy the lower lintel on both false doors. These lists are
commonly placed on a wall separate from the false door near the tomb
owner seated before an offering table52 and are rarely found on the false
door proper. Only a handful of examples include a list on a false door
(although not on the panel) and can be seen in the tombs of Iteti, Ankh-
iries and Ti at Saqqara.53
 Un-canonical offering lists on the false doors. This form is first attested
in the tombs of the royal family in the East Field at Giza during the mid-
4th Dynasty.54 While a list of offerings within a rectangular compartment
is found in the mortuary temple of Sahure,55 the canonical list is gradually
included in the tombs of non-royal elite officials at Giza and Saqqara
during the early 5th Dynasty. The first examples are seen in the tombs of
Wehem-kai, Seshat-hetep, Nesut-nefer, Kai-ni-nesut I and Kai-nefer at
Giza and Wash-ptah/Isi at Saqqara56 before the compartmentalised lists of
Dynasties 5 and 6 appeared in their full form in the tombs of Seshem-
nefer I and Ka-pu-nesut/Kai at Giza.57
 The offering lists refer to xA DA.t 'one thousand of DA.t-cranes'. The
contents of the offering lists include the usual items (various types of fruit,
bread, barley and beverages) but the panel of false door 2 (Figure 6)
includes rare reference to DA.t-crane'. While this item is attested under a
linen list, under an offering table and in an early list of offerings on stelae,
false doors and tomb walls from early Dynasty 3 through to early Dynasty
5, surprisingly there are only 32 examples currently known from the
period.58

(b) The reliefs on the false doors

 The scenes and inscriptions on the false doors are carved in raised relief.
This type of relief is attested on the Giza slab stelae in Dynasty 459 and
continued to be used on false doors up to the end of Dynasty 5.60 Sunk
relief became the predominant form of relief used on false doors by the
end of the 5th Dynasty. False door 2 also shows the remains of yellow
paint on the inside of the inner jambs, which is infrequently found in the
period.61
 The central niche of false door 2 is decorated and represents the name
and standing figure of the tomb owner. Although the central niche is
frequently inscribed in early tombs, the space is rarely decorated after
early Dynasty 5 as the number of jambs on the false door increased.62

135
 BACE 24 (2013)

2. Examination of commonly occurring iconographic detail

While numerous iconographic motifs represented on Hetepet's fragments are
unique, there are an equally large number of details that are frequently found
in Old Kingdom tombs and accordingly can be used to help to refine the
monument's date. As previous studies have shown, specific scene types like
the tomb owner seated before an offering table or viewing outdoor activities
are regularly found in inscribed tombs from the period and provide a
sufficiently large sample to draw upon for comparison. Aspects of a scene,
such as the clothing and adornment of the tomb owner, different types of
furniture or the shape of the loaves of bread on an offering table, can be
analysed to identify small changes in form and therefore track the development
of the scene throughout the period. The presence of certain details in a tomb
often occurs for a limited period of time and identifying their life-span can
provide a starting point for creating a system of dating.
Two dating systems, developed by Cherpion and Swinton, make use of
commonly occurring iconographic features to date Old Kingdom tombs,
however their respective methods for establishing the life span of each
criterion differ and will be outlined below.

Dating methodology developed by Cherpion – Mastabas et hypogées.63

In short, Cherpion's method relies on the presence of royal cartouches in tombs
to establish a system that can be used for dating monuments with iconography.
She does not rely on the occurrence of a cartouche to date an individual tomb
but uses the latest cartouches in tombs containing a particular criterion to
establish a specific time span i.e. its earliest and latest attested dates. This
framework provides the criterion's 'life span' which may then be used, in
combination with other similarly dated pictorial data, to date an Old Kingdom
tomb or fragment with sufficient iconography.64 The royal cartouches may
appear in the name of an individual; in association with the name of a pyramid,
its cult and priesthood; in the name of a royal funerary domain or in ritual
inscriptions or inscribed copies of royal communications. For Cherpion, it is
the presence of the cartouche, not its context or purpose, which establishes the
life-span of the selected criteria.65

Dating methodology developed by Swinton – Dating Old Kingdom Tombs.66

Swinton's method on the other hand relies on an independently dated body of
tombs and identifies elements in these tombs to be used as criteria for dating,
which establishes the life spans of the selected criteria. The corpus of tombs
examined is divided in two groups. Group A tombs are securely dated, usually
by inscriptional data. Group A is neither large enough nor sufficiently well
136
 WOODS AND SWINTON, THE TOMB OF HETEPET AT GIZA

distributed over time to support valid dating criteria. Therefore, a second group
of monuments was established, Group B, which consists of tombs dated by
inference based on examination of the tombs' location (their position vis-à-vis
royal monuments and tombs of other, clearly dated officials), personal
relationships and archaeological evidence such as the presence of workmen's
graffiti and royal sealings as well as the sequence of tomb construction. The
principle followed is that the defining dates for any dating criterion must be
consistent with all relevant Group A monuments and with most of Group B.
While both the above dating systems depend on the identification of pictorial
elements as dating criteria, they differ essentially in the method by which they
establish the life-span for each criterion. This often provides differing life-
spans for the one detail which in turn offers very different dating results. But,
when a monument is to be dated using iconographic data, both systems are
best employed by drawing up a table that shows the life-span of each criterion
in the tomb. This process gives equal weight to all the relevant criteria as
neither system is reliable when only one or two are taken into consideration.
The two systems of Cherpion (with some revisions by Baud)67 and Swinton
have been applied to Hetepet's fragments (see Tables A and B). These tables
are constructed with the chronology of dynasties and individual reigns of the
Old Kingdom on the horizontal, with the kings listed by number.68 The
numbers listed on the vertical specify the identified criteria and the life-spans
of these criteria are shown as horizontal lines.
Another method of dating, recently developed by Woods,69 applies detailed
comparative analysis to one artistic theme, in this case, Old Kingdom marsh
scenes depicting a major figure. Similarities and innovations within the scenes
were identified and accordingly the transmission and dissemination of the
scenes' details were tracked within the tombs located in the Memphite region.
To achieve an acceptable chronology, each individual tomb or fragment was
dated (independently of Swinton's work) and took into account the family
background of the tomb owner and offices held (where preserved in the
inscriptions), the location and architectural design of the tomb; and the
archaeological data contained within the tomb such as any associated funerary
assemblages.
A practical benefit of this research has been an understanding of the
chronological development of scene content, the identification of features with
a specific life-span as well as a number of 'standard elements', which are
defined as details consistently found in an Old Kingdom marsh scene that
appear to have constituted an approved model.70 Analysis of Hetepet's pleasure
cruise scene identified certain features that are regularly represented in a marsh
composition, these include: the major figure facing the papyrus thicket; a

137
 BACE 24 (2013)

punter propelling the boat forward and, in accordance with traditional

representation of other female major figures, Hetepet holding a lotus flower to
her nose, wearing a long tight-fitting dress and being shown in a passive stance
with her legs tight together.71 However, the absence as well as the presence of
certain features in the scene, including deviations or innovations in the minor
details are helpful for dating the fragments and are shown in Table C above.

A plurality of approaches
A variety of methods have been applied to help determine a date for the tomb
of Hetepet. These are grouped and the results are summarised below:

A. Dating by established criteria with specific life-spans: Systems developed

by Cherpion and Swinton
Logically, the validity of assigning a date to a monument using established life
spans of criteria depends on all the criteria that appear in a given tomb
coinciding for some period of time. The period of coincidence accordingly
identifies the date for the monument and when this coincidence fails, it has to
be assumed that either the life spans of the 'offending' criteria are missing
sufficient supporting data or the problem criteria are inadequately sourced and
must therefore be regarded merely as support for a date. Cherpion's Criteria 37
(6 attestations) and Swinton's Criteria 71 (5 attestations), 79 (7 attestations)
and 97 (6 attestations) are such examples.
The coincidence of time in Table A (Cherpion/Baud) date Hetepet's tomb
firmly to the reigns of Khufu (IV.2) to Djedefre (IV.3). Two of the criteria (37
and 40) rule out Dynasty 5, and it is only Baud's amended dating for Criterion
28 that allows for a date in early Dynasty 5. Table B (Swinton) does not
provide a period where all the criteria coincide in time although in real terms
the time gap between the two problem criteria, (13 and 78) is probably less
than ten years. Overall, Swinton's method results in a possible date for
Hetepet's tomb that covers the first half of Dynasty 5, from Sahure to Niuserra.

Comparing the results of Cherpion and Swinton's dating methods

Analysis of the criteria listed in Tables A and B highlights that a number of
common criteria are assigned different life spans by the respective authors and
the significantly different results of the two systems require examination.
Table D indicates that while the two systems generally agree on the 'earliest'
dates for the life spans of identical criteria, there are considerable differences
for their end dates, with Swinton's criteria having much longer life spans. On
investigation, these discrepancies are due to the very different methods used to

138
 WOODS AND SWINTON, THE TOMB OF HETEPET AT GIZA

establish the life span for each criterion. For instance, a significant number of
tombs used by Swinton to establish life-spans of criteria are assigned a date
later than the latest cartouche inscribed in them. Cherpion on the other hand
depends on the presence of cartouches, not to date a tomb, but rather with a
sophisticated logic, she uses the appearance of the latest cartouches in tombs to
establish a life-span for her criteria. This system, however, occasionally faces a
methodological problem. Cartouches appear randomly in the corpus of Old
Kingdom tombs and over half the known tombs do not even contain a
cartouche. Consequently, key occurrences of Cherpion's criteria that might
extend their life span may not be accessible as they appear on a monument
without a cartouche. In addition, both the dominance of the cartouche of Khufu
(see Baud's chart)72 and the fact that the cartouches of early kings were
available to and recorded by officials of the 5th and 6th dynasties tends to
skew some dating results using Cherpion's system and can assign too early a
date for certain tombs. The Hetepet fragments appear to be such a case.

Comparison of timespans: Common criteria of Cherpion and Swinton

Dating by features in one artistic theme: The major figure in the marshlands
The Woods method of dating relies on the presence and absence of motifs in
the corpus of one artistic theme and the premise that the authors assigned
dating of the corpus provides an accurate chronological framework. There are
many features in Hetepet's marsh scene that are very rare and have only
limited parallels, yet, when comparable motifs are available (e.g. the lotus
flower garland worn by the major figure and the depth of the body of water
below the boat) they are only known in early to mid-5th Dynasty tombs.73 The
specific binding of the papyrus boat is first attested in the reign of Sahure
(V.2), while the shape of the boat is first seen in the reign of Niuserre (V.6).
The irregular spacing of the papyrus umbels in the thicket is only a short-lived
variant from the reigns of Sahure (V.2) to Unis (V.9) before the placement of
the umbels takes on a very structured appearance where they are positioned by
being aligned in several tight rows with straight tops.
Equally, there are 3 features absent from Hetepet's pleasure cruise scene (the
wooden deck on the papyrus boat; predatory behaviour exhibited by animals
in the thicket; regularly spaced umbels above the thicket). These features are
considered 'standard elements' (after Woods), which were introduced in elite
tomb marsh compositions as a basic model or framework. As seen in the tables
above, two of the features became standard elements during the reign of
Niuserre (V.6), while a third absent feature was standardised in the reigns of
Djedkare to Unis (V.8-9).

139
 BACE 24 (2013)

On the basis of these observations, the composition of the pleasure cruise

scene suggests that the tomb was probably decorated by the end of the reign of
Niuserre (V.6).

B. Dating by architectural features: The false doors

Although the architectural design of the tomb is unknown and only sections of
false door 1 are preserved (Figure 5), the chapel is likely to have contained two
false doors set into the west wall, a feature frequently attested from the reign of
Khufu (IV.2) through to Pepi II (VI.5) in the Memphite cemeteries.74 The false
doors correspond to Rusch Type II.1 and have a projecting lintel, one pair of
jambs and a reasonably deep recessed central niche. 75 All these features are
typical of tombs built during Dynasties 4 and 5, and are rarely attested in
Dynasty 6.
One important element notably absent from the design of both false doors is
the torus moulding that regularly accompanies the cavetto cornice. The
absence of this feature directly assists in narrowing down a date for the tomb.
The torus molding and cornice is an architectural feature attested in elite tombs
as early as Sahure (V.2) and yet was rarely found in other tombs until the reign
of Niuserre (V.6), after which time it became a popular addition to the false
door to the end of the Old Kingdom. The absence of this feature suggests the
chapel of Hetepet was constructed no later than the reign of Niuserre.76

C. Dating discrepancies: The concept of archaism

The numerous rare and unusual iconographic features on the blocks belonging
to Hetepet are frequently cited as support for either a late Dynasty 6 or First
Intermediate Period date.77 When such dates are proposed, iconographic details
that appear to date the tomb to a much earlier time are at times dismissed as
evidence of 'archaising'.78 Proponents of a later date for Hetepet's tomb may
argue that an archaizing tomb inevitably shows unnaturally early stylistic
features. However, the 'archaizing' decoration of this tomb must be considered
in the context of the Egyptian Old Kingdom, as opposed to applying a model
from later periods to assist in interpretation. For instance, archaising material
in other periods of Egyptian history such as the Saitic period exhibit
inaccuracies and mistakes. If, indeed, the tomb of Hetepet exhibited archaising
features, it would have to be acknowledged that the craftsmen who executed
the decoration had a remarkable capacity to render every datable stylistic detail
historically accurate to a much earlier period of time (see the dating tables of
Cherpion and Swinton). But not a single criterion on either table denies an
earlier date for the Hetepet's tomb. To this may be added the question of a
'reversion' to the symbolism and belief system that belong to a period before

140
 WOODS AND SWINTON, THE TOMB OF HETEPET AT GIZA

Dynasty 6, such as the depiction of half loaves of bread instead of tall reeds
and the long robe worn by the tomb owner at the offering table. To have
portrayed Hetepet in late Dynasty 6 seated before a table of half loaves
wearing a long panther skin robe would have involved shifting in time a
symbolism that represented deeply held afterlife beliefs.79
Furthermore, if the fragments date to Dynasty 6 or later, there is an expectation
that the human figures should exhibit features of the so-called 'Second-style' of
Egyptian art as identified by Russmann in sculpture and Brovarski and
Myśliwiec in relief.80 Unlike the naturalistic portrayal of musculature,
proportion and physiognomy typical of Dynasties 4 and 5, this style
exaggerates certain features such as over-large heads, elongated arms and
fingers, attenuated waists as well as specific facial details including large, open
eyes and high-set ears.81 This style is first apparent in the statuary and reliefs
belonging to Metchetchi and Mitry in the late 5th Dynasty, probably dating to
the reign of Unis, and continued to be regularly represented in the capital and
provincial cemeteries until the end of the Old Kingdom and beyond.
Significantly the Second Style is absent in Hetepet's reliefs, which suggests the
decoration was completed prior to the 6th Dynasty.

Drawing conclusions: A date for the tomb of Hetepet?

The varied results of the approaches to dating monuments discussed in this
paper illustrate the potential difficulties in establishing dating criteria with
specific life-spans. We have already discussed the concerns with Cherpion's
method, yet, as with all systems requiring a basic corpus of tombs with a valid
relative chronology, Swinton's and Woods' methods also encounter issues: (1)
if the sequence of tombs on which the life-spans of the relevant criteria rest is
either incorrect or unclear due to poor preservation or the relevant criteria lack
adequate supporting evidence; then the subsequent results are likely to be
skewed; (2) if the corpus is calibrated with dates provided by other systems
without ensuring that these dates were obtained by employing similar
principles of analysis; (3) or when the same categories of evidence, such as
iconography, are used to both date the original corpus and formulate the
relevant dating criteria and their life-spans; such an approach essentially
creates a circular argument.82
While such potential pitfalls have to be kept in mind when applying these
types of dating systems to tombs, we are confident that the methods employed
enable a more reliable dating of the fragments. In summary, both Cherpion and
Swinton's results rule out a date in the second half of Dynasty 5 or later. The
period of coincidence highlighted in Swinton's Table B supports a date in early
to mid-Dynasty 5, while that shown in Cherpion's Table A clearly provides an

141
 BACE 24 (2013)

early Dynasty 4 date, taking Hetepet's fragments back perhaps 100 years.
Based on the pleasure cruise scene, Woods' dating places Hetepet's tomb in the
first half of Dynasty 5 up to the end of the reign of Niuserre (V.6). The results
of Cherpion, Swinton and Woods make a useful contribution as they agree on
confining the tomb to the first half of the Old Kingdom. On this particular
occasion, however, we do not accept Cherpion's more limited dating from
early to mid-Dynasty 4. Accordingly we tentatively suggest an extended time
frame and date for the tomb of Hetepet to the first half of Dynasty 5, but no
later than the reign of Niuserre (V.6).

Who was the lady Hetepet?

Although much of this paper has focused on the varied methods of dating
using iconographic and textual data as well as potential methodological issues
to be aware of, we feel the purpose of dating Hetepet's tomb should be viewed
as a starting point to further understand her position within the society of the
early to mid-5th Dynasty, if of course our revised dating is to be accepted.
While the tomb of Hetepet has been discussed in the literature, the most
striking discrepancy on these blocks has been often overlooked, namely, that
the surviving scenes and inscriptions on the two false doors refer only to
Hetepet and make no reference to a husband. This is an extremely rare
occurrence in Old Kingdom Egypt as non-royal women frequently share (to
varying degrees of prominence) their husband's tomb and, if included in the
decoration or assigned a burial shaft and cult place at all, are often secondary
partners.83 The burial practices and representation of women in the Old
Kingdom is beyond the scope of the present article and has been extensively
explored in the literature.84 Yet, it should be highlighted that tombs owned
exclusively by women provide the deceased with the same set of burial
provisions that were available to a man and, in such cases, they rarely include
the name of a husband.85
There are of course many Old Kingdom examples of queens or princesses who
owned their own tomb or are assigned a chapel within their husband's tomb.86
It is, however, much less common for non-royal females who belong to the
upper echelons of the elite87 or who independently pursued a career at court to
have access to resources to build a separate tomb.88 Thus the absence of a
husband's name in Hetepet's tomb may be understood in one of the following
ways: Hetepet owned a chapel within the mastaba of her husband, the location
of which is now lost; her husband predeceased her, she was divorced, or was
never married and accordingly was buried by her parents. According to
Fischer, Hetepet's titles "She who is known to the King, Priestess of Hathor,
Tenant Landholder" confirm that the tomb belonged exclusively to Hetepet.

142
 WOODS AND SWINTON, THE TOMB OF HETEPET AT GIZA

Fischer continues with the - dare we say gender-biased - comment, "…we may not
have a complete picture of the decoration of the chapel, but it seems to be devoted
to feminine preoccupations to an unusual degree".89
Hetepet's tomb appears to provide an exceptional instance of a woman who
pursued a career at court, who independently prepared a tomb and who, most
importantly, was not of royal descent. This, in fact, is our first important clue:
although not a member of the royal family, Hetepet had sufficiently high status
to be entitled to a decorated tomb or tomb chapel in a royal cemetery, probably
in the Giza West Field, and her titles also suggest high, courtly connections.
Furthermore, the surviving scenes provide hints about Hetepet's role in society.
In the flax harvest scene she is seated before a register of harvesters. Although
the term mAA, 'viewing' or 'inspecting', does not appear in the inscription, the
scene is reminiscent of male officials inspecting activities on the rural estate
they either owned or administered.
The depiction of Hetepet on the same register as a team of men harvesting flax
suggests the lady had a particular interest in the crop. As she is portrayed
seated with an attendant offering her a bowl of refreshment, possibly wine, it is
even more likely that she occupied a supervisory role. This is very important in
the case of a flax harvest because it was essential that the delicate strands of
the flax plant were carefully handled. In the Old and Middle Kingdoms
women, rather than men, were employed in all stages of linen production and
would have had the skills needed to weave the finest cloth. Hetepet would
probably not have been a common weaver but she might have been responsible
in some capacity for the production of the best quality linen for the royal court.
The significance of her title, xnt.yt-S, is very much in dispute, as it may mean
'bodyguard', 'attendant' or even, as Fischer translates, 'tenant landholder' but
as Roth notes, its distinguishing attribute is the association with the personal
service to the king.90 In addition, the representation of five of Hetepet's seven
female attendants carrying pieces of jewellery (wesekh collars) suggests her
special connection with linen production for the royal court, where female
bearers of linen are shown being rewarded with jewellery.91
The scene of Hetepet on her pleasure cruise in the marshlands has remarkable
impact. She stands on a skiff surrounded by a mass of lotus flowers and buds,
wears a garland of flowers, holds one long stemmed lotus to her nose and a
second in her other hand. Lotus flowers and buds, rather than fish and
waterweed, are even depicted beneath her skiff. This proliferation may indicate
a more significant connection with the plant than merely a statement of
femininity. The lotus flower (probably a water lily), blue and white (N. coerula
Sav. and Nymphaea Lotus L.), had a variety of values for ancient Egyptians.
The lotus sinks under the water at night but re-emerges in the morning, which

143
 BACE 24 (2013)

may have caused the flower to become a symbol for rebirth and regeneration.92
Aesthetically it bore the most conspicuous blooms of any native plant and
Egyptian artists frequently portrayed its flowers and leaves floating on the
water in marsh scenes. The lotus also had many practical uses. Besides being
the foundation of perfume – the blue variety is heavily scented – the lotus had
a therapeutic value. In the forms of a liquid medicine or a poultice or ointment,
of course mixed with a variety of other relief-giving plants, the flowers and
leaves of the lotus could be used as a cooling enema, to treat liver disease or
'demonic constipation' and no doubt were appreciated for their mild narcotic
properties.93 Skilled in the production and application of these beneficial uses
for the lotus, Hetepet may have made herself valued at the royal court. The
scene of Hetepet surrounded in lotus flowers and buds may have announced
her wish to be remembered for her association with the lotus.
Not only is the lady Hetepet portrayed as the commanding figure in the flax
harvest and pleasure cruise scenes, in each she is depicted in the unique
posture of receiving a bowl of refreshment, possibly to inform visitors to her
tomb that she was a woman of elevated social status, having pursued a
successful career at court. Perhaps these fragments of an ancient tomb with
their unique scenes are evidence of a woman who enjoyed her independence
and was prepared to express her individuality.

Authors' note
Our discussion has centered on the problem-ridden issues of dating Old
Kingdom tombs and interpreting the available data. We do not claim to have
arrived at the 'last word' on Hetepet's tomb and there may well be a need for
further interpretation and refinement of the proposed date as testing of the data
used in this study continues. We suggest, however, that the exercise has been
given new impetus by applying close comparative analysis to certain scenic
motifs and has highlighted how iconography can assist in refining and, where
necessary, modifying the long accepted dating of certain tombs and even
fragments.

144
 WOODS AND SWINTON, THE TOMB OF HETEPET AT GIZA

Criteria and the dating of Hetepet reliefs after Cherpion (rev. by Baud) 

   
 
Criterion  Description

3  Chair without back. Rounded cushion visible.
10  Chair with bull's legs.
13  Chair leg socles as inverted trapezia.
16  Height of half loaves on offering table only to tomb owner's elbow.
24  Leg of offering table rests on a support.
28  Short, curly wig of the male has deep 'cap' at the top.
37  Male wearing a Ra‐hetep kilt.
38  Deceased wears long 'panther skin' robe at offering table.
40  Medu staff held with the pommel to the ground.
45  Choker worn without wesekh collar.
47  Multiple bangles worn by a female.
50  Figure of deceased or family member on panel at bottom of false door.

Table A Dating Hetepet: criteria according to Cherpion with revisions by Baud

(in Grimal (ed.) Les critères de datation stylistiques, 31–95).
 
 
 
 
145
 BACE 24 (2013)

Criteria and the dating of Hetepet reliefs after Swinton

Criterion  Description
6  Male wearing a Ra‐hetep kilt. 
9  Narrow wesekh collar does not reach the level of the wearer's armpit. 
13  Deceased wears long 'panther skin' robe at offering table.
16  Diagonal neckline of robe/animal skin depicted as one or two parallel lines. 
31  Height of half loaves on offering table only to tomb owner's elbow. 
35  Half loaves arranged around a central axis: Straight edges facing inward. 
44  Offering list labelled 'xA' partly beside or above the offering table. 
46  Tall, rounded ewer standing in the basin.  
60  Surface of the offering table level with the tomb owner's knee. 
62  Leg of offering table rests on a support.  
71  Choker worn without wesekh collar. 
73  Multiple bangles worn by a female. 
78  A lotus with a straight stem held in a closed fist. 
79  Lotus is held with the palm of the holder's hand turned upward. 
82  Chair without back. 
83  Chair with bull's legs. 
87  All shapes of cushion on chair without back. 
88  Small, rounded cushion at the back of chair  
92  Chair leg socles as inverted trapezia. 
97  'Pleasure cruise' scene. 
100  Papyrus thicket depicted in front of the tomb owner. 

Table B Dating Hetepet: criteria according to Swinton – Dating Old Kingdom Tombs.

146
 WOODS AND SWINTON, THE TOMB OF HETEPET AT GIZA

Hetepet's pleasure cruise scene: presence / absence of select features  
(after Woods) 
 

  Feature – present in the Hetepet reliefs Life‐span of feature
95
I  The stern of the boat is long and curves to the height of  Niuserre – Pepy I  
94
the major figure's knee.  
97
II  The binding on the papyrus skiff is in regular and short  Sahure – Pepy II  
96
intervals only on the prow and stern of the boat.  
99
III  The  papyrus  thicket  has  several  rows  of  umbels  with  Sahure – Unis  
98
slightly irregular spacing.  

 
  Features – absent from the Hetepet reliefs Life‐span of feature
100
IV  Papyrus boat with a wooden deck.
 
Khufu–Khafre – Pepy II–Dyn 8
Standardised in elite tomb scenes: Niuserre 
V  Animals  exhibit  predatory  behaviour  in  the  papyrus  Khafre–Shepseskaf – Pepy II–
101
thicket.   Dyn 8 
Standardised in elite tomb scenes: Niuserre   
102
VI  Umbels above the papyrus thicket spaced regularly. Khufu–Khafre – Pepy II–FIP
Standardised in elite tomb scenes: Djedkare–Unis    
 

Table C Presence and absence of features in the pleasure cruise scene in the Hetepet
reliefs according to Woods, Old Kingdom Marsh Scenes.

147
 BACE 24 (2013)

Comparison of timespans: criteria common to Cherpion and Swinton 
 

Criterion  Description
a  The offering table with double pedestal. 
b  The  loaves  on  the  offering  table  reach  only  to  the  tomb  owner's  elbow.
   
c  Chairs with bull's legs.
d  Chair leg supports: socles are inverted trapezia.
e  Choker worn without wesekh collar by female
f  Long robe: the neckline leaves one shoulder bare and is caught on the other 
shoulder by a tie with long ends, a style invariably seen on long panther skin 
robes. 
g  Cherpion's 'Ra‐hetep' kilt.
h  Cushion only at back of stool
i  Female wears multiple bangles.

Table D Comparison of timespans: criteria common to Cherpion and Swinton

148
 WOODS AND SWINTON, THE TOMB OF HETEPET AT GIZA


This paper was originally presented by A. Woods at a conference held by the
Australian Centre for Egyptology at Macquarie University in 2008. For the abstract
of this paper see, Evans, L. (ed.) Ancient Memphis: 'Enduring is the Perfection'.
Proceedings of the International Conference held at Macquarie University, Sydney
on August 14–15, 2008, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 214 (Leuven, 2012) 7–8.
The paper has subsequently been revised jointly and we would like to express our
thanks to Susanne Binder for her careful and critical reading of the manuscript,
Leonie Donovan for her keen attention to detail in formatting the tables, as well as
Mary Hartley who expertly prepared the line drawings for publication.
1
PM III/2, 298; Ägyptische Inschriften aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin:
Erster Band: Inschriften von der ältesten zeit bis zum ende der Hyksoszeit (Leipzig,
1924) 17–19, Inv. nr. 15417–15421; V. von Droste zu Hülschoff, 'Kat.–Nr. 1:
Scheintür der Hetepet' in: E. Bayer–Niemeier, et al., Liebieghaus. Museum Alter
Plastik, Frankfurt am Main, Wissenschaftliche Kataloge. Ägyptische Bildwerke III:
Skulptur, Papyri und Särge (Melsungen, 1993) 11–16, Inv. nr. 722. All fragments
are published in photographic form in H.G. Fischer, Egyptian Women of the Old
Kingdom and Heracleopolitan Period (New York, 2000) 41, pls. 1–4.
2
Selected fragments are published in Städtische galerie. Kurzes verzeichnis der
Bildwerke (1909) 26, no 100; Städtische galerie. Kurzes verzeichnis der Bildwerke
(1910) 30, no. 100; Städtische galerie. Kurzes verzeichnis der Bildwerke (1915) 26,
no. 100; Städtische galerie. Kurzes verzeichnis der Bildwerke (1930) 90.
3
H. Ranke, Die altägyptischen Personennamen (Glückstadt, 1935) I, 260 (13).
4
The following variants of the spelling are found on the preserved blocks:
(flax harvest and pleasure cruise scenes, figures 1–2), (false door 1, Figure 5);
and (false door 2, Figure 6).
5
D. Jones, An Index of Ancient Egyptian Titles, Epithets and Phrases of the Old
Kingdom, BAR international Series 866 (I) (Oxford, 2000) I, 480 [1789] (male
holders); 481 [1799] (female holders).
6
See under entry iry xt nzwt/rx nzwt in Jones, Index I, 327–328 [1206].
7
Jones, Index II, 540–541 [2012].
8
Jones, Index II, 691–692 [2530]. For a detailed discussion on the occurrence and
translation of the title, see J. Fettel, Die Chentiu–schi des Alten Reiches
(Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Heidelberg, 2010) 21–41. A recent study by
H. Külmer has highlighted that the titles of 'priestess of Hathor', 'acquaintance of
the king' and 'body guard' are closely linked and often held simultaneously. H.
Külmer, Marktfrauen, Priesterinnen und 'Edle des Königs': Untersuchung über die
Position von Frauen in der sozialen Hierarchie des Alten Ägypten bis zum Ende der
1. Zwischenzeit (Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Hamburg, 2007) 39–40,
146, 155.
9
See the following examples: Iui-pu (G4520 – Mus. Boston 21.3081; G.A. Reisner,
A History of the Giza Necropolis, I (Cambridge, MA., 1942) 505; Fettel, Die
Chentiu–schi des Alten Reiches, 619 [246]); Neferet–it (T73 – LD II, 114 [k, l]; LD
Text II, 181; Fettel, Die Chentiu–schi des Alten Reiches, 751 [378]); Sesesekh

149
 BACE 24 (2013)

(G2009 – W.S. Smith, A History of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old
Kingdom (London, 1946) 69; Fettel, Die Chentiu–schi des Alten Reiches, 599
[226]); Baru (G4520, Statue Mus. Boston 06.1885 – Smith, HESPOK, 69, pl. 24
[c]; Fettel, Die Chentiu–schi des Alten Reiches, 604 [231]); Tes–taset (G2098 – A.
M. Roth, A Cemetery of Palace Attendants, including G 2084–2099, G2230 + 2231
and G 2240, Giza Mastabas 6 (Boston, 1995) 150 – 154, fig. 80; Fettel, Die
Chentiu–schi des Alten Reiches, 491 [118]); Mery–nebti (N. Kanawati / M. Abder–
Raziq, The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara: Volume VII: The Tombs of Shepsipuptah,
Mereri (Merinebti) Hefi and Others, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports
17 (Oxford, 2001) 33; N. Kanawati, 'A Female Guard Buried in the Teti Cemetery',
BACE 12 (2001) 65 – 70, pls. 20 – 21; Fettel, Die Chentiu–schi des Alten Reiches,
439 [066]); Iyi (H. F. Lutz, Egyptian Tomb Steles and Offering Stones of the
Museum of Anthropology and Ethnology of the University of California, University
of California Publications in Egyptian Archaeology 4 (Berkeley, 1927) 16, pl. 9
[17]; Fettel, Die Chentiu–schi des Alten Reiches, 423 [050]); Ni–hasut–Mery–Re
(Statuette MMA 1992.338; H.G. Fischer, 'Another Pithemorphic Vessel of the Sixth
Dynasty', JARCE 30 (1993) 1–9; Fettel, Die Chentiu–schi des Alten Reiches, 752
[379]); Nebet (L. Borchardt, Catalogue général des Antiquités égyptiennes du
Musée du Caire / Service des Antiquités de l'Égypte. Denkmäler des alten Reiches
(ausser den Statuen) im Museum von Kairo. I. Text und Tafeln zu Nr. 1295 – 1541
(Berlin, 1932) 221; J. Malek, 'Princess Inti: The Companion of Horus', JSSEA 10
(1980) 240; Fettel, Die Chentiu–schi des Alten Reiches, 467 [094]); Ankhnes–Pepy
(CG 1522; Borchardt, Denkmäler I, 222 – 223, fig. 46; Fettel, Die Chentiu–schi des
Alten Reiches, 471 [098]).
10
von Droste zu Hülschoff, 'Kat.–Nr. 1: Scheintür der Hetepet' in Bayer–Niemeier,
Liebieghaus III, 11.
11
Fischer, Women, pl. 1b. If the name was to be continued in raised relief, the
background would not have been lowered. On the methods of carving raised relief,
see C. Aldred, Egyptian Art in the Days of the Pharaohs, 3100–320 bc (London,
1980) 26–28.
12
Refer to the following entries in Ranke, Personennamen I, 312 (15), 134 (15), 165
(11), 254 (28), 225 (3).
13
Ranke, Personennamen I, 42 (4), 195 (10), 232 (12), 200 (4).
14
W. Wresinski, Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte (Leipzig, 1923) I, pl. 376.
15
S. Wenig, Führer durch das Ägyptische Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin
(Berlin, 1961) 45–46.
16
von Droste zu Hülschoff, 'Kat.–Nr. 1: Scheintür der Hetepet' in Bayer–Niemeier, E.
et al., Liebieghaus III, 11.
17
N. Cherpion, Mastabas et Hypogées d'Ancien Empire – Le Problème de la
Datation, Brussels, 1989) 125–126.
18
R. Hamann, Ägyptische Kunst (Berlin, 1944) 150, fig. 152.
19
H. Schäfer / W. Andrae, Die Kunst des Alten Orients, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte II
(Berlin, 1925) [250], 649.
20
PM III/2: 298.

150
 WOODS AND SWINTON, THE TOMB OF HETEPET AT GIZA

21
K. Seyfried, 'Katalog Nummer 1' in: B. Geßler–Löhr, Ägyptische Kunst im
Liebighaus (Frankfurt am Main, 1981) n. 1.
22
H. Junker, Gîza V: Die Mastabas des Snb (Seneb) und die umliegenden Gräber
(Vienna, 1941) 52. The dating of the tomb of Seneb has been re–investigated by
both authors (albeit independently). A. Woods, 'A date for the tomb of Seneb at
Giza: Revisited' in A. Woods, A. McFarlane, and S. Binder (eds.) Egyptian Culture
and Society: Studies in Honour of Naguib Kanawati (Cairo 2010) II, 301–331;
Swinton, Dating, 302–305; A. Woods, 'Contribution to a controversy: A date for
the tomb of Kaiemankh at Giza' JEA 95 (2009) 161–174; J. Swinton, The Dating of
the Tombs of Officials of the Old Kingdom of Egypt (unpublished MA honours
thesis: Macquarie University, 2001) 306–307.
23
Y. Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom: Studies in
Orientation and Scene Content (London, 1987) 202, 218, 268 [176]. The entry for
Hetepet in the Oxford Expedition to Egypt: Scene Details Database lists a Dynasty
6 date, from Teti to end Pepy II. http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/
view/oee_ahrc_2006/queryTombs.cfm?section=listTombById&siteId=0&cemetery
Id=0&type=&tombId=144&CFID=23140&CFTOKEN=1E63D803–4815–43D5–
AA998C5AC98BB6CA
24
Harpur, Decoration, 218.
25
Harpur, Decoration, 202.
26
Harpur, Decoration, 218.
27
For a discussion see A. Woods, 'zSS wAD scenes of the Old Kingdom revisited' in: N.
Strudwick / H. Strudwick, Old Kingdom, New Perspectives: Egyptian Art and
Archaeology 2750–2150 BC (Oxford, 2011) 316–317. For a recent study of marsh
scenes found in royal reliefs and elite tombs dating to the Old Kingdom see A.
Woods, 'A Day in the Marshes': A Study of Old Kingdom Marsh Scenes in the
Tombs of the Memphite Cemeteries, unpublished PhD thesis (Macquarie University
2007). For female major figures see the following examples: Meres–ankh II (G
7410 + 7420 – Smith, HESPOK, 168, fig. 63); Iufi in the tomb of her husband Kai–
khenet at El–Hammammiya (A2 – A. El–Khouli / N. Kanawati, The Old Kingdom
Tombs of El–Hammamiya, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 2
(Warminster, 1990) 46–47, pls. 50–51); Nebet (P. Munro, Der Unas–Friedhof
Nord–West: Topographisch–historische Einleitung: Das Doppelgrab der
Königinnen Nebet und Khenut, I, (Mainz/Rhein, 1993) 53–56, pl. 11); Khenut
(Munro, Unas–Friedhof I, 52–53, pl. 34); Khuit II (Z. Hawass, 'Recent Discoveries
in the Pyramid Complex of Teti at Saqqara', in M. Bárta and J. Krejčí (eds.) Abusir
and Saqqara in the Year 2000 (Prague, 2000) 430, fig. 11); Neferti in the tomb of
her husband Tchauti at Qasr el–Sayad (T. Säve–Söderberg, The Old Kingdom
Cemetery at Hamra Dom (El–Qasr wa Es–Saiyad) (Stockholm, 1994) 63–67, pls.
48b, 49). For male major figures on a pleasure cruise see: Iyi–nefert (W.
Schürmann, Die Reliefs aus dem Grab des Pyramidenvorstehers Ii–nefret: Eine
Bilddokumentation des Badischen Landesmuseums Karlsruhe (Karlsruhe, 1983)
31–32, pls. 6, 21); Ti (D22 – H. Wild, Le Tombeau de Ti: Fascicle II: Le Chapelle
(Cairo, 1953) pl. 119); Ra–shepsus (S 902 – LD II, pl. 60); Senedhemib/Inti (G

151
 BACE 24 (2013)

2370 – E. Brovarski, The Senedjemib Complex: Part 1: The Mastabas of

Senedjemib Inti (G 2370), Khnumenti (G 2374), and Senedjemib Mehi (G 2378),
Giza Mastaba Series 7 (Boston, 2001) I, 49–52, II, fig. 42–43); Ihy re–used by Idut
(N. Kanawati / M. Abder–Raziq, The Unis Cemetery at Saqqara: Volume II: The
Tombs of Iynefert and Ihy (reused by Idut), The Australian Centre for Egyptology
Report 19 (Oxford, 2003) 45–47, pl. 54); Kagemni/Memi (Y. Harpur / P. Scremin,
The Chapel of Kagemni: Scene Details (Oxford, 2006) 7–28, 353–364, 491 [3]).
28
See for example A. Fakhry, The Monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur (Cairo, 1961) II,
110, fig. 11; D. Dunham / W. K. Simpson, The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III:
G7530–7540, Giza Mastaba Series 1 (Boston, 1974) fig. 4; E. Edel / S. Wenig Die
Jahreszeitenreliefs aus dem Sonnenheiligtum des Königs Neuser-Re, Staatliche
Museen zu Berlin, Mitteilungen aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung, Band VII (Berlin
1974) 21, pl. 12 [JE 34193]; 30, pl. 21 [743]; 31, pl. 21 [822, 834, 831].
29
Harpur, Decoration, 202; H. Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, J. Baines, trans.,
(Oxford, 1974) 199; L. Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art: Representations
of the Natural World in Memphite Tomb Scenes, The Australian Centre for
Egyptology: Studies 9 (Oxford, 2010) 43–44; L. Manniche, An Ancient Egyptian
Herbal (London, 1989) 132–135.
30
See the relevant scenes in the tombs of Ni–ankh–Khnum and Khnum–hotep (A.
Moussa / H. Altenmüller, Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep,
(Mainz/Rhein, 1977) 58–60, fig. 5); Ra–shepsus (LD II, pl. 60); Nefer–iretenef (B.
van der Walle, La chapelle funéraire de Neferirtenef (Brussels, 1978) 65–69, 92, pl.
1); Iyi–nefert (Kanawati / Abder–Raziq, Unis Cemetery II, 18–19, pl. 37b); Hesi
re–used by Seshemnefer N. Kanawati / M. Abder–Raziq, The Teti Cemetery at
Saqqara: Volume V: The Tomb of Hesi, The Australian Centre for Egyptology:
Reports 13 (Warminster, 1999) 25–29, pl. 53–54); Seankh–ui–Ptah (N. Kanawati /
M. Abder–Raziq, The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara: Volume III: The Tombs of
Neferseshemre and Seanhkuiptah, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports
11 (Warminster, 1998) 59–62, pls. 69, 76); Pepy–ankh–hery–ib (N. Kanawati, The
Cemetery of Meir: Volume I: The Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle, The Australian
Centre for Egyptology: Reports 31 (Oxford, 2012) 37–43, pls. 80–81).
31
Refer to references in notes 49–50 below.
32
See for example Meres–ankh III (G 7530 + G 7540 – Dunham / Simpson,
Mersyankh III, 9–10, fig. 4); Ti (L. Épron / F. Daumas, Le Tombeau de Ti: Fascicle
I: Les approches de la chapelle (Cairo, 1939) pl. 46).
33
See the following tombs: Iyi–nefert (Schürmann, Ii–nefret, 31–32, pls. 6, 21); Itisen
(S. Hassan, Excavations at Giza V: 1933 – 1934. With special Chapters on Methods
of Excavation, the False–Door, and other archaeological and religious Subjects
(Cairo, 1944) 267–268, pl. 37); Ti (D22 – Wild, Ti, II, pl. 119); Kheueuer (LD, II,
pl. 43a).
34
The only comparable motif may be found in the papyrus rattling scene in the tomb
of Ti at Saqqara, which represents a paddler on the prow of the papyrus boat. Épron
/ Daumas, Ti, I, pl. 46.
35
El–Khouli / Kanawati, El–Hammamiya, 46–47, pls. 50–51; Schürmann, Ii–nefret,

152
 WOODS AND SWINTON, THE TOMB OF HETEPET AT GIZA

31–32, pls. 6, 21.

36
See for example, Ni–ankh–Khnum and Khnum–hotep (Moussa / Altenmüller,
Nianchchnum, 58–61, 150–152, figs. 5–6, pls. 74–75); Kaiemankh (G 4561– N.
Kanawati, Tombs at Giza: Volume 1: Kaiemankh (G4561) and Seshemnefer I
(G4940), The Australian Centre for Egyptology Report 16 (Warminster, 2001) 30–
32, pl. 31); Senedjemib/Inti (G2370 – Brovarski, Senedjemib Complex, I, 38–40, II,
fig. 26–27); Nikauissesi (N. Kanawati / M. Abder–Raziq, The Teti Cemetery at
Saqqara: Volume VI: The Tomb of Nikauisesi, The Australian Centre for
Egyptology Report 14 (Warminster, 2000) 39–41, pl. 50); Hesi re–used by
Seshemnefer (Kanawati / Abder–Raziq, Teti Cemetery V, 25–29, pl. 53–54);
Merefnebef (MySliwiec, Merefnebef, 122–134, pls. 21, 63–65).
37
See Harpur / Scremin, The Chapel of Kagemni, 74–87, 384–392, 494 [8–9].
38
See Schürmann, Ii–nefret, 31–32, pls. 6, 21; Kanawati, Giza I 39–40, pl. 36.
39
For a full list of scenes see the entry under 'flax harvest' in the Oxford Expedition to
Egypt: Scene Details Database: http://www.oxfordexpeditiontoegypt.com .
40
For a discussion, see Harpur, Decoration, 125–131; V. Angenot, 'Pour une
herméneutique de l'image égyptienne', Chronique d'Egypte 58 (2005) 1–24; M.
Fitzenreiter, 'Grabdekoration und die Interpretation funerärer Rituale im Alten
Reich', in H. Willems, (ed.,) Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian
Old and Middle Kingdom: Proceedings of the international symposium held at
Leiden University 6–7 June, 1996, OLA 103 (Leuven, 2001) 83–88, 129–140.
41
For a discussion see Harpur, Decoration, 126–135.
42
Schäfer, Principles, 164–165, 193–194.
43
Y. Harpur, The Tombs of Nefermaat and Rahotep at Maidum: Discovery,
Destruction and Reconstruction, Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom 1 (Oxford,
2001) 81–82, fig. 82.
44
H.G. Fischer, 'A Scribe of the Army in a Saqqara Mastaba of the Early Fifth
Dynasty' JNES 18 (1959) 240–242, figs. 5–7, pl. 7.
45
The only examples known to the authors are found in the tombs of Nefer–seshem–
Ptah at Saqqara (A.B. Lloyd / A.J. Spencer / A. el–Khouli, Saqqâra Tombs III: The
Mastaba of Neferseshemptah (London, 2008) 24–26, pl. 22) and Sneferu–in–ishetef
at Dahshur (Borchardt, Denkmäler II, 200, pl. 106).
46
See the tombs of Nu–netjer (H. Junker, Gîza X. Der Friedhof südlich der
Cheopspyramide. Westteil (Vienna, 1951) figs. 44–45); Kahif (H. Junker, Gîza VI.
Die Mastabas des Nfr (Nefer), Kdfjj (Kedfi), Khjf (Kahjef) und die westlich
anschließenden Grabanlagen (Vienna, 1943) fig. 38a–b); Nefer–seshem–Ptah
(Lloyd / Spencer / el–Khouli, Saqqara III, 24–26, pl. 22).
47
See also Iyimery (Weeks, Mastabas of Cemetery G6000, fig. 35, 37, pl. 17b–20).
48
Niuserre reliefs (K. Finneiser, 'Die Bildwelt im Sonnenheiligtum des Niuserre' in:
V. Brinkmann (ed.) Sahure: Tod und Leben eines Grossen Pharao. Eine
Ausstellung der Liebieghaus Skulpturensammlung, Frankfurt am Main 24. Jun bis
28 November 2010 (Frankfurt am Main, 2010) 245 [204]); Hetep–her–akhti (H.T.
Mohr, The Mastaba of Hetep–her–akhti: The Study of an Egyptian Tomb chapel in
the Museum of Antiquities Leiden, (Leiden, 1943) fig. 21).

153
 BACE 24 (2013)

49
See the examples in the tombs of Ptah–shespses (M. Verner, The Excavations of the
Czechoslovak Institute of Egyptology at Abusir: Volume I: The Mastaba of
Ptahshepses, 2 vols. (Prague, 1977) pl. 3); Ptahhotep II (Y. Harpur / P. Scremin,
The Chapel of Ptahhotep: Scene Details (Oxford, 2008) 146 [209], 356 [5];
Mereruka (N. Kanawati / A. Woods / S. Shafik / E. Alexakis, Mereruka and his
Family: Part III: 1 – The Tomb of Mereruka (Oxford, 2010) pl. 79b); Ihy (M.
Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs at Thebes: The Tomb of Unas–Ankh no. 413. II.
The Tomb of Khenty no. 405. III. The Tomb of Ihy no. 186, I, trans. M. Bullock,
(Mainz/Rhein, 1977) pl. 19); Pepy–ankh–hery–ib (Kanawati, Meir I, pl. 80).
50
Harpur suggests a fragment belonging to Hetepheres from the Teti Cemetery at
Saqqara also depicts a woman seated and viewing a flax harvest and receiving
refreshments. Yet the description by Firth and Gunn indicates she is shown at a
reduced scale, while her husband stands and holds a staff and overlooks registers of
agricultural activities. See Harpur, Decoration, 218; C. M. Firth, B. Gunn, Teti
Pyramid Cemeteries: Text (Cairo, 1926) I, 168–169 [6].
51
C. Ziegler, Le mastaba d'Akhethetep: Une Chapelle funéraire de l'Ancien Empire
(Paris, 1993) 126, 129 (description), 135–137 (drawings), 145–150 (texts).
52
N. Strudwick, The Administration of Egypt in the Old Kingdom: The Highest Titles
and their Holders (London, 1985) 36–41; A.O. Bolshakov, Man and his Double in
Egyptian Ideology of the Old Kingdom, Ägypten und Altes Testament 37 (Munich,
1997) 53.
53
Iteti (M.A. Murray, Saqqara Mastabas (London, 1905) I, pls. 18–19); Ankh–iries
(Murray, Saqqara mastabas I, pl. 18–19); Ti (Borchardt, Denkmäler I, 39–41). See
also Ra–merery–Ptah (A. Mariette, Les mastabas de l'ancien Empire (Paris, 1889)
154–155); Ni–ankh–ra (T. G. H. James, Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae,
etc. in the British Museum (2nd edn. London, 1961) I, pl. 26); Inkaef (S. Hassan,
Excavations at Giza IV. 1932 – 1933 (Cairo, 1943) VI [3], fig. 119; Ka–ma–ankh
(L. Borchardt, Denkmäler I, 183–184); Kai (Mariette, Mastabas, 231); Wash–
ptah/Isi (Mariette, Mastabas, 268–269); Ha–merer–Ptah (Mariette, Mastabas, 119).
54
See the tombs of Khaef–Khufu I (W.K. Simpson, The Mastabas of Kawab,
Khafkhufu I and II: G7110–20, 7130–40, and 7150 and subsidiary mastabas of
Street G 7100, Giza Mastabas 3 (Boston, 1978) figs. 31–32); Meres–ankh III
(Dunham / Simpson, Mersyankh III, fig. 9); Ni–kau–re (LD pl. 35); Sekhem–ka–re
(Hassan, Gîza IV, fig. 63); Debehni (Hassan, Gîza IV, fig. 122).
55
Borchardt, SaHu–Re II, pl. 63.
56
See Wehem–kai (H. Kayser, Die Mastaba des Uhemka. Ein Grab in der Wüste,
(Hannover, 1964) 32; Seshat–hetep (G5150 – N. Kanawati, Tombs at Giza: Volume
II: Seshathetep/Heti (G5150), Nesutnefer (G4970) and Seshemnefer II (G5080),
The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 18 (Warminster, 2002) pl. 46);
Nesut–nefer (Kanawati, Giza II, pl. 56); Kai–ni–nesut I (H. Junker, Gîza II. Die
Mastabas der beginnenden 5. Dynastie auf dem Westfriedhof (Vienna, 1934) figs.
15, 21); Kai–nefer (Reisner, Giza I, fig. 260); Wash–ptah/Isi (Mariette, Mastabas,
268–269).
57
See W. Barta, Die altägyptische Opferliste von der Frühzeit bis zur griechisch–

154
 WOODS AND SWINTON, THE TOMB OF HETEPET AT GIZA

römischen Epoche (Berlin, 1963) 47–88. Kanawati, Giza I, 58–61, pl. 43; H.
Junker, Gîza III. Die Mastabas der vorgeschrittenen 5. Dynastie auf dem
Westfriedhof (Vienna, 1938) 135, fig. 17.
58
For an overview of the cranes in the Old Kingdom and a list of tombs that include
xA DA.t 'one thousand of DA.t–crane' in an offering list, see A. Stupko, 'Cranes in the
Chapel of Hatshepsut at Deir el–Bahari', Études et Travaux 23 (2010) 159–177.
59
For a discussion of the development of the slab stela to the false door panel see P.
der Manuelian, Mastabas of Nucleus Cemetery G2100: Part I: Major Mastabas G
2100–2220, Giza Mastabas 8 (Boston, 2009) 37–39; P. der Manuelian, Slab Stela of
the Giza Necropolis (New Haven, 2003) 161–162; M. Fitzenreiter, 'Zum Phänomen
der isolierten Speisetischtafel in der 4. Dynastie' GM 208 (2006) 19–28.
60
Strudwick, Administration, 24. For a selection of false doors with raised relief see
the following: Ra–hotep (Harpur, Nefermaat and Rahotep, 109, fig. 98, pls. 65, 71);
Nefer (G2110 – Manuelian, Cemetery G2100: Part I, figs. 6.76–78); Ka–ni–nesut I
(G2155 – Manuelian, Cemetery G2100: Part I, figs. 15.53, 57–60); Merib (G2100–
I; Manuelian, Cemetery G2100: Part I, fig. 4.51); Ptah–hotep II (Harpur / Scremin,
The Chapel of Ptahhotep, 207 [293]–212 [305]).
61
For hieroglyphic inscriptions painted in yellow, see the following examples: Khenit
(H. Junker, Gîza VII. Der Ostabschnitt des Westfriedhofs (Vienna, 1944) 241–242);
Sehetepu (H. Junker, Gîza XI. Der Friedhof südlich der Cheopspyramide. Ostteil
(Vienna, 1953) 54); Tjatet (V.G. Callender, 'Queen Tatjet: An Exercise in
Chronology' in: H. Vymazalová / M. Bárta (eds.) Chronology and Archaeology of
Ancient Egypt – The Third Millennium B.C. (Prague, 2008) 170, fig. 1a); Remni (N.
Kanawati, The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara: Volume IX: The Tomb of Remni (Oxford,
2009) pls. 28, 33); Semdent (N. Kanawati / A. El–Khouli / A. McFarlane / N.V.
Maksoud, Excavations at Saqqara: North–West of Teti's Pyramid (Sydney, 1984)
17, pls. 5–7); Qar (M. Bárta et.al., Abusir XIII: Abusir South 2: Tomb Complex of
the Vizier Qar, his sons Qar Junior and Senedjemib, and Iykai (Prague, 2009) pl.
9); Mehu (Altenmüller, Mehu, 262).
62
For a list of tombs with this criterion see Cherpion, Mastabas et hypogées, 74, 195–
196 (Criteria 50).
63
For a detailed explanation of Cherpion's system see Cherpion, Mastabas et
hypogées, 23–24; J. Malek, review of Cherpion, N., Mastabas et hypogées
d'Ancien Empire, in Discussions in Egyptology 20 (1991) 93–100.
64
Cherpion cites all the tombs containing the respective feature in chronological order
based on the appearance of the latest cartouche in each of these tombs, thus
providing justification for the criterion's earliest and latest attestation. See
Cherpion's 'Tableaux Statistiques' in Mastabas et hypogées, 145–205.
65
Baud found a small number of tombs with royal cartouches, which were overlooked
or not reported on when Cherpion published. Baud's assessment of Cherpion's work
saw a few modifications to the life-span of certain criteria, see Table A, however he
concludes the research stands the test of time. Cherpion's 'Tableaux Statistiques' in
Mastabas et hypogées, 145–205; M. Baud, 'À propos des critères iconographiques
établis par Nadine Cherpion', in N. Grimal (ed.) Les critères de datation stylistiques

155
 BACE 24 (2013)

à l'Ancien Régime (Cairo, 1997) 31–95.

66
J. Swinton, Dating Old Kingdom Tombs, in preparation.
67
Baud, in Grimal (ed.) Les critères de datation stylistiques, 31–95.
68
For the list of kings see Harpur, Decoration, 33-34. Dynasty 3 is not included in the
tables because there is too little data to provide dating conclusions.
69
Woods, Old Kingdom Marsh Scenes.
70
Woods, Old Kingdom Marsh Scenes, 43–45, Table 4.1.
71
See for example, Nebet (Munro, Unas–Friedhof, I, 53–56, pl. 11); Ihy reused by
Idut (Kanawati / Abder–Raziq, Unis Cemetery II, 45–47, pl. 54); Neferti (Säve–
Söderbergh, Hamra Dom, 65–67, pl. 49).
72
Baud, in Grimal (ed.) Les critères de datation stylistiques, 95, fig. 3.
73
El–Khouli / Kanawati, El–Hammamiya, 46–47, pls. 50–51; Schürmann, Ii–nefret,
31–32, pls. 6, 21; Kanawati, Giza, I, 39–40, pl. 36.
74
See the discussion in Reisner, Giza I, 211–231. Since chapels with more than one
offering niche are too numerous to list a representative sample from Dynasty 4 to 6
is provided below. Ankh–haf (G7510 – Reisner, Giza I, 46, fig. 8); Hem–iunu
(G4000 – H. Junker, Gîza I. Die Mastabas der IV. Dynastie auf dem Westfriedhof
(Vienna, 1929) figs. 18–20); Merib (G2100–I – Manuelian, Cemetery G2100, 84,
fig. 4.2; Seshem–nefer I (G4940 – Kanawati, Giza I, 55–56, pl. 38); Ka–ni–nesut I
(G2155 – Manuelian, Cemetery G2100: Part I, figs. 15.53, 57–60); Seshat–hetep
(G5150 – Kanawati, Giza II, 11–30, pls. 3–10, 39–48); Nesut–nefer (G4970 –
Kanawati, Giza II, p. 31–50, pls. 11–23, 49–57); Iti–sen (Junker, Giza V, fig. 126);
Seshem–nefer II (G5080 – Kanawati, Giza II, 54–56, pl. 58); Nefer–bau–Ptah
(G6010 – Weeks Cemetery G 6000, 27, figs. 2–3, 6); Ni–ankh–Khnum and
Khnum–hotep (Moussa / Altenmüller, Nianchchnum, 17, fig. 1); Ti (Steindorff, Ti,
pls. 135–138, 141); Seshem–nefer III (E. Brunner–Traut, Die Grabkammer
Seschemnofers III (Mainz/Rhein, 1977) 15–16); Ptah–hetep II (Harpur / Scremin,
The Chapel of Ptahhotep, xvii; Davies, Ptahhetep and Akhethetep I, pl. i); Remni
(Kanawati, Teti Cemetery IX, 19–21, pl. 41); Tchetetu (Kanawati / El–Khouli /
McFarlane / Maksoud, Excavations at Saqqara I, 30–32, pl. 13 ref); Meref–nebef
(Myšliwiec, Merefnebef, 93–102, pls. 6, 9).
75
A. Rusch, 'Die Entwicklung der Grabsteinformen im Alten Reich', ZÄS 58
(1923)106–112, pl. A; J. Vandier, Manuel d'archéologie égyptienne. Les Grandes
Époques: L'architecture funéraire (Paris, 1954) II [1], 394–401; Strudwick,
Administration, 15–16.
76
Rusch, ZÄS 58 (1923) 113–119, 123, pl. B; Vandier, Manuel II [1], 401–404; S.
Wiebach, Die Ägyptische Scheintür: Morphologische Studien zur Entwicklung und
Bedeutung der Hauptkultstelle in den Privat–Gräbern des Alten Reiches (Hamburg,
1981) 128–141; Strudwick, Administration, 15. For one of the earliest examples see
the tomb of Ti at Saqqara (H. Wild, Le Tombeau de Ti, Fascicle 3. La chapelle
(Cairo, 1966) pls. 182–185).
77
See discussion above and also Junker, Gîza V, 52; Harpur, Decoration, 202, 218.
78
For a definition see H. Brunner, 'Archaismus', in LÄ I, 386–395.
79
For an overview of changes to religious symbolism as expressed in the change from

156
 WOODS AND SWINTON, THE TOMB OF HETEPET AT GIZA

the half loaf to tall reeds see Cherpion, Mastabas et hypogées, 45, n. 60; M. Bárta,
'Archaeology and Iconography: bDA and aprt bread moulds and "Speisetischszene"
development in the Old Kingdom', SAK 22 (1995) 21–35.
80
E. Russmann, 'A Second Style in Egyptian Art of the Old Kingdom', MDAIK 51
(1995) 369–379; E. Brovarski, 'A Second Style in Egyptian Relief of the Old
Kingdom', in S.E. Thompson, and P. der Manuelian, (eds.) Egypt and Beyond.
Essays Presented to Leonard H. Lesko upon his Retirement from the Wilbour Chair
of Egyptology at Brown University June 2005 (Providence, 2008) 49–89; K.,
Myśliwiec, (2008) 'A Contribution to the Second Style in Old Kingdom Art', in
S.H. D'Auria, ed., Servant of Mut: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Fazzini,
Probleme der Ägyptologie 28 (Leiden, 2008) 170–178.
81
For an outline of the 'Second style' of in relief see Brovarski, in S.E.
Thompson, and P. der Manuelian, (eds.) Egypt and Beyond, 83–84.
82
J. Malek in DE 20 (1991) 93–100.
83
One should be careful to interpret the depiction of women at a reduced scale, their
complete omission from a tomb's decoration or the placement of secondary chapel
and associated shaft within the mastaba of their husband as evidence of women's
secondary status. Rather, the scenes and inscriptions are intended to commemorate
and project the identity of the individual who has commissioned the tomb, which
due to the male dominated nature of the Egyptian system of administration tended
to be male tomb owners. Refer to the works in note 93 below and Fischer, Egyptian
Women, 3.
84
For a detailed discussion of the issue see the following contributions: P. Jánosi,
'Aspects of Mastaba Development: The Position of Shafts and the Identification of
Tomb Owners' Archive Orientalni 70 [3] (2002) 337–350; V.G. Callender, 'A
Contribution to the Burial of Women in the Old Kingdom', Archive Orientalni 70
[3] (2002) 301–308; J. Swinton, 'The Depiction of Wives of Tomb Owners in the
Later Old Kingdom', BACE 14 (2003) 95–109; V.G. Callender, 'Excursus II:
Observations on the Position of Royal Daughters in the Old Kingdom', in M.
Verner and V.G. Callender, Abusir VI: Djeckare's Family Cemetery (Prague, 2002)
141–155; V. Vasiljević, 'Hierarchy of Women within Elite Families: Iconographic
Data from the Old Kingdom' in K.A. Kóthay (ed.) Art and Society: Ancient and
Modern Contexts of Egyptian Art. Proceedings of the International Conference held
at the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 13–15 May 2010 (Budapest, 2012) 139–149;
K. McCorquodale, Representations of the Family in the Egyptian Old Kingdom:
Women and Marriage, BAR International Series 251 (Oxford, 2013).
85
Callendar, in: Archive Orientalni 70 [3] (2002) 306.
86
For a detailed overview of the tombs assigned to royal women, see the following
entries in V.G. Callender, In Hathor's Image I: The Wives and Mothers of Egyptian
Kings from Dynasties I–VI (Prague, 2011); V.G. Callender, ''Excursus II:
Observations on the Position of Royal Daughters in the Old Kingdom'' in M. Verner
and V.G. Callender, Abusir VI, 141–155.
87
See the tomb of Nedjet–empet, the mother of the vizier Mereruka's mother, N.
Kanawati / A. Hassan, The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara: Volume I: The Tombs of

157
 BACE 24 (2013)

Nedjet–em–pet, Kaaper and Others, The Australian Centre for Egyptology Report 8
(Warminster, 1996) 11–12.
88
See for example, Neferes–res (S. Hassan, Excavations at Giza II. 1930 – 1931
(Cairo, 1936) 204–208); Khent–kaues (Junker, Gîza VII, 68–85); Khenit (Junker,
Gîza VII, 241–246); Mery–nebti (Kanawati, Teti Cemetery VII, 33).
89
Fischer, Egyptian Women, 41.
90
Roth, A Cemetery of Palace Attendants, 42–43.
91
Junker, Gîza V, 52–54.
92
R.H. Wilkinson, Reading Egyptian Art: A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Egyptian
Painting and Sculpture (London, 1992) 121; R.H. Wilkinson, Symbol and Magic in
Egyptian Art (London, 1994) 182.
93
Manniche, An Ancient Egyptian Herbal, 132–135.
94
Woods, Old Kingdom Marsh Scenes, Appendix 3, No. 117.
95
See the following examples, Iyi–mery (Weeks, Cemetery G6000, 41, fig. 33); Iyi–
nefert (Schürmann, Ii–nefret, 31–32, pls. 6, 21); A. Moussa, H. Junge, Two Tombs
of Craftsmen (Mainz/Rhein, 1975) 41–42, pl. 12); Iti–sen (Hassan, Giza, V, 267–
268, pl. 37); Ti (Épron / Daumas, Ti, I, pl. 46; Wild, Ti, II, pl. 119).
96
Woods, Old Kingdom Marsh Scenes, Appendix 3, No. 112.
97
See the tombs of Seneb (Junker, Gîza V, 65–67, fig. 15); Iti–sen (Hassan, Giza V,
267–268, pl. 37); Iyi–nefert / Shanef (Kanawati / Abder–Raziq, Unis Cemetery II,
18–19, pl. 37b); Kagemni (Harpur / Scremin, The Chapel of Kagemni, 491 [3], 494
[9]; Inu–min (N. Kanawati, The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara: Volume VIII: The Tomb
of Inumin, The Australian Centre for Egyptology Report 24 (Oxford, 2006) 30–32,
pl. 44); Ibi (N. Kanawati, Deir el–Gebrawi: Volume II: The Southern Cliff: The
Tomb of Ibi and Others, The Australian Centre for Egyptology Report 25 (Oxford,
2007) 27–28, 30–31, pls. 46–47; Mehu (Altenmüller, Mehu, 95–105, pls. 9–13);
Khewen–weh (A. El–Khouli, N. Kanawati, The Old Kingdom Tombs of El–
Hammamiya, The Australian Centre for Egyptology Report 2 (Warminster, 1990)
46–47, pl. 38).
98
Woods, Old Kingdom Marsh Scenes, Appendix 3, No. 139.
99
See the tombs of Seneb (Junker, Gîza V, 65–67, fig. 15); Ti (Wild, Ti, II, pl. 119);
Iti–sen (Hassan, Giza V, 267–268, pl. 37); Iasen (Simpson, Western Cemetery I,
20–21, fig. 30); Wer–irieni (Davies, Sheikh Saïd, 23, pls. 11–12); Ni–ankh–Khnum
and Khnum–hotep (Moussa / Altenmüller, Nianchchnum, 150–152, pls. 74–75);
Kaem–nefret (W. K. Simpson, The Offering Chapel of Kayemnofret in the Museum
of Fine Arts, Boston (Boston, 1992) 4–7, fig. 4, pl. A).
100
Woods, Old Kingdom Marsh Scenes, Appendix 3, No. 121.
101
Woods, Old Kingdom Marsh Scenes, Appendix 3, No. 154.
102
Woods, Old Kingdom Marsh Scenes, Appendix 3, No. 140.

158