Preparing for Eternity

Funerary models and wall scenes from

the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms

GEORGIA BARKER

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 7 0 2022
Preparing for Eternity
Funerary models and wall scenes from
the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms

GEORGIA BARKER

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 7 0 2022
Published in 2022 by
BAR Publishing, Oxford

BAR International Series 3070

Preparing for Eternity

isbn 978 1 4073 5917 5 paperback

isbn 978 1 4073 5918 2 e-format

doi https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407359175

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

© Georgia Barker 2022

cover image The Bersha Procession of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) from Deir el-Bersha.
Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.326.

The Author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright,

Designs and Patents Act, are hereby expressly asserted.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored,
sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted
in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

Links to third party websites are provided by BAR Publishing in good faith
and for information only. BAR Publishing disclaims any responsibility for the
materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

BAR titles are available from:

BAR Publishing
122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK
email info@barpublishing.com
phone +44 (0)1865 310431
fax +44 (0)1865 316916
www.barpublishing.com
 Of Related Interest

“Yellow” Coffins from Thebes

Recording and decoding complexity in Egyptian funerary arts (21st – 22nd Dynasties)
Edited by Rogério Sousa
Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2020 BAR International Series 3010

The Napatan Cylindrical Sheaths

A catalogue and analysis of precious objects from the royal cemetery of Nuri
Amarillis Pompei
Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2019 BAR International Series 2948

Catalogo degli Ushabti del Museo Egizio di Firenze, Volume II

Nuovo Regno (Seconda Parte)
Giacomo Cavillier
Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2017 BAR International Series 2872

Catalogo degli Ushabti del Museo Egizio di Firenze, Volume I

II Periodo Intermedio - Nuovo Regno (Prima Parte)
Giacomo Cavillier
Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2016 BAR International Series 2828
 Acknowledgements

I would like to express my appreciation to all who supported me throughout this project. The
work presented here stems from my PhD research which was conducted at Macquarie University
in Sydney, Australia with the financial aid of an Australian Government funded Research Training
Program PhD Scholarship. I am grateful to the Department of History and Archaeology for
their support of my research and in particular to Professor Naguib Kanawati who was my PhD
supervisor. His kindness, encouragement and guidance have been invaluable and I am deeply
thankful for his on-going support.

The artistic representations examined in this study were made available to me through the
generosity of many institutions. I would especially like to express my thanks to those who provided
me with permission to publish the images of funerary models and wall scenes that are included
in this book: Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford; Australian Centre for Egyptology;
British Museum, London; Egypt Exploration Society; Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge;
Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool; Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon;
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; National Museums Liverpool; National Museums Scotland; Ny
Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen; Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, San Jose; Royal Ontario
Museum, Toronto; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; and University of Aberdeen. My
appreciation is also extended to Mrs Leonie Donovan who helped to prepare the line drawings
of wall scenes for publication. I am grateful to have received the Michelle McLean Egyptology
Travelling Scholarship which provided the financial support needed to acquire permission to
publish these images.

It is a great privilege to publish my research with BAR Publishing, and I would like to express my
thanks to the editors Ms Jacqueline Senior and Dr Ruth Fisher for their support of my work and
their guidance through the publication process. I would also like to acknowledge the reviewers
for their thoughtful comments on my manuscript.

Finally, I would like to express deep gratitude to my family and friends for their steadfast support
and encouragement.

v
 Abstract

The ancient Egyptian desired to prepare a tomb that would adequately provision him for the
afterlife, so great resources were expended on its construction and decoration. This funerary
monument ideally comprised both a superstructure and substructure, with the former serving as
the location of the mortuary cult and the latter as a secure place to protect the body. Offerings
would be presented to the deceased through the mortuary cult, but it was feared that this would
not continue perpetually. Consequently, several safeguards were implemented in an attempt to
ensure that the deceased was well-provisioned for eternity. One of the most significant measures
was the inclusion of artistic representations in the tomb. Funerary artwork was considered
functional in ancient Egypt and, with its ability to magically come into existence, could contribute
to the tomb owner’s eternal sustenance. During the late Old Kingdom to the end of the Middle
Kingdom, there were two principal forms of representation in the elite tomb: wall scenes and
funerary models. Both artistic media depict human and animal figures engaged in a variety of
everyday life tasks that would provide the desired commodities and services for the tomb owner’s
afterlife. There are several similarities between the two- and three-dimensional representations
which have caused scholars to label funerary models duplicates or substitutes of wall scenes. This
designation implies that they served the same purpose in the tomb. However, there are several
notable differences yet to be acknowledged.

This book therefore conducts a detailed comparative analysis of the two artistic media in order
to more precisely understand the role of funerary models in the tomb and their relationship to
wall scenes. In particular, the artworks from the sites of Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan in
Middle Egypt are investigated. Both the similarities and differences between the representations
are identified through a close examination of the two- and three-dimensional repertoires. This
analysis highlights the distinguishing characteristics of funerary models and wall scenes and
determines the extent to which these differences impacted the purpose of each medium. It
demonstrates that scene- and model-artists selected specific themes and created individual designs
that were appropriate for their medium’s unique technical capabilities and role in the tomb. As
wall scenes were located in the above-ground chapel, they not only contributed to the deceased’s
well-being in the afterlife, but also publicly proclaimed the tomb owner’s superior status, wealth
and achievements. This was presumably designed to impress visitors and encourage them to
present offerings. Funerary models, conversely, were concealed in the burial chamber alongside
the body where they did not interact with the living, but rather solely functioned to serve the
deceased in the afterlife. Consequently, this analysis demonstrates that funerary models should not
be understood as duplicates or substitutes of wall scenes, but as a distinct type of representation
that was specifically conceived for its role in provisioning the deceased for eternity.

vi
 Contents

List of Figures...................................................................................................................................................................... ix
List of Tables...................................................................................................................................................................... xiv
List of Abbreviations........................................................................................................................................................... xv
Map of Egypt...................................................................................................................................................................... xx
Chronology........................................................................................................................................................................ xxi

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Wall Scenes and funerary models.............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Historical and geographical context........................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Excavation history and preservation.......................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Problems in interpreting ancient Egyptian art............................................................................................................ 8
1.5 Classification of themes............................................................................................................................................. 9

2. Food Production and Preparation............................................................................................................................... 13

2.1 Land preparation...................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Storing grain in granaries......................................................................................................................................... 21
2.3 Bread-making........................................................................................................................................................... 30
2.4 Brewing beer............................................................................................................................................................ 39
2.5 Hand-feeding cattle.................................................................................................................................................. 45
2.6 Slaughtering cattle.................................................................................................................................................... 50
2.7 Cooking meat........................................................................................................................................................... 59
2.8 Fishing and fowling................................................................................................................................................. 65

3. Transport....................................................................................................................................................................... 71
3.1 Boats......................................................................................................................................................................... 71
3.1.1 Structure of hull and deck................................................................................................................................ 72
3.1.2 Mode of propulsion.......................................................................................................................................... 74
3.1.3 People transported on board............................................................................................................................. 83
3.1.4 Supplies transported on board.......................................................................................................................... 86
3.1.5 Supplementary features.................................................................................................................................... 91
3.2 Offering-bearers....................................................................................................................................................... 92
3.2.1 The bearers....................................................................................................................................................... 93
3.2.2 The offerings.................................................................................................................................................... 98
3.2.3 The recipient................................................................................................................................................... 103
3.3 Beasts of burden..................................................................................................................................................... 105

4. Animal Husbandry.......................................................................................................................................................111
4.1 Calving....................................................................................................................................................................111
4.2 Milking and nursing............................................................................................................................................... 115
4.3 Cattle in procession................................................................................................................................................ 119
4.4 Dogs....................................................................................................................................................................... 129

5. Craft Production......................................................................................................................................................... 137

5.1 Spinning and weaving............................................................................................................................................ 137
5.2 Carpentry................................................................................................................................................................ 145
5.3 Leatherwork........................................................................................................................................................... 152

6. Miscellaneous............................................................................................................................................................... 159
6.1 Military................................................................................................................................................................... 159
6.2 Foreigners............................................................................................................................................................... 166

7. Survey of Differences between Funerary Models and Wall Scenes........................................................................ 175

7.1 Period of use........................................................................................................................................................... 175

vii
Preparing for Eternity

7.2 Location in tomb.................................................................................................................................................... 176

7.3 Repertoire............................................................................................................................................................... 178
7.4 Technical properties............................................................................................................................................... 183
7.5 Construction........................................................................................................................................................... 186
7.6 Accessibility........................................................................................................................................................... 187
7.7 Potential risks in choice of representation............................................................................................................. 189

8.Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................................... 191

Bibliography..................................................................................................................................................................... 193
Appendix 1. Catalogue of Funerary Models..................................................................................................................... 209
Appendix 2. Catalogue of Wall Scenes............................................................................................................................. 223
Index ................................................................................................................................................................................. 237

viii
 List of Figures

Figure 1.1. Section A of the cemetery of Meir...................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 1.2. Section of the site plan of Beni Hassan showing tombs in the Upper Cemetery............................................... 6
Figure 2.1. Draught cattle. Tomb of Senbi I (B1). North wall, register 4 [S134]............................................................... 14
Figure 2.2. Model ploughing team of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M66]............................................................................... 15
Figure 2.3. Five ploughing teams and one sower. Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2). West wall, south panel,
right, registers 2-5 [S14]..................................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2.4. Model tiller of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) [M1]................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2.5. A flock of sheep trampling seed into the ground with three shepherds urging the animals forward.
Tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2). East wall of inner room, register 1 [S205]........................................................................ 20
Figure 2.6. Two ploughing teams and three tillers. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, north panel,
register 3 [S197].................................................................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 2.7. Model granary of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), with the exterior walls gently rising to low peaked
corners [M67]...................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 2.8. Granary with two rows of silos and a courtyard. Tomb of Khety (17 UC). South wall, west panel,
lower section, right, register 1 [S101]................................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 2.9. Granary with four silos shown in profile and a staircase providing access to the roof. Tomb of
Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, north panel, register 1 [S195]..................................................................................... 25
Figure 2.10. Granary with two rows of silos, a courtyard and a portico. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). North
wall, register 6 [S156]......................................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 2.11. Model granary of Khety (366 LC), with three labourers, an official and a scribe [M194]............................ 27
Figure 2.12. Model granary of Ma (500 LC), containing four open-topped silos filled with grain; an
official and a scribe sit on the terrace [M284].................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 2.13. Granary without human figures. Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2). South wall of burial
chamber of Hewetiaah [S18].............................................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 2.14. Food preparation model of Khety (366 LC); pounding grain, grinding grain, sieving grain,
baking bread, carrying water and brewing beer [M195]..................................................................................................... 32
Figure 2.15. Grinding grain, kneading dough, shaping loaves and baking bread, all supervised by an overseer.
Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, south panel, register 4 [S202]...................................................................... 33
Figure 2.16. Food preparation model from Meir, with mixing dough symbolising the entire bread-making
process [M229]................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 2.17. Pounding grain, grinding grain, sieving grain, shaping loaves, mixing dough, filling bread-
moulds and baking bread. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). West wall, south panel, registers 5-6, right [S167]................... 35
Figure 2.18. Sieving grain, preparing dough, baking bread, straining beer-mash, preparing jars to hold
beer and pouring beer into jars. Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2). West wall, north panel, right,
registers 1-3 [S16]............................................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 2.19. Pounding grain, grinding grain, sieving grain, dismantling bread-moulds, filling bread-moulds
and brewing beer. Tomb of Baqet III (15 UC). South wall, east panel, registers 5-6 [S77]............................................... 37
Figure 2.20. Brewing beer model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1), with one figure straining beer-mash and the
other preparing jars to hold beer [M11].............................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 2.21. Straining beer-mash, carrying water, preparing jars to hold beer and sealed beer-jars residing
on low tables. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). West wall, south panel, register 4 [S165].................................................... 42

ix
Preparing for Eternity

Figure 2.22. Food preparation model of Nefery (116 LC), with six figures engaged in brewing beer and
a seventh in bread-making [M179]..................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 2.23. Straining beer-mash, pouring beer into jars and sealing beer-jars. Tomb of Pepi (D1). East wall,
south panel, register 2 [S20]............................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 2.24. Hand-feeding model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M73]................................................................................. 47
Figure 2.25. Three oxen being hand-fed by a single herdsman. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). North wall,
register 5 [S189].................................................................................................................................................................. 48
Figure 2.26. Slaughtering model of Khety (366 LC); slitting the neck, collecting the blood and possibly
cooking joints of meat [M196]........................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 2.27. Slaughtering model of Gua (K-12); slitting the neck, transporting the severed legs and
jointing the pieces [M272].................................................................................................................................................. 54
Figure 2.28. Ten vignettes of slaughtering. Tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2). East wall of room 5,
registers 3-4 [S45]............................................................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 2.29. One figure sharpens the knife while the other slits the neck of a bound ox, with blood dripping
from the wound. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). South wall, west panel, register 6 [S163]................................................ 57
Figure 2.30. Food preparation model of Khety-aa (575 LC); pounding grain, grinding grain, baking bread,
carrying water, straining beer-mash and slitting the neck of an ox; baseboard surrounded by low walls with
an opening in one side [M201]........................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 2.31. Roasting fowl model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) [M13]................................................................................ 61
Figure 2.32. Roasting fowl over braziers and rotating a whole ox on a spit. Tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4).
East wall of inner room, north panel, registers 2-3 [S185]................................................................................................. 61
Figure 2.33. Wringing the neck, plucking feathers, roasting fowl and hanging cuts of meat. Tomb of
Pepyankh the Middle (D2). East wall, north panel, register 2 [S9].................................................................................... 63
Figure 2.34. Fowling with a clap-net. Tomb of Baqet III (15 UC). South wall, west panel, register 6 [S82].................... 66
Figure 2.35. Model boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), with two fowl lying on deck [M83]................................................ 67
Figure 2.36. Fishing with a dragnet. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). West wall, south panel, register 3 [S164]................. 68
Figure 2.37. Model boat of Khety-aa (575 LC), with fishing equipment on deck beneath the canopy [M202]................ 69
Figure 3.1. Model rowing boat of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) [M219].................................................................................... 74
Figure 3.2. Two boats operated by rowers; one transports male members of the household and the other,
female. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, south panel, register 3 [S201]......................................................... 75
Figure 3.3. Model rowing boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M98]..................................................................................... 77
Figure 3.4. Two rowing boats and two sailing boats. Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2). East wall,
south panel, right, register 3 [S12]...................................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 3.5. Sailing boat towing a papyriform vessel which carries the anthropoid coffin. Tomb of
Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, north panel, register 4 [S198]..................................................................................... 81
Figure 3.6. Two boats towing a papyriform vessel which carries the anthropoid coffin. Tomb of
Amenemhat (2 UC). East wall, north panel, register 6 [S158]........................................................................................... 81
Figure 3.7. Two rowing boats towing a vessel which transports the female relatives of the tomb owner.
Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). East wall, south panel, register 6 [S159]............................................................................ 82
Figure 3.8. Model boat of Nefwa (186 LC), operated by rowers and sailors; the tomb owner sits on board,
playing a game of senet [M191]......................................................................................................................................... 84
Figure 3.9. Model boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), with a large enclosed cabin on board, providing shade
for the tomb owner [M127]................................................................................................................................................. 87
Figure 3.10. Model boat of Ukh-hotep; the anthropoid coffin is transported on a bier and is attended by
two priests and two female mourners [M224].................................................................................................................... 87
Figure 3.11. Model boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A); the canopy is decorated with painted shields and has
two quivers lashed to the framework [M120]..................................................................................................................... 89

x
 List of Figures

Figure 3.12. Model solar boat of Sepi II (K-14 north) [M277].......................................................................................... 91

Figure 3.13. Four female offering-bearers. Tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2). East wall of room 4,
centre panel, register 4 [S37].............................................................................................................................................. 95
Figure 3.14. Model female offering-bearer of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M142]................................................................ 96
Figure 3.15. Eldest son presenting fowl to his father’s offering-table. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC).
South wall, east panel, registers 3-4 [S160]........................................................................................................................ 97
Figure 3.16. The Bersha Procession of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), comprising a male priest and three female
offering-bearers [M144]...................................................................................................................................................... 99
Figure 3.17. Model procession of three female offering-bearers of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) [M24]................................. 99
Figure 3.18. Four male offering-bearers, positioned eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh in the procession.
Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). South wall, east panel, register 5 [S161].......................................................................... 101
Figure 3.19. Model female offering-bearer of Hepi-kem (A4), with a diminutive ungulate walking in front [M26]...... 102
Figure 3.20. Procession of male offering-bearers who utilise yokes to transport their loads. Tomb of Khety
(17 UC). North wall, east panel, registers 1-2 [S89]........................................................................................................ 104
Figure 3.21. Donkeys transporting loads of grain in the third register; their loads are removed upon arrival
in the fifth register. Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2). West wall, south panel, left, registers 3-5 [S13]..................... 107
Figure 3.22. Model beasts of burden from Meir, with rectangular sacks on their backs [M250]..................................... 107
Figure 3.23. A donkey is being loaded with two baskets of grain positioned end-on-end. Tomb of
Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, north panel, register 2 [S196]................................................................................... 109
Figure 3.24. Model beasts of burden said to be from Meir, with a driver standing beside the rear of
each animal, encouraging it to move forward with a stick [M251].................................................................................. 109
Figure 4.1. A herdsman aids the delivery of a calf; an overseer points a magical gesture; a man sleeps
soundly through the birth. Tomb of Senbi I (B1). South wall, register 3 [S139].............................................................. 112
Figure 4.2. Calving model said to be from Meir [M252]................................................................................................. 113
Figure 4.3. A naked herdsman adopts an active stance as he aids the delivery of a calf; an overseer points
a magical gesture; a man sleeps soundly through the birth. Tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4). North wall of
outer room, second lowest register [S176]....................................................................................................................... 115
Figure 4.4. Nursing model from Meir, with the calf extending its head towards the udder but not making
direct contact [M254]........................................................................................................................................................ 117
Figure 4.5. Milking model probably from Meir; a seated female worker raises one hand towards the udder;
the calf stands nearby to encourage the flow of milk [M174].......................................................................................... 117
Figure 4.6. A calf and human child suckle simultaneously; the cow licks the rump of its young; a herdsman
is ready to provide assistance. Tomb of Baqet III (15 UC). South wall, west panel, register 2 [S80]............................. 119
Figure 4.7. Part a large herd of cattle processing in closely overlapping groups. Tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2).
West wall of inner room, centre panel, register 9 [S212]................................................................................................. 121
Figure 4.8. Calves ushered forward on leashes, with the groups separated into sub-registers. Tomb of
Djehuty-hotep (N-2). West wall of inner room, centre panel, register 7 [S212].............................................................. 121
Figure 4.9. Cattle in procession, with the colours and patterns of each hide alternating. Tomb of Khety
(17 UC). South wall, west panel, register 2 [S99]............................................................................................................ 123
Figure 4.10. Model procession of cattle of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), accompanied by three herdsmen [M150].............. 124
Figure 4.11. A Beja-herdsman leading three cattle on leashes. Tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2). South wall,
register 2 [S142]................................................................................................................................................................ 124
Figure 4.12. Cattle ushered forward in procession, with the leading herdsman in each register adopting a
humble attitude. Tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2). South wall of room 3, registers 2-4 [S32]..................................... 126
Figure 4.13. Model procession of cattle probably from Meir, comprising two disproportionately large
cattle ushered forward by a single herdsman [M255]....................................................................................................... 126
Figure 4.14. Cattle fording a river. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). West wall, south panel, register 7, right [S168]........ 128

xi
Preparing for Eternity

Figure 4.15. Model dog (right) and figure brewing beer (left) of Senbu (487 LC) [M264]............................................. 130
Figure 4.16. The dog ‘Breath-of-life-of-Senbi’ accompanying a herdsman who is separating a pair of
fighting bulls. Tomb of Senbi I (B1). South wall, register 3 [S139]................................................................................. 132
Figure 4.17. A dog straddling its prey in the desert hunt. Tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC). North wall,
east panel, register 1 [S118].............................................................................................................................................. 132
Figure 4.18. A dog accompanying a standing figure of the tomb owner. Tomb of Khety (17 UC). South
wall, east panel, lower section [S97]................................................................................................................................ 134
Figure 4.19. A diminutive animal-keeper feeding a dog beneath the tomb owner’s chair. Tomb of
Pepyankh the Black (A2). North wall of room 1, east panel, register 1 [S28]................................................................. 136
Figure 5.1. Spinning and weaving model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), with one rover, one spinner and
two weavers [M152]......................................................................................................................................................... 138
Figure 5.2. Three male spinners; their techniques from right to left are grasped-spindle spinning,
supported-spindle spinning, and dropped-spindle spinning. Tomb of Khety (17 UC). North wall, west
panel, register 2 [S92]....................................................................................................................................................... 140
Figure 5.3. Four women preparing the fibres and three spinners using the dropped-spindle technique.
Tomb of Baqet III (15 UC). North wall, register 3 [S73]................................................................................................. 142
Figure 5.4. Preparing the fibres, spinning, warping and weaving. Tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2). East
wall of inner room, registers 5-6 [S208]........................................................................................................................... 142
Figure 5.5. Female spinners and weavers of different ages, a male overseer and a horizontal loom.
Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, south panel, register 4 [S202].................................................................... 143
Figure 5.6. Spinning and weaving model of Khety-aa (575 LC), with one spinner, two weavers, two
spinning bowls and a loom painted on the baseboard [M206]......................................................................................... 144
Figure 5.7. Carpentry model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), with one sawyer and one man shaping a board [M153]......... 147
Figure 5.8. A sawyer operating a pull-saw with both hands and three carpenters finishing a chest. Tomb
of Amenemhat (2 UC). West wall, north panel, register 2 [S170].................................................................................... 148
Figure 5.9. One carpenter saws a plank of wood while the other uses an adze to shape a wooden board;
a finished bed decorated with lion’s head and legs. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, south
panel, register 1 [S200]..................................................................................................................................................... 150
Figure 5.10. Dividing large trunks into smaller pieces; sawing a plank of wood; sharpening an adze;
shaping boards with adzes; using mallets and chisels; polishing a bed. Tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2).
North wall of room 1, west panel, registers 2-5 [S27]...................................................................................................... 151
Figure 5.11. Leatherwork model of Djay (275 LC), with a man cutting a pair of sandal soles [M50]............................ 154
Figure 5.12. Manufacturing leather for the production of sandals. Tomb of Baqet III (15 UC). North wall,
register 4 [S74].................................................................................................................................................................. 155
Figure 5.13. Four figures manufacturing leather sandals; all sandals are complete and disproportionately
large. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). West wall, north panel, register 1 [S169]................................................................ 155
Figure 5.14. Four leatherworkers; from left to right they are softening the hide, smoothing the material,
working the leather and manufacturing sandals. Tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2). South wall of room 1,
register 2 [S29].................................................................................................................................................................. 157
Figure 6.1. Military model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), with four soldiers alternately equipped with shields
and quivers [M156]........................................................................................................................................................... 161
Figure 6.2. An attack on a fortress, with Nubians employed as archers. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). East
wall, north panel, registers 4-5 [S158].............................................................................................................................. 162
Figure 6.3. A series of hand-to-hand combats, with three Asiatic mercenaries advancing on the right
of the fifth register. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). East wall, south panel, registers 4-5 [S159]...................................... 162
Figure 6.4. An attack on a fortress which occupies the height of two registers; archers begin the attack
while soldiers with close-range weaponry stand behind. Tomb of Khety (17 UC). East wall, registers 6-8 [S96]......... 165

xii
 List of Figures

Figure 6.5. A procession of attendants carrying a range of equipment and weaponry. Tomb of Djehuty-
hotep (N-2). East wall of inner room, register 7 [S209]................................................................................................... 165
Figure 6.6. Model foreign woman of Useri and Aryt-hotep (181 LC), carrying a child on her back [M185]................. 167
Figure 6.7. Female offering-bearers, some of whom display a coiffed hairstyle with a fillet and/or
angular wedge-shaped protrusion. Tomb of Ukh-hotep III (C1). North wall, registers 3-5 [S217]................................. 169
Figure 6.8. Four Asiatic women wearing white fillets, red ankle boots and long dresses decorated with
alternating patterns and colours. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). North wall, register 3 [S188]................................... 169
Figure 6.9. A procession of foreigners led by an Egyptian official and followed by a soldier. North wall,
register 4 [S74]. Tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC). East wall, register 4 [S122].............................................................. 171
Figure 6.10. Part of the procession of foreigners, including men, women and children. Tomb of Khnumhotep II
(3 UC). North wall, register 3 [S188]............................................................................................................................... 171
Figure 7.1. Brick-making model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M154]............................................................................... 182

xiii
 List of Tables

Table 1.1. Total numbers of representations examined through images from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and
Beni Hassan for each theme................................................................................................................................................ 10
Table 7.1. Materials utilised in the manufacture of funerary models and their function in the themes in
which they appear............................................................................................................................................................. 184

xiv
 List of Abbreviations
2200 BC: Meller, H., Arz, H. W., Jung R., & Risch, R.,
(eds.), 2200 BC: A Climatic Breakdown as a Cause
for the Collapse of the Old World? 7th Archaeological
Conference of Central Germany, October 23-26, 2014
in Halle (Saale) (Halle, 2015).
AEE: Ancient Egypt and the East.
AI: Archaeology International.
AJA: American Journal of Archaeology.
Ali Radwan: Daoud, K., Bedier, S., & Abd El-Fatah,
S., (eds.), Studies in Honor of Ali Radwan. Volume II
(Cairo, 2005).
Ancient Egypt, Aegean, Near East: Phillips, J., (ed.),
Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Near East: Studies
in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell. Volume I (San
Antonio, 1997).
Ancient Egypt Transformed: Oppenheim, A., Arnold,
Do., Arnold, Di., & Yamamoto, K., (eds.), Ancient
Egypt Transformed: The Middle Kingdom (New York,
2015).
Ancient Egyptian Administration: Moreno Garcia, J.
C., (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Administration (Leiden,
Boston, 2013).
Ancient Egyptian Biographies: Stauder-Porchet, J.,
Frood, E., & Stauder, A., (eds.), Ancient Egyptian
Biographies: Contexts, Forms, Functions (Atlanta,
2020).
Ancient Egyptian Coffins: Taylor, J. H., & Vandenbeusch,
M., (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Coffins: Craft Traditions
and Functionality (Leuven, 2018).
Anthropology and Egyptology: Lustig, J., (ed.),
Anthropology and Egyptology: A Developing Dialogue
(Sheffield, 1997).
Archaeology and Art: Hawass, Z. A., & Richards, J.,
(eds.), The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt:
Essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor. Volumes I-II
(Cairo, 2007).
Archaism and Innovation: Silverman, D. P., Simpson,
W. K., & Wegner, J., (eds.), Archaism and Innovation:
Studies in the Culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt (New
Haven, Philadelphia, 2009).
xv
Art of Describing: Jánosi, P., & Vymazalová, H., (eds.),
The Art of Describing: The World of Tomb Decoration
as Visual Culture of the Old Kingdom: Studies in
Honour of Yvonne Harpur (Prague, 2018).
Art-facts and Artefacts: Hudáková, L., Jánosi, P.,
Jurman, C., & Siffert, U., (eds.), Art-facts and Artefacts:
Visualising the Material World in Middle Kingdom
Egypt (London, 2018).
Artists and Painting: Angenot, V., & Tiradritti, F., (eds.),
Artists and Painting in Ancient Egypt (Montepulciano,
2016).
Arts of Making: Miniaci, G., Moreno Garcia, J. C.,
Quirke, S., & Stauder, A., (eds.), The Arts of Making in
Ancient Egypt: Voices, Images, and Objects of Material
Producers 2000-1550 BC (Leiden, 2018).
ASAE: Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte.
ATN: Archaeological Textiles Newsletter.
BA: Biblical Archaeologist.
BACE: Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
BASOR: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research.
Battle in Antiquity: Lloyd, A. B., (ed.), Battle in Antiquity
(London, 1996).
Behind the Scenes: McFarlane, A., & Mourad, A.-L.,
(eds.), Behind the Scenes: Daily Life in Old Kingdom
Egypt (Oxford, 2012).
Bersheh Reports I: Silverman, D. P., (ed.), Bersheh
Reports I (Boston, 1992).
BES: Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar.
Beyond the Horizon: Ikram, S., & Dodson, A., (eds.),
Beyond the Horizon: Studies in Egyptian Art,
Archaeology and History in Honour of Barry J. Kemp
(Cairo, 2009).
BIFAO: Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie
orientale.
BMB: Boston Museum Bulletin.
BMFA: Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts.
Preparing for Eternity
BSEG: Bulletin de la Société d’Égyptologie, Genève.
CAJ: Cambridge Archaeological Journal.
CdE: Chronique d’Égypte.
Change and Innovation: Hudáková, L., Jánosi, P., &
Kahlbacher, A., (eds.), Change and Innovation in
Middle Kingdom Art (London, 2016).
Chariots in Ancient Egypt: Veldmeijer, A. J., & Ikram,
S., (eds.), Chariots in Ancient Egypt: The Tano Chariot,
A Case Study (Leiden, 2018).
Chronology and Archaeology: Vymazalová, H., & Bárta,
M., (eds.), Chronology and Archaeology in Ancient
Egypt (the Third Millennium B.C.) (Prague, 2008).
Civilizations of the Ancient Near East: Sasson, J. M.,
(ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Volumes
I-IV (New York, 1995).
Companion to Ancient Agriculture: Hollander, D., &
Howe, T., (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Agriculture
(Hoboken, 2021).
Companion to Ancient Egypt: Lloyd, A. B., (ed.), A
Companion to Ancient Egypt (West Sussex, 2010).
Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art: Hartwig, M. K.,
(ed.), A Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art (West
Sussex, 2015).
Company of Images: Miniaci, G., Betrò, M., & Quirke,
S., (eds.), Company of Images: Modelling the
Imaginary World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000-
1500 BC). Proceedings of the International Conference
of the EPOCHS Project held 18th-20th September 2014
at UCL, London (Leuven, 2017).
Creatures of Earth, Water, and Sky: Porcier, S., Ikram,
S., & Pasquali, S., (eds.), Creatures of Earth, Water,
and Sky: Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and
Nubia (Leiden, 2019).
Cultural Manifestations: Di Biase-Dyson, C., &
Donovan, L., (eds.), The Cultural Manifestations of
Religious Experience: Studies in Honour of Boyo G.
Ockinga (Münster, 2017).
Cultures in Contact: Aruz, J., Graff, S. B., & Rakic, Y.,
(eds.), Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the
Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. (New
York, 2013).
DE: Discussions in Egyptology.
Death is Only the Beginning: Tristant, Y., & Ryan, E.
M., (eds.), Death is Only the Beginning: Egyptian
Funerary Customs at the Museum of Ancient Cultures,
Macquarie University (Oxford, 2017).
xvi
Desert Road: Förster, F., & Riemer, H., (eds.), Desert
Road Archaeology in Ancient Egypt and Beyond (Köln,
2013).
Djehoutihotep: De Meyer, M., & Cortebeeck, K., (eds.),
Djehoutihotep: 100 ans de fouilles en Égypte (Leuven,
2015).
Domestication and Exploitation: Ucko, P. J., & Dimbleby,
G. W., (eds.), The Domestication and Exploitation of
Plants and Animals (London, 1969).
EA: Egyptian Archaeology: The Bulletin of the Egypt
Exploration Society.
EAO: Égypte, Afrique et Oriente.
Egypt: Schulz, R., & Seidel, M., (eds.), Egypt: The World
of the Pharaohs, special edition (Potsdam, 2010).
Egypt and Nubia: Friedman, R., (ed.), Egypt and Nubia:
Gifts of the Desert (London, 2002).
Egyptian Archaeology: Wendrich, W., (ed.), Egyptian
Archaeology (West Sussex, 2010).
Egyptian Art: Donovan, L., & McCorquodale, K., (eds.),
Egyptian Art: Principles and Themes in Wall Scenes
(Guizeh, 2000).
Egyptian Civilization: Donadoni Roveri, A. M., (ed.),
Egyptian Civilization: Daily Life (Turin, 1987).
Egyptian Culture and Society: Woods, A., McFarlane,
A., & Binder, S., (eds.), Egyptian Culture and Society:
Studies in Honour of Naguib Kanawati. Volumes I-II
(Cairo, 2010).
Egyptian Museum Collections: Eldamaty, M., & Trad,
M., (eds.), Egyptian Museum Collections around the
World: Studies for the Centennial of the Egyptian
Museum, Cairo. Volume I (Cairo, 2002).
Egyptian Treasures: Tiradritti, F., (ed.), Egyptian
Treasures from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (New
York, 1999).
Egyptian World: Wilkinson, T., (ed.), The Egyptian
World (Oxon, New York, 2007).
Egyptology: Weeks, K. R., (ed.), Egyptology and the
Social Sciences (Cairo, 1979).
Egyptology in the Present: Graves-Brown, C.,
(ed.), Egyptology in the Present: Experiential and
Experimental Methods in Archaeology (Swansea,
2015).
EL: Egypt and the Levant.

Encyclopedia of Ancient History: Bagnall, R. S.,
Brodersen, K., Champion, C. B., & Erskine, A., (eds.),
The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (2013), <https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com>.
ENiM: Égypte Nilotique et Méditerranéenne.
ET: Études et Travaux.
Experiencing Power: Hill, J. A., Jones, P., & Morales, A.
J., (eds.), Experiencing Power, Generating Authority:
Cosmos, Politics, and the Ideology of Kingship in
Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia (Philadelphia, 2013).
Florilegium Aegyptiacum: Budka, J., Gundacker,
R., & Pieke, G., (eds.), Florilegium Aegyptiacum:
Eine wissenschaftliche Blütenlese von Schülern und
Freunden für Helmut Satzinger zum 75. Geburtstag am
21. Jänner 2013 (Göttingen, 2013).
Followers of Horus: Friedman, R. F., & Adams, B., (eds.),
The Followers of Horus: Studies Dedicated to Michael
Hoffman, 1944-1990 (Oxford, 1992).
Food in the Arts: Walker, H., (ed.), Food in the Arts:
Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and
Cookery 1998 (Devon, 1999).
GM: Gӧttinger Miszellen.
GRAFMA: Grafma Newsletter. Bulletin du Groupe de
Recherche Archéologique Française et Internationale
sur les Métiers depuis l’Antiquité.
Hathor: Hathor – Studies of Egyptology.
History of Science, Technology, and Medicine: Selin,
H., (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the History of Science,
Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, 2nd
edition (Berlin, New York, 2008).
History of Technology: Singer, C., Holmyard, E. J., &
Hall, A. R., (eds.), A History of Technology. Volume I:
From Early Times to Fall of Ancient Empires (London,
1954).
History of the Animal World: Collins, B. J., (ed.), A
History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East
(Leiden, Boston, Köln, 2002).
IEJ: Israel Exploration Journal.
Intellectual Heritage of Egypt: Luft, U., (ed.), The
Intellectual Heritage of Egypt: Studies Presented
to László Kákosy by Friends and Colleagues on the
Occasion of his 60th Birthday (Budapest, 1992).
JAEI: Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections.
JARCE: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt.
xvii
List of Abbreviations
JArchRes: Journal of Archaeological Research.
JASBC: Journal of the American Society of Brewing
Chemists.
JEA: Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.
JEgH: Journal of Egyptian History.
JEOL: Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch
Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux.
JMFA: Journal of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
JNES: Journal of Near Eastern Studies.
JRAI: Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of
Great Britain and Ireland.
JSA: Journal of Social Archaeology.
JSSEA: Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian
Antiquities.
KMT: KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt.
Materials and Technology: Nicholson, P. T., & Shaw,
I., (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology
(Cambridge, 2000).
MDAIK: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts, Abteilung Kairo.
Middle Kingdom Palace Culture: Jiménez-Serrano,
A., & Morales, A. J., (eds.), Middle Kingdom Palace
Culture and its Echoes in the Provinces: Regional
Perspectives and Realities (Leiden, Boston, 2021).
Middle Kingdom Studies: Quirke, S., (ed.), Middle
Kingdom Studies (New Malden, 1991).
Mistress of the House: Capel, A. K., & Markoe, G. E.,
(eds.), Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven:
Women in Ancient Egypt (New York, 1996).
MMAB: The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin.
MMJ: Metropolitan Museum Journal.
Musée des Beaux-Arts: Ramond, S., (ed.), Musée des
Beaux-Arts de Lyon: Le Guide (Lyon, 2014).
Néferkarê aux Montouhotep: Pantalacci, L., & Berger-
El-Naggar, C., (eds.), Des Néferkarê aux Montouhotep:
Travaux archéologiques en cours sur la fin de la VIe
dynastie et la Première Période Intermédiaire (Lyon,
2005).
Never had the Like Occurred: Tait, J., (ed.), ‘Never had the
Like Occurred’: Egypt’s View of its Past (London, 2003).
Preparing for Eternity
NH: Natural History.
Offerings to the Discerning Eye: D’Auria, S., (ed.),
Offerings to the Discerning Eye: An Egyptological Medley
in Honor of Jack A. Josephson (Leiden, Boston, 2010).
Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology: Bárta, M., (ed.),
The Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology: Proceedings
of the Conference held in Prague, May 31 – June 4,
2004 (Prague, 2006).
Old Kingdom, New Perspectives: Strudwick, N., &
Strudwick, H., (eds.), Old Kingdom, New Perspectives:
Egyptian Art and Archaeology 2750-2150 BC (Oxford,
2011).
Oxford Encyclopedia: Redford, D. B., (ed.), The Oxford
Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2005), <http://www.
oxfordreference.com>.
Oxford History: Shaw, I., (ed.), The Oxford History of
Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 2000).
Perfection that Endures: Kuraszkiewicz, K. O., Kopp, E.,
& Takács, D., (eds.), ‘The Perfection that Endures...’:
Studies on Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology (Warsaw,
2018).
Perspectives on Ancient Egypt: Hawass, Z. A., Der
Manuelian, P., & Hussein, R. B., (eds.), Perspectives on
Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of Edward Brovarski
(Cairo, 2010).
Pharaoh’s Land and Beyond: Creasman, P. P., &
Wilkinson, R. H., (eds.), Pharaoh’s Land and Beyond:
Ancient Egypt and its Neighbors (Oxford, 2017).
Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Conference,
AABP: Smith, R. A., (ed.), Proceedings of the Forty-
First Annual Conference, American Association
of Bovine Practitioners: September 25-27, 2008,
Charlotte, North Carolina (Oklahoma, 2008).
Proceedings of the Seventh ICE: Eyre, C. J., (ed.),
Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress
of Egyptologists, Cambridge, 3-9 September 1995
(Leuven, 1998).
Pyramid Builders: David, A. R., (ed.), The Pyramid
Builders of Ancient Egypt: A Modern Investigation of
Pharaoh’s Workforce (London, New York, 1986).
Religion of the Ancient Egyptians: Englund, G., (ed.),
The Religion of the Ancient Egyptians: Cognitive
Structures and Popular Expressions (Uppsala, 1989).
(Re)productive Traditions: Gillen, T., (ed.), (Re)
productive Traditions in Ancient Egypt: Proceedings of
the Conference held at the University of Liège, 6th-8th
February 2013 (Liège, 2017).
xviii
Sacred and Profane: Georganteli, E., & Bommas M.,
(eds.), Sacred and Profane: Treasures of Ancient Egypt
from the Myers Collection, Eton College and University
of Birmingham (London, 2010).
SAK: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur.
Secrets of Tomb 10A: Freed, R. E., Berman, L. M.,
Doxey, D. M., & Picardo, N. S., (eds.), The Secrets of
Tomb 10A: Egypt 2000 BC (Boston, 2009).
Servant of Mut: D’Auria, S., (ed.), Servant of Mut:
Studies in Honor of Richard A. Fazzini (Leiden, Boston,
2008).
Sésostris III: Morfoisse, F., & Andreu-Lanoë, G., (eds.),
Sésostris III: Pharaon de légende (Lille, 2014).
Sesto Congresso Internazionale: International
Association of Egyptologists (ed.), Sesto Congresso
Internazionale di Egittologia: Atti. Volumes I-II (Turin,
1992).
Social Aspects of Funerary Culture: Willems, H., (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
(Leuven, 2001).
Structure and Significance: Jánosi, P., (ed.), Structure
and Significance: Thoughts on Ancient Egyptian
Architecture (Wien, 2005).
Studies in Ancient Egypt: Simpson, W. K., & Davis,
W., (eds.), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and
the Sudan: Essays in Honor of Dows Dunham on the
Occasion of his 90th Birthday, June 1, 1980 (Boston,
1981).
Studies on War: Vidal, J., (ed.), Studies on War in the
Ancient Near East: Collected Essays on Military
History (Münster, 2010).
TdE: Trabajos de Egiptología. Papers on Ancient Egypt.
Travail du cuir: Audoin-Rouzeau, F., & Beyries, S.,
(eds.), Le travail du cuir de la Préhistoire à nos jours:
XXIIe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et
d’histoire d’Antibes (Antibes, 2002).
UEE: UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology.
Understanding Life in the Borderlands: Zartman, I.
W., (ed.), Understanding Life in the Borderlands:
Boundaries in Depth and Motion (Athens, 2010).
Unseen Images: Picton, J., & Pridden, I., (eds.), Unseen
Images: Archive Photographs in the Petrie Museum.
Volume I: Gurob, Sedment and Tarkhan (London,
2008).
 List of Abbreviations

World of Middle Kingdom Egypt: Miniaci, G., &

Grajetzki, W., (eds.), The World of Middle Kingdom
Egypt (2000-1550 BC): Contributions on Archaeology,
Art, Religion, and Written Sources. Volumes I-II
(London, 2015-2016).

WorldArch: World Archaeology.

ZAeS: Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und

Altertumskunde.

xix
 Map of Egypt

After L. Donovan & S. Binder (eds.), Tombs, Trowels and Treasures: The First 40 Years of Egyptology at
Macquarie University (Sydney, 2018).

xx
 Chronology

After I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 2000).
Only the kings most relevant to this study are listed.

Predynastic Period c. 4000 – 3200 BC

Early Dynastic Period c. 3200 – 2686 BC
  1st–2nd Dynasties
Old Kingdom c. 2686 – 2160 BC
  3rd Dynasty
  4th Dynasty
  5th Dynasty
    Nyuserre
    Menkauhor
    Djedkare
    Unis
  6th Dynasty
    Teti
    Userkare
    Pepy I
    Merenre
    Pepy II
First Intermediate Period c. 2160 – 2055 BC
  7th–early 11th Dynasties
Middle Kingdom c. 2055 – 1650 BC
  Late 11th Dynasty
    Montuhotep II
    Montuhotep III
    Montuhotep IV
  12th Dynasty
    Amenemhat I
    Senusret I
    Amenemhat II
    Senusret II
    Senusret III
    Amenemhat III
    Amenemhat IV
  13th Dynasty
Second Intermediate Period c. 1650 – 1550 BC
  14th–17th Dynasties
New Kingdom c. 1550 – 1069 BC
  18th–20th Dynasties
Third Intermediate Period c. 1069 – 664 BC
  21st–25th Dynasties
Late Period c. 664 – 332 BC
  26th–31st Dynasties
Ptolemaic Period c. 332 – 30 BC
Roman Period c. 30 BC – AD 395

xxi
 1
Introduction
‘My first noble deed was in establishing for myself a tomb’.1
‘Those who love their life and who hate death, they will say one thousand of bread, beer,
oxen and fowl for Khnumhotep’.2
These words, which are inscribed in the tomb of the
noble Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan, convey the
immense weight placed upon one’s preparation for death
and the afterlife in ancient Egypt.1As2it was believed that
in the Hereafter the deceased would require the same
sustenance he enjoyed during life, it was imperative to
prepare a tomb that would adequately provision him
for eternity.3 Each tomb owner desired to establish a
mortuary cult that would provide the required offerings,
but it was feared that this would not continue perpetually.
Consequently, several safeguards were implemented in
the construction and decoration of the tomb in an attempt
to ensure eternal nourishment. Artistic representations
formed a significant contribution to this process as it was
believed that what was depicted would magically come
into existence.4 Consequently, funerary artworks were not
simply decoration but served a specific, practical function.
During the late Old Kingdom to the end of the Middle
Kingdom, two principal types of representation are dominant
in the elite funerary record: wall scenes and funerary models.
The two artistic media exhibit many similarities in design,
with several of the same themes represented. Consequently,
scholars have regularly labelled funerary models duplicates
or substitutes of wall scenes. This designation implies that the
two media served the same purpose in the tomb. However,
there are several notable differences yet to be acknowledged.
Only a comprehensive comparative analysis can determine
the extent of these differences and the impact they have on
the purpose of each medium, and this is undertaken here for
the first time. Ascertaining the unique features of funerary
models and identifying the reasons for these distinctions will
reveal the three-dimensional medium’s precise relationship
with wall scenes and whether it did in fact serve a unique
function in the tomb.
1.1 Wall Scenes and funerary models
Wall scenes comprise two-dimensional representations
painted and/or carved in relief on tomb walls.5 This form
1
Line 170, autobiography of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), south wall of tomb
at Beni Hassan. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 35.
2
North entrance thickness of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni
Hassan. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 30.
3
Spencer, Death, 70-72; Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 1; Taylor, Death
and Afterlife, 92-95; Ikram, Death and Burial, 132.
4
Hayes, Sceptre of Egypt. Part I, 80-81; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in
Ancient Egypt, 15; Teeter, Religion and Ritual, 4-5.
5
Although it is recognised that the use of relief makes the scenes
three-dimensional, the medium will be referred to as two-dimensional
1
of funerary artwork became established in the 3rd Dynasty
and remained prevalent throughout the Pharaonic Period.6
The themes most commonly portrayed have been divided
by Kanawati into seven main categories: the tomb owner
and his family; rural life; fishing, fowling and the desert
hunt; professions and industries; sport and recreation;
funerary rites; and the afterlife.7 The creators of these
scenes, who will be termed scene-artists in this book, were
bound by the strict rules of the Egyptian artistic canon,
resulting in a consistent, characteristic appearance.8
From the Old Kingdom to the end of the Middle Kingdom,
the repertoire of the above-ground tomb-chapel was
primarily concerned with conveying so-called ‘scenes of
daily life’. In these scenes, subsidiary figures are engaged
in arrested movement as they conduct a wide range of
activities that would have regularly occurred on earth.9
Not only did these scenes provide the deceased with
his desired supplies for the afterlife, they also publicly
proclaimed his superior status and personal achievements
to any visitors to the tomb, perhaps further encouraging
the presentation of offerings.10 Additionally, the scenes
may have had a symbolic function that sought to ensure
the deceased’s successful rebirth in the afterlife through
conveying symbols associated with fertility and the
triumph of order over chaos.11 There was a careful
selection process for the themes represented, with some
motifs consistently adopted by tomb owners, others rarely
attested, and some large sequences of activity reduced to
a single stage. While it is highly likely that scenes were
throughout this book in order to create a clear distinction between wall
scenes and the completely three-dimensional sculptural forms of models.
6
Robins, Egyptian Painting, 11; Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 149-50;
Altenmüller, in Egypt, 81.
7
Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 83-112.
8
Spencer, Death, 65; Robins, Egyptian Painting, 11.
9
Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 150; Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 53, 102;
Altenmüller, in Egypt, 79. Some scholars have alternatively proposed
that scenes of daily life do not reflect everyday society, but rather are a
projected ideal for the afterlife. Bolshakov, Man and his Double, 265-67,
279-80; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 77. This interpretation,
however, does not need to exclude the other. It is possible for the scenes
to depict experiences from everyday life that the tomb owner would have
hoped to reoccur in the afterlife.
10
Robins, “Problems in interpreting”, DE 17, (1990), 47-48; Kanawati,
Tomb and Beyond, 115-16; Shedid, in Egypt, 124; Swinton, Management
of Estates, 12-14.
11
The leading discussion on the symbolic interpretation is found in
Kamrin, Cosmos of Khnumhotep II, 167-68, where it is argued that the
scenes reflect the ancient Egyptian understanding of the cosmos and the
tomb owner’s contribution to maintaining cosmic order.
Preparing for Eternity
multi-functional,12 representations of daily life certainly
provide insight into ancient Egyptian society and show the
production of essential commodities that would have been
of immense significance to the tomb owner’s well-being
in the afterlife.
Funerary models consist of small three-dimensional sculp­
tures that depict people and animals engaged in activities
of everyday life. The first examples comprise individual
limestone statuettes that were housed in serdabs of 4th and
5th Dynasty tombs, but a transformation occurred in the
late Old Kingdom. From the late 6th Dynasty to the end of
the Middle Kingdom, the figures were fashioned of wood
as group models and were typically interred in the burial
chamber alongside the body of the deceased.13 While
the subterranean chamber was the most popular location
for wooden models, the sculptures were occasionally
positioned in other parts of the tomb, including in the shaft
and sealed niches cut into the superstructure.14 What is
common about all of these locations, is that they remained
inaccessible to the living.
There is significant variation in the style and quality of
funerary models, with those of the 6th Dynasty often
larger and more finely crafted than those of the First
Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom, presumably
due to the smaller number of examples and the limited
number of figures incorporated into each sculpture.15 The
quantity and distribution of models as well as the range of
themes represented reached a climax in the early Middle
Kingdom, but manufacture rapidly declined in the late 12th
Dynasty, with models disappearing from elite funerary
assemblages by the New Kingdom.16 The creators of these
three-dimensional representations have been designated
model-artists in this book in order to distinguish them
from the makers of wall scenes while maintaining their
status as artists.17
12
For a discussion on the multi-functional nature of daily life scenes,
see van Walsem, in Proceedings of the Seventh ICE, 1205-213; Hartwig,
Tomb Painting and Identity, 49-52; Swinton, Management of Estates,
127; Lloyd, Ancient Egypt, 273-80; Hartwig, in Artists and Painting,
28-56.
13
Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 2-3; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom
Burial Customs. Volume I”, 1-4; Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”,
JARCE 39, (2002), 103, 117-18.
14
Unusually, some of the model assemblage of Nakhti from Asyut was
uniquely placed in the chapel where the sculptures could be seen by
the living. Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 107;
Tooley, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>;
Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 176-79.
15
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 18-19.
16
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 59; Doxey,
in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 50, 56; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of
Images, 166-67.
17
Difficulties were encountered in this study when determining the
appropriate terminology for the creators of models. The term ‘craftsman’
was avoided as individuals of this rank were not highly trained and would
have only completed the preliminary sculptural tasks. While ‘sculptor’
may seem more appropriate, sculpting was required in the creation
of both models and reliefs and so the term would not have created an
accurate distinction. Similarly, as painting was utilised in the production
of both scenes and models, the term ‘painter’ for scene-artists could
cause confusion. Consequently, the designation ‘artist’ was selected for
both, with the individual medium specified for clarification. Kanawati &
Woods, Artists in the Old Kingdom, 20-21.
2
The themes commonly represented by models have
been divided by Tooley into five principal categories:
agriculture and animal husbandry; food preparation;
industrial processes; offering-bearers; and boats.18 There
are certainly many parallels between this classification and
that of the two-dimensional medium, but there are also
some notable differences. However, it is the similarities
that are persistently focused upon in scholarship, with
statements regularly asserted that presuppose the nature
of the relationship between the two media. Taylor, for
example, notes that scenes were “augmented” by models
whereas Schäfer writes that the content of wall scenes
was transformed into three-dimensional form.19 Similarly,
Tiradritti states that models were a “three-dimensional
transposition” of scenes while Malek goes further by
labelling the models “three-dimensional equivalents”
of tomb scenes.20 Even Tooley who devotes an entire
publication to models asserts that the sculptures were
“designed to replace or supplement painted scenes”.21 Not
only do such statements over-emphasise the similarities
between the two media, they also create the assumption
that models fulfilled the same purpose in the tomb as wall
scenes.
Although funerary artistic representations have been
extensively examined in scholarship, the vast majority
of studies are devoted to wall scenes. Entire books are
dedicated to the two-dimensional medium, with each
focusing on a specific aspect of the representations
or utilising a particular approach,22 whereas funerary
models are very rarely the subject of whole publications.
Similarly, in broader art-historical studies, wall scenes
form a large basis of the discussion while funerary models
are only briefly summarised if even mentioned at all.23
18
Tooley, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>.
19
Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 38; Taylor, Death and Afterlife,
99-100.
20
Malek, Egyptian Art, 146; Tiradritti, Egyptian Wall Painting, 173-74.
21
Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 8.
22
Vandier, in his series Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne, focuses
primarily on the themes represented, with volumes five and six dedicated
to the repertoire of private tomb scenes of the Old and Middle Kingdoms.
Similarly, Montet structures his publication Les scènes de la vie privée
dans les tombeaux égyptiens de l’Ancien Empire according to the themes
represented but focuses principally on the use of inscriptions. Harpur also
addresses the themes of Old Kingdom elite tomb scenes in her Decoration
in Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom: Studies in Orientation and Scene
Content, but rather seeks to outline their precise location and orientation
in the chapel. Alternatively, Schäfer presents a technical analysis of the
compositions in his 1919 Principles of Egyptian Art, a work that remains
preeminent in this area of study. Although this publication is principally
concerned with two-dimensional representations, a chapter is included
at the end of the work that briefly examines the rendering of figures in
three-dimensional sculpture. While some comparison between two- and
three-dimensional media is achieved, it is particularly restricted in its
scope: it is exclusively concerned with formal statues; it examines modes
of construction rather than themes represented; and it forms a cursory
chapter at the end of the work instead of the primary discussion.
23
One of the leading publications in this area of study is Robins’ The
Art of Ancient Egypt which presents an expansive chronological survey
of royal and private architecture, reliefs, paintings and sculpture from
the Early Dynastic Period to the Ptolemaic Period. Although a range of
artistic forms is discussed, the extensive time period covered causes only
limited detail to be presented for some types of representation, including
funerary models. Similarly, Smith interweaves his chronological overview
of artistic representations and architecture with a brief examination of the

When greater attention is devoted to three-dimensional
sculpture, preference is typically given to formal statues
of the king or tomb owner over representations of serving
figures.24
Indeed, very few studies are dedicated entirely to the
funerary model. In 1948, Breasted published Egyptian
Servant Statues which largely comprises a catalogue
of known models and provides the first classification of
themes for the medium. Most models are merely given a
brief descriptive summary and only a succinct history of
model production is presented, but the publication remained
the principal work on models until Tooley’s dissertation
in 1989 entitled “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs: A
Study of Wooden Models and Related Material”. In this
work, Tooley presents a revised examination of the three-
dimensional medium, observing the types of models
found and trends in their geographical distribution and
regional characteristics. However, only the themes of
granaries, funerary boats, offering-bearers, offering-
trays and soul houses, and ‘concubines’ are examined in
greater detail. This discussion remains the foundational
work on funerary models, with other studies on the
medium focusing only on specific model assemblages or
one particular theme.25 Funerary models are beginning
to receive more scholarly attention, and there are a small
number of recent publications devoted to particular
aspects of model production.26 While these studies have
given models increased visibility in scholarship, there are
still significant gaps in our understanding of the precise
role of the three-dimensional medium in the tomb.
Only one Egyptological study has been conducted that
comprises a comparative analysis between two- and three-
dimensional artworks, namely The Representations of
Statuary in Private Tombs of the Old Kingdom by Eaton-
Krauss. This, however, consists of a comparison between
formal statues of the tomb owner and their representation
historic periods in his pioneering publication The Art and Architecture
of Ancient Egypt. Even though funerary models were prominent in the
artistic record for a relatively expansive time period from the late Old
Kingdom to the end of the Middle Kingdom, only exceptionally brief
remarks are made on the sculptures. Alternatively, in his A History of
Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old Kingdom, Smith devotes
almost equal attention to two- and three-dimensional representations, but
keeps the two forms quite distinct, with no attempt to compare them.
24
For example, Harvey presents a comprehensive catalogue of all extant
private wooden statuary of the Old Kingdom and provides criteria for
more reliable dating, but focuses solely on representations of the tomb
owner without any mention of the statuettes of serving figures from the
same period. Harvey, Wooden Statues.
25
These publications include Winlock’s Models of Daily Life in
Ancient Egypt from the Tomb of Meket-Re’ at Thebes which examines
the assemblage of Meketre from Thebes, and the edited volume The
Secrets of Tomb 10A: Egypt 2000 BC which includes an assessment of
the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) from Deir el-Bersha. Among the
themes represented by models, boats are most commonly examined by
scholars, with the publications of Reisner and Merriman leading among
them. Reisner, Models of Ships; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models.
26
Kroenke has analysed the chronological development of the three-
dimensional medium through a detailed examination of the model corpus
of Naga ed-Deir, while Eschenbrenner-Diemer has conducted a technical
and stylistic analysis of models that has led to the identification of four
production phases. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”;
Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 133-91.
3
Introduction
in wall scenes, once again reflecting the bias towards
the elite in scholarship. While the sources examined in
Eaton-Krauss’ publication differ from those that form
the basis of the present study, the work demonstrates the
value of conducting comparative analysis. Eaton-Krauss
examines the intricate details of the sculptures such as
posture, costume and hairstyle in order to determine
whether scene-artists replicated specific statues in their
representations. Indeed, it is the minute details that
convey some of the most important points of similarity
and difference. The present study has likewise chosen to
examine the intricate details of wall scenes and funerary
models and to observe the differences between the media
which are consistently overlooked by scholars. Therefore,
an innovative comparative analysis of funerary models
and wall scenes is conducted here in order to attain a more
precise conclusion regarding the relationship between the
two media and the specific role of the funerary model.
1.2 Historical and geographical context
For an effective, detailed comparison to be conducted,
certain parameters needed to be put on the extensive corpus
of artistic material. This was primarily achieved through a
restriction in sites, with only the representations from Meir,
Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan examined. These three sites
form the cemeteries of the 14th-16th Upper Egyptian nomes
and are situated in Middle Egypt. This region experienced
significant economic development during the late Old
and Middle Kingdoms, and the nomarchal tombs exhibit
supreme wealth in their construction and decoration.27
Moreover, Middle Egypt specialised in woodcraft during
the early Middle Kingdom, with the development of local
styles and workshops, which encouraged the production
of numerous wooden items, including funerary models.28
A rich body of both two- and three-dimensional artistic
representations is therefore preserved from the three sites,
enabling a comprehensive analysis.
The governing officials of the 14th Upper Egyptian nome
were first buried at the site of Quseir el-Amarna on the
east bank of the Nile. These officials served as overseers of
priests in the temple of Hathor who had a major cult centre
in the province.29 However, the site was soon abandoned,
with Pepyankh the Middle (D2) the first to construct his
tomb at Meir on the west bank during the reign of Pepy
II.30 It has been demonstrated that this move was governed
by a desire for a more geographically suitable location, as
27
A modern study has demonstrated that the land between the 9th and 20th
Upper Egyptian nomes is the most productive in the country. Although
caution must be taken when applying the conditions of modern times to
ancient landscapes, it seems reasonable to conclude that this region was
likewise agriculturally productive in the late Old and Middle Kingdoms:
supreme wealth is on display in the nomarchal tombs and there is an
emphasis on agriculture and animal husbandry in the representations.
Fisher, Middle East, 523; Kanawati, Governmental Reforms, 8-10;
Lashien, Nobles of El-Qusiya, 3-4; Moreno Garcia, “Trade and power”,
JArchRes 25.2, (2017), 94.
28
Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Middle Kingdom Palace Culture, 133-36.
29
Kanawati, in Perspectives on Ancient Egypt, 208.
30
Kanawati, in Perspectives on Ancient Egypt, 213-14.
Preparing for Eternity
the topography of Quseir el-Amarna was far less suitable
for the construction of rock-cut tombs.31 The cemetery
of Meir remained the burial place for the Cusite officials
throughout the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom,
although no decorated tombs from the First Intermediate
Period have been found.32 The tombs of the governing
administrators are cut into the high cliffs, with five distinct
areas designated A-E by Blackman [fig. 1.1], while their
courtiers were typically interred in shaft-tombs down the
slopes below.33 The last decorated tomb at Meir belongs
to the governor Ukh-hotep III (C1) who may be dated on
stylistic grounds to the reign of Senusret III.34
In the Hare nome, the site of El-Sheikh Said was the
favoured burial place for the ruling elite during the Old
Kingdom, but by the First Intermediate Period this
had been replaced by Deir el-Bersha. This vast site is
located on the east bank of the Nile and began to be used
consistently by the governing officials of the 15th Upper
Egyptian nome from the 6th Dynasty onwards.35 Several
regions of the cemetery can be distinguished from the First
Intermediate Period onwards, with each section devoted
to a different level of society.36 It was during the Middle
Kingdom that the cemetery reached its greatest expansion,
with the monumental tombs of the nomarchs excavated
into the high north hill, all along the same plateau.37 The
extensive use of the different elevations of the cemetery
indicates that not only were the governors and their
families buried there, but their courtiers and a large part
of the local population were as well.38 This came to an
end during the 12th Dynasty, with Djehuty-hotep (N-2),
dated to the reigns of Senusret II and Senusret III, the last
nomarch buried at the site.39
The ruling elite of the Oryx nome were buried at Zawiyet
el-Maiyitin in the Old Kingdom before moving to Beni
Hassan in the First Intermediate Period, a decision made by
a new ruling family.40 The cemetery of Beni Hassan, which
is located on the east bank of the Nile, is divided into two
sections: the Upper Cemetery which contains the tombs
of the nobility, and the Lower Cemetery which houses
almost 900 burials of the lower administrative elite and the
31
Kanawati, in Perspectives on Ancient Egypt, 208; Lashien, Nobles of
El-Qusiya, 49-50.
32
Willems, Chests of Life, 86.
33
Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Volume I, 5; Willems, Chests of Life,
83.
34
Grajetzki, Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, 109; Kanawati,
“Wekhhotep III of Meir”, BACE 26, (2016-2018), 37.
35
The earliest funerary remains that have been identified at Deir el-
Bersha date to the end of the 2nd Dynasty. The cemetery remained in use
until the beginning of the 4th Dynasty, and during this time it contained
simple burials of the local peasant population. Robinson, in Bersheh
Reports I, 3; De Meyer, in Old Kingdom, New Perspectives, 42-49;
Willems, in Djehoutihotep, 131-33.
36
Willems, in Djehoutihotep, 133-36.
37
Willems, Chests of Life, 68.
38
Robinson, in Bersheh Reports I, 3; Willems, Dayr al-Barshā. Volume
I, 4.
39
Evidence of burials from the Second Intermediate Period is known,
but these individuals re-used existing tombs. Willems, Chests of Life, 77;
Sykora, in Djehoutihotep, 25-26.
40
Orel, “Chronology and Social Stratification”, 28-29; Kanawati &
Woods, Beni Hassan, 8.
4
family of the provincial governors. Of the 39 tombs in the
Upper Cemetery, only 12 are decorated with scenes and
inscriptions, and all date to after the Old Kingdom.41 These
tombs are positioned in a north-south row along the terrace
and occupy a commanding view of the Nile [fig. 1.2]. The
Lower Cemetery was first occupied in the Old Kingdom and
was used continuously until at least the mid-12th Dynasty.42
The burials housed here largely comprise small shaft-tombs
without above-ground structures.43 Khnumhotep II (3 UC),
who served as overseer of the Eastern Desert during the
reigns of Amenemhat II and Senusret II, was the last to
construct a monumental decorated tomb at Beni Hassan,
while his son and successor, Khnumhotep III, held a career
in the capital and was buried at Dahshur in the mortuary
complex of Senusret III.44
The abandonment of provincial cemeteries during
the mid-12th Dynasty was previously thought to be a
deliberate action taken by Senusret III in an attempt to
curb the power of these officials, but it has more recently
been shown to have been a gradual process. The provincial
governor’s title of ‘great overlord’ had already begun to
disappear during the reign of Senusret II, and tombs of
provincial rulers are still known in some nomes into the
reign of Amenemhat III.45 It seems that the authority of
the nomarchal governors was not removed by force,
but rather through sending their sons for training in the
capital where they were integrated into the highest elite of
the residence.46 The timeframe for this study is therefore
restricted to the period from the late Old Kingdom to the
end of the Middle Kingdom, as it was during this time
that the three cemeteries were actively used and that
both models and wall scenes feature prominently in the
funerary artistic record. These restrictions in time period
and geographical region have enabled a substantial body
of evidence to be examined in great detail, facilitating a
thorough and worthwhile comparative analysis.
1.3 Excavation history and preservation
Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan are comparatively
well-preserved and well-published, which has allowed
41
There is some debate in scholarship regarding the date of the earliest
Upper Cemetery tombs, with propositions ranging from the First
Intermediate Period through to the 11th Dynasty after the re-unification.
Spanel, “Beni Hasan”, 32-37; Grajetzki, Middle Kingdom of Ancient
Egypt, 112; Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 6; Bommas, “First
Intermediate Period tombs at Beni Hassan”, SAK 41, (2012), 44-45.
42
Orel, “Chronology and Social Stratification”, 485-86.
43
Orel, “John Garstang”, KMT 8.1, (1997), 58; Snape, Ancient Egyptian
Tombs, 161-62.
44
Grajetzki, Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, 115; Allen, “Historical
inscription of Khnumhotep”, BASOR 352, (2008), 29; Nelson-Hurst, in
World of Middle Kingdom Egypt. Volume I, 261.
45
Franke, in Middle Kingdom Studies, 51-67; Grajetzki, Court Officials,
114-18; Picardo, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 35-36; Willems, in Ancient
Egyptian Administration, 389-92.
46
Alongside administrative reform, the changes evident in the use of
provincial cemeteries should be attributed to a shift in the distribution
of wealth and transformations in funerary beliefs. Trigger, et al., Ancient
Egypt, 111-12; Franke, in Middle Kingdom Studies, 63-64; Grajetzki,
Court Officials, 118-20; Snape, Ancient Egyptian Tombs, 156; Willems,
in Ancient Egyptian Administration, 389-92; Tallet, in Sésostris III, 23-
25; Morfoisse, in Sésostris III, 214-15.

Figure 1.1. Section A of the cemetery of Meir. Photograph by the author.
for a relatively comprehensive corpus of sources to be
obtained for analysis. All three sites were the subject of
expeditions commissioned by the Egypt Exploration
Fund (now Society) during the late 19th and early 20th
centuries. Blackman directed the survey at Meir over five
seasons between 1912 and 1950 while Newberry directed
the expeditions at Deir el-Bersha in 1891-1892 and Beni
Hassan in 1890-1892.47 These expeditions focused on the
tombs of the nobles and produced quite detailed records
of the scenes and inscriptions, including line-drawings,
photographs and facsimiles.
The initial publications produced by the Egypt Exploration
Fund have long remained the primary documentation of
the scenes, but current expeditions are producing updated
records which include minute details and whole scenes
that had not previously been identified. The Australian
Centre for Egyptology under the directorship of Kanawati
has been re-recording the tombs of the nobles at Meir since
2008 and Beni Hassan since 2010.48 At Deir el-Bersha, a
47
Newberry, Beni Hasan. Parts I-II; Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I;
Newberry & Griffith, El Bersheh. Part II; Blackman, Rock Tombs of
Meir. Volume I-Part IV; Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir. Parts
V-VI.
48
Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I; Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
of Meir. Volumes II, IV; Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III;
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volumes I, III-IV, VI; Lashien, Beni
Hassan. Volume II; Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V.
5
Introduction
brief season was undertaken in 1990 by a joint expedition
of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Leiden University and
the University of Pennsylvania which highlighted some
previously unidentified motifs on tomb-chapel walls.49
However, the entire cemetery is now being examined
by Willems and a team from the Katholieke Universiteit
(KU), Leuven, a project which includes providing updated
records of some of the nobles’ tombs.50
While this documentation has enabled a detailed analysis
of numerous wall scenes at the three sites, the full corpus
of two-dimensional representations cannot be known due
to damage to the tombs caused by quarrying, earthquakes
and gradual degradation. This is especially problematic
at Deir el-Bersha where the excellent quality limestone
enticed quarrying activities in the New Kingdom and
Late Period. The cliffs have thus been weakened, causing
masses of rock to fall, crushing and concealing many
chambers and shafts.51 The tombs suffered further damage
from earthquakes where some chapels and their scenes
have been almost completely destroyed.52 Moreover, since
49
Silverman (ed.), Bersheh Reports I.
50
Willems, Dayr al-Barshā. Volume I.
51
Fraser, “Mr G. Willoughby Fraser’s report on the survey of the Wady
Der en-Nakhleh”, in Newberry & Griffith, El Bersheh. Part II, 58; Kaper,
van Walsem & Willems, in Bersheh Reports I, 41.
52
Newberry & Griffith, El Bersheh. Part II, 2-3; Terrace, “Entourage of
an Egyptian governor”, BMB 66.343, (1968), 5-6.
Preparing for Eternity

Figure 1.2. Section of the site plan of Beni Hassan showing tombs in the Upper Cemetery. Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, fig. 1; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

6

the re-opening of the tombs, gradual deterioration has
occurred from the effects of the weather. When considering
the complete repertoire of the two-dimensional medium,
it must therefore be remembered that some motifs and
themes that were originally represented will never be
known.
The burials of the lower administrative elite, on the other
hand, have not received the same attention as the tombs
of the nobles. Archaeological expeditions of the 19th and
early 20th centuries were more concerned with acquiring
pieces of ‘art’ than methodically recording all finds.53
Accordingly, the documentation of funerary models and
their findspots, which are almost exclusively known from
the lower status burials, is regularly not sufficient. This
is especially problematic at Meir and Deir el-Bersha.
The only excavation of the tombs of the lower officials
at Meir was undertaken by Kamal in 1910-1914, but his
documentation is lacking important details in provenance.54
At Deir el-Bersha, similar work was conducted by
Daressy in 1897 and Kamal in 1900-1902 which likewise
produced limited documentation.55 In 1915, Reisner led a
joint expedition from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
and Harvard University to Deir el-Bersha and discovered
the elaborately furnished burial of the governor Djehuty-
nakht and his wife (R-10A), but unfortunately no report
was ever published.56 Alternatively, Garstang’s publication
of his 1902-1904 excavation of the Lower Cemetery at
Beni Hassan is quite exceptional for the period.57 Although
it suffers from a lack of detail and several inaccuracies,
it provides important information on a vast collection of
artefacts that may have otherwise been lost.58
Poor documentation has also caused the current
whereabouts of many models to remain unknown. After
excavations were completed, the finds were distributed
across the globe to the institutions and private individuals
who had financially supported the expeditions, sometimes
with individual tomb assemblages divided.59 For Garstang,
this also involved advertising the sale of artefacts in
national and international newspapers, firstly to museums
in the United Kingdom and the colonies, and secondly
to other public institutions. This venture subsequently
53
Bommas, “First Intermediate Period tombs at Beni Hassan”, SAK 41,
(2012), 43; Willems, Historical and Archaeological Aspects, 2.
54
Kamal, “Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées”, ASAE 11, (1911), 3-39;
Kamal, “Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées”, ASAE 12, (1912), 97-127;
Kamal, “Rapport sur les fouilles”, ASAE 13, (1914), 161-78; Kamal,
“Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées”, ASAE 14, (1914), 45-87; Kamal,
“Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées”, ASAE 15, (1915), 198-206; Willems,
Chests of Life, 82.
55
Daressy, “Fouilles de Deir el Bircheh”, ASAE 1, (1900), 17-43; Kamal,
“Fouilles à Déir-el-Barsheh”, ASAE 2, (1901), 14-43; Kamal, “Rapport
sur les fouilles exécutées”, ASAE 2, (1901), 206-22; Kamal, “Fouilles à
Deir-el-Barché”, ASAE 3, (1902), 276-82; Willems, Chests of Life, 68;
Robinson, in Bersheh Reports I, 7.
56
Willems, Chests of Life, 68; Robinson, in Bersheh Reports I, 7-8.
57
Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt.
58
Orel, “Chronology and Social Stratification”, 3; Bommas, “First
Intermediate Period tombs at Beni Hassan”, SAK 41, (2012), 47-50;
Willems, Historical and Archaeological Aspects, 2.
59
Orel, “John Garstang”, KMT 8.1, (1997), 62-63; Killen, in Egyptian
Museum Collections. Volume I, 645.
7
Introduction
became more commercial when he established division
parties in which archaeological finds were allocated to
patrons through lottery-style games.60 Other excavations
were instigated with the express purpose of gathering
artefacts for sale. Sayed Khashaba Pasha, an Egyptian
merchant and collector, contracted Kamal to excavate
various sites in Egypt on his behalf, including Meir. Some
of the objects acquired were destined for Khashaba’s
personal museum, and the collection was gradually sold
over time, with the pieces now scattered in various public
and private collections.61
Unfortunately, the journeys of these artefacts were not
always documented and so it is difficult to ascertain where
all of the models are currently housed. Distribution lists
regularly lack important identification details, with entries
simply documenting the transport of ‘models’ or ‘groups’.62
Such vague documentation makes it very difficult to
determine the total number of models distributed to each
museum and the specific components of each sculpture.
Further research is needed into unpublished archival
documents produced by early archaeological expeditions
to acquire additional information on the provenance of the
artefacts and their modern-day journeys. When assessing
the complete repertoire of the three-dimensional medium,
it must therefore be considered that the preserved examples
do not constitute the entire original corpus.
A comprehensive understanding of the three-dimensional
repertoire is further hindered by issues of preservation.
As most models were constructed of wood, a material
that is particularly susceptible to destruction, many
examples have presumably not survived. Moreover, as
each model was fashioned of several different components
which were typically attached with pegs, in many cases
individual elements have become separated and lost. This
is particularly significant for loose elements such as linen
skirts for human figures, pieces of thread for rigging on
boats or leashes for animals, and actual grain stored in
granaries. Damage to models also occurred during tomb
robbery. Models were regularly housed on top of the coffin,
causing them to be tossed across the chamber when thieves
searched for valuable items.63 It is therefore important to
remember that some whole models remain unknown due
to poor documentation or destruction, while other models
are not preserved in their entirety. However, the quantity
of remaining artworks is satisfactorily extensive to be
considered relatively representative of the original corpus.
1.4 Problems in interpreting ancient Egyptian art
In addition to the issues of preservation and documentation
discussed above, there are several aspects that must be
considered when analysing ancient Egyptian art. Those
60
Stevenson, Scattered Finds, 11-13.
61
Hagen & Ryholt, Antiquities Trade, 48, 260-61.
62
Serpico, in Unseen Images. Volume I, 109.
63
D’Auria, et al., Mummies and Magic, 112; Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb
10A, 50.
Preparing for Eternity
that are of prime importance for this study may be
categorised as two main problems: modern interpretation
and modern intervention.
When interpreting artistic representations, it is essential to
consider the principles that governed image production.
Art was functional in ancient Egypt, so its system of
representation was designed to enable the images to
successfully serve their intended purpose.64 In two-
dimensional art, the Egyptian artist did not portray what he
saw, but what he knew. Accordingly, each component was
depicted in its most characteristic aspect, often combining
multiple viewpoints. Depth was not utilised in these
representations. Instead, composite images were created
which combined multiple perspectives.65 All motifs were
arranged in a series of registers, a system that was not
intended to convey spatial or temporal relationships, but to
give order to the scene.66 The ancient viewer was familiar
with such conventions and could thus decode meaning
from the representations, identifying each component
and the function of the scene.67 It is important not to
assume that a modern understanding of the ancient images
is the same as how they were perceived by the original
audience.68 Scenes could contain multiple meanings and
an interpretation must seek to determine and understand
these in their original context.
This study considers the unique capabilities of the two- and
three-dimensional media as well as their specific technical
restrictions. For interpretation, it is important to situate
these in the context of the conventions and principles
governing ancient Egyptian art. While the distinguishing
properties of each medium are described in this book as
‘advantages’ and ‘disadvantages’, this is not intended to
be a critique of the ancient artists. Rather, these terms are
employed to make it clear to the modern audience what
scene- and model-artists could each achieve within the
technical capabilities and conventions of their medium.
One major example of this, which is discussed at length
in this study, is the media’s contrasting use of perspective.
Scene-artists created their designs as flat, not only because
they operated on a two-dimensional surface, but also
because depth was not employed in the Egyptian artistic
canon.69 In contrast, model-artists were able to utilise
their three-dimensional perspective and create a holistic
representation which enabled all components to remain
in view no matter where they were positioned on the
baseboard. This distinction between the media is regularly
referred to in this study as a difference in ‘realism’. The use
64
Spencer, Death, 65-67; Malek, Egyptian Art, 131.
65
Weeks, in Egyptology, 68-69; Robins, Egyptian Painting, 11;
Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 77.
66
Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 193; Robins, Proportion and
Style, 6; Kanawati & Woods, Artists in the Old Kingdom, 31.
67
Baines, “Status and purpose”, CAJ 4.1, (1994), 68; Robins, Art of
Ancient Egypt, 21.
68
Davis, Canonical Tradition, 61; Baines, “Status and purpose”, CAJ
4.1, (1994), 67-68.
69
Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 81; Robins, Proportion and Style,
1-3.
8
of this term is not designed to impose a modern expectation
on the ancient artwork. Rather, it is employed to make
clear what the observable distinctions are between the two
media in relation to their arrangement of components and
use of perspective.
For interpreting funerary models, an understanding of
modern intervention is also essential. During the early
20th century, models were a highly prized possession for
museum collections. As such artefacts were destined for
public display, it was desired that they would be obtained as
completed sculptures.70 Consequently, model components
that had become loose or separated were in many cases
re-attached either by the excavators themselves or upon
arrival at the museum.71 While this may restore the
original composition, it is also possible that individual
components may be positioned in the wrong place on
the baseboard or re-attached to a completely different
model, thus creating pastiche representations. Some
caution is therefore necessary when analysing the current
arrangements of models. In this study, five examples were
identified in which the modern intervention has clearly
created an incorrect assemblage, and consequently, these
models could not be accurately classified as a particular
theme.72 For examples where modern intervention is
70
Serpico, in Unseen Images. Volume I, 109-10.
71
Serpico, in Unseen Images. Volume I, 111-12.
72
A model said to be from Asyut, although more recently shown to
originate from Meir, displays six figures oriented towards a large seated
man within an open court. The figures are crafted at different scales and
exhibit a variety of postures, giving the impression that they originated
from different model types. While the current arrangement displays some
similarities with the rendering of accounts theme, the absence of any
direct parallels in the three-dimensional medium increases the probability
that this is not the original composition. Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon:
1969-404. Amoros, et al., “Study and identification”, Hathor 1, (2012),
11-29; Barker, “Classification of a funerary model”, JARCE 55, (2019),
5-13. One model from Deir el-Bersha, which is today housed in the
Ashmolean Museum, depicts 14 figures engaged in a variety of tasks on
a large rectangular baseboard enclosed by low walls with an opening in
each side. The figures’ activities are difficult to identify as the men are
either not associated with any equipment or their postures do not indicate
any particular action, but it seems most likely that they can be broadly
classified as food preparation. A large canopy resides in the middle of
the model with four vessels and two vaulted chests placed underneath.
Such features are unknown from models of food preparation but are more
commonly found on funerary model boats. In addition to the different
scales utilised for the figures, this unusual combination of elements
suggests that the model is a pastiche of at least two different sculptures.
Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1922.71. In another
model from Deir el-Bersha, three standing and three seated figures are
arranged on a large baseboard. While many of the activities and objects
represented are enigmatic, some may be identified: a baker beside a slab
oven; a man adopting the stance of a ploughman but without his tools or
animals; two authority figures; and trapezoidal baskets probably from
offering-bearers. The model is almost certainly a pastiche, combining
elements from several models of different themes. National Museum of
Denmark: 5492. A small rectangular baseboard said to be from Deir el-
Bersha displays one seated and three standing figures which are basic
in their rendering. The model is today housed in the Rijksmuseum van
Oudheden where it has been broadly classified as brewing. Each figure
is associated with a distinct object, although only one can be identified
with certainty: the figure on the right holds a bucket for measuring grain.
The occurrence of this motif outside of the granary is unusual and may
suggest a modern assemblage of components from different models.
Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden: F 1939/1.8. Five seated figures are
closely spaced on a rectangular baseboard in another model said to be
from Deir el-Bersha. Their appearance is typical of male figures apart
from their yellow skin. They do not appear to perform any particular

only minor or has not significantly impacted the themes
and motifs represented, the sculptures were incorporated
into the comparative analysis. Any impact this may have
on interpreting the themes and motifs represented is
considered in the discussion.
1.5 Classification of themes
The repertoires of the two- and three-dimensional media
provide great insight into what was considered most
important to the ancient Egyptians in the preparation of
their tombs for eternity. Therefore, this study is centred
on the themes represented by the two media. To establish
the repertoire of each medium at Meir, Deir el-Bersha
and Beni Hassan, all known two- and three-dimensional
representations were collected. As the repertoire of
funerary models is not as expansive as that of wall scenes,
the three-dimensional artworks were collected first. This
set the parameters on the range of themes that would form
the basis of the comparative analysis.
The process of collecting funerary models involved an
extensive examination of numerous museum catalogues
as well as all published excavation reports from Meir, Deir
el-Bersha and Beni Hassan. This successfully achieved
an extensive list of models, but some difficulties were
encountered during this process: not all institutions have
their collections available online, and among those that do,
photographic documentation suitable for the close analysis
required in this study was not always available. Contact
was therefore made with the museums directly who in
many cases were able to provide more sufficient access to
their collections. Additionally, the author visited some of
the institutions that house a significant number of models
from the three sites under investigation in order to closely
examine the minute details not clear in the available
photographs.73
Although theme classifications for the model repertoire have
been previously proposed in scholarship by Breasted and
Tooley,74 a new categorisation was developed in this study.
This revised system consists of four themes, namely food
action and the model does not retain any equipment. While there are
five pegs protruding from the baseboard, there is little empty space to
allow for the attachment of other components. It is unusual for a model
to be interred in the burial without providing any particular service for
the owner, so it is quite possible that this is not the original assemblage.
Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden: F 1939/1.10.
73
In particular, the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, the British Museum
in London, the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge and the Ashmolean
Museum in Oxford were all visited during this project.
74
Breasted’s division of themes is quite elaborate, encompassing all of
the following categories: production and storage of food; preparation
and processing of food; industries; servants carrying supplies for the
deceased and funeral scenes; servants providing transport; entertainment;
concubines and other groups of retainers; and servant figures performing
unidentified tasks. Tooley, alternatively, presents a more condensed
classification of five principal themes: agriculture and animal husbandry;
food preparation; industrial processes; offering-bearers; and boats. While
this categorisation is quite succinct, it describes the activities performed
rather than focusing on the result of production. Breasted, Egyptian
Servant Statues, 6-106; Tooley, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.
oxfordreference.com>.
9
Introduction
production and preparation, transport, animal husbandry,
and craft production, with a fifth ‘miscellaneous’ category
for those few sculptures that do not easily align with any
particular overarching classification. These designations
focus on the end result of the activities performed by the
three-dimensional figures and consequently convey their
intended benefit for the tomb owner’s afterlife rather than
simply providing a description of the tasks, as is typically
achieved for classifications of daily life wall scenes. This
prevents the assumption that the model repertoire simply
reflects that of the two-dimensional medium.
Initially, fertility figurines, paddle dolls, offering-trays and
soul houses were also collected as these three-dimensional
representations are quite often included among discussions
of funerary models in scholarship.75 However, after a close
analysis of the model repertoire, it was determined that
these sculptural forms constitute a type of representation
distinct from funerary models. All of the themes of
models are concerned with conveying at least one human
figure engaged in activity,76 whereas each of the other
forms does not convey a particular action, but rather
serves a unique purpose among funerary equipment.77
Consequently, figurines that simply depict single animals
were likewise excluded from this study as they do not
convey any interaction or particular activity.78 Rather, only
animals depicted in combination with at least one human
figure have been considered funerary models. Moreover,
fragmentary remains were not examined as they regularly
do not provide sufficient material for comparison and the
original composition can be difficult to identify. Instead,
75
In Tooley’s pioneering dissertation on models, each of these categories
is included in her discussion. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs.
Volume I”, 249-368. Similarly, ‘concubines’ are incorporated into
Breasted’s catalogue of models. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 93-
96.
76
There are, however, a small number of sculptures without human
figures that are still classified as funerary models in this study: a few
granaries and boats exclude human figures, but as they depict places that
involve human activity and form part of categories that regularly portray
human participation, they have still been understood as models.
77
While the term ‘concubine’ has long been used in scholarship to
describe three-dimensional figures of naked women, Pinch has more
recently proposed the designation ‘fertility figurine’ in order to reflect
their purpose more accurately. The figures have a much more prolonged
period of use than funerary models, ranging from the Predynastic
Period to Graeco-Roman times, and they have also been found in non-
funerary contexts. Although much discussion has occurred regarding
their function, Pinch has convincingly argued that they were concerned
with protecting and promoting fertility, a purpose that would have been
significant in both life and afterlife. Pinch, Votive Offerings, 225-26. For
some alternate conclusions see, for example, Hornblower, “Predynastic
figures of women”, JEA 15.1/2, (1929), 29-47; Desroches-Noblecourt,
“Concubines du mort”, BIFAO 53, (1953), 7-47; Ucko, “Prehistoric
anthropomorphic figurines”, JRAI 92.1, (1962), 38-54. Tooley describes
offering-trays as being imitations of the stone altars placed in tomb-
chapels for the presentation of offerings and pouring of libations in
the mortuary cult. She argues that the soul house developed out of the
offering-tray but had the additional function of serving as a substitute
chapel. Both types of sculpture were often placed on the surface of
the grave or beside the mouth of the shaft in the chapel and therefore
were involved in the cult practised by the living. Moreover, examples
have also been found in non-funerary contexts. These sculptural forms
are therefore clearly different in both location and function to funerary
models. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 249-53,
302-03.
78
Miniaci, in Art-facts and Artefacts, 69.
Preparing for Eternity

only complete or almost complete models were collected as the potential risks each tomb owner had to consider in
and assessed. his choice of representation. Finally, the precise purpose of
the funerary model and its relationship to the wall scene is
Subsequently, all wall scenes that exhibit the themes proposed in the conclusion.
represented by models were collected. This process
involved an examination of all published reports of the All artworks examined in this study are compiled in two
three sites, including the initial documentation of the appendices: appendix 1 for funerary models and appendix
Egypt Exploration Fund as well as the records produced 2 for wall scenes, and the representations are referred to by
by current expeditions. Additionally, the author visited the their catalogue number in [ ] throughout the book. In each
sites of Meir and Beni Hassan in order to clarify any minute appendix, the representations are ordered chronologically,
details not clear in the published reports. This thorough but it should be noted that there are many difficulties in
examination enabled all details that have at one time been dating. After careful consideration of any dates previously
preserved to be identified and documented. All two- and proposed in scholarship and the evidence presented for
three-dimensional representations were then organised in a each one, the most likely date has been adopted, with
database according to theme. Line drawings, photographs general dates regularly given. It is beyond the scope of
and facsimiles of the representations were added to the this study to provide revised dates, but any margin of error,
database for examination. if present, should not adversely affect the examination of
chronological trends.
During analysis, one theme was examined at a time, with
each two- and three-dimensional representation studied Throughout this book, the name and tomb number of
in close detail. All of the major and minute features the original owner of each representation is cited where
were documented, including the architectural structures
represented, the specific movements and gestures of the
figures, the objects depicted, the materials utilised, the Theme Number of Number
spatial relationships between the components, and the Funerary of Wall
order of steps portrayed. Observations were also made Models Scenes
about the themes, motifs and details present in one medium
Land preparation 5 12
but excluded from the other. Table 1.1 records the total
numbers of funerary models and wall scenes analysed for Storing grain in granaries 22 8
each theme from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan.
Bread-making 31 8
Although the artworks examined are restricted to those
from the three sites, examples from other cemeteries Brewing beer 24 7
were drawn upon when further comparison was needed.
Hand-feeding cattle 11 1
Additionally, archaeological remains were considered
for interpretation where possible, particularly for the Slaughtering cattle 9 29
architectural structures represented by models.
Cooking meat 5 13
This book is structured according to the revised classification Fishing and fowling 3 28
of themes proposed above for the model repertoire. Only the
Boats 144 12
themes portrayed by both media are discussed in a detailed
comparative analysis, while those specific to a single medium Offering-bearers 31 63
are assessed in chapter 7. One chapter is dedicated to each
theme and divided into sections according to the sub-themes Beasts of burden 5 11
of the category: chapter 2 is devoted to food production and Calving 3 5
preparation, and includes land preparation, storing grain in
granaries, bread-making, brewing beer, hand-feeding cattle, Milking and nursing 3 7
slaughtering cattle, cooking meat, and fishing and fowling; Cattle in procession 5 40
chapter 3 to transport, comprising boats, offering-bearers, and
beasts of burden; chapter 4 to animal husbandry, including Dogs 1 39
calving, milking and nursing, cattle in procession, and dogs; Spinning and weaving 3 4
chapter 5 to craft production, with spinning and weaving,
carpentry, and leatherwork all addressed; and chapter 6 to Carpentry 1 7
miscellaneous themes, which consists of the military and Leatherwork 1 4
foreigners. In each of these chapters, the distinguishing
features of the two- and three-dimensional representations Foreign women 1 4
are identified and discussed. Chapter 7 provides a survey Military 3 4
of all differences observed throughout the comparative
analysis and assesses the additional distinctions of period Table 1.1. Total numbers of representations examined
of use, location in the tomb, repertoire, technical properties, through images from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan
construction, and accessibility between the media as well for each theme.

10
 Introduction

known, but there are a number of instances, especially

for funerary models, where the precise burial was never
documented. At Deir el-Bersha, there are unfortunately
several difficulties in tomb numbering as each expedition
instigated a new system. In order to avoid confusion
in this study, the initial of each leading excavator has
been positioned before the tomb number, i.e. the tomb
numbering system of Newberry is transcribed as N-, that
of Reisner as R-, those of Daressy and Kamal as D- and K-
respectively, and that of the KU Leuven team as L-. For the
numbering of tombs at Beni Hassan, those located in the
Upper Cemetery are designated UC while those positioned
in the Lower Cemetery are labelled LC. At Meir, the tombs
of the nobles are numbered according to Blackman’s A-E
designations. Tomb numbers are all referred to in ( ) after
the name of each tomb owner throughout the book.

* * *

While funerary models and wall scenes do exhibit many

similarities at first glance, studying the representations in
close detail will highlight the major and minute differences
between them. It will convey the unique technical
properties of each medium and how these impacted the
choice of designs as well as which themes and motifs were
considered essential and supplementary to each type of
representation. Such a comparative analysis of the two-
and three-dimensional media has not previously been
undertaken but is essential for accurately determining the
relationship between them and the factors that contributed
to the choice of medium to be included in each tomb. It is
the unique characteristics of the funerary model, which are
identified for the first time in this study, that will convey
whether the three-dimensional medium did indeed have a
distinct role from the wall scene in the tomb.

11
 2
Food Production and Preparation
2.1 Land preparation
The agricultural cycle was an integral part of the ancient
Egyptians’ everyday lives, with a successful harvest
providing the required grain for the two main dietary
staples of bread and beer. It is therefore not surprising to
find elements of the cycle commonly portrayed in both
the two- and three-dimensional media. In Egyptian artistic
representations, the beginning and end of a process were
considered to be of greater significance than the intermediary
tasks.1 Consequently, not every stage of the agricultural
cycle is depicted, but the first stage of preparing the land
for cultivation is particularly prevalent. From Meir, Deir el-
Bersha and Beni Hassan, seven models and 12 wall scenes
have been identified that depict this process.2 The tasks of
ploughing, tilling, sowing and trampling the seed are all
involved, although each representation differs in the quantity
of preparatory activities displayed and their arrangement.
Of the tasks involved in preparing the land, ploughing is
most commonly depicted, being identified in all but one
of the representations examined in this study.3 The plough
was used to break up clods of earth and create furrows into
which the seed was dispersed and may have also helped
cover the seed after it was sown.4 It was attached to two
draught cattle and operated by a ploughman who was
regularly assisted by a driver. The models present the most
condensed form of the motif, with only one ploughing
team represented in each example [M66, M170, M171,
M226; see fig. 2.2], whereas wall scenes exhibit greater
variety in the quantity of teams. The most condensed
two-dimensional illustrations likewise feature a single
ploughing team, as is found in the third register of the
north wall of the tomb of Ipi (481 LC) at Beni Hassan
[S6], but more expansive scenes incorporate several teams.
The largest group examined is found on the west wall
of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan where
the six preserved teams are spread across the north and
south panels [S85-S86]. Significant amount of wall space
was regularly devoted to agricultural activities, enabling
multiple ploughing teams to be easily depicted.
1
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 119; Kanawati,
Tomb and Beyond, 88.
2
Only five of the seven models were available for examination through
images.
3
The exception is found in the model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) from
Meir where a single figure is engaged in tilling [M1; fig. 2.4]. It should
also be noted that in a wall fragment found in association with the tomb
of Nehri I (N-4) at Deir el-Bersha, a single ox is preserved behind a man
operating a hoe, but the fragmentary state of the representation makes it
difficult to determine if the animal is part of a ploughing team or is simply
being encouraged to walk forward by a fieldhand whose preserved arm
rests on its back [S71].
4
Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 158; Siebels, “Agriculture in
Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 44-45.
13
Draught cattle always operate in pairs, but this arrangement
is represented differently by each medium.5 Working
in two-dimensions, scene-artists did not utilise depth
which prevented wall scenes from conveying true spatial
relationships.6 However, side-by-side arrangements could
be suggested through overlapping.7 Draught cattle are
always depicted in this manner with one displayed in full
view and its partner largely obscured behind.8 In order to
distinguish each animal, contrasting colours and patterns
were employed.9 In the fourth register of the north wall
of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir, for example, the ox in
full view is white with large black patches while the one
in partial view is decorated with small red dots on a white
hide [S134; fig. 2.1]. Model-artists, in contrast, had the
advantage of working in three-dimensions which allowed
them to realistically arrange the cattle side-by-side without
hiding any part of the animals’ figures. This also enabled
the cattle to be identically decorated without causing any
confusion between the two. In a model from Meir, the
two cattle are similarly patterned with black dots on a
white hide while standing directly side-by-side [M171].
Although scene-artists utilised different techniques
to overcome the limitations of the two-dimensional
perspective, their arrangement was not as realistic as that
exhibited by models.
While draught cattle are consistently portrayed walking
forward calmly, obediently performing their task, scenes
occasionally depict a contrasting nature. On the north panel
of the west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC), the oxen
forming the lead ploughing team in the eleventh register
display signs of aggression: their heads are lowered and
horns threaten the driver who stands in front in an attempt
to bring them under control while the ploughman turns
from his post to flee in fear [S86].10 Interestingly, the lead
5
While the cattle employed as draught animals were almost always
oxen, a few scenes unusually portray cows in this role. On the west
wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir, four of the five
ploughing teams consist of cows whose udders are on display [S14; fig.
2.3]. None of the funerary models examined specify the genitalia of the
cattle and so the gender of the animals cannot be determined. Siebels,
“Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 59; Lashien, in
Perfection that Endures, 261.
6
Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 77; Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 21.
7
Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 177-79; Robins, Proportion and
Style, 8.
8
In most cases, only the legs, head, horns and front part of the chest are
visible of the animal furthest from view, but occasionally a few additional
details are displayed. On the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3
UC) at Beni Hassan, part of the line of the back and the hanging tail of
the far ox in the pair on the left of the third register are visible [S197;
fig. 2.6]. Similarly, in the team on the right, the belly of the far ox is
on display and the animal raises its head, distinguishing itself from its
partner. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 30.
9
Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 181; Siebels, in Egyptian Art, 56.
10
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, 24.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 2.1. Draught cattle. Tomb of Senbi I (B1). North wall, register 4 [S134]. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume
IV, pl. 32b; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
ploughman and driver in the seventh register of the west
wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan
adopt similar attitudes, but the oxen do not display signs
of aggression [S172]. Although Vandier has suggested that
this team is simply being turned to walk in the opposite
direction in the neighbouring furrow,11 the similarity with
the scene of Baqet III suggests that it likewise captures
a moment of disobedience. Such everyday life episodes
are a common feature of scenes, creating variety among a
recurring theme that would have been seen by visitors to
the tomb.12 Models, on the other hand, apparently prefer
the characteristic attitudes for the cattle and associated
figures, avoiding specific moments from daily life.
It was the role of the ploughman to press down on the
plough and guide the team along the desired path. Wall
scenes exhibit significant variety in the representation of
his posture, particularly in relation to the inclination of his
torso, the spacing of his legs and the positioning of his
arms.13 The middle ploughman in the scene of Amenemhat
(2 UC) is relatively static in his posture with straight legs
11
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 241.
12
An alternate everyday life moment is captured in the scene of
Pepyankh the Middle (D2): in the second register of the west wall, a
calf frolics before its mother who is engaged in ploughing while the rare
motif of a cow turning its head to scratch its muzzle with its hoof appears
on the left [S14; fig. 2.3]. Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, 48-49;
Lashien, Nobles of El-Qusiya, 200.
13
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 44-45.
14
and feet flat on the ground, and as the handles of the plough
are quite high, he only has to lean forward slightly [S172].
The ploughmen on the west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh
the Middle (D2) at Meir, in contrast, exhibit more extreme
gestures with both legs bent in a crouching position, the
back heel raised off the ground and the arms lowered
with elbows slightly bent to grasp the short handles of the
plough [S14; fig. 2.3]. Such variety in attitudes could be
easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface.
Model-artists, on the other hand, encountered greater
difficulty in crafting the intricacies of these postures
in three-dimensions and so their representations of
ploughmen are less diverse. The most strenuous attitude
is adopted by the ploughman in the model of Djehuty-
nakht (R-10A) from Deir el-Bersha who merely leans his
torso forward slightly and lowers his elongated stick-like
arms while stepping forward with both knees moderately
bent [M66; fig. 2.2]. More often, the model ploughmen
stand practically upright with their straight legs together
which seems to be an ineffective position for their role.14 It
therefore seems that the precise gesture of the ploughman
was dependent upon the skill of the individual artist within
the capabilities of his medium.
14
See, for example, a model said to be from Meir where the ploughman
is not strained in his movement but merely stands upright with his arms
hanging by his side and left leg positioned only just in front [M226].

Figure 2.2. Model ploughing team of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M66]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.408.
A driver regularly assists the ploughman by urging the cattle
to move forward.15 His principal tool is the stick which he
either raises above his head or over the back of the animal,
or holds against the rump or at rest by his side.16 On the
south wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan,
each of the four drivers holds his stick in front to either
reside above the cattle or touch its rear [S102]. Instead of a
smooth, straight stick, the drivers hold tree branches with
small twigs protruding at different angles. Additionally,
three of the men hold the animal’s tail with their left hand
to further encourage it to move forward.17 The sticks are
not well-preserved in the models, but the postures of the
15
The driver appears in all ploughing teams examined from Meir,
Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan with two possible exceptions: the only
human figure in a model said to be from Meir is the ploughman, but
Vandier has noted that the baseboard is not original to the model making
it possible that a driver was originally included in the design that has
not been preserved [M226]. Additionally, on the west wall of the tomb
of Baqet III (15 UC), the team on the left of the seventh register of the
south panel has no surviving driver [S85]. This, however, is most likely
a matter of preservation as many details have been lost and there is an
empty space between the oxen and the ploughman where the driver likely
stood originally. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 7;
Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 61-62.
16
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 47-48; Harpur,
Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 161.
17
Klebs, Reliefs und Malereien, 70.
15
Food Production and Preparation
drivers indicate they held them over the back of the cattle
or against the rump [M66, M170, M171; see fig. 2.2]. The
only extant example examined in this study, which is found
in a model from Meir [M170], comprises a long, rounded
piece which would have presumably been easier to carve
in three-dimensions than the thin twigs of the tree branch.18
Moreover, the spare hand of the model driver never holds
the tail of the cattle. As the human and animal figures
were carved as separate pieces and attached individually
to the baseboard, it would have required exceptionally
fine craftsmanship to create a smooth connection between
the two. The three-dimensional medium was hindered in
its ability to incorporate the minute details exhibited in
scenes, but the principal components of the driver’s role
could still be conveyed.
Further differences are noticed in the positioning of
the driver. In scenes, he is characteristically positioned
between the cattle and the ploughman, but is often partially
obscured by the shaft of the plough or more rarely by the
18
The three-dimensional medium had the ability to incorporate a range
of materials in its design, and so it would have been possible to utilise
a real branch for the driver’s stick. Although this is not preserved in the
examples studied, it is possible that it was achieved in the models where
the stick has not survived.
Preparing for Eternity
animals themselves.19 Each driver in the first register
of the east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the
Black (A2) at Meir stands in this position, with two of
them on the far side of the shaft and one in full view on
the near side [S35]. In some rare exceptions, the driver’s
characteristic location is altered, as is found on the west
wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2): the driver
in the second register stands behind the ploughman with
his extended left hand holding a stick, while the teams in
the fourth and fifth registers are led by a second driver who
stands in front of the cattle and guides them with a leash
and likely some fodder [S14; fig. 2.3].20 Models, on the
other hand, had the advantage of a holistic perspective that
enabled the driver to stand in his actual position directly
next to the ploughman without being obscured from view,
as is exhibited by a model from Meir [M170]. The driver
held an important role in the ploughing team which was
encapsulated by both scene- and model-artists according
to the technical capabilities of their medium.
The plough itself is comprised of two handles attached
to a wooden blade with a crosspiece and a long shaft
connected to a yoke tied to the cattle’s horns.21 Although
none of the models examined preserve a complete plough,
the remaining elements still allow for comparison with
wall scenes.22 The yoke is preserved in three of the models
and consists of a simple wooden bar, sometimes decorated
with painted bands indicative of rope, which lies across the
heads of the oxen [M170, M171, M226]. Most wall scenes,
however, exclude this feature,23 probably because it was
difficult to depict in combination with the animal’s profile
perspective. On the north wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1),
the yoke itself is not visible, but the cord attaching it to the
horns is illustrated to imply its presence [S134; fig. 2.1].
Alternatively, the shaft is present in all two-dimensional
ploughing teams, but it regularly disappears from view
behind the cattle to indicate that it passes between the pair.
For it to be fully visible, it needs to pass on the near side
of the animals, as is achieved in the scene of Pepyankh
the Middle (D2) [S14; fig. 2.3], but this presents a less
realistic display. Models, conversely, could maintain the
shaft’s actual position between the cattle while keeping all
elements in view. In a model said to be from Meir, not only
does the shaft assume this position, but the ploughshare is
19
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 46-47; Siebels,
“Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 61.
20
Harpur has alternatively identified these men in the scene of Pepyankh
the Middle (D2) as coaxer-sowers. Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian
Tombs, 160-61.
21
Donatelli, in Egyptian Civilization, 166; Siebels, in Behind the Scenes,
77.
22
An excellently preserved example, however, may be found in a
ploughing model with unknown provenance now housed in the British
Museum, London: EA 51090. The plough is formed of a curved wooden
blade with two distinct handles that bend backwards into the hands of
the ploughman. The original binding is preserved which secures the
ploughshare to the shaft with a notch preventing it from slipping. More
binding is wrapped around the yoke which lies across the heads of the
animals, just behind the horns. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, pl.
3b.
23
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 30-31.
16
also preserved [M226].24 This component is quite basic in
its rendering, comprising a curved wooden blade separating
into two handles at one end. Wall scenes could also be
quite simple in their composition of the ploughshare, but
some examples are more intricate. That in the scene of
Senbi I (B1) is particularly detailed, comprising a curved
tapering blade connected to the shaft with a dowel and
secured with several lines of rope that are kept in place by
a small protrusion [S134]. Scene-artists could more easily
incorporate such minute details into their compositions,
whereas model-artists typically created less detailed
designs but could encapsulate a holistic perspective.
An additional process involved in preparing the land for
cultivation is tilling which is likewise represented by both
the two- and three-dimensional media, although it does
not appear as frequently. Like ploughing, the hoe was
used to prepare the land prior to sowing, to break up clods
of earth and to cover the seed, although its less common
representation suggests it was not always a necessary
process.25 However, Moreno Garcia has observed that
ploughing would have been reserved for great institutions
and wealthy landlords, so the more common representation
of the plough should not be understood as an indication that
it was more frequently employed in everyday agriculture,
but that it was portrayed by tomb owners as a symbol
of prestige.26 One model and six wall scenes have been
identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan to
represent tilling. Typically, only a single figure is engaged
in this task, although in the third register of the west wall
of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan there
are three tillers: the men closely overlap and lean forward
at different angles so that each may be individually
identified [S197; fig. 2.6].27 The hoe is similar in design
to the plough with both tools consisting of a curved blade
set into a wooden shaft and secured by a cord, although in
the case of the hoe, the blade is longer than the shaft.28 In
both the two- and three-dimensional representations, the
tiller characteristically angles the hoe down to the ground,
about to strike, as can be seen on the east wall of the tomb
of Djehuty-nakht (N-1) at Deir el-Bersha [S149] and in the
tilling model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) from Meir [M1;
fig. 2.4].
24
The ploughshare is preserved in only one other model examined in
this study, namely that from a tomb at Meir [M171]. This tool comprises
a roughly triangular piece inserted into the baseboard with a U-shaped
top to support the shaft.
25
Murray, in Materials and Technology, 517; Siebels, “Agriculture in
Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 70.
26
Moreno Garcia notes that the use of the plough was not necessary in
the domestic agriculture of the ordinary population due to the conditions
of the valley land following the recession of the flood. Rather, it would
have been required on higher ground where the effects of the flood
were more limited. The possession and maintenance of a pair of oxen to
operate the plough would have also involved significant financial costs,
which would have only been achievable for the wealthy. Moreno Garcia,
“L’emploi de l’araire”, GRAFMA 9-10, (2008), 57-60; Moreno Garcia, in
Companion to Ancient Agriculture, 182-83.
27
Presumably, the men should be understood as operating in
neighbouring furrows.
28
Strouhal, Life, 95-96; Brewer, Redford & Redford, Domestic Plants
and Animals, 19.
 Food Production and Preparation

Figure 2.3. Five ploughing teams and one sower. Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2). West wall, south panel, right, registers
2-5 [S14]. Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pl. 84 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

However, the model tiller exhibits a number of features that

are not paralleled in tilling wall scenes. The man’s limbs
are quite elongated and his skin is fairly dark, causing
Tiradritti to suggest that the model-artist has captured
the tiller at work in the middle of the day when the haze
of the heat elongated his image.29 This interpretation,
however, seems unlikely as not only are darker skin tones
and disproportionate features common for model figures,
but Egyptian art was more concerned with conveying an
object in its most recognisable form rather than how it
might appear at a particular moment in time.30 Tiradritti
has further suggested that the termination of the tiller’s
legs at the ankles indicates that he walks in soft alluvial
mud.31 While the grey paint around the man’s ankles on the
baseboard may support this, it should be noted that such
termination is common in models and was the result of the
construction method of securing figures to the baseboard.

Figure 2.4. Model tiller of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) [M1].
Drawing by the author.
29
Tiradritti, in Egyptian Treasures, 103; Tiradritti, Egyptian Wall
Painting, 125.
30
Robins, Proportion and Style, 3; Kanawati & Woods, Artists in the
Old Kingdom, 29-30.
31
Tiradritti, in Egyptian Treasures, 103; Tiradritti, Egyptian Wall
Painting, 125. Prior to Tiradritti’s publication, Borchardt and Breasted
suggested this same interpretation as a possibility. Borchardt, Statuen
und Statuetten, 161; Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 6.

17
Preparing for Eternity
While feet were sometimes later added in plaster or
paint, they were regularly excluded from the designs.32
Indeed, in models where it is certain that the figures stand
on solid ground, the feet are still regularly excluded.33
A similar suggestion has been made for the ploughman
and driver whose legs likewise terminate at the ankles
in the ploughing model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A),34 but
this interpretation seems impossible as the heavier cattle
should also have sunk into the mud, yet their hooves fully
reside on top of the baseboard [M66; fig. 2.2].35 All of the
figures associated with land preparation in wall scenes
are represented with their feet on the baseline, further
supporting the attribution of the lack of feet in models to
a construction technique. Consequently, this variation in
representation reflects the contrasting processes involved
in the creation of each medium and how they could impact
the final design.
Sowing seed was another important task in land preparation
and the sower regularly appears in wall scenes in association
with ploughing teams. He is characteristically displayed
with one arm upraised with a stream of seed falling to the
ground and the other arm supporting the basket of seed
which may be slung over the shoulder, from the crook
of the elbow or the hand, or cradled in the arm against
the chest.36 The cascading seed is either represented as a
single line of small circles descending to the ground in
front of the sower, as is found in the scene of Pepyankh
the Black (A2) [S35], or as a thick stream of seed with the
individual grains still distinguished, as is displayed on the
east wall of the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (N-1) [S149].37 The
number of sowers in each scene, however, regularly does
not correlate with the quantity of ploughing teams. On
the west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2),
a single sower appears alongside the five ploughing teams
spread over four registers [S14; fig. 2.3]. Although Vandier
has noted that one sower could service two ploughing
32
Winlock, Models of Daily Life, 74; Tooley, Egyptian Models and
Scenes, 64.
33
In model boats, the figures stand on a solid wooden deck, but their legs
regularly terminate at the ankles without any addition of feet. See, for
example, the figures on board a boat from tomb 203 LC at Beni Hassan
[M58], a sailing boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M106], and the sailing
boat from the tomb of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) at Beni Hassan [M220].
34
Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 161-62.
35
In relation to another ploughing model with a similar portrayal of the
feet and hooves, Arnold has suggested that the ploughman should be
understood as walking in soft mud while the cattle stand on drier ground,
but this, too, seems impossible as the man and beasts walk close together
in the same terrain. Arnold, “Egyptian bestiary”, MMAB 52.4, (1995), 51.
36
The sower leading the ploughing team on the north wall of the tomb
of Ipi (481 LC) cradles a small container of seed in his left hand against
his chest [S6]. On the north panel of the west wall of the tomb of Baqet
III (15 UC), the sower instead holds the small basket by its strap in his
left hand [S86]. Alternatively, the two sowers in the scene of Pepyankh
the Black (A2) each suspend their basket from the crook of their elbow
[S35]. The strap could also hang over the sower’s shoulder, as is exhibited
in the seventh register of the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC)
[S172]. Siebels, in Egyptian Art, 56.
37
The stream is also coloured yellow to reflect the real-life hue of the
grain. The scenes on the east wall have suffered significant damage, but
Newberry and Griffith’s documentation suggests that these agricultural
vignettes formed the second to fourth registers. Newberry & Griffith, El
Bersheh. Part II, 20-21.
18
teams simultaneously,38 there is still an insufficient number
of sowers for such a large representation. The scene-artist
must have been content to condense this motif in his
design. Only occasionally is the sower excluded from the
two-dimensional illustrations and in these instances, it
must be assumed that the seed has already been scattered.39
No sower is incorporated into the land preparation scene
displayed on the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep
II (3 UC), but the task of sowing is implied through the
presence of a basket of seed and a measuring bucket in
front of the tillers [S197; fig. 2.6].40
In models, on the other hand, the sowing motif is entirely
excluded from the repertoire. Not only are there no sowers
depicted, but there are no baskets of seed to imply the
completion of the task. Although it has been suggested
that the figure accompanying the ploughman in the model
of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) is a sower,41 this designation
seems unlikely [M66; fig. 2.2]. Not only does he stand
alongside the ploughman in the position of the driver, but
his right arm is extended in front presumably holding a
stick instead of being upraised as would be expected for a
sower.42 It is probable that a major reason for the absence
of this motif among models is the technical difficulty of
fashioning it in three-dimensions. The most characteristic
element of the sowing motif is falling seed. This could
be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface,
but the falling motion could not be captured by the three-
dimensional medium. Instead, it seems that for models,
the ploughing team sufficed to convey the tasks of both
ploughing and sowing.
The seed needed to be covered after sowing and this
could be achieved by a flock of sheep which trampled it
into the ground. This motif has only been identified in
one scene from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan,
namely that on the east wall of the inner room of the
tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha [S205;
fig. 2.5]. This scene is the latest surviving example in all
of Egypt, with the motif more commonly known from
Memphite tombs of the Old Kingdom.43 Djehuty-hotep
in fact presents a strong link to the traditions of the Old
Kingdom in his tomb’s iconographic themes and layout,
38
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 13-14.
39
Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 161.
40
Hudáková has suggested that the basket could also represent the tasks
of recording, measuring or distributing the seed. This motif is elaborated
in the scene of Djehuty-nakht (N-1) where the remains of two figures
who record the quantities of seed stand either side of two large baskets
on the right of the second register of the east wall [S149]. Hudáková, in
Art of Describing, 186.
41
Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 162. Similarly, Taylor states
that ploughing models sometimes include a figure scattering seed, but he
does not provide any examples. Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 100.
42
The hand of his extended arm is damaged so it cannot be certain
if he originally held a stick, but its orientation towards the rear of the
oxen makes this highly likely. However, his left arm is bent sharply at
the elbow with his hand cupped near the shoulder which is an unusual
attitude for a driver. It is possible that he had a basket slung from this
hand which could be symbolic of the role of a sower, but his primary
function seems to be that of a driver.
43
Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 93,
101.

more so than most other Middle Kingdom tombs.44 In his
trampling scene, a coaxer-sower leads the overlapping
flock in the first register by enticing them with some food
in his lowered hand, while three shepherds accompany
the group with whips, sticks and the so-called ‘shepherd’s
implement’ to urge the animals forward.45 Both tilling and
ploughing are also illustrated in the register, presenting
an expansive representation of the land preparation
process. The rarity of the trampling scene in the provinces
may reflect regional differences in artistic design and/
or agricultural practices.46 As the production of wooden
models was largely concentrated in the provincial areas
of the Middle Kingdom, it is therefore not surprising that
the supplementary motif of trampling is completely absent
from the three-dimensional repertoire.
Textual captions regularly accompany scenes of land
preparation, providing further insight into the specific
figures involved, the nature of the activities taking place
and the dialogue of the workers. Several labels are
incorporated into the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC):
the action of the three tillers is described as skA m Hnn
‘cultivating with the hoe’, the driver of the first ploughing
team commands the animals to mj wr ‘come well’, and
the two officials on the right are identified as jmj-r pr n
sxt NTr-nxt(.w) ‘the overseer of the house of the fields,
Netjernakht’ and jmj-r mSa 3nmw-Htp(.w) sA Nfr ‘the
overseer of the army/expedition, Khnumhotep’s son,
Nofer’ [S197; fig. 2.6].47 Such captions could be easily
integrated into the image itself, forming part of the
composition. In contrast, text rarely features in the three-
dimensional medium with no examples known from the
theme of land preparation. While labels could technically
be inscribed on the bases of the models, they could not be
integrated into the representations in the same way that
44
Scene-artists of the Middle Kingdom drew inspiration from the Old
Kingdom Memphite style while also reinterpreting certain themes and
motifs. This was especially significant during a period of unification
and consolidation after the division of the First Intermediate Period,
and therefore both archaism and innovation are defining characteristics
of the period. In the decorative scheme of the tomb-chapel of Djehuty-
hotep (N-2), several iconographic elements of the Old Kingdom are
reinterpreted while simultaneously introducing new features. Some of
the tomb’s motifs are especially based on the Old Kingdom repertoire,
including the scene of force-feeding cranes on the north wall of the inner
room which was a motif commonly found in the Old Kingdom but only
rarely attested in the Middle Kingdom. Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I,
pl. 22. Other themes adopt very traditional images while reinterpreting
them with new details and innovative variations. The scenes of the tomb
owner fishing and fowling are positioned in the traditional location on
either side of the entrance leading to the inner room of the tomb, but a
minute variation is found in the representation of the woman standing
in front of him in each boat: unlike the earlier tradition, each woman is
equipped with a spear and throwstick. Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pls.
8-9; Silverman, Simpson & Wegner, in Archaism and Innovation, ix-xiii;
De Meyer, et al., “Fowl for the governor. Part 2”, JEA 100, (2014), 79-80;
Pieke, in Change and Innovation, 95-103.
45
This scene reveals the shepherd’s implement to be a type of whip
consisting of several long leather strips which were looped around the
shepherd’s hand when not in use. Siebels, in Egyptian Art, 57.
46
Although the trampling motif was regularly omitted from
representations, this does not necessarily mean that the practice did not
occur during life. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI,
37-38; Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”,
51; Swinton, Management of Estates, 139.
47
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 37.
19
Food Production and Preparation
was achieved in wall scenes. Consequently, the details of
each process are only conveyed graphically in the three-
dimensional medium.
All wall scenes of land preparation examined from Meir,
Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan include more than one of
the preliminary tasks, although the order of activities is
often difficult to determine. Each scene presents a unique
arrangement of the motifs, with several inconsistences
between them.48 For example, on the south wall of
the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan, the sower
walks in front of the ploughing team [S57],49 whereas
on the north panel of the west wall of the tomb of Baqet
III (15 UC), the sower appears behind the ploughman
[S86]. These contrasting arrangements could either
represent different agricultural practices or alternate
artistic designs.50 Moreover, with the restrictions of the
two-dimensional perspective, the activities are arranged
in single file with limited or no separation, giving the
impression that each process occurred consecutively
along a single furrow.51 On the west wall of the tomb of
Amenemhat (2 UC), for example, three ploughing teams
appear, with a sower between the first and second, and
a tiller preceding the third [S172]. It is highly unlikely
that all three groups worked along the same course, but
rather that they operated simultaneously side-by-side in
neighbouring furrows.52 Model-artists were not restricted
by this same technical limitation as they worked in a three-
dimensional perspective, but interestingly each example
that depicts land preparation only portrays a single task. In
the three-dimensional repertoire, the theme is particularly
condensed and does not occupy the same amount of space
as is regularly found in wall scenes.
The preparation of land for cultivation forms a vital
component of the agricultural cycle and its importance as
the first stage in the process resulted in its representation
by both the two- and three-dimensional media. Minute
differences are noticeable between the designs which
largely result from the unique technical properties of each
medium. However, models are certainly more condensed
in their representations, portraying a smaller number of
activities. The task of ploughing dominates this theme in
the three-dimensional repertoire and may be understood
as symbolic of the entire process. Scenes likewise
48
Vandier in fact has identified 22 different arrangements of land
preparation activities in scenes of the Old Kingdom. Vandier, Manuel
d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 12-28.
49
This wall has incurred significant damage which has caused some of
the figures engaged in land preparation to be lost. On the left of the fifth
register is a single ploughing team preceded by a man carrying a small
container, likely containing seed. The section before him is lost, but it
is possible that he carries reserve seed to be used by a sower walking
in front, as is found on the north wall of the tomb of Ipi (481 LC) [S6].
50
It should also be considered that in reality, the order of processes
would most likely have varied according to the condition of the terrain.
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 5-6; Murray, in
Materials and Technology, 517.
51
Montet, Scènes de la vie privée, 184-85; Siebels, “Agriculture in Old
Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 44.
52
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 238; Siebels,
“Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 44.
Preparing for Eternity

Figure 2.5. A flock of sheep trampling seed into the ground with three shepherds urging the animals forward. Tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2). East wall of inner room, register 1 [S205].
Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pl. 25 [detail]; courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society.

Figure 2.6. Two ploughing teams and three tillers. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, north panel, register 3 [S197]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 118 [detail];
courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

20

prominently feature ploughing, but as they regularly
dedicate large sections of wall space to the agricultural
cycle, they could create more expansive representations
which included the additional processes of tilling, sowing
and trampling.
2.2 Storing grain in granaries
Although not every stage of the agricultural cycle is
represented by both the two- and three-dimensional
media, the final task of storing grain in granaries holds
an important role in both repertoires as it forms the
culmination of the entire process. Grain not only provided
the basis of the ancient Egyptian diet, but it functioned as
a form of insurance, with additional grain kept in reserve
for times of poor harvest and for the next season’s crops.53
In the context of the tomb, the granary symbolised the
tomb owner’s wealth during life and provided continual
sustenance for him in the afterlife. Although the theme
occurs in both media, a significant difference in quantity
is noticeable, with 22 models and eight wall scenes
examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan.54
Grain storage is by far the most common agricultural
motif in the model corpus and in fact comprises one of the
most popular themes of the entire model repertoire. The
two- and three-dimensional representations of the granary
largely feature the same principal components of the silos,
courtyard, labourers and officials, but several differences
are noticeable that may be chiefly attributed to the unique
technical properties of each medium.
While most themes appear first in wall scenes, the granary
unusually occurs first in the three-dimensional medium.
The earliest known examples date to the 1st Dynasty
and comprise cylindrical pottery silos from Abydos.55
However, the granary is rarely encountered among the stone
statuettes of the Old Kingdom and only became popular in
the First Intermediate Period when the sculptures began
to be fashioned of wood. Peak production was reached
during the early Middle Kingdom when model granaries
were dominant among funerary assemblages and in fact
all examples collected in this study date to the early
11th Dynasty or later.56 In contrast, scenes of granaries
only first appeared in the mid-5th Dynasty, but became
increasingly common during the late Old Kingdom. Unlike
models, the theme is only occasionally attested in scenes
53
Siebels, in Egyptian Art, 63; Katary, in Egyptian World, 188.
54
There are, unfortunately, only a small number of complete model
granaries preserved, but the presence of the fragmentary components
of staircases and labourers carrying sacks of grain attest to the theme’s
widespread use. The 22 models examined comprise those that are still
relatively intact and have available images, but the original corpus was
presumably much larger. It should be noted that the images examined are
sometimes restricted in the perspectives offered, with the exterior walls
of the structures occasionally concealing some of the details housed
within. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 102.
55
See, for example, those housed in the Petrie Museum of Egyptian
Archaeology, University College London: UC 36721a-b, UC 36623.
Waki, “Storage”, GM 190, (2002), 106; Bardoňová, “Grain Storage”,
152.
56
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 122;
Bardoňová, “Grain Storage”, 204-05.
21
Food Production and Preparation
of First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom chapels,
but interestingly, is more commonly found painted on
wooden coffins during this time.57 Grain storage should
be understood as one of the essential themes of the Middle
Kingdom model repertoire, but it does not seem to have
held this same status in the two-dimensional medium.
The theme also appears to have held a different level of
importance at each of the three sites examined. The granary
is especially popular at Beni Hassan, with five of the eight
wall scenes and 14 of the 22 models examined originating
from the site. This emphasis on food storage may reflect
the agricultural wealth of the province and/or a regional
preference for the theme.58 Although both scenes and
models of granaries are known from Meir, there is a much
smaller quantity of examples. The three Old Kingdom
scenes examined all derive from the site and are confined
to the walls of burial chambers.59 In the tomb of Pepyankh
the Middle (D2), for example, the storage of grain is
reserved for the substructure while all other stages of the
agricultural cycle are illustrated in the chapel [S17].60
Unusually, no scenes of granaries are known from Deir el-
Bersha, although models are known in reasonable quantity,
with seven examined in this study.61 Even in the highly-
decorated chapel of the governor Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at
Deir el-Bersha, no scenes of granaries are represented, but
fragments of models from the burial indicate that at least
one model granary was originally interred.62 It seems that
at Meir and Deir el-Bersha there was a preference for the
theme to be depicted in the substructure, with the model
typically forming the favoured medium for this space.63
57
Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 220; Bardoňová, “Grain
Storage”, 158. Granaries appear in coffin decoration from the end of the
Old Kingdom onwards. These illustrations have not been examined in
this study as they comprise a type of representation distinct from wall
scenes and funerary models. Bardoňová, in Perfection that Endures, 53;
Kanawati & Swinton, Egypt in the Sixth Dynasty, 195-96.
58
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 102; Kanawati
& Woods, Beni Hassan, 74.
59
Only one model granary from Meir could be examined through
images in this study, although at least six others were identified. A fourth
scene from the site was also found, namely on the east wall of the burial
chamber of Pepyankh the Black (A2), but the wall is poorly preserved
with only traces of a granary remaining. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
of Meir. Volume II, 62.
60
In the chapel, the agricultural scenes are displayed on the west wall
and are divided into two panels. Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part IV,
pl. 14; Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pl. 84.
61
While most model owners only housed a single granary in their
burials, the governor Djehuty-nakht and his wife (R-10A) from Deir el-
Bersha unusually interred at least eight of these structures in their joint
tomb. Most of these have only survived in fragments, but four are still
relatively intact [M67-M70]. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A,
162.
62
Fourteen model figures were uncovered in a dump outside the tomb,
with the material originating from Djehuty-hotep’s shaft. At least two of
these figures derive from a model granary, each of which comprises a
man carrying a sack of grain on his shoulder. Willems, et al., “Preliminary
report of the 2003 campaign”, MDAIK 62, (2006), 309, 314.
63
A similar situation is witnessed at Saqqara where numerous 6th
Dynasty tomb owners chose to depict granaries on the walls of their
burial chambers. In the tomb-chapel of Ankhmahor, agricultural
activities are displayed on the east wall of room 1 except for the grain
storage theme which is reserved for the burial chamber. Alternatively, the
tomb-chapel of Khentika features all of the agricultural processes, but
granaries alone are repeated in the burial chamber. This again highlights
the subterranean location for the grain storage theme. James, Khentika,
Preparing for Eternity
Moreover, with the common depiction of the theme
on coffins, it was clearly important for granaries to be
closely connected to the deceased himself. Grain was one
of the most essential commodities for the tomb owner’s
eternal sustenance and the popularity of the granary in
substructures reflects its highly important contribution to
the continual nourishment of the deceased in the afterlife.
In both the two- and three-dimensional representations of
the granary, the architectural structure comprises one of
the essential elements, but its appearance within the model
corpus is especially striking. Aside from representations
of granaries, architectural frameworks are rare among
models, with figures and objects instead typically arranged
on simple baseboards without any defined enclosures.64
In the granary theme, though, it forms a vital component
in conveying a successful storage facility. The typical
wooden model granary comprises a rectangular or
square baseboard with exterior walls that meet at peaked
corners.65 The walls may gently rise to low peaks, as is
found in a model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) from Deir
el-Bersha [M67; fig. 2.7], or the corners may be carved
as sharp peaks, as is exhibited by the granary of Nefwa
(186 LC) from Beni Hassan [M186]. As the structures
are not enclosed by a roof, it is possible that the peaked
corners are a means to convey the domed roof of real-life
granaries while enabling the interior to remain visible.66
The exterior walls almost always form the boundary of the
model, but in an unusual example from Deir el-Bersha,
the structure is positioned on a larger baseboard, creating
a small space outside the entry for additional labourers to
work [M259]. Access to the interior of a model granary
is granted by an entry door which is usually painted onto
one wall,67 but could alternatively be carved as a separate,
functioning piece and attached with a hinge, as is exhibited
in the model of Intef (1 LC) from Beni Hassan [M36].
The holistic perspective of the three-dimensional medium
enables all four sides of the architectural structure to be on
display and for functioning components such as the door
to be employed.
As scene-artists were limited in the range of perspectives
they could portray, only certain aspects of the granary’s
architectural structure could be included in their designs.
The most important part of the granary was the silos and
pls. 9, 34; Kanawati & Hassan, Teti Cemetery at Saqqara. Volume II, pls.
37a, 63; Kanawati & Swinton, Egypt in the Sixth Dynasty, 195.
64
Arnold, in Structure and Significance, 26; Adams, in Archaeology and
Art. Volume I, 16.
65
Arnold, in Structure and Significance, 27-28; Kroenke, “Provincial
Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 203. Only rarely do model granaries not
exhibit peaked corners, with one such example found in the model of
Sepi III (K-14 south) from Deir el-Bersha [M278].
66
The peaked corners also appear in the determinative for the term
Snwt ‘granary’. It should be noted, however, that the upper sections of
walls are rarely, if ever, preserved in an archaeological context, and so
a comparison between the peaked corners in models and the real-life
structures is impossible to conduct. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial
Customs. Volume I”, 89; Arnold, in Structure and Significance, 27-28;
Barker, “Funerary models and wall scenes”, GM 254, (2018), 11.
67
See, for example, the granary from tomb 394 LC at Beni Hassan
where the yellow-painted door is outlined in a red band and positioned
above a white-painted rectangular platform [M61].
22
consequently the interior of the granary complex was the
preferred viewpoint for the two-dimensional medium.
However, individual components are occasionally
incorporated that suggest the presence of the exterior
structure. This is especially noticeable in the representation
of the granary displayed on the south wall of the tomb
of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan [S101; fig. 2.8]. Here,
the granary scene is outlined in a yellow border that
rises to two peaks along its upper edge, reminiscent of
the peaked corners characteristic of wooden models.68
This may be an attempt by the scene-artist to indicate a
larger architectural setting for the silos depicted in the
two sub-registers within. Additionally, a red doorway
is painted at the bottom left corner of the scene which
probably symbolises the entry door giving access to the
granary’s interior.69 These features enable the scene-artist
to create a basic framework for his design, but he could
not incorporate both the external and internal viewpoints
of the granary in the realistic fashion presented in models.
The interior of the granary complex is formed of two major
components which feature prominently in both the two-
and three-dimensional representations: the silos that store
the grain and the courtyard in which the labourers work. In
models, these two features are usually organised in one of
two arrangements: a single row of silos on the far side of
the courtyard, as is found in a model of Khnum-nekhti and
Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) from Beni Hassan [M208], or two
rows of chambers flanking the court, as is exhibited by the
granary of Nefery (116 LC) from Beni Hassan [M177].70
Scene-artists, on the other hand, could not maintain either
of these arrangements while keeping all components in
view and subsequently had to find ways to overcome this
limitation. One of the ways in which this was achieved
was through using superimposed registers. On the west
pilaster of the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I
(14 UC) at Beni Hassan, the single row of silos in the third
register should presumably be understood as residing on
the far side of the courtyard depicted directly below in the
fourth register [S113]. Alternatively, the two components
could be shown in profile directly next to each other, as is
found in the first register of the west wall of the tomb of
Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan [S195; fig. 2.9].
In the scene of Khety (17 UC), conversely, the action in
the courtyard is unusually separated into a box positioned
in the top left corner of the structure which presumably
indicates it is actually located between the two rows of
silos depicted to the right [S101; fig. 2.8]. Although each
of these methods enabled both the silos and courtyard to
be individually defined in scenes, the realistic arrangement
exhibited by models could not be captured.
As the storage facility of the grain, the silos are of crucial
importance and both media depict the same two types
68
Bardoňová, “Grain Storage”, cat. ICN 51.
69
A similar entry is found on the right of the granary displayed in the
third register of the west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni
Hassan [S84]. This scene, however, is poorly preserved with most of the
details of the architectural structure no longer visible.
70
Adams, in Archaeology and Art. Volume I, 5.
 Food Production and Preparation

Figure 2.7. Model granary of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), with the exterior walls gently rising to low peaked corners [M67].
Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.409.

Figure 2.8. Granary with two rows of silos and a courtyard. Tomb of Khety (17 UC). South wall, west panel, lower section, right,
register 1 [S101]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 109 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

23
Preparing for Eternity
of structure: domed silos and flat-roofed silos.71 During
the Old Kingdom, the domed silo was the favoured type
in wall scenes, with the chambers typically elevated on
a platform which would protect the contents from the
damaging effects of the inundation.72 On the south wall
of the burial chamber of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at
Meir, six such chambers are arranged in a single row with
a slight gap between each one [S17]. The flat roof, on the
other hand, appears in scenes of the Middle Kingdom and
it simultaneously functions as a terrace upon which the
labourers traverse to deposit the grain.73 In the scene of
Khnumhotep II (3 UC), the four silos are depicted as a
single rectangular structure, the roof of which is accessed
by a staircase forming the left-hand wall [S195; fig. 2.9].
Models, in contrast, favour the flat roof for their
representations. Only one example of domed silos was
examined in this study, and this is found in a pottery model
from Beni Hassan [M292]. In this model, four of originally
six spherical silos are placed within a square courtyard
surrounded by an enclosure wall.74 The wooden models,
on the other hand, exclusively portray rectangular silos
which are either uncovered or enclosed by a flat roof.75
In one of the models of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti
(585 LC), the silos remain open except for a small plank
that covers one chamber to act as a platform for the scribe
to sit upon [M207].76 Alternatively, the silos in the granary
of Nefery (116 LC) are enclosed by a flat roof which is
accessed by a staircase, although this surprisingly only
leads to one side [M177].77 While model-artists’ preference
71
It has been suggested that flat-roofed silos illustrate the storage
facilities of large estates while domed structures were maintained for
domestic storage. Badawy, History of Egyptian Architecture, 32-33;
Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 41; Adams in Archaeology and
Art. Volume I, 14; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”,
206. Surprisingly, the model granaries of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) do
not feature any silos but are especially simple in design with a square
courtyard merely enclosed by exterior walls [M67-M70; see fig. 2.7].
72
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 198-99; Siebels,
“Representations of granaries”, BACE 12, (2001), 85.
73
Flat-roofed silos are particularly common in scenes at Beni Hassan
so they are not as popular for the two-dimensional medium as the
corpus examined in this study suggests. Badawy, History of Egyptian
Architecture, 33; Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 39.
74
Individual pottery silos found in some Upper Egyptian tombs should
be considered alongside this model. These sculptures comprise individual
wheel-thrown vessels that have been turned upside down with the mouth
closed off, sometimes with a lid, which Tooley has identified as grain
silos. Tooley “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 118-22.
75
An interesting example for comparison is found in a wooden model
granary of unknown provenance today housed in the Egyptian Museum,
Cairo: JE 28839. While the architectural structure itself is rectangular,
the silos, which are painted on the exterior walls, have been indicated
as domed structures. In fact, they bare close resemblance to the silos
displayed on the walls of the burial chambers of Pepyankh the Middle
(D2) [S17], his wife Hewetiaah [S18; fig. 2.13] and Niankh-pepy-kem
[S26] at Meir.
76
As uncovered silos seem impractical for protecting grain from rodents,
insects, dust, debris and occasional rain, Adams has convincingly
suggested that they may have functioned as an artistic device that
allowed the contents to remain visible rather than reflecting real-life
storage facilities. Adams, in Archaeology and Art. Volume I, 5; Kroenke,
“Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 204-05, 208.
77
It is expected that two staircases would be incorporated so that one
could lead to the roof of each row of silos, but surprisingly this is never
the case. One must have been considered sufficient to indicate roof-top
access. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 226.
24
for the flat-roofed silo may reflect a chronological
development in design,78 it may also result from an easier
method of construction: not only are rectangular shapes
less demanding to carve in wood than domed structures,
but the flat surfaces of the courtyard, stairs and terrace
provide ample space to position all of the necessary human
figures.79 Although both media depict the same two types
of silos, it seems that scene- and model-artists selected the
design that was most suitable for their medium.
Each silo required two different openings: a rectangular
aperture in the side wall for withdrawing the contents,
and a hole in the roof through which the grain could be
deposited. Wall scenes, however, only depict the side
aperture as they are restricted in portraying the silo from
a profile perspective. In the scene of Khnumhotep II (3
UC), the four silos are distinguished by rectangular
apertures painted about halfway up the side wall [S195;
fig. 2.9]. The openings in the roof can only be assumed
by the presence of labourers walking up the stairs to the
terrace where they will presumably pour the contents of
their sacks into the silos. In contrast, model-artists could
accurately depict both openings due to their advantage
of working in three-dimensions. For silos covered by flat
roofs, small circular holes are consistently carved into the
terrace with one above each chamber, as is found in the
model of Khety (366 LC) from Beni Hassan [M194; fig.
2.11]. The rectangular apertures are usually simply painted
on the side wall,80 but are sometimes elevated in raised
relief.81 Occasionally, a hole is carved in the wall that
remains open for the grain to continually issue through,
as is found in the model of Khety-aa (575 LC) from
Beni Hassan [M200]. The apertures could be particularly
detailed, like those in a model from Meir which are carved
as separate pieces that could seemingly be slid in and out
of position to allow the grain to flow out of the chambers
only when required [M287]. Model-artists could therefore
present a holistic depiction of the structure, incorporating
the features of both the roof and side walls in a realistic
fashion, whereas scene-artists were required to select the
most characteristic viewpoint of the silos, resulting in the
exclusion of the top-down perspective.
The grain itself, which is stored within the silos, is also
represented differently by each medium. Notably, model-
artists had the unique advantage of incorporating real
materials into their designs, allowing them to store actual
grain within their granaries. Six models were identified in
this study to preserve real seed, although it is probable that
more models originally included the substance as loose
grain could be easily lost or destroyed [M177, M200,
78
The flat roof appears at a similar time in each medium, namely during
the Middle Kingdom for scenes and the First Intermediate Period for
models. Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 36-39.
79
Arnold, in Structure and Significance, 60; Kroenke, “Provincial
Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 208.
80
See, for example, the granary of Intef (1 LC) where the openings are
defined by red-painted lines [M36].
81
In the model of Nefery (166 LC), for example, the three apertures in
each side wall are carved in raised relief and outlined in red paint on a
white background [M177].

Figure 2.9. Granary with four silos shown in profile and a staircase providing access to the roof. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3
UC). West wall, north panel, register 1 [S195]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 117 [detail]; courtesy of the
Australian Centre for Egyptology.
M208, M217, M284, M287].82 In the model of Ma (500
LC) from Beni Hassan, grain is visible in each of the
four open-topped silos [M284; fig. 2.12], whereas in the
model of Nefery (116 LC), the cereal covers the floor of
the courtyard as the chambers are closed [M177]. Scene-
artists, on the other hand, were restricted to illustrating the
grain as they could not incorporate real materials. A simple
yellow mound was usually drawn to imitate the substance,
as is found on the right of the courtyard in the granary
displayed in the sixth register of the north wall of the tomb
of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan [S156; fig. 2.10],
although occasionally the individual granules are specified
within the pile by small circles, as is found in the scene of
Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S195; fig. 2.9].83 With the use of
real grain, model granaries not only artistically symbolised
an abundant supply of nourishment, but also provided the
actual foodstuff for consumption.
Alternatively, the contents of the silos could be specified by
an accompanying label, and unusually, this is a technique
used by both scene- and model-artists. Granaries are one
of the rare themes in which inscriptions appear in the
three-dimensional medium. Hieratic dockets presumably
specifying the type and/or quantity of grain stored
within the silos are occasionally painted on the walls of
the model structures, as is found in that of Sobek-hotepi
(723 LC) from Beni Hassan [M217].84 Accompanying
inscriptions are not particularly common in granary
wall scenes, resulting in the contents of silos regularly
remaining unspecified, but some scenes of the Old
Kingdom include an identifying label either on the face
of the silo or alongside the structure.85 No examples were
82
Kroenke has recognised at least 10 model granaries from across
Egypt that still contain real grain, although notes that only two of these
substances have been properly identified through scientific analysis.
Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 206.
83
Such artistic representations, however, are unable to provide a clear
distinction between the different types of grain. Murray, in Materials and
Technology, 512.
84
Unfortunately, these labels are regularly poorly preserved and remain
untranslated. Jurman, in Arts of Making, 104-05.
85
Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 411;
Siebels, “Representations of granaries”, BACE 12, (2001), 88.
25
Food Production and Preparation
identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan,
but the granary displayed on the west wall of room 1 in
the tomb of Nikauisesi at Saqqara provides an example of
such identifying labels.86 The rarity of these inscriptions in
both media indicates that text was not considered essential
to the grain storage theme, but when included, may have
emphasised the variety and abundance of cereals available
to the tomb owner and perhaps a particularly valuable type
of grain.
A supplementary component of the architectural structure
that occasionally appears in the representations is a
portico which is reserved for the officials who administer
the facility. In scenes, this area is chiefly identified by its
supporting columns which evoke the granary’s important
administrative role.87 The two columns in the scene of
Amenemhat (2 UC) are quite detailed, with a lotiform
shape, square abacus, decorative bands and a rounded
base [S156; fig. 2.10]. The portico is positioned above
the courtyard but should presumably be understood as
residing alongside it.88 Models likewise reserve a space
for officials, but do not exhibit the same detail in structure.
Two of the examples examined in this study incorporate a
small canopy within the courtyard: one from an unknown
tomb at Deir el-Bersha [M159] and the other from the tomb
of Sepi III (K-14 south) at Deir el-Bersha [M278]. Each
example comprises a thin rectangular board supported by
a simple cylindrical column at one end and either the silo
or exterior wall at the other. The model columns do not
exhibit the minute details encountered in scenes as such
intricacies would have been more difficult to craft in three-
dimensions, but the canopy could be more precisely and
realistically positioned within the courtyard.
86
A line of text appears above the row of six silos and identifies the three
different types of grain stored within: pxA ‘pekha grain’, jt mH ‘Lower
Egyptian barley’, and bSA ‘malted barley’. Kanawati & Abder-Raziq, Teti
Cemetery. Volume VI, pl. 48; Siebels, “Representations of granaries”,
BACE 12, (2001), 88.
87
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 277; Arnold, in
Structure and Significance, 58; Moeller, in Beyond the Horizon, 269.
88
A portico is also found in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), but here
it is positioned adjacent to the courtyard with its own entryway and is
supported by three columns [S195; fig. 2.9].
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 2.10. Granary with two rows of silos, a courtyard and a portico. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). North wall, register 6
[S156]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 95 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
In addition to the architectural structure of the granary,
the labourers who manage the grain form another
essential element of the theme. These workmen perform
three principal tasks: collecting the grain in measuring
buckets, transporting the grain in sacks to the silos,
and removing the grain from storage.89 The first two of
these roles are especially prominent, occurring in every
artwork examined in this study that incorporates human
figures.90 The labourer involved in measuring grain is
portrayed very consistently across the two media, with
one of the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M67; fig.
2.7] and the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S156; fig. 2.10]
forming a prime comparative example. In each of these
representations, the man leans over while striding forward
with one leg and lowers a measuring bucket towards the
ground with one hand holding each end. The bucket itself
is also portrayed similarly, comprising a cylindrical shape
painted white with black bands passing around the two
ends and the middle.91 That of Amenemhat, however, is
only shown in profile due to the restricted perspective of
the two-dimensional medium. The characteristic posture
of the measurer could certainly be captured in both media,
enabling his important role to be easily identified.
The second role of transporting the grain in sacks also
displays a number of similarities between the two media.
In the condensed artworks, a single figure is engaged
in this task, but in the more expansive representations,
several labourers progress towards the silos in single file.92
89
Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 407-09.
90
The third role of removing the grain is only known from scenes of the
5th Dynasty and consequently was not identified in this study. Siebels,
“Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 408.
91
The shape of the bucket is similar to the container used as the
determinative for the term HqAt ‘measure’. Bardoňová, “Grain Storage”,
227.
92
The largest group of carriers identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and
Beni Hassan is found in the model of Sepi III (K-14 south) where four
men walk in single file to deposit their loads in the silos [M278]. Similarly,
26
The carrier is often portrayed on his journey up the stairs
to the roof of the silos but can also appear in the courtyard
or more rarely on the terrace.93 During transport, the sack
is either balanced on the shoulder of the labourer or carried
on the back. In the model of Khety (366 LC), the carrier
advances up the stairs with the sack balanced on his left
shoulder: his right arm stretches over his head with his
hand supporting the top of the load while his left arm is
bent at the elbow with his hand on his hip for stabilisation
[M194; fig. 2.11]. A virtually identical posture is exhibited
by the three carriers progressing up the stairs in the scene
of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S156; fig. 2.10]. In the alternate
method of carrying the sack on the back, however, some
differences between the media are observed. The torso of
the human figure is shown in profile in the two-dimensional
medium, causing difficulties in depicting the load on the
back.94 Although this arrangement has been attempted by
the scene-artist of Khety’s (17 UC) granary [S101; fig.
2.8],95 the shoulder method is typically preferred in scenes
as this was more suitable for the profile viewpoint. Model-
artists, on the other hand, did not encounter this same
restriction of perspective and could realistically position
the sack on the labourer’s back. All four carriers in the
model of Sepi III (K-14 south) have the sack lying flat
against the back with the arms sharply bent at the elbows
so the hands may support the load at the shoulders [M278].
three labourers progress up the stairs in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC)
while a fourth has already arrived on the terrace [S156; fig. 2.10].
93
In only two models examined in this study are labourers shown in
the act of emptying their sacks into the silos: one carrier has reached the
top of the stairs and lowers the sack over the dividing wall of the silo in
a model from Deir el-Bersha [M159], while two labourers stand in the
courtyard with their arms reaching into the uncovered silos in another
model from Deir el-Bersha [M259]. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie
égyptienne. Tome VI, 280-81.
94
Hudáková, in Art of Describing, 197-98.
95
In this scene, the carrier begins his climb up the stairs with his back
arched forward as he bears the weight of the load. Both arms are bent
sharply at the elbows, indicating the load rests on the back and needs the
support of both hands at the shoulders.

Figure 2.11. Model granary of Khety (366 LC), with three labourers, an official and a scribe [M194]. © Fitzwilliam Museum,
Cambridge: E.71e.1903.
While the overall movement and role of the carrier is
consistent between the two media, model-artists had more
freedom in selecting their designs as both transport modes
could be easily represented.
Another essential figure in the granary is the scribe whose
role is to carefully document the quantities of grain
deposited and/or withdrawn. Scribes were very important
within the operation of the Egyptian state as they kept
records at all levels of administration, and as the granary
was an important economic institution, it is not surprising
that at least one scribe appears in every representation
examined that incorporates human figures.96 In both
media, the scribe is usually identified by his elevated
96
One exception is found in the granary scene of Khnumhotep I (14 UC),
although as the scene is quite poorly preserved, it is highly likely that a
scribe was originally included in the design but has since been lost [S113].
Piacentini, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>;
Papazian, in Ancient Egyptian Administration, 59; Grajetzki, in Ancient
Egypt Transformed, 158.
27
Food Production and Preparation
position on top of the silos and his scribal equipment.97
He is typically seated with a writing board resting on his
lap or on a small table and with a reed pen in his hand.98
The seated position of the scribe is often conveyed in wall
scenes as a kneeling posture with the near leg folded over
and the far knee bent up in front, as is adopted by one
of the scribes in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S156;
97
In a few exceptions to the elevated position, the scribe is located in the
lower courtyard. On the west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC), the
scribe kneels near the entry door with a man approaching him [S84]. It is
possible he is positioned within a portico as there appear to be traces of
a column behind, but the limited surviving remains make this uncertain.
The two scribes in the model of Sepi III (K-14 south) are both positioned
within the courtyard: one is seated beneath the canopy while the other
stands beside the wall near the entry [M278].
98
In models, the writing board occasionally displays short lines of
painted text, as is found in the model of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) [M217].
Sometimes a piece of unrolled papyrus is specified instead, like in the
model of Nefery where the roll is still present at one end [M177]. The
palette, when portrayed in models, could either be painted on the writing
board, as is found in the model of Ipi (707 LC) from Beni Hassan [M163],
or carved as its own piece, as in the model of Intef (1 LC) [M36].
Preparing for Eternity
fig. 2.10]. It is possible that this was a two-dimensional
representation of the cross-legged posture characteristic
of scribal statues.99 Although models had the capability of
portraying this cross-legged attitude, the lower body of the
model scribe is typically fashioned as a simple block, as
is found in the model of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) [M217].
This design was most likely selected because it was easier
to craft in smaller sculptures and the legs are largely
hidden from view beneath the writing board.
Wall scenes, on the other hand, had the additional advantage of
distinguishing the scribe through accompanying inscriptions.
All three scribes in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) are
individually labelled: the two within the portico are specified
as jmj-r pr n pr n Dt ‘the overseer of the house of the funerary
estate’ and sS NTr-nxt(.w) ‘the scribe, Netjernakht’, while the
one seated on the terrace is jmj-r pr n DAtwt NTrw-Htp(.w)
‘the overseer of the house of the estates, Netjeruhotep’
[S195; fig. 2.9].100 These captions are positioned in the space
immediately above each scribe, clearly conveying to which
figure they belong. The information provided highlights the
status of the scribes and identifies the specific individuals
involved in the administration. Models, on the other hand,
could not integrate inscriptions into their designs as easily,
causing all figures in the three-dimensional granaries to
remain unlabelled and for the status of the scribes to solely
be conveyed graphically.
An additional official who appears in several of the
representations is the overseer who supervises the work of
the labourers in the granary. He is typically positioned on
the terrace directly opposite the stairs in order to receive and
direct the labourers as they arrive at the silos. In the model
of Ipi (707 LC) from Beni Hassan, the overseer is seated
beside the scribe with both arms lowered, pointing towards
the labourers in the courtyard below [M163]. Similarly,
the overseer in the scene of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) stands
at the top of the stairs, facing the men who ascend with
their loads [S113]. This elevated position was a technique
used by both scene- and model-artists to highlight the
overseer’s dignified status. However, each artist also used
methods unique to his medium to differentiate the overseer
from the other figures. As the three-dimensional medium
had the advantage of incorporating a range of materials,
the model-artist of Khety’s (366 LC) granary seemingly
chose to distinguish the overseer by his clothing: a piece
of linen is wrapped around the official’s waist while the
labourers below merely wear white-painted kilts [M194;
fig. 2.11].101 On the other hand, the scene-artist of
Khnumhotep II’s (3 UC) granary illustrates features of old
age to create distinction: the overseer who stands among
99
For the characteristic three-dimensional scribal posture, see, for
example, the Old Kingdom ‘Seated Scribe’ statue from Saqqara now
housed in The Louvre, Paris: E 3023. Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian
Art, 251-53. For a discussion on the development of the scribal statue, see
Scott, “Ancient Egyptian Scribe Statue. Volumes I-IV”.
100
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 36.
101
It is possible, however, that linen garments were originally included
for the other model figures but have since been lost as the material could
easily become separated from the model and is more susceptible to
degradation.
28
the pile of grain in the courtyard exhibits an enlarged breast
and rolls of fat across his stomach, differentiating him from
the thin-bodied labourers around [S195; fig. 2.9]. Signs of
old age could be used to convey status in Egyptian art,
symbolising wealth and maturity.102 The intricacies of this
appearance would have been especially difficult to craft in
small three-dimensional sculptures and consequently, are
almost never expressed by models.103 While both media
highlight the elevated status of the overseer, each artist
achieved this by utilising the advantages of his medium.
A few of the model granaries examined include a
supplementary official who is enveloped in a white-painted
cloak with only the head emerging: he is positioned beneath
the canopy alongside the scribe in a model from Deir el-
Bersha [M159] and in the model of Sepi III (K-14 south)
[M278], and is raised on the terrace in the model of Ma
(500 LC) [M284; fig. 2.12]. His attire and location within
the granary certainly convey him as someone of authority,
but his precise identification is difficult to determine without
accompanying inscriptions. It has been suggested that he is a
scribe,104 and while there is some similarity with the cloaked
scribe in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S195; fig. 2.9],
his arms are restrained within the cloak making it impossible
for him to carry out any scribal duties. Alternatively,
Vandier has proposed that the figure may represent the
tomb owner himself.105 Although rarely represented in the
three-dimensional medium, the tomb owner is depicted in
this attire on several model boats, and as only one cloaked
figure is present in each of the granaries, this is a possible
interpretation.106 However, it is also plausible that the
enveloped figure is simply an overseer who supervises the
activities of the labourers. In each example, the figure sits
passively without engaging in any particular action and so
is probably the person of highest authority to whom the final
quantities of grain will be reported. This could be a role
fulfilled by the tomb owner himself or by a trusted official in
his place. Although his precise identity cannot be confirmed,
his superior status is still clearly conveyed.
While the labourers and officials serve central roles in the
granary, a few representations in both media unusually
exclude human figures, with the focus instead on the
architectural structure. This choice of design, though, can
be attributed to specific reasons for each medium. Among
models, all granaries without human figures are fashioned
of pottery: a rectangular enclosure with two uncovered
silos and a courtyard from the tomb of Netjer-nakht (53
LC) at Beni Hassan [M57], a rectangular structure with
102
Tyldesley, Daughters of Isis, 24; Janssen & Janssen, Growing Up and
Getting Old, 151.
103
Intricate carving of the human figure is more commonly seen in
large, formal statues of the tomb owner. However, a few rare examples of
model figures that exhibit features of old age are known: a single figure
of a priest separated from its original baseboard unusually has defined
pectoral muscles and rolls of fat across his stomach. Bristol Museum &
Art Gallery: H4599.
104
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 114-15.
105
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 227-28.
106
See chapter 3.1 for a discussion on the identification of the tomb
owner on model boats.

Figure 2.12. Model granary of Ma (500 LC), containing four open-topped silos filled with grain; an official and a scribe sit on
the terrace [M284]. © University of Aberdeen: ABDUA:22166.
a courtyard and two rows of three uncovered chambers
from the tomb of Nebet-het-hotep (774/775 LC) at Beni
Hassan [M291],107 and a square granary with originally six
spherical silos from Beni Hassan [M292].108 It has been
noted in scholarship that pottery was used as a substitute
for wood to make the sculptures more affordable, and so
the absence of human figures may have been a means
to further limit the costs by crafting a less complicated
design.109 However, it should also be noted that fashioning
107
Although not visible in the available photograph, Tooley has
identified the feet of a figure on the right of the silos as well as additional
holes in the courtyard which may attest to the presence of a number of
human figures originally. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs.
Volume I”, 118.
108
A fourth example is known from Beni Hassan, found in association
with tombs 521 and 523 LC, although was not available for examination
through images. Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-
1908.E.808.
109
Tooley has also suggested that due to the frequent occurrence of
pottery at Beni Hassan, there may have been a regional preference for
29
Food Production and Preparation
small sculptural forms like human figures in terracotta was
significantly limited by the constraints of the material.
All details of pottery sculptures needed to be moulded
prior to firing, causing intricate details to not be as easily
incorporated as when carved in wood.110 The exclusion
the material for representations of the granary. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom
Burial Customs. Volume I”, 86, 116-17; Bardoňová, “Grain Storage”,
206.
110
Dorman, Faces in Clay, 8. An interesting granary for comparison is
found in a pottery model possibly from Salamiya, now housed in Norwich
Castle Museum & Art Gallery: NWHCM 1921.37.1. It comprises a
rectangular structure with five spherical silos positioned on top of a
row of rectangular chambers. No three-dimensional figures have been
included, but unusually several figures have been painted on the exterior
walls, including a scribe seated on top of a pile of grain with one man
measuring the seed and two others waiting for their sacks to be filled as
well as five male and three female labourers carrying sacks of grain. It is
possible that this unusual design resulted from the fact that it would have
been easier to paint the figures in two-dimensions than to fashion them in
pottery in three-dimensions. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne.
Tome VI, 228-30; Hudáková, Representations of Women, 180-84.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 2.13. Granary without human figures. Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2). South wall of burial chamber of Hewetiaah
[S18]. Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pl. 94; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
of human figures therefore seems to be directly related to
the choice of material for the representations, making it a
factor specific to the three-dimensional medium.
Among scenes, all representations of granaries without
human figures examined in this study are found at Meir in
the substructures of 6th Dynasty tombs: on the south wall
of the burial chamber of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) [S17]
and of his wife, Hewetiaah [S18; fig. 2.13], and on the
south wall of the burial chamber of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1)
[S26]. Each scene depicts a row of domed silos in profile
view and several associated piles of foodstuffs. During the
Old Kingdom, granaries occasionally appear alongside
agricultural scenes in tomb-chapels at other sites, but in
many cases are likewise confined to the burial chamber.111
As noted above, this subterranean placement is most likely
due to the theme’s important contribution to the deceased’s
nourishment in the afterlife. While human figures appear in
granary scenes displayed in tomb-chapels, they are distinctly
avoided in burial chambers. As will be outlined in chapter
7, animate beings were largely excluded from the two-
dimensional designs of substructures as it was presumably
feared that they could come to life and potentially cause
harm to the deceased. Consequently, the two-dimensional
granary theme was reduced to the architectural structure in
burial chambers where the threat from human figures was
avoided and the provision of grain was maintained.
The granary is an important theme in both the two- and
three-dimensional media, forming the culmination of the
111
See, for example, the site of Saqqara where granaries are represented
in numerous 6th Dynasty burial chambers, including those of Mehu,
Mereruka, Inumin, Penu, Shy and Seni. In each example, the theme
is confined to the architectural structure with human figures entirely
excluded. Kanawati, Decorated Burial Chambers, 63-74; Kanawati &
Swinton, Egypt in the Sixth Dynasty, 195-96.
30
agricultural cycle. The two types of representation feature
the same principal components of the silos, courtyard,
labourers and officials, but differences in representation
occur due to their contrasting technical properties. Model-
artists had the advantage of working in three-dimensions,
enabling a holistic perspective to be presented of the
architectural structure and the openings of the silos, as well
as utilising a range of materials including linen garments
and actual grain. Scene-artists, on the other hand, were
restricted to a two-dimensional perspective which created
a less realistic arrangement of the granary complex and
caused certain features to be excluded, but they had the
advantage of incorporating more minute details and
identifying labels. The prominence and early appearance
of the granary theme in the model repertoire as well as
its occurrence in substructures in both two- and three-
dimensional forms highlight its important contribution to
provisioning the deceased in the afterlife.
2.3 Bread-making
Bread was one of the staples of the ancient Egyptian diet,
providing an essential form of nourishment in both life
and death. Not only did it supply daily sustenance for the
whole population, but it held a vital role in the economy,
formed a principal component of the offering-list and
was deposited in the tomb as a funerary offering.112 It
is therefore not surprising that the production of bread
holds a dominant position within both the two- and three-
dimensional repertoires. Although no single artwork
displays all of the stages involved in the process, several
112
Helck, Bier, 64; Darby, Ghalioungui & Grivetti, Food. Volume 2,
532-33; Sist, in Egyptian Civilization, 58; Samuel, in Materials and
Technology, 537.

of the most important steps are depicted.113 Notably,
bread-making is the most expansive theme in the model
repertoire regarding the quantity of stages represented.
Whereas most themes in the three-dimensional medium
are particularly condensed, often featuring a single activity,
the bread-making theme incorporates almost the full range
of tasks depicted in wall scenes. Moreover, model owners
usually included multiple bread-making motifs among
their assemblage, either combined on a single baseboard
or through a collection of separate statuettes. The two
media display many similarities in their representation
of each bread-making task, but there are still a number of
differences that may be chiefly attributed to their unique
technical properties.
The popularity of the bread-making theme is not only
witnessed in the quantity of tasks depicted, but also in
its prolonged appearance in the model repertoire. The
earliest models, namely the limestone serving statuettes
of the 4th and 5th Dynasties, are chiefly concerned with
food preparation.114 These individual figures are mostly
engaged with tasks involved in bread-making, with the
most common motif comprising a female miller grinding
grain on a quern stone.115 When the sculptures began to be
fully constructed of wood in the late 6th Dynasty, several
baking tasks were incorporated into single models.116 Peak
production was reached in the early Middle Kingdom,
and even though model manufacture rapidly declined
towards the end of this period, a few late Middle Kingdom
limestone sculptures of bread-making are still known.117
Similarly, the production of bread first appeared in wall
scenes of the late 4th Dynasty and was a particularly
popular theme during the Old Kingdom.118 However, there
are fewer examples from the First Intermediate Period and
Middle Kingdom which suggests that during these periods
there was a preference for the theme to be represented
in model form.119 In the corpus from Meir, Deir el-
Bersha and Beni Hassan, 31 models of bread-making
113
Several difficulties arise when attempting to use the representations
alone to determine the actual order of tasks involved in the preparation of
bread. Assessing the accuracy of the representations is beyond the scope
of this study, but for further discussion, see Samuel, in Food in the Arts,
173-81.
114
Smith, Sculpture and Painting, 101; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries
of Naga ed-Deir”, 226.
115
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 4-5; Roth,
“Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 104-05.
116
Initially, two figures were combined onto a single baseboard before
this was increased to large group models. The model assemblage of
Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) from Meir demonstrates this transition with
the six bread-making statuettes each comprising either single or double
figures [M2-M7]. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”,
61; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 227.
117
One Middle Kingdom example collected in this study is in fact
fashioned of pottery [M289]. This single figure from tomb 187 LC at
Beni Hassan appears to depict a man grinding grain on a small quern
stone, but the limited detail makes precise identification uncertain.
Bourriau, Umm El-Ga’ab, cat. 236; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of
Naga ed-Deir”, 230-34.
118
Samuel, in Materials and Technology, 537; Hudáková, in Florilegium
Aegyptiacum, 161.
119
Samuel, in Materials and Technology, 537-38; Kroenke, “Provincial
Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 230; Hudáková, in Florilegium
Aegyptiacum, 161.
31
Food Production and Preparation
were examined,120 whereas only eight wall scenes were
identified. The preparation of the staple diet certainly held
a prominent position in the three-dimensional repertoire
and may therefore be considered an essential theme.
At the beginning of the bread-making process, the grain
required cleaning and the dough needed to be prepared.
This involved a number of preliminary activities which are
represented by both the two- and three-dimensional media.
The two principal grains of emmer wheat and barley were
stored still hulled and so an initial pounding stage was
necessary to remove the chaff.121 The representations convey
that this was conducted by one or two men using mortar
and pestle. Nine models and three wall scenes examined in
this study incorporate the motif, and the two media present
very similar depictions. The man usually stands at arm’s
length from the mortar and grips the pestle with both hands.
Model-artists could depict the hands together while keeping
both in view, as is achieved in the model of Ipi (707 LC)
from Beni Hassan [M164], whereas scene-artists were
required to spread the hands apart so that each one could
be seen in the two-dimensional perspective.122 The models
consistently portray a single figure engaged in pounding,
with the pestle residing within the mortar.123 In the model
of Khety (366 LC) from Beni Hassan, the pestle is angled
forward as the man is engaged in pushing it to crush the
grain [M195; fig. 2.14]. The scenes, conversely, each depict
two figures who stand on opposite sides of a single mortar
and alternate in pounding. In the lower section of the west
wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan, one man
raises the pestle in the air in the second register, gaining
momentum, while his companion lowers the pestle into the
mortar [S105]. For the pestle to be raised off the ground in
three-dimensional sculptures, it would need to be secured
in the man’s grip. Although this was certainly possible, it
may have been easier for model-artists to stabilise the pestle
by resting it within the mortar.124 Such minute variations
120
An additional model may perhaps be classified as bread-making.
This example from Beni Hassan is fashioned of pottery and depicts
two women seated at opposite ends of a rectangular baseboard, facing
different directions. Each woman sits with the knees bent up close to the
chest and the right forearm extended with a small hole or indentation in
the hand to hold an item now lost. Although Garstang has described the
women to be “squatting aimlessly”, it is probable that they are engaged
in a particular action. However, classification is hindered by the fact that
intricate details could not be easily incorporated into pottery models. It
seems probable that the figures are engaged in some food preparation
activity, most likely bread-making as this was the operation in which
women were most heavily involved and is a theme that is particularly
prominent among the model corpus. National Museums Scotland:
A.1955.91. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 195.
121
Samuel, “Cereal processing”, CAJ 3.2, (1993), 278; Samuel, “New
look at old bread”, AI 3, (1999), 28-29.
122
See, for example, the pounding scene in the sixth register of the west
wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan where each figure
places both hands towards the middle of the pestle, but with one higher
than the other [S167; fig. 2.17].
123
The pestle itself comprises a long shaft that tapers towards the top and
becomes wider and rounder at the base, a shape that could be captured in both
two- and three-dimensions. Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 162.
124
Only one model in this study elevates the pestle above the mortar
demonstrating that this attitude was possible to achieve in three-
dimensions. This example is found in one of the models of Nefery (116
LC) from Beni Hassan where the mortar is especially shallow, comprising
a simple white-painted dish with low walls [M178].
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 2.14. Food preparation model of Khety (366 LC); pounding grain, grinding grain, sieving grain, baking bread,
carrying water and brewing beer [M195]. © Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: E.71d.1903.
reflect the individual technical restrictions that impacted the
two- and three-dimensional designs, yet the pounding motif
could still be clearly conveyed.
After pounding, the grain was milled into flour on a quern
stone. This activity was apparently considered the most
important preliminary task as it is the most commonly
illustrated bread-making motif, appearing in at least
21 models and five wall scenes examined in this study.
The saddle quern was used throughout the Pharaonic
Period, although the representations indicate it underwent
significant development during this time.125 In the Old
Kingdom, the quern was positioned directly on the ground,
causing the miller to kneel.126 In one of the late 6th Dynasty
models of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) from Meir, the two
female millers sit back on their heels and lean their torsos
forward to reach over the quern [M2].127 At the end of the
First Intermediate Period, the quern was embedded in an
emplacement, elevating it off the ground and causing the
125
The saddle quern was replaced by the rotary quern during the Graeco-
Roman Period. Forbes, Ancient Technology. Volume III, 146; Samuel, in
Materials and Technology, 538.
126
Forbes, Ancient Technology. Volume III, 146; Hudáková, in
Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 164.
127
The same type of low quern seems to be used on the right of the third
register of the west wall of the 6th Dynasty tomb of Meniu (E1) at Meir
[S1]. However, this section of the scene is almost completely lost, with
only the sloping end of what is presumably the quern and the figure’s
hands with a handstone resting on top preserved.
32
miller to stand.128 The two millers in the early 12th Dynasty
model of Khety (366 LC) stand directly behind the quern
with their bent knees touching the edge of the structure
[M195; fig. 2.14]. The emplacement is typically depicted
as a solid rectangular block with a concave upper surface
in which the quern is embedded,129 but in a few unusual
examples the quern is elevated on a table-like structure.
On the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at
Beni Hassan, the quern in the fourth register is set into a
table shown in profile with an adjoining catchment at one
end for collecting the flour [S202; fig. 2.15].130 Similarly,
the model of Nefwa (186 LC) from Beni Hassan depicts
a quern positioned on top of a table although seemingly
128
Greater strength would have been required by the miller when
kneeling and more stress would have been placed on the knees and
wrists. Raising the quern off the ground would have made the miller’s
work more comfortable which Samuel argues would have increased the
quantity of flour produced by each individual. Samuel, in Beyond the
Horizon, 467; Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 164-65.
129
The scenes usually create a clear distinction between the quern and the
emplacement through a defined line and change in colour. On the south
wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan, the two querns in
the fifth register are coloured red while the emplacements are white [S77;
fig. 2.19]. Model-artists, on the other hand, usually carved the quern and
emplacement as a single piece without creating any differentiation, as is
found in the model of Intef (1 LC) from Beni Hassan [M37].
130
Hudáková has suggested that the lighter and more manoeuvrable
‘stool-querns’ may have been more suitable for transport. Hudáková, in
Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 165-66.

Figure 2.15. Grinding grain, kneading dough, shaping loaves and baking bread, all supervised by an overseer. Tomb of
Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, south panel, register 4 [S202]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 121 [detail];
courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
without a catchment [M187].131 The same development
of the quern is witnessed in both scenes and models
demonstrating that both types of artists could reflect
changing technology in their designs.
The representations regularly portray two millers engaged
in grinding grain, although the media exhibit differences in
the arrangement of the figures. In wall scenes, the millers are
consistently positioned directly opposite each other, with the
ends of the querns sometimes making contact, as is found in
the fifth register of the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat
(2 UC) at Beni Hassan [S167; fig. 2.17]. It is probable that
this arrangement was a means for the scene-artist to convey
the side-by-side positioning commonly found in models.132
In the grinding model of Henu (L-16H50/1C) from Deir
el-Bersha, the three millers are positioned side-by-side,
evenly spaced across the baseboard without any one being
obscured from view [M32]. The advantage of the holistic
three-dimensional perspective is also seen in the portrayal
of the handstone which the miller rubbed up and down the
quern to grind the grain. The top-down view enables the
length of the handstone and the positioning of the miller’s
hands to be clearly conveyed.133 In a model of Niankh-
pepy-kem (A1), the handstone is longer than the width of
the quern with the ends overhanging, and the miller’s hands
are placed evenly side-by-side on top of the stone [M5].
131
This table, however, seems to have been incorrectly positioned as
the miller should stand at one end of the quern rather than in her current
position on the side.
132
One exception to the side-by-side arrangement in the three-
dimensional medium is found in a model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) where
the querns are positioned end-on-end [M6]. Hudáková, Representations
of Women, 239.
133
Samuel, in Beyond the Horizon, 466.
33
Food Production and Preparation
The profile view presented in scenes, on the other hand,
prevents these details from being expressed. The length
of the handstone in the first register of the scene of Khety
(17 UC) is unknown and in an attempt to convey a side-
by-side positioning, the scene-artist has placed one of the
miller’s hands in front of the other [S105].134 Although
the grinding grain motif displays many similarities across
the representations, the minute differences indicate that
the designs had to be specifically created according to the
capabilities of each medium.
Further differences that result from the contrasting
perspectives of the two media are found in their
representation of sieving, a task that cleaned the grain of
any impurities. This activity is not commonly represented,
with only one model and four wall scenes identified in
this study that incorporate the motif [M195, S1, S16, S77,
S167].135 In the representations, the sifter is typically seated
on the ground with both knees bent up in front and holding
the sieve with both hands.136 This is the attitude adopted in
the model of Khety (366 LC) where the model-artist has
been especially detailed in crafting the sifter’s hands and
fingers on each side of the sieve [M195; fig. 2.14]. The sieve
itself is represented as a white circular disc with black dots
across the top which most likely indicate the holes of the
mesh. This top-down perspective is the most characteristic
viewpoint of the sieve and is consequently that most often
selected by scene-artists. On the right of the sixth register
134
Hudáková, Representations of Women, 224.
135
More examples, however, are known from the early Old Kingdom,
with a number of single limestone statuettes of the 4th and 5th Dynasties
depicting a woman sieving flour into a basket. Breasted, Egyptian Servant
Statues, 25; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 4.
136
Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 163.
Preparing for Eternity
of the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC), the circular sieve with
defined dots is depicted as if it is held vertically when in
reality the woman would hold it horizontally above the
ground with only the side view visible [S167; fig. 2.17].
Scenes commonly comprised composite images, with each
component rendered in its most recognisable aspect. In this
instance, the top-down perspective of the sieve is combined
with the profile viewpoint of the sifter’s arms and torso.
Although this technique limits the realism of the scene, it
enables the motif to be clearly conveyed.
Another preparatory task that is represented by both the
two- and three-dimensional media is mixing dough. During
the Middle Kingdom, this was conducted by a figure who
stood at a thigh-high vessel with one or two hands plunged
into the mixture.137 On the left of the sixth register of
the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC), a woman leans over a
vessel with one hand seemingly resting on the rim and
the other submerged in the mixture [S167; fig. 2.17].138 A
very similar portrayal is found in models, with a standing
man in a model from Deir el-Bersha positioned before a
thigh-high vessel with both hands carved as white balls
indicating they are covered with dough [M56]. A streak of
white paint runs down the side of the vessel, expressing
the liquid nature of the contents.139 Unusually, no other
bread-making activities are depicted in this model, causing
the mixing task to symbolise the entire process. This is
likewise the situation in two other models examined: one
from Meir where two standing figures mix dough in a
smaller vessel elevated on a stand [M229; fig. 2.16], and
the other also likely from Meir where four women lean
over thigh-high vessels with their hands resting on the rims
[M230].140 Subsidiary tasks are not often included in the
model repertoire, with the medium typically preferring the
most characteristic activity, so the appearance of several
mixing dough motifs attests to the particularly expansive
nature of the three-dimensional bread-making theme.
For the production of flatbread, a firmer dough was used
which required kneading and shaping into loaves.141
137
In the earlier representations of the Old Kingdom, the vessels were
only knee-high and were sometimes elevated on a stand. Hudáková, in
Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 168.
138
A contrasting portrayal of mixing is found on the east wall of the
inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha [S207].
Although the wall has suffered significant damage, two women in the
third register remain who are apparently engaged in mixing grain: each
woman kneels while stirring the contents of a small vessel angled towards
her with an accompanying caption describing her action as preparing
grain. Hudáková, Representations of Women, 218, 225.
139
This type of liquid dough would have been suitable for baking in
moulds rather than in loaves. Hudáková, Representations of Women, 207.
140
This model was said to be from Asyut, but a recent study undertaken by
the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon has demonstrated that it was probably
manufactured in Meir. Amoros, et al., “Study and identification”, Hathor
1, (2012), 11-29. In this representation, the dough is unrepresented, but
the attitude of the women, the size of the vessels and the association
with a water-carrier makes the classification of mixing dough most
probable. Alternatively, in a model from Meir, a seated figure surrounded
by vessels and beer-jars seems to be engaged in mixing dough, but the
available photograph unfortunately largely conceals his action from view
[M228]. In this example, mixing is not the only bread-making motif, but
pounding, grinding, kneading and baking are also represented.
141
Samuel, in Materials and Technology, 563.
34
The representations demonstrate that these activities
were usually conducted by a kneeling figure on a low
rectangular workbench with one rounded end. In models,
the upper surface of the workbench is regularly painted
white to signify it is covered with flour, and one hand
of the kneader is often carved as a white-painted ball to
indicate it is enveloped by dough, as is exhibited by a
model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) [M3]. While wall scenes
typically portray the workbench from a profile viewpoint,
the artist of Khnumhotep II’s (3 UC) scene has instead
selected the top-down perspective [S202; fig. 2.15]. This
enables both the shape of the workbench and the mound of
dough resting on top to be clearly seen.
Shaping dough into loaves could either be performed by
the kneader himself or by a separate figure.142 He likewise
knelt before a low workbench as he fashioned the loaves
into a wide range of shapes including ovals, semi-circles,
triangles and squares or in later periods, more elaborate
forms like humans and animals.143 Scenes could capture
this variety of loaf shape as the forms could be easily
drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface. In the space
above the kneeling man in the fifth register of the scene of
Amenemhat (2 UC) is a collection of pre-shaped loaves
including five circles, two indented triangles and one
rectangle [S167; fig. 2.17]. Models, on the other hand,
only occasionally portray shaped loaves, and these are
more uniform in style. Beside the kneader in a model of
Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) are 10 pre-formed rectangular
loaves arranged in two piles [M4].144 Crafting the variety
of shapes encountered in scenes would have been more
difficult to achieve in three-dimensions and so shaping
dough is regularly excluded from food preparation models
and instead, the task of kneading is generally favoured.
Alternatively, three of the models examined imply that
shaping has already been completed by portraying a
standing woman transporting a tray of loaves to the baker
[M43, M71, M72]. In one of the models of Djehuty-
nakht (R-10A) from Deir el-Bersha, the tray is balanced
on the left shoulder and the individual loaves on top are
distinguished through incised lines [M72]. Unusually, this
transport motif was not identified in any scenes examined
from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, and so may
have been a preferred means for model-artists to indicate
the production of hand-shaped loaves.
Once the grain had been cleaned and the dough prepared,
baking could begin. The motif of a baker before an oven is
especially popular in both the two- and three-dimensional
representations as it is one of the characteristic tasks of
the bread-making process. While it is portrayed very
142
On the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), the two tasks
are performed by separate figures on their own workbenches who kneel
directly opposite each other [S202; fig. 2.15]. Hudáková, in Florilegium
Aegyptiacum, 170.
143
The more ornamental shapes were introduced in the New Kingdom.
Darby, Ghalioungui & Grivetti, Food. Volume 2, 517-22; Wilson, Food
and Drink, 16; Samuel, “New look at old bread”, AI 3, (1999), 28.
144
Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, 156; Breasted, Egyptian Servant
Statues, 27.
 Food Production and Preparation

Figure 2.16. Food preparation model from Meir, with mixing dough symbolising the entire bread-making process [M229].
Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, San Jose, California, USA: RC-483.

Figure 2.17. Pounding grain, grinding grain, sieving grain, shaping loaves, mixing dough, filling bread-moulds and baking
bread. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). West wall, south panel, registers 5-6, right [S167]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan.
Volume III, pl. 90 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

35
Preparing for Eternity
consistently, there are some notable differences in the
depiction of the oven. Bread was regularly baked in
conical moulds that were pre-heated in a stack above a
hearth before being filled with dough.145 This method is
illustrated on the west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the
Middle (D2) at Meir where a tall stack of moulds appears
on the left of the third register [S16; fig. 2.18]. The moulds
are quite roughly stacked with the tapering ends leaning
out from the pile at different angles.146 While such a
composition could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional
wall surface, model-artists utilised a range of techniques
that conveyed a carefully balanced stack while maintaining
a stable construction. In some examples, the structure was
carved from a single piece of wood with each individually
shaped mould protruding from the centre, as is seen in
a model probably from Deir el-Bersha [M260].147 More
commonly, the moulds are distinguished simply through
incised lines on a wooden block as has been achieved in
the model of Djay (275 LC) from Beni Hassan [M43]. In
the model of Khety (366 LC), alternatively, the model-
artist has merely painted the conical shapes on the side
of a trapezoidal block [M195; fig. 2.14].148 These designs
convey the range of techniques available to model-artists
which did not compromise the stability of their sculptures.
For flatbread, the dough was baked either on a stone over
a fire or inside a clay oven.149 This method of baking is
represented in both wall scenes and models but is more
common in the three-dimensional medium. The slab
oven was one of the earliest types used and consisted of
vertically placed discs with an additional one positioned
horizontally across the top.150 Such a structure is found
in one of the models of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) where
the side nearest the baker remains open to give access
to the interior [M6]. Alternatively, models could display
simple cylindrical ovens, as is found in one of the models
of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) from Beni
Hassan [M209], or domed structures, as is exhibited by the
model of Khety-aa (575 LC) from Beni Hassan [M201; see
145
The moulds of the Old Kingdom were wide and heavy, whereas those
of the Middle Kingdom were more slender. Samuel, in Materials and
Technology, 565; Kemp, Ancient Egypt, 174; Swinton, in Behind the
Scenes, 40.
146
A similar arrangement is found in the sixth register of the scene of
Amenemhat (2 UC), but with the more slender form of Middle Kingdom
moulds, they are piled in an even domed shape [S167; fig. 2.17].
Hudáková, Representations of Women, 250.
147
The Rijksmuseum van Oudheden records that this model is said to be
from Deir el-Bersha, but Tooley has identified it more specifically as a
model uncovered by Kamal in the tomb of a lady named Djehuty-hotep
(K-23, chamber 2). Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume
I”, 42; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 796.
148
Garstang has identified the red streaks as flames of the furnace,
but the classification of bread-moulds is more likely: they are painted
in distinctly conical shapes and are arranged in rows with the tapering
ends leaning outwards as is typically illustrated in wall scenes. Garstang,
Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 128.
149
Darby, Ghalioungui & Grivetti, Food. Volume 2, 512; Wilson, Food
and Drink, 13-14.
150
The slab oven is generally confined to models of the Old Kingdom
and First Intermediate Period, although a few later examples are known.
Klebs, Reliefs des Alten Reiches, 92; Forbes, Ancient Technology. Volume
III, 58; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 232.
36
fig. 2.30].151 The method of baking bread in moulds was
apparently preferred in two-dimensional representations,
with only a small number of baking techniques for
flatbread portrayed in scenes: the cylindrical oven appears
on the west wall of Khnumhotep II’s (3 UC) tomb [S202;
fig. 2.15], while hand-shaped loaves are baked in a stack in
the third register of the scene of Pepyankh the Middle (D2)
[S16; fig. 2.18]. The fact that models portray a vast range
of baking techniques highlights the comprehensive nature
of the three-dimensional bread-making theme.
The baker is consistently portrayed seated with her right
hand lowered and holding a poker towards the base of
the oven and her left arm sharply bent at the elbow with
the open hand in front of her face to provide protection
from the heat and/or glare.152 Only occasionally are there
exceptions to this representation. In a number of models,
the left arm of the baker is not bent, but is held straight
and is either lowered or upraised. The baker in one of the
models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) has elongated stick-like
arms, with the left lowered straight towards the oven and
the end flattened in an attempt to indicate an open hand
[M71]. Only in more finely crafted models is the hand
fully formed and held in front of the face, an example of
which is found in a model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) [M5].
Consequently, variations from the characteristic design
may be attributed to the more limited skill of many model-
artists. Scene-artists did not encounter this same difficulty
as the bent arm and open hand could be more easily drawn
on the two-dimensional wall surface. Instead, variation
in the baker’s attitude is sometimes found when the oven
is particularly tall. In the sixth register of the scene of
Amenemhat (2 UC), the baker angles her poker towards
the top of the tall pile of moulds, requiring her to adopt
a standing position rather than the typical seated posture
[S167; fig. 2.17].153 Each artist created an individual
design that was influenced by his own level of skill as well
as the capabilities of his medium.
Although bread-making models are more expansive than
other themes, there are still some subsidiary tasks that only
appear in wall scenes. After pre-heating the moulds, the
stack required dismantling, a process that uniquely appears
on the south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni
Hassan [S77; fig. 2.19].154 The woman on the right of the
sixth register stands before a stack of conical bread moulds
while drawing one out with the aid of a stick. Behind her is a
woman who is engaged in the supplementary task of filling
151
The model of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) from Beni Hassan appears to
display both a domed and cylindrical oven, but only one baker [M218].
Although the available image has the baker directed towards the
cylindrical structure, in the current arrangement on display in the British
Museum, London, she is oriented towards the domed oven. It is therefore
probable that the cylindrical structure is in fact a vessel storing dough
rather than a second oven. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-
Deir”, 797.
152
For the characteristic posture, see the female baker in a model from
Beni Hassan [M266], and the baker in the third register of the east wall
of the tomb of Pepi (D1) at Meir [S20]. Montet, Scènes de la vie privée,
236; Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 27.
153
Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 168-69.
154
Hudáková, Representations of Women, 227.
 Food Production and Preparation

Figure 2.18. Sieving grain, preparing dough, baking bread, straining beer-mash, preparing jars to hold beer and pouring beer
into jars. Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2). West wall, north panel, right, registers 1-3 [S16]. Blackman, Rock Tombs of
Meir. Part IV, pl. 13; courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society.

Figure 2.19. Pounding grain, grinding grain, sieving grain, dismantling bread-moulds, filling bread-moulds and brewing beer.
Tomb of Baqet III (15 UC). South wall, east panel, registers 5-6 [S77]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 81
[detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

37
Preparing for Eternity
the pre-heated moulds. She stands before three conical
moulds placed on the ground while lowering a small ball of
dough towards one.155 Alternatively, the east wall of the inner
room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha
displays the motif of storing baked bread loaves [S207]. A
woman kneels before two superimposed trays of conical
loaves in the third register and is about to place another loaf
on the pile.156 The absence of these additional bread-making
tasks in models may be partially due to the greater difficulty
of crafting them in three-dimensions. However, their rare
occurrence in wall scenes demonstrates that they were not
considered essential to conveying the theme and so only
appear in the most expansive representations.
In both media, each of the tasks involved in bread-making
is typically portrayed as being specific to a single gender:
men pound the grain, women grind it into flour and pass it
through a sieve, men knead the dough and shape the loaves,
and women bake the bread. Bread-making is one of the few
production processes in which women are heavily involved,
and they are consistently portrayed in working attire.157
Commonly, a fillet is tied around the hair to prevent it from
falling into the mixture or in front of the face, and in the
model of Khety (366 LC), the women’s hair is curved at the
bottom to indicate it has been pulled up by the red-painted
fillet [M195; fig. 2.14].158 The skirt was also preferred over
the dress as it provided greater manoeuvrability for work.159
In models, it could simply be painted white on the figure’s
lower body or a piece of linen could be wrapped around the
waist, as is preserved in the model of Ipi (707 LC) [M164].
However, this attire can occasionally present difficulties
in distinguishing between male and female figures in the
artworks.160 Although illustrations of women are typically
distinguished by their yellow skin to presumably indicate
greater time spent indoors,161 there are exceptions to this
practice. In one of the bread-making models of Khnum-
nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC), the miller is depicted
with long black hair, a white-painted dress beginning below
the breasts, and red skin [M209].162 The figure’s hairstyle
155
The motif of filling moulds also appears on the west wall of the tomb
of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S167; fig. 2.17] and on the east wall of the inner
room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) [S207]. During the Middle
Kingdom, the dough was of a stiffer substance than in the earlier period,
causing it to be put into the moulds by hand rather than poured from a
vessel. Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 169.
156
A similar scene is found in the fourth register of the west wall of the
tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) where a man seems to facilitate the storage
of bread: 10 conical loaves reside above a rectangular tray placed on a
low table [S165].
157
Robins, Women, 102; Samuel, in Food in the Arts, 180; Fischer,
Egyptian Women, 21.
158
The fillet is also depicted in wall scenes, with an example found on
the west wall of the tomb of Meniu (E1) where the streamers hang from
the back of the head of the woman sieving grain in the third register
[S1]. Vogelsang-Eastwood, Egyptian Clothing, 173-74; Hudáková, in
Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 177.
159
Watterson, Women, 101.
160
Additionally, the short hairstyle is common for female bread-makers,
causing further difficulty in distinguishing them from male figures.
Hudáková, Representations of Women, 247.
161
Fischer, “Varia Aegyptiaca”, JARCE 2, (1963), 20; Robins, Women,
180-81; Tyldesley, Daughters of Isis, 23.
162
Unusually, the baker positioned next to the miller also has red skin yet
has short hair and wears a skirt, so it is possible that the baker is actually
male. Interestingly, a similar situation is found in the other bread-making
38
and attire in addition to her role as miller indicate that she
is female even though the model-artist has strayed from the
usual design.163
However, both the two- and three-dimensional media also
present exceptions to the typical gender designations. In a
model from the tomb of Henu (L-16H50/1C) [M31] and
in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S167; fig. 2.17], it is
women who are engaged in pounding grain with mortar
and pestle.164 The women are distinguished by their
yellow skin and the sexuality of the model figure is further
highlighted through the definition of the nipples and
pubic triangle in black paint.165 Alternatively, some of the
artworks depict a male baker rather than the typical female
figure, including a model from Meir where the seated
baker has red skin, a short white kilt and short black hair
[M228], and the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) where the
hairstyle and attire of the standing male baker are distinct
from the female miller positioned just in front [S202; fig.
2.15]. It is interesting that such variations are found in
both media, demonstrating that scene- and model-artists
may have reflected the individual practices of real-life
baking institutions in their designs.
In addition to the workers, the overseer or scribe who
supervises the preparation of bread appears in a number
of two- and three-dimensional representations. A scribe
is seated in one corner of the model from tomb 420 LC
at Beni Hassan with a writing board on his lap, carefully
recording the manufacturing process [M30].166 In another
model from Beni Hassan, an overseer stands beside the
brewer, but presumably supervises the entire bread- and
beer-making operation [M265]. His authority over the
workers is suggested by his extended arm which seems to
gesture a command. Alternatively, the authority figure in a
model likely from Meir is seated on a low stool, watching
the activities of the workers [M230]. While this figure
has been identified as the tomb owner himself,167 it seems
more likely that he is an overseer as the tomb owner rarely
appears in models, although without an accompanying
model of the tomb where the baker has red skin while the two millers
have yellow skin [M210]. If the bakers of these two models are male,
perhaps these tomb owners sought to reflect the real-life practice of their
household.
163
A similar situation is found in a model from Meir: one of the standing
figures who bends over a low quern has red skin and long black hair
[M227]. Although the yellow skin tone is avoided, it is quite likely this
figure is female. In its current arrangement, the model displays several
variations from its earlier presentation in Breasted, Egyptian Servant
Statues, pl. 39b. It seems more likely that restoration work has resulted in
an incorrect assemblage as some of the figures are positioned in attitudes
of work but are not engaging with any particular objects.
164
Samuel, in Food in the Arts, 180; Hudáková, Representations of
Women, 247-48.
165
De Meyer has suggested the possibility that the model figure was
originally wrapped in a linen garment but notes that there is no surviving
evidence for this. It is probable that the figure was always naked as
the nipples and navel are highlighted. De Meyer, “Old Kingdom Rock
Tombs at Dayr al-Barshā. Volume II”, 619.
166
The scribe appears in the Ashmolean Museum’s archival photographs
of the model, but in the current arrangement on display, the scribe has
been replaced by another seated male figure. It is therefore possible that
the scribe is not original to the model.
167
Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 179.

caption his identity cannot be confirmed.168 Official
figures are often more easily identified in wall scenes as
signs of status could be easily incorporated into the two-
dimensional designs.169 On the west wall of the tomb of
Khnumhotep II (3 UC), an overseer stands immediately
before the miller and baker [S202; fig. 2.15]. His elevated
status is indicated by the stick that he holds, physical signs
of older age and the accompanying caption that states his
title.170 Due to the economic importance of bread, it is
not surprising that administrative figures appear in both
media, but the difficulty of including minute details and
accompanying captions in models often prevents certain
identification.
Bread-making tasks are typically grouped together in the
representations, either on the same baseboard or on the
same section of wall and are usually surrounded by other
food preparation processes. However, in one unusual scene,
bread-making is specified as taking place outside in the
fields. This scene is found on the west panel of the south
wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) and is positioned at
the end of a long procession of cattle in the second register
[S80]. Three men are engaged in producing bread, but their
equipment is not as large or permanent as that found in
bakeries. This may be due to the need for regular transport
as the accompanying label indicates that they are sqr xAD
Hr sH sDrt ‘kneading the dough in the shed where the night
will be spent’.171 Herdsmen slept outside to keep watch over
their charges and so it was necessary for their meal to be
prepared each night in the fields.172 The careful arrangement
of motifs on the wall enabled the scene-artist to convey the
context of this specific activity. Models, on the other hand,
typically confine each theme to its own baseboard, although
bread-making is occasionally incorporated into themes not
directly related to food preparation. In a wooden model
boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), two figures on board are
engaged in food preparation tasks: one man grinds grain on a
quern stone while another strains beer-mash [M131]. In this
context, the bread and beer provide sustenance for the crew.
168
Among the models examined in this study, the tomb owner is only
known in representations of boats, whereas officials are more commonly
associated with depictions of food preparation. The figure in this model
is smaller than the surrounding workers and is seated on a simple stool,
which seems an unlikely choice for the tomb owner. Another authority
figure is found in a food preparation model from Meir where he is seated
before a row of beer-jars while workers are engaged in mixing dough
[M229; fig. 2.16]. His high status is suggested by his lighter skin tone
and the more intricate carving of his features. As he is accompanied by
a scribe and the final product of beer is presented to him, it is perhaps
more likely in this instance that it is the tomb owner who is represented.
169
A few of the models depict a standing figure who is not engaged
in any bread-making tasks and so may be an overseer, but without the
additional symbols of status, such identification cannot be certain. In a
model from Beni Hassan, for example, the standing figure accompanying
the baker and water-carrier is of greater height than the other figures and
holds a stick which likely suggests he is an official [M266].
170
The official is labelled jmj-r pr-Sna ‘overseer of the storehouse’, and
his older age is conveyed by an enlarged breast and rolls of fat across his
stomach. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 43.
171
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, 41.
172
Presumably, this bread is for the nourishment of the herdsmen rather
than the animals as an exceptionally large quantity would be needed to
feed the herd and the cattle could graze on the grass. Klebs, Reliefs des
Alten Reiches, 67; Boessneck, Tierwelt, 68.
39
Food Production and Preparation
Alternatively, a standing figure mixing dough appears in the
courtyard of a granary model from Deir el-Bersha [M259].
This association conveys the end result of the grain stored
within the facility. While connecting motifs of different
themes is not commonly a technique applied in models, the
wide appearance of bread-making highlights the desire to be
adequately provisioned with bread for eternity.
The production of bread certainly holds a prime position
in both the two- and three-dimensional representations,
forming a vital source of nourishment for the tomb
owner. Both media depict several of the same stages and
although there are many similarities in design, differences
still occur as each artwork was fashioned according to
its unique capabilities and the skill of its artist. However,
what is most striking about bread-making in the three-
dimensional medium is the consistent portrayal of a large
number of activities. Whereas most themes are condensed
in the three-dimensional medium, the representation of
bread-making is quite expansive. Models not only depict
several of the subsidiary tasks found in wall scenes, but also
portray multiple baking techniques. Such a comprehensive
representation conveys the importance of the theme in the
three-dimensional repertoire. It seems probable that this
significance should be attributed to the models’ location in
the burial chamber where a perpetual supply of nourishment
could be accessed by the deceased in the afterlife.
2.4 Brewing beer
Beer formed another staple of the ancient Egyptian diet
and, like bread, was essential in both life and afterlife.
In addition to forming a fundamental source of nutrition
for the whole population, beer was a major component
of offerings to the deceased and divine, and an important
economic commodity.173 Consequently, representations of
brewing beer, like bread-making, are common in both the
two- and three-dimensional media. A smaller number of
brewing activities are represented than is found for bread-
making, although the two processes seem to have shared
some preliminary tasks.174 The most popular motif of beer
preparation comprises a brewer straining beer-mash, but
the more expansive representations also depict the tasks of
mixing the mash, malting, carrying water, and preparing
and storing beer-jars.175 In the corpus from Meir, Deir el-
Bersha and Beni Hassan, 24 models and seven wall scenes
173
Darby, Ghalioungui & Grivetti, Food. Volume 2, 531-33; Geller, in
Followers of Horus, 20; Samuel, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.
oxfordreference.com>.
174
It can therefore be difficult to assign the representations of preparatory
tasks to just one of these processes; the activities that may have been
shared by both are addressed in chapter 2.3 in the discussion on bread-
making.
175
Scholarship has often solely relied upon the artistic record to
understand the brewing process, but the ambiguity of the representations
has led to much dispute over certain aspects of production, including
the order of steps, the use of bread, the addition of flavourings and the
practice of malting. Samuel, however, has more recently proposed an
updated explanation that considers both the archaeological and artistic
evidence. Samuel, “Archaeology of ancient Egyptian beer”, JASBC 54.1,
(1996), 3; Samuel, in Food in the Arts, 173-81; Hudáková, in Florilegium
Aegyptiacum, 172-73.
Preparing for Eternity
were examined that depict one or more tasks specifically
associated with beer preparation. The two media exhibit
many similarities in their representation of these activities,
but there are notable differences in the minute details
which indicate each artwork was designed according to its
specific technical capabilities.
Like bread-making, brewing appears early in the artistic
record and maintains a prominent position. Wall scenes of
brewing are first documented in the late 4th Dynasty but
were quickly integrated into the decoration of numerous
Old Kingdom chapels.176 The theme continues to appear
in scenes of the First Intermediate Period and Middle
Kingdom but, like the preparation of bread, seems to have
held greater importance in the model repertoire during
this time.177 After millers grinding grain, the most popular
motif of the 4th and 5th Dynasty limestone statuettes is
brewers straining beer-mash followed by figures preparing
beer-jars.178 The owners of these models usually interred
between one and three single figures engaged in food
preparation, but as paired statuettes began to be fashioned
in the late 6th Dynasty, a single model could convey
multiple tasks.179 Brewing remains a common theme in
models of the First Intermediate Period and increases in
popularity in the early Middle Kingdom. Although model
manufacture rapidly declined in the late Middle Kingdom,
brewing still appears among this smaller corpus.180 The
preparation of bread and beer was certainly important in
the model repertoire throughout the medium’s period of
use, contributing a vital source of nourishment for the
deceased in the afterlife.
In the representations, the most characteristic task of the
brewer comprises straining beer-mash through a sieve
into a large vessel where it would then likely be left to
ferment.181 This is systematically represented as a figure
standing directly before a knee- or waist-high vessel with
the hands pressing down on top of the sieve.182 As the
176
Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 81; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb
in Ancient Egypt, 95; Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 161.
177
Samuel, in Materials and Technology, 537-38; Kroenke, “Provincial
Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 230; Hudáková, in Florilegium
Aegyptiacum, 161.
178
Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 226.
179
The late 6th Dynasty assemblage of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) from Meir
includes 13 single or paired statuettes associated with food preparation,
five of which convey activities involved in brewing beer [M8-M12].
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 15; Kroenke,
“Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 226-28.
180
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 61; Kroenke,
“Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 233-34.
181
In the Old Kingdom, straining could be conducted by either a male
or female brewer, whereas in the First Intermediate Period and Middle
Kingdom, men are solely portrayed in this role. One exception may be
found in a model from Beni Hassan dated by Breasted to the 12th Dynasty
which appears to depict a female brewer [M267]. The woman adopts the
typical stance of the brewer, but as this attitude displays a number of
similarities with that required for mixing dough in bread-making, this
classification cannot be certain. The upper surface of the vessel is hidden
from view in the available images, preventing any identification of a
sieve. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 39; Samuel, in Food in the
Arts, 178-79; Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 176.
182
Indeed, the determinative for af.ty ‘brewer’ comprises a figure
adopting this posture. Even when fashioned of pottery, the characteristic
stance is still conveyed, as is achieved in a model from the tomb of
40
three-dimensional medium had the advantage of presenting
a holistic perspective, the precise posture of the brewer
could be accurately conveyed. The typical representation
is exhibited by the brewer in the model of Djay (275 LC)
from Beni Hassan who stands with legs together and knees
slightly bent [M44].183 His arms are lowered straight in
front with his hands resting side-by-side on top of the sieve,
although in more finely crafted examples, the elbows are
slightly bent and the hands are crossed over each other, as
is achieved in one of the brewing models of Niankh-pepy-
kem (A1) from Meir [M11; fig. 2.20].
Scene-artists, on the other hand, were restricted to a
two-dimensional perspective which obscured many
components from view. For both legs of the brewer to be
seen, the characteristic posture had to be modified. In all
scenes examined, the brewer strides forward with one leg
instead of standing with the legs side-by-side.184 On the
left of the second register of the east wall of the tomb of
Pepi (D1) at Meir, the left leg, that furthest from view, is
positioned in front to allow both to be seen [S20; fig. 2.23].
In relation to the brewer’s arms, both are lowered in front
with the hands placed on top of the sieve, as is achieved
in models, but the scene-artist encountered difficulty
in representing the shoulders. As the torso is presented
in profile and the shoulders in frontal view, the forward
arm movement required in straining beer-mash causes the
shoulders to be depicted in a position that does not always
correspond with reality.185 While most scene-artists chose
to represent the far shoulder in full view and the near
shoulder in profile, the brewers in the fourth register of the
west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni
Hassan have both shoulders pushed forward awkwardly
[S202]. The limitations of the two-dimensional perspective
certainly created difficulties in capturing active postures,
yet scene-artists were able to find means to overcome
these restrictions.
Differences resulting from the media’s unique perspectives
are also found in the representation of the sieve that resides
on top of the vessel. Models, with their holistic perspective,
could capture both the profile and top-down viewpoints
in a realistic fashion. The side of the sieve in a model of
Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) is coloured yellow and decorated
with incised horizontal lines which probably symbolise
basketry [M8]. The sieve itself, visible from a top-down
perspective, could simply be painted as a small grid, as is
found in a model from Beni Hassan [M265], or could be
Senbu (487 LC) at Beni Hassan [M263; see fig. 4.15]. The constraints
of the material prevented the incorporation of the fine details that could
be carved in wooden models, but the brewer’s posture before the vessel
could still be encapsulated. Klebs, Reliefs und Malereien, 121; Helck,
Bier, 97.
183
It is here proposed that this model, housed in the National Museums
Scotland, is the same as that presented in Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial
Customs. Volume I”, pl. 47.2, which Tooley identifies as originating from
the tomb of Djay (275 LC) at Beni Hassan.
184
It should be noted, however, that the advanced leg is also adopted by
the brewer in a select number of models, with one such example found in
that of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) from Beni Hassan [M218].
185
Smith, Sculpture and Painting, 309-10; Robins, Egyptian Painting,
38-39.

Figure 2.20. Brewing beer model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1), with one figure straining beer-mash and the other preparing jars
to hold beer [M11]. Drawing by the author.
indicated through small carved holes, as is achieved in the
model of Khety (366 LC) from Beni Hassan [M195; see
fig. 2.14].186 Moreover, the three-dimensional perspective
enables the chaff that remained behind as the mixture was
passed through the sieve to be represented.187 In the model
from the tomb of Henu (L-16H50-1C) at Deir el-Bersha,
four small mounds of chaff formed of plaster and painted
red are positioned around the edge of the sieve [M33].188
Each of these features could be easily incorporated into
the three-dimensional design, enabling models to present
a comprehensive portrayal of the sieve.
186
Only occasionally is the sieve unrepresented on top of the model
vessel. In the brewing and bread-making model from tomb 420 LC at
Beni Hassan, the cylindrical vessel before the brewer is painted red
without any definition of a sieve [M30]. This should most likely be
attributed to the more limited skill of the model-artist as all equipment
represented in the model is quite basically rendered.
187
These masses should be understood as chaff as has been proposed by
Samuel rather than bread-dough as was previously thought. Samuel, in
Food in the Arts, 179; Kemp, Ancient Egypt, 174. For the interpretation
of bread-dough, see Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 126-28;
Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, 105.
188
De Meyer, “Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barshā. Volume
II”, 620-21.
41
Food Production and Preparation
Scene-artists were required to select the most characteristic
viewpoint of each component in their designs and, for the
vessel and its sieve, this comprised the profile perspective.
Consequently, the top-down elements of the sieve that
feature in models are absent in scenes. The sieve is instead
typically distinguished from the vessel through its size,
shape and colour. On the south wall of the tomb of Baqet
III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan, the sieve in the sixth register
is slightly wider than the vessel it is situated upon, has
upward curving ends and is coloured white while the
vessel beneath is red [S77; see fig. 2.19]. In a few rare
instances, scene-artists have attempted to combine two
perspectives in order to incorporate the top-down elements
even though in reality they would be hidden from view. On
the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni
Hassan, the sieve in the fourth register is shown in profile,
but a small section of black cross-hatching is painted in
the middle to indicate the mesh on top [S165; fig. 2.21].
This composition does not present the same realistic
arrangement as models, but it does allow the principal
elements of the sieve to be distinguished.
Straining beer-mash would not have been possible without
a supply of water, and so the representations often portray
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 2.21. Straining beer-mash, carrying water, preparing jars to hold beer and sealed beer-jars residing on low tables.
Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). West wall, south panel, register 4 [S165]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 90
[detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
a figure carrying water-jars, usually suspended from a yoke
balanced across the shoulders.189 This motif is relatively
common in models, with nine examples identified from
Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan [M164, M179,
M195, M201, M218, M227, M230, M260, M266; see
figs. 2.14, 2.22, 2.30]. The water-carrier is often oriented
towards the brewer, but as water is required in other food
preparation processes, the figure is sometimes directed
towards the baker.190 Working in three-dimensions, the
jars had to be properly secured to the yoke to remain
pendulous. The suspension could simply be carved as a
small bar of wood attached to the yoke, as is found in the
model of Ipi (707 LC) from Beni Hassan [M164], or it
could more accurately reflect reality through utilising
different materials. In a bread-making model from Meir,
a short length of thread hangs from each end of a yoke to
which two jars would have originally been tied [M227].
Wall scenes, in contrast, did not have to consider the
actual suspension of the jars as the vessels could simply
be drawn in an elevated state. On the west wall of the
tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the water-carrier stands
directly opposite the brewer with a yoke stretched across
his shoulders [S165; fig. 2.21]. The jars are suspended
in netted sacks which hang by cords drawn on the wall
surface. Unusually, this is the only scene to incorporate the
motif in this study and in fact comprises the only known
Middle Kingdom example.191 As was witnessed in bread-
making, the depiction of subsidiary motifs in models such
as water-carriers attests to a more expansive representation
than is typical for the three-dimensional medium.
189
In a couple of rare exceptions, the jars are not carried on a yoke,
but are either supported on the back, as in a bread-making model likely
created in Meir [M230], or balanced on the head, as in a food preparation
model likely from Deir el-Bersha [M260].
190
In the bread-making and brewing model of Khety-aa (575 LC)
from Beni Hassan, the two water-carriers face towards the baker but
presumably serviced all activities that required water [M201; see fig.
2.30]. Alternatively, in a model from Beni Hassan, baking is the only task
represented and so the accompanying water-carrier is solely used in the
preparation of bread [M266]. Alcock, Food, 110.
191
Hudáková has identified this illustration as the only know
Middle Kingdom scene of water-carriers. Hudáková, in Florilegium
Aegyptiacum, 174.
42
Other supplementary brewing tasks also appear in the
model repertoire, further highlighting the comprehensive
three-dimensional portrayal of the theme. In a model from
the tomb of Nefery (116 LC) at Beni Hassan, a man stands
within a waist-high vessel with his lower body submerged
in the white contents [M179; fig. 2.22]. His action has
variously been classified as kneading dough, crushing dates
and mixing beer-mash.192 Considering the large quantity of
brewing activities displayed around him, it seems probable
that he is engaged in mixing the mash with his feet, although
it is possible that dates were also added at this time. This
is the only representation examined in this study that
incorporates the motif,193 and the model in fact presents quite
an expansive representation with six figures involved in
brewing and a seventh in bread-making. Alternatively, two
of the models examined incorporate large vessels lying on
their sides which Samuel suggests could be malting vessels:
six jars lie before the brewers in the model of Nefery (116
LC) [M179; fig. 2.22] and two vessels with a painted mesh
pattern across their mouths lie on a low table in a model of
Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) from Beni Hassan
[M210].194 Although there is debate in scholarship regarding
the use of malting in ancient Egyptian brewing, Samuel
notes that the side-turned vessel would have been effective
for this process.195 This interpretation of malting seems quite
192
Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 76; Montet, Scènes de
la vie privée, 250; Forbes, Ancient Technology. Volume III, 71; Kroenke,
“Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 222.
193
Hudáková has noted that the motif of a man standing within a vessel is
known from scenes of the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period but
has not yet been identified for the Middle Kingdom. See, for example, the
east wall of the tomb of Hemre/Isi I at Deir el-Gebrawi where a man stands
within a knee-high vessel beside a man straining beer-mash on the left of
the fourth register. Davies, Deir el Gebrâwi. Part II, pl. 20; Kanawati, Deir
el-Gebrawi. Volume I, pl. 49; Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 173.
194
Samuel, in Materials and Technology, 552-53.
195
Samuel observes that the side-turned vessel would have created a
large surface area for the grain to be spread out and subsequently rolled.
Darby, Ghalioungui and Grivetti discuss the appearance of the word
bSA in a number of tomb scenes depicting the harvest of grain, bread-
making and brewing, and consider the possibility that this term should be
understood as ‘malt’. Alternatively, Lucas and Harris remark that malting
may have been used in brewing, but that it is entirely unrepresented.
Darby, Ghalioungui & Grivetti, Food. Volume 2, 534-35; Lucas & Harris,
Materials and Industries, 14; Samuel, in Materials and Technology, 552.

Figure 2.22. Food preparation model of Nefery (116 LC), with six figures engaged in brewing beer and a seventh in bread-
making [M179]. Archive image JG-B-716; courtesy of the Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool.
likely, causing these models to present another auxiliary
task that was not considered essential to the brewing theme,
once again demonstrating the thorough three-dimensional
representation of the preparation of the staple diet.
Once brewing was completed, the jars had to be prepared
to hold the beer, a task that involved smearing the inner
surfaces with clay to make them impenetrable.196 This
activity is represented in both scenes and models of the Old
Kingdom and is encapsulated by a seated figure who has
one hand plunged into a jar.197 A man in one of the models
of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) has both legs outstretched with
only the heels touching the ground and the jar supported
between his feet [M11; fig. 2.20]. The seated figure in the
second register of the west wall of the tomb of Meniu
(E1) at Meir adopts a similar posture with the far knee
bent close to the chest and the near leg extended with the
end of the jar balanced against the toes [S1]. It is probable
that the modified position of the far leg was achieved so it
would remain in view in the two-dimensional perspective.
Scenes, however, had the advantage of integrating
inscriptions that could specify the use of clay to seal the
jars. On the west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle
(D2) at Meir, the action of the man on the left of the second
register is described as Hw sjn r orHt ‘beating the clay for
196
Montet, Scènes de la vie privée, 251; Faltings, “Bierbrauerei”, ZAeS
118, (1991), 114.
197
Montet, Scènes de la vie privée, 251; Darby, Ghalioungui & Grivetti,
Food. Volume 2, 547; Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 175.
43
Food Production and Preparation
the jar’, indicating he is preparing the material for the men
storing beer above [S16; see fig. 2.18].198 Although models
are not able to clarify such details with textual captions,
the characteristic posture of the figure preparing the jars
could be depicted, allowing the motif to still be clearly
conveyed.
Alternatively, the task of pouring beer into jars could not
be represented by both media. The stream of liquid that
was necessary for the motif could be easily drawn on the
two-dimensional wall surface, enabling scenes to depict
this activity. On the left of the first register of the scene of
Pepyankh the Middle (D2), the standing figure angles a
small vessel towards a beer-jar with a thin line joining the
two to represent the flowing beer [S16; see fig. 2.18].199
Conversely, streaming liquid could not be captured in
three-dimensions and so all of the models examined
exclude this motif. Instead, the models simply imply that
198
Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, 52.
199
This task also appears to be depicted on some wall fragments
discovered by Smith that originate from the east wall of the inner room of
the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha [S207]. In fragments
51-56 are the remains of two figures standing on either side of a row of jars
while angling a vessel towards them. Although Smith has suggested that
the scene could illustrate the production of oil, the remaining motifs do
not depict the wringing of the sack press that was essential for the theme.
The fragmentary nature of the scene prevents certain identification, but
the motif’s placement adjacent to bread-making further supports brewing
as a more likely classification. Smith, “Paintings of the Egyptian Middle
Kingdom”, AJA 55.4, (1951), 326; Serpico & White, in Materials and
Technology, 406-07.
Preparing for Eternity
this activity has been completed through depicting sealed
beer-jars, an example of which may be found in a model
from Meir where a row of jars sealed with black stoppers
is arranged before a seated figure [M229; see fig. 2.16].
However, an attempt has been made to convey this activity
without the stream of beer in the finely crafted brewing and
bread-making model of Meketre from Thebes: a standing
figure leans over a beer-jar with another vessel angled
towards it, and although the beer itself is unrepresented,
the attitude of the man conveys a pouring motion.200 The
three-dimensional medium could consequently only imply
the pouring of beer into jars, whereas the two-dimensional
medium had the ability to depict it specifically.
The beer-jars themselves are represented quite
consistently, with both scenes and models reflecting the
development from ovoid shapes with pointed bases in the
Old Kingdom to globular jars with rounded bottoms in the
First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom.201 Each
of these forms would not have been able to stand upright
on its own, yet scenes regularly depict the jars standing on
the baseline without any form of support. In the second
register of the east wall of the tomb of Pepi (D1), several
conical beer-jars stand upright with the pointed bases
simply touching the register line [S20; fig. 2.23]. As the
jars were drawn on the wall surface, the scene-artist did
not need to consider any form of stabilisation. Conversely,
the model-artist was required to provide a structural
support for his three-dimensional jars. In a model of
Niankh-pepy-kem (A1), the 10 sealed beer-jars with
pointed bases lean against a framework consisting of a long
rectangular plank slotted into two shorter perpendicular
pieces [M12]. The addition of the structural support
reflects the constraints of the three-dimensional medium,
but it also more accurately reflects the requirements of
real-life beer storage.
Additional beer-jars were also regularly included in the
representations to indicate the great supply of beer ready
for consumption. In scenes, this usually consists of several
superimposed rows of sealed beer-jars. On the west wall of
the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the beer-jars reside on two
low tables that are positioned one above the other [S165;
fig. 2.21].202 This arrangement conveys a side-by-side
positioning while enabling both tables and their contents
to remain in view. Alternatively, models regularly feature
large storage jars that either remain open or are sealed.203
In the two models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) from Deir
el-Bersha, a large jar sealed with a pointed stopper stands
immediately in front of each brewer [M71-M72], while
200
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 20.3.12.
201
Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 175.
202
There is some minute variation in the shape and colour of the beer-
jars in this scene. It is probable that they all contain beer as the scene is
solely dedicated to brewing, but it is possible that each kind of vessel
holds a different type of beer. Several varieties of beer are known, with
each type distinguished by its strength. Kemp, Ancient Egypt, 174;
Swinton, in Behind the Scenes, 43.
203
It is possible that the open vessels are symbolic of the process of
fermentation. Samuel, in Materials and Technology, 569; Hudáková, in
Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 208.
44
Figure 2.23. Straining beer-mash, pouring beer into jars and
sealing beer-jars. Tomb of Pepi (D1). East wall, south panel,
register 2 [S20]. Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir.
Part V, pl. 44.2 [detail]; courtesy of the Egypt Exploration
Society.
in the model of Khety (366 LC), the overflowing contents
of the open jar are indicated by red streaks painted down
the sides [M195; see fig. 2.14]. Such vessels even appear
in the condensed single statuettes that solely depict a
brewer straining beer-mash, like that of Intef (1 LC) from
Beni Hassan [M38], highlighting their integral nature to
the motif. Storage jars convey the great quantity of beer
available to the tomb owner, and their prominence in
models should most likely be attributed to their important
contribution to the tomb owner’s eternal sustenance.
Both scenes and models display a close association
between brewing beer and bread-making. The assumption
that beer was made from partially baked bread loaves
has been disproven by Samuel, but the two commodities
certainly shared some of the same ingredients and
preliminary activities and may have been prepared in the
same location, and this most likely explains their regular
affiliation.204 However, the artworks often create some
form of distinction between the two processes. In more
condensed scenes, like that of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), both
operations are combined within a single register, although
here brewing is confined to the left and bread-making to
the right [S202]. More commonly, the processes are spread
across multiple rows, as is found on the east wall of the
tomb of Pepi (D1) where brewing is illustrated in the second
register and bread-making immediately below in the third
register [S20]. The west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat
(2 UC), alternatively, portrays the production and storage
of four different foodstuffs in the fourth register, but
confines each commodity to its own compartment [S165].
The careful arrangement of motifs on each wall enables
204
Samuel, “Archaeology of ancient Egyptian beer”, JASBC 54.1,
(1996), 3; Samuel, in Food in the Arts, 178-79; Samuel, in Materials
and Technology, 569. Prior to Samuel’s analysis, it was commonly
thought that brewing involved crumbling partially cooked bread loaves
and straining them through a sieve with water. Instead, Samuel has
demonstrated that grain was used: it was divided into two batches, with
one sprouted and dried and the other milled and cooked before being
mixed together and strained through a sieve. For the earlier interpretation,
see, for example, Forbes, Ancient Technology. Volume III, 71; Sist, in
Egyptian Civilization, 60; Wilson, Food and Drink, 18-19; Faltings,
“Bierbrauerei”, ZAeS 118, (1991), 112-14.

connections to be made between different activities while
also distinguishing each production process.
Group models of the Middle Kingdom usually convey a
single theme, but those that depict brewing are regularly
combined with bread-making and slaughtering. However,
the three food preparation processes are regularly kept
quite distinct, with each confined to its own space on
the baseboard. One of the models of Khnum-nekhti and
Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) is arranged on a long rectangular
baseboard with slaughtering positioned at one end,
brewing in the middle and bread-making at the other
[M209]. Although there are no defined boundaries, each is
clearly distinguished through the arrangement of figures.
Architectural frameworks, which were occasionally
incorporated into group models of the 12th Dynasty, could
also aid the division of themes.205 In the model of Nefwa
(186 LC) from Beni Hassan, the baseboard is provided
with a partial enclosure wall as well as a low interior wall
that divides the activities into two distinct sections: bread-
making on one side and slaughtering and brewing on the
other [M187]. The combination of the three processes
demonstrates the tomb owner’s access not only to the
staples of bread and beer, but also to the more prestigious
supplement of beef. Such collective representations
are largely confined to food preparation in the three-
dimensional repertoire, highlighting the importance of
providing a complete diet for the tomb owner’s afterlife.
Motifs of brewing beer commonly appear in the artistic
record, highlighting the commodity’s vital role in
providing nourishment. Wall scenes and models display
several of the same production activities and exhibit many
similarities in design, but differences do occur due to
their contrasting technical abilities. Model-artists had the
advantage of working in three-dimensions which enabled
a more accurate portrayal of the stance of the brewer
and the sieve used to strain the beer-mash as well as the
ability to incorporate real-life materials. However, some
intricate details could not be conveyed, causing motifs
such as pouring the beer into jars to be excluded from
the three-dimensional designs. On the other hand, scene-
artists could easily draw minute details on the wall surface
and were not required to provide any structural support
for unstable objects such as beer-jars, yet the limitations
of the two-dimensional perspective caused certain features
to be hidden from view or modifications to be made to
the characteristic representation. The regular occurrence
of brewing among models and its close association with
bread-making and slaughtering emphasise the importance
of food supply in the three-dimensional repertoire and
its significant contribution to the deceased’s eternal
nourishment.
205
Food preparation is one of the rare themes in which architectural
structures appear in the model repertoire aside from granaries. In most
instances, the framework borders the outside edge of the model with a
small opening in one wall that functions as an entryway, as is exhibited
by the model of Khety-aa (575 LC) [M201; see fig. 2.30]. Arnold, in
Structure and Significance, 33; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga
ed-Deir”, 233.
45
Food Production and Preparation
2.5 Hand-feeding cattle
In addition to the staples of bread and beer, wealthy
individuals could supplement their diet with meat. Both
wall scenes and models display some of the stages involved
in acquiring this commodity, namely fattening the animal,
slaughtering and cooking. Beef obtained from cattle was
particularly significant not only for its nutritional value,
but also for its role in the mortuary cult. For the highest
quality beef, select cattle were fed a specialised diet.206
Representations of this preparatory stage are regularly
labelled ‘force-feeding’ due to the fact that the animals are
fed by hand while they are tethered and/or recumbent.207
However, this interpretation does not take into account the
cattle’s actual behavioural characteristics. Rather, Evans’
proposition that the images combine a sequence of events
illustrating the feeding and subsequent rumination of
the cattle is more likely.208 Accordingly, the designation
‘hand-feeding’ is preferred here for representations of this
activity.
Hand-feeding cattle was introduced to the two-
dimensional repertoire during the Old Kingdom where
it appeared quite commonly in Memphite tombs.209
However, only two examples were identified from the
three sites under investigation, both of which date to the
Middle Kingdom. These two scenes originate from Beni
Hassan and while both display the feeding of cattle, only
one involves hand-feeding [S80, S189].210 Due to this
restricted number of examples, some hand-feeding scenes
from Old Kingdom Memphite tombs will be drawn upon
for further comparison. This small quantity of scenes is
contrasted with a greater number of models, with a total
of 11 examples identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and
Beni Hassan. However, this significant size difference
should not necessarily indicate that the theme was more
popular in the three-dimensional medium as the 11 models
originate from only three burials: those of Djay (275 LC)
at Beni Hassan [M45], Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) at Deir
206
It would not have been economically viable to feed large herds of
cattle a specialised diet, and as the meat of those kept for physical labour
was quite tough, only select oxen would have been chosen for fattening.
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 2; Brewer, in History
of the Animal World, 436, 444; Swinton, in Behind the Scenes, 36.
207
This classification was proposed by Vandier but has since been
adopted by many scholars. See, for example, Vandier, Manuel
d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 80-83; Ikram, “Food for eternity, part
1”, KMT 5.1, (1994), 27; Tyldesley, Daughters of Isis, 106; Dodson &
Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 100; Jones, in Behind the Scenes, 101.
208
Evans has identified a number of problems associated with the force-
feeding interpretation: the beasts would have been too powerful to be
held down by a simple leash; it is not possible to force-feed a ruminant
without endangering its health; and such measures would have been
unnecessary as, given the right food, cattle continue to eat without
encouragement. Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 57; Swinton,
in Egyptian Culture and Society. Volume II, 235; Swinton & Evans,
“Force-feeding animals”, GM 232, (2012), 141.
209
Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 161; Evans, Animal
Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 56-57.
210
The two scenes are found in the late 11th Dynasty tomb of Baqet
III (15 UC) [S80] and the 12th Dynasty tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC)
[S189]. On the south wall of Baqet III’s tomb, the four cattle on the right
of the third register are not fed by hand, but rather feed from piles of food
on the ground under the supervision of two relaxed herdsmen.
Preparing for Eternity
el-Bersha [M73-M81] and Amenemhat (K-21) at Deir
el-Bersha [M175].211 Nine of the models in fact derive
from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht which also housed the
burial of his wife. Even if the nine models were divided
between the two owners, it is still an exceptionally high
quantity of representations of this theme for one burial.212
Accordingly, hand-feeding cattle is only rarely attested in
both media and should be understood as a supplementary
theme.
The fact that the theme is even represented by the three-
dimensional medium is quite surprising. Models were
typically interred in small quantities and the latter stages
of production were usually favoured over the preparatory
activities as these provided the tomb owner with the
desired commodity. In relation to the preparation of meat,
slaughtering cattle is much more frequently attested as
this formed the culmination of the process. It would
therefore be expected that hand-feeding only appears
in expansive model assemblages where slaughtering is
already represented, but the three owners of hand-feeding
models examined in this study in fact do not include
any representations of slaughtering. This is particularly
surprising in the burial of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) which
housed over 100 models, among which are a number
of rarely attested themes, yet not a single illustration of
slaughtering cattle.213 While it is possible that such models
were originally interred but have since been lost, the
evidence does not seem to suggest this.214 It seems likely
that the focus on the preparatory stage was a personal
preference of these tomb owners. The reasons for this can
only be speculated, but as meat had to be preserved before
storage unlike products such as bread and beer, perhaps
these model owners desired to depict living cattle which
could be slaughtered only when required so that fresh beef
could be obtained.
211
Additionally, Tooley has noted that models of cattle husbandry
are especially popular in Middle Egypt, with the hand-feeding theme
confined to Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom
Burial Customs. Volume I”, 76.
212
The nine models are particularly consistent in their design, although
there is some variation in quality. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb
10A, 151, 160.
213
The themes of brick-making and processions of soldiers, which
are rare in the three-dimensional repertoire, are found among Djehuty-
nakht’s model assemblage. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 175.
214
The model assemblage of Djay (275 LC) contained some other rarely
attested themes, including brick-making and leatherwork. Additionally,
a single figure of a man carrying the leg of an ox was found which
may symbolise the completion of the butchering process without the
actual slaughter being portrayed [M48]. Garstang proclaimed the burial
undisturbed at the time of discovery, but Bommas has more recently
cast some doubt on this due to the absence of vessels. Garstang, Burial
Customs of Ancient Egypt, 221; Bommas, “First Intermediate Period
tombs at Beni Hassan”, SAK 41, (2012), 63. During Kamal’s excavation
of the tomb of Amenemhat (K-21), a collection of models was found
piled on top of the coffin, including the hand-feeding representation, but
the objects were found in a state of disorder. Kamal, “Fouilles à Déir-el-
Barsheh”, ASAE 2, (1901), 18. The tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) was
plundered at least once, hurriedly excavated by the 1915 joint Harvard-
Boston expedition and then left in storage for several years prior to being
transferred to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. It is therefore possible
that part of the model corpus was lost at some point during this process
of acquisition, but the vast quantity of models uncovered would suggest
that most, if not all, were recovered. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb
10A, 151, 175.
46
In both the two- and three-dimensional representations of
hand-feeding, the oxen are typically displayed recumbent.
The hind legs are brought forward to rest alongside
the prostrate body, although in the profile perspective
presented in the two-dimensional medium only the near
leg could be portrayed. On the north wall of the tomb
of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan, a group of
three oxen are hand-fed by a single herdsman in the fifth
register, although only one is recumbent [S189; fig. 2.25].
The animals are oriented towards the right and so it is the
right hind leg of the recumbent ox that is on display. The
hind legs of prostrate model cattle are likewise brought
forward, but with a holistic three-dimensional perspective,
both are visible. As the legs were held close to the body,
they were carved from the same piece of wood instead of
being fashioned separately and attached with pegs as was
achieved for some models of standing cattle.215 In some
examples, the hind legs are hardly distinguishable from
the body,216 while in others they are more distinct. In one
of the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), the hoof of the
hind leg is painted black and terminates in a square-cut
block while the rest of the leg has been given some shaping
[M73; fig. 2.24]. Unusually, in eight of the nine models
of Djehuty-nakht, the oxen have been carved from the
same piece as the baseboard.217 Typically, all components
of models were carved separately and attached to a plain
rectangular baseboard with pegs,218 but in these examples
the overall shape of the base has been impacted, exhibiting
a curved end and protrusions that follow the contours of
the recumbent animal.
The forelegs display more variation in their positioning.
In wall scenes, usually only the near foreleg is displayed,
and this is bent back and tucked underneath the body,
as is exhibited by the recumbent ox in the scene of
Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S189; fig. 2.25].219 However,
some scene-artists of the Old Kingdom incorporated
both forelegs into their representations. On the east wall
of the tomb of Kayemnofret at Saqqara, for example, the
recumbent ox positioned on the papyrus boat in the second
register has the near foreleg tucked in the typical position
while the left, that furthest from view, is extended with
the hoof resting on deck.220 This variation in arrangement
was required to enable both forelegs to be seen by the
viewer. Models, likewise, could portray both forelegs
tucked under the body, as is found in the model of Djay
(275 LC) [M45], or have one foreleg extended. In seven
of the nine models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), the left
foreleg is outstretched while the right is tucked underneath
215
See, for example, the cattle in procession in a model of Djehuty-nakht
(R-10A) where the connection between each leg and the body is clearly
visible [M150; see fig. 4.10].
216
In two of the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), for example, the hind
legs display almost no definition and so merge into the body [M78-M79].
217
In the one exception, the animal has been fashioned as a separate
piece and attached [M80]. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 161.
218
Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 152.
219
Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 56.
220
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 04.1761; Simpson, Kayemnofret, pl.
23a.

Figure 2.24. Hand-feeding model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M73]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.413.
[M73-M76, M78-M79, M81; see fig. 2.24].221 Although
both legs could be tucked under the body and remain in
view in the three-dimensional medium, the depiction of
the extended leg probably reflects an alternate real-life
posture adopted by recumbent cattle.222 Therefore, both
scene- and model-artists created designs that reflected
the behavioural characteristics of the animals within the
capabilities of their medium.
When recumbent, the tail sweeps around the body of
the cattle, a positioning that is exhibited by both media.
In models, the tail is often painted on the body as this
movement was presumably easier to achieve with a
two-dimensional technique rather than carving it out of
wood. For example, in one of Djehuty-nakht’s (R-10A)
models, the black tail sweeps over the right side of the
ox’s recumbent body and ends with four thin lines marking
the hair [M75]. The two-dimensional medium similarly
displays the tail of the recumbent ox sweeping across
the body and over the hind leg,223 but it could also pass
221
In the other two models of Djehuty-nakht, one ox has both forelegs
tucked under the body [M80] while the other appears to have only the
right foreleg extended, but the left has broken off [M77]. Museum of
Fine Arts, Boston, “Model of a man feeding an ox”, viewed 6 September
2017, <https://collections.mfa.org/objects/335548>.
222
Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 55.
223
See, for example, the east wall of the tomb of Kayemnofret at Saqqara
where the oxen being hand-fed are depicted with their tails sweeping
across their near hind legs. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 04.1761;
Lepsius, Denkmäler. Ergänzungsband, pl. 32; Simpson, Kayemnofret,
pl. 23a.
47
Food Production and Preparation
underneath the leg with the tip peeking out.224 This latter
arrangement is exhibited by the prostrate ox in the scene
of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) and forms a contrast with the ox
standing beside who has a long, hanging tail [S189; fig.
2.25]. The recumbent positioning of the oxen required a
specific arrangement of body parts and both media were
able to achieve this in their designs according to their
technical properties.
Typically, each ox is fed by its own herdsman in the
representations, but occasionally more than one animal is
fed simultaneously. In the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC),
three oxen are attended by a single man, and although only
one is recumbent, all three are being hand-fed [S189; fig.
2.25]. Only the model of Amenemhat (K-21) incorporates
more than one animal among the three-dimensional corpus
examined, if indeed all of the cattle are original to the
representation and reside in their ancient arrangement:
five recumbent cattle are scattered across the baseboard,
all carved in different sizes and positioned at varying
angles [M175]. Only one of these animals, however, is
fed by the herdsman.225 The other four lie prostrate with
224
Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 56.
225
Unusually, there is a second human figure incorporated in the model:
he is enveloped in a white cloak with only his head emerging and is
seated towards one end of the baseboard while being angled away from
the animals. He is not engaged in any particular action and the nature of
his attire suggests that he may function as an official who supervises the
feeding process. It is also possible that he does not belong to the original
hand-feeding model as such cloaked figures are more typically found on
model boats.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 2.25. Three oxen being hand-fed by a single herdsman. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). North wall, register 5 [S189].
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 125 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
their forelegs tucked under their bodies, suggesting that
they have already been fed and remain recumbent for
rumination.226 The incorporation of more cattle provides
an expansion on the basic theme, highlighting the great
supply of fattened cattle available to the tomb owner.
In the two-dimensional representations, the oxen are
usually restrained during hand-feeding. A short leash is
often attached to the ox’s neck or muzzle and is held by the
herdsman.227 In the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), short
leashes are connected to the muzzles of all three oxen,
although the ends of the ropes simply hang down before
the man’s feet [S189; fig. 2.25]. Illustrating this device
conveyed the restricted movement of the animals during
feeding, an important element in successful fattening.228
Models, in contrast, do not utilise this restraint, but rather
226
Although rumination can occur while standing, cattle show a
preference for lying down with their forelegs tucked under their bodies
and hind legs brought forward. The four unattended cattle in the model
in fact adopt this posture, whereas the single ox being fed exhibits a
contrasting stance with at least one foreleg extended. Evans, Animal
Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 56.
227
Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 56.
228
Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 57.
48
portray the animals sitting dutifully on the baseboards.
It seems probable that the most effective means of
conveying the restraint in three-dimensions would be
through utilising real rope as this connection would have
been difficult to carve out of wood. If so, this difference in
representation may be a matter of preservation as material
leashes could be easily lost or destroyed. However, in the
model of Djay (275 LC) an alternate mode of restraint is
possibly portrayed [M45]. The herdsman holds a short,
thin object in his lowered left hand. Although it has been
identified as a knife,229 without the presence of a blade
or handle it appears more likely to be a simple stick. The
purpose of this tool, if original to the model, is unclear, but
perhaps it was used to control the animal if required. If so,
this representation would demonstrate an alternate method
of restraining the cattle.
The posture of the herdsman who feeds the ox is quite
consistent across the representations. In each artwork
examined in this study, the figure sits with both knees
229
National Museums Scotland, “Tomb-model, figure”, viewed 12
July 2019, <https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/collection-
search-results/?item_id=300297>.

bent up in front and his feet flat on the ground, enabling
him to directly engage with the animals.230 The models,
however, depict him in a stiff, upright posture and often
provide limited detail in the fashioning of his legs: they are
sometimes out of proportion to the rest of his body,231 or
are merely painted red to be distinguished from the white
kilt.232 In one of the more finely carved models of Djehuty-
nakht (R-10A), the man’s legs have been given some
further definition: they are separated by an incised line and
terminate in small rectangular blocks which signify feet
[M80]. Carving the intricacies of the legs’ muscles and
bones would have required exceptional skill to achieve
in small three-dimensional sculptures, whereas scene-
artists could easily draw these details on the wall surface.
Consequently, the herdsman in the scene of Khnumhotep
II (3 UC) exhibits more details in the rendering of his
figure: he wears a short white kilt with a sash around his
waist and squats with his knees bent close to his chest and
his back arched forward; his feet are flat on the ground
immediately in front of his body, with the arch of the sole
specified [S189; fig. 2.25]. However, only the left leg is
shown in its entirety, with the right obscured except for the
outline of the toe. Although the attitude of the herdsman
could be captured in both two- and three-dimensions, the
contours of the human figure could be more easily defined
on the two-dimensional wall surface.
The restricted ability of the model-artist in depicting the
intricacies of the herdsman’s movement did, however,
prevent the medium from precisely conveying the actual
feeding. It was important for a hand to be extended towards
the animal as this indicated that the cattle were being
hand-fed a specialised diet.233 All of the model herdsmen
examined exhibit stick-like arms without any definition
of bones or muscle. In each example, one arm is angled
towards the ox and although the hand itself is not carved, the
end of the arm is regularly flattened in an attempt to indicate
an open palm.234 This could sometimes be held quite close
to the animal’s mouth, as in one of the models of Djehuty-
nakht (R-10A) [M81], but no direct contact is portrayed.
Moreover, no food is represented in any of the models
causing the task of feeding to only be implied. In contrast,
wall scenes portray direct contact between the human and
230
Some scenes of the Old Kingdom alternatively display a kneeling
posture with one knee bent up in front and the other bent over on the
ground, as is exhibited by the herdsmen on the east wall of room 3 in
the tomb of Senedjemib at Giza. Lepsius, Denkmäler. Ergänzungsband,
pl. 23c.
231
For example, the man in one of Djehuty-nakht’s (R-10A) models has
particularly thin legs which are disproportionately shorter than the rest
of his body [M77].
232
The lower half of the herdsman involved in hand-feeding in the
model of Amenemhat (K-21), for example, is painted white with two
red lines down the front to suggest the presence of legs [M175]. This
section of his body is merely carved in a block shape with very limited
modelling of the feet.
233
Moreover, it demonstrates that the animal was given individual,
specialised attention by a single herdsman. Evans, Animal Behaviour in
Egyptian Art, 57.
234
Most commonly, it is the arm on the same side as the ox’s extended
foreleg that is held in front, as can be seen in one of the models of
Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) where the right arm of the man and the left
foreleg of the ox are extended [M75].
49
Food Production and Preparation
animal figures and, with a more detailed depiction of the
herdsman’s hands, could illustrate a variety of intricate
actions. Examples of the Old Kingdom display the man’s
hand touching the muzzle of the ox, cupping its lower lip,
plunged inside its mouth or holding some food.235 In the
scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), the herdsman bends both
arms at the elbow and positions them close to the animals
so his hands may both offer food and control the leashes
[S189; fig. 2.25]. A vessel is positioned between him and
the oxen, probably storing the specialised diet or water for
after the meal.236 The ability of the scene-artist to precisely
convey the movement of the herdsman’s hands enabled
the two-dimensional medium to specify the details of the
activity, whereas model-artists were restricted to conveying
the elements in a more basic fashion.
Scene-artists had the additional advantage of utilising
inscriptions to provide further information on the task
portrayed. Although not present in every representation,
scenes that incorporate the label wSA ‘fattening’ clearly
specify the purpose of the operation.237 The scene of
Khnumhotep II (3 UC) includes this label, with the caption
stating wSA rn n jwA ‘fattening the prime oxen’ [S189; fig.
2.25].238 Shafik has proposed that scenes without captions
where the herdsman’s hand is placed within the ox’s
mouth may depict oral care instead of hand-feeding,239
and while this is possible, the similarity between these
representations and those with identifying labels probably
indicates that the same task is consistently portrayed. A
similar understanding must be assumed for the three-
dimensional artworks where textual captions could not
be integrated into the representations. None of the hand-
feeding models include any inscription, so the theme is
solely conveyed graphically. Although this is a limitation
of the three-dimensional medium, the characteristic
posture of the ox and herdsman could still be captured,
allowing the theme to be easily recognised.
One feature that is evident in the three-dimensional medium
but absent in wall scenes is the depiction of an architectural
235
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 82-83; Evans,
Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 56. On the north wall of the tomb of Ti
at Saqqara, the herdsman engaged in hand-feeding uses one hand to grasp
a short leash connected to the ox’s muzzle and the other to proffer some
food. Wild, Ti II, pl. 124. Alternatively, on the east wall of the tomb of
Senedjemib at Giza, the herdsman simply rests his hand on the animal’s
muzzle. Lepsius, Denkmäler. Ergänzungsband, pl. 23c. In the tomb of
Mereruka at Saqqara, the three herdsmen engaged in hand-feeding in the
first register of the north wall of room A13 all have their right hands
plunged deep inside the oxen’s mouths. Kanawati, et al., Mereruka and
his Family. Part III:1-2, pl. 78.
236
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 80.
237
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 82; Evans,
Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 57. A number of scenes from the
Old Kingdom do not include this caption. For example, the two oxen
individually hand-fed by the herdsman on the east wall of the tomb of
Senedjemib at Giza are not accompanied by any inscriptions. Lepsius,
Denkmäler. Ergänzungsband, pl. 23c. Alternatively, the recumbent oxen
displayed above the doorway on the south wall of room 1 in the tomb of
Nikauisesi at Saqqara are individually labelled as rn jwA ‘young oxen’
or jwA ‘oxen’, but the herdsmen’s actions are not specified. Kanawati &
Abder-Raziq, Teti Cemetery. Volume VI, 36, pl. 47.
238
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 51.
239
Shafik, “Force-feeding animals”, GM 227, (2010), 68-69.
Preparing for Eternity
setting. In one corner of the model of Amenemhat (K-21)
resides a tall crenelated tower decorated with painted
windows [M175].240 The edges of the baseboard have
suffered some damage, so it is possible that more than one
tower was originally included.241 Architectural structures
are rare in the three-dimensional medium outside of
representations of granaries, and the presence of one
in this model is unique for the hand-feeding theme. It
certainly provides an architectural setting for the activity,
although its precise function is uncertain. If it is original to
the model, it may be connected to the care of the animals
and serve as a storage facility for the food.
Background environments are also not common in wall
scenes with the context instead regularly implied by its
relationship to surrounding vignettes.242 No architectural
structures are present in hand-feeding scenes, but on the
north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), the theme
is accompanied by processions of animals [S189], while
on the east wall of the tomb of Neferirtenef at Saqqara, it is
surrounded by scenes of agricultural pursuits, suggesting
that the animals were fed outside in the fields.243 The
expansive size of the wall surface enabled multiple themes
to be depicted on the same wall and carefully arranged
to convey certain associations. Model-artists, conversely,
created their representations on small baseboards that
regularly only accommodated a single theme and so hand-
feeding models do not display the same connections to
other motifs that is witnessed in scenes.
Although both media convey the essential components
of the herdsman and ox for the hand-feeding theme, wall
scenes regularly expand upon this by illustrating other
animals. Both wild and domestic species are hand-fed in
scenes, including the ibex, oryx, antelope, addax, gazelle,
hyena and birds.244 On the north wall of the tomb of
Khnumhotep II (3 UC), multiple animals are hand-fed,
with all the vignettes grouped together in the fifth register:
from left to right are three birds, two oryxes, four goats
and three oxen [S189]. Each vignette is captioned wSA
‘fattening’ and each species is attended by one or two
herdsmen.245 With a greater amount of space available
to scene-artists, such additions could be easily included.
Moreover, as the meat of wild animals was reserved for
the highest officials,246 the display of these creatures in
the public part of the tomb would have impressed visitors.
In contrast, the three-dimensional medium confines the
hand-feeding theme to cattle. Models are typically more
240
Kamal, “Fouilles à Déir-el-Barsheh”, ASAE 2, (1901), 31.
241
This is probable at least in the corner diagonally opposite where there
is a rectangular gap roughly the same size as the preserved tower.
242
Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 72-73; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in
Ancient Egypt, 84-85; Kanawati, “Specificity”, ASAE 83, (2009), 271.
243
Van de Walle, Neferirtenef, pl. 12. Alternatively, hand-feeding
vignettes could be positioned near scenes of slaughtering or the tomb
owner before an offering-table, demonstrating the ultimate destination of
the fattened cattle. Swinton, in Behind the Scenes, 37.
244
Smith, in Domestication and Exploitation, 309; Dodson & Ikram,
Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 100.
245
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 51.
246
Swinton, in Behind the Scenes, 34.
50
condensed in their representation and if only one animal
was to be represented in this role, cattle were the most
significant due to the importance of beef in providing
nourishment. Therefore, the elements considered most
essential for the tomb owner’s afterlife were selected first
for the model repertoire.
The task of hand-feeding cattle was an important
preparatory stage in the production of the best quality beef
for consumption. Although displayed by both the two- and
three-dimensional media, there are a number of differences
in design, largely concerning the illustration of minute
details. Wall scenes were able to be more precise in their
representation of the herdsman’s posture and could clarify
the activity through accompanying inscriptions. Moreover,
the expansive wall space enabled multiple species to be
depicted and for connections to be made with other outdoor
activities. On the other hand, model-artists created a more
condensed representation that was limited in its incorporation
of minute details, but the characteristic posture of the ox and
herdsman could still be conveyed. Consequently, each artist
created his design of the hand-feeding theme according to
the technical abilities of his medium.
2.6 Slaughtering cattle
The slaughter of the animal forms the most characteristic
stage of meat production and it consequently holds a
prominent place in the funerary artistic repertoire. Not
only did it provide a significant source of food, but it
also functioned as an important ritual act. Cattle were
especially valued as sacrificial beasts, forming a central
part of the funerary ritual as well as festivals and temple
offerings.247 Scenes of slaughtering were especially
popular during the Old Kingdom, appearing in almost
every known decorated tomb of the period, and although
the theme remained in the two-dimensional repertoire
throughout the Pharaonic Period, it became less prevalent
after the Middle Kingdom.248 At Meir, Deir el-Bersha
and Beni Hassan, slaughtering scenes are frequently
attested, with 19 tombs identified to contain at least one
such illustration. While in some of these examples the
theme is quite condensed, in other cases it is particularly
elaborate: in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir,
10 vignettes of slaughtering are illustrated on a single wall
[S45; fig. 2.28],249 while in the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4)
at Meir, the theme appears on four different walls of the
chapel [S183, S184, S186, S187]. Three-dimensional
representations of slaughtering also appeared during the
Old Kingdom, but the theme did not become popular
until the early Middle Kingdom, and indeed, all nine
examples examined in this study date to this period.250
247
Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 96; Ikram, in Encyclopedia
of Ancient History, <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com>.
248
Ghoneim, Ökonomische bedeutung des Rindes, 178; Ikram, Choice
Cuts, 81-82; Bussman, in Egyptian Art, 101.
249
It should be noted that this scene includes the slaughter of cattle,
oryxes and gazelles.
250
Most Old Kingdom statuettes are related to processing cereal grains
and only secondarily to the production of meat. Those that depict

These models could either appear on their own baseboard
or be combined with other food preparation activities, but
usually only a single slaughtering vignette was included
in each assemblage.251 The slaughtering theme is easily
recognised in both the two- and three-dimensional media,
but differences in representation are discerned not only in
their illustration of minute details, but more significantly in
the range of activities depicted and the focus of the theme.
Several stages were involved in slaughtering cattle,
beginning with bringing down the beast and ending
with jointing the pieces before they were preserved or
consumed.252 Not every stage is illustrated in each artwork,
although some tasks appear more commonly than others.
The two-dimensional medium certainly portrays a much
greater number of these activities, beginning with the first
stage of binding the animal. In this task, a front and hind leg
were tied together, causing the animal to fall, as is displayed
in the first register of the lower section of the south wall of
the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan [S100].253 Once
down, the remaining legs were bound and the animal was
turned on its back.254 On the west wall of the statue-recess in
the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) at Meir, a man is tightening the
bondage of an ox already brought down [S148]. The animal
is offering some resistance with its head raised and turned
towards its handler, and its tongue is protruding to indicate
its vocalised distress.255 This initial stage is not represented
by the three-dimensional medium, with the model beasts
instead already brought down and bound.
slaughtering are known from 4th and 5th Dynasty Memphite tombs but
are absent from 6th Dynasty assemblages. The Old Kingdom examples
depict single butchers leaning over bound oxen or calves while holding
a knife against the animal’s body, as can be seen, for example, in two
statuettes from the 5th Dynasty tomb of Nikau-inpu at Giza. Museum
of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: E10625, E10626.
Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, pls. 32a, 34b; D’Auria, Lacovara &
Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 102; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial
Customs. Volume I”, 15, 61; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga
ed-Deir”, 226, 258.
251
Only one model collected from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan
displays the slaughter of more than one ox, namely that from the tomb of
Gua (K-12) at Deir el-Bersha [M272; fig. 2.27]. In this example, seven
men are involved in slaughtering and processing two oxen. Alternatively,
the tomb of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) at Beni Hassan
contained two models that depict slaughtering [M209-M210]. Although
all of the models in this tomb were found deposited on top of one coffin,
it is possible that one slaughtering model was originally intended for each
of the two owners. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 89-91;
Podvin, “Position du mobilier funéraire”, MDAIK 56, (2000), 300.
252
The representations, however, do not always agree on the exact
order of activities. Ikram, Choice Cuts, 51; Ikram, in Materials and
Technology, 657.
253
The man in this scene is in the process of tying the two legs together.
He wraps his arms around the forelegs and lifts them off the ground in an
attempt to bring the ox down. Ikram, Choice Cuts, 44.
254
Sometimes the man presses down on the horns to gain further control
of the animal, as can be seen in the lowest register of the south wall of the
tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir: in the leftmost slaughtering vignette, one
man tightens the bondage while a second man leans over the animal to
firmly grasp the horn and hold it on the ground [S139].
255
Evans has demonstrated that in representations of living cattle, the
protruding tongue serves as a sign of vocalisation, but when the tongue
makes contact with the ground, as is found on the west panel of the south
wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan [S163; fig. 2.29],
it probably indicates death. The protruding tongue, however, does not
typically feature in models and this should most likely be attributed to the
technical difficulty of crafting such a minute feature in three-dimensions.
Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 60.
51
Food Production and Preparation
Alternatively, the three-dimensional medium begins with
the second stage which involved slitting the ox’s throat.
The head was turned over, giving the butcher access to
the neck to sever the carotid artery.256 This task is in fact
the most commonly represented stage among models and
is regularly the only one portrayed. In every slaughtering
model examined in this study, one butcher either sits or
stands beside the neck of the ox with a knife angled towards
it. The butcher in the model of Khety (366 LC) from Beni
Hassan bends over so that his left hand rests on the muzzle
to control the head, and his right hand holds the knife
against the throat [M196; fig. 2.26]. The cut is indicated
by a red-painted line across the neck, demonstrating that
the task has already begun. While this stage features
prominently in models, it is only occasionally represented
in wall scenes. Instead, the blood is sometimes shown
flowing from the throat to indicate that the task has already
been performed,257 but often it is completely excluded.258
In one scene where the second stage is portrayed, the
representation is particularly graphic: on the west panel of
the south wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni
Hassan, the butcher leans over the body of the middle ox
in the sixth register and plunges the knife into the neck
with the blood dripping from the wound [S163; fig. 2.29].
There is certainly a vast difference in the prominence of
this stage between the two media which creates a contrast
in focus of the slaughtering process.
In association with this stage is a man whose role is to
collect the blood and then examine it to pronounce the
animal pure and healthy.259 This figure does not appear in all
representations, but when he does, he either kneels beside
the head of the animal while holding a vessel or stands to
transport it away.260 In the models examined in this study,
the former positioning is exclusively portrayed, with three
examples incorporating this figure [M187, M196, M228;
see fig. 2.26].261 In a model from Meir, the man kneels
beside the neck and holds a shallow dish immediately next
to the slit in the throat [M228]. The upper surface of the
256
Eggebrecht, Schlachtungsbräuche, 35; Ikram, in Materials and
Technology, 657.
257
An example of this may be found in the second register of the south
wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) where a blood line across the neck of the
ox closest to the offering-table indicates that the throat has already been
cut [S138]. The butchers are not positioned near the neck, but rather are
removing the legs.
258
Most of the scenes examined in this study do not include, or at least
do not preserve, a slit line across the neck even when it is clear that
this task must have already been completed. For example, none of the
slaughtered animals on the east wall of room 5 in the tomb of Pepyankh
the Black (A2) exhibit a slit line across the neck even though several
are in the process of having their legs removed [S45; fig. 2.28]. Eyre,
Cannibal Hymn, 97.
259
The examination of the blood was most likely carried out by a priest,
although it is possible that butchers also served in this role. Darby,
Ghalioungui & Grivetti, Food. Volume 1, 137-38; Ikram, Choice Cuts,
46.
260
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 173-74; Eyre,
Cannibal Hymn, 97.
261
The model of Nefwa (186 LC) from Beni Hassan, however, was
only available for examination through one image which does not reveal
the precise task of the secondary figure [M187]. His positioning next to
the neck opposite the butcher, though, most likely indicates that he is
collecting blood.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 2.26. Slaughtering model of Khety (366 LC); slitting the neck, collecting the blood and possibly cooking joints of meat
[M196]. © Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: E.71c.1903.
dish is coloured red, presumably to indicate the collected
blood. On the other hand, the alternate positioning is more
common in the two-dimensional medium.262 In the third
register of the east wall of room 5 in the tomb of Pepyankh
the Black (A2), two men stand while each carrying a vessel
that presumably contains the blood: one walks away from
the slaughter while the other still faces the butcher [S45;
fig. 2.28].263 Although the collection of blood is portrayed
by both media, the different attitudes adopted result in
contrasting emphases. The models display the man more
directly involved in the process and this is most likely due
to the medium’s emphasis on the second stage of slitting
the throat. Alternatively, as wall scenes largely exclude
this activity, they preferred to convey that the blood had
already been collected.
262
In only one tomb-chapel examined does this figure adopt the
positioning beside the head of the ox: on the east and west walls of the
shrine of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha, the man stands before
the head of the animal in the fourth register while holding a vessel out
towards the butcher [S215-S216]. As he is standing, however, it seems
that the blood has already been collected, but he does not yet transport it
away. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 173-74.
263
The man who walks away from the slaughter most likely has already
filled his vessel with blood, whereas the one facing the butcher may be
yet to collect it. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 184.
52
While the three-dimensional medium focuses on the second
stage of slaughtering, wall scenes emphasise the next task
of removing the foreleg.264 This was the first piece to be
severed due to its prime ritual significance and its removal
features prominently in scenes.265 In fact, in the most
condensed illustrations, it is typically the only slaughtering
stage portrayed.266 The two-dimensional designs are quite
consistent, with the typical arrangement exhibited on the
east wall of the shrine of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan:
the three legs of the ox in the third register are bound
264
For a discussion on whether the animal was alive or dead during
the removal of the foreleg, see Junker, Giza. Band III, 229-31; Vandier,
Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 136-38; Eggebrecht,
Schlachtungsbräuche, 64-73; Ikram, Choice Cuts, 50-51; Evans, Animal
Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 60.
265
The foreleg formed a standard part of the offering ritual and was
associated with the Opening of the Mouth ceremony. Gordon & Schwabe,
in Proceedings of the Seventh ICE, 467; Eyre, Cannibal Hymn, 53-54,
91; De Meyer, et al., “Role of animals in the funerary rites”, JARCE 42,
(2005), 64.
266
See, for example, the south wall of the tomb of Pepi (D1) at Meir
where the sole slaughtering scene comprises two men severing the foreleg
[S21], or in the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) where the only butchering
vignette on the south wall consists of a single butcher conducting the
amputation [S142]. Klebs, Reliefs und Malereien, 173; Eggebrecht,
Schlachtungsbräuche, 53-54; Eyre, Cannibal Hymn, 91.

together while the foreleg is kept separate and held upright
[S87]. A butcher holds the knife towards the joint while an
assistant helps to support the leg. Models, in contrast, not
only exclude the task of removing the foreleg, but display
all four legs still attached and bound together.267 Only one
model examined in this study indicates the removal of the
foreleg, namely that from the tomb of Gua (K-12) at Deir
el-Bersha [M272; fig. 2.27]. In this example, the actual
severing of the leg is not portrayed, but rather one foreleg
of each ox has already been removed and is transported
away.268 This difference in emphasis of the slaughtering
process should most likely be explained by the contrasting
locations of the media. The chapel was the primary place
of offerings and intimately connected with the mortuary
cult.269 As the foreleg held a prominent ritual role, the
display of its removal was especially important in the
cult area. Conversely, the burial chamber was sealed after
interment and the goods stored within were primarily
concerned with provisioning the deceased in the afterlife.
The ritual of removing the foreleg was therefore not as
significant in the substructure and so the three-dimensional
medium focused its representation on a different aspect of
the slaughtering process.
Following the removal of the foreleg, the rest of the
carcase was dismembered. This involved several steps,
including flaying the skin, removing the viscera and
jointing the pieces.270 Although these tasks do not feature
prominently in wall scenes, they are sometimes specified
directly and in other cases simply implied. On the south
wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2), for example, the
heart and ribs are piled on top of the body of the ox in
the second register, indicating that the internal organs have
been extracted even though the animal has not yet been
sliced open [S142]. Alternatively, the task is more directly
displayed on the west wall of the shrine of Djehuty-hotep
(N-2) at Deir el-Bersha: the ox in the fourth register lies
on its back with the forelegs already removed, blood
spurting from the neck and the body sliced open with the
ribcage visible [S216]. One butcher stands with his hands
plunged inside the body, probably extracting the internal
organs or heart.271 Models, in contrast, do not display these
267
Even in the expansive slaughtering model of Meketre from Thebes, it
is the task of slitting the throat that is portrayed rather than the removal
of the foreleg: two oxen are slaughtered and all four legs of each animal
are still attached and bound together. The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
New York: 20.3.10.
268
The body has been coloured red at the joints to indicate the issuing
blood resulting from the amputation.
269
Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 95; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient
Egypt, 13-14, 21-22.
270
Sist, in Egyptian Civilization, 71; Ikram, in Materials and Technology, 657.
271
In other instances, the task of extracting the viscera is expressed
through accompanying captions. On the south wall of Baqet III’s (15
UC) shrine, one of the butchers in the second register proclaims jr(.j)
Sdt HAtj.f ‘I will cause its heart to be extracted’ [S88]. Although the
figures are not completely preserved, it is possible that the man on the
left has one arm inserted into the body and would therefore be the one
performing this task. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, 47.
Occasionally, dismemberment was achieved by removing the fore and
hind legs simultaneously. In the second register of the south wall of the
tomb of Senbi I (B1), the legs of the first animal are unbound and held
upright, with one man working on the foreleg and another on the hind
leg [S138].
53
Food Production and Preparation
subsidiary stages. One possible exception is found in the
model of Gua (K-12) where four men carrying the severed
legs of the oxen face towards a tall stand [M272; fig. 2.27].
This feature is cylindrical in shape with a defined upper
surface on which a foreleg is placed.272 One man stands
immediately before it with a knife in hand, apparently
jointing the legs. It is probable that this stand functions as
a workbench, and its presence may imply the subsequent
jointing of all pieces of meat. Although this is a possible
indication of subsequent processing, such subsidiary
tasks are typically excluded from the three-dimensional
medium.
An additional activity only associated with slaughtering
wall scenes is sharpening the butcher’s knife. This
motif appears alongside butchering scenes from the 5th
Dynasty onwards, and although not essential to conveying
slaughtering, appears quite commonly.273 The sharpening
stone was one of the butcher’s principal tools,274 and in
scenes, it often appears attached to his belt, as is exhibited
by four of the six butchers on the north wall of the tomb
of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) at Meir [S22]. Alternatively,
scenes could portray the actual sharpening of the knife. The
stone is typically depicted as a thin stick-like instrument
held in the right hand, often touching the blade of the knife
which is held in the left,275 as is performed by four of the
butchers on the south wall of the tomb of Amenemhat
(2 UC) [S161, S163; see fig. 2.29].276 While the task of
sharpening held a certain prominence in scenes, neither
the action nor the tool is portrayed in any of the models
examined in this study.277 This difference in representation
provides another example of the more expansive nature of
the two-dimensional slaughtering theme.
An important feature of the representations across all
stages of butchering is the positioning of the cattle. The
animals were forced down and turned on their backs with
their legs bound, immobilising them for slaughter.278 Due
to the limited perspective of the two-dimensional medium,
alternate viewpoints were combined in the portrayal of
the ox in wall scenes so that each element could be easily
recognised. An example of this may be seen on the north
wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir:
the ox in the third register lies on its back with one foreleg
raised and the head turned over, yet the remaining legs are
272
The red colouring of the upper surface may be indicative of the blood
issuing from the severed limbs.
273
Graves-Brown has suggested that the sharpening motif was included
to convey the expertise of the butcher. Graves-Brown, in Egyptology in
the Present, 44-45.
274
The tool also appears as a sign in the butcher’s title. Montet, “Scènes
de boucherie”, BIFAO 7, (1907), 48; Graves-Brown, in Egyptology in the
Present, 45; Lund, in Egyptology in the Present, 114.
275
Lund, in Egyptology in the Present, 114.
276
In some scenes, the sharpening stone is still attached to the belt
when in use. In that of Pepyankh the Black (A2), for example, the men
sharpening knives pull the stones around their bodies with the cords still
connected to the back of their kilts [S45; fig. 2.28].
277
In a 5th Dynasty limestone statuette from Giza, however, a handle
emerges from the top of the butcher’s belt which probably belongs to a
sharpening stone. Museum of the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago: E10626. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 35-36.
278
Ikram, Choice Cuts, 44-45; Eyre, Cannibal Hymn, 88-89.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 2.27. Slaughtering model of Gua (K-12); slitting the neck, transporting the severed legs and jointing the pieces [M272].
© The Trustees of the British Museum, London: EA 30718. All rights reserved.
bound as if it lies on its side [S8]. Models, alternatively,
could depict a more realistic arrangement of the ox. In that
of Khety-aa (575 LC) from Beni Hassan, the animal lies
on its side with its legs brought together at the ankles and
its head turned upside down [M201; fig. 2.30]. While this
more natural positioning can be attributed to the holistic
perspective of the medium, it may also be explained by the
different stage represented. Scenes focus on the removal
of the foreleg and so it is necessary for the joint to be held
upright, whereas models depict the slitting of the throat and
so could lie the ox on its side with all four legs together.
The binding that secures the legs is another significant
feature of the representations as it conveys the immobility
of the cattle.279 This is particularly clear in the fourth
register of the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at
Meir where the rope wrapped around the legs of each ox is
particularly detailed and includes the knot tied at the end
279
Not all scenes, however, display any bondage. In some instances, the
legs of the ox are individually held upright, as is found on the east wall of
the outer room of the tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5) at Deir el-Bersha where
the animal lies on its back with its legs in the air [S64]. A similar situation
is seen on the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) at Beni
Hassan: the forelegs of the animal are unbound and held upright, but the
positioning of the hind legs is unknown as the lower half of the body has
been lost [S127].
54
[S139].280 Models, on the other hand, had the advantage
of utilising real string to bind the oxen’s legs. As such
material elements could be easily lost or destroyed, it
is probable that more models originally included this
feature,281 but only one example is preserved from the
corpus examined in this study: in a model from Meir, the
hooves of the ox are brought together and the thread binds
the ankles [M228]. The animal’s legs are particularly well-
carved with bends at the knees and clearly defined hooves.
However, not all models exhibit this same level of detail. In
some of the less finely carved oxen, the legs are fashioned
as a single piece rather than carved individually. This can
be witnessed in a model from the tomb of Khnum-nekhti
and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) at Beni Hassan where the legs
are clearly brought together at the ankles, but there is no
space separating them from each other [M210]. The detail
in bondage was certainly impacted by the skill of each
individual artist as well as the capabilities of his medium,
but the immobility of the oxen forms an essential element
of the slaughtering theme and so is regularly portrayed.
280
The first two oxen on the left have all four legs bound, while the third
has two and the fourth, three.
281
This is quite likely in one of the models of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-
nekhti (585 LC) where the paint around the ankles is highly worn,
suggesting that some thread originally served as a bondage [M209].

Further differences between the media are noticeable in
their portrayal of the butchers. In wall scenes, these men
adopt a range of active stances as they carry out their
tasks: they stride forward while standing upright,282 press
one foot down on the animal,283 straddle the head,284
bend far forward,285 or kneel beside the beast.286 In the
scene of Pepyankh the Black (A2), for example, the artist
has encapsulated a wide variety of active stances, the
majority of which express forward motion, but the man
tightening the binding of the middle animal in the fourth
register noticeably leans backwards and looks slightly up,
suggesting he is pulling on the rope [S45; fig. 2.28]. The
choice of posture often depends on the task performed,
but it is clear that scene-artists could capture the active
attitudes required during slaughtering. Models, in contrast,
do not display the same range of movement as active
stances were more difficult to craft in three-dimensions.
The model butcher typically stands beside the neck and
leans forward, either with his knees bent or one leg striding
in front, as is exhibited by the man in the model of Seni
(279 LC) from Beni Hassan [M290].287 This more static
movement still enables the butcher’s task to be conveyed
but does not create the same variety or expression that is
achieved in scenes.
An aspect of similarity in the portrayal of the butcher
is, however, found in the illustration of the knife. The
basic shape of this principal tool is quite consistently
depicted in the representations, comprising a straight
back, curved blade and pointed tip.288 However, there is
significant variety among both media in the amount of
detail incorporated, particularly in relation to the handle.
In scenes, the blade can simply be held in the hand without
any definition of a handle, as is found in the fourth register
of the south wall of Senbi I’s (B1) tomb [S139], but in
other examples the handle is well-defined. On the west
282
The man holding the knife in the scene of Pepi (D1), for example,
stands upright while stepping forward with his right leg, but as he stands
on the far side of the animal, his lower legs are hidden from view [S21].
He extends one arm to hold the foreleg and lowers the other arm to angle
the knife against the joint.
283
On the east wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan, two
men work on an animal in the third register of the centre panel: each
man presses one foot down on the animal, presumably to restrain the
legs [S52].
284
In the fourth register of the north wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the
Middle (D2), the butcher straddles the head and leans over the body in
order to reach the hind legs [S8].
285
The man positioned before the head of the leftmost animal in the fifth
register of the west wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep
(N-2) leans his whole body forward to reach over the animal and pushes
down on the horn with one hand; his knees are bent and his heels are
raised, indicating physical strain [S213].
286
On the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1), the butcher who slits
the throat of the second ox from the left in the fourth register kneels
beside the head with only his near leg on display [S139].
287
An exception is found in the model of Gua (K-12) where the butcher
engaged in slitting the throat sits with both knees bent up in front and his
feet flat on the baseboard [M272; fig. 2.27].
288
Both flint and metal knives were used, although the latter were more
expensive and difficult to work. Discerning between the two materials
in representations can be difficult, but the presence of sharpening stones
indicates with certainty the use of flint knives. Additionally, the shape
of the knife underwent transformation during the Old and Middle
Kingdoms. Eggebrecht, Schlachtungsbräuche, 111; Ikram, Choice Cuts,
63-65, 70.
55
Food Production and Preparation
panel of the south wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2
UC), the butcher working on the middle animal in the
sixth register plunges a knife into the neck: the handle
protrudes from the beast and exhibits intricate detail and
terminates in a rounded knob [S163; fig. 2.29].289 The
three-dimensional medium similarly displays knives both
with and without defined handles. Mostly the knife is very
basic in its shaping and in fact forms an extension of the
arm. In the model of Khety-aa (575 LC), for example, the
butcher extends his right arm towards the ox’s neck and
as the blade forms the end of his arm, no handle has been
fashioned [M201; fig. 2.30]. Alternatively, the knife could
be carved as its own piece and inserted into the man’s grip,
as is found in the model of Gua (K-12) [M272; fig. 2.27].
In this example, further detail has been added through a
red-painted line along the blade to indicate blood. Such
variation across both media conveys the range in skill of
model- and scene-artists as well as the different knives
utilised by butchers.
The architectural setting of the slaughterhouse is not
regularly specified in the representations, but both media
occasionally incorporate elements that suggest butchering
occurred within a specified area. The models could be
arranged on baseboards surrounded by low walls, as is
found in the model of Khety-aa (575 LC) [M201; fig.
2.30].290 This feature creates a defined environment
for the slaughter and other food preparation activities.
Archaeological investigation of architectural remains
has suggested that butchering was conducted in open
spaces surrounded by enclosure walls, and the models
may indicate this environment.291 Alternatively, the
slaughtering model of Meketre from Thebes comprises
a complete architectural structure including four walls, a
sloping roof, two levels and columns.292 In the lower area,
men slaughter two oxen under the supervision of officials
while two others prepare to cook the meat. In the upper
section, joints of meat are suspended from two cords,
possibly air-drying for preservation. It seems probable that
this model depicts a facility that combines food storage
and preparation rather than a structure simply used as a
slaughterhouse.293
Wall scenes, in contrast, do not specify a complete
slaughterhouse, but some examples do include specific
architectural elements. Columns or pillars appear in some
Old and Middle Kingdom scenes in association with the
task of drying meat and only occasionally with butchering
289
A similar tool is used on the fifth animal from the left in the lowest
register of the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni
Hassan [S194].
290
Two other examples of enclosure walls were identified from Meir,
Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan [M187, M228]. The wall in the model
of Nefwa (186 LC), however, only occupies most of one side of the
baseboard rather than surrounding the entire group [M187].
291
Arnold, in Structure and Significance, 15.
292
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 20.3.10. A similar,
although smaller, slaughterhouse is found in a model of unknown
provenance now housed in the Museum of the Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago: E11197. It likewise has upper and lower levels,
with slaughtering taking place in the latter, but there is no roof or columns.
293
Arnold, in Structure and Significance, 56, 62-63.
Preparing for Eternity

Figure 2.28. Ten vignettes of slaughtering. Tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2). East wall of room 5, registers 3-4 [S45]. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 96 [detail];
courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

56

Figure 2.29. One figure sharpens the knife while the other
slits the neck of a bound ox, with blood dripping from the
wound. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). South wall, west panel,
register 6 [S163]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume
III, pl. 108 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for
Egyptology.
and jointing.294 For example, in the middle of the east wall
of Baqet III’s (15 UC) shrine, various joints of meat hang
from a light wooden structure supported by two decorative
columns [S87]. The rarity of complete architectural
structures in the representations suggests these were not
considered essential in portraying the theme, but the
incorporation of some structural elements enables both
media to convey a designated area for tasks associated
with slaughtering.
The environment of the slaughter is, however, conveyed
in greater detail by its association with other themes. Both
media surround their representations of slaughtering with
other activities, but there is a clear contrast in the type of
themes selected. This consequently alters the significance
of the slaughtering theme. In the three-dimensional
medium, slaughtering regularly forms part of group
models that also display figures engaged in the preparation
of bread and beer.295 In the model of Khety-aa (575 LC),
these three food processing activities are mixed together
with little empty space [M201; fig. 2.30], whereas in
the model of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) from Beni Hassan,
the figures are confined to their own groups across the
baseboard, with bread-making on the left, brewing in
the middle and slaughtering on the right [M218]. This
combination of different themes is not a technique
commonly utilised by model-artists, so its employment
here is of particular note. Although it is unlikely that all
three processes actually occurred in the same location,296
294
Ikram, Choice Cuts, 82-84; Arnold, in Structure and Significance, 17;
Arnold, in Servant of Mut, 6.
295
In only three examples examined does slaughtering appear on its own
baseboard [M196, M272, M290; see figs. 2.26, 2.27].
296
Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 230.
57
Food Production and Preparation
their close proximity in the representations indicates that
they shared a similar function in the tomb. Consequently,
the role of slaughtering in the three-dimensional repertoire
was to provide a source of food for the deceased alongside
bread and beer.
In contrast, the slaughtering wall scenes examined do
not display association with bread-making and brewing,
but rather with ritual activities.297 The vast majority of
examples are closely connected with the offering-table
scene.298 In the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), two of these
scenes occupy the south wall: on the east panel is one
dedicated to the tomb owner [S161] and on the west panel,
one to his wife [S163]. Before each figure are six registers
of activities, the upper five of which are devoted to the
offering-list, the performance of ceremony and offering-
bearers, and the sixth to the slaughter of animals. It is
clear that these beasts are intended for the table with the
entire wall concentrated on the presentation of offerings
to the tomb owner and his wife.299 Although slaughtering
regularly occurs in group models, only rarely is it
associated with offering-bearers, with only one example
identified in this study. In one of the models of Khnum-
nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC), two large female
offering-bearers stand behind the slaughtered ox [M209].
However, the goods they carry are not joints of meat, but
rather other items including containers that presumably
hold bread and beer produced by the other workers in
the model. Although this slaughter is associated with the
presentation of offerings, the focus is once again on the
provision of food instead of any ritual significance.
Not only is meat presented as an offering to the tomb owner
in scenes associated with slaughtering, but the presentation
of the foreleg is given particular prominence in the two-
297
In only one scene examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni
Hassan is any association portrayed between slaughtering and the
preparation of bread and beer: on the west wall of the tomb of Khety
(17 UC), both slaughtering and grinding grain are illustrated in the first
register of the lower section, but they are separated by the false door
which again holds great ritual connotation [S105, S107].
298
In an unusual portrayal on the east wall of the tomb of Khety (17
UC), slaughtering is not associated with the offering-table, but is rather
positioned in the bottom right corner of a large wrestling and military
scene [S96]. However, the presence of an offering-list immediately above
the slaughter and the performance of a ritual before a statue of the tomb
owner in the adjacent vignette still gives the scene ritual significance.
Eyre, Cannibal Hymn, 53.
299
Similar representations are found in several other tombs examined
in this study. On the east wall of the tomb of Baqet II (33 UC) at Beni
Hassan, for example, a slaughtering vignette appears among a line of
offering-bearers who process towards a large seated figure of the owner
before an offering-table [S60]. Although the table scene was not recorded
by Newberry, traces of it still remain quite visible, as was observed
during a visit by the author to the site. In the tomb of Ramushenti (27
UC) at Beni Hassan, the offering-table scene is likewise depicted on
the east wall, and the partial remains of what is probably a slaughtering
scene appear in the lowest register [S62]. Similarly, on the west wall of
the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC), the slaughter is positioned immediately
below the small offering-table scene in the first and second registers of
the west wall [S83]. Two slaughtering vignettes are positioned at the
head of a procession of offering-bearers on the south wall of the tomb
of Senbi I (B1) immediately before a seated figure of the tomb owner
at the offering-table which occupies the height of the first and second
registers [S138].
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 2.30. Food preparation model of Khety-aa (575 LC); pounding grain, grinding grain, baking bread, carrying water,
straining beer-mash and slitting the neck of an ox; baseboard surrounded by low walls with an opening in one side [M201].
© Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2312.
dimensional medium.300 This joint lay at the heart of the
funerary ritual and held great symbolic significance.301
Its status as the prized joint is demonstrated by its regular
appearance as the first offering in procession and its
frequent presentation to the tomb owner by his eldest
son.302 On the north wall of the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem
(A1), the slaughtering vignettes appear at the end of long
lines of offering-bearers [S22]. The leading six bearers
in the lowest register are of higher status than the other
figures as indicated by their shoulder-length wigs, sashes
and titles, and each carries a foreleg. On the east panel
of this wall, immediately to the right of the slaughter, the
eldest son presents a foreleg to a large standing figure
300
Joints of meat regularly feature among the piles of goods laden on
and around the offering-table, and on the south wall of the inner room of
the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4), the foreleg occupies the prime position on
top of the reeds/bread loaves [S187].
301
Wilson, Food and Drink, 35; Gordon & Schwabe, in Proceedings of
the Seventh ICE, 469; Eyre, Cannibal Hymn, 53-54; Teeter, Religion and
Ritual, 141-42.
302
As will be discussed in chapter 3.2, model offering-bearers very
rarely carry forelegs, with only one example identified from Meir, Deir
el-Bersha and Beni Hassan [M48]. Spencer, Death, 54; Swinton, in
Behind the Scenes, 38.
58
of his father.303 The emphasis on the foreleg in both its
removal and presentation promotes the ritual significance
of the slaughtering theme in the two-dimensional medium.
As noted above, the task of removing the foreleg is not
depicted in models and so the emphasis on the foreleg
exhibited in wall scenes is absent in the three-dimensional
medium. However, in the slaughtering model of Gua (K-
12), greater emphasis is given to the foreleg [M272; fig.
2.27]. Not only have the two oxen already had a foreleg
removed, but three of the men transport the joint towards
the workbench at the centre of the model for further
processing.304 As this representation is not combined with
other food preparation processes, it is possible that it does
share some of the ritual connotation prevalent in scenes,
but the rarity of this motif demonstrates that the ritual role
of slaughtering was not considered as significant in the
three-dimensional medium.
303
The caption identifies the bearer as zA.f smsw ‘his eldest son’.
Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, 42.
304
It is possible that at least one of the other figures facing the centre
of the model originally carried a foreleg as one of his arms has broken
off while the other is lowered in a similar attitude to that adopted by the
other men.

Further ritual connotation could be provided in wall
scenes through the careful choice of location in the chapel.
Scenes of slaughtering sometimes appear near the false
door, as is found on the east wall of the tomb of Baqet I
(29 UC) at Beni Hassan. Here, two slaughtering vignettes
are displayed: one in the register beneath the offering-table
scene [S52] and the other to the right of the false door
[S53]. Alternatively, the scenes could be positioned in
the offering-room, as is found in the chapel of Pepyankh
the Black (A2) where 10 vignettes of slaughtering are
displayed on the east wall of room 5 below two registers
of offerings [S45].305 Both the false door and offering-
room are closely connected to the mortuary cult, and
these choices of location highlight the sacred nature of the
slaughter.306 In contrast, models were housed in the burial
chamber which was inaccessible to the living and therefore
were more concerned with nourishing the deceased in
the afterlife rather than contributing to the mortuary cult
practised by the living in the chapel.
Although discerning between representations of sacred and
secular slaughter is not always possible, the incorporation
of inscriptions can make this distinction clear.307 A range
of texts appear in slaughtering wall scenes, including the
names, titles and conversations of the butchers, labels for
the animals and explanatory captions,308 as well as texts
that specifically associate the butchery with ritual.309 On
the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC)
at Beni Hassan, one of the men in the first butchering
vignette on the left of the fifth register exclaims xws
nfr hrw m-a.k jp dpHt-Htp ‘cut up, how happy is the day
with your charge; assemble the funerary meal’, while a
caption between the third and fourth animals reads mAa
n kA.f ‘making presentation to his ka’ [S194].310 These
inscriptions demonstrate that the slaughter is performed in
order to acquire funerary offerings for the deceased. As
models could not integrate inscriptions like wall scenes,
text only rarely appears in the three-dimensional medium.
None of the slaughtering models include any form of text,
causing the activities and purpose of the slaughter to only
be conveyed graphically.
305
The other walls of this offering-room are likewise closely associated
with the presentation of offerings: on the south wall is the offering-list,
provisions of food and drink, and offering-bearers; on the west wall is
the false door and the tomb owner seated before an offering-table; and on
the north wall is another offering-table scene with piles of provisions and
bearers presenting offerings [S44-S47].
306
Eyre, Cannibal Hymn, 187; Staring, in Old Kingdom, New
Perspectives, 262.
307
Ikram, Choice Cuts, 43-44; Bussman, in Egyptian Art, 102.
308
A range of these texts is integrated into the butchery vignettes on the
south wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). On the east panel of the
wall, the conversation of the butchers in the third group from the left of
the sixth register is recorded: the one on the right says sxA(x) jwf-n-Hat
n kA.f mAa ‘hasten (with) the fillet for his righteous ka’, to which his
companion responds jrjj(.j) Hst.k wrt ‘I will do what you praise greatly’
[S161]. On the west panel of the wall, the middle ox is labelled rn n
wnDw ‘prime short-horned ox’ while the two men working on it are both
captioned jmj-r st ‘overseer of a storehouse’ [S163]. Kanawati & Evans,
Beni Hassan. Volume III, 51-52.
309
Not all slaughtering scenes include textual captions. See, for example,
S7, S87, S96, S100, S107.
310
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 68.
59
Food Production and Preparation
Representations of slaughtering cattle are certainly
important in the funerary artistic repertoire, featuring
prominently in both the two- and three-dimensional media.
Wall scenes illustrate a greater number of stages involved
in the process and create a livelier portrayal of the actions,
but they largely concentrate on the task of removing the
foreleg. Models, on the other hand, typically present a more
condensed portrayal with limited variety in the attitudes of
the butchers and oxen, and emphasise the alternate task
of slitting the throat. This distinction in emphasis changes
the significance of the slaughtering theme. Wall scenes
highlight the ritual nature of the slaughter which is further
supplemented by the surrounding scenes of offering-
bearers and the offering-table. Models, instead, emphasise
the provision of beef by creating close association with
other food preparation activities. Positioned in the chapel,
slaughtering scenes formed a significant part of the
mortuary cult, whereas slaughtering models, housed in the
burial chamber, primarily served to nourish the deceased
in the afterlife.
2.7 Cooking meat
The final stage in the production of meat involves cooking,
a theme that is represented by both the two- and three-
dimensional media. Although the earlier processes largely
centre on the preparation of cattle for consumption, the
representations of cooking meat primarily focus on
poultry. The meat of oxen was restricted to the tables of
the highest elite, whereas fowl formed a significant part
of the diet of all Egyptians.311 Birds were plentiful along
the Nile and could be easily caught by any individual
for consumption.312 The representations indicate that
fowl were thrust on a spit and roasted over a brazier by
a cook who used a fan to maintain the heat. This theme
appears quite commonly in wall scenes with 12 examples
identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan and
an additional four scenes that display the alternate task
of cooking beef. Although it is not as prominent in the
repertoire of models, cooking is one of the earliest themes
to appear in the three-dimensional medium.313 Statuettes
of men roasting birds are known from as early as the 5th
Dynasty and examples are found into the early Middle
Kingdom.314 Two Old Kingdom and three Middle Kingdom
model fowl roasters were examined in this study, with the
311
Brewer, Redford & Redford, Domestic Plants and Animals, 16;
Ikram, Choice Cuts, 24.
312
The captured birds were not always killed immediately but could be
kept in poultry yards until required. This enabled them to be available all
year round and not just in the migratory season. Ikram, Choice Cuts, 24;
Houlihan, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>;
Ikram, Ancient Egypt, 236-37.
313
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 4-5; Kroenke,
“Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 226.
314
The theme is in fact the only meat production activity represented
by the three-dimensional medium during the late Old Kingdom.
Slaughtering models are known from the 4th and 5th Dynasties in roughly
the same quantity as fowl roasters but are absent from the 6th Dynasty
repertoire. During the First Intermediate Period and early Middle
Kingdom, however, slaughtering becomes more prevalent and cooking
is less commonly attested. Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 34;
Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 226, 258.
Preparing for Eternity
earlier examples comprising single statuettes and the latter
forming part of group models. These three-dimensional
representations display many similarities with wall scenes,
but differences are discerned in the execution of minute
details as well as the range of motifs depicted.
During roasting, the bird was thrust lengthways onto a spit
through either the head or tail end and held horizontally
over a brazier.315 The representations regularly indicate
that the head, feet and wing-tips were removed.316
On the south wall of the shrine of Baqet III (15 UC) at
Beni Hassan, the three birds being roasted in the lowest
register exhibit rounded bodies with four short protrusions
signifying the docked legs and wings and with no presence
of a head [S88]. Not all of the models examined preserve
the bird, but in one of the examples of Niankh-pepy-kem
(A1) from Meir, it adopts the same portrayal with four
bulges carved around the edges of the body [M13; fig.
2.31]. Alternatively, in a number of wall scenes, the head
is still attached, and is either thrust along the stick or hangs
down.317 Unusually, some model fragments found in tomb
L-16L25/1A at Deir el-Bersha feature two birds connected
to spits who still have their heads connected [M282].318
One of the birds, which has the spit through the rear, has
the head upright with the legs hanging down and the feet
still attached. Its body displays a painted pattern marking
the feathers, suggesting it has not yet been plucked. The
second bird, which is stuck through the neck, has a whole
wing carved on the side of the body. These elements
suggest that the birds have not been fully prepared for
cooking, and almost look as if they are still living.319 This
is particularly unusual for the roasting theme and limits the
realism of the representation but was perhaps selected to
ensure that the birds were easily identifiable.
Although the positioning of the bird directly over the
brazier is consistent across the representations,320 a
distinction is noticeable between the two media in the
315
Wilson, Food and Drink, 53; Alcock, Food, 104.
316
Ikram, in Materials and Technology, 658.
317
On the east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2)
at Meir, for example, the bird roasted in the second register has its head
thrust along the stick facing the man [S36]. Alternatively, both birds
in the first register of the east wall of the tomb of Baqet II (33 UC) at
Beni Hassan have the spit thrust through the body-cavity, with the head
hanging down [S60]. Ikram, “Food for eternity, part 1”, KMT 5.1, (1994),
32.
318
These fragments were discovered by the KU Leuven expedition
alongside a model fan. They may have originally belonged to either one
or two roasting models, and although fragmentary, are incorporated into
this study due to the limited number of extant examples of roasted birds
and the interesting details they exhibit. Willems, et al., “Preliminary
report of the 2003 campaign”, MDAIK 62, (2006), 327-28; De Meyer, in
World of Middle Kingdom Egypt. Volume II, 95.
319
It could be suggested that these fragments originate from offering-
bearer models, but this seems improbable as bearers carry fowl by the
wings while these birds are attached to spits through the head or tail
end, as is typical of the roasting theme. De Meyer, in World of Middle
Kingdom Egypt. Volume II, 95.
320
In the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan, the lower section of
the west wall, where the roasting fowl vignette is positioned, is poorly
preserved, causing the brazier to be lost [S106]. However, considering
that the cook holds the spit horizontally before him, it can be assumed
that the brazier was placed in the typical position on the register line
directly beneath the bird.
60
use of perspective. Models, crafted in three-dimensions,
present a holistic view of the artwork, with each element
arranged in a realistic fashion. Consequently, the bird
could lie flat over the brazier with the whole body still
visible, as is seen in a model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1)
[M13; fig. 2.31]. In contrast, scene-artists worked in a
two-dimensional perspective and accordingly depicted
each element in its most recognisable form. This created
a composite image with objects portrayed from different
viewpoints displayed in the same scene and even different
perspectives combined within a single object or figure.321
In relation to roasting, the head of the bird is displayed in
profile while the body is shown from the top-down, as is
found in the second register of the east wall of the tomb of
Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir [S9; fig. 2.33]. Such a
combined viewpoint enabled scene-artists to overcome the
limitation of perspective in their medium by illustrating
features that would in reality be hidden from view.
The difficulties encountered in the two-dimensional
perspective are further witnessed in the portrayal of
the brazier. The side-view is the most characteristic
perspective of this item and so scenes display it in profile.
Most of the illustrations simply depict it from this angle,
as is found in the second register of the east wall of room
4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir, but this
perspective caused the interior to remain hidden [S36].
In other instances, scene-artists adapted their designs in
order to depict the coals stored within. On the east wall of
the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) and the south wall of
the shrine of Baqet III (15 UC), the coals are represented
as a series of small circles along the upper surface of the
brazier even though this positioning does not correspond
with reality [S23, S88].322 Alternatively, the scene-artist of
the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II
(B4) at Meir has dissected the brazier in the second register
to maintain the profile perspective while enabling the coals
filling the interior to be seen [S185; fig. 2.32]. The rim of
the dish is coloured blue while the middle is painted red
with black dots to indicate the coals. Models, on the other
hand, had the advantage of displaying both the side and top
of the brazier without compromising the perspective. The
two roasting models of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) depict a
mound of coals on top of the brazier, with one comprising
a rounded bulge decorated with black dots [M14], and the
other featuring individually carved coals painted red and
black [M13; fig. 2.31]. The three-dimensional perspective
of funerary models enabled a holistic representation of
each component, whereas scene-artists were required to
modify the arrangement if they desired to depict both the
interior and exterior of a single object.
The coals in the brazier needed constant fanning to remain
hot and the cook is characteristically portrayed engaged
321
Robins, Proportion and Style, 3; Kanawati & Woods, Artists in the
Old Kingdom, 30; Peck, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 363.
322
The brazier in the scene of Niankh-pepy-kem is shared by two
cooks, whereas the scene of Baqet III displays two braziers, but only one
incorporates the coals.
 Food Production and Preparation

Figure 2.31. Roasting fowl model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) [M13]. Drawing by the author.

Figure 2.32. Roasting fowl over braziers and rotating a whole ox on a spit. Tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4). East wall of inner
room, north panel, registers 2-3 [S185]. Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, pl. 23.1 [detail]; courtesy of the Egypt
Exploration Society.

61
Preparing for Eternity
in this task.323 In wall scenes, the fan is consistently held
above the brazier and angled down,324 as is found on the
east wall of the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) where
the two fans are particularly detailed with lines marking
the individual fibres [S23]. It is probable that this almost
vertical position not only conveyed the fanning motion,
but also enabled the whole tool to be seen in the two-
dimensional perspective. Models portray a fan of the
same design,325 but provide more variation in the angle at
which it is held. The cook seated on board a model boat
of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) from Deir el-Bersha lowers
his right arm towards the brazier and similarly holds the
fan above it [M130]. However, unlike scenes, the fan is
held almost horizontally, but with the three-dimensional
perspective, the entire tool can still be seen. Alternatively,
in one of the models of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1), the fan
is held upright near the face [M13; fig. 2.31]. Although
this positioning could indicate that the cook has not yet
begun his task, it may also suggest that the tool was used
to provide protection from the heat and/or glare. This
function is attested in only one of the scenes examined,
namely that on the east wall of the inner room of the tomb
of Ukh-hotep II (B4), but here, the fowl roaster in the
second register does not employ a fan, but rather holds
an open hand immediately in front of his face [S185; fig.
2.32]. The variation witnessed in the positioning of the
fan in three-dimensions demonstrates that model-artists
did not simply copy the designs of scenes but created
individual representations according to their medium’s
specific technical abilities.
The characteristic posture of the cook engaged in roasting
is likewise captured in both the two- and three-dimensional
media. He is typically seated on the ground with his feet
flat and both knees bent up in front.326 The man in one of
the models of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) is particularly well-
carved: he sits upright at one end of the baseboard with
his knees bent quite close to his chest [M13; fig. 2.31].
His legs are individually formed below the kilt instead of
simply being painted and his feet are modelled on the base
with the toes and toenails defined.327 This posture is likewise
adopted in a number of scenes, but the two-dimensional
perspective caused the far leg to either be concealed from
view, as is found in the first register of the west wall of the
323
Klebs, Reliefs des Alten Reiches, 77; Wilson, Food and Drink, 53.
324
Only one wall scene examined depicts the fan held at a slightly
different angle: on the east wall of the tomb of Baqet II (33 UC), the fan
is positioned to the side of the brazier but is still angled down towards the
coals [S60]. This alternate arrangement is probably due to the presence
of a short sub-register immediately above which restricts the amount of
available space over the brazier. Additionally, the fan is not preserved in
the scene of Khety (17 UC) but was presumably gripped in the cook’s
lowered right hand [S106]. If so, the fan is unusually not held above
the fowl, but rather alongside the brazier. As the fan is not preserved, it
cannot be determined what perspective the scene-artist used to depict the
tool in this lowered position.
325
The fan in one of the models of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) similarly
distinguishes the individual fronds through painted lines [M13; fig. 2.31].
326
Ikram, Choice Cuts, 74-75.
327
The lower body of seated model figures is more commonly carved
as a single block with the legs simply painted red on the white kilt, as
is exhibited by the cook on the model boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)
[M130].
62
tomb of Meniu (E1) at Meir [S1], or positioned slightly
ahead, as is achieved in the second register of the east
wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) [S9; fig.
2.33]. Some of the scenes display the cook in a kneeling
attitude with the far knee bent up in front and the near
one folded over, as is found in the upper register of the
east wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan
[S52]. A standing posture is unusually adopted by one of
the cooks in the scene of Ukh-hotep II (B4): although only
partially preserved, the middle figure in the third register
steps forward with one leg and leans over with both arms
lowered while holding a spit and fan [S185; fig. 2.32].328
These variations in posture create greater variety among
the two-dimensional representations and enable both legs
to remain in view.
While most cooking representations merely depict the
actual roasting, some wall scenes present a more expansive
illustration by portraying the preparatory stages. These
tasks include wringing the neck, plucking the feathers
and removing the internal organs and extremities.329 On
the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2),
two naked men sit back-to-back in the second register [S9;
fig. 2.33]. Each man holds a bird and conducts a different
preliminary activity: the one on the left wrings the neck
while the one on the right plucks the feathers. Once
prepared, these birds will be passed to the two cooks on
the right of the register for roasting. Similarly, in the shrine
of Baqet III (15 UC), the preparation of birds is displayed,
although it is largely kept distinct from cooking: two fowl
roasters operate on the south wall, with one man plucking
the feathers in between, while four men are engaged in
further preparatory activities on the east wall [S87-S88].330
In each of these tombs, the scene-artist has devoted
more wall space to the theme, enabling the depiction of
subsidiary tasks in addition to the characteristic motif.
The three-dimensional medium, in contrast, largely
excludes these preparatory processes, instead presenting
a more condensed representation. All of the examples
examined in this study solely display the cook before
a brazier without any preliminary stages. However,
examples from other sites occasionally portray these
activities. In the slaughterhouse model of Meketre from
Thebes, for example, a figure seated by the door is plucking
328
Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, 31.
329
The task of removing the viscera is not explicitly displayed in scenes,
but it is often indicated that birds presented as offerings have already had
their internal organs extracted. Immediately above the cooking scenes
on the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4),
several men in the first register carry a large tray loaded with food items
including poultry [S185]. A vertical incision is visible on the bellies of the
birds indicating that their entrails have already been removed. Blackman,
Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, 30; Ikram, Choice Cuts, 57-61; Ikram, in
Materials and Technology, 658.
330
The figures of the men on the east wall are not entirely preserved,
so their action cannot be determined with certainty. It is quite likely that
they are also engaged in plucking, but it is also possible that they are
cutting the heads, feet and wing-tips. This scene should be understood in
association with that of roasting fowl on the south wall even though they
are separated onto different walls. Both are positioned in the shrine where
the scenes are devoted to producing meat for the tomb owner’s table.
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, 47, 50.

Figure 2.33. Wringing the neck, plucking feathers, roasting fowl and hanging cuts of meat. Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle
(D2). East wall, north panel, register 2 [S9]. Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pl. 79 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian
Centre for Egyptology.
a bird.331 Unusually, this is the only motif related to cooking
poultry represented in the model and therefore symbolises
the whole operation. Alternatively, in an Old Kingdom
limestone statuette from Giza, a single figure is cutting
up a bird.332 The man appears alone, occupying the entire
space of the small baseboard, causing the motif to likewise
be representative of cooking. Although the artists of these
models have unusually chosen a preparatory stage to convey
the cooking process, it is clear that the three-dimensional
medium devotes a more limited amount of space to the
theme than wall scenes. In such condensed representations,
the final task of roasting was most commonly selected as
it formed the culmination of the process and provided the
deceased tomb owner with meat ready for consumption.
Further expansion upon the theme was occasionally achieved
through the illustration of cooking the meat of oxen. While it
may be expected that this motif would feature prominently
due to the common display of slaughtering cattle, it is in fact
rarely represented.333 Only four wall scenes were identified
from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan to depict this
process, yet they do illustrate the range of cooking methods
employed [S60, S106, S165, S185]. Like poultry, beef
could be prepared through roasting, although illustrations of
this method are particularly rare.334 One example is found
alongside the fowl roaster in the second register of the scene
of Ukh-hotep II (B4): two men stand on either side of a
large brazier, rotating a whole ox on a spit [S185; fig. 2.32].
The method of boiling, alternatively, is more commonly
displayed.335 On the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat
(2 UC) at Beni Hassan, the motif is confined to a single
compartment in the fourth register [S165]. Here, a cook
331
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 20.3.10.
332
This model was found in tomb G 2088 at Giza and may be dated to
the 4th-5th Dynasties. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 38.2147.
333
Sist, in Egyptian Civilization, 71.
334
Darby, Ghalioungui & Grivetti, Food. Volume 1, 150-52; Ikram,
“Food for eternity, part 1”, KMT 5.1, (1994), 32.
335
Brewer, in History of the Animal World, 438; Alcock, Food, 105-06.
63
Food Production and Preparation
kneels before a cauldron placed above a pile of hot coals with
the pieces of meat residing on top.336 Cooking beef is rarely
attested in the three-dimensional medium but is sometimes
found in association with slaughtering models.337 In one
corner of the slaughtering model of Khety (366 LC) from
Beni Hassan, a man stands while leaning over a circular dish,
perhaps a cauldron, elevated by three legs [M196; fig. 2.26].
His attention is directed towards the space beneath, with
one hand lowering a long stick.338 As no items have been
specified on top of the dish, his precise role is uncertain, but
it is possible that he is cooking the joints of meat obtained
in the slaughter while stoking the flame underneath.339 In
both the two- and three-dimensional media, slaughtering
was apparently the preferred motif for the preparation of
beef for consumption, while cooking was favoured for fowl.
The reasons for this contrast in representation are difficult
to determine, but for scenes, the ritual significance of the
slaughter was presumably more essential for display in the
336
As witnessed in the representation of coals on top of the brazier
in roasting poultry scenes, the pieces of meat should be understood as
residing within the cauldron. Another example of boiling is found behind
the preparation of fowl in the first register of the east wall of the tomb of
Baqet II (33 UC) where the cook stands beside a cauldron while using a
stick to arrange several joints of meat [S60]. Boiling also appears to be
displayed in the fourth register of the lower section of the west wall of the
tomb of Khety (17 UC), but in this case the cauldron has been dissected,
allowing the interior to be seen [S106]. The food items being cooked
within are difficult to identify with certainty, but it is possible they are
pieces of meat, perhaps a rack of ribs.
337
Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 223.
338
A hole is also pierced through his clenched right hand, but the object
he originally held has been lost.
339
Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, 106. A similar example is found
in a slaughtering model from Asyut where one man stands facing a
brazier. He angles a fan towards it, suggesting he is heating the coals
for cooking. As in the model of Khety, there is no clear indication of the
item being cooked, but the location of the brazier beside the slaughter
of an ox and the posture of the man suggest it could be pieces of beef.
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 04.1781. Alternatively, two men sit beside
cauldrons and fan the flame in the slaughterhouse model of Meketre
from Thebes. These vessels are most likely used to cook the blood of
the oxen. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 20.3.10. Gilbert,
“Zooarchaeological observations”, JEA 74, (1988), 79; Kroenke,
“Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 223.
Preparing for Eternity
cult area than cooking, whereas for models, the slaughter
provided a whole ox ready to be divided and prepared
according to the deceased’s needs in the afterlife.
The context of the cooking theme is regularly conveyed by
its association with other activities in the representations,
a technique particularly significant in the two-dimensional
medium. Scenes of roasting fowl are often closely
associated with the everyday life task of fowling with a
clap-net. In both the tombs of Pepyankh the Middle (D2)
and Niankh-pepy-kem (A1), the cooking of poultry is
displayed in the second register of the east wall in between
two different stages of clap-netting [S9, S23].340 This
provides a clear progression of events involved in the
acquisition and roasting of fowl. Alternatively, cooking
scenes can appear alongside other food preparation
activities, especially the manufacture of bread and beer.
On the east wall of the tomb of Pepi (D1) at Meir, a
fowl roaster is depicted in the first register while the two
lower rows are devoted to brewing and bread-making
tasks [S20].341 This combination of scenes highlights the
important role fowl played in providing nourishment.
On the other hand, cooking could occasionally convey ritual
significance through close association with scenes of the
offering-table or slaughtering.342 An unusual arrangement
is found on the south wall of the tomb of Ipi (481 LC) at
Beni Hassan where the fowl roaster is positioned on top
of the reeds/bread loaves lining the offering-table [S7].
Although this precise placement is presumably due to a
lack of available space,343 it does provide a clear connection
between the roasted poultry and the other food presented
for the funerary meal.344 Similarly, the east and south walls
340
These two scenes display many similarities, particularly in relation
to the layout of the wall. The artist of Niankh-pepy-kem’s scene was
certainly influenced by, if not copied, the scene of Pepyankh the Middle.
The placement of the final task of cooking between the two earlier stages
of fowling is certainly unusual and seems to have been designed in
order to position the presentation of fowl at the eye-level of the large
standing figure of Pepyankh the Middle at the north end of the wall. This
arrangement of registers was adopted in the later tomb of Niankh-pepy-
kem even though the presentation of fowl was rather aligned with the
tomb owner’s chest. Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, 43-
45; Lashien, Nobles of El-Qusiya, 190-91.
341
The upper register is not well-preserved, with an empty space
immediately behind the cook which presumably contained a second
figure who may have conducted an additional food preparation activity.
A similar arrangement is found in the second register of the east wall
of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) where two figures
immediately opposite the fowl roaster are apparently engaged in
preparing dough for baking [S36]. The brazier is quite large with empty
space on top beside the bird possibly for the placement of loaves. The
precise identity of the items held by the two men is not certain, but it
seems that the standing youth is being instructed to place his piece on the
fire: the seated figure commands dj xpr nw njs.k r nfrw r wnm t ‘let this
be done, that you may call the young men to eat the bread’, to which the
boy responds jrjj(.j) ‘I will do’. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir.
Volume II, 51.
342
Eyre, Cannibal Hymn, 105-06.
343
Lashien, Beni Hassan. Volume II, 28.
344
A second, although unusual, example may be found in the fourth
register of the east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black
(A2) [S36]. A fowl roaster appears in a short sub-register immediately
before a scene of the painter Iri seated at a table laden with food. The
fowl is certainly intended for the table but unusually not for the tomb
owner.
64
of the shrine of Baqet III (15 UC) are devoted to meat
provisions, with the scenes displaying rows of offerings,
the roasting of fowl and slaughtering oxen before a large
seated figure of the tomb owner at an offering-table [S87-
S88]. The expansive nature of the wall surface enabled
scene-artists to carefully arrange several themes on a
single wall and subsequently convey the precise context of
each activity. The wide variety of scenes associated with
cooking highlights the prominence of the task in everyday
life and in ritual practices.
Fowl roasting models could likewise portray connections
with other themes, although they exhibit a much more
restricted range of activities. The two fowl roasters of
Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) are fashioned as single figures
on individual baseboards and therefore do not display
any association with other activities [M13-M14; see fig.
2.31]. This design should be explained by the early date of
the model owner. During the 4th and 5th Dynasties, three-
dimensional serving figures comprised single statuettes,
but in the late 6th Dynasty, pairs and small group models
began to appear.345 The assemblage of Niankh-pepy-
kem, dated to the reign of Pepy II, forms an example
of this transition period, predominantly consisting of
single figures but with a few pairs and a group of three.346
Consequently, the cooking models occur alone as this was
the practice of the period.
However, group models of the Middle Kingdom had
the ability to combine multiple themes. Although
this technique is not commonly utilised in the three-
dimensional repertoire, it appears most regularly in the
theme of food preparation, and indeed, fowl roasters
are known from such group models. In a bread-making
and brewing model likely from Deir el-Bersha, a fowl
roaster is seated in one corner of the baseboard [M260].347
Several figures are involved in the production processes
and all are closely arranged with little empty space.
This close association with the production of bread and
beer conveys that fowl roasting was valued in the three-
dimensional medium for its contribution to the deceased’s
nourishment.348 Unusually, a cook is also found on board
345
Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 2-3; Kroenke, “Provincial
Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 229; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company
of Images, 138, 148.
346
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 11-12;
Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, 18.
347
The man holds a fan in his right hand, but the spit has been lost from
his left. However, a hole in his left hand indicates one was originally
grasped. The brazier is unusually positioned behind him, but this should
most probably be attributed to incorrect restoration, with either the man
facing the opposite direction or the brazier and cook pegged into each
other’s holes.
348
Group models from other sites likewise associate cooking with food
preparation. In a model from the tomb of Gemni at Saqqara, a man
roasting a bird appears alongside two figures engaged in bread-making
and one in brewing. The figure grinding grain, however, has been lost
from the model. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin: ÄM 1366. Similarly, in a
model from the tomb of Gemniemhat at Saqqara, the production of meat,
bread and beer are all portrayed, but the activities are divided into separate
rooms: bread-making and brewing are spread across two sections and
meat processing is confined to the third. In this final compartment, three
figures are engaged in slaughtering an ox while a fourth is seated beside

a model boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M130]. Here,
he is the only figure engaged in food processing, but he
is accompanied by two sealed beer-jars and two baskets
presumably storing bread. This food probably provided
sustenance for the crew across the large model fleet.349 The
three-dimensional medium does not portray the array of
associations for the cooking theme that is encountered in
wall scenes, but rather emphasises a connection with other
food preparation tasks. Located in the burial chamber,
models provisioned the deceased in the afterlife and so the
importance of the cooking theme lay in its ability to supply
an eternal source of food.
Representations of cooking display many similarities
between the two- and three-dimensional media, with both
depicting the characteristic motif of a man roasting a bird
on a spit over a brazier. However, there are also several
minute differences in representation that result from
the individual technical capabilities of each medium. In
particular, the three-dimensional representations benefited
from a holistic perspective that captured a realistic
arrangement of each component, whereas scene-artists
were required to adapt their designs for each element to
be easily recognised in the two-dimensional perspective.
On the other hand, scenes could more easily devote
greater space to the theme and could consequently expand
upon the characteristic motif by illustrating some of the
preparatory stages and integrating it into a wider variety
of scene-types. The typically more condensed portrayal
of models was principally concerned with conveying the
theme’s contribution to a sufficient food supply which was
imperative in the burial chamber for the deceased’s eternal
sustenance.
2.8 Fishing and fowling
Fishing and fowling formed a central part of the ancient
Egyptians’ everyday lives. The river and marshes teemed
with aquatic life which could be easily obtained by all
people.350 As a profession, fishing and fowling involved
teams of men who caught large quantities of birds and
fish for the purposes of food acquisition. As a sport, they
were recreational activities practised by the tomb owner
and his family which may have held symbolic value.351
Both functions appear prominently in scenes displayed on
chapel walls, whereas models exclusively depict fishing
and fowling as professions.352 Consequently, only scenes
of these activities as a profession have been collected in
this study for comparison.
a brazier, roasting a bird on a spit. Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen:
AEIN 1631. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 798-99.
349
The model assemblage of Djehuty-nakht included an exceptionally
large fleet of 58 boats which will be discussed in chapter 3.1. Freed &
Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 166.
350
Houlihan, Animal World, 129, 135-36; Germond & Livet, Egyptian
Bestiary, 45, 64.
351
Donatelli, in Egyptian Civilization, 167-69; Kanawati, Tomb and its
Significance, 119; Strouhal, Life, 120-23; Lloyd, Ancient Egypt, 181.
352
The reasons for the absence of three-dimensional representations
of the tomb owner spear fishing and fowling with a throwstick will be
addressed in chapter 7.3.
65
Food Production and Preparation
Three-dimensional representations of fishing and fowling
as a profession, however, are particularly rare. Two
model boats from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)
at Deir el-Bersha have been classified as representations
of fowling,353 but it will be outlined below why this
categorisation should be reconsidered [M82-M83; see fig.
2.35]. Each comprises a wooden watercraft operated by
crewmen which has two birds simply lying amidships.
Only a single model fishing boat has been identified from
the three sites investigated in this study, and this belongs
to Khety-aa (575 LC) from Beni Hassan [M202; fig. 2.37].
No fishing operations are performed, but the associated
equipment is displayed on board. Alternatively, fishing
is directly undertaken in two model boats from the tomb
of Meketre at Thebes, and as these models are unique in
their depiction, they will be briefly considered here.354 The
rarity of fishing and fowling among the three-dimensional
medium is noticeable and forms a distinct contrast from
the abundant two-dimensional illustrations.
In wall scenes, fowling as a profession characteristically
comprises a team of men operating a clap-net.355 The typical
illustration is exhibited in the sixth register of the south
wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan: the
hexagonal net lies in a marshy area while the fowlers hold
the rope connected to it, awaiting the order to pull from
the signalman who is camouflaged in a clump of papyrus
[S82; fig. 2.34].356 Sometimes an early stage of the process is
displayed with the men in static, upright postures,357 while in
other instances the pull has already begun with the fowlers
in a range of vigorous stances.358 Often more than one
fowling scene is incorporated into the chapel’s decoration,
sometimes showing successive stages of movement.359 On
the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2)
353
D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 115; Freed
& Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 173; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,
“Model of a fowling boat”, viewed 2 January 2020, <https://collections.
mfa.org/objects/143803>, <https://collections.mfa.org/objects/143964>.
354
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 20.3.6; Egyptian
Museum, Cairo: JE 46715. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pls. 51-52.
355
In one exception, women are engaged in this task instead of men, namely
in the fifth register of the south wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep III (C1) at
Meir [S218]. Women are prominent throughout this chapel’s decoration, the
reasons for which are discussed in chapter 3.2. It should also be noted that
scenes of trapping birds in trees have not been collected in this study as they
are not associated with the marshes and are aimed at protecting crops, and
therefore are distinct from the model fowling boats examined.
356
Dunnicliff, in Behind the Scenes, 117; Swinton, Management of
Estates, 101.
357
For example, the fowlers in the third register of the south wall of the
tomb of Nekhti (21 UC) at Beni Hassan stand upright, having not yet
begun to pull the rope [S151].
358
On the east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at
Meir, the fowlers in the second register have fallen onto the ground with
their legs outstretched and they are leaning backwards to pull the rope
[S36]. Similarly, the fowlers on the north wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I
(B2) at Meir each adopt individual, animated postures in the pull [S140].
359
Such scenes do not necessarily depict two stages of a single event.
On the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), two clap-nets
lie immediately next to each other and are ultimately controlled by the
same figure. However, the upper net is situated on a homogenous green
background, perhaps indicating a location near agricultural land, and a
variety of avian species are within it, while the lower net is positioned on
a pool of water coloured blue with horizontal zigzag lines and only ducks
are ensnared, suggesting that these fowling operations occurred at different
times and in different places [S189]. Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 75.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 2.34. Fowling with a clap-net. Tomb of Baqet III (15 UC). South wall, west panel, register 6 [S82]. Kanawati & Evans,
Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 86 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
at Meir, for example, the clap-net remains open with the
fowlers just beginning the pull in the third register while
the later stage is depicted in the first register where the
net is closed and the men energetically pull the rope [S9].
The theme could occasionally be expanded to include
additional motifs such as men retrieving captured birds
from the net, the storage of fowl in crates, the presentation
of the catch, and the preparation for consumption.360 While
fowling with a clap-net is almost exclusively conducted
by minor figures, in two rare examples, the tomb owner
and/or his son are directly engaged, namely on the north
and east walls of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at
Beni Hassan [S189, S192] and on the north and west walls
of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at
Deir el-Bersha [S204, S210].361 In all scenes, the clap-net
is filled with large quantities of birds, showing the catch
to be successful. Fowl were plentiful in the marshes,
with the Nile constituting a major stop on the migratory
route of many species.362 A successful catch was an integral
part of everyday life, providing an important source of
nourishment for the whole population.
The two model boats of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) classified
as representations of fowling do not exhibit these same
processes or details [M82-M83; see fig. 2.35]. The
360
The two fowling scenes displayed on the east wall of the tomb of
Pepyankh the Middle (D2) are separated by a register depicting the
presentation of birds and their preparation for consumption [S9]. A similar
arrangement is found on the east wall of the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1)
at Meir [S23]. On the west wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-
hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha, the results of the catch are suspended
from cords or stored in crates in a sub-register above the fowlers [S210].
Alternatively, a man stands immediately beside the clap-net and bends over
to retrieve the captured birds on the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the
Black (A2) [S36], on the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC)
[S189], and probably on the north wall of the tomb of Baqet II (33 UC) at
Beni Hassan [S59]. Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 142.
361
In the tomb of Khnumhotep II, it is the son who controls both clap-
nets on the north wall with the assistance of two teams of fowlers, while
on the centre panel of the east wall, the tomb owner operates a clap-net
single-handedly. Alternatively, Djehuty-hotep is aided in the operation by
a team of fowlers on the west wall and his son on the north wall. The
depiction of the tomb owner fowling with a clap-net is not attested in Old
Kingdom private tombs, and Hudáková identifies the precursor as the royal
representation of Sahure in his pyramid complex at Abusir. Kanawati &
Woods, Beni Hassan, 75; Hudáková, Representations of Women, 148, 153.
362
Ikram, Choice Cuts, 23-24; Houlihan, in Oxford Encyclopedia,
<http://www.oxfordreference.com>.
66
birds simply lie on deck without any fowlers or fowling
equipment portrayed.363 It is more likely that the boats are
either bringing back the results of a successful catch in the
marshes or that the fowl were transported as food for the
crew. The task of fowling itself is certainly unrepresented
and so the models should not be classified as such. Rather,
they primarily function as transport boats with the birds
comprising a supplementary motif. A similar situation is
witnessed in the fishing and fowling model boat of Meketre
from Thebes.364 A male and female figure present fowl to the
tomb owner and his son who are seated on deck while the
clap-net itself is disassembled and lashed to the canopy
framework. Once again, fowling is merely implied.
It seems that a major contributing factor to the absence of
fowling in the three-dimensional medium is the difficulty in
representing the environment. In all wall scenes examined
in this study, the marshland constitutes an integral element
and is often depicted with great detail and accuracy.365
The net is laid in a marshy area filled with aquatic plant
and animal life while the fowlers are positioned on
land, sometimes with swamp vegetation interspersed
between them, as is exhibited in the third register of the
scene of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) [S9].366 Models, in
contrast, rarely specify the natural environment, with
the figures typically attached to plain baseboards. In the
363
One boat has a single helmsman preserved [M82], while the other
retains a helmsman, pilot and paddler [M83; fig. 2.35]. The former
apparently had an additional two figures, as evidenced by two holes on
deck, but it is probable that these comprised members of the crew to
supplement the helmsman. It is possible that a clap-net was originally
laid on deck that has been lost, but this cannot be proven with the
surviving evidence.
364
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 20.3.6. Winlock,
Models of Daily Life, pl. 51.
365
Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 64.
366
Different perspectives were often utilised in these scenes so that each
component could be depicted in its most recognisable form. In the fourth
register of the east panel of the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep
I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan, for example, the marsh and clap-net are
depicted from a top-down view while the aquatic life is shown in profile
[S120]. Alternatively, in the seventh register of the west wall of the
tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan, the marshland is represented in
profile as two solid rectangular blocks with individual stems protruding
from the top while the clap-net is portrayed in a top-down perspective
[S110]. Dunnicliff, in Behind the Scenes, 117; Kanawati, in Cultural
Manifestations, 120-21.

Figure 2.35. Model boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), with two fowl lying on deck [M83]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine
Arts, Boston: 21.890.
fowling models examined, all comprise boats without any
distinction of the marshes nor the riverbank. Consequently,
the clap-netting operation could not be represented in the
typical manner of scenes, and model-artists have instead
depicted the result of the catch.
Several fishing techniques are known from wall scenes,
but the most common for professional fishing is the
dragnet. These scenes often occupy the height of two
registers and the fishermen are typically positioned on a
raised sub-register line that indicates the riverbank with
the water depicted below.367 That displayed in the third
register of the north wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC)
at Beni Hassan comprises the typical representation: the
fishermen are divided into two equal groups, each grasping
an end of the rope attached to the net [S49].368 Sometimes
the men are supervised by an overseer who stands between
the two groups leaning on a staff, or an additional man
is positioned at each end who stands in the water to help
pull the edges of the net.369 The fishermen are regularly
distinct in their appearance and attire, often displayed
367
Extra space was needed for a detailed representation of a wide
band of water containing a variety of aquatic life while maintaining the
uniform height of the figures in the area above. Harpur, Decoration in
Egyptian Tombs, 145.
368
Brewer & Friedman, Fish and Fishing, 42-44; Dunnicliff, in Behind
the Scenes, 119.
369
An overseer is found in the scene displayed in the lowest register of
the south wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) at Meir [S178], while two
of the fishermen stand in the water in the scene in the sixth register of the
north wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) [S75]. Harpur, Decoration in
Egyptian Tombs, 145-46.
67
Food Production and Preparation
as naked or wearing an abbreviated kilt or close-fitting
tunic, reflecting their lowly status.370 The dragnet itself
comprises a long strip of netting supported by an upper
line equipped with floats and a lower line weighted with
sinkers.371 That exhibited on the west wall of the tomb of
Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan is particularly detailed
with the netting painted over the fish and a decorative
band of water below [S164; fig. 2.36]. Unlike fowling,
only a single moment of dragnetting is depicted in scenes,
namely when the net is full of fish and the men begin to
haul in the catch.372 The hunt is always met with success,
again highlighting the abundant quantities of aquatic life
available for capture and consumption.
Additionally, a number of scenes depict small-scale fishing
techniques which often take place on board a boat. On both
the south and west walls of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh
the Black (A2) at Meir, two fishermen are depicted on
board a small watercraft: one reclines lazily while holding
the end of a fishing line and the other stands and pulls a
370
The fishermen portrayed on the north wall of the outer room of the
tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5) at Deir el-Bersha wear nothing except for a
simple belt tied around the waist [S63]. Alternatively, those in the sixth
register of the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) wear
close-fitting tunics which cover the upper body and loin area and pass
over both shoulders [S129]. A shoulder sling is also often worn which
is attached to the rope to aid the task of hauling, as is exhibited by
four of the fishermen on the north panel of the east wall of the tomb of
Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S191]. Donatelli, in Egyptian Civilization, 169;
Brewer & Friedman, Fish and Fishing, 42; Alcock, Food, 10.
371
Strouhal, Life, 123; Sahrhage, Fischfang und Fischkult, 105-07.
372
Donatelli, in Egyptian Civilization, 169-70; Dunnicliff, in Behind the
Scenes, 119.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 2.36. Fishing with a dragnet. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). West wall, south panel, register 3 [S164]. Kanawati &
Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 89 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
hand-net filled with fish out of the water [S41, S43].373
In all such scenes, the boat comprises a small papyrus
skiff which could easily navigate the shallow waters near
the riverbank. As small-scale fishing operations could be
conducted by a single fisherman, they were a convenient
means for individuals to catch fish, perhaps for their own
consumption.374
Similar techniques could also be used by fishermen on
shore or standing in shallow water. On the north wall of the
tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir, a naked man with receding
hairline exerts great effort to haul a hand-net filled with
an exceptionally large number of fish out of the shallow
water [S133]. All of these small-scale operations as well
as fishing with a rod are performed by men on shore and
wading in shallow water on the west wall of the tomb of
Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S199].375 Alternatively, the north
wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan uniquely
exhibits the method of stacking leafy tree branches across
the water to create an attractive habitat for fish [S95]. A net
is set around the leafy trap, and once the fish seek safety
in the foliage, the men drive them out of the branches and
into the net. This operation is depicted in Khety’s scene
373
Similar scenes are found on the west panel of the south wall of the
outer room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) [S179] and in the third
register of the north wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) [S140],
although in the latter example only a single fisherman is involved and he
is accompanied by a dog.
374
Germond & Livet, Egyptian Bestiary, 45-46; Dunnicliff, in Behind
the Scenes, 120-21.
375
Brewer and Friedman, and Sahrhage have identified this scene as the
earliest known representation of fishing with a rod. Brewer & Friedman,
Fish and Fishing, 30; Sahrhage, Fischfang und Fischkult, 100.
68
as successive stages of movement.376 Like scenes of
dragnetting, the catch of small-scale fishing operations is
always met with success.
Similarly, the model of Khety-aa (575 LC) associates
fishing with a boat, but unlike wall scenes, the actual task
of fishing is not portrayed [M202; fig. 2.37]. Instead, a pile
of netting is simply situated on deck beneath the canopy
alongside other tools,377 and no fish are represented on
board, indicating that the catch has not yet occurred. As
noted above, fishermen in scenes are regularly distinct
in their appearance, but the figures on board Khety-aa’s
model boat assume the form of crewmen: they wear simple
white-painted and linen kilts and function in the roles of
pilot, punters, sailors and helmsman. Additionally, the
boat itself comprises a wooden watercraft which would
have been less suitable for fishing in the shallow waters
along the riverbank than a papyrus skiff. Consequently,
the emphasis of the model boat is on its role in providing
transport and the presence of the net merely implies the
supplementary motif of catching fish.
However, the two fishing models of Meketre from Thebes
do depict specific fishing techniques. On board one boat
are two men holding harpoons to spear fish: one raises
the tool, about to throw, while the other points it down
376
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, 32-33.
377
It is unclear if any floats or sinkers are associated with this net. A
rounded wooden piece appears on deck alongside the net which may
comprise one of these parts, but this is uncertain from the available
images. Also lying on deck beneath the canopy are two knives and an axe
while an adze is attached to one of the sailor’s belts. Merriman, Egyptian
Watercraft Models, cat. 409.

Figure 2.37. Model boat of Khety-aa (575 LC), with fishing equipment on deck beneath the canopy [M202]. © Ashmolean
Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2297.
towards the deck to deposit his catch.378 The men are attired
as fishermen with a white-painted shoulder strap and are
distinct from the crewmen on board who wear plain kilts.
The second model uniquely incorporates two papyrus skiffs
which are attached to a wooden baseboard painted green
to represent the river and with a dragnet spread between
them.379 On each boat are men specifically designated to
operate the net and others to propel the watercraft. The
net is filled with fish while several more are deposited on
deck. These models of Meketre are unique in specifying
the activities of the fishermen and the second example is
unusually solely devoted to the theme. The rarity of such
representations indicates that fishing was not considered
an essential theme in the model repertoire.
The fact that both fishing and fowling constitute
preparatory processes may perhaps explain their rare
appearance among the three-dimensional medium. Models
are typically more condensed than wall scenes, and so it
was more important to depict the end result rather than
the processes of acquisition. While fowling itself is not
displayed, the final product holds an important place in
the three-dimensional repertoire. As will be discussed
378
The fishermen also grasp reels that will be used to draw the harpoons
back in. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 20.3.6. Winlock,
Models of Daily Life, pl. 51.
379
Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46715. Winlock, Models of Daily Life,
pl. 52. The arrangement of the dragnet spread between two boats is not
present in any wall scenes examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni
Hassan, but a parallel example may be found on the east wall of the
Ramesside tomb of Ipi at Thebes. Davies, Two Ramesside Tombs, pl. 30.
69
Food Production and Preparation
in chapter 3.2, fowl form one of the principal products
presented by model offering-bearers, and as was noted in
chapter 2.7, the cooking of poultry appears in both single
statuettes and group models.
A different situation, however, is noticeable for fish. Not
only is fishing rarely represented by models, but the final
product does not appear in any other theme portrayed by
the three-dimensional medium. Interestingly, there is some
parallel with wall scenes in this regard. It has been noted
that in Memphite tombs of the Old Kingdom, fish rarely
appear among the goods associated with the offering-
table scene or in offering-lists, and the shape of the
animal forms the determinative for the word bw.t, often
translated as ‘taboo’ or ‘abomination’.380 Consequently,
it has been suggested that there was a taboo that made
fish an unsuitable item for the deceased.381 However, fish
certainly formed a central part of the ancient Egyptian diet
and they are regularly presented to figures of the living
380
Brewer & Friedman, Fish and Fishing, 12-15; Houlihan, Animal
World, 129-30. Frandsen has convincingly cautioned against translating
bw.t as ‘taboo’ due to the difficulty in equating the modern definition
of the term with a phenomenon from another cultural setting. Frandsen,
“Taboo”, TdE 8, (2017), 166, 188-89.
381
Various reasons have been proposed as to the surprising absence of
fish in offering scenes: fish provided nourishment for the tomb owner’s
courtiers rather than for the tomb owner himself; they provided payment
for the upkeep of his tomb and mortuary cult; they were an everyday
commodity that lacked ritual value; and they functioned as a symbol of
protection and rebirth. Handoussa, “Fish offering”, MDAIK 44, (1988),
104-09; Brewer & Friedman, Fish and Fishing, 12-15; Houlihan, Animal
World, 129-30; Swinton, Management of Estates, 96.
Preparing for Eternity

tomb owner in association with scenes of fishing and

fowling.382 This importance of fish is displayed in scenes
reflecting everyday life, but the almost complete absence
of the commodity from the model repertoire indicates that
other foodstuffs were considered more imperative to be
accessed by the deceased in the burial chamber for the
afterlife.

There is certainly a clear contrast in the prominence of

the fishing and fowling theme between the two media.
Everyday life tasks dominate scenes publicly displayed on
chapel walls and a great amount of space was regularly
devoted to marshland activities. In contrast, fishing and
fowling are almost entirely excluded from the three-
dimensional repertoire. This rarity may be explained by
the omission of the natural environment, the primary
function of model boats in providing riverine transport,
and the preference for displaying the final product. The
models of Meketre that unusually specify certain fishing
techniques should be understood as supplementary themes
included among an extensive corpus. The tomb of Meketre
at Thebes housed 24 models, enabling auxiliary motifs
to be represented alongside those considered essential.
Two of the 12 model boats could therefore be dedicated
to procuring fish and fowl while leaving a sufficient
quantity to provide riverine transport. Although not as
expansive, the burial of Khety-aa (575 LC) housed at
least seven models which not only encompassed all of
the major transport and food preparation motifs, but also
the supplementary theme of spinning and weaving. Most
model owners, however, apparently considered fishing
and fowling to not be essential and excluded the theme
from their burial assemblages.

382
Although rare, Handoussa has noted that there are a few examples
from Old Kingdom Memphite tombs where fish are presented to the tomb
owner. Provincial nobles, on the other hand, seem to have been freer in
their representations. To the right of the fishing scene in the third register
of the east wall of room 4 in the late 6th Dynasty tomb of Pepyankh the
Black (A2), a man walks towards a large standing figure of the owner
with two baskets filled with fish suspended from a yoke carried across
his shoulders [S36]. By the Middle Kingdom, the prohibition, if ever
existed, was certainly lifted as the Coffin Texts indicate that the deceased
did not avoid fish in the afterlife. Fish still rarely appear in the offering-
table scene, but some examples are known. In the third register of the
west panel of the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC), fish
are transported alongside fowl towards an offering-table piled with items
of food [S116]. Sist, in Egyptian Civilization, 74; Handoussa, “Fish
offering”, MDAIK 44, (1988), 106-07; Brewer & Friedman, Fish and
Fishing, 15.

70
 3
Transport
3.1 Boats
The boat was the most significant form of transport to the
ancient Egyptians, serving an essential role in everyday
life. It provided the most effective means of communication
and the transport of people, livestock, material and goods
up and down the Nile.1 The river flows the length of the
whole country, enabling swift and convenient transport
throughout Egypt in contrast to arduous overland
journeys across the desert terrain.2 Not only did the
river profoundly influence the Egyptians’ means of travel,
but it also permeated their religious beliefs and ideology.
Boats were integral in temple and funerary processions,
in pilgrimages to holy sites and for transporting the
divine and the deceased. From the earliest times, the
boat was considered indispensable to the deceased’s
afterlife and so it quickly became a fundamental part of
funerary equipment.3 It is therefore not surprising that
representations of boats abound in both the two- and three-
dimensional media. It is beyond the scope of this study to
classify the boats according to function, so all examples
have been examined together as one group.4 Overall,
the representations exhibit many similarities, but there are
some noticeable differences between the two media, and
these will form the main part of the discussion below.
According to structure, there are three main types of boats
identifiable in representations: wooden, papyriform and
papyrus.5 Wooden vessels are assembled from wooden
1
Vinson, Boats and Ships, 7; Peck, Material World, 162; Moreno
Garcia, State in Ancient Egypt, 17.
2
Jones, Boats, 9; Partridge, Transport, 3.
3
Jones, Boats, 11; Ward, Sacred and Secular, 2-6.
4
Model boats are regularly classified according to function in scholarship,
with distinctions generally between everyday transport, funerary or
pilgrimage use, and specialised religious functions. However, it is often
difficult to categorise many boats as there are not consistent criteria that
can be used for each type. A model sailing boat from tomb 868 LC at Beni
Hassan, for example, has been classified by Tooley as a pilgrimage boat
[M222]. This is based on the presence of four cloaked figures positioned
around the owner which Tooley identifies as the Four Sons of Horus.
However, it is equally possible that the figures are rowers at rest, which
would make the model a simple transport boat. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom
Burial Customs. Volume I”, 153. Similar difficulties in classification are
present in wall scenes. In funerary processions, for example, wooden
rowing and sailing boats appear as tugs for papyriform vessels, as is found
on the east wall of room 3 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir
[S31]. The self-propelled boats could simply be classified as everyday
transport, but their connection to the papyriform vessel bearing the coffin
could equally give them a funerary character. Proposing a more precise
classification system is beyond the scope of this study and its absence does
not impede the comparative analysis conducted here.
5
In his examination of model boats, Reisner formulated categorisations
based on both structure and function. According to structure, he classified
model boats as either wooden or papyrus craft. According to function,
he identified those for ordinary use, funeral purposes and solar boats.
In combining these two classifications, he created a typology of seven
classes which still forms the standard categorisation of model boats in
current scholarship. Some new revisions have also been put forward,
71
planks and papyrus skiffs are fashioned of bundles of
papyrus lashed together, whereas papyriform boats are
constructed of wood but imitate the shape of papyrus
craft.6 While wooden and papyriform vessels are prominent
among both wall scenes and funerary models, papyrus skiffs
are unique to the two-dimensional medium in the corpus
examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan.7
This type of watercraft is ubiquitous in the repertoire of wall
scenes, featuring prominently in illustrations of marshland
activities. Papyrus was plentiful along the Nile and could be
easily worked, making it a useful material for the creation
of everyday watercraft.8 Simple skiffs were used on a daily
basis by the general population, particularly for fishing and
local transport, but were not especially durable.9 As the
repertoire of the two-dimensional medium during the Old
and Middle Kingdoms largely concentrated on everyday
life activities, it is not surprising to find abundant scenes of
papyrus craft. Conversely, models are primarily concerned
with provisioning the deceased for the afterlife; wooden and
papyriform vessels may have been considered more effective
in providing enduring, reliable transport. Therefore, for an
effective comparison, only representations of wooden and
papyriform boats in wall scenes were collected in this study.
In the three-dimensional medium, the boat is particularly
prominent, comprising the most frequently represented
theme. Not only is this popularity witnessed in the
quantity of models, but also in their appearance both
before and after the standard period of model usage.
The earliest examples date to the Predynastic Period and
comprise hollow crafts with limited internal structure
made of pottery, ivory or bone.10 Wooden model boats did
not appear until the 4th and 5th Dynasties, but became a
regular part of burial equipment in the 6th Dynasty.11 The
most notably those of Merriman whose proposed classification seeks
to recognise the major nautical construction attributes of the vessels.
Reisner, Models of Ships, ii-iii; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models,
31-54.
6
Jones, Boats, 36-45; Partridge, Transport, 12.
7
Papyrus skiffs form Reisner Type III but no examples are presented
in his study. Only one model papyrus skiff is known from all of Egypt,
namely a pair of fishing boats crafted as a single model from the tomb
of Meketre at Thebes, which was discussed in chapter 2.8. Egyptian
Museum, Cairo: JE 46715. Reisner, Models of Ships, xvii; Winlock,
Models of Daily Life, pl. 52; Stephens, Egyptian Ships and Boats, 20-21.
8
Casson, Ships and Seafaring, 15; Jones, Boats, 44; McFarlane, in
Behind the Scenes, 148-49.
9
Partridge, Transport, 13; Brier & Hobbs, Daily Life, 237.
10
Jones, Model Boats, 1; Tooley, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.
oxfordreference.com>.
11
Wood comprises by far the most popular material for model boats.
Stone was also occasionally used, with two examples identified in this
study [M28-M29]. The earliest model boats do not include any human
figures, but crew begin to appear in the late 6th Dynasty. Later models
lacking crew, with the exception of solar boats, should be attributed
to poor preservation, such as M52, M59, M65, M137, M275. Tooley,
Egyptian Models and Scenes, 53; Jones, Boats, 26.
Preparing for Eternity
models are also known beyond the Middle Kingdom, with
examples from royal New Kingdom burials.12 However,
like other model-types, the pinnacle period of use remains
the early Middle Kingdom.13 From Meir, Deir el-Bersha
and Beni Hassan, 172 model boats have been identified,
147 of which could be examined through images.
This is by far the greatest model-type collected in this
study and it is probable that the original total was even
higher.14 Although many tombs were simply furnished
with one model boat, it was common for at least a pair
to be included: one equipped for rowing and the other for
sailing, which provided the owner with transport both up
and down the river.15 In some instances, even more were
interred, with the largest known assemblage comprising a
fleet of 58 model boats from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht
(R-10A) at Deir el-Bersha which included simple rowing
and sailing crafts as well as boats equipped with cabins,
military weapons, figures preparing food and funerary
equipment [M82-M137].16 The prominence of the theme
in the three-dimensional repertoire highlights the immense
value placed upon maintaining access to riverine transport
in the afterlife.
Boats are likewise salient in the two-dimensional medium,
although they are not quite as dominant in the repertoire.
The earliest examples are found on Predynastic decorated
pottery and rock-drawings, although it is in the 4th Dynasty
that numerous images of boats appear in tomb scenes.17
The boat remained a crucial element of wall scenes,
continuing to feature throughout the Pharaonic Period. At
Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, eight tombs were
found to contain scenes of wooden and/or papyriform
boats, with a total of 47 individual crafts. The vessels do
not appear singly but are always shown in a group, with
the largest fleet found on the west wall of the tomb of
Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan which consists of eight
boats [S104]. The total quantity of representations is not
nearly as high as that of models, but this number should
be considered alongside the abundant representations
of papyrus skiffs. While two-dimensional wooden and
papyriform vessels were clearly of importance, they were
perhaps not as indispensable as they were among models.
12
The model fleets of Amenhotep II and Thutmose III consist of
fragmentary remains and some practically intact examples, whereas the
flotilla of Tutankhamun was found complete, comprising 35 model boats.
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 67; Jones, Model
Boats, 3.
13
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 61; Kroenke,
“Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 165.
14
The next most populous model-types collected from Meir, Deir el-
Bersha and Beni Hassan are offering-bearers with 31 examples examined,
bread-making with 31, brewing beer with 24, and granaries with 22.
Issues of preservation and an absence of provenance have presumably
caused many examples to be lost.
15
It appears that this type of assemblage was common for earlier burials,
but the quantity and variety of boats per tomb increased over time. David,
Ancient Egyptians, 118-19; Jones, Model Boats, 2.
16
It should be noted that both the governor Djehuty-nakht and his wife
were interred in this tomb, with the model boats presumably distributed
between the two owners. The original division of models, however, is
impossible to determine due to the plundered state of the burial upon
discovery. Even if divided, each corpus is still exceptionally large. Freed
& Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 166.
17
Jones, Boats, 11; McKergow, in Egyptian Art, 226.
72
The two- and three-dimensional representations of
wooden and papyriform boats exhibit many similarities
in design, but there are some notable differences that
largely result from the unique advantages and limitations
of each medium. Across both media, the main elements
of the watercraft representations may be divided into four
overarching categories: the structure of the hull and deck,
the mode of propulsion, the people carried on board, and
the supplies transported. Each of these categories will be
examined below in order to highlight both similarities and
differences in artistic design.
3.1.1 Structure of hull and deck
The depiction of the boat itself, namely the hull and
deck, is of crucial significance, and forms the first main
category. The profile view of the hull is very similar
across the two- and three-dimensional representations.
Both types of design exhibit variety in the minute details,
although the overall shape of wooden boats is quite
consistent. A model boat from Meir illustrates the typical
representation: a shallow hull with a rising bow and stern,
with the stern higher than the bow [M246]. The bow is
pointed with a bowsprit attached while the stern is rounded
and incurved.18 This may be paralleled with the scene on
the south panel of the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat
(2 UC) at Beni Hassan where all three boats in the sixth
register exhibit this same formation [S159; fig. 3.7].19
Similarly, the overall shape of papyriform vessels finds
many resemblances between the two media. As imitations
of papyrus craft, the bow and stern finials end as papyrus
umbels and usually rise to similar heights and curve
gracefully, as is found in the model rowing boat of Intef (1
LC) from Beni Hassan [M39] and in the scene on the west
wall of room 3 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2)
at Meir [S33].20 The boats are often painted to replicate
the colour of the plant, with the hulls green and the finials
yellow or white with lines of binding.21 A wedjat-eye
is often painted on the side of the bow, although with
18
Instead of being incurved, it was also common for the stern to be
fitted with a notch to support the rudder oar, as is exhibited by another
model rowing boat from Meir [M64]. Occasionally, the notch could form
a complete loop through which the rudder oar is inserted, as is found in
another wooden boat from Meir [M233].
19
The bow and stern are occasionally fashioned into the shape of an
animal head, typically understood as a hedgehog, as is found in the right
sailing boat on the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2)
at Meir [S12; fig. 3.4]. Such shapes would have been easier to depict in
two-dimensions as they could be easily drawn on the wall surface. Jones,
Boats, 36; McFarlane, in Behind the Scenes, 151.
20
Alternatively, the bow may rise vertically while the stern is sickle-
shaped, as is exhibited in the model papyriform vessel of Satmeket
(R-10B) from Deir el-Bersha [M158] and on the north panel of the east
wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S158; fig. 3.6]. Jones, Boats, 19;
McKergow, in Egyptian Art, 225-26.
21
In the model papyriform vessel belonging to Ukh-hotep from Meir,
the hull is painted green while the bow and stern finials are white [M223].
Lines of binding are identifiable on a model papyriform boat of Djehuty-
nakht (R-10A): along the bow and stern are black zigzag lines on a white
background bordered in red, most likely a decorative form of stitching
[M100]. Similarly, in the papyriform vessel on the east wall of the tomb
of Amenemhat (2 UC), the hull is coloured green while the bow and stern
finials are painted white with defined lines of lashing [S158; fig. 3.6].
D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 114; McKergow,
in Egyptian Art, 226.

this decoration, the three-dimensional medium has the
advantage of displaying its occurrence on both the port
and starboard sides.22 As the shape of the hull is most
identifiable from a profile viewpoint, both media could
encapsulate it quite similarly and realistically.
In both two- and three-dimensional representations, the
hull characteristically displays a flat bottom. While this
sometimes simply reflects the nautical structure of the
hull, it is also applied in illustrations of round-bottomed
boats on account of each medium’s technical properties.
In models, a flat bottom is incorporated to enable the
artwork to stand on its own, which is important for its
placement in the burial chamber.23 In the rowing boat of
Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) from Beni Hassan, the flattened
area occupies the full length of the central deck [M219;
fig. 3.1].24 Occasionally, model-artists chose to maintain a
round bottom but crafted a plinth to enable their artwork to
stand. In two model boats from the tomb of Sepi III (K-14
south) at Deir el-Bersha, a small rectangular plinth carved
from the same piece as the hull acts as a stand. In one,
the plinth is distinguished from the hull through a change
in colour [M280], whereas in the other it is less distinct,
being painted the same colour as the hull [M279].25 Wall
scenes likewise display hulls with flat bottoms, but this
is not due to the same technical limitation. Instead, this
feature regularly results from the placement of the boat
directly on the straight register line or waterline. On the
south wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black
(A2), the section of the hull of each boat that touches the
waterline is flattened [S40].26 Each type of artist was
bound by the properties of his medium, and while scene-
artists had to consider the register structure, model-artists
had to provide the appropriate structural support.
Significant differences between the media, however, are
noticeable in the depiction of the deck. With the advantage
of working in three-dimensions, model-artists were not
restricted to a profile view but could realistically capture all
22
On a model papyriform vessel of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), both the
starboard and port sides of the hull are decorated with two pairs of black-
painted wedjat-eyes on a white background [M99]. On the west wall of
the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan, the port side of the
papyriform vessel’s hull is similarly decorated with two wedjat-eyes,
one on the bow and one on the stern [S198; fig. 3.5]. However, as the
starboard side is hidden from view, it is unspecified as to whether this
decoration is repeated on the other side of the hull. Merriman, Egyptian
Watercraft Models, cat. 254.
23
It can accordingly be difficult to distinguish between boats that
actually had a flat bottom and those that had a round bottom. Merriman
identifies the distinction as the angle of the planking: those with a hard
chine are representative of a flat bottom and those with a soft chine, a
round bottom. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 22; Partridge, in
Companion to Ancient Egypt, 371.
24
Merriman identifies this model as representative of a round-bottomed
boat. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 443.
25
In the papyriform vessel, the hull is green, whereas the rectangular
plinth is red, while in the wooden boat, both the hull and plinth are
yellow. Only rarely is a true round bottom conveyed, with an example
found in the model boat of Iryt-hotep (188 LC) from Beni Hassan where
the rounded hull is today supported on a modern stand [M162].
26
In the Old Kingdom, the flat-bottomed craft predominated, but in the
Middle Kingdom, flat and rounded hulls co-existed. Accordingly, some
scenes do display the actual nautical structure of the boat. Landström,
Ships of the Pharaohs, 93; Jones, Boats, 45.
73
Transport
of the boat’s structural features. The deck of wooden boats
comprised a series of beams which provided structural
support for the hull, a secure location for deck fittings
and could function as seats for rowers.27 As models can
be viewed from the top-down, the details of the deck
beams are clearly on display. In most models, the beams
are simply painted red on a white deck, as exemplified
by a sailing boat from Meir [M55]. However, in some
instances, they are carved of wood, either from the same
piece as the hollowed hull or inserted as separate parts.28
In five of the models of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) from Meir,
the hulls have been hollowed out leaving actual beams
stretching across the deck [M15-M17, M19-M20]. The
mast and rudder oar stanchion have been stepped through
holes pierced into the beams. This precise placement of
the fittings is also made clear in decks with painted beams.
In one of the sailing boats of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), the
rudder oar stanchion is stepped into the aft-most painted
deck beam and the single pole mast is stepped into a beam
just forward of midships with a painted U-shaped mast
shoe [M113]. With the limitation of a single perspective,
the details of the deck’s formation are entirely absent from
wall scenes. The arrangement of the fittings is still visible
from a profile perspective but their precise connection
to the deck remains unknown.29 Consequently, without
a top-down viewpoint, scene-artists were required to
exclude such details.
As the deck fittings themselves could be conveyed in a
profile perspective, they appear in both media. However,
there are some differences in their arrangement. This may
be exemplified by the depiction of the double rudder oar
stanchions consistently found on papyriform vessels. With
the advantage of working in three-dimensions, the actual
placement of the stanchions side-by-side in the stern could
be displayed in models. In the sailing boat from the tomb of
Intef (1 LC), a stanchion is positioned on both the port and
starboard sections of the stern with a rudder oar passing
over each side of the hull [M40].30 Conversely, with only
one side of the hull portrayed in two-dimensions, scene-
artists could not illustrate this same realistic arrangement.
For both stanchions to be included in scenes, they needed
to be positioned in front of each other rather than side-by-
side. On the east wall of room 3 in the tomb of Pepyankh
the Black (A2), the two papyriform vessels in the third
register are each displayed with double rudder oars and
stanchions [S31]. On each boat, the diminutive helmsman
stands in front of both stanchions, with the three forming a
27
Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 17.
28
Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 17.
29
One exception is the mast shoe or knee which could be shown from a
profile perspective at the base of the mast. On the right sailing boat on the
north panel of the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the pole
mast is secured with lashing to a single knee [S158; fig. 3.6]. However,
its point of connection to the deck remains unknown.
30
In papyriform vessels bearing funerary characteristics, the stanchions
and rudder oars are sometimes elaborately decorated. In that of Ukh-
hotep from Meir, the stanchions, oars and crossbeam are topped with
falcon heads, while the blades are elaborately painted with lotus flowers
and wedjat-eyes [M223].
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 3.1. Model rowing boat of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) [M219]. © The Trustees of the British Museum, London: EA 41575.
All rights reserved.
single line.31 In reality, the man would be positioned in the
middle of the deck between the two posts, but instead, the
arrangement has been altered to allow both stanchions and
the helmsman to be seen by the viewer.
The use of double rudder oars required a supporting
crossbeam which was positioned across the deck at
the base of the stern finial.32 Once again, with multiple
perspectives, this feature is clearly visible in the three-
dimensional designs, as is found in a papyriform vessel
from Deir el-Bersha [M161]. This structural feature is not
seen in a profile perspective and is therefore absent from
wall scenes. Accordingly, scene-artists were required to
either exclude certain deck fittings from their designs or
present them in a less realistic arrangement as a result of
their medium’s limitations in perspective.
Due to this altered arrangement of deck fittings, the boats
in wall scenes can often appear to be particularly crowded.
Everything depicted on board had to fit within a single
two-dimensional line. This is especially evident on the
south panel of the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep
II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan where all of the individuals and
deck fittings are tightly packed, occupying the full length
of the hull [S201; fig. 3.2]. With members of the tomb
owner’s household carried on board as well as the crew,
the scene-artist has used overlapping and variations in
size in an attempt to fit them all within a confined space.33
31
The rudder oars, however, do pass over the port and starboard sides
of the stern, with one of the shafts partially disappearing behind the hull.
32
Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 28.
33
An alternate method may have been adopted by the artist of Pepyankh
the Black’s (A2) scene: between the two papyriform boats on the west
74
Model-artists, conversely, had a three-dimensional view of
the hull and so could evenly spread all of the figures and
fittings across the deck. Ten figures as well as a canopy,
mast and double rudder oar stanchions appear on a model
sailing boat likely from the tomb of Wah-hotep at Meir
[M269].34 The figures are evenly spaced along the deck,
with some positioned side-by-side: the pilot is followed
by two lookouts, three sailors, three figures under the
canopy and a helmsman. The arrangement is not over-
crowded, but each figure and fitting has its own space on
deck. Model boats could be particularly large, providing
more than adequate space for all figures. A boat from the
tomb of Amenemhat (K-21) at Deir el-Bersha is 144cm in
length, with the 10 crewmen, three funerary officiants, boat
fittings and coffin evenly spaced along the deck [M176].35
The holistic perspective of models gives the medium the
advantage of space, enabling a more accurate arrangement
of everything carried on board.
3.1.2 Mode of propulsion
The second major feature of watercraft representations is
the mode of propulsion. Two main methods were utilised
wall of room 3 stand four men carrying funerary furnishings on a short
sub-register line [S33]. While this may indicate that the figures walk
on shore alongside the boats, they could also be understood as being
on board. This would prevent the deck from being over-crowded while
maintaining all of the key figures of the scene. Blackman & Apted, Rock
Tombs of Meir. Part V, 54.
34
The specific tomb attribution has been suggested by Merriman,
Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 140.
35
The pilot and helmsman are missing, but they too would have
originally fitted on deck. The measurement excludes the length of the
rudder oar. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 455.
 Transport

Figure 3.2. Two boats operated by rowers; one transports male members of the household and the other, female. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, south panel, register 3 [S201].
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 121 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

75
Preparing for Eternity
for travel along the Nile: rowing north with the current and
sailing south with the prevailing wind.36 In fact, most boats
were equipped for both types of travel, allowing them to
change direction for the return journey.37 On rowing boats,
the mast with yards, rigging and furled sail was regularly
stowed on deck in a mast rest,38 while in sailing boats, the
oars were often secured along the hull and the seats for
rowers remained on deck.39 In a few unusual instances,
both types of propulsion were utilised simultaneously,
perhaps to aid the movement of the boat as it began its
journey or to help gain momentum when the wind was not
strong enough.40
The mode of prolusion was intimately associated with
the direction of travel,41 and this is highlighted in scenes
with the choice of location on the chapel’s walls. Scenes
of boats are regularly placed on either the east or west
wall so that the rowing and sailing boats could be directed
true north and south respectively.42 In the tomb of Khety
(17 UC), for example, four boats are displayed in each
of the fourth and fifth registers of the west wall [S104].
The rowing boats are confined to the upper register where
they are directed to the right, while the sailing boats are
depicted below, oriented to the left. It appears that there
was also a conscious effort to correctly direct model boats
in the burial chamber. Unfortunately, the exact placement
of models is often unknown due to destruction through
plunder or inadequate documentation by early excavators.43
However, in some cases the original arrangement has been
36
McFarlane, in Behind the Scenes, 151; Peck, Material World, 162.
37
Landström, Ships of the Pharaohs, 55; Partridge, Transport, 57.
38
See, for example, three of the four boats displayed in the fourth
register of the south wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black
(A2) [S40]. The fourth boat is most likely missing this feature in order
to make space for the inscription above. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
of Meir. Volume II, 38. The mast rest is often not preserved in models,
although an example is found in a rowing boat from Meir [M64]. The
associated mast, however, has been incorrectly stepped in the rudder oar
stanchion hole. More commonly, the unstepped mast simply lies on deck
between the two lines of rowers, as is found in two model boats from
the tomb of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) at Beni Hassan
[M211-M212], or in a boat likely from the tomb of Baqta (412 LC) at
Beni Hassan [M199]. The specific tomb attribution of the latter example
has been suggested by Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 518.
39
In the model sailing boat from the tomb of Ma (500 LC) at Beni
Hassan, the mast is raised and the sailors are at work while the oars are
stowed along the hull through rowlocks, ready for the return journey
[M286]. Similarly, in the scene displayed on the north panel of the east
wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the right-most boat in the sixth
register has the sail raised and oars stored along the hull as well as seats
for rowers lined along the deck [S158; fig. 3.6]. In one of the rowing
boats on the south panel of the same wall, these seats are in use by the
rowers [S159; fig. 3.7].
40
On the north panel of the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC),
the middle boat has the sail half-hoisted while the rowers are stroking
[S158; fig. 3.6]. Similarly, in a model boat from the tomb of Nefwa (186
LC) at Beni Hassan, both sailors and rowers are at work: three pairs of
rowers lean backwards with their hands lowered as if currently in motion
while three standing sailors raise their arms to work the rigging [M191;
fig. 3.8]. Stephens, Egyptian Ships and Boats, 118; Kanawati & Evans,
Beni Hassan. Volume III, 42.
41
In fact, the hieroglyphic sign for xdi ‘to travel north’ is a rowing
boat and that for xnti ‘to travel south’ is a sailing boat. McKergow, in
Egyptian Art, 225; Partridge, in Encyclopedia of Ancient History, <http://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com>.
42
Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 38; Lashien, “Pilgrimage in the
Old Kingdom”, BACE 20, (2009), 100.
43
Richards, Society and Death, 68.
76
preserved, such as the burial chamber of Nefery (116 UC)
at Beni Hassan. Both a rowing and sailing boat were found
in their original positions: the rowing boat resided on top
of the coffin facing north-west, and the sailing boat was
situated on the floor of the chamber, beside the coffin,
oriented south [M180-M181].44 Like the positioning of
scenes on the wall, the model boats could also be precisely
deposited to reflect the true direction of travel.
The typical arrangement of oarsmen rowing is in pairs
along the deck facing the stern. The men are shown in
unified motion, either standing or sitting, with their posture
dependent upon the moment of the stroke.45 When seated,
the rowers could be positioned on stools or on the deck
beams. As the hulls of model boats could be hollowed, the
oarsmen could be physically positioned on the wooden
beams with their legs sinking into the hull, as is found in
a rowing boat from Meir [M240]. Even in model boats
with solid hulls and painted deck beams, the positioning
of the oarsmen could be precisely conveyed. In one of the
rowing boats of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), the six rowers
are each carefully positioned on a painted beam [M98;
fig. 3.3]. Although their legs could not sink into the solid
hull, it seems that their posture indicates they adopted a
similar position: the legs are completely covered by white-
painted kilts with no clear indication of the lower legs.
While this could imply a kneeling posture, it seems more
likely that it designated the sinking of the legs into the
hull.46 Alternatively, stools could be carved separately and
attached to the flush deck, as is found in a model wooden
boat from Meir [M232].47 Individual seats could likewise
be displayed in the two-dimensional medium,48 but with
the deck being obscured from view, the positioning of the
rowers on the beams could only be implied. On the south
wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), the
lower bodies of the rowers in the third boat from the left
of the fourth register are hidden behind the raised gunwale
44
Tooley has noted that this placement of model boats was common
at Beni Hassan. At this site, the Nile bends sharply to the west, and so
travelling north would require a north-westerly orientation in order to
traverse the bend in the river. The sailing boat, conversely, could face
true south as the river runs fairly straight in this direction. This placement
reflects an understanding and consideration of the local topography.
Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 56; Tooley, “Middle
Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 172-73.
45
The rowers had to rise to their feet to scoop the blade of the oar
through the water before sitting back down to finish the stroke. Vandier,
Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 709-10; Casson, Ships and
Seamanship, 18.
46
It is interesting that the posture of the helmsman in this model is
clearly distinct from that of the rowers. He sits with his knees bent up
in front and his lower legs and feet are painted red, indicating that they
are on the deck. This is found quite consistently across Djehuty-nakht’s
model rowing boats and may suggest that a conscious effort was made
to distinguish between the two types of posture. In two instances of the
governor’s fleet, the rowers are specified as kneeling with the lower legs
painted red along the bottom of the kilt, parallel to the hull [M94, M100].
47
Several similar examples are found in other rowing boats from Meir.
See, for example, M234-M239.
48
On the south panel of the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II
(3 UC), for example, the rowers on the left boat are seated on stools
while the oarsmen on the right boat are standing [S201; fig. 3.2]. The two
groups are in different stages of motion, with the seated rowers about to
lift their oars out of the water and the standing oarsmen just beginning
the pull of the stroke.

Figure 3.3. Model rowing boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M98]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.879.
[S40]. The deck itself is hidden from view, but it is implied
that the rowers are situated on this lower level. While the
rower is clearly identifiable by his posture in both media,
this distinction in the detail of his positioning on deck
results from the contrasting perspectives conveyed.
Further differences are noticeable in the arrangement of the
oarsmen. In models, the rowers are realistically positioned
in pairs along the deck, with one on port and the other on
starboard.49 However, with the absence of depth, scene-
artists could not display this same composition. In scenes,
rowers are typically placed in single file filling the length of
the hull. The two rowing boats on the east wall of the tomb
of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir, for example, each
display a single line of rowers [S12; fig. 3.4]. This portrayal
could either indicate that the whole crew is represented, with
it being understood that half are actually on the far side of
the deck, or that only one rower of each pair is illustrated. In
the lower boat, an odd number of oarsmen appear, making
the latter alternative more likely. In only one scene collected
in this study is there an attempt to indicate the pairing of the
oarsmen: on the west wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC),
the right-most rowing boat in the fourth register features
a crew of 14 rowers arranged in closely overlapping pairs
[S104]. This presumably indicates that the crew occupied
both sides of the deck, yet all oars pass over the near side
of the hull when in reality half should disappear from view.
The holistic perspective is unique to the three-dimensional
medium, with scene-artists unable to capture the same
accurate arrangement of the crew.
49
An especially large crew is found on a model boat from Meir,
comprising 40 oarsmen seated in 20 pairs [M53].
77
Transport
In a variation of rowing, some boats display crews of
paddlers. This mode of propulsion was particularly
common for rivercraft during the Old Kingdom but
was largely replaced by rowing for larger vessels in the
5th Dynasty.50 Accordingly, very few representations
of paddling have been identified in this study. Unlike
rowing, the paddles were not secured to the hull and the
stroke required fore to aft movement.51 The paddlers may
be shown moving in unison or in a staggered motion.
Representations of paddling may be principally identified
by the forward-facing direction of the oarsmen.52 Two of
the 6th Dynasty models of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) depict
paddlers in motion who are seated in pairs facing the bow
[M21-M22]. The paddles are mostly lost, but those that
are preserved are held in extended arms with the blades
resting alongside the hull. A few other model boats
examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan also
depict forward-facing oarsmen, but this may be attributed
to incorrect restoration rather than the original design.53
Although none of the two-dimensional wooden or
papyriform vessels collected in this study depict paddling,
the mode of propulsion is found in some scenes of papyrus
50
Digby, in History of Technology. Volume I, 732; Casson, Ships and
Seamanship, 18.
51
Jones, Boats, 68; Fabre, Seafaring, 112.
52
Bass, in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Volume III, 1423;
Stephens, Egyptian Ships and Boats, 76.
53
In a model boat from the tomb of Ipi (707 LC) at Beni Hassan, for
example, the six oarsmen are seated in pairs facing the bow [M165]. This
model has apparently been incorrectly configured during conservation
as there are a number of inaccuracies in arrangement. Not only do the
oarsmen face the bow, but the pilot incorrectly faces the stern and the
rudder oar rests against the bow. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models,
cat. 482.
Preparing for Eternity

Figure 3.4. Two rowing boats and two sailing boats. Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2). East wall, south panel, right, register 3 [S12]. Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pl. 82
[detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

78

craft.54 Both scene- and model-artists understood the real-
life developments that occurred in watercraft and this is
equally reflected in their designs.
A similar chronological development is witnessed in
representations of sailing. During the Old Kingdom,
the bipod mast was used which comprised two uprights
widely separated at the base and converging at the top.
In the 6th Dynasty, the pole mast was introduced and,
for a period, both types of mast remained in use.55 This
development is witnessed in both media, with the bipod
and pole masts appearing concurrently in the late 6th
Dynasty representations of Pepyankh the Black (A2) and
Niankh-pepy-kem (A1). Among the model sailing boats
of Niankh-pepy-kem are three propelled by bipod masts
[M15-M17],56 and two by single pole masts [M19-M20].
Similarly, on the south wall of room 4 in the tomb of
Pepyankh the Black, two of the sailing boats feature bipod
masts while the third has a tapering pole mast [S40].57
After this time, the bipod mast was completely replaced
by the pole mast which became the principal method of
suspending the sail in the Middle Kingdom,58 and is
consistently featured in both types of representation.
In addition to the mast, the sail, yard, boom and rigging
were integral to propulsion, and while these features
appear in both media, there are some notable differences
in the way they are represented. Minute elements could
be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface,
enabling more details to be included. This is especially
noticeable in the representation of the rigging used to
manipulate the sail. On the north panel of the east wall
of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the rigging of the
two sailing boats is quite intricate, comprising forestays,
backstays, halyards, lifts and shrouds [S158; fig. 3.6].59
Most models do not portray such details, but this is likely
a matter of preservation. Pieces of thread were attached
to the models to represent the rigging, but such material
elements could be easily lost, destroyed or misplaced. In a
rarely preserved example from Meir, a significant level of
detail is incorporated: several lines of rigging are wound
around the mast, yard and boom, with some additional
lines hanging down to the deck [M245].60
54
For example, in the fourth register of the east wall of room 4 in the
tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), a single paddler appears on one of the
papyrus skiffs, propelling the boat alongside the punter [S36].
55
Fabre, Seafaring, 114; Stephens, Egyptian Ships and Boats, 82-83.
56
Reisner has suggested that a fourth model boat from the burial
originally contained a bipod mast [M18]. This is based on the presence
of a pair of holes in the deck, but Stephens has noted that the holes are aft
of the usual place and there is no means of securing the mast, making this
classification unlikely. Reisner, Models of Ships, 56; Stephens, Egyptian
Ships and Boats, 12-13.
57
Unusually, the two bipod masts have their legs drawn very close
together. This may reflect an actual structural technique used by
shipbuilders to increase the usefulness of this mast form. Stephens,
Egyptian Ships and Boats, 100, 158.
58
Casson, Ships and Seamanship, 19; Jones, Model Boats, 55.
59
Casson, Ships and Seafaring, 21; Vinson, Boats and Ships, 24;
Stephens, Egyptian Ships and Boats, 104, 132.
60
Conservators sometimes re-create this portrayal with modern
materials, such as in the sailing boat from tomb 868 LC at Beni Hassan
[M222]. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 28.
79
Transport
This use of real-life materials is a unique advantage of the
three-dimensional medium and is likewise witnessed in the
construction of the sail. The linen sail was spread between
the upper yard and lower boom and could be formed of
several panels stitched together, as is demonstrated in the
sailing model of Ma (500 LC) from Beni Hassan [M286].
Scenes could not utilise such additional materials, but the
lines of the panels could be drawn on the wall surface.
In the scene of Pepyankh the Middle (D2), the panels of
the two sails are laid horizontally in a similar manner to
those in the model [S12; fig. 3.4]. However, this scene also
demonstrates a unique advantage of the two-dimensional
medium that allows it to indicate the movement of the wind.
The forward edge of each sail was drawn with an outward
curve and the aft edge, an inward one, suggesting that the
wind is pushing the boat forward from behind. In contrast,
the linen sails of the models, although realistic in material,
could only hang down. The ease with which intricate
details could be incorporated into the two-dimensional
medium often resulted in more detailed designs.
Differences in detail are further witnessed in the role
and posture of the sailors. With the difficulty of crafting
intricate details and movements in three-dimensions,
model figures do not display the same range of attitudes
as those in wall scenes. Across the three-dimensional
representations, the depiction of the sailor is especially
consistent: he stands upright, aft of the mast, with legs
side-by-side and arms outstretched with one hand over
the other.61 Often two or three model sailors are shown
in this attitude, standing alongside each other and angled
towards the mast, as is found in the sailing boat of Sobek-
hotepi (723 LC) [M220].62 This posture characteristically
identifies the figure as a sailor working lines of rigging.
While this attitude is also represented in the two-dimensional
medium,63 a much wider range of roles and stances for the
sailor is also exhibited. Some of these variations in posture
are witnessed in the two sailing boats displayed on the east
wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) [S12; fig.
3.4]. A sailor sitting on top of the roof of the cabin leans
backwards and looks up at the sail. His knees are bent up in
front with the left leg slightly extended and the toes upraised.
Additionally, two sailors are positioned directly opposite each
other on deck before the mast. Each kneels with the near leg
folded over and the far one bent up in front while their arms
are lowered with hands grasping the rigging. Alternatively,
on the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), two
figures are seated upon the boom: one kneels facing the bow
with his arms stretched behind him, gripping the rigging, and
61
The legs typically terminate as pegs so that the figures may be secured
to the baseboard. Occasionally, the feet have been included, either painted
on the deck, as in one of the sailing boats of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)
[M107], or modelled in plaster or carved in wood, as in the sailing boat
of Khety (366 LC) from Beni Hassan [M198].
62
Occasionally, a greater quantity of sailors is depicted. In a model
sailing boat from Meir, eight sailors adopt this position: two forward of
the mast facing aft, and six aft facing forward [M244].
63
For example, in the sailing boat displayed on the west wall of the tomb
of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), four closely overlapping sailors stand aft of
the mast with their arms raised to work the rigging [S198; fig. 3.5].
Preparing for Eternity
the other sits with the near leg hanging down [S198; fig. 3.5].
Not only would such intricacies of movement have required
especially fine craftsmanship to achieve in three-dimensions,
but the weight of the model figures would have been too
heavy for placement on top of the boom. In models, the yard
and boom were often fashioned of thin pieces of wood or
simple twigs,64 and so would not have been strong enough
to support the weight of wooden figures. Model-artists were
bound by the limitations of their materials and consequently
a more standard representation of the sailor is portrayed in
three-dimensions.
An additional crewman is the punter who, like the sailor,
is identifiable by a characteristic posture. He appears quite
regularly in models, especially in sailing boats where he
uses a pole to push the boat off the riverbank.65 Typically,
two punters stand side-by-side in the bow of model
sailing boats behind the pilot, facing aft. Their posture is
particularly active, comprising a lunging position with the
torso lowered to push down on the punt-pole. The outside
arm is bent sharply at the elbow with the hand near the
shoulder to rest on top of the pole while the inside arm is
lowered to support the shaft.66 The punters may be almost
upright, as in one of the sailing models of Djehuty-nakht
(R-10A) [M121], or may lean especially far forward with
their bodies almost parallel to the deck, as in the sailing
model of Khety (366 LC) from Beni Hassan [M198].67
The punt-poles themselves are mostly lost but, when
preserved, comprise simple thin sticks.68 In contrast,
punters rarely appear in two-dimensional wooden and
papyriform boats, with only one man exhibiting a similar
posture identified in this study. He stands amidships, facing
towards the stern in the left-most boat of the fourth register
of the south wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the
Black (A2) [S40].69 Punters appear more frequently in
wall scenes on papyrus skiffs where they function as the
main propeller of the small craft along the river.70 This is
64
The sailing boat of Khety (366 LC) preserves the upper yard which is
fashioned of a thin twig tied to the wooden pole mast with thread [M198].
65
Of the 59 model boats under sail examined in this study, at least 26
feature punters. There are also two boats with punters that display no
means of propulsion [M127, M261; see fig. 3.9], and one whose crew
has been lost [M135]. Kroenke has identified that punters are only found
on model sailing boats from select sites, including Beni Hassan and Deir
el-Bersha, suggesting it was a regional variation of the standard design.
Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 171; Merriman,
Egyptian Watercraft Models, 107.
66
The outside hand is often cupped so that it may rest securely on top of
the punt pole, as is seen in the sailing model boat of Djay (275 LC) from
Beni Hassan [M47].
67
Interestingly, the forward leg of each punter in Khety’s model
terminates mid-thigh, suggesting that the leg descends into the hull. This
is distinct from the other leg which extends straight behind the body. Due
to such a deep lunging position, the inside arm is not used to support the
punt-pole but rather rests on deck to provide stability.
68
See, for example, the punt-poles found with a model sailing boat of
Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) [M215].
69
Another man stands opposite him who either uses a punt-pole or
sounding pole. Unusually, this boat is neither under sail nor oars, and so
the punt-pole may actually serve as the main mode of propulsion.
70
For example, on the east wall above the doorway in the tomb of Pepyankh
the Middle (D2) is a papyrus skiff propelled by four men utilising punt-
poles. Three of the men stride forward, facing towards the bow rather than
the stern like the punters of models. Jones, Boats, 45; Kanawati, Cemetery
of Meir. Volume I, pl. 81; Swinton, Management of Estates, 111.
80
in contrast to their role in model sailing boats where they
serve as an additional aid to gain momentum and/or to
push the boat off any sandbanks rather than as the primary
form of propulsion. The function of the punter may have
been especially important in the burial chamber where the
model boat needed to be adequately prepared to overcome
any riverine obstacle that the tomb owner might encounter
in the afterlife.
This distinction in emphasis is also observable in the
moment of propulsion portrayed by the two media.
While the actions of both rowing and sailing are clearly
identifiable in wall scenes, elements of variation are
regularly included to convey the progress of a journey. On
the north panel of the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat
(2 UC), each sailing boat is depicted in a slightly different
moment of propulsion [S158; fig. 3.6]. The right vessel
is underway with the sail completely hoisted and the oars
stowed, while the left boat is following behind with the
sail only half-raised and the rowers still required to help
gain momentum. Similarly, on the south panel of the same
wall, the two rowing crews are depicted in different stages
of the stroke [S159; fig. 3.7]. Those on the left boat are
seated, having already pulled the blade through the water,
whereas those on the right vessel are standing with their
oars lowered, about to begin the stroke. Such variation in
artistic details enabled scene-artists to highlight particular
moments of propulsion and the progression of a voyage.
This may have been particularly important in the tomb-
chapel where everyday life moments were publicly
displayed.
Models, on the other hand, are not as precise in their
portrayal of the riverine voyage. In the model rowing boats
examined in this study, the oarsmen are consistently seated
or kneeling with their arms lowered in front and hands
brought together above their knees, as is found in those
of Djay (275 LC) from Beni Hassan [M46] and Khety
(366 LC) [M197].71 Although issues of preservation may
prevent the precise original placement of the oars from
being known, the posture of the rowers suggests that the
oars were simply held over the hull without any particular
moment of the stroke being conveyed.72 Similarly, in
model sailing boats, the sail was apparently either fully
71
Only in a couple of exceptions is this posture varied and the rowers
shown standing: in the model rowing boat of Re-hotepi and Kaayt from
Meir, the oarsmen stand with their legs sinking into the hull [M167]; the
rowers in a model boat of Amenemhat (K-21) step forward with the left
leg, but this may not be original as it is quite likely the figures are pastiche
[M176]. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 455. Alternatively,
in an unusual model rowing boat likely from the tomb of Wah-hotep at
Meir, the rowers maintain the seated posture, but they lean backwards
with their legs outstretched as though having just pulled the oar through
the water [M268]. The specific attribution of the tomb of Wah-hotep has
been suggested by Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 142.
72
In some instances, the oars were apparently piled on deck when
interred as there was not enough room in the burial chamber for them
to extend over the sides of the hull, as was discovered in the tomb of
Henu (L-16H50/1C) at Deir el-Bersha [M34]. De Meyer, “Old Kingdom
Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barshā. Volume II”, 624. The oars could also be
secured to the gunwale with thread rowlocks, as is found, for example,
in a model boat of Khety-aa (575 LC) from Beni Hassan [M203] and a
rowing boat from Meir [M231].
 Transport

Figure 3.5. Sailing boat towing a papyriform vessel which carries the anthropoid coffin. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, north panel, register 4 [S198]. Kanawati & Evans,
Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 118 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

Figure 3.6. Two boats towing a papyriform vessel which carries the anthropoid coffin. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). East wall, north panel, register 6 [S158]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni
Hassan. Volume III, pl. 98 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

81
Preparing for Eternity

Figure 3.7. Two rowing boats towing a vessel which transports the female relatives of the tomb owner. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). East wall, south panel, register 6 [S159]. Kanawati &
Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 102 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

82

furled or hoisted rather than in the process of being
raised.73 With the sailors in the characteristic standing
attitude of operating the lines of rigging, as is found in
a sailing boat from tomb 203 LC at Beni Hassan [M58],
models consistently portray generalised sailing rather than
the beginning or end of a journey. In the sealed burial
chamber, it would not have been as significant to portray a
specific moment, but rather that the boats were adequately
equipped for rowing and/or sailing.
In addition to sailing and rowing, boats could be
represented without any form of propulsion. In wall
scenes, such vessels are clearly specified as being towed
with the towropes connecting them to a self-propelled
boat. Papyriform vessels were often pulled in such a
manner, and this is especially common in funerary scenes.
The funerary procession of Pepyankh the Black (A2) is
displayed in a series of registers on the east and west walls
of room 3 in his tomb. On each wall, the papyriform vessel
is illustrated twice in the lowest register, bearing the coffin
of the owner and funerary officiants. On the east wall, the
procession begins on the left where the papyriform vessel
is towed by two rowing boats; the towropes are drawn
connecting the forward section of deck to the aft sections
of the rowing boats [S31].74 To the right of the register,
the papyriform vessel is pulled ashore by a team of men
holding a single towrope.75 Similarly, on the west wall,
one of the boats is hauled by a partially preserved group of
men ashore while the other is moored on the bank for the
people to board [S33].
In contrast, many model boats do not feature any form of
propulsion, yet they are entirely absent of towropes.76
It is possible that such lines were originally attached but
have not been preserved, although there is no surviving
evidence to suggest this. The connection may not have
been displayed artistically, but it may still have been
conceived, as model boats without propulsion are known
from assemblages with both sailing and rowing vessels.77
In the fleet of 58 model boats in the tomb of Djehuty-
nakht (R-10A), at least six display no signs of propulsion
[M127-M132; see fig. 3.9],78 yet there was clearly an
adequate quantity of self-propelled boats that could act
as tugs if required. However, the provenance of all model
boats lacking propulsion is not known, so it cannot be
established if each example originally had a rowing or
sailing partner. With their service intended for the afterlife,
it is also possible that model boats were conceived as
73
It should be noted that only in a small number of examples is the sail
preserved, but the consistency of the sailor’s posture indicates that the
same operation was portrayed across all model sailing boats.
74
One of the rowing boats has largely been lost due to the insertion of a
false door that disrupts the scene. Although the crew has disappeared, the
end of an unstepped mast is visible, indicating that the boat was rowed
rather than sailed.
75
Two lines are connected to the bow but only one leads to the team of
men.
76
In models, these boats comprise both wooden and papyriform types.
See, for example, M225, M248, M270, M271, M274.
77
Reisner, Models of Ships, xxiii.
78
Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 166.
83
Transport
being propelled magically without any need for rowing or
sailing fittings.
3.1.3 People transported on board
Alongside the crew, boats transported a range of
people, forming the third main category of watercraft
representations. The most important of these individuals
was the tomb owner. His presence is identifiable on many
boats, and both media portray him with some of the same
distinguishing features: an enveloping white cloak,79 a
broad collar,80 lighter skin tone,81 and his position on a
chair and/or under a canopy.82 He usually sits or stands
without being engaged in any action, but in a rare example
found on a model boat of Nefwa (186 LC) from Beni
Hassan, he is playing a game of senet [M191; fig. 3.8].
While the rest of the figures on board are crewmen or
armed guards, two individuals are engaged in this leisurely
activity, demonstrating their elevated status.83 Sometimes
the owner is attended by servants, as in a model boat of Sepi
II (K-14 north) from Deir el-Bersha where a man standing
before the canopy housing the owner leans forward with
a type of backpack on his back [M276]. Similarly, on the
west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan,
a scribe and a bowing attendant are positioned outside the
cabin, facing the owner [S83].84
Model boats also occasionally distinguish a female owner,
79
In a model sailing boat from Meir, the owner is seated immediately in
front of the rudder oar stanchion facing the bow [M172]. He is positioned
upon a block stool while enveloped in a painted cloak with only his head
emerging. Similarly, on the west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC)
at Beni Hassan, the owner is seated within a cabin on the towed boat in
the second register [S83]. He is visible through the window, wearing a
white-painted cloak with only his head appearing.
80
In the model sailing boat from tomb 868 LC at Beni Hassan, the owner
is seated on deck wearing an encompassing white cloak with a decorative
broad collar painted on it [M222]. Although limited detail is preserved,
a broad collar can still be identified on the standing figure of the owner
displayed on the towed boat on the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep
I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan [S131].
81
This is only identifiable in one example, namely one of the models
of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M127; fig. 3.9]. Here, the owner is seated
under the shade of the canopy with his yellow head emerging from an
enveloping, white-painted cloak. The absence of the lighter skin tone in
the scenes examined may be a result of the poor preservation of painted
colours or may have simply not been utilised.
82
In a model boat from Beni Hassan, the owner is seated on a small,
yellow block stool amidships and has the additional feature of a linen
garment tied around his body [M62]. On the west wall of the inner room
of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha, traces of a figure
of the owner survive on the left-most boat of the sixth register [S211]. He
is seated on a carrying chair which will presumably be used to transport
him overland once the boat has reached shore.
83
Although unlabelled, the figure positioned under the canopy may be
the owner, while the one positioned opposite him may be a member of
his household, perhaps his son. It has also been suggested that the two
figures are expedition leaders and while this is possible, it seems unlikely
as senet was typically played by members of the tomb owner’s household
in representations. What is certain is that the two figures hold the highest
status of those on board. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 158;
Kanawati & Woods, Artists in the Old Kingdom, 71.
84
A scribe is also known on board a model boat from Meir [M241]. He
stands towards the bow facing the stern with a white rectangular writing
board tucked under his arm. There is no representation of the tomb owner
in this model, but a hole in the deck in front of the double rudder oar
stanchions may have originally served to secure his figure as this is a
position in which he often resides.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 3.8. Model boat of Nefwa (186 LC), operated by rowers and sailors; the tomb owner sits on board, playing a game of
senet [M191]. © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2301.
reflecting the double occupancy of some burials. In the
tomb of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) at Beni
Hassan, the two model sailing boats each feature a figure
of the owner: one the female occupant [M214] and the
other the male [M215].85 This demonstrates that models
functioned to serve both tomb owners in the afterlife.
Wall scenes, in contrast, solely feature the male owner as
the principal figure on wooden and papyriform vessels.
This was especially important in the public chapel where
visitors would be impressed by the male owner’s superior
status. In fact, his figure is particularly prominent in scenes
where he appears at least once in all but one of the scenes
of wooden boats examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and
Beni Hassan.86 Such two-dimensional representations
highlight the access he had to a riverine fleet during life
and convey him as the principal recipient of its service.
The presence of the tomb owner in model boats is of
particular significance as his figure rarely features in the
repertoire of the three-dimensional medium. In fact, among
the corpus from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan,
this is the only theme in which he appears. Although
he does not feature prominently, his presence is not an
85
Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cats. 317, 331; Eschenbrenner-
Diemer, in Company of Images, 156-57.
86
The exception is found on the south wall of room 4 in the tomb of
Pepyankh the Black (A2) where his figure is unusually not identifiable on
any of the seven boats [S40]. Occasionally, the owner appears on more
than one vessel in the same scene, as is found on the south panel of the
east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S159; fig. 3.7].
84
anomaly, with at least 21 examples identified among the
147 model boats examined in this study.87 The physical
presence of his body in the burial chamber presumably did
not necessitate the representation of his figure in models.
Rather, the repertoire concentrated on the activities of
servants who would provision him in the afterlife. It is
therefore quite surprising to find him at all represented on
model boats.
It is unknown whether all models were fashioned
during the tomb owner’s lifetime or whether some were
commissioned by family members and deposited in the
tomb after his death. If the latter, the presence of the tomb
owner’s figure may have been a means to identify him as
the recipient of the boat’s service. The case of Niankh-
pepy-kem and his son, Pepyankh the Black, may be
considered here. The father’s tomb-chapel (A1) at Meir
was executed and decorated after his death by his son who
also constructed an adjoining tomb (A2) for himself.88 It
is possible that the models were likewise commissioned
by the son which would indicate that they were created
after Niankh-pepy-kem’s death. Although the tomb owner
87
It should be noted that identifying the tomb owner cannot always
be done with certainty in models as textual labels were rarely used. He
is often only discernible by an encompassing white cloak which could
also be worn by other figures on board. The 21 instances identified in
this study are those that seem most likely, but it is possible that more
examples in the examined corpus should also be classified as such.
88
Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, 9; Kanawati, in
Perfection that Endures, 227-29.

is not represented on any of Niankh-pepy-kem’s model
boats, this example highlights the possibility of family
members being responsible for the supply of models in
the burial. The incorporation of the tomb owner’s figure
was apparently not essential for model boats but may have
been considered a subsidiary measure to ensure that the
boat successfully served him for eternity.
Occasionally appearing in wall scenes alongside the tomb
owner on boats are members of his household. These
figures are often readily identifiable through accompanying
captions. Of the two rowing boats displayed on the south
panel of the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3
UC), one carries male members of the household and the
other, female [S201; fig. 3.2]. The first four of the large
standing figures behind the tomb owner on the right
boat are probably identified by the label msw HAtj-a ‘the
children of the count’, classifying them as sons of the
owner.89 Of the five women displayed on the left boat,
two are individually labelled with names and titles, while
the other three are designated msw HAtj-a Hmwt ‘the female
children of the count’.90 Although identifying captions
occasionally appear on model boats, the vast majority of
figures on board are unlabelled. It is possible that some of
these figures are members of the tomb owner’s household,
but this cannot be confirmed without accompanying
captions. Artistic features, however, may serve as
identifying markers. In a model boat from Meir there are
12 cloaked figures on board, two of whom are carved at a
larger scale and demonstrate finer quality craftsmanship
[M247]. The one towards the bow is presumably the tomb
owner as he is seated on a painted block stool, while the
one at the stern end may be a male relative, perhaps a
son. Such identifications may only be suggested for the
three-dimensional representations, but in wall scenes,
can be made with certainty due to the medium’s common
integration of inscriptions.
Also present in both two- and three-dimensional
representations of boats are priests and mourners. These
figures are typically associated with funerary boats bearing
the coffin of the owner. Both male and female mourners are
represented on board, but of particular importance are the
two Dryt-mourners in the guise of Isis and Nephthys who
stand at the foot and head of the coffin respectively.91 In a
rare use of text, the two women on a model boat belonging
89
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 43.
90
Such figures, however, are not always labelled in scenes. In the similar
illustrations of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) and Amenemhat (2 UC), the
women transported in the cabins have no accompanying captions, but it
is probable that they too illustrate female members of the tomb owners’
households [S131, S159; see fig. 3.7]. In the scene of Khnumhotep I, the
absence of inscriptions may be a result of poor preservation. Kanawati
& Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 43; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan.
Volume III, 43; Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, 24.
91
The presence of these women associates the deceased with the
resurrection of Osiris. Wilson, “Funeral services”, JNES 3.4, (1944), 204;
Otto, Ancient Egyptian Art, 29; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models,
113-14; Hudáková, Representations of Women, 621-22. Kucharek has
also proposed that the goddesses may have simply provided protection
for the deceased instead of mourning. Kucharek, in Ancient Egyptian
Coffins, 79.
85
Transport
to Ukh-hotep from Meir are identified specifically as the
goddesses through inscriptions painted on their chests
[M224; fig. 3.10].92 More typically, however, the female
mourners are distinguished simply through their attire
and posture. On the model sailing boat of Khnumhotep
(140 LC) from Beni Hassan, a diminutive female figure
is seated at either end of the coffin [M184]. The two
figures have pale yellow skin, wear linen garments and
lower their arms to rest alongside the coffin. Likewise,
on each of the papyriform boats displayed on the west
wall of room 3 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), a
female mourner is either seated or standing at each end of
the coffin [S33]. The women wear fillets in their hair and
long dresses with a single shoulder strap, and two of them
adopt a respectful attitude with one arm crossed over the
chest. The positioning at the head and foot of the coffin is
visible in a profile perspective and so could be realistically
displayed in both media.
The priests usually stand on the sides of the coffin, a position
that encountered difficulties in the two-dimensional
medium. Scene-artists could either maintain this position
and obscure some of the other figures and features on
board or could alter the arrangement to allow all figures to
be seen. In the funerary procession of Pepyankh the Black
(A2), the scene-artist has chosen the latter alternative and
displayed the priests in front and behind the coffin [S31,
S33]. Alternatively, in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC),
the artist has used partial overlapping, placing two of the
priests on the far side of the coffin with their lower bodies
partially obscured [S198; fig. 3.5]. The priest wearing the
distinctive leopard-skin attire holds a censer horizontally
across his body and extends his right arm in front with the
hand open, palm facing down.93 Although this captures his
actual positioning beside the coffin, it is probable that both
his right hand and the censer are in reality held over the
coffin. While a lack of depth prevented this arrangement
from being precisely conveyed in two-dimensions, model-
artists could depict it realistically. In a model boat from
Deir el-Bersha, three figures are positioned alongside the
coffin, two on port and one on starboard [M261]. They are
angled towards it, each extending one arm over the top,
performing the relevant rituals.94 With the advantage of a
92
On the woman at the head of the coffin is written nbt-Hw.t Htp-Hw.t-Hr
mAa.t xrw ‘Nephthys Hetephathor true of voice’ and on the woman at the
foot is As.t Htp.t mAa.t xrw ‘Isis Hetepet true of voice’. Translation: N.
Allon (2016), The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, “Model boat
of Ukhhotep”, viewed 25 October 2019, <https://www.metmuseum.org/
art/collection/search/545439>.
93
This distinctive attire could also be portrayed in the three-dimensional
medium. In one of the model boats of Ukh-hotep from Meir, a priest
stands on either side of the Nephthys mourner [M224; fig. 3.10]. Both
men exhibit a shaven head and wear long leopard-skin garments draped
over one shoulder. One holds an unrolled scroll, reciting the formulae,
while the other holds a censer in his lowered left hand and gestures his
right towards the coffin. This is a very similar illustration to that found
in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) where there is likewise a priest
reading from a scroll [S198; fig. 3.5]. This role was typically adopted by
a lector priest, and indeed both the two- and three-dimensional figures
are labelled as such. Bárta, Journey to the West, 243; Forshaw, “Role of
the Lector”, 53.
94
At least one of the figures has a hole pierced through his hand,
indicating that he originally held an object, perhaps a censer.
Preparing for Eternity
holistic perspective, the three-dimensional medium could
precisely display the positioning of the figures and their
associations with each other, whereas scene-artists had to
modify this arrangement to overcome the limitations of
their medium.
The human figures transported on boats are often provided
with shade and shelter from an open-sided canopy or
enclosed cabin. Both media display these structures
prominently and exhibit much variation in their designs,
but the two main types of covering are clearly identifiable.95
They range from small awnings supported by posts over
a single person to long deckhouses occupying the entire
length of the deck.96 The main distinction between the
two- and three-dimensional representations, however, is
once again the use of perspective. Being crafted in three-
dimensions, models could keep all sides of the structure in
view. On one of the towed model boats of Djehuty-nakht
(R-10A) stands a large enclosed cabin extended by an
awning [M127; fig. 3.9]. Carved into the front wall of the
cabin, visible beneath the awning, is a pair of hinged doors
that lead to the interior of the walled structure.97 Such a
holistic perspective also enabled the top and underneath
surfaces of a canopy roof to be displayed, as is found in
one of the model boats of Ukh-hotep from Meir [M223].
Here, the upper surface of the roof is decorated with a
yellow and black leopard-skin while underneath are white
stars on a blue background.98
Wall scenes, in contrast, could only present a profile
view of each structure. For an open-sided canopy, this
could simply comprise two upright posts and the near
edge of the roof, such as that covering the bier on the
papyriform boat of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S198; fig.
3.5]. It is presumed that each post should be understood
as doubled, with a total of four actually supporting the
structure.99 In enclosed cabins, it is also the side view that
is on display, but openings in the wall could make some
of the interior visible. On the boat transporting the female
members of Khnumhotep II’s (3 UC) household on the
south panel of the west wall is a large enclosed cabin with
three rectangular apertures occupying the upper half of
the wall [S201; fig. 3.2]. The heads of five female figures
95
Stephens, in his study of both two- and three-dimensional boating
representations of the Old and Middle Kingdoms, has identified 10
different forms of cabin. Stephens, Egyptian Ships and Boats, 50-61.
96
On the sailing model boat of Intef (1 LC), a small canopy stands aft
of midships: four posts support a rectangular roof with a square hole
cut through the middle which is now covered by modern gauze [M40].
Similarly, on the bow of each rowing boat displayed on the south panel
of the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) is a small open-
sided canopy shown in profile with two uprights and a horizontal roof
that covers the owner [S159; fig. 3.7]. Alternatively, a large enclosed
decorated cabin with a vaulted roof occupies the majority of the deck in
a model boat belonging to Djehuty-hotep from Deir el-Bersha [M258].
Enclosed cabins also appear in scenes, featuring on all seven boats
displayed on the west wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-
hotep (N-2), although it is hidden from view in the second boat from the
right [S211]. Each one is rectangular in shape and occupies a significant
proportion of the deck.
97
D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 115.
98
Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 141.
99
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 732.
86
appear in the framework, indicating they are residing
within. Although the overall shape of the shelters could be
conveyed in two-dimensions, scenes could not present the
same complete structure as models.
3.1.4 Supplies transported on board
In addition to people, a variety of supplies are transported
on boats, forming the fourth category of watercraft
representations. Of particular significance is the coffin
which is depicted regularly in both artistic media. Both
funerary processions and pilgrimages to holy sites
required travel across water, and the coffin was typically
included on these ventures.100 The anthropoid coffin is
particularly common in models and is usually shown lying
on a rectangular bier, although sometimes the bier remains
empty.101 That of Ukh-hotep from Meir is particularly
detailed: a rectangular bier with two carved lion heads,
two short tails projecting from the end and four lion-
shaped legs resides amidships [M224; fig. 3.10]. On top
lies an anthropoid coffin coloured white with a yellow
face, long blue wig and beard, and a decorative collar.102
The anthropoid coffin and bier displayed in the scene of
Khnumhotep II (3 UC) are very similar, exhibiting the
same decorative features [S198; fig. 3.5]. Alternatively,
the rectangular box-coffin could be displayed, as is found
in the model boats of Inti from Meir [M225] and Wah-
hotep from Meir [M271], both of which are unusually
inscribed for the owner.103 Similarly, the box coffin is
displayed in wall scenes, although this is almost always
simply portrayed from a side view. In one exception, the
scene-artist has combined multiple viewpoints to highlight
the different features of the coffin. This is found on the left
100
There is much debate in scholarship as to whether these funerary
representations depict the funeral with the body stored within the coffin
or simply the procession of the furniture to the tomb with the coffin
empty. It is probable that both the funerary furniture and the body went
through the same procession and rituals on their journeys to the tomb,
before and after the death of the tomb owner respectively, and as the
tomb owner is consistently depicted living in scenes, it seems quite
likely that the representations should be understood as the funerary
procession rather than the actual funeral. For further discussion, see
Gaballa, Narrative, 28-30; D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and
Magic, 56-57; Bolshakov, “Representations of funeral procession”, GM
121, (1991), 31-54; Bolshakov, Man and his Double, 95-105; Kanawati,
“Specificity”, ASAE 83, (2009), 261-63; Lashien, in Egyptian Culture
and Society. Volume II, 1-12.
101
The coffin is regularly identified as a mummy by scholars, but the
shape resembles that of an anthropoid coffin. On four of the papyriform
vessels of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), a small white rectangular bier stands
towards the stern under a canopy [M94, M100, M119, M122]. While it
has been suggested that a coffin or mummy originally lay on each of the
beds, there are no holes or pegs to suggest this. Rather, it is probable that
the biers were always empty which could either be symbolic of the coffin
or simply function as a place of rest for long journeys. Breasted, Egyptian
Servant Statues, 68; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume
I”, 137; Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 174.
102
Unusually, the model papyriform boat of Ukh-hotep carries a large
number of other funerary goods, including a seated statue of the owner
on an inscribed throne, two upright anthropoid coffins, an empty chair
and a disproportionately large standing figure of the owner or a priest
[M223]. With the carving of different scales and unusual arrangement, it
is possible that not all of these features are original to the model. Hayes,
Sceptre of Egypt. Part I, 273-74; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models,
cat. 141.
103
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 137.
 Transport

Figure 3.9. Model boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), with a large enclosed cabin on board, providing shade for the tomb owner
[M127]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.406.

Figure 3.10. Model boat of Ukh-hotep; the anthropoid coffin is transported on a bier and is attended by two priests and two
female mourners [M224]. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 12.183.3.

87
Preparing for Eternity
papyriform boat of the west wall of room 3 in the tomb of
Pepyankh the Black (A2) where it combines a long side,
a cavetto cornice and a curved roof [S33].104 While this
combination does not present a realistic arrangement, it
allows the scene-artist to capture multiple features of the
coffin.
Representations of the coffin, like those of the living
tomb owner, are in fact quite surprising in models as the
artworks were housed in the burial chamber alongside the
actual coffin. As noted in relation to the depiction of the
tomb owner above, it is possible that some models were
commissioned by family members after the tomb owner’s
death. Consequently, model boats with coffins may have
been representative of the actual funeral which involved
transport across the river. Supporting this conclusion is the
fact that almost all model boats with coffins examined in
this study do not include a figure of the living owner.105
The presence of the coffin on these boats may have been
symbolic of a successful journey of the deceased to his
place of burial.
Also transported on boats are military weapons which
provide protection for those travelling on board.
This equipment does not appear commonly in the
representations, but among those examined in this study,
more examples are known from the three-dimensional
medium. Of the 147 model boats examined, 17 were
found to contain some type of weaponry, whereas of the
47 individual boats studied in wall scenes, only four were
identified. None of these examples date prior to the late 11th
Dynasty which coincides with the appearance of military
scenes on the walls of a number of Beni Hassan tomb-
chapels.106 This correlation in date may suggest that the
presence of military equipment was associated with civil
unrest in the country. It is in fact quite surprising to find
weapons displayed on model boats when considered in
conjunction with the rarity of military figures in the three-
dimensional repertoire, as will be discussed in chapter
6.1. With the belief that what was represented in the tomb
would come into reality in the afterlife,107 the inclusion of
weaponry in the burial would have posed a potential threat
to the deceased’s safety. However, its appearance on some
model boats may have been considered acceptable due to
an emphasis on defensive equipment.
104
Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, 33; Lashien, Nobles
of El-Qusiya, 210.
105
Two exceptions, however, are found in a boat from Meir [M248] and
one from the tomb of Sepi III (K-14 south) [M280]. Both models depict
the living tomb owner in an enveloping white cloak at one end of the
coffin. If these figures are correctly identified as the tomb owner, then it
is unlikely that the funeral itself is depicted.
106
The earliest examples identified are from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht
(R-10A), dated to the late 11th Dynasty [M84, M106, M117, M120,
M123], and another model from Deir el-Bersha, likewise dated to the
late 11th Dynasty [M160]. Merriman, in her study of all model boats,
similarly dates the occurrence of military equipment to the 11th and 12th
Dynasties. Badawy, History of Egyptian Architecture, 122; Schulman,
“Battle scenes”, JSSEA 12, (1982), 176; Tooley, Egyptian Models and
Scenes, 61; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 108.
107
Hayes, Sceptre of Egypt. Part I, 80-81; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in
Ancient Egypt, 15; Kanawati, Decorated Burial Chambers, 21.
88
Shields are by far the most common weapon represented,
appearing in every one of the two- and three-dimensional
boats bearing military equipment examined from Meir,
Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan. These may be held in
the hands of sailors or guards,108 reside on deck,109 or,
most commonly, hang on the sides of a cabin or canopy.
Two shields typically hang on each side of the structure’s
roof. On the north panel of the east wall of the tomb of
Amenemhat (2 UC), two round-topped shields appear on
the side of the rectangular cabin of the right-most boat
[S158; fig. 3.6]. The decoration consists of an animal
hide pattern and a defined border with lines indicative of
stitching. Similarly, on a model sailing boat of Djehuty-
nakht (R-10A), painted shields feature on the canopy
roof, although in this case they are visible on both sides
of the structure [M106].110 Model-artists also had the
option to carve the shields out of wood, as is achieved in
a sailing boat of Khnum-nekhti and Nejter-nekhti (585
LC) where a round-topped shield is attached to the canopy
framework [M215]. The prominence of the shield in the
representations suggests a defensive role of the equipment
carried on board. The weaponry was therefore not
primarily designed for military attack, but rather to offer a
means of protection during riverine travel.
After shields, the next most common type of weaponry on
model boats are quivers storing spears, although these are
far less frequent. The quivers may stand on deck or hang
from a canopy, and are identifiable by their long, roughly
cylindrical shape and painted animal hide decoration.111
On a model sailing boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), two
quivers are attached to the canopy framework [M120; fig.
3.11].112 Each one is finely carved with pointed spear tips
emerging from one end. Quivers are not present in any of
the two-dimensional boats examined in this study, although
spears are known to be held by some of the individuals
on deck. On the bow of the boat transporting the female
relatives of Amenemhat (2 UC) on the south panel of the
east wall of his tomb, two men stand holding spears: one
rests the weapon by his side and the other across his chest
[S159; fig. 3.7]. Similarly, some figures on model boats
also hold spears, including two figures in the bow of the
108
Two model boats from Deir el-Bersha display an almost identical
arrangement: towards the stern of each boat stand five men armed with
military equipment [M160, M283]. Almost all have one arm sharply bent
at the elbow with the fist close to the shoulder, to which a small shield
was originally carved or attached. Glanville, Egyptian Antiquities in the
British Museum II, 54. Alternatively, in a model rowing boat of Nefwa
(186 LC), a man in the bow, possibly the pilot, holds a round-topped
shield on his left arm [M189]. A slightly different arrangement is found
on the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC): a man standing in
the bow of the middle boat on the north panel likewise holds a shield,
although here he raises it above his head, perhaps creating shade for the
owner who sits on a chair underneath [S158; fig. 3.6].
109
On deck between the two lines of rowers on a model boat of Djehuty-
nakht (R-10A) stand two round-topped shields which lean against a
forked upright holding a quiver of spears [M84]. This positioning is not
found in the wall scenes examined in this study.
110
The black-spotted animal hide is indicated through painting and small
black dots on a white border specify stitching. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets
of Tomb 10A, 170.
111
Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 109.
112
A single quiver is found in a similar position in a model sailing boat
from the tomb of Nefwa (186 LC) [M190].

Figure 3.11. Model boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A); the canopy is decorated with painted shields and has two quivers lashed
to the framework [M120]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.877.
sailing boat of Re-hotepi and Kaayt from Meir [M168].
In a few rare examples, model boats incorporate other
weapons, including bows and arrows, and battle-axes.113
Although the inclusion of such offensive equipment is rare,
these model owners must have considered the importance
of the weaponry to outweigh the potential danger it posed.
An additional supply that features on some boats is
food to nourish the crew and those travelling on board.
Although nourishment would have been essential on
riverine journeys, it only occasionally appears in the
representations. Three model boats have been found
to contain food supplies [M63, M242, M285],114 and
an additional two examples include figures engaged in
113
On a model boat of Nefwa (186 LC), a man with black skin stands in
the bow facing starboard [M191; fig. 3.8]. In one hand he holds a long
bow and in the other he originally held two arrows, although now holds
a stick. This type of weaponry in combination with his dark skin may
suggest he is a Nubian archer. Alternatively, on a model rowing boat of
Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC), a man stands between the two
lines of rowers towards the bow, facing starboard [M213]. Originally, in
his left hand he held a round-topped shield and in his right was a battle-
axe.
114
A possible fourth example is found in a model rowing boat from Meir
[M239]. Hanging from a line on the port side of the bow is an object in
the shape of a drinking vessel sealed with a stopper. This is distinct in
shape from the plumb-line that hangs off the stern. Its unusual placement
may suggest that it is not original to the model. Merriman, Egyptian
Watercraft Models, cat. 495. An additional three model boats contain
chests, the contents of which are unknown, but presumably comprise
supplies for the journey which may include food and drink [M127,
M215, M220; see fig. 3.9].
89
Transport
food preparation tasks [M130-M131].115 Similarly, two
boats in the wall scenes examined contain food supplies
[S12, S198; figs. 3.4, 3.5], and only one features figures
engaged in preparing food [S104]. In one of the model
boats of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), this motif dominates the
representation, occupying most of the deck [M131]. Two
figures stand and lean forward with their arms lowered as
they carry out their work: the one on starboard grinds grain
on a raised quern stone while the one on port strains beer-
mash through a sieve into a large vessel. There are very
few crew members on board, so it is probable that the food
being produced was to satisfy the figures across the whole
fleet.
A similar representation is found on the west wall of the
tomb of Khety (17 UC) [S104]. In the right-most boat of
the fifth register, a figure in the bow facing aft leans forward
with his arms bent and lowered in front and his hands
resting on top of a partially preserved object. Although the
details are no longer completely clear, his posture exhibits
many similarities with brewers straining beer-mash, so it
seems highly likely that he is engaged in this task. Seated
opposite him is a figure with both hands resting on a low
worksurface, perhaps kneading dough. Furnishing boats
with bread-makers, brewers and foodstuffs would have
115
Additionally, a model boat from Meir features two men striding
forward with sacks on their backs, presumably filled with grain [M243].
However, the unusual combination and arrangement of figures suggests
that the model is pastiche; it is probable that these two men rather derive
from a model granary. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 146.
Preparing for Eternity
enabled these vessels to accomplish longer journeys.
Perhaps the rarity of this motif in representations of boats
is due to the regular appearance of the food preparation
theme in both models and wall scenes. With only limited
space available on deck, it may have been more important
to depict the crewmen and boat fittings rather than the
supplementary motif of food preparation. In large fleets
such as those of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) and Khety
(17 UC), individual boats could be dedicated to these
additional processes as there was a sufficient supply of
watercraft offering transport.
A distinction between the two media in relation to the
supply of food, however, is found in the depiction of
its consumption. This motif is found in wall scenes but
is absent from models. On the east wall of the tomb of
Pepyankh the Middle (D2), a figure seated on the cabin
roof of the right sailing boat drinks from a vessel [S12; fig.
3.4]. His arms are bent as he raises it to his mouth, with
one hand supporting the base and the other near the rim.
Models, conversely, do not show food and drink being
consumed, but rather the supplies are simply positioned
on deck, as is found in a boat likely from the tomb of
Senbi at Meir [M63],116 or the rowing boat of Ma (500
LC) [M285]. While this may be partly attributed to the
technical difficulty of crafting intricate movements in
three-dimensions, it may also reflect a difference in
emphasis. Models were concerned with provisioning the
tomb owner for the afterlife and in relation to boats, this
principally comprised riverine transport. Nourishment was
rather accommodated by models of food production and
preparation. While the consumption of food and drink is
still quite rare in wall scenes, it demonstrates the scene-
artist’s desire to incorporate everyday life moments into
his work.
This emphasis on daily life is further witnessed in the
depiction of animals aboard some two-dimensional boats.
Although only partially preserved, a monkey appears on
the cabin roof of the left-most boat in the scene of Pepyankh
the Middle (D2) [S12; fig. 3.4]. It is unclear if such animals
belong to a member of the crew or tomb owner or if they
are part of the goods transported,117 but their presence
captures a lively moment of everyday life boating. Model
vessels, in contrast, do not feature any animals on board.
A possible exception is found in a model boat from Meir
where a small standing ox is today kept in association with
the vessel, but it is highly likely that it did not originate
from the model [M54].118 While everyday life moments
are a prominent feature of scenes publicly displayed in the
116
The specific tomb attribution of the tomb of Senbi has been suggested
by Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 410. For a discussion on
the provenance of Meir, see Berman & Bohač, Catalogue of Egyptian
Art, cats. 140, 151.
117
Evans, in Egyptian Art, 76.
118
There are a number of inaccuracies with the presence and arrangement
of the human figures on board, making it highly likely that the model is
pastiche. Norwich Castle Museum & Art Gallery, “Model boat (model)”,
viewed 12 October 2017, <http://norfolkmuseumscollections.org/
collections/objects/object-1564857960.html/>; Merriman, Egyptian
Watercraft Models, cat. 346.
90
chapel, models are more concerned with providing for the
deceased’s most essential needs. Household animals such
as monkeys formed a supplementary motif that was not
necessary for the deceased’s riverine journeys.119
An additional component transported on boats, which is
in fact unique to the three-dimensional medium, is solar
attributes. These model boats are devoid of crew and
propulsion and carry a range of symbolic objects associated
with the sun-god, including feathers of maat, objects with
falcon heads attached, and blocks or chests decorated with
the Ssm-sign.120 A total of six have been identified in this
study, three of which could be examined through images
[M243, M277, M281; see fig. 3.12].121 Such watercraft
have been termed ‘solar boats’ and understood as giving
the deceased the ability to travel in the company of the
divine.122 During the Old Kingdom, this prerogative
was reserved for royalty where it was believed that the
deceased king would join the sun-god on his daily journey
in his barque across the sky and the underworld,123 but at
least by the Middle Kingdom, private individuals seem
to have gained access to some divine symbolism.124 The
solar model boats with known provenance identified in this
study may be dated to the late 12th Dynasty, specifically to
the reigns of Senusret II or Senusret III.125 By this time,
provincial officials had attained increasing independence
and chose to proclaim their authority in their tombs by
adopting several royal attributes. In the tomb of Ukh-hotep
III (C1) at Meir, this is especially prevalent in the statue-
recess where it is expressed that all resources of the land
119
This is also noticeable in the rare representation of dogs in the three-
dimensional repertoire, as will be discussed in chapter 4.4.
120
Reisner, Models of Ships, xxv-xxvii; Jones, Boats, 13, 16; Tooley,
in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>; Merriman,
Egyptian Watercraft Models, 102-03.
121
For the other three examples identified, see Daressy, “Fouilles de
Deir el Bircheh”, ASAE 1, (1900), 26-28; Reisner, Models of Ships,
fig. 152; De Meyer, in World of Middle Kingdom Egypt. Volume II, 92.
The solar boat from Meir is not currently configured as a solar boar, but
carries a large number of human figures, a sail, a coffin and a canopy,
all of which are apparently not original to the model [M243]. Merriman
has classified this as an altered solar boat, with the only original features
comprising the solid white hull with finials and a box decorated with a
falcon. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 103, cat. 146.
122
This type of boat forms Reisner Type VI. Reisner, Models of Ships,
xxv-xxvii; Jones, Boats, 16.
123
In fact, kings often buried actual boats in pits associated with their
tombs during the Old Kingdom, with the most notable examples belonging
to Khufu of the 4th Dynasty. Murray, Splendour that was Egypt, 209-10;
Vinson, Boats and Ships, 21-22; Ward, Sacred and Secular, 2; Grajetzki,
Burial Customs in Ancient Egypt, 28; Ikram, Death and Burial, 42.
124
The process in which private individuals began to adopt royal beliefs
and practices has been termed ‘the democratisation of the afterlife’.
More recently, scholars have debated the accuracy of the term and have
proposed that some of these privileges were already available to them
in the Old Kingdom and accordingly, there were gradual changes in
funerary practices rather than a sudden transformation of beliefs. For
further discussion, see Willems, Chests of Life, 244-49; Sørensen, in
Religion of the Ancient Egyptians, 109-25; Smith, “Democratization”,
UEE 1.1, (2009) <https://escholarship.org/uc/item/70g428wj>;
Wegner, in Egyptian Archaeology, 119-32; Hays, in Old Kingdom, New
Perspectives, 115-30; Morfoisse, in Sésostris III, 210-13.
125
These examples originate from the tombs of Sepi I (K-15), Sepi II
(K-14 north), Sepi III (K-14 south) and tomb L-16L25/1A at Deir el-
Bersha. Daressy, “Fouilles de Deir el Bircheh”, ASAE 1, (1900), 26-
38; De Meyer, in World of Middle Kingdom Egypt. Volume II, 92-94;
Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 180.

Figure 3.12. Model solar boat of Sepi II (K-14 north) [M277]. Drawing by the author.
were at the tomb owner’s disposal as if he were the king
himself.126 The placement of model solar boats in burial
chambers should perhaps be understood as the adoption
of another royal prerogative by private individuals. There
is certainly a religious emphasis in this type of boat which
may have been more relevant in the burial chamber
where the goods interred were solely for the deceased’s
benefit in the afterlife. In the two-dimensional medium,
conversely, afterlife themes were not incorporated until
the New Kingdom.127 This distinction in motif therefore
demonstrates that artists selected their designs according
to the specific role and context of their medium within the
tomb.
3.1.5 Supplementary features
In addition to the four main categories of watercraft
representations, wall scenes include the supplementary
feature of the surrounding riverine environment. Most
scenes incorporate a rectangular band of water decorated
with closely spaced vertical zigzag lines that is positioned
on top of the register line with the boats raised above.128
The band could either be transparent with details of the
boat’s fittings visible through the water, or solid with
all submerged elements hidden from view. In the two
boating scenes displayed on the east wall of the tomb of
Amenemhat (2 UC), the oars of the rowers descend into
the water and disappear from view [S158-S159; figs. 3.6,
3.7], whereas both the blades of the oars and the lines
securing the three closely overlapping boats to the bank
on the west wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-
126
Among the decoration of the statue-recess are deities personifying
the natural resources of the land who make offerings to Ukh-hotep, and
a priest pronouncing ‘an offering which the king gives and Re to the
count, the overseer of priests, Ukh-hotep; may he appear in glory as/
like the king of Upper Egypt and may he appear in glory as/like the king
of Lower Egypt, for ever and ever’. Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs
of Meir. Part VI, 31-37; Kanawati, “Wekhhotep III of Meir”, BACE 26,
(2016-2018), 37. Similarly, Amenemhat (2 UC) dates the construction of
his tomb in his autobiography not only to a regnal year of King Senusret
I, but also to a specific year of his own governance. Kanawati & Woods,
Beni Hassan, 59-60; Lloyd, Ancient Egypt, 163.
127
Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 1.
128
Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 237-39.
91
Transport
hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha are clearly defined within
the band of water [S211]. Occasionally, aquatic life is also
incorporated into the environment, as is found on the west
wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) where a line of fish
appears beneath the boats [S83].129 With the definition of
water, scene-artists could also create a clear distinction
between the activities occurring on land and those on the
river. On the west wall of room 3 in the tomb of Pepyankh
the Black (A2), a group of figures stand on the baseline
to the left of the band of water, waiting to board the boat
[S33]. This defines their activity as taking place on land,
distinct from the river, and it conveys the specific moment
of the beginning of the journey.130 Models, conversely,
do not incorporate the riverine environment into their
designs. Unlike other model-types, model boats are not
fashioned onto a baseboard, resulting in an absence of any
surrounding environment and associated land activities.131
Instead, the focus of the three-dimensional medium is
solely on the boat itself and all of the supplies and people
on board.
Alongside the representation of land-based activities,
wall scenes could specify the particular riverine voyage
depicted through accompanying captions. These may refer
to a specific event in the tomb owner’s life, as is found
in the scene of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) where the inscription
states that the tomb owner is being transported to view the
cattle count [S211],132 or it may indicate a real or symbolic
129
Unusually, no clear waterline is associated with the fish. It is possible
that this was never included, but it is perhaps more likely a result of poor
preservation. Aquatic life is particularly prevalent in scenes of fishing
and fowling in the marshes where the creatures are essential to conveying
the theme, as was discussed in chapter 2.8.
130
The scene of Khety (17 UC) similarly depicts a land-based activity:
on the left of the fifth register of the west wall, two men stand on shore
using mallets to drive a mooring stake into the ground, although the thin
band of water is poorly preserved [S104].
131
Only one exception is known, namely the pair of papyrus skiffs
attached to a single baseboard from the tomb of Meketre at Thebes,
which was discussed in chapter 2.8. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46715.
Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pl. 52.
132
The line of text above the boats begins, ‘Arriving in peace,
approaching to the hall of the great counting of his cattle of-before-the-
king and his cattle of [the house of] eternity from the farms of the Hare
nome…’. Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, 26-28.
Preparing for Eternity
journey to a holy site like Abydos or Busiris.133 On the
west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), the
journey to Abydos is displayed on the north panel while
the return trip is on the south panel [S198, S201; figs. 3.2,
3.5].134 While model boats are one of the rare themes in
which text does appear in the three-dimensional medium,
these inscriptions do not state the destination or describe
the journey. Rather, as noted above, they consist of labels
that simply identify some of the individuals on board or
the name of the tomb owner himself.135 This suggests
that the focus of models is on their ability to provide the
appropriate transport for the afterlife, whereas wall scenes
are more concerned with portraying activities in which the
tomb owner himself was engaged during life, whether real
or symbolic.
* * * a particular stage of the journey. Moreover, the absence
The differences between the two media in their
representation of watercraft as outlined above may largely
be attributed to their unique technical properties. Model-
artists had the advantage of working in three-dimensions
and could accordingly present a more realistic depiction.
This is especially evident in the arrangement of the
deck fittings and crew as well as the structures of the
cabins and coffins. They could also incorporate a range
of materials into their designs to add greater realism.
Simultaneously, with the difficulty of crafting minute
features and varied movement in small three-dimensional
sculptures, less detail is often incorporated. Examples
of this are especially seen in the depiction of the rigging
and the posture of the sailors. On the other hand, such
intricacies could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional
wall surface, enabling scene-artists to present a typically
more detailed representation. Minute features such as the
precise moment of propulsion and the wind in the sails
could therefore be encapsulated in their designs. However,
scene-artists concurrently had to overcome the limitations
of perspective which often compromised the realism
of the representations, as is found in the arrangement
of the rowers and the positioning of the priests. It also
causes any features only visible from the top-down to
be excluded, most notably, the deck fittings. The unique
properties of each medium certainly influenced the
designs, resulting in some artistic differences between
the two media.
133
There remains much ambiguity as to whether the pilgrimages to
holy sites occurred during life as part of the funerary procession or
symbolically in the afterlife. As the provinces of Middle Egypt are
some distance away from Abydos and Busiris, it seems unlikely that all
tomb owners could have accomplished such a long journey during their
lifetimes. For further discussion, see Otto, Ancient Egyptian Art, 32-34;
Spencer, Death, 162; Kessler, “Szenen des täglichen Lebens (I)”, ZAeS
114.1, (1987), 74-77, 87-88; D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies
and Magic, 56; Quirke, Egyptian Religion, 54-57; O’Connor, Abydos, 34.
134
Part of the caption on the north panel reads, ‘Sailing southward
to acknowledge the requirements of Abydos…’, while the text on the
south panel begins, ‘Returning on bringing about the requirements of
Abydos…’. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 38, 42.
135
Six model boats examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni
Hassan contain textual captions [M223-M225, M248, M258, M271].
92
However, some of the distinctions reflect a contrast in
emphasis. Wall scenes often portray a specific moment
of the riverine journey which most likely occurred during
the life of the tomb owner. This would have been more
significant for public display in the above-ground chapel.
In particular, this is noticeable in the depiction of land-
based activities, such as the boarding of people and the
mooring of the boat, as well as accompanying inscriptions
that specify the destination. Additionally, the precise
moment of propulsion could be specified in the stance and
stroke of the rowers as well as the range of tasks conducted
by the sailors. Models, in contrast, are apparently less
concerned with portraying moments from everyday life.
Instead, the boats are simply equipped for transport, with
the crew largely represented in characteristic postures that
simply identify the mode of propulsion rather than specify
of supplementary motifs such as the consumption of food
and drink and the transport of animals in addition to the
exclusion of papyrus skiffs from the repertoire removes
the focus from everyday life. Overall, the model boats
prioritise their ability to function for any riverine journey
encountered by the tomb owner during the afterlife.
The primary role of the boat in providing transport is
certainly witnessed in both the two- and three-dimensional
media and the representations do display many similarities
in design. However, this role seems to have been
particularly significant in the burial chamber where the
focus was on provisioning the deceased. Model boats are
particularly prominent in the three-dimensional repertoire,
highlighting their esteemed value for the tomb owner’s
afterlife. With the advantage of a holistic perspective,
the boats are represented in a realistic fashion and are
equipped with the necessary fittings, crew and supplies to
successfully serve the deceased for eternity.
3.2 Offering-bearers
One of the principal modes of travel overland was on
foot, with people carrying a wide array of items. The
transport of these goods to the tomb was particularly
significant as it provided the deceased with the necessary
nourishment and supplies for the afterlife. In life, wealthy
tomb owners established a mortuary cult that would
ideally enable the desired offerings to be presented
perpetually, but the maintenance of this cult could not
be ensured.136 Accordingly, the representation of figures
presenting offerings formed a vital safeguard in the eternal
provisioning of the deceased, with numerous examples
known from both the two- and three-dimensional media.137
136
David, Ancient Egyptians, 79-80; Spencer, Death, 63; Taylor, Death
and Afterlife, 95; Baines & Lacovara, “Burial and the dead”, JSA 2.1,
(2002), 15-16.
137
Bearers presenting goods appear in a range of contexts, as will be
discussed below, but in this study certain motifs have been excluded
from this theme, including processions of foreigners, figures carrying
weapons, the presentation of fish and fowl in association with marshland
activities, and the parade of oxen, as each of these is discussed in another
chapter. Additionally, representations of the offering-table scene on the

The theme consists of two main elements, namely the
bearers and their offerings, and the two media display
many similarities in representation. Differences result,
however, from both the unique technical properties of each
medium and their contrasting locations in the tomb. Wall
scenes, located in the chapel, were intimately associated
with the rituals conducted by the living, whereas models,
concealed from view in the burial chamber, were
primarily concerned with provisioning the deceased for
the afterlife.
Although the theme of offering-bearers is prominent in the
repertoires of both the two- and three-dimensional media,
there is a vast difference in quantity. The presentation of
offerings constitutes a standard element of tomb scenes,
perhaps forming the most important theme in the chapel.138
Almost all decorated tombs incorporate a variation of this
theme and many feature multiple scenes of bearers. From
Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, examples were
identified on over 60 different walls of 22 different tombs,
with the largest scene comprising 42 bearers spread across
three registers, found on the north wall of the tomb of
Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir [S8]. Such extensive
displays highlight the immense value of the theme to tomb
owners. While scenes almost exclusively portray bearers
in procession,139 models depict three different types of
arrangement: single figures, pairs, and processions of three
or more, with the first alternative vastly more common. Of
the 31 models examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and
Beni Hassan, 22 depict single bearers, three illustrate pairs,
and six portray processions.140 Tomb owners typically only
housed a single model bearer in their burials, but Djehuty-
nakht (R-10A) of Deir el-Bersha uniquely furnished his
tomb with six single figures, one pair and five processions
[M138-M149]. The overall quantity of three-dimensional
bearers is smaller, but the esteemed value of the theme
is evident in the superior quality of craftsmanship often
reserved for it. Some of the finest examples of models
known belong to this theme, with some even comparable
to statues of the tomb owner.141 While the scenes
false door have been excluded as they constitute a different type of tomb
decoration.
138
Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 121; Altenmüller, in Egypt,
81-82.
139
Only rarely do bearers appear as single figures in wall scenes, an
example of which may be found on the north thickness of the doorway
of the tomb of Imi (L-15I55/1) at Deir el-Bersha [S4]. The bearer in this
scene faces into the tomb and presents a bird, while another figure offers
incense on the south thickness. It is quite likely that both figures are the
sons of the owner who are referenced in the associated text. De Meyer,
“Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barshā. Volume I”, 62-63; De
Meyer, “Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barshā. Volume II”, pl.
16.
140
A total of 47 models of offering-bearers were identified from Meir,
Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, with the images of only 31 available
for examination.
141
Of particular note is the so-called ‘Bersha Procession’ from the tomb
of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) which incorporates elements of symmetry and
an exceptional level of detail as well as utilises different types of wood
in its construction [M144; fig. 3.16]. D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig,
Mummies and Magic, 102-03; Roth & Roehrig, “Bersha Procession”,
JMFA 1, (1989), 39; Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 26; Kroenke,
“Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 176; Hatchfield, “‘Bersha
Procession’ in context. Part II”, BES 19, (2015), 315-16.
93
Transport
emphasise the theme through quantity and the models
through quality, it is clear that representing the transport
of offerings overland held a highly valued role within the
funerary sphere.
3.2.1 The bearers
The human figure forms one of the two principal
components of the offering-bearer theme and although
both male and female bearers are represented, the two
media display contrasting preferences. Male figures
dominate wall scenes, with the vast majority of two-
dimensional processions solely featuring men. Only 19
scenes examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni
Hassan incorporate any female bearers,142 and only one
tomb solely displays women in this role. Ukh-hotep III
(C1) of Meir is unique in not only emphasising women
in his offering scenes, but also featuring them in all
professions displayed on the walls of his tomb. Female
offering-bearers appear on the north and south walls of his
chapel, although many are attired in the traditional male
kilt or carry offerings ordinarily associated with male
bearers [S217-S218; see fig. 6.7].143 The reasons for this
prominent portrayal of women are uncertain, but Ukh-
hotep III does claim several royal attributes in his tomb
and his close association with women may form another
such example.144
In contrast to the emphasis on men found in wall scenes,
female figures predominate among three-dimensional
offering-bearers. This is especially noticeable in the single
figures where 17 of the 22 examples identified in this
study comprise women.145 It is possible that these female
figures demonstrate an association with mortuary estates.
In scenes of the Old Kingdom, the estates were personified
as female offering-bearers carrying baskets on their heads
142
See S7, S34, S37, S62, S121, S126, S138, S142, S144, S163, S166,
S173-S174, S193, S213, S217-S220.
143
Three rows of female bearers approach a large standing figure of the
owner on the north wall [S217; see fig. 6.7]. The herdsman’s short straw
kilt and male wig are worn by the fifth and sixth women from the left of
the fourth register. Similarly, the second and third women from the right
of the fifth register wear the traditional male kilt. On the south wall, three
women preceded by a possible male official approach the owner who
inspects three rows of riverine activities [S218]. The second woman has
a foreleg hanging in her right hand, an offering that is characteristically
transported by male bearers. In the statue-recess, however, it is male
offering-bearers who are displayed [S219-S220]. These men are
identified as priests and funerary officiants in the accompanying captions.
Such roles evidently could only be performed by men. Unusually,
personifications of deities also present offerings to the tomb owner in
these scenes as if he were the king. Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of
Meir. Part VI, 19-20, 24, 33-37; Grajetzki, Court Officials, 117.
144
In royal funerary monuments, kings such as Montuhotep II, Senusret
I and Senusret III were buried surrounded by their wives and daughters.
Grajetzki proposes that Ukh-hotep III was influenced by this royal
practice and desired to likewise display a close association with women
in his tomb. Kanawati, alternatively, suggests the possibility that as Ukh-
hotep was unable to produce a male heir, he may have desired to advocate
for the equality of women so that his only daughter could successfully
assume his position as governor. Grajetzki, Court Officials, 117-18;
Kanawati, “Wekhhotep III of Meir”, BACE 26, (2016-2018), 44.
145
This emphasis on women has also been noted by Tooley in her
examination of model offering-bearers across Egypt. Of the 213
provenanced examples identified in her study, 187 are female and 26 are
male. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 225.
Preparing for Eternity
who brought the produce of their respective regions.146
The characteristic model female bearer likewise adopts
this attitude, suggesting that she too may have been
symbolic of the real or idealised estates from which the
provisions were drawn.147 This type of representation
would have been especially important in the typically
more condensed three-dimensional medium where a single
bearer encompassed the provisions of a whole estate.
In their representation of the human figure, artists were
bound by the specific technical properties of their medium.
For scene-artists working in two-dimensions, a composite
image was created with each part of the human body
depicted from its most characteristic perspective.148
Model-artists were not bound by this same limitation as
they had the advantage of working in three-dimensions.
The resulting differences in design may be exemplified in
the depiction of the female bearer. She is regularly attired
in the traditional tight-fitting dress which typically extends
from below the breast to mid-calf with one or two shoulder
straps.149 With the frontal view available in models, both
bare breasts are on display. The single female bearer of
Intef (1 LC) from Beni Hassan, for example, has a white-
painted shoulder strap passing between two rounded
breasts marked with black dots for nipples [M41]. In the
composite image presented in scenes, on the other hand, a
single bare breast is shown in profile on a full-view chest,
as is exhibited by all four women on the east wall of room
4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir [S37;
fig. 3.13].
Similar differences are identifiable in the representation
of the bearers’ feet. Model human figures regularly lack
feet as they were required to be secured to the baseboard
with pegs, but in many model offering-bearers the feet
have been carved from wood or modelled in plaster. In
the finely carved single male bearer of Niankh-pepy-kem
146
See, for example, the south wall of room A6 in the tomb of Mereruka
at Saqqara where several female figures process towards a large standing
figure of the tomb owner. Each woman balances a basket on her head
with one hand and holds an additional item by her side in the other, and
is identified as the personification of an estate by an accompanying label.
Kanawati, et al., Mereruka and his Family. Part III:1-2, pls. 81-82. It has
been suggested that scenes moved away from this type of representation
during the 6th Dynasty due to the disappearance of these figures from
tombs in the capital, but female bearers balancing baskets on their heads
are known from numerous provincial scenes after this period. On the
south wall of the late 6th Dynasty tomb of Ipi (481 LC) at Beni Hassan,
for example, two female bearers each balance a basket on their head
and carry fowl in their hanging hand [S7]. Likewise, in the 12th Dynasty
tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan, two female bearers appear
on the south wall of the shrine in a similar attitude [S174]. There is
no reason to assume that these figures too were not personifications of
estates. Jacquet-Gordon, Noms des domaines funéraires, 30-31; Tooley,
“Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 175-76; Taylor, Death
and Afterlife, 103; Freed, “‘Bersha Procession’ in context. Part I”, BES
19, (2015), 293-94.
147
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome III, 147; Jacquet-
Gordon, Noms des domaines funéraires, 34-39; Taylor, Death and
Afterlife, 103; Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 105; Orel, in Encyclopedia
of Ancient History, <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com>.
148
Davis, Canonical Tradition, 27-28 Robins, Proportion and Style, 13;
Peck, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 363.
149
Vogelsang-Eastwood, Egyptian Clothing, 95-96; Robins, Art of
Ancient Egypt, 76.
94
(A1) from Meir, the feet are realistically detailed with
carved toes and painted toenails [M23]. Wall scenes, in
contrast, could only portray the feet in profile and scene-
artists selected the inside of the foot for both feet as this
was the most characteristic side. Consequently, only the
big toe and arch of the foot are on display.150 The male
bearers on the north wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2)
at Meir walk towards the left with apparently two right
feet [S140]. While these alterations in design enabled all
bodily features to be readily identified in two-dimensions,
they hindered the realism of the composition.
The composite design of the human figure was strictly
organised according to the canon of proportions in wall
scenes. This was principally used for major figures and to a
lesser extent, minor figures, including offering-bearers.151
In some scenes, the grid is still present, as is identified
on the north and west walls of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I
(B2) [S140, S144-S145].152 Models, with their focus on
subsidiary figures, apparently seem to largely avoid the
use of this system, but it has been determined that some
examples of offering-bearers did in fact use the grid in their
construction. Among the corpus examined in this study, the
last figure in the procession of female bearers of Niankh-
pepy-kem (A1) [M24; fig. 3.17], and all four figures in the
so-called ‘Bersha Procession’ of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)
[M144; fig. 3.16] have been identified to have utilised
the standardised canon of the period in their designs.153
The use of this system should perhaps be understood in
conjunction with the higher quality craftsmanship often
reserved for model offering-bearers.154 The care taken in
fashioning these figures highlights the value of this theme
to their owners.
As noted above, the female bearer is regularly attired in
her characteristic tight-fitting dress in both the two- and
three-dimensional media. However, the models also utilise
nudity in their representations. Several of the single female
bearers are depicted naked with the nipples, navel and pubic
triangle indicated through black dots, as is exemplified by
one of the figures from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)
[M142; fig. 3.14].155 Occasionally, they are adorned with
painted jewellery, like two of the model female bearers
of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) from Beni
Hassan [M209], or have a linen skirt wrapped around
the waist, like that belonging to Khety-aa (575 LC) from
150
Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 295; Robins, Proportion and
Style, 13.
151
Davis, Canonical Tradition, 24-26; Auenmüller, in Perfection that
Endures, 32.
152
Work on the chapel of Ukh-hotep I must have been abandoned at an
early stage of decoration as the scenes display sections executed in relief
at different stages of completion or simply in drawing with the grid still
remaining. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 38.
153
Roth & Roehrig, “Bersha Procession”, JMFA 1, (1989), 39; Freed,
“‘Bersha Procession’ in context. Part I”, BES 19, (2015), 299.
154
Interestingly, Harvey has identified that the canon was often used for
female offering-bearers, those both intricately carved and more crudely
fashioned. Harvey, in Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology, 165-66.
155
Sometimes the nipple is encircled with smaller black dots for
emphasis, as is found on another female bearer of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)
[M141].

Figure 3.13. Four female offering-bearers. Tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2). East wall of room 4, centre panel, register 4
[S37]. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 91 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
Beni Hassan [M204],156 but often the women are entirely
naked. Although, it must be remembered that loose linen
garments could easily become separated or destroyed,
so it is possible that at least some of these figures were
originally wrapped in skirts that have since been lost.
Tooley has suggested that nudity is a regional variation
largely attributable to Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan while
Vandier and Kroenke have identified it as a chronological
feature of the late 11th to mid-12th Dynasties.157 It has been
postulated that the use of nudity indicates the youthfulness
of the bearer or that it ensures the rejuvenation of the
deceased.158 Perhaps there is some correlation between
the nude female bearers and the fertility figurines which
likewise occur in burial chambers. Pinch has classified
these figurines according to six main types and argues
that all probably represented ideals associated with female
sexuality, including rebirth and fertility.159 The nude model
female offering-bearers do not exhibit the same emphasis
on their sexuality, but it is possible that they share similar
connotations with the figurines. As the models were
concealed from view in the burial chamber, the display of
nudity was apparently considered more appropriate than
156
The single female bearer from the tomb of Ha-itef-a (362 LC) at Beni
Hassan similarly has a strip of linen wrapped around her body [M60].
Although a white-painted skirt is present beneath the garment, unusually
the pubic triangle has been painted over the top. It seems most likely that
this was a mistake by the model-artist.
157
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome III, 151; Tooley,
“Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 241; Kroenke, “Provincial
Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 196.
158
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 241; Freed &
Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 155.
159
Pinch, Votive Offerings, 211, 220.
95
Transport
it was in the chapel where representations were designed
to impress visitors. Instead, nudity was largely reserved
in the two-dimensional medium for children and members
of the lowest class of society and scenes of intimacy were
also avoided.160 With their location in the chapel, scenes
needed to be suitable for public display and therefore all
two-dimensional female bearers are clothed.
For male bearers, the short tight white kilt forms the
typical garment in both the two- and three-dimensional
representations.161 However, variations in attire also
distinguish individuals of different status. One such
alteration is the projecting kilt which is typically worn by
overseers or scribes.162 In wall scenes, this comprises a
triangular projection at the front of the kilt, as is exhibited
by the leading three bearers on the east wall of the tomb
of An-ankhy (L-15J67/1) at Deir el-Bersha [S3]. Although
these figures are unlabelled, they are distinguished from
the two bearers behind who wear the standard tight kilt,
making it probable they are of a more prominent rank.163
160
Due to the absence of sexual intercourse in chapel scenes, it must be
assumed that this was considered inappropriate for display in the funerary
sphere. At most, the scenes only hint at intimacy, an example of which
can be found on the west wall of room A10 in the tomb of Mereruka at
Saqqara. Here, the tomb owner and his wife walk hand-in-hand towards
the bed which is prepared by attendants. The wife serenades Mereruka
with music, but no further intimacy is displayed. Hall, Egyptian Textiles,
64; Tyldesley, Daughters of Isis, 161; Kanawati, et al., Mereruka and his
Family. Part III:1-2, pls. 98-99; Booth, In Bed, 15-18.
161
In the three-dimensional medium this is typically painted on the
model, but in the male bearer of Khety-aa (575 LC), it comprises a strip
of linen wrapped around the waist [M205].
162
Hall, Egyptian Textiles, 63; Brier & Hobbs, Daily Life, 133.
163
De Meyer, “Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barshā. Volume
I”, 53. Examples are also known where higher status bearers are labelled.
Preparing for Eternity

A few models likewise incorporate the projecting kilt

which is carved from the same piece of wood as the legs.
In the model procession of male bearers of Djehuty-nakht
(R-10A), the leading two figures each wear this garment
which is further adorned with a carved knotted sash around
the waist, distinguishing them from the lower status
bearers behind who wear plain painted kilts [M148].164
An alternate attire that is present in scenes but absent in
models is a long transparent skirt that was worn over the
short tight kilt.165 Scene-artists could easily distinguish
the two garments by simply drawing the outline of the
overskirt and only adding colour to the kilt underneath,
an example of which may be found adorning the leading
bearer in the third register of the north wall of the shrine
of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan [S173].166 Model-
artists could not distinguish the transparent material, and
consequently the garment is excluded from the three-
dimensional repertoire. Although both media display the
same principal garments, scene-artists had the advantage
of presenting a more expansive selection.

Wall scenes also had the ability to identify specific

individuals among the lines of bearers. The eldest son of
the tomb owner is particularly prominent, highlighting his
role as the chief celebrant in his father’s mortuary cult.167
He regularly assumes the leading position in the procession
and is often depicted at a larger scale than the other bearers,
as is achieved for the eldest son of Khnumhotep II (3 UC)
who stands before a pile of offerings in the second register
of the south wall of his father’s tomb at Beni Hassan
[S193]. The eldest son may also be distinguished by more
elaborate attire and adornment. In the tomb of Amenemhat
(2 UC), the eldest son, who stands immediately opposite
the offering-table on the east panel of the south wall, is
elaborately adorned with a shoulder-length wig, highly
decorated collar and bracelets, a long transparent overskirt
with detailed sash, another sash across the chest, and
yellow skin, which presents him in stark contrast to the
smaller, less elaborately attired red-skinned bearers around
him [S160; fig. 3.15]. Moreover, with the integration of
inscriptions, scenes could specifically identify the eldest
son with an accompanying caption. On the east panel of the
north wall of the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1), the two
men positioned immediately before a large figure of the
owner, separated from the rest of the bearers on the west

Figure 3.14. Model female offering-bearer of Djehuty-nakht
(R-10A) [M142]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston: 21.883.
The leading two bearers beneath the owner on the west wall of room 5
in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), for example, are specifically
identified as officials with their names and titles listed in accompanying
captions [S47]. The first man is labelled sHD Hm(w)-nTr Xrj-tp nswt
jmj-r pr Nfr-Hr-Wx ‘the inspector of priests, the royal chamberlain, the
overseer of the house, Neferherwekh’ and the second, Xrj-Hbt zS pr-mDAt
nTr pr-aA JHjj-m-sA-Ppjj rn.f nfr Jrj ‘the lector priest, the scribe of the
house of sacred books of the palace, Ihyemsapepy, his beautiful name,
Iri’. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, 59.
164
The first man is probably a priest with his pale yellow skin and the
second, a scribe who holds his writing equipment.
165
Hall, Egyptian Textiles, 20; Cordin, in Egyptian Art, 173.
166
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 77.
167
Kamrin, Cosmos of Khnumhotep II, 127; Shirai, in Old Kingdom Art
and Archaeology, 329; Verhoeven, in Egypt, 482.

96

Figure 3.15. Eldest son presenting fowl to his father’s offering-table. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). South wall, east panel,
registers 3-4 [S160]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 104 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for
Egyptology.
panel, are each designated the ‘eldest son’ [S22].168 While
it is possible that some model bearers represent the son
of the tomb owner, these same characteristic features are
absent from the three-dimensional representations and so
his figure is impossible to identify. Only one model bearer
examined in this study incorporates any text, namely one
of the female bearers of Hepi-kem (A4) from Meir, but
this specifies the name and titles of the tomb owner rather
than the bearer herself [M27].169 It was important for the
eldest son to be publicly displayed fulfilling his duties
to his father in the chapel where the mortuary cult was
carried out, whereas the burial chamber was inaccessible
to the living and consequently the identification of the son
168
The man presenting incense is labelled zA.f smsw mrjj.f smr watj
Xrj-Hbt jmj-r Hm(w)-nTr 1nj-km ‘his eldest son, his beloved, the sole
companion, the lector priest, the overseer of priests, Heni the black’; and
the man offering a foreleg is captioned zA.f smsw mrjj.f Hor Hwt smr
watj Xrj-Hbt 1nnjt ‘his eldest son, his beloved, the estate manager, the
sole companion, the lector priest, Henenit’. Kanawati, et al., Cemetery
of Meir. Volume III, 42.
169
The caption is inscribed on the lid of the chest balanced on her
head: ‘seal-bearer of the king of Lower Egypt, sole friend, overseer of
priests, the honoured one, Hepi-kem’. Bommas, in Sacred and Profane,
46. Model offering-bearers with inscriptions are likewise rare across
Egypt, with Tooley only identifying 10 examples from her 213 corpus.
These texts similarly identify the beneficiary or they express the action
of bringing the supplies rather than the names of the bearers themselves.
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 245-46.
97
Transport
would presumably have not been considered as vital.
Also distinct from the regular bearers are scribes, officials
and priests. Unlike the eldest son, these individuals are
readily identified in both media. Scribes are principally
recognised by their scribal equipment, with examples
identified in three models examined in this study: one
appears in a procession of bearers [M148] while the others
are confined to their own baseboards [M49, M145].170 The
equipment of the scribe in the procession of male bearers
of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) is particularly detailed: a plain
white rectangular writing board and a long palette with two
circular depressions for red and black paint and two reed
pens are held under his arm [M148]. An almost identical
illustration is found on the south wall of the tomb of Baqet
III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan where a scribe stands before
a line of bearers with a palette and writing board tucked
under his arm [S78]. Officials are likewise identified by
their appearance, and in wall scenes they are regularly
positioned at the head or rear of a procession of offering-
bearers. In the first register of the south wall of the tomb
170
Although these two latter models of scribes are distinct from offering-
bearers, they originate from burials where model offering-bearers are also
housed, namely those of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) from Deir el-Bersha and
Djay (275 LC) from Beni Hassan.
Preparing for Eternity
of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan, an official stands before
the procession gesturing towards the bearers [S98]. He is
distinguished by a projecting kilt with a sash around his
waist and a baton in his hanging right hand. Only one
model examined contains officials, and unusually they are
confined to their own baseboard: three male figures with
yellow skin and long white kilts walk with empty hands
hanging by their sides in a model of Djehuty-nakht (R-
10A) [M146]. Their features and attitude differentiate
them from the other model male bearers in the burial and
indicate that they occupied an official status that did not
involve outdoor manual labour.171
Similarly, priests are distinguished by both their appearance
and the items they transport.172 The figure leading the
Bersha Procession (R-10A) is identified as a priest by his
pale pink skin, closely shaved head, long projecting kilt
and the hes-vase and censer that he carries [M144; fig.
3.16].173 On the north wall of the shrine of Amenemhat
(2 UC), two similarly distinguished priests appear at the
head of the upper two registers: both wear long transparent
overskirts and one holds a censer while the other pours
libations from a hes-vase [S173].174 Administrative and
religious officials are certainly more common in the two-
dimensional repertoire as they contributed to the tomb
owner’s public display of status and wealth. However, the
fact that examples are known from both media highlights
their important function in overseeing the transport of
offerings in both life and death.
All of the individuals represented in offering-bearer
wall scenes are characterised by a walking pose. This
posture is partially the result of the limited perspective
of the two-dimensional medium that required one leg to
be positioned in front so that both could be seen by the
viewer. However, this also seems to have been a deliberate
design choice to indicate movement. The principal role
of the bearer was to transport their load to the desired
location and so a walking pose was an essential element of
the design. Models likewise portray this forward motion,
but a number of three-dimensional figures are represented
with their legs side-by-side, as is exhibited by all of the
single female bearers of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M138-
M143; see fig. 3.14]. Although the advanced leg was not
necessary in the three-dimensional perspective as both
legs could be seen by the viewer, it seems unusual that any
of the model bearers would be represented in a stationary
stance. Perhaps this design resulted from the fact that the
171
Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 157.
172
Apart from the eldest son, priests were the main cult personnel and
were responsible for maintaining the offerings and rituals. D’Auria,
Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 53; Taylor, Death and
Afterlife, 175.
173
While priests usually had shaved heads for purity, this figure has
yellow clay on his head to represent close-cropped blond hair. This
colour of hair is quite rare in Egyptian art but not unique. The model-
artist has further emphasised his authority through assigning him a larger
area on the baseboard compared to the equidistantly spaced women.
Freed, “‘Bersha Procession’ in context. Part I”, BES 19, (2015), 295, 297.
174
The priest in the third register on the south panel of the east wall of
the inner room in the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) at Meir is alternatively
distinguished by a leopard-skin garment [S186].
98
model bearers had already arrived at their final destination
of the burial chamber where the goods were accessible to
the deceased.
However, some model-artists still chose to display the
forward movement captured in wall scenes. Three female
bearers in a model from the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem
(A1) are arranged in single file in diminishing height
order, stepping forward with their left legs [M24; fig.
3.17]. It has been suggested by Tiradritti that this particular
representation may depict the progression of a single
bearer, becoming larger as she approaches the owner.175
This interpretation, however, seems questionable, as not
only does the leading figure seem to have held an additional
offering in her lowered right hand that is not carried by
the other two,176 but such a display of progression is
rarely found in Egyptian art.177 Rather, the model more
likely depicts three individual bearers who walk in single
file while carrying similar loads. With the advantage of
working in three-dimensions, model-artists could choose
either a walking or stationary stance for their figures.
3.2.2 The offerings
The second major element of the offering-bearer
representations is the goods transported. A wide variety of
items are carried by the bearers, spanning the provision
of food and drink as well as items for personal use and
ritual. All of the goods transported by the model bearers
examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan are
likewise found in wall scenes. By far the most common
load in the three-dimensional repertoire is a container,
most frequently baskets, but also boxes, chests and a
type of backpack.178 The basket is especially common
for female bearers who are characteristically represented
supporting it on their head with a raised hand while their
other hand hangs by their side either empty or grasping
an additional item.179 In both media, the typical basket is
depicted as a trapezoidal shape, often decorated with lines
of basketry. A key difference between the two types of
representation, however, is the indication of the contents
stored within. These are regularly specified in wall scenes,
175
Tiradritti, in Egyptian Treasures, 101.
176
A hole is pierced through the woman’s clenched right fist, suggesting
that she originally carried a second offering.
177
One example that displays progression for a single individual may
be found in the three statues of the tomb owner discovered in the tomb
of Mery-ra-ha-shetef at Sedment which depict him in three successive
stages of life: youthful, mature and older. Petrie & Brunton, Sedment I,
2-3, pls. 7-10.
178
The rear figure in the procession of female bearers of Djehuty-nakht
(R-10A) balances a rectangular red box on her shoulder [M147]; one
of the female bearers of Hepi-kem (A4) supports a white chest with a
vaulted lid on her head with her raised left hand [M27]; the single male
bearer of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) has a type of backpack with painted
lines of basketry on the sides which is attached to a white strap passing
around his neck [M23]. The contents of each of these containers are
unspecified.
179
The raised hand usually simply rests against the side of the basket,
as is found in the model of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) from Beni Hassan
[M221], but in more finely crafted examples, the fingers could fold over
the top of the basket, as is witnessed in the model of Gua (K-12) from
Deir el-Bersha [M273]
 Transport

Figure 3.16. The Bersha Procession of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), comprising a male priest and three female offering-bearers
[M144]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.326.

Figure 3.17. Model procession of three female offering-bearers of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) [M24]. Drawing by the author.

99
Preparing for Eternity
often emerging from the top while being partially obscured
by the side of the basket, as is found on the east wall of
room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) [S37; fig.
3.13].180 For the contents to be depicted in full view in the
profile perspective, they were required to be lined across
the top of the basket, as is displayed on the north wall of
the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S154].181 Scene-artists
could also use an accompanying caption to identify the
products. Some of the male bearers carrying baskets on the
south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC), for example,
are labelled with the name of the department from which
their offerings originate [S78].182
Model offering-bearers, on the other hand, only occasionally
have the contents of their baskets specified.183 While this
medium had the ability to depict hollow containers with
the contents actually stored within, the vast majority
of loads are crafted as solid pieces, suggesting this was
a deliberate design choice. The typical representation
is exhibited by the model female bearer of Nefery (116
LC) from Beni Hassan: the upper surface of the basket
balanced on her head remains flat without any indication of
the contents [M182]. Representing such closed containers
may have enabled the loads to be symbolic of all types of
offerings. This was probably of particular importance in
the condensed three-dimensional medium where a single
model could encapsulate all of the desired provisions.
In contrast, it was presumably more important for the
contents of containers to be specified in scenes displayed
on chapel walls as this was the location of the mortuary
cult. The tomb owner may have used the two-dimensional
illustrations to encourage the maintenance of his cult by
the living and to specify the goods he most desired.
The second most common item transported by model
offering-bearers is fowl which again forms part of the
standard depiction of the female bearer. With her left hand
steadying the basket on her head, her right hand hangs by
her side and regularly clasps a bird by the wings, as is
exemplified by the bearer from the tomb of Ipi (707 LC)
180
The baskets transported by the women in the fourth register are
overflowing with loaves of bread, jars of beer and cuts of meat, all of
which lean at different angles as they partially or fully emerge from the
baskets.
181
The fifth bearer from the right in the third register balances a basket
on his shoulder. On top stands a series of small vessels depicted in full
view which are presumably understood as residing within.
182
In the seventh register, four of the men transport baskets, three of
which have their contents depicted and two simply have an unspecified
mound emerging from the top. The captions identify the departments of
the kAmw ‘grape-harvest’, t ‘the bake-house’ and Hnqt ‘the brew-house’,
indicating the type of products transported. Kanawati & Evans, Beni
Hassan. Volume IV, 38.
183
Only four exceptions where the contents are specified in models were
found in this study: on top of the basket carried by one of the female
bearers of Hepi-kem (A4) are carved bread loaves and beer-jars [M26;
fig. 3.19]; the basket of the second female bearer in the Bersha Procession
(R-10A) has five beer-jars emerging from the top [M144; fig. 3.16], as
does that carried by the rear figure in the procession of male bearers from
the same tomb [M148]; and on top of the basket of the female bearer of
Gua (K-12) reside several individually formed food items, including cuts
of meat and loaves of bread [M273].
100
at Beni Hassan [M166].184 The birds could be intricately
modelled with the feathers and webbing detailed or they
could be crafted in a more basic shape.185 Both male and
female bearers in wall scenes likewise transport birds in
their hanging hand,186 although a distinction is noticeable
in the positioning of the bird. On the east panel of the
south wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the tenth
figure from the left of the fifth register holds a bird by the
wings in his hanging right hand [S161; fig. 3.18]. Instead
of facing left like the bearer, the bird is directed to the right
and occupies the space behind the man’s body. As the bird
is held in the hand on the near side of the body, the scene-
artist needed to arrange the figures so that the bearer was
not obscured from view. By orienting the bird in this way,
only a small section of the wings passes in front of the man
instead of the whole body of the bird.187 Such an adaptation
was important in the two-dimensional medium so that the
scene-artist could overcome the limitations of perspective,
whereas model-artists could realistically position the bird
alongside the bearer’s body without hiding any part of the
human figure.
In relation to the transport of fowl, scenes depict a motif
that is excluded from the three-dimensional repertoire,
namely wringing the bird’s neck. This task holds a prime
position in the two-dimensional medium, with its abundant
occurrence, regular location at the head of the procession
and performance by the eldest son. On the north wall
of room 5 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), the
motif dominates the scene, with seven of the 12 bearers
engaged in the task [S44], while on the south wall of the
tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan, the bearer
immediately opposite the offering-table wrings the neck of
a bird while two lie already dead at his feet [S123]. Fowl
formed one of the principal offerings of the mortuary cult
and the wringing of the neck comprised a key element in
184
Occasionally, the female bearer grasps more than one bird, as is
achieved by the figure of Intef (1 LC) [M41] and both bearers of Nefwa
(186 LC) [M192-M193] from Beni Hassan.
185
The bird carried by one of the female bearers of Hepi-kem (A4) is
painted in great detail with the body coloured brown and accentuated with
white markings for feathers [M27]. Similarly, the two fowl transported
in the Bersha Procession (R-10A) have been carved in precise body
positions: the legs are tucked against the body with defined webbing, the
tails point down and the heads adopt individual postures, with the first
curling its neck and bringing the head close to the body and the second
raising its head with the beak pointing up [M144; fig. 3.16]. Alternatively,
the bird could be relatively basic in its shaping without intricate carving
or painting to specify the minute details, like that carried by one of the
bearers of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) [M216]. Terrace,
“Entourage of an Egyptian governor”, BMB 66.343, (1968), 13-15; Freed
& Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 154.
186
Scenes also display live birds transported in crates, particularly
untamed large birds. On the south wall of room 5 in the tomb of Pepyankh
the Black (A2), for example, three of the bearers in the third register
have a small crate containing birds at their feet and hold two birds by
the wings in their hands [S46]. Darby, Ghalioungui & Grivetti, Food.
Volume 1, 273.
187
Occasionally, the scene-artist has not chosen to make this adaptation,
causing the bird to obscure a significant portion of the bearer’s body. The
first female bearer in the third register of the south wall of the tomb of
Ukh-hotep I (B2) carries a bird by the wings in her hanging right hand
as she processes towards the right [S142]. The bird likewise is oriented
to the right, passing on the near side of her body and causing her legs to
be partially obscured.

Figure 3.18. Four male offering-bearers, positioned eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh in the procession. Tomb of Amenemhat
(2 UC). South wall, east panel, register 5 [S161]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 106 [detail]; courtesy of the
Australian Centre for Egyptology.
the associated rituals.188 The depiction of this motif in the
public sphere was important as this was where the living
presented their offerings and performed the appropriate
ceremonies. In the burial chamber, the importance of
fowl was principally as a form of nourishment and so the
representation of the ritual action of wringing the neck
would not have been considered as essential.
A similar distinction is seen in the presentation of a foreleg.
As noted in the discussion on slaughtering cattle in chapter
2.6, the foreleg was the prized joint of the ox and held
a prominent ritual role.189 Wall scenes of offering-bearers
regularly display the transport of the foreleg and, like the
wringing of the neck of fowl, it occupies a prime position
in the procession. On the north wall of the inner room of
the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) at Meir, these two motifs
dominate the procession in the fifth register [S184]. Of the
nine remaining bearers, the first five offer a foreleg and the
following three wring the necks of birds.190 In contrast,
model bearers only rarely transport a foreleg, with only
one example from the tomb of Djay (275 LC) at Beni
Hassan identified in this study [M48].191 The model female
bearer from the tomb of Gua (K-12) at Deir el-Bersha also
transports a foreleg, but this does not follow the typical
188
The pintail duck, in particular, was a prized sacrificial offering.
Houlihan, Birds, 71; Germond & Livet, Egyptian Bestiary, 66.
189
Gordon & Schwabe, in Proceedings of the Seventh ICE, 469; Eyre,
Cannibal Hymn, 53-54; Swinton, in Behind the Scenes, 38.
190
A similar prominence is found, for example, on the west wall of the
tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) where eight of the 10 bearers each
carry a foreleg [S15], and in the first register of the east wall of the tomb
of Senbi I (B1) at Meir where the remains of the two leading bearers
before the offering-table indicate the presentation of a foreleg and birds
who have had their necks wrung [S136].
191
Kroenke has noted that the presentation of forelegs by model offering-
bearers is rare across Egypt, with only five other examples known, all of
which originate from Naga ed-Deir. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of
Naga ed-Deir”, 199.
101
Transport
representation [M273]. Rather than being held individually
in front of the body with both hands, as is performed by the
male bearer of Djay, it appears in miniature form on top of
a basket carried on her head among other food offerings.
In this arrangement, the foreleg appears to be a form of
nourishment rather than a symbolic, religious offering.
The presentation of the foreleg was closely associated
with the mortuary cult that was carried out in the chapel
and therefore prominently features in offering scenes but
was of less significance in the burial chamber.
Other ritual items do appear in the three-dimensional
repertoire, but these still only occur rarely. Three models
examined in this study include hes-vases and/or censers
among the goods transported by the bearers.192 These items
are principally carried by male figures [M144, M183; see
fig. 3.16], although one hes-vase is unusually transported
by a female bearer from the tomb of Khnum-nekhti and
Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) [M216].193 Instead of conducting
rituals with these goods, the model bearers merely
transport them. In contrast, rituals form a key component
of many wall scenes, especially those associated with the
offering-table, and consequently ritual items regularly
appear in the two-dimensional medium. On the north
panel of the west wall of the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem
(A1), five men performing the purification ceremony
appear in the first register while the leading man in the
second register burns incense [S25]. Below is a line of
192
A fourth example should probably be added to this list. The priest
leading the procession of male bearers from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht
(R-10A) has lost the offering that he carried, but the posture of his right
arm and the remaining peg in his hand suggest he originally leant a hes-
vase back against his shoulder [M148].
193
Freed has noted that this is in fact the only extant example across
Egypt of a model female bearer carrying a hes-vase. Freed, “‘Bersha
Procession’ in context. Part I”, BES 19, (2015), 302.
Preparing for Eternity

offering-bearers presenting forelegs and fowl, with all

figures oriented towards the offering-table.194 The processes
of pouring libations and burning incense were integral
to the rituals that were carried out in the cult area, and
funerary priests regularly functioned as private ritualists
to conduct these ceremonies.195 Such rituals did not occur in
the burial chamber which was sealed after interment and
accordingly, ritual items were not an essential motif of the
three-dimensional offering-bearer theme.

The other types of offerings transported by model bearers

only occur infrequently. In addition to the containers and
fowl carried by the two female bearers belonging to Hepi-
kem (A4),196 a diminutive ungulate walks in front of each
figure [M26-M27; see fig. 3.19].197 Both animals have
incurred some damage to the head, so the species cannot
be identified with certainty, yet it is generally assumed that
both represent a calf.198 There is an unrealistic contrast in
size between the bearer and animal which is most likely a
means to exaggerate the importance of the bearer and the
other gifts she transports rather than indicating a dwarfed
creature.199 In fact, diminutive animals are often associated
with estate figures in Old Kingdom tomb scenes, perhaps
further supporting the identification of the single model
female bearers as personifications of estates.200 While
animals are a common offering presented in scenes, aside
from the women displayed on the north wall of the tomb of
Ukh-hotep III (C1) who take on male roles [S217; see fig.
6.7], none of the two-dimensional female bearers examined
in this study transport them. Instead, this role is exclusively
reserved for men. The animals either appear scattered among
lines of bearers presenting other goods, as is found on the
east wall of the tomb of Baqet II (33 UC) at Beni Hassan
[S60], or they are confined to their own processions.201
Although this type of offering is common in scenes, it is
rarely attested in models. The presentation of animals aside
from fowl may have been considered a supplementary motif
in the three-dimensional repertoire that was not essential to Figure 3.19. Model female offering-bearer of Hepi-kem
the deceased’s sustenance in the afterlife. (A4), with a diminutive ungulate walking in front [M26]. Ny
Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen: AEIN 670.

194
In some scenes, the goods presented are largely ceremonial, such as
those displayed in the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) in the upper register of
the south jamb of the exterior approach to the statue-recess [S181] and on
Other auxiliary offerings that occasionally appear in the
the north wall of the interior approach to the statue-recess [S182], as well model repertoire include mirrors and fans. Mirrors may
as those presented by the personifications of deities in the statue-recess have functioned for cosmetic purposes as well as holding
of Ukh-hotep III (C1) [S219-S220].
195
D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 58-59;
some religious significance,202 while fans were used in
Sauneron, Priests, 61; Ikram, Death and Burial, 189.
196
One of these models is inscribed for Hepi-kem [M27] while
the other [M26] has been attributed to the same burial based on the 202
The goddess Hathor was especially associated with mirrors in the
striking similarities in design. Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, cat. 90; Old and Middle Kingdoms and in scenes, mirrors are often brought in
Jørgensen, Catalogue: Egypt I, cat. 35. processions with specific references to her. On the north wall of the tomb
197
Although it has been suggested that the animals were originally of Senbi I (B1), for example, one of the male bearers in the first register
leashed, there is no evidence that any thread was secured around the neck carries a partially preserved mirror case [S132]. The procession is spread
nor is there any available space for the thread to be held in the hands. across two registers and contains many references to Hathor, most notably
Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 22. the presentation of sistra and menat-necklaces and the accompanying
198
Bourriau has alternatively suggested that one of the animals may captions that identify the goddess. A similar scene is found on the south
depict a young oryx or gazelle [M27]. Breasted, Egyptian Servant panel of the west wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) [S144]. In this
Statues, 61; Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, 103; Tooley, “Middle illustration, a female figure standing behind the tomb owner and his wife
Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 184; Jørgensen, Catalogue: Egypt in the first register holds a mirror and a mirror-case. Interestingly, both
I, cat. 35; Schneider, et al., Small Masterpieces, cat. 4. representations have been identified as scenes of the Festival of Hathor
199
Osborn & Osbornová, Mammals, 12-13. where the blessing of the goddess is bestowed upon the tomb owner.
200
Jacquet-Gordon, Noms des domaines funéraires, 30-31; Harpur, Mirrors, with their ability to reflect light, also had an association with
Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 82-83. the religious concepts of life, creation and regeneration. Blackman, Rock
201
See chapter 4.3 for a discussion on the theme of cattle in procession. Tombs of Meir. Volume I, 24-25; Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part II,

102

the cooking of food and for cooling individuals.203 These
items were identified in two models examined in this
study: the final figure in the Bersha Procession (R-10A)
has a mirror-case suspended from a cord in her raised
right hand with the mirror-handle extending out the top
[M144; fig. 3.16], and one of the bearers of Khnum-nekhti
and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) holds a decorated fan in her
lowered left hand [M216].204 As the burials that both of
these models originate from house more than one model
offering-bearer, the model-artists could expand upon
the most essential provisions. More typically, owners of
models only furnished their tombs with one or two bearers
and so the offerings considered more vital were given
priority. When specified, the offerings most typically
represented in models are associated with the provision of
bread, beer and fowl, three of the principal components
of offering-lists.205 In contrast, scene-artists typically had
a more extensive space in which to represent offering-
bearers and could consequently expand upon the theme.
It can be difficult to make certain identifications of all
offerings represented, but there is certainly a much wider
variety of goods transported than is displayed in models.
Some of these items include fruits and vegetables, trussed
birds, lotus and papyrus stems, pieces of furniture, cloth,
items of adornment, sistra and sandals.206 With a greater
number of bearers represented, a wider range of goods
could be transported.
24-25; Lilyquist, Ancient Egyptian Mirrors, 75, 97; Tyldesley, Daughters
of Isis, 177-78; Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 27-28;
Hudáková, Representations of Women, 495-99.
203
In addition to scenes of bread-making and cooking discussed in
chapters 2.3 and 2.7, fans are shown being used by attendants to cool
the tomb owner. In the tomb of Wahi at El-Hagarsa, for example, large
figures of the tomb owner and his wife are featured on the west wall
accompanied by an attendant who waves a fan behind their heads.
Kanawati, Tombs of El-Hagarsa. Volume III, pl. 24.
204
Both mirrors and fans are likewise presented by two-dimensional
offering-bearers. Of the three female bearers in the fifth register of the
west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the third woman holds a
strap attached to a mirror-case in her right hand while the first woman
holds both a mirror by the handle without a case and a highly decorated
fan [S166]. Likewise, on the east pilaster of the north wall of the tomb
of Khnumhotep I (14 UC), one of the female bearers carries a mirror in a
mirror-case while another holds a decorated fan [S121].
205
Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 96; Kahlbacher, in Change and
Innovation, 67.
206
On the west wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black
(A2), for example, a range of vessels and wooden furniture items are
transported by the bearers and the accompanying captions associate the
scene with the presentation of cloth to the owner [S42]. On the centre
panel of the east wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan, the
line of bearers processing towards the offering-table in the upper register
incorporates an array of offerings including piles of fruit, lotus flowers
and cuts of meat [S52]. The birds transported by the bearer in the third
register of the south jamb thickness of the statue-recess of Ukh-hotep I
(B2) are clearly identified as trussed with their hanging heads, clipped
wings and feet, and dots covering the bodies to indicate plucked feathers
[S147]. Similarly, two of the birds carried on the south wall of room
1 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) display an incision line on
the belly indicating that the viscera have already been removed [S29].
Several items of adornment are transported by the bearers in the first
register of the south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) [S79]. Each
one is accompanied by a caption that identifies the product, including
necklaces, pendants, symbols of office and sandals. On the pilaster of
the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC), the two female
bearers in the fifth register each present a large decorated sistrum and
necklace [S126].
103
Transport
Further differences between the media are noticeable in the
mode in which the goods are transported. Model bearers
merely carry their loads on their heads or shoulders or in
their hands. While the same methods are utilised in scenes,
the two-dimensional bearers also employ a range of tools
to aid them in this task, enabling them to carry a larger
number of items. One of the most common tools is a tray
which typically balances on a shoulder of the bearer, as
is found on the south wall of the inner room of the tomb
of Ukh-hotep II (B4) [S187]. Several figures in the third
register steady on one or two shoulders a tray that is piled
with a range of foodstuffs including loaves of bread, fruits
and trussed fowl. Alternatively, a yoke could pass across
the shoulders with items suspended from each end either on
trays, in crates or in sacks of netting.207 All of the offering-
bearers displayed in the upper two registers of the east
panel of the north wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) utilise
a yoke to transport their loads, with waterskins and baskets
suspended from cords [S89; fig. 3.20]. While most bearers
carry their loads individually, occasionally more than one
figure is required to transport an extra-large supply. A
large tray piled with an exceptional mound of foodstuffs is
carried across the shoulders of a row of bearers, the traces
of at least four of which remain, in the upper register of
the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep
II (B4) [S185]. Such immense loads could be easily drawn
on the two-dimensional wall surface. Model-artists, in
contrast, had to consider the weight of each carved piece
so that the load was not too heavy to be held by the three-
dimensional figure. As a result, model bearers are usually
more restricted in the quantity of offerings they carry.
3.2.3 The recipient
A final aspect to consider is the context in which the two-
and three-dimensional offering-bearers appear. Model
bearers are almost exclusively restricted to their own small
baseboards without any associations with other themes. As
the focus was solely on the bearer and their offerings and
the figures had arrived at their destination of the burial
chamber, there was no need for any other activities to be
displayed. There is, however, one exception identified in
this study, namely a pair of female bearers from the tomb
of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) who stand
side-by-side in one corner of a food preparation model
[M209]. Such an association may imply that the contents
of the baskets and vessels carried by the women comprise
bread, beer and/or cuts of meat obtained in the surrounding
activities of bread-making, brewing and slaughtering.
Scenes of bearers, on the other hand, occur in a range of
scene-types. Most commonly, they process before a large
figure of the tomb owner seated at a table of offerings, an
example of which may be found on the west wall of the
tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) [S83]. The offering-table scene
is the earliest theme of the two-dimensional repertoire and
207
It should be noted that model figures carrying yokes are known from
food preparation models where they transport water-jars for brewing beer
and bread-making, as was discussed in chapter 2.4.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 3.20. Procession of male offering-bearers who utilise yokes to transport their loads. Tomb of Khety (17 UC). North
wall, east panel, registers 1-2 [S89]. Kanawati & Evans. Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 98 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian
Centre for Egyptology.
remains essential throughout the Pharaonic Period.208 The
incorporation of bearers into this scene clearly identifies
the tomb owner as the recipient of their provisions and
highlights their purpose in supplying sustenance. The
tomb owner also receives offerings in other scene-types:
bearers appear in scenes of his transport by palanquin,209
among the funerary procession,210 or simply in lines before
large standing or seated depictions of his figure.211 In these
208
The offering-table scene is the most regular theme included in
chapels and often comprises the only decoration. It is first found on niche
stelae and in cruciform chapels of the 3rd and early 4th Dynasties. Later
examples, however, expand the table scene to incorporate additional
motifs such as bearers presenting offerings and priests performing
ceremony. Malek, Shadow of the Pyramids, 53; Harpur, Decoration in
Egyptian Tombs, 79; Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 115; Altenmüller, in
Egypt, 81; Staring, in Old Kingdom, New Perspectives, 259-60.
209
The tomb owner is transported by palanquin on the east wall of room
4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) [S37]. Before the palanquin are
four registers of bearers with both male and female figures represented.
210
On the west wall of room 3 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2),
four male bearers carrying a selection of ceremonial vessels and a table
or stand appear on a sub-register line between the papyriform boats
transporting the coffin in the funerary procession [S33]. Presumably the
same four men, accompanied by a fifth man, reappear at a later stage
of the journey in the first register. Bearers also appear in processions
of the statue of the tomb owner, as is found on the south wall of the
tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) [S79] and on the north wall of the tomb of
Khety (17 UC) [S93]. Similarly, the colossal statue of Djehuty-hotep
(N-2) is transported on the west wall of the inner room of his tomb at
Deir el-Bersha; immediately to the right is a section of wall dedicated to
the presentation of offerings and the slaughter of cattle [S213]. Items of
funerary furniture can also be simply processed before a large standing
figure of the tomb owner, as is found on the north wall of the tomb of
Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan [S48]. In the second and third registers
behind the owner are male bearers carrying a range of objects including a
headrest which would have been destined for the tomb.
211
While the upper two registers of the south wall of the tomb of Senbi
I (B1) are directed towards the offering-table scene, the lower two rows
process towards a large standing figure of the owner accompanied by a
small figure of his wife [S138-S139]. Similarly, lines of bearers process
towards a large standing figure of Ramushenti (27 UC) on the north panel
104
contexts, the superior status and wealth of the tomb owner
is on display as the scenes convey his ability to acquire
large quantities of goods from vast estates and to equip his
tomb with sufficient funerary furnishings. These scenes also
directly interacted with the living as the bearers are usually
oriented into the tomb, guiding visitors towards the place
of offerings.212 On the north wall of room 4 in the tomb of
Pepyankh the Black (A2), for example, the vast majority
of bearers face right towards the entrance to the offering-
room [S34].213 Such careful arrangement was important in
the chapel as it encouraged visitors to enter the inner part of
the tomb and contribute to the mortuary cult.
While the majority of scenes portray the tomb owner as the
beneficiary, a few examples indicate a different recipient.
Sometimes the wife is depicted alongside her husband at
the offering-table where she is an active recipient of the
offerings presented.214 On the south wall of the tomb of
of the east wall of his tomb and towards the offering-table on the south
panel [S61-S62]. Three bearers in superimposed registers face large
standing figures of the tomb owner and his wife on the east wall of the
tomb of Pepi (D1) at Meir [S19], while on the south panel of the west wall
of the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1), bearers process towards a seated
figure of the owner [S24]. Both a standing and seated figure of Ukh-hotep
II (B4) appear on the north wall of the exterior approach to the statue-
recess in his tomb, with bearers progressing towards each one [S180].
212
Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 225; Fitzenreiter, in Social
Aspects of Funerary Culture, 76-77.
213
Similarly, on the west wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC), the bearers
in the lower section are directed towards the false door [S108], and in
the shrine of Amenemhat (2 UC), bearers appear on the entrance wall
[S175] where they guide visitors towards the grand statue of the owner
cut into the native rock on the east wall. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan.
Volume III, pl. 74.
214
On the west wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2), for example, the
owner and his wife are depicted in equal size, seated before a single table
of offerings on the south panel [S144]. Similarly, on the north wall of the
tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2), the owner and his wife are seated

Amenemhat (2 UC), however, she has her own offering-
table scene with lines of bearers proceeding towards her
[S162-S163].215 Alternatively, Djehuty-hotep (N-2) of Deir
el-Bersha dedicates a complete offering-table scene to his
father as well as one to himself. The two scenes are almost
identical, with the one on the west wall of the shrine assigned
to himself [S216] and the one on the east wall to his father
[S215]. This unusual devotion may have been a means for
the father to participate in the family’s mortuary cult even
though he was most likely buried far away in the capital.216
Only rarely are individuals other than family members
depicted as the recipient of offerings. In a unique display on
the west wall of room 1 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black
(A2), the bearers in the first register are specifically stated
in the accompanying caption to provide sustenance for the
craftsmen portrayed at work before the large standing figure
of the tomb owner [S30].217
This range of contexts and recipients is not evident in
the three-dimensional medium as the models are housed
in the burial chamber alongside the body of the tomb
owner and therefore solely functioned for his benefit. In
some cases, the burials comprised a double occupancy,
usually the owner and his wife, and the models may
have served one or both of these individuals. The tomb
of the governor Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), for example, also
housed the burial of his wife, and tomb 585 LC at Beni
Hassan interred both Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti.
Both of these tombs contained more than one model
offering-bearer, so each owner may have had their own
designated procession.218 This close association with the
body presents a direct connection between the services of
the model offering-bearers and the deceased’s afterlife.
Two-dimensional representations of offerings in burial
chambers consist of object-friezes and offering-lists, with
the bearers themselves rarely represented. Indeed, the
offering-list is identified in almost every known decorated
burial chamber, usually on the east wall where it would
be seen by the deceased from his coffin.219 In the burial
chamber of Hewetiaah, the wife of Pepyankh the Middle
(D2), the east wall is decorated with an offering-list
while the north wall illustrates a series of food and drink
offerings.220 The absence of bearers in such scenes may
at opposite sides of the same table with long lines of bearers processing
towards them [S8].
215
It should be noted, however, that the wife’s scene is significantly
smaller than that of her husband [S160-S163]. A similar situation is
found on the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S193].
216
Sykora, in Djehoutihotep, 31.
217
The vertical text before the bearers states jnt xt n Hmwtjw ‘bringing
things/meals for the craftsmen’. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir.
Volume II, 26.
218
It has been postulated that the Bersha Procession [M144; fig.
3.16] from tomb R-10A was dedicated to the governor on account of
its superior craftsmanship while the lesser quality procession of male
bearers [M148] belonged to the wife. The plundered state of the burial
prevents such a classification from being known, and it seems hazardous
to make assumptions based on the quality of the models. Freed & Doxey,
in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 158; Freed, “‘Bersha Procession’ in context. Part
I”, BES 19, (2015), 302.
219
Bolshakov, Man and his Double, 117.
220
Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pls. 95-96.
105
Transport
be attributed to the fear of illustrating living creatures on
the walls of substructures, as will be addressed in chapter
7.7. The depiction of the offerings themselves removed
the potential threat posed by living creatures while
maintaining the provision of goods. This representation
forms a distinct contrast from models which likewise
occur in substructures but feature both the bearers and
their provisions.
* * *
The offering-bearer theme is certainly an important
aspect of both the two- and three-dimensional repertoires,
comprising a major contributor to the sustenance of the
tomb owner. Both types of representation feature the
two main aspects of the bearers and their offerings, but
there are a number of differences in design. The two-
dimensional medium dedicated more space to the theme
and consequently illustrated a greater number of bearers
and range of offerings. Models, conversely, were typically
more condensed, with a single figure often encompassing
the entire theme. Wall scenes also exhibit a ritual emphasis
through the presentation of a wide spectrum of ritual items
and figures engaged in ceremonial activity. This was
essential for public display in the chapel as it encouraged
the living to participate in the mortuary cult. Models, on
the other hand, were concealed from view in the burial
chamber and did not function in the cult celebrated by
the living. The three-dimensional offerings presented
are usually unspecified so that they may be symbolic of
all desired goods for the afterlife, but when designated,
typically comprise the most essential foodstuffs. Therefore,
the offering-bearer theme was designed in each medium
according to its specific location and role in the tomb.
3.3 Beasts of burden
The principal beast of burden in ancient Egypt was the
donkey, favoured for its ability to transport substantial loads
over long and short distances. It was used for expeditions
within the country as well as across borders as it required
only limited attention and could survive on little water and
desert shrubs.221 Beginning in the 5th Dynasty, the donkey
commonly features in representations where it is laden
with sacks or baskets, and only rarely conveys people.222
From Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, seven
models illustrating pack animals have been identified,
although only five were available for examination through
images,223 and wall scenes of the theme have been found
221
The lighter the load, the further the donkey could travel. Nibbi,
“Remarks on ass and horse”, ZAeS 106, (1979), 153; Janssen & Janssen,
Household Animals, 36-37; Brewer, Redford & Redford, Domestic
Plants and Animals, 100; Partridge, Transport, 95.
222
Egyptians are rarely shown riding donkey-back, although foreigners
are more regularly represented utilising this mode of transport, as will be
discussed in chapter 6.2.
223
Interestingly, all except one of these seven models originate from
Meir which suggests there was a regional preference for the theme. The
exception is that from the tomb of Nakht (711 LC) at Beni Hassan which
was not available for examination through images. Ashmolean Museum,
University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2304.
Preparing for Eternity
in 11 tombs. These representations display a number of
similarities, but some differences are noticeable which
largely result from the unique technical properties of each
medium. However, a difference in context is also observed
which impacts the emphasis of the theme.
Several stages are involved in transporting heavy loads
across land: loading the animal, the journey to the desired
location, the deposit of the load, and the return trip.
Both the two- and three-dimensional representations are
typically quite condensed in their compositions, with
usually a single motif symbolic of the entire operation.
Wall scenes most commonly abbreviate the theme to the
stage of transporting the load,224 but occasionally scene-
artists selected a different motif. On the west wall of the
tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan, the lone
donkey in the second register is positioned in its point of
departure with a man in the act of securing its load [S196;
fig. 3.23], while the donkey in the sixth register of the west
wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan has
reached its destination with its load already removed and
a man pouring the contents on the threshing-floor [S171].
In more expansive representations, scene-artists could
incorporate several donkeys and/or more than one stage of
the process. On the west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the
Middle (D2) at Meir, one man accompanies two packs of
donkeys laden with large sacks in the third register while
the loads are being removed from two donkeys who have
arrived at their destination below in the fifth register [S13;
fig. 3.21]. Alternatively, a single donkey is perhaps being
driven to the granary on the west pilaster of the north wall
of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan
[S114],225 while a returning pack of overlapping donkeys is
followed by a team of running men in the fifth register of
the north wall [S117].
Models, in contrast, only display the theme in an
abbreviated form and exclusively depict the stage of
transporting the load. The typical composition is exhibited
by a model said to be from Meir, now housed in Toronto:
two donkeys laden with sacks stand side-by-side on the
baseboard but with one much further in front [M251;
fig. 3.24]. Each animal is accompanied by its own driver
who stands beside the rear and encourages it to move
with a stick. The task of transporting the load is the most
important role of the pack animal and is consequently the
only stage selected for the condensed three-dimensional
representations.
The donkey itself forms one of the principal components
of the theme in both wall scenes and models, although
differences in detail are noticeable between the two
media. The Egyptians were careful observers of animals,
and artists endeavoured to reproduce their appearance as
224
Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 237.
225
The scenes on the west pilaster are only partially preserved, but
Lashien and Mourad have suggested that the herdsman with his arm
raised on the left of the fifth register is ushering a donkey away from the
threshing-floor displayed on the right and towards the granary depicted
above. Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, 27.
106
accurately as possible.226 This is prevalent in scenes where
minute distinguishing features could be easily drawn
on the two-dimensional wall surface. The donkey in the
scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) is particularly detailed in
its representation, with defined genitalia, black hooves, a
black mane and white belly distinct from its grey hide, an
intricate eye and mouth, and a yellow rectangular blanket
covering its back [S196; fig. 3.23]. In some instances, the
specific breed can even be identified, as is found on the
west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) where
the donkeys in the third register can be classified as the
Somali wild ass [S13; fig. 3.21].227
Model donkeys, in contrast, are especially basic in their
rendering. Those in a model from Meir now housed in New
York are plain in colour without any indication of a blanket
and have roughly cylindrical bodies with thin stick-like
legs that lack any definition of muscle or hooves [M250;
fig. 3.22]. The heads are quite rectangular in shape, with
slight bulges for ears, crudely incised eyes and no manes.
Even though the animals are presumably walking forward,
their legs are positioned side-by-side in a rather static
posture.228 Incorporating the fine details and movements
encountered in wall scenes would have required a higher
level of craftsmanship to achieve in three-dimensions than
is exhibited by the models examined.
Although the donkey was the principal beast of burden,
one model uniquely depicts an ox in this role. This was
found in the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) at Meir and
comprises a single white and black ox with two sacks
loaded on its back [M25]. The feet of a man are preserved
on the baseboard which presumably belonged to a driver
who ushered the animal forward from behind. Oxen are
known to pull sledges from as early as the Old Kingdom
and could drag large quantities of material.229 As they have
a higher pulling power than carrying capacity, they were
favoured as draught animals rather than pack animals.230
This representation of the ox as a beast of burden is
unique among the two- and three-dimensional corpora.231
Although this design is unusual, it demonstrates that this
model-artist did not replicate the standard motif of wall
scenes, but created his own composition.
The load carried by the pack animal is another integral
element of the theme, but some differences are discernible in
226
Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 1.
227
Lashien has noted that the black stripes on the legs of these donkeys
are characteristic of the Somali wild ass which is stronger than the
domestic Egyptian donkey and could travel longer distances. Lashien,
Nobles of El-Qusiya, 203-04; Lashien, in Perfection that Endures, 262-
63.
228
In contrast, the donkeys that are stationary in scenes, like those of
Amenemhat (2 UC) [S171] and Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S196; fig. 3.23],
are depicted with the far legs in front as if they are moving. However, this
should be understood as an artistic technique that allows all four legs to
be visible in the two-dimensional perspective.
229
Köpp, in Desert Road, 110.
230
Boessneck, Haustiere, 12; Houlihan, in History of the Animal World,
105; Köpp, in Desert Road, 110.
231
Köpp has identified this model as the only known representation of
the ox as a pack animal in Egypt. Köpp, in Desert Road, 110.
 Transport

Figure 3.21. Donkeys transporting loads of grain in the third register; their loads are removed upon arrival in the fifth
register. Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2). West wall, south panel, left, registers 3-5 [S13]. Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir.
Volume I, pl. 84 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

Figure 3.22. Model beasts of burden from Meir, with rectangular sacks on their backs [M250]. The Metropolitan Museum of
Art, New York: 11.150.8.

107
Preparing for Eternity
its representation between the two- and three-dimensional
media. A variety of forms is identifiable in wall scenes,
with Vandier classifying the sacks of the Old Kingdom
according to five main categories and Siebels according
to three.232 Although each donkey would have carried
two sacks, with one hanging over each side of its back,
only a single load is typically portrayed.233 The limited
perspective of the two-dimensional medium causes the
sack furthest from view to be concealed. In some instances,
scene-artists have attempted to overcome this restriction
and portray both loads. Two hemispherical baskets are
loaded on the donkey’s back in the scene of Khnumhotep
II (3 UC), but they are unrealistically positioned end-on-
end when in reality one would be hidden from view on the
far side of the body [S196; fig. 3.23].234
Models, on the other hand, display a realistic arrangement
of the loads, but exhibit less variety in shape. The majority
of the examples examined depict rectangular sacks, as can
be seen in the New York model [M250; fig. 3.22], but that
from the tomb of Kay-henent at Meir unusually features
roughly trapezoidal sacks decorated with painted lines
symbolic of fastening ropes [M169]. The variety of forms
witnessed in wall scenes would have been more difficult
to craft in three-dimensions and this may account for the
more limited repertoire. However, models do realistically
display the sacks hanging over each side of the animal.
The sacks were apparently carved as a single piece with
the wood forming a continuation across the back of the
animal, as can be witnessed in the Toronto model [M251;
fig. 3.24]. The holistic perspective of the three-dimensional
medium enabled a realistic arrangement of the load to be
displayed, whereas scene-artists could more easily draw
a range of shapes on the wall surface and therefore create
more variety in their designs of the sacks.
The men accompanying the donkeys are portrayed in
different attitudes according to the stage of the process
represented. In wall scenes, they may be loading or
unloading the sacks from the animal or driving the donkey
forward. The man on the left of the fifth register of the
west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2), for
232
The loads carried by the donkeys on the west wall of the tomb of
Pepyankh the Middle (D2) [S13; fig. 3.21] and in the first register of
the south wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at
Meir [S39] are hexagonal in shape, with the former taller than wide and
the latter wider than high. Alternatively, the sacks transported on the
south wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan are trapezoidal
in shape [S100], while those in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC)
are hemispherical [S196; fig. 3.23]. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie
égyptienne. Tome VI, 128-29; Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom
Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 239-46.
233
On the east wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) at Meir, two men
are about to load/unload a trapezoidal basket onto/from the back of a
donkey [S141]. Only one basket is portrayed, but Hudáková has noted
that the presence of two loops at the bottom of the basket and the rope
for fastening indicates that a second one should be understood as hiding
behind. Hudáková, in Art of Describing, 206.
234
A similar situation is found in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC),
although here the baskets have been removed from the donkey’s back
[S171]. Two hemispherical containers stand end-on-end on the ground
between the herdsman and the threshing-floor. The baskets are apparently
connected by some type of hinge which is grasped by the man with his
right hand. Hudáková, in Art of Describing, 192.
108
example, stands behind the donkey and leans forward with
one arm wrapped around the sack as he begins the task
of unloading [S13; fig. 3.21]. Alternatively, the five men
who guide the pack animals on the return trip on the north
wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) are displayed
in a running motion with their legs striding and heels
raised off the ground [S117]. With the three-dimensional
medium’s sole focus on the transport stage, only the role
of the driver is portrayed in models.235 In the Toronto model,
a man is positioned beside the rear of each donkey with a
stick raised in one hand to encourage the animal forward
[M251; fig. 3.24]. A similar situation is found in the scene
displayed on the south wall of the tomb of Khety (17
UC) at Beni Hassan where two drivers accompany a line
of donkeys in the third register [S100]. Each man stands
directly behind one animal with one hand grasping a stick
and the other hand either steadying the load or resting on
the donkey’s rear. This role is essential during transport
and is therefore captured by both media.
Variation in this characteristic role of the driver is sometimes
achieved, however, through reducing the size of one of the
figures. In the model of Kay-henent from Meir, the figure
behind the first donkey is depicted on a much smaller scale
than his companion [M169]. While this could be a result
of poor craftsmanship or the combination of pre-made
figures not designed specifically for the model, there is
some parallel with wall scenes of the Old Kingdom. When
two figures accompany a single donkey, the one positioned
on the side of the animal is often portrayed at a reduced
scale.236 Although this combination is not identified in
any of the scenes examined in this study, the lone driver
positioned alongside the donkey on the north wall of the
tomb of Ipi (481 LC) at Beni Hassan is much smaller in
size than the other agricultural workers occupying the
fourth register [S6]. It has been suggested that this use of
scale either emphasises the weight of the load or indicates
the youthfulness of the driver.237 The latter alternative
seems most probable which would indicate that both
scene- and model-artists chose this design to reflect a real-
life practice of employing youth in outdoor tasks.
The context of the beasts of burden theme forms a clear
distinction between the two media. In wall scenes,
these animals exclusively appear in the context of the
235
Unusually, a model from Meir now housed in Lyon does not
incorporate any human figures: the donkeys stand alone on the baseboard
without any holes or pegs to indicate other figures were originally
included [M249].
236
See, for example, the scene displayed on the west wall of the tomb of
Werirni at El-Sheikh Said where the figure alongside the loaded donkey
in the third register is particularly diminutive. Davies, Sheikh Saïd, pl.
16. Alternatively, the figure walking next to each donkey in the second
register of the east wall of the tomb of Kayemnofret at Giza is depicted
at a similar scale to his companion, but he is naked while the driver is
clothed. Badawy, Tombs at Giza, fig. 30a.
237
Siebels notes that if the reduced scale was used to emphasise the
weight of the load as suggested by Harpur, then it would be expected to
be found in every representation, but many examples are known where
this is not the case. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI,
146; Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 208; Siebels, “Agriculture in
Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 252-54; Swinton, Management
of Estates, 62.
 Transport

Figure 3.23. A donkey is being loaded with two baskets of grain positioned end-on-end. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West
wall, north panel, register 2 [S196]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 117 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian
Centre for Egyptology.

Figure 3.24. Model beasts of burden said to be from Meir, with a driver standing beside the rear of each animal, encouraging
it to move forward with a stick [M251]. Courtesy of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, © ROM: 910.18.3.

109
Preparing for Eternity

agricultural cycle where they transport grain obtained in
the harvest. During the Old Kingdom, the donkeys were
typically depicted on their journey to the threshing-floor
where they would deposit the sheaves.238 On the south
wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at
Meir, for example, the donkey and its driver are directed
towards the threshing-floor in the first register while the
earlier stage of the grain harvest is depicted immediately
below [S39]. In the Middle Kingdom, however, the load
was more commonly transported to the granary, although
some examples of the earlier arrangement are still
known.239 On the west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15
UC) at Beni Hassan, the remains of two donkeys and their
drivers appear in the third register progressing left towards
the granary [S84]. Although there is a shift in emphasis,240
through the careful arrangement of motifs, scene-
artists could clearly convey the precise destination of
the load. Grain cultivation forms a principal component
of the everyday life scenes prominently displayed on
chapel walls and the donkey’s importance in the two-
dimensional medium resides in its contribution to the
agricultural cycle.
overland transport for any loads required by the deceased
in the Hereafter.
Beasts of burden comprised an important mode of overland
transport and so it is not surprising to find representations
of the theme in both the two- and three-dimensional media.
Even though it is easily identifiable in the representations,
there are a number of design differences that may be
attributed to the unique capabilities of each medium. Wall
scenes exhibit greater detail and variety in their designs
yet had to alter the positioning of the loads to overcome
the limitations of perspective. Models, on the other hand,
are relatively basic in their rendering, but could present
a more realistic arrangement of the sacks. Moreover, the
media exhibit distinct contexts for the theme, with scenes
conveying a clear connection with the agricultural cycle
that is absent in models. With their location in the burial
chamber, the three-dimensional pack animals primarily
functioned as an important mode of transport for carrying
any heavy loads that would benefit the deceased in the
afterlife.

Models, on the other hand, do not display this same

agricultural association. Each of the three-dimensional
beasts of burden examined in this study are situated
on their own baseboards without any other activities
portrayed. It therefore cannot be determined what stage
of the agricultural cycle is depicted or even if there is any
agricultural connection at all. However, it is interesting to
note that all three models that represent rectangular sacks
have the sign for pr-HD ‘treasury’ incised into the side of
each load [M249-M251; see figs. 3.22, 3.24]. This possibly
indicates that the sacks are filled with grain. While it has
been suggested that the loads contained taxes being sent to
the treasury,241 it is more probable that the grain has been
removed from the treasury to be deposited in the tomb.
With the models’ concealed location in the burial chamber,
the tomb owner’s fulfillment of his taxation obligations
could not have been publicised and grain was one of
the most essential commodities to be accessible for the
afterlife. Subsequently, the importance of the donkey in
the three-dimensional medium lies in its ability to provide

238
Hudáková, in Art of Describing, 202-03.
239
See, for example, the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) where the donkey
forms the joining element between the grain field and the threshing-floor
[S171], or that of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) where the donkey stands among
the harvest [S196; fig. 3.23]. The exact context of the donkey displayed
on the south wall of the outer room of the tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5)
at Deir el-Bersha [S65] or that on the east wall of the inner room of
the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha [S206] is difficult to
determine due to the scenes’ fragmentary states. In the scene of Ahanakht
I, a donkey being prepared to take a load and a man presumably driving
a second donkey are all that remain in the first register. The rest of the
row and the scenes immediately below have been completely lost and so
the destination is unknown. In the scene of Djehuty-hotep, there are no
traces of a granary which may suggest that the load presumably being
prepared for the donkey in fragments numbered 46-50 is associated with
work in the fields.
240
Hudáková has identified the change of destination from the threshing-
floor to the granary as a shift from illustrating production to the product
itself. Hudáková, in Art of Describing, 202-03, 207.
241
Hayes, Sceptre of Egypt. Part I, 266.

110
 4
Animal Husbandry
4.1 Calving
Cattle held an esteemed role within ancient Egyptian
society as they not only provided meat for consumption but
also other valuable products including milk, fat, hide and
bone, as well as a source of power for manual labour.1
The animals were a vital economic commodity and formed
the principal component of the ‘cattle count’ where the
wealth of the land was measured.2 Owning cattle was
therefore a sign of high social status, and the display of the
animals in funerary artworks reveals the superior wealth
of their owners. Representations of animal husbandry
chiefly focus on cattle, with various stages in the animal’s
lifecycle from mating and birth to slaughter regularly
displayed. The Egyptians had a thorough understanding
of the needs and characteristics of their animals which
artists endeavoured to capture as accurately as possible.3
The first stage of the lifecycle that is depicted by both
wall scenes and models is the birth of a calf. Both media
capture the very moment of delivery with the head and
forelegs of the calf already emerged from its mother. There
is great similarity in the portrayal of this theme between
the two types of representation, although differences in
detail result from their specific technical capabilities.
While calving appears in a number of wall scenes from the
Old Kingdom, particularly in tombs at Giza and Saqqara,
the quantity of Middle Kingdom examples is particularly
restricted. A total of five calving scenes dated to this latter
period are known throughout Egypt, all of which originate
from Middle Egypt: two from Meir [S139, S176], one
from Deir el-Bersha [S66] and two from Beni Hassan
[S55, S125].4 Though it has been stated that only a single
model depicting calving is known,5 a total of three have
been identified in this study, all of which derive from Meir
[M173, M252, M253].6 Middle Egypt was particularly
fertile and appears to have been one of the main locations
1
Boessneck, Tierwelt, 66-67; Houlihan, Animal World, 10-11; Strauss-
Seeber, in Egypt, 381; Jones, in Behind the Scenes, 101.
2
Montet, Scènes de la vie privée, 126-49; Kanawati & Swinton, Egypt
in the Sixth Dynasty, 163.
3
Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 1, 6.
4
Roehrig has identified four of these scenes as the only known examples
of the period from all of Egypt, but the fifth example, namely that on the
south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan [S125],
has only recently been discovered during re-documentation of the
cemetery by the Australian Centre for Egyptology. Roehrig, in Ancient
Egypt Transformed, 207.
5
Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 8; Houlihan, Animal World, 14.
6
The model today housed in Toronto is said to be from Meir [M252],
whereas one of the models in Lyon was said to be from Asyut, but a
recent study undertaken by the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon has
demonstrated that it was probably manufactured in Meir [M253].
Amoros, et al., “Study and identification”, Hathor 1, (2012), 11-29;
Roehrig, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 207.
111
for the specialisation of animal husbandry.7 Lustig has
noted that cattle feature especially prominently at Meir,
with the animal appearing more commonly than any
other non-human creature in wall scenes from the site.8
Interestingly, this phenomenon is also identifiable among
models, with all known three-dimensional examples
depicting the earliest stages of the cycle, namely calving
and nursing, originating from Meir. This emphasis on cattle
in the representations highlights the importance of the
animal in both life and afterlife as well as the prominence
of animal husbandry in the daily lives of the individuals of
this particular region.9
Both the two- and three-dimensional calving
representations depict the same moment of the process: a
standing cow with the help of at least one human assistant
is in the moment of delivery, with the calf’s head and
forelegs already emerged. A normal delivery is consistently
portrayed in which the forelegs appear first followed
by the muzzle.10 Variations across the artworks occur,
however, in the extent to which the newborn’s body has
emerged from its mother. In some representations, only the
head and forelegs are visible, as is found in both models
now housed in Lyon [M173, M253], whereas in others, the
shoulders have also appeared, as is witnessed in the model
now housed in Toronto [M252; fig. 4.2] and in the scene on
the north wall of the outer room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep
II (B4) at Meir [S176; fig. 4.3].11 One minute detail that
forms a distinction between the two- and three-dimensional
media is the representation of the amniotic membrane. On
the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir, the
fluid emerges alongside the calf in the third register [S139;
fig. 4.1].12 The inclusion of this minute detail highlights
the Egyptians’ intimate knowledge of the calving process.
While it could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional
wall surface, incorporating it into the three-dimensional
design would have required exceptionally fine carving.
As it is not essential to conveying the process, the theme
could still be successfully expressed without it, but the
models are less detailed in their representation as a result.
7
Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 49-50; Eyre, Cannibal Hymn,
176.
8
Lustig, in Anthropology and Egyptology, 58.
9
Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 49-50.
10
Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 170; Jones, in Behind the
Scenes, 99.
11
The calves in the scenes displayed on the south wall of the tomb of
Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan [S55] and on the south wall of the inner
room of the tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5) at Deir el-Bersha [S66] have
suffered some damage in the region of the calf, preventing identification
of the extent to which the newborn has emerged.
12
It appears that the amniotic membrane may have also been included
in the calving scenes of Ahanakht I (N-5) [S66] and Ukh-hotep II (B4)
[S176; fig. 4.3], but damage to the scenes prevents certain identification.
Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 24.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 4.1. A herdsman aids the delivery of a calf; an overseer points a magical gesture; a man sleeps soundly through the
birth. Tomb of Senbi I (B1). South wall, register 3 [S139]. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 76 [detail];
courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
The depiction of the cow also exhibits many parallels
between the two media. Although in reality the cow would
lie down during delivery until the complete expulsion of the
calf, all of the two- and three-dimensional representations
display the animal in a standing position.13 This may
indicate that the cow experienced difficulties during
delivery.14 In fact, the discomfort of the cow is especially
highlighted in wall scenes through the careful illustration
of the animal’s posture. All five scenes examined depict
the tail raised in the air which is a sign of the restlessness
of the animal during delivery.15 The cow in the fourth
register of the south wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC)
at Beni Hassan also exhibits an arched back, a lifted head
and locked front legs as if it is bracing itself for the pain
it will endure [S55].16 An additional feature portrayed in
the scene of Senbi I (B1) is the protruding tongue which
symbolises vocalisation during the pain of labour [S139;
fig. 4.1].17 All of these minute details indicate physical
13
Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 170.
14
Evans has rightly noted that the standing posture was not due to
an inability to depict the cow lying down as both scenes and models
display the hand-feeding of recumbent cattle. Rather, it must have been a
deliberate design choice. The question then arises as to why this difficulty
of labour is portrayed in tombs. Evans has suggested the possibility that
tomb owners desired to publicly proclaim specific occasions where they
were able to achieve a successful delivery under extreme circumstances.
However, the fact that difficulty in birth is also represented in models
which were concealed from view in the burial chamber makes this
unlikely. Evans’ alternate proposal that abnormal deliveries were
common due to the naivety or deliberate practice of Egyptian herdsmen
to mate large bulls with small cows causing greater difficulties in labour
is more likely. Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 170-72.
15
Mee, in Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Conference, AABP, 36.
16
Newberry’s documentation positions this scene in the second register
of the south wall, but it was observed by the author during a visit to
the site that Newberry has incorrectly reversed the second and fourth
registers in his recording. Montet, Scènes de la vie privée, 98; Evans,
Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 171.
17
The protruding tongue is also noticeable on the south wall of the
tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) [S125] and probably on the north wall
of the outer room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) [S176; fig. 4.3], but
poor preservation prevents certain identification. Evans notes that cows
usually vocalise during delivery and although the tongue is not usually
visible when calling, scene-artists include it as a visual sign of the
112
discomfort and they could be easily drawn on the two-
dimensional wall surface, enabling scene-artists to clearly
illustrate the difficulties experienced during calving.
Models, on the other hand, do not display this same level
of discomfort. This difference in representation should
be attributed to the difficulty of crafting such intricate
details in three-dimensions. One of the Lyon models
is quite crudely carved, with the cow relatively basic in
its rendering [M253]. It has a roughly cylindrical body,
thin wobbly stick-like legs without defined hooves or
muscle, and is lacking ears, horns and tail.18 With such
basic rendering in detail, no features of pain are present
aside from its standing position and imminent delivery.
The Toronto calving model exhibits greater definition
in the shaping of the cow: the head is fully formed with
muzzle, eyes, ears and horns displayed, and the legs are
well-carved with defined muscle and hooves [M252;
fig. 4.2]. With higher quality carving, the model-artist
had the potential of including features that express the
animal’s discomfort. In this example, the hind legs are
straight and thrown slightly forward indicating a locked
position.19 However, the raised tail, which is especially
popular in wall scenes, is not included in the model. The
three-dimensional medium had the advantage of utilising
a variety of materials, and for the tail, plaited linen created
a more naturalistic portrayal.20 The nature of this material,
however, required it to hang down, thus preventing the
manipulation of the tail’s position to reflect the discomfort
animal’s bellowing during labour. Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian
Art, 171.
18
Two small holes at the top of the head may suggest that horns were
originally included but have since been lost.
19
This same attitude is adopted by the cow in one of the Lyon models,
although the legs are not as well-shaped [M173]. It is possible that this
model also conveys pain through bulging eyes as the eyes have been
painted onto slightly protruding curves in the wood. Darby, Ghalioungui
& Grivetti, Food. Volume 1, 108.
20
One of the Lyon models also presumably included a material tail
originally as a small hole is noticeable in the animal’s rear [M173].

Figure 4.2. Calving model said to be from Meir [M252]. Courtesy of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, © ROM:
910.18.16.1-3.
of the animal. Therefore, the incorporation of details of
distress was limited by the technical restrictions of the
three-dimensional medium as well as dependent upon the
skill of the individual artist.
Model-artists, however, had the advantage of a three-
dimensional perspective which enabled a holistic
representation of the cow not encountered in two-
dimensional scenes. This is exemplified in the depiction
of the udder. As the calving process does not require the
udder, its presence is not essential in the representations.
Accordingly, scene-artists have either excluded it from
their designs,21 or indicated it in a more minute fashion.
In the second register of the south wall of the inner room
of Ahanakht I’s tomb (N-5) at Deir el-Bersha, the udder
of the cow in labour is given some basic definition but is
partially hidden behind one hind leg [S66].22 This may be
contrasted with the adjacent scene of suckling where the
udder is essential to the process and so is more prominently
displayed. In two-dimensions, the profile view of the cow
would cause the near hind leg to at least partially obscure
21
See, for example, the cow in the seventh register of the south wall of
the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) which displays no sign of the udder
[S125].
22
Although Newberry has recorded that the calving and nursing scene
is located on the south wall of the outer room, the 1915 joint Harvard-
Boston expedition has revealed that the second and third registers in
fact belong to the south wall of the inner room. Brovarski, in Studies in
Ancient Egypt, 14.
113
Animal Husbandry
the udder unless the scene-artist deliberately altered the
arrangement of the legs. Conversely, the whole cow is
visible in three-dimensions and so all aspects of the figure
needed to be considered. Those components not essential
to a particular theme, such as the udder in calving, are
therefore still incorporated into the design. It has already
been observed that the model cows examined in this study
range in quality, yet in all three examples, the udder is
carved of wood underneath the rear part of the animal with
the teats well-defined [M173, M252, M253; see fig. 4.2].
The model-artist was required to consider the technical
capabilities of his medium which resulted in a design
distinct from that of wall scenes.
Alongside the cow and her calf, the human figures
who assist in the delivery are integral to calving
representations. This feature presents the greatest variety
across the artworks, with differences in the quantity of
figures involved and the postures they adopt.23 In all of
the representations examined, there is at least one man
who assists directly in the delivery. He stands or kneels
immediately behind the cow and pulls/supports the calf as
it emerges.24 Although this figure appears in both media,
greater variety and detail is exhibited in wall scenes. In the
23
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 67.
24
Normal calving does not require human assistance, so the presence of
the herdsman may be another sign that the cows experienced difficulties
during birthing. Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 170.
Preparing for Eternity
two-dimensional medium, the herdsman’s attire consists
of a short kilt with a sash or a simple loincloth,25 while on
the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) and on the north
wall of the outer room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4),
he is fully naked [S139, S176; figs. 4.1, 4.3]. The model
herdsmen, conversely, all wear simple white-painted knee-
length kilts which is by far the most common attire for
all three-dimensional figures as it could be easily painted
on the figure’s lower body. The herdsman in the Toronto
model, though, also preserves a linen garment wrapped
around his waist [M252; fig. 4.2].
Further differences are witnessed in the posture of the
herdsman. In the scenes of Senbi I (B1) and Ukh-hotep
II (B4), the man adopts a particularly active stance as he
exerts great effort to pull down on the calf [S139, S176;
figs. 4.1, 4.3]. He strides forward with his left leg while
lowering his right knee to the ground and leans backwards
with each hand gripping a foreleg. In contrast, the model
herdsmen all stand upright with their legs together and
arms simply extended to aid in the delivery. The range
of postures utilised for human figures in all models is
considerably restricted as carving the strained and active
movements displayed in wall scenes would have been
difficult to achieve in three-dimensions. Moreover, as each
figure was carved separately and attached individually to
the baseboard, it was difficult for model-artists to create
physical connections between them. For the herdsman,
this resulted in his hands merely residing next to the
calf, as is exhibited in one of the Lyon models [M173],
rather than grasping the legs. The variation found in the
two-dimensional representations of the herdsman resulted
from the ease with which modifications in both attire
and posture could be drawn on the two-dimensional wall
surface, whereas model-artists were hindered in their
ability to achieve such variety.
A second human figure appears in some of the
representations who either stands in front of the cow
and attempts to soothe the animal or behind the cow to
supervise and direct the work of the herdsman.26 In some
scenes, this man is clearly distinguished as an overseer
through his attire and posture. On the south wall of the
tomb of Senbi I (B1), for example, the overseer leans on
a tall staff and wears a striped projecting kilt, whereas the
herdsman is naked [S139; fig. 4.1]. The official stands
behind the animal and raises one hand in a pointed gesture
towards the delivery. While this attitude may simply
emphasise his command to the herdsman, it has also been
suggested to symbolise a magical gesture to protect the
newborn calf.27 Two of the models examined likewise
25
The kilt is worn by the herdsman in the scenes displayed on the south
wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5) [S66] and on
the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) [S125], while the
loincloth appears on the south wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) [S55].
26
Klebs, Reliefs des Alten Reiches, 62; Swinton, Management of
Estates, 37.
27
An almost identical scene is found on the north wall of the outer room
of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4), although this example has suffered
considerable damage [S176; fig. 4.3]. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie
114
include a secondary figure, but in neither example does
he exhibit signs of superior status. In the Toronto model,
the two human figures are almost identical in appearance,
both dressed in the same garments and adopting similar
postures [M252; fig. 4.2]. The man in front of the cow is
carved at a slightly larger scale than his companion which
perhaps suggests he holds some authority, although it is
more likely that he is a herdsman of equal status who
soothes the cow during delivery. The role of the figure
who stands in front of the cow in one of the Lyon models,
alternatively, is more difficult to comprehend: he stands
some distance away from the animal and, in conjunction
with his diminutive size, seems unable to contribute to the
care for the cow [M253].28 It is therefore quite possible that
he does not originally belong to this representation. Due to
the restricted range of movement that could be captured in
three-dimensions, the specifics of the secondary figure’s
role cannot always be determined with certainty.
Wall scenes likewise depict an additional herdsman but
could more clearly express his precise role through a detailed
depiction of his posture. The man before the cow in the
seventh register of the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep
I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan is attired as a herdsman like his
companion,29 and adopts a lowered, active stance as he pulls
on a rope looped around the cow’s rear leg presumably to
prevent it from kicking [S125].30 Alternatively, the scenes
of Senbi I (B1) and Ukh-hotep II (B4) include a third human
figure who is unusually seated on a folded mat, sleeping
soundly despite the noise of the birth [S139, S176; figs. 4.1,
4.3].31 This motif captures a moment of everyday life and
highlights the variety of attitudes that could be more easily
captured in two-dimensional designs.
Further differences in representation are witnessed in the
proportional size between the human figures and the cows.
In scenes, the humans and animals are usually conveyed
in realistic proportions, as is found on the north wall of the
outer room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) [S176; fig.
4.3]. However, in the scenes displayed on the south wall of
the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) and the south wall of the inner
room of the tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5), the herdsman who
is directly involved in the delivery is depicted at a much
smaller scale than the surrounding human and animal
figures [S55, S66]. The manipulation of size was regularly
used as an artistic device not only to convey the relative
importance of the figures, but also to effectively utilise the
égyptienne. Tome V, 65-66; Ritner, Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice,
227-31; Pinch, Magic, 59.
28
The man’s arms are missing, so any action he may have performed
remains unknown.
29
Both men wear a short white kilt and neither exhibits any clear sign
of authority.
30
The use of rope during calving is unusual and, in this scene, it is only
tied around one leg, so the animal could still kick with the other. Rope is
more common in milking scenes where it is bound around both hind legs
to prevent the cow from kicking. It is possible that its use in the calving
scene of Khnumhotep I was a copying error by the artist who confused
the two similar motifs. For a discussion on the use of rope in milking
scenes, see chapter 4.2. Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 181.
31
Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, 13; Kanawati & Evans,
Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 25.

Figure 4.3. A naked herdsman adopts an active stance as he aids the delivery of a calf; an overseer points a magical gesture;
a man sleeps soundly through the birth. Tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4). North wall of outer room, second lowest register [S176].
Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, pl. 4 [detail]; courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society.
available wall surface.32 It is probable that the small size
of the herdsman in these scenes facilitated his standing
posture while positioning him within the confined space
underneath the cow’s raised tail.
In models, on the other hand, the cows are consistently
emphasised through their immense size as they occupy the
majority of space on the baseboard and often reach a greater
height than their human companions. This is especially
evident in one of the Lyon models where the human
assistant is only just tall enough to aid in the delivery of the
calf [M173]. Although the cow forms an integral element of
both two- and three-dimensional calving representations, its
emphasis in models is especially noticeable. The lifecycle of
cattle features prominently in wall scenes, allowing the two-
dimensional medium to highlight the animal’s importance
through quantity of illustrations, whereas models are
typically more condensed in their representation. If a
single model of cattle was interred in the tomb, size was an
important means to emphasise the animal’s immense value
to the tomb owner.
Although the calving theme is not commonly found in the
two- and three-dimensional media and should therefore be
considered supplementary, its more regular occurrence in
Middle Egypt highlights the prominence of animal husbandry
in the region. Both media exhibit a similar portrayal of the
theme, highlighting the Egyptians’ knowledge of breeding
and birthing practices, although several differences occur as
a result of their contrasting technical properties. With the
ease of drawing minute details and active postures on the
wall surface, scene-artists could clearly convey the pain of
the cow and specify the roles of the human figures. Model-
32
Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 230; Robins, in Egyptian World,
360.
115
Animal Husbandry
artists, in contrast, encountered greater difficulty in crafting
strained movement in three-dimensions and consequently
presented less detailed and varied designs. The essential
elements of the theme could still be captured in three-
dimensions, and with their location in the burial chamber,
calving models provided the tomb owner with an eternal
supply of cattle which would offer a range of valuable
commodities and services for his afterlife.
4.2 Milking and nursing
Both the two- and three-dimensional media depict the next
stage in the lifecycle of cattle, namely the calf nursing
from its mother and the associated task of milking.
There is, however, a greater preference for nursing in the
representations examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and
Beni Hassan,33 with two models and six wall scenes that
illustrate the process and only one model and one wall scene
that depict milking.34 The representations demonstrate the
33
One of the nursing models, however, should be considered with caution.
This example is housed in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo and comprises
two different animal species arranged on a single baseboard: four of the
figures are identified as cattle with their black and white hides, while the
remaining three should be classified as donkeys by their colouring, the
shaping of their muzzles and the black cross lines on their necks [M288].
These two species do not usually appear together in representations and,
in conjunction with their unusual arrangement on the baseboard, it is quite
likely that the model is pastiche. Further, the donkeys are lacking some
colouring on their backs indicating that they may have originally carried a
load, possibly sacks of grain, and so may originate from a transport model.
If the positioning of the animals in this model is correct, then it appears that
a small calf is approaching its mother to suckle.
34
A second milking scene was identified in this study which could not
be examined as no record has been produced. It was identified by the
1990 joint Boston-Pennsylvania-Leiden expedition on the west wall of
tomb N-M at Deir el-Bersha and is described as depicting a diminutive
herdsman kneeling at a cow’s udder in a very similar manner to that
displayed on the south wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ahanakht
I (N-5) at Deir el-Bersha [S67]. Robinson, Silverman & Brovarski, in
Bersheh Reports I, 27.
Preparing for Eternity
Egyptians’ knowledge of the animal’s behaviour during
these processes and the methods required in obtaining its
products. Milk was a valuable commodity, providing a
source of nourishment, although due to the great expense
in maintaining cows, would have only been available to
the elite.35 Its acquisition by man through milking and
calves through suckling is represented similarly by scene-
and model-artists, but there is considerable variety in their
portrayal of the minute details and subsidiary components
of the theme.
While the formative stages of the calf’s development
do appear in a number of representations, only rarely is
more than one displayed in a single tomb. In fact, only
one tomb from the sites examined in this study depicts all
three processes of calving, milking and nursing, namely
that of Ahanakht I (N-5) at Deir el-Bersha where all three
are displayed on the south wall of the inner room [S66-
S67].36 The only other tomb to contain more than one of
these motifs is that of Ukh-hotep II (B4) at Meir where
both calving and nursing are displayed on the north wall
of the outer room [S176], although it is possible that other
examples originally existed which are not preserved. In
the three-dimensional medium, on the other hand, each
process is confined to its own baseboard and therefore
does not display any association between the motifs. As
all of the examples identified in this study originate from
Meir,37 it is possible that more than one model depicting
the early stages of the cattle’s lifecycle was interred in a
single tomb, but unfortunately the precise provenance of
each example remains unknown. Perhaps a single process
could symbolise all of the earliest stages of the cattle’s
lifecycle in both the two- and three-dimensional media.
In representations of milking and nursing, a close
relationship between the cow and her calf is portrayed
as it is of paramount importance to the success of both
processes. One of the ways in which this is conveyed
artistically is through positioning the animals close
together, although the media exhibit differences in their
arrangement. In nursing wall scenes, the calf is positioned
beneath the cow with its head upraised to reach the
udder.38 When the calf was no longer a newborn, it was
required to bend its legs to fit within this small space,
as is seen in the second register of the south wall of the
35
Sist, in Egyptian Civilization, 63; Brewer, in Egyptian World, 142;
Swinton, in Behind the Scenes, 47.
36
The milking vignette was not recorded by Newberry but was identified
by the 1990 joint Boston-Pennsylvania-Leiden expedition. Unfortunately,
its documentation only captures a small section of the scene and so
analysis is confined to this segment, which comprises two herdsmen and
the rear part of the cow [S67]. Freed, in Bersheh Reports I, 53.
37
The milking model today housed in Lyon was said to be from Asyut,
but a recent study undertaken by the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon has
demonstrated that it probably originates from Meir [M174]. Amoros, et
al., “Study and identification”, Hathor 1, (2012), 11-29.
38
See, for example, the small calves standing beneath their mothers
in the second register of the north wall of the tomb of Ipi (481 LC) at
Beni Hassan [S5], the fourth register of the north wall of the tomb of
Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan [S155], and on the north wall of the
outer room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) [S176].
116
tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) at Meir [S142].39 The calf in
the nursing model housed in Cairo is similarly fashioned
at a small scale and so resides mostly beneath its mother
with its head upraised [M288], while the model housed
in New York portrays a larger calf who stands adjacent to
the cow with only its head reaching under the mother’s
belly [M254; fig. 4.4]. This, in fact, reflects the real-life
positioning of the nursing calf who stands with its body
alongside its mother and suckles between the back and
front legs.40 The two-dimensional medium, on the other
hand, does not utilise depth, causing the calf to appear as
if it fully resides beneath its mother. The artist of the scene
displayed in the second register of the south wall of the
tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan has attempted
to overcome this limitation of perspective by depicting the
cow’s head turned back to lick the rump of the calf [S80;
fig. 4.6]. For this contact to be possible, at least the rear
of the young must remain to the side of her body. With
the advantage of a holistic perspective, models could more
accurately convey the spatial relationship between the cow
and calf during nursing.
A close connection between the cow and calf is also a vital
aspect of the milking procedure and is therefore displayed
in the representations. Egyptian herdsmen were aware
that the cow’s supply of milk was most abundant with the
presence of her calf and after the young had been allowed
to suckle.41 Accordingly, the calf is regularly displayed
standing close-by in both models and scenes of milking and
is usually unrestrained.42 In the model housed in Lyon, the
calf stands adjacent to its mother, looking in the direction
of the udder [M174; fig. 4.5]. A man stands beside it with
one arm raised, most likely in a ready position to hold the
calf back if required. The calf, however, shows no signs of
distress at being kept away from the milk nor does it display
any attempt to move forward, which may suggest that it has
already been fed.43 In contrast, wall scenes occasionally
display the calf physically restrained with ropes, presumably
to indicate that the young has just been pulled back from the
udder.44 Although this use of restraint is not evident in the
milking scene analysed in this study,45 it is found in some Old
Kingdom Memphite tombs. On the north wall of the tomb
of Akhet-hotep at Saqqara, for example, a calf is restrained
by a herdsman who holds a rope tied to one of its forelegs
while its mother is milked.46 The absence of restraint in the
three-dimensional medium does not seem to be the result of
technical limitations as models could certainly incorporate
rope materials in their designs. Rather, it reflects the variation
that was available to both scene- and model-artists in their
portrayal of auxiliary elements of the motif.
39
Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 178.
40
Phillips, Cattle Behaviour, 104.
41
Boessneck, Tierwelt, 67; Phillips, Cattle Behaviour, 103; Scanlan, in
Egyptian Art, 86.
42
Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 181.
43
Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 182.
44
Montet, Scènes de la vie privée, 107; Boessneck, Haustiere, 12.
45
As the only pictorial documentation of the milking scene from the
tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5) solely records the rear part of the cow and
the associated herdsmen, the presence of a calf remains unknown [S67].
46
Davies, Ptahhetep and Akhethetep. Part II, pl. 17.
 Animal Husbandry

Figure 4.4. Nursing model from Meir, with the calf extending its head towards the udder but not making direct contact
[M254]. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 11.150.5.

Figure 4.5. Milking model probably from Meir; a seated female worker raises one hand towards the udder; the calf stands
nearby to encourage the flow of milk [M174]. Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon: 1969-401 © MBA Lyon, Alain Basset.

117
Preparing for Eternity
One element of distinction between the two media that is
attributable to their specific technical capabilities is the
display of contact between the figures. In both milking and
nursing, direct contact is required between the calf and cow
as well as the herdsman and cow. However, it is distinctly
avoided in the three-dimensional representations. In the
Lyon milking model, the female worker seated beneath the
cow raises one hand towards the udder but does not actually
contact the teats [M174; fig. 4.5]. Similarly, the calf in the
New York nursing model extends its neck to reach the
udder and although the muzzle is slightly parted, it does
not actually suckle [M254; fig. 4.4]. This is contrasted
with wall scenes where direct contact is consistently
portrayed. In the milking scene displayed on the south
wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5),
the herdsman works the udder by grasping the teats with
one hand and the vessel with the other [S67].47 Likewise,
the nursing calf in the fourth register of the north wall of
the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan clasps its
muzzle around one of the teats and seems to pull down as
the udder is especially elongated [S155]. Further contact
between mother and calf is displayed in the second register
of the south wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) where the
cow turns its head back to lick the rump of the calf to guide
it towards the udder [S142].48 The absence of such touch
in models is quite striking and should be attributed to the
difficulty of crafting direct contact in three-dimensions.
For model figures to be joined, they needed to be carved
from the same piece of wood or fashioned at a precise scale
to be neatly fitted together. This would have required an
exceptionally high level of craftsmanship. Instead, model-
artists fashioned each component separately and attached
each one individually to the baseboard. Therefore, the
three-dimensional medium was hindered by modes of
construction, with the grips of the herdsman’s hand and
the calf’s muzzle merely implied by positioning the figures
close to one another.
Another point of contrast between the media is found in
their portrayal of the stance of the cow, but in this instance,
it may be attributed to a technical restriction of the two-
dimensional medium. In wall scenes, cows nursing their
young stride forward with their far legs which appears to
indicate movement. For this operation to be successful,
however, the cows would need to stand still. The cow in
the second register of the north wall of the tomb of Ipi (481
LC) at Beni Hassan stands among a procession of cattle and
steps forward with its left legs [S5]. This posture should
be understood as a means to keep all four legs in view in
the profile perspective, and the motif’s association with
the procession demonstrates the technique of arranging
associated vignettes on the same wall.49 However, it is also
possible that the scene-artist attempted to convey both the
movement and stationary pose simultaneously to express
47
This scene has apparently suffered some damage and so the intricacies
of the man’s hands can no longer be identified. From the surviving details,
it seems probable that both hands are directly engaged in the process.
48
Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 178.
49
Smith, Sculpture and Painting, 333; Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian
Art, 293; Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 72-73.
118
the animal’s sequence of motion: the cow would walk in
procession and then stop to allow its young to suckle, or
vice versa.50 In contrast, models could accurately capture
the stationary stance by aligning its legs in its front and
hind pairs without any component being hidden from view,
as is achieved in the New York nursing model [M254; fig.
4.4]. Working in three-dimensions, model-artists had the
advantage of a holistic perspective that enabled a more
naturalistic representation of the cow’s static posture.
While the cow and calf are integral to the nursing theme,
the herdsman’s role is not essential and therefore he only
occasionally appears in the representations.51 On the
south wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2), for example,
the calf suckles under the care of its mother without any
human supervision [S142]. Similarly, no human figures
are present to support the animals in the two nursing
models examined [M254, M288; see fig. 4.4].52 However,
in scenes where a human child is suckling directly from
the cow’s udder, a herdsman is represented. On the south
wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC), a herdsman stands
behind the cow in a slightly bent posture with his belt
swung over one arm and his arms lowered towards the
animals ready to provide assistance if required [S80; fig.
4.6], while on the south wall of the inner room of the tomb
of Ahanakht I (N-5), the herdsman in the second register
kneels while grasping the cow’s hind legs to give the child
clear access to the udder [S66]. These two representations
of children suckling are quite unusual and perhaps
illustrate unique moments experienced by the tomb
owners during their lifetimes. In the scene of Ahanakht
I, the child appears alone, whereas in that of Baqet III,
it suckles alongside the calf. Displaying such remarkable
motifs in the chapel made them accessible to visitors to
the tomb and so continually remembered. The absence of
children suckling in models is therefore presumably due
to the medium’s concealed location in the burial chamber.
Commemorating everyday life moments was not a priority
of the three-dimensional medium, with the models instead
concerned with provisioning the deceased for the afterlife.
The herdsman is essential to the operation of milking
and is consequently portrayed in both two- and three-
dimensional representations of this process. He is
consistently positioned under the belly to reach the udder,
although there is considerable variety in the depiction of
his posture. In the milking scene of Ahanakht I (N-5),
the man adopts an active stance with one knee resting
on the ground and the other leg striding in front [S67].
This strained movement is not as easily achieved in
three-dimensions and consequently the worker in the
50
Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 34.
51
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 68.
52
It is possible that a human figure was originally included in the New
York model due to the presence of two small holes in the baseboard at the
end opposite the cow [M254; fig. 4.4]. However, the holes are positioned
some distance away from the animals which suggests that if a human
figure was attached, he/she was not actively involved in the nursing
process.

Figure 4.6. A calf and human child suckle simultaneously;
the cow licks the rump of its young; a herdsman is ready
to provide assistance. Tomb of Baqet III (15 UC). South
wall, west panel, register 2 [S80]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni
Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 84 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian
Centre for Egyptology.
Lyon model, who is in fact female,53 is simply seated on
disproportionately small legs on the baseboard [M174; fig.
4.5]. Both of these figures use a vessel to catch the milk,
and in the scene of Ahanakht I, it is raised to rest directly
against the teats, allowing the milk to flow immediately
into it, while in the Lyon model, it is placed on the lap,
some distance away from the udder.54 This more removed
location is not unique to the three-dimensional medium
but is exhibited in several wall scenes from the Old
Kingdom. For example, in the tomb of Niankhkhnum and
Khnumhotep at Saqqara, a large vessel is positioned on
the ground beneath the cow on the west wall of the outer
hall in a similar manner to the model, but in this case the
scene-artist has included the additional detail of streams
of milk.55 The model-artist could not incorporate flowing
liquid into his three-dimensional design and so could only
imply the collection of milk through the placement of the
vessel beneath the udder. While the model is more limited
in detail, the positioning of the worker and vessel beneath
the cow still conveys the task of milking.
Although only a single herdsman is required during
milking, the representations sometimes include an
additional figure who restrains the legs of the cow to
53
The figure may be identified as female by her yellow skin and long
black hair which contrasts with the red complexion of her male co-
worker. She wears a simple white skirt which would have been more
appropriate for work in the fields than the tight-fitting dress. The
depiction of a woman is surprising in this role as wall scenes consistently
display men engaged in milking. Ghoneim, Ökonomische bedeutung des
Rindes, 222; Watterson, Women, 101.
54
The vessel in the scene of Ahankhat I (N-5) comprises a globular jar
with a narrow neck which finds some similarity with the hieroglyphic
sign for irTt ‘milk’, whereas in the model, it consists of a shallower dish
without a neck. Such variety in vessel shape is in fact common across all
milking representations. Montet, Scènes de la vie privée, 107; Ghoneim,
Ökonomische bedeutung des Rindes, 224-25.
55
Moussa & Altenmüller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep, pl. 76.
119
Animal Husbandry
prevent it from kicking.56 Old Kingdom wall scenes
often show the cow restrained by ropes which either pass
around both hind legs or are attached to the horns before
being tied to the rear legs,57 but in the scene of Ahanakht
I (N-5), the herdsman kneels directly behind the cow and
holds the hind legs together with his hands [S67]. This
restraint served an important role in preventing injury to
the herdsman as well as any loss of milk.58 However, the
cow in the Lyon model stands completely unrestrained
and the second herdsman simply accompanies it and the
calf [M174; fig. 4.5].59 It seems that the presence of the
calf was enough to calm the cow and facilitate a steady
flow of milk and the herdsman contributed to soothing
the cow and watching the calf rather than restraining
the legs. For supplementary components such as the
secondary herdsman, significant variety is achieved across
the representations which highlights the range of designs
available to both scene- and model-artists.
The theme of milking and nursing should be understood as
supplementary due to the limited number of representations,
but its occurrence in both media highlights the importance
of cattle in both life and afterlife. Its portrayal features
the same principal components in the two- and three-
dimensional media, but there are a number of differences
in detail. Many of these result from the specific technical
capabilities of each medium, with model-artists presenting
realistic arrangements of the animals but unable to create
direct physical contact, and scene-artists portraying
more active postures of the herdsmen yet hindered by
an absence of depth. However, much of the diversity is
also found across both media, particularly concerning the
less essential elements of the motifs. Model-artists were
therefore not required to duplicate wall scenes but could
create individual designs within the capabilities of their
medium.
4.3 Cattle in procession
With the esteemed value of their products and services,
cattle formed a vital part of the Egyptian economy and
were the most highly valued domestic animal.60 Only the
highest elite could afford a herd of cattle and consequently
representations of cattle in procession convey the superior
56
Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 72-74.
57
There is some chronological development in the method of tying the
rope to the animal. Most examples of the Old Kingdom illustrate the
hind legs tied together, as can be seen on the north wall of the hall of
the 5th Dynasty tomb of Akhet-hotep at Saqqara. Davies, Ptahhetep and
Akhethetep. Part II, pl. 17. Beginning in the 6th Dynasty, however, the
rope could be attached to the horns before passing to the hind legs, as is
achieved on the north wall of the pillared hall of the tomb of Kagemni at
Saqqara. Harpur & Scremin, Chapel of Kagemni, fig. 7; Evans, Animal
Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 181.
58
Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 181; Jones, in Behind the
Scenes, 100.
59
While it is possible that thread was originally wrapped around the
cow’s legs, this seems unlikely as the hind legs are slightly parted rather
than held close together and there is no human figure standing at the rear
to operate the restraint.
60
Germond & Livet, Egyptian Bestiary, 55; Houlihan, in History of the
Animal World, 104-05.
Preparing for Eternity
status and wealth of their owners.61 It is therefore not
surprising to find abundant representations of cattle in
procession on tomb-chapel walls where the animals would
be admired by visitors to the tomb. From Meir, Deir el-
Bersha and Beni Hassan, examples were identified on
over 35 different walls of 21 different tombs. The animals
appear in parades of herds before the tomb owner, in
groups for the cattle count, led across bodies of water, and
as offerings presented for eternity. Conversely, in the three-
dimensional medium, cattle in procession do not feature
nearly as prominently, with only five models identified
from the three sites under investigation. In addition to
this vast difference in corpus, there are several contrasting
details in the design of the cattle and herdsmen as well as
the context of the processions. These differences indicate
that scene- and model-artists each created a representation
of the theme according to their medium’s specific role in
the tomb.
The size of the herd represented is especially important
in wall scenes as it visually expresses the tomb owner’s
superior status to any visitors to the tomb. Therefore,
exceptional numbers of cattle are a prominent feature of
the two-dimensional medium. One particularly large herd
is observed on the west wall of the inner room of the tomb
of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha where three
groups of calves are displayed in the seventh register, a
procession of five oxen in the eighth register and a very
large herd of over 60 cattle in the lowest register [S212;
fig. 4.7]. The grandeur of the herds is further emphasised
in scenes through accompanying inscriptions. By the late
6th Dynasty, herd numbers were regularly cited in these
labels, sometimes with extremely large quantities.62
Although only a small number of cattle are depicted
iconographically in the third and fourth registers of the
east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black
(A2) at Meir, the captions indicate they are representative
of large herds [S38]. The pair of cattle in the third register
is labelled jdt 10,100 ‘10,100 cows’ while the second ox
in the fourth register is captioned xA ngAw ‘1,000 long-
horned oxen’.63
In contrast, models do not display grand herd sizes nor
do they include captions citing herd numbers. Each model
procession examined in this study comprises only one or
two oxen,64 and although these animals may be symbolic
of larger herds, the representations do not emphasise this.
61
Janssen & Janssen, Household Animals, 28; Brewer, in Egyptian
World, 142; Jones, in Behind the Scenes, 97.
62
This increase in herd sizes was particularly significant during the late
Old Kingdom when the administration sought to enhance the productivity
of the land in Upper Egypt as a response to a series of low Nile floods.
The captions demonstrate that the provincial administrators were able to
achieve this with considerable success. Swinton, Management of Estates,
42-45, 132-33; Kanawati & Swinton, Egypt in the Sixth Dynasty, 121,
125.
63
Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, 54.
64
A rare exception to the small herd sizes represented in the three-
dimensional medium is found in a model from the tomb of Meketre at
Thebes. In this unique example, a large procession of cattle under the
supervision of several herdsmen is paraded before the tomb owner.
These animals are presented for inspection and the rendering of accounts.
120
Textual captions are rarely utilised in the three-dimensional
medium and none of the model processions feature any
inscriptions. Such a vastly restricted number of cattle
should most likely be attributed to the medium’s location
in the burial chamber. Concealed from view, the models
could not contribute to the public proclamation of the
tomb owner’s wealth and status and therefore a large herd
was unnecessary. Instead, the three-dimensional medium
functioned for the deceased’s benefit in the afterlife and so
a single ox may have been considered sufficient to provide
the desired services.
Further contrast between the two- and three-dimensional
media is found in their arrangement of multiple cattle
in a single herd. Working in three-dimensions, model-
artists could position the animals in any location on the
baseboard without any component being hidden from
view. In a model likely from Meir, for example, the two
cattle are arranged as a pair standing side-by-side on
the baseboard [M256]. Conversely, scene-artists were
restricted to a two-dimensional perspective that prevented
the same realistic arrangement. The animals are depicted in
profile and if they were to be positioned side-by-side, only
the one nearest to the viewer would be seen. Therefore,
scene-artists utilised different methods to overcome this
difficulty and convey multiple cattle arranged in a single
group. One of the ways in which this was achieved was
through placing the animals seemingly above one another,
as is found in the scene of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) where the
groups of calves are separated into different sub-registers
[S212; fig. 4.8].65 In such an arrangement, the animals are
understood as standing side-by-side with the one above
further from the viewer.66 Alternatively, the herd could be
positioned in single file along the register line, as is seen in
the second register of the north wall of the tomb of Ipi (481
LC) at Beni Hassan [S5]. This arrangement could convey
that the group either stands next to each other or behind
one another.67 From the representation alone, it cannot
be deduced which positioning is expressed, but through a
comparison with the three-dimensional medium, it may be
assumed that the animals walk alongside each other.
More commonly, the technique of lateral laying is utilised
by scene-artists which involves closely overlapping
the body of one animal with that of the next.68 This
arrangement clearly conveys that the herd advances beside
one another rather than in single file. These groups are
typically in unified motion, with the cattle adopting the
Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46724. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pl.
13.
65
A similar situation is witnessed on the north wall of the tomb of Ukh-
hotep III (C1) at Meir where two oxen are placed one above the other in
the fourth register [S217; see fig. 6.7]. In this example, however, there is
no secondary register line, but rather the upper ox simply resides in the
empty space.
66
Anderson, in Egyptian Art, 39; Tiradritti, Egyptian Wall Painting, 18-
19.
67
Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 172-73.
68
Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 178-79; Evans, Animal Behaviour
in Egyptian Art, 63.
 Animal Husbandry

Figure 4.7. Part a large herd of cattle processing in closely overlapping groups. Tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2). West wall of inner room, centre panel, register 9 [S212]. Newberry, El
Bersheh. Part I, pl. 17 [detail]; courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society.

Figure 4.8. Calves ushered forward on leashes, with the groups separated into sub-registers. Tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2). West wall of inner room, centre panel, register 7 [S212].
Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pl. 18 [detail]; courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society.

121
Preparing for Eternity
same stance.69 In order for each animal to be individually
distinguished, the decoration of the hide is regularly
alternated. On the south wall of the tomb of Khety (17
UC) at Beni Hassan, for example, a large herd of closely
overlapping cattle is displayed in the second register [S99;
fig. 4.9]. The colours and patterns of the hides alternate
between light and dark shades, and spotted and plain
decoration. However, incorporating such a large number
of animals in a small section of wall often resulted in the
absence of certain elements, most commonly the hind
legs.70 Khety’s group comprises a typical example where
both front legs are depicted for each animal, but the hind
legs have been detailed for the last few oxen only. While
each of these techniques allowed scene-artists to overcome
the limitations of their medium and convey multiple cattle
in a single herd, they could not achieve the same realistic
arrangement as models.
Occasionally, an individual member of the herd adopts a
different action or motion, interrupting the uniformity of
the overlapping group. A number of these irregularities are
displayed in the procession on the south wall of the tomb of
Senbi I (B1) at Meir [S138]. In the second register, one herd
member lowers its head to nibble on a shrub while close
behind another has laid on the ground, apparently refusing
to move. In a small group at the extreme left of the register,
one cow turns its head back and protrudes its tongue
suggesting vocalisation, while the last animal unusually
stops to scratch its head with its hind leg.71 Such minute
details capture a sense of realism, expressing moments
as they would have occurred in everyday life. These
details, however, are not found in the three-dimensional
medium. Not only would the intricacies of these actions
be extremely difficult to carve in three-dimensions, but
models were more concerned with functioning for the
deceased’s benefit. In these condensed representations,
such everyday life details were not essential.
Further differences are found in the media’s rendering of
each animal. Scene-artists could more easily incorporate
intricate details that distinguish different ages, genders
and breeds. On the east wall of the tomb of Djehuty-nakht
(N-10) at Deir el-Bersha, for example, the leading long-
horned ox in the third register is especially large with
strong muscular definition and so is probably a bull, while
the second animal is smaller, less muscular and has quite
horizontal horns, indicating it may be a cow [S69]. Close
69
The herd in the ninth register of the west wall of the inner room of the
tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) is seemingly divided into smaller groups
[S212; fig. 4.7]. Almost all of the cattle closely overlap, although the line
is broken up by some animals displayed in full view. This arrangement
creates the impression of several rows of cattle, with those in full view
marking the end of each line. Furthermore, the cattle in each ‘row’ adopt
the same stance, with the lines alternating between legs striding forward,
and the front and hind legs aligned in pairs.
70
Only rarely are all four legs drawn for each animal in large herds. One
example is found on the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir
where all seven cattle in the overlapping herd in the third register have all
four legs displayed [S139]. Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 184-85.
71
The scratching of the head is in fact a rarely attested action in wall
scenes. Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 63, 76; Kanawati &
Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 23.
122
behind walks a third animal, possibly a calf, which is even
smaller in size and does not have fully grown horns.72
Such details could not be as easily fashioned in three-
dimensions, causing models to usually present a more
basic rendering of the animal.
Both media, however, utilise the technique of altering the
size of the cattle to emphasise certain components. In one
of the models likely from Meir, the cattle are much larger
than the herdsman, dominating both the length and height
of the model [M255; fig. 4.13]. As was observed in the
discussion on calving in chapter 4.1, this disproportionate
size probably emphasises the importance of cattle in more
condensed representations. Scene-artists could also modify
the size of the animals, but in some instances, the cattle are
disproportionately small. Four cattle are scattered among
the procession of offering-bearers in the fifth register of
the east panel of the south wall of the tomb of Amenemhat
(2 UC) at Beni Hassan [S161]. Each one is unrealistically
small, although the first three are individually labelled
as either rn n jwA ‘prime ox’ or rn n wnDw ‘prime short-
horned ox’.73 Unlike processions in the field, cattle in lines
of offering-bearers form one type of commodity among a
range of goods. In these scenes, the emphasis is rather on
the quantity and array of products and the importance of
the offering-bearers who presented them.
The herdsman was responsible for the cattle and so he
appears consistently alongside the processions in both
the two- and three-dimensional representations. In wall
scenes, he is distinguished by a unique appearance,
generally quite lean, often unshaven and/or balding,
wearing a garment ranging from a simple belt to a short,
tight kilt, with sagging stomach muscles, and carrying
supplies for himself and his animals.74 There is, however,
much variety within these parameters. The herdsmen on
the south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni
Hassan exhibit diversity in attire, with those in the second
register mostly wearing the plain short kilt while two in
the fourth register solely wear a simple belt tied around
the waist [S80]. Alternatively, the projecting kilt of the
master drover is worn by all four herdsmen in the upper
two registers of the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh
the Middle (D2) at Meir [S11]. Variety in body weight
is identified on the west wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I
(B2) at Meir where the elderly official walking behind the
herd exhibits rolls of fat across his stomach [S146], while
in the scene of Baqet III (15 UC), the second herdsman
leading a single ox in the second register is noticeably lean
and walks with the aid of a tall staff [S80]. Additionally,
the unkempt appearance of the herdsman is discernible
in many scenes, including in the sixth register of the
72
Willems, Dayr al-Barshā. Volume I, 42.
73
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, 51-52. Similarly, a
diminutive ox is led by the leading offering-bearer in the third register of
the north wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir [S8]. The
elevated status of the bearer is conveyed by his projecting kilt and sash.
A wide variety of other goods are transported by the bearers behind who
wear simple tight-fitting kilts.
74
Strouhal, Life, 109; Swinton, Management of Estates, 39.

Figure 4.9. Cattle in procession, with the colours and patterns of each hide alternating. Tomb of Khety (17 UC). South wall,
west panel, register 2 [S99]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 65a [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre
for Egyptology.
north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni
Hassan where one of the men standing among the herd of
cattle displays a receding hairline and beard [S189]. This
scene also illustrates some of the supplies transported,
with another herdsman carrying vessels and a basket
suspended from a yoke across his shoulders. Additionally,
the herdsman could be portrayed with signs of physical
deformities. Particularly common are deformed legs, as is
displayed in the scene of Baqet III (15 UC) where at least
two of the herdsmen leading cattle in the second register
walk with unnaturally bent legs [S80]. Incorporating such
details in scenes conveys the age, status and health of
the herdsmen who tended the cattle in everyday life. The
intricacies of this appearance could be easily drawn on the
two-dimensional wall surface, enabling scene-artists to
achieve considerable variety and detail in their rendering
of his figure.
Model herdsmen, in contrast, do not exhibit the same
physical characteristics nor do they display such variation
in design. In four of the five models examined, the
herdsmen all have short black hair and wear short, tight,
white-painted kilts [M42, M255, M256, M262; see fig.
4.13]. With this appearance, they form standard figures
that could be associated with any theme. Alternatively, the
model from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) at Deir
el-Bersha features some of the herdsman’s distinguishing
characteristics: the two leading herdsmen wear short,
white-painted kilts with one end hitched up over the
shoulder while the man walking behind the cattle wears a
simple knee-length garment; one of the leading herdsmen
is balding with the red skin of his crown emerging from a
rim of black-painted hair [M150; fig. 4.10]. These details
are quite unusual in the three-dimensional medium and
demonstrate the desire and skill of this model-artist to
achieve the herdsman’s characteristic appearance. More
typically, however, such intricacies are excluded from
the three-dimensional designs due to the difficulty of
fashioning them in small sculptural forms. This factor
is particularly significant for achieving variation in
body weight which is one of the identifying features of
123
Animal Husbandry
the herdsman’s appearance. Model figures are typically
carved with basic body structures that lack bone and
muscular definition, and while such details are achieved in
formal statues, they are rarely incorporated in statuettes of
serving figures.75 Consequently, a model figure is typically
only identified as a herdsman by his location alongside a
procession of cattle.
The two-dimensional medium achieves further elaboration
in its representation of the herdsman by distinguishing
foreigners. In particular, the Beja-herdsman was a
renowned pastoralist whose services were highly valued by
the Egyptians especially following the First Intermediate
Period.76 He may be easily identified in scenes by his
unique appearance: he has bushy hair, an unshaven face,
an emaciated body with very thin limbs and prominent ribs
and shoulder-bones, and leans on a staff fashioned from
a tree-branch.77 The Beja-herdsman typically assumes the
leading position in the procession, as can be seen in the
second register of the south wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep
I (B2) [S142; fig. 4.11].78 This figure in fact has been given
particular attention by the scene-artist with unusually high
75
Formal statues of the tomb owner are typically carved at a larger
scale and exhibit a finer quality of craftsmanship. Serving figures are
not usually given the same attention. A rare example of a model figure
displaying fat and muscle is found in a statuette of a priest housed in the
Bristol Museum & Art Gallery: H4599. The man has defined pectoral
muscles and rolls of fat across his stomach, showing an exceptional level
of carving for a small sculpture.
76
Roth, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 162-63; Kanawati &
Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 23; Moreno Garcia, State in Ancient
Egypt, 101-02.
77
Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Volume I, 32; Kanawati & Evans,
Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 49.
78
Beja-herdsmen adopt the initial position in many scenes, including
in the second register of the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1)
[S138-S139], and on the north wall of the outer room of the tomb of
Ukh-hotep II (B4) at Meir [S176]. Interestingly, the foreigner appears in
three separate processions in the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2): in addition
to his depiction on the south wall, he features on the north and west walls
[S140, S146]. There are some differences in the rendering of these three
Beja-herdsmen which may suggest they are representations of different
individuals.
Preparing for Eternity

Figure 4.10. Model procession of cattle of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), accompanied by three herdsmen [M150]. Photograph ©
2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.831.

Figure 4.11. A Beja-herdsman leading three cattle on leashes. Tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2). South wall, register 2 [S142].
Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 86 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

skill exhibited in the rendering of his features.79 Scenes
also display evidence of foreign cattle being utilised by
the Egyptians alongside those bred domestically. On the
north wall of the outer room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II
(B4) at Meir, for example, an accompanying inscription
identifies some of the cattle in the lowest register as aAmw,
often understood as Asiatic [S176].80 While this foreign
influence is identifiable in wall scenes, all of the herdsmen
displayed in the models examined are recognisably
Egyptian with their red skin, black wigs and white kilts.
Foreigners, in fact, rarely appear in the three-dimensional
repertoire with the known examples discussed in chapter

79
While much of the decoration of the chapel was left unfinished or
was completed in haste, great care was taken in the rendering of this
foreign figure. Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part II, 17-18; Kanawati
& Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 39.
80
The inscription is associated with the much-defaced group of cattle
on the right of the register: ‘the bulls of the aAmw, brought from…’.
Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, 13; Saretta, Asiatics, 122;
Moreno Garcia, “Trade and power”, JArchRes 25.2, (2017), 115-16.

124

6.2. Additionally, with the absence of explanatory labels,
the origins of the model cattle can only be assumed to be
Egyptian. The representation of foreigners in association
with herds in wall scenes forms an expansion upon the
theme and allows the tomb owner to publicly proclaim his
access to specialised herdsmen and foreign animals during
life.
In processions, the herdsman’s role is to guide the cattle
forward in an orderly manner. The representations
typically depict at least one herdsman at the front of the
parade and one at the rear with sometimes more scattered
throughout.81 In wall scenes, the herdsman who walks in
the leading position often adopts an attitude of respect as
he approaches a large figure of the tomb owner. On the
south wall of room 3 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black
(A2), the leading herdsman in each of the three registers
adopts a humble attitude: all three men bend forward
slightly and one crosses the left arm over the chest as they
approach a large seated figure of their master [S32; fig.
4.12]. The man at the rear of each procession, in contrast,
stands upright as he is not directly in the tomb owner’s
presence.
A similar arrangement is found in the model of Djehuty-
nakht (R-10A) [M150; fig. 4.10]. This sculpture has
previously been classified as transporting cattle through
marshland based on two main elements: the bent posture
of the leading herdsmen and the sinking of the figures’
feet into the baseboard.82 However, both features may
be more adequately explained. Only the leading two
herdsmen bend forward and direct their gaze towards the
ground while the man walking at the rear stands upright.83
This closely parallels the posture of the herdsmen in the
scene of Pepyankh the Black (A2). Although there is
no representation of the tomb owner in the model, its
placement in the burial chamber positions it near the body
and accordingly the leading herdsmen still approach their
master. Additionally, the absence of feet may be understood
as a construction technique rather than a design to indicate
mud. The figures were attached to the baseboard with
pegs, causing the legs to terminate at the ankles unless the
feet were added in paint or plaster.84 Figures without feet
are found in a wide range of models, many of which depict
81
Only rarely are processions of cattle portrayed without herdsmen.
One example may be found on the west wall of the tomb of Khety (17
UC) where the parade of cattle in the third register advances towards the
right without any direct human assistance [S103]. In other instances, an
absence of herdsmen may be attributed to poor preservation, such as on
the north wall of the tomb of An-ankhy (L-15J67/1) at Deir el-Bersha
[S2] and on the north wall of the exterior approach to the statue-recess of
Ukh-hotep II (B4) [S180].
82
Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 158-61.
83
Freed and Doxey have proposed that the final man’s upright posture
indicates that he has not yet entered the marshy area. This seems
improbable as the human and animal figures are positioned close together
and so would be walking in the same environment. Additionally, his
feet are likewise missing which, according to their explanation, would
suggest that he too is walking through mud. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets
of Tomb 10A, 161.
84
Winlock, Models of Daily Life, 74; Tooley, Egyptian Models and
Scenes, 64.
125
Animal Husbandry
indoor activities.85 The model of Djehuty-nakht therefore
may be more appropriately classified as the procession of
cattle before the tomb owner.
To encourage the cattle to move forward, the herdsmen
adopt several different methods. One technique represented
by both media is the use of a leash. This rope is fastened
to the muzzle and is typically held by a herdsman walking
in front of the animal. In the model from the tomb of Intef
(1 LC) at Beni Hassan, the herdsman leads an ox with
his right arm lowered in front [M42]. A small hole in his
clenched hand and one piercing the nose of the ox suggest
that a leash was originally connected to the animal and
held by the herdsman.86 The two-dimensional medium
could not utilise real rope, but a leash is regularly drawn
in the scene. Most often, it simply touches the muzzle
without any clear indication of how it is connected, as is
found in the fourth register of the north wall of the tomb of
Baqet III (15 UC) [S74]. However, in some scenes more
detail is provided. In the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2), for
example, an overlapping group of three oxen is led on
ropes held by a Beja-herdsman in the second register of
the south wall [S142; fig. 4.11]. The ox furthest from view
has the additional detail of the rope tied around its muzzle,
providing a clear indication of the leash’s attachment.87
This method of controlling the animals’ movement is
common across the representations and could be conveyed
in both two- and three-dimensions.
A second technique involving prodding the cattle forward
with sticks is also exhibited by both media. The herdsman
using this tool typically stands behind the cattle and raises
it above them, ready to strike if required. In a model said
to be from Deir el-Bersha, a herdsman walks behind the
oxen with both arms extended in front [M262]. His left
hand is clenched with a hole pierced through it, suggesting
that he originally held a stick above the animals. Similarly,
the rear herdsman in the model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)
grips a stick, although he holds it at rest by his side [M150;
fig. 4.10]. The two models likely from Meir now housed in
Lyon likewise feature a man positioned behind the cattle
[M255-M256; see fig. 4.13].88 Although the Musée des
85
See, for example, models depicting bread-making and brewing beer
[M43, M56, M71, M72, M164, M178] and spinning and weaving [M151,
M152, M206] where it is certain that the figures stand on solid ground,
yet no feet are represented on the baseboard.
86
A similar situation is found in the model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)
where the two leading herdsmen each grasp a leash that is connected to
an ox [M150; fig. 4.10]. This model, however, has been restored and so
the thread leashes are not original. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient
Egypt, 62; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, “Model of men herding cattle”,
viewed 6 September 2017, <https://collections.mfa.org/objects/143832>.
87
This scene has the unusual detail of a second rope utilised to control
the oxen: a herdsman standing behind the group holds a rope seemingly
attached to their horns. Alternatively, on the north wall of the same tomb,
three cattle are ushered forward and each has a leash connected to its
mouth yet only that of the first is held by the Beja-herdsman while the
other two simply hang down [S140]. Presumably, this indicates that the
same herdsman holds the leashes of all three oxen, but to prevent the
ropes from obscuring any figure from view, they are portrayed as pendant.
88
Both models were said to be from Asyut, but a recent study undertaken
by the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon has demonstrated that they
probably originate from Meir. Amoros, et al., “Study and identification”,
Hathor 1, (2012), 11-29.
Preparing for Eternity

Figure 4.12. Cattle ushered forward in procession, with the leading herdsman in each register adopting a humble attitude.
Tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2). South wall of room 3, registers 2-4 [S32]. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II,
pl. 82 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

Figure 4.13. Model procession of cattle probably from Meir, comprising two disproportionately large cattle ushered forward
by a single herdsman [M255]. Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon: 1969-400 © MBA Lyon, Alain Basset.

126

Beaux-Arts de Lyon has classified them as representations
of ploughing, the human figures adopt the attitude of
herdsmen rather than ploughmen.89 Their arms are held
straight and at least one has a hole pierced through each
hand indicating that items were originally held, possibly
sticks.90 Wall scenes present this same manipulation of the
tool. On the west pilaster of the north wall of the tomb
of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan, the herdsman
raises a stick above the rear of the final animal in the
second register [S112]. Alternatively, the herdsmen on
the west wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-
hotep (N-2) use their sticks to rally the cattle into one
large group: the men stand at each end of the procession
in the ninth register and face towards the animals in an
active stance with their sticks raised [S212]. This tool is
prominent across the representations demonstrating that
both scene- and model-artists could convey the main
methods adopted by herdsmen to maintain control of their
charges.
Wall scenes, however, expand upon the theme by
illustrating some additional methods used to usher the
oxen forward. One approach of particular interest is the
use of a calf to entice the mother. Egyptian herdsmen were
aware that the bond between a cow and her newborn calf
was so strong that if the young was separated from its
mother, the cow would make every effort to be reunited
with it.91 Accordingly, many scenes show a calf carried
by a herdsman while the mother cow and the rest of the
herd follow closely behind. The calf may be carried on the
back of the herdsman with the hind legs hanging down, as
is displayed on the south wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I
(B2) [S142], or it may be held across the shoulders with its
head and legs secured against the chest, as is found on the
north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S189].
The distress of both the cow and calf is exhibited in a
number of scenes, with that on the north wall of the tomb
of Amenemhat (2 UC) particularly expressive: the calf in
the fourth register turns its head to look behind while the
mother extends her head towards her young and protrudes
her tongue as an indication of vocalised distress [S155].92
Not only is this method of enticing the cattle forward not
89
Both men stand upright rather than bending forward in an active
stance like the ploughman. While the fieldhand lowers both arms to
grip and push down on the plough, the arms of these model figures are
held straight with at least one man extending an arm towards the cattle.
Moreover, there is no sign of any yokes or ploughs on the oxen nor on
the baseboards, and the separated pieces appear to be tails rather than
ploughs as they are coloured in the same pattern as the animals’ hides
and the rears of the cattle display signs of damage. See chapter 2.1 for a
discussion on ploughing representations. Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon,
“Le labourage – Modèle funéraire”, viewed 9 January 2018, <http://
collections.mba-lyon.fr/fr/search-notice/detail/1969-400-le-lab-04d29>;
<http://collections.mba-lyon.fr/fr/search-notice/detail/1969-403-le-lab-
f16be>.
90
The holes piercing the man’s hands are clear in one record [M256] but
are not discernible in the images available for the other [M255; fig. 4.13].
91
Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 72.
92
Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 72. Unusually, in a number
of scenes the minute detail of the calf turning its head is incorporated
when there are no cattle walking behind: on the south wall of the tomb
of Baqet III (15 UC) [S80], on the north and south walls of the tomb of
Khnumhotep I (14 UC) [S119, S124], and on the south wall of the tomb
of Nekhti (21 UC) at Beni Hassan [S150]. This suggests that the motif
127
Animal Husbandry
displayed in models, but no calves are exhibited in any
of the three-dimensional processions. Instead, the focus
is solely on the two principal elements of the cattle and
herdsmen.
An additional motif associated with herds of cattle that is
only represented in the two-dimensional medium is the
activity of fording the river. Cattle were moved around the
estate for continual access to food and at times this journey
required transport across water.93 Scenes that illustrate
this movement display the herdsmen carefully guiding
their charges across the water, protecting them from any
dangers. Depending on the depth of the river, the cattle
either swim or wade, and are often enticed forward by a
herdsman who suspends a calf over the side of a boat.94
On the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), for
example, the cattle progress through deep water with only
their heads visible [S168; fig. 4.14]. The herdsmen are
positioned in two boats, one on either side of the herd,
with a calf suspended from the first boat by a rope.95 This
riverine journey, however, is not included in the model
repertoire. Not only would it have been extremely
difficult to capture the riverine environment in three-
dimensions, but the motif expresses an everyday life
moment that would not have been required in the burial
chamber.
Scene-artists regularly position the processions to occur
under the watchful gaze of the tomb owner. His figure is
typically represented at a grand scale at the forefront of
a series of registers with the herds of cattle sometimes
aligned with his head, highlighting their esteemed value.96
On walls devoted to agriculture and animal husbandry, his
figure usually adopts a formal standing posture with one
was so prominent that it was copied in many tombs and inserted into
different spaces without the necessity of the herd.
93
While it has regularly been assumed that fording scenes illustrate the
movement of herds to and from the Delta, some doubt has been cast over
this as marshy areas existed everywhere along the Nile. Instead, the cattle
probably remained in the vicinity of the tomb owner’s estate. Janssen &
Janssen, Household Animals, 27; Brewer, in History of the Animal World,
444; Strauss-Seeber, in Egypt, 381; Swinton, Management of Estates, 49.
94
A total of six fording scenes were identified from Meir, Deir el-
Bersha and Beni Hassan, and in these representations, the cattle typically
move in an ordered manner, although occasionally they display signs
of distress [S36, S48, S64, S109, S168, S199]. On the west wall of the
tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), the cattle appear agitated with two of the
herd lifting their bodies out of the water and attempting to swim in the
opposite direction [S199]. Crocodiles appear in the water, and although
they regularly feature in this motif without frightening the cattle, in this
instance they must have come too close. The cattle are not preserved
in the fording scene displayed on the west wall of the tomb of Khety
(17 UC), but the presence of a calf dangled over the side of a boat by
herdsmen attests to their occurrence in the original design [S109]. Klebs,
Reliefs des Alten Reiches, 60-61; Arnold, in Servant of Mut, 2-4; Evans,
Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 71; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan.
Volume I, 39-40; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, 22.
95
Some of the herdsmen in the boats extend one arm with their hand in
a pointed gesture, possibly uttering spells to protect the cattle from the
dangers of the river. Ritner, Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, 225-31;
Pinch, Magic, 121; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, 31.
96
The procession is aligned with the tomb owner’s head on the east wall
of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) [S11]. Siebels, “Agriculture
in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 15; Swinton, Management
of Estates, 39.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 4.14. Cattle fording a river. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). West wall, south panel, register 7, right [S168]. Kanawati &
Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 90 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
hand holding a long staff,97 although he can also be seated
on a chair or palanquin.98 A viewing inscription regularly
separates his figure from the registers and specifies the
nature of the activities taking place.99 On the south wall
of the tomb of Senbi I (B1), a standing figure of the owner
occupies the height of the two lowest registers which are
largely devoted to processions of cattle and slaughtering
[S139]. The accompanying inscription identifies the tomb
owner’s action as mAA jwAw sDAw ‘viewing the precious
oxen’.100 Conversely, both the tomb owner and the viewing
inscription are excluded from the three-dimensional
corpus examined in this study. This should be attributed
to the medium’s location in the burial chamber where the
model cattle were able to process directly to the deceased
himself, and therefore a representation of his figure was
unnecessary.101
In addition to situating the theme before the tomb owner’s
figure, scenes could depict a specific context in which
the procession occurs. Herds of cattle mostly occur
without a specific background setting,102 but occasionally
environmental details are included. For example, the
processions displayed on the south wall of room 3 and the
east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2)
include small shrubs and other plants scattered between the
animals’ legs which clearly indicates that the animals are
97
See, for example, the south wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at
Beni Hassan where the tomb owner is displayed once on the east panel
overseeing four registers devoted to the activities of cattle [S54], and
once on the west panel where he views five registers of figures wrestling,
processions of animals and agricultural activities [S56].
98
Ukh-hotep I (B2) is shown seated on a chair with a low cushioned
back and lion’s legs while holding a staff in one hand and a folded cloth
in the other on the north wall of his tomb [S140]. Alternatively, on the
east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), the tomb
owner has just arrived by palanquin to inspect the cattle count: he is
squatting on a seat placed on the ground in the top register to the right
of the doorway with a flail in one hand and a baton in the other [S38].
Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I “, 17-19.
99
Swinton has categorised the viewing inscriptions according to three
main types: those that describe the offerings or activities viewed, those
that pronounce the source of the offerings or activities, and those that
denote the geographical location. Swinton, Management of Estates, 120-
21; Hudáková, in (Re)productive Traditions, 373.
100
Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 24.
101
The close association between models and the body of the tomb
owner will be further discussed in chapter 7.
102
Kanawati, “Specificity”, ASAE 83, (2009), 271.
128
gathered outside in the fields [S32, S38; see fig. 4.12]. Such
environmental details are not included in models, with the
baseboards instead remaining undecorated.103 The context
of the procession could also be specified in scenes through
its precise placement on the wall. Similar themes are
regularly arranged on the same wall and with the advantage
of space, multiple scenes could be grouped together. In
some instances, scribes appear before the processions
indicating that the animals are specifically gathered for the
cattle count. On the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep
II (3 UC), for example, the parade of herds not only
approaches a group of scribes, but administrative officials
are scattered throughout the animals, tallying and recording
the quantities [S189].104 Alternatively, processions could
appear alongside scenes of slaughtering, as is found on
the south wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) [S142].105
Such association presumably indicates the destination of
the cattle and that their meat provides nourishment for the
tomb owner’s table. The model processions examined, on
the other hand, occur on their own baseboards without any
other themes represented.106 Consequently, the animals are
not associated with any particular daily life task, but rather
are housed in the burial chamber where they are devoted to
serving the deceased in the afterlife.
Scene-artists also incorporate cattle among processions
of offering-bearers who advance towards the offering-
103
Of the models examined, only that likely from Deir el-Bersha displays
paint covering the surface of the baseboard, and this is plain black rather
than utilising colours and patterns of the natural environment [M262].
104
Moreover, the viewing inscription associated with the scene
specifically designates the procession as the cattle count: mAA jrt jrw
mnmnt nbt … ‘viewing the undertaking of the count of all animals…’
[S189]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 44-45. This same
designation is identified on the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the
Middle (D2) where the viewing inscription reads jrt jrw n mnmnt awt
n spAwt Hrjwt-jb mAA jwA wnDw ‘making the count of the cattle and the
small animals in the middle provinces, and viewing the oxen and goats’
[S11]. The text expresses that it is the wealth of the province that is being
counted under the direction of the nomarch. Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir.
Volume I, 41.
105
Similarly, in the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) a muzzled ox is led
towards a series of slaughtering vignettes in the sixth register of the east
panel of the south wall [S161].
106
One exception may be found in the model of Meketre from Thebes
where the procession is supervised by many scribes and officials which
indicates that the cattle count is portrayed. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE
46724. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pl. 13.

table. The animals are either scattered throughout the
procession, as is found on the north wall of the tomb of
Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) at Meir [S22], or form their own
parade, as is seen on the east wall of the tomb of Iha (N-8)
at Deir el-Bersha [S70]. The men who lead these animals
forward are distinct in appearance from the unkempt
herdsman. On the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep
II (3 UC), these men are identifiable as offering-bearers
who belong to an official class: they have shoulder-length
hair, short beards and tight kilts over which the overseers
layer a long, transparent garment [S194]. Alternatively, on
the east wall of the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (N-10), a bald
man who leads the second animal may be a priest [S69].107
This modification to the human figures identifies the cattle
as offerings presented to the tomb owner and therefore
highlights their ritual value. This is further emphasised in
the illustration of cattle with deformed horns or wearing
decorative scarfs and blankets which identifies them
as sacrificial animals. On the north wall of the tomb of
Amenemhat (2 UC), for example, the leading ox towards
the right of the fourth register has a decorative blanket
draped over its back while the third ox in the procession
exhibits distorted horns [S155].108 As was observed in
the discussion on slaughtering cattle and offering-bearers
in chapters 2.6 and 3.2, ritual practices are intertwined
with the mortuary cult carried out in the tomb-chapel and
therefore ritual elements are regularly incorporated into
wall scenes. Models, on the other hand, are concealed in
the burial chamber where they did not participate in the
cult practised by the living, but rather provisioned the
deceased for eternity. Accordingly, ritual elements are
excluded from three-dimensional representations of cattle
in procession.
The representation of cattle in procession conveys the
animal’s immense value in both life and afterlife, but the
media exhibit significant differences in both quantity and
design. Scene-artists created expansive representations
that incorporated much variety and detail but had to
alter the arrangement of the herds to enable each animal
to be seen. Model-artists could present a more realistic
arrangement of the procession yet condensed it to the
most essential elements of the cattle and herdsmen.
Additionally, the compositions are heavily impacted by
the location of the medium. Displayed in the public part of
the tomb, wall scenes aimed to proclaim the wealth of the
owner to any visitors and therefore elements of grandeur
were appropriate for the two-dimensional designs.
107
Willems, Dayr al-Barshā. Volume I, 42.
108
Interestingly, cattle with deformed horns are sometimes led by
herdsmen who also exhibit signs of imperfection, as is found in this
scene of Amenemhat where the man walks with unnaturally bent legs.
The scarfs and blankets of sacrificial animals are often highly decorated
with patterns and colours. On the left of the east wall of the tomb of
Baqet I (29 UC), for example, the ox leading the procession in the third
register has a green and yellow blanket draped over its back while the
ox in the fourth register wears a decorative red scarf/collar [S51]. The
colouring of the decorative elements was observed by the author during
a visit to the site. Similarly, each ox in the procession on the west wall of
the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) wears a decorative scarf/collar and
one exhibits deformed horns [S24]. Malek, Shadow of the Pyramids, 41-
42; Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, 32.
129
Animal Husbandry
Models, on the other hand, were concealed in the burial
chamber, causing them to solely serve the deceased rather
than interact with the living. Therefore, the designs of
scene- and model-artists were not only impacted by their
medium’s technical capabilities, but also by the individual
context and purpose of their representation in the tomb.
4.4 Dogs
While animals such as cattle were especially valued for
their economic and dietary benefits, other species held a
more societal role, enjoying close relationships with their
owners. Dogs, in particular, held a prominent place within
ancient Egyptian society and this is reflected in the artistic
record. The earliest known representations of the animal
in Egypt date to the Neolithic Period, but by the Middle
Kingdom, a more diverse range of breeds is portrayed.109
Dogs feature in numerous scenes displayed on tomb-chapel
walls, highlighting their esteemed value to their owners.
At Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, examples were
identified on 33 different walls of 17 different tombs.
This prominence, however, is not witnessed in the three-
dimensional medium, with only one model identified
in this study. Although small single figurines of a wide
range of animals, including dogs, are common among
Middle Kingdom burials, these are not here considered
funerary models as they are largely constructed from
faience and their isolated nature prevents any clear action
from being emphasised. Rather, only the sculptures that
exhibit human-and-animal interaction conform with the
category. Braulińska, who examined all Middle Kingdom
dog sculptures including both individual figures and group
models, identified only eight human-and-dog examples,
one of which is from the three sites under investigation.110
This model is from the 12th Dynasty tomb of Senbu (487
LC) at Beni Hassan and comprises a man and dog seated
opposite each other on a small baseboard [M264; fig.
4.15].111 As it is fashioned of earthenware, the details are
not very well-defined. This vast distinction in quantity
between the two- and three-dimensional representations
demonstrates the different level of importance that dogs
held in the repertoires of wall scenes and funerary models.
The two media also display differences in the contexts
in which the dogs appear and the interaction between
the human and animal figures. Dogs are found in a
wide range of scene-types, demonstrating the variety of
109
Dogs are known from Neolithic rock art where they are accompanied
by humans, cattle, giraffes and antelope, and from an Amration bowl
which depicts a type of greyhound. Brewer, Redford & Redford,
Domestic Plants and Animals, 114-16; Houlihan, Animal World, 77;
Houlihan, in History of the Animal World, 116; Brewer, in History of the
Animal World, 449-50.
110
Braulińska, in Company of Images, 38.
111
Although the features of the figure accompanying the dog are not
especially clear, the identification of a man seems probable due to the
presence of a short black wig, painted facial details, traces of a white
kilt and through a comparison with parallel examples where this figure
is more clearly identifiable. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
146.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 4.15. Model dog (right) and figure brewing beer (left) of Senbu (487 LC) [M264]. Archive image JG-B-438; courtesy of
the Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool.
roles for which they were valued in society. Of perhaps
greatest significance was their role as a hunter. Dogs were
employed in the hunt from their earliest appearance and
they became a central element of the desert hunt scene
commonly displayed on tomb-chapel walls.112 On the
east wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir, this role is
given great prominence, with at least nine dogs engaged
in the hunt [S137].113 The hunting capabilities of the
animal were further exploited in military battles, with a
dog featuring in each of the four military scenes at Beni
Hassan.114 In these illustrations, the hound appears behind
the archers, presumably awaiting the storming of the
fortress for its command to attack, as is exemplified in the
seventh register of the east wall of the tomb of Baqet III
(15 UC) [S76].115 Moreover, dogs can appear among lines
112
The superior senses of smell and hearing alongside the great speed
of the dog were utilised by hunters to help locate, track and capture their
prey. Houlihan, in History of the Animal World, 117; Evans, Animal
Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 122.
113
This scene is not entirely preserved and so it is possible that more
dogs were originally included in the design. Unusually, only the curled
tail of a single dog is found in the large hunt displayed on the east wall
of the outer room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha,
but as the scene is fragmentary, it is quite possible that more dogs were
originally represented [S203].
114
These scenes are found on the east walls of the tombs of Baqet III (15
UC) [S76], Khety (17 UC) [S96; see fig. 6.4], Khnumhotep I (14 UC)
[S122] and Amenemhat (2 UC) [S158; see fig. 6.2].
115
A slight variation is found in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) where
the dog is not immediately positioned next to the archers but rather
behind men holding weapons of hand-to-hand combat [S158; see fig.
130
of attendants bearing weapons. On the south panel of the
east wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan, a
dog walks on the baseline of the second register among a
line of attendants who face towards a large seated figure of
the tomb owner [S53].116 As the entire register is devoted
to weaponry,117 the dog should likewise be considered a
type of weapon, valued for its role as a hunter and guard
for the tomb owner.
Dogs also appear in more intimate situations where their
relationship with their master is highlighted.118 Most
commonly, they feature under the chair of the tomb owner
when seated at the offering-table,119 as can be seen on the
6.2]. However, the dog is still at the extreme left of the register and is
just below the archers, so it is probable that both the dog and the other
soldiers are awaiting the storming of the fortress for close-range combat.
116
A second animal appears in this register which has often been mistaken
for a dog when it is in fact an Egyptian mongoose as identified by Evans.
It is positioned in the space above the dog while being led forward on a
leash by the man in front. Perhaps it too should be understood as a type of
weapon. Evans, “Beasts and beliefs”, JARCE 52, (2016), 220-23.
117
A similar scene is found on the west panel of the north wall of the
same tomb where a dog, although only partially preserved, appears at the
end of a row of men carrying weapons towards a large standing figure of
the tomb owner [S48]. These figures are probably serving as guards to
protect him as he views the activities of his estate.
118
Evans, in Egyptian Art, 74.
119
Depicting animals under the chair of the tomb owner was a prominent
motif of the offering-table scene from the Old Kingdom through to
the Late Period, although few examples are known from the Middle
Kingdom. El-Kilany & Mahran, “What lies under the chair! Part I”,
JARCE 51, (2015), 244, 247.

west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir
[S15].120 This positioning highlights the esteemed value of
the dog and its loyalty to its master. The animals are also
shown escorting the tomb owner during his inspection
of the work conducted on his estate. A large standing
figure of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) accompanied by three
dogs appears on the right of the north wall of his tomb
at Beni Hassan [S190]. In front of him are several rows
of activities, including processions of animals and the
arrival of foreigners [S188-S189]. Similarly, on the east
wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at
Meir, the tomb owner is transported by palanquin with five
dogs appearing among the lines of attendants heading the
procession [S37].121 While these scenes may express a close
relationship between the dog and tomb owner, it is quite
likely that in many of these instances the hound’s role was
primarily to provide protection, again emphasising its
value as a guard.
Furthermore, connections may be displayed between dogs
and workers of the estate, highlighting the aid they provided
in the completion of various outdoor tasks.122 On the south
wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1), a hound accompanies a
herdsman who is separating a pair of fighting bulls in the
third register [S139; fig. 4.16], while on the north wall of
the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) at Meir, a dog is seated on
a small papyrus boat alongside a fisherman [S140]. The
integration of the dog into such a wide variety of contexts
in wall scenes highlights the animal’s importance in
society and its value to its owner.123
This diverse utilisation of dogs in the two-dimensional
repertoire is in direct contrast with the sole funerary
model that displays a man and dog with no surrounding
activities [M264; fig. 4.15]. The absence of this range of
representations may perhaps be attributed to the exclusion
of many of these themes from the three-dimensional
medium. The offering-table scene and the desert hunt
do not appear in the model repertoire and so there is no
120
In this example, there are in fact two figures of the tomb owner seated
at opposite ends of a single offering-table with a dog positioned under
each chair. The hound on the left has prominent teats indicating it is
female, while the one on the right does not, perhaps suggesting it is male.
The latter hound has an elaborate red collar still preserved around its
neck, a common accessory for dogs. Evans, in Egyptian Art, 73.
121
It is quite likely that the tomb owner is being transported to inspect
the cattle count which is depicted on the south panel of the same wall
[S38]. Here, he is shown again in his carrying chair, but is positioned
on the ground, with herds of animals processing before him. Similarly,
Djehuty-hotep (N-2) is seated on a chair within a light structure on the
west wall of the inner room of his tomb while viewing processions of
animals and boats arriving for the count while a dog stands beneath his
chair [S214].
122
Houlihan, Animal World, 77.
123
Dogs regularly appear in more than one of these scene-types in a
single tomb. In the tomb-chapel of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan, for
example, dogs appear on all four walls: they accompany the tomb owner
as he views the activities of his estate, are seated beneath his chair at the
offering-table and at the entrance to the tomb, are alongside herdsmen
working with cattle, attack prey in the desert hunt, and stand among the
army engaged in battle [S90, S91, S96, S97, S99, S100, S111; see figs.
4.18, 6.4]. Some of these hounds exhibit the same characteristics, which
could indicate that they are the same dogs represented multiple times.
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, 35.
131
Animal Husbandry
opportunity for model-artists to integrate dogs into these
themes. Moreover, the tomb owner himself is rarely
represented in models, and as he is one of the main figures
that dogs accompany in wall scenes, it is seldom possible
for the animals to be integrated into the three-dimensional
artworks. In the model of Senbu (487 LC), a close bond
between the man, probably a servant, and the dog is
highlighted, but its solitary nature prevents the specific
role of the animal from being conveyed.
Several breeds of dog are known from the Old and Middle
Kingdoms yet identifying them in representations is often
a difficult task.124 However, certain physical characteristics
may be more easily distinguished. The hound in the model
of Senbu (487 LC) has a spotted coat and lop ears [M264;
fig. 4.15].125 These features are likewise found in a number
of two-dimensional illustrations. On the east wall of the
tomb of Ramushenti (27 UC) at Beni Hassan, two dogs
are positioned beneath the tomb owner’s chair: one in the
space between the chair legs and the other in the register
below [S62]. While the upper one has a plain coat, the
lower one is decorated with spots. The attribute of lop ears
is exhibited by one of the two dogs that stand facing the
large figure of Amenemhat (2 UC) on the north wall of his
tomb at Beni Hassan [S157]. However, wall scenes display
a more diverse range of physical characteristics, including
pricked ears,126 long or short legs,127 and curled or straight
tails.128 With a greater quantity of representations, scene-
artists were able to create more variety in their design of
the dogs.
Wall scenes also display greater diversity in the hound’s
posture. When engaged in a physical task, the animal is
portrayed in an active stance. This is especially prominent in
scenes of the desert hunt where the dog is chasing or attacking
its prey. On the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I
(14 UC) at Beni Hassan, the desert hunt occupies the entire
first register [S115, S118; see fig. 4.17]. The dog on the
west panel arches its back and lowers its head to bite the
rear leg of a wild bull, while the hound on the east panel
124
The breeds of dog that have been identified in ancient Egypt include
the tesem, greyhound, saluki, pariah, mastiff and some short-legged
varieties. Osborn & Osbornová, Mammals, 61-67; Germond & Livet,
Egyptian Bestiary, 74.
125
Due to the limited definition in the fashioning of the model, not all of
the dog’s physical features can be clearly identified. There is apparently
no fashioning of a tail and the legs are not all individually distinguished.
126
Erect, pointed ears are especially common, particularly among
hunting dogs. See, for example, the hounds employed in the desert hunts
on the north walls of the tombs of Baqet I (29 UC) [D52] and Baqet II (33
UC) [S58] at Beni Hassan. Germond & Livet, Egyptian Bestiary, 72-74;
Marshall, in Behind the Scenes, 134.
127
A clear contrast in the formation of the legs is seen in the illustration
of the three dogs accompanying the large standing figure of Khnumhotep
II (3 UC) on the north wall of his tomb: the two dogs with pricked ears
have noticeably short legs while the saluki above has much longer legs
and lop ears [S190]. Osborn & Osbornová, Mammals, 66.
128
Like pricked ears, tightly curled tails are especially common among
hunting dogs. Two hounds are engaged in the hunt on the north wall of
the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC), both of which exhibit short, pricked ears
and tightly curled tails [S72]. In contrast, the dogs accompanying the
figure of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) on the north wall of his tomb display
straight tails which either hang down or rise up [S190]. Germond &
Livet, Egyptian Bestiary, 72-74; Marshall, in Behind the Scenes, 134.
Preparing for Eternity

Figure 4.16. The dog ‘Breath-of-life-of-Senbi’ accompanying a herdsman who is separating a pair of fighting bulls. Tomb of Senbi I (B1). South wall, register 3 [S139]. Kanawati & Evans,
Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 76 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

Figure 4.17. A dog straddling its prey in the desert hunt. Tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC). North wall, east panel, register 1 [S118]. Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 72b
[detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

132

bounds up to straddle its fleeing prey. Such active motion
could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface
and contributed to the heightened drama of the scene.
Conversely, in scenes where the dog adopts a more passive
role, the hound may be simply standing or seated. Under the
chair of Pepyankh the Black (A2) on the north wall of room
1 in his tomb, a dog sits upright with its front legs straight
and its hind legs bent [S28; fig. 4.19].129 Alternatively, on
the north wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2), the
dog under the tomb owner’s chair lies down with the front
and rear legs resting on the ground [S8]. It is this attitude
that is encapsulated in the model. Although each individual
leg of the three-dimensional dog is not clearly defined, the
lowered body indicates that all four legs must rest on the
ground [M264; fig. 4.15]. The three-dimensional medium
certainly does not capture the same range of movement
as scenes, and while this may be largely due to the greater
quantity of illustrations in the two-dimensional medium, it
also reflects the greater ease with which scene-artists could
capture an array of attitudes in their designs.
A further advantage of the two-dimensional medium is its
ability to integrate inscriptions into its designs. The value
of the dog to its owner is exemplified in the provision of
a name, and scenes occasionally inscribe this above the
image of the dog. Almost 80 names have been identified in
texts across Egypt, and these refer to the animal’s colour,
character, qualities or foreign influences.130 On the south
wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1), the dog accompanying
the herdsman in the third register is labelled 7Aw n anx n
4nbj ‘Breath-of-life-of-Senbi’,131 a name that highlights
the esteemed value of the animal to its owner [S139; fig.
4.16].132 Alternatively, the text could record a command
given to the dog, as is found in the desert hunt scene of
Baqet III (15 UC): above the hound attacking the wild
bull is inscribed nDr ‘take possession’, and above the dog
biting the hartebeest is nDr hbn ‘take possession of the
female antelope’, both of which are presumably orders
given by the hunters [S72].133 The three-dimensional
medium, on the other hand, could not integrate inscriptions
into its design in the same manner as wall scenes and so
the model of Senbu (487 LC) is uninscribed [M264; fig.
4.15]. Accordingly, the use of text is a specific property
of the two-dimensional medium that enables it to further
emphasise the training, obedience and loyalty of the dog.
Although the close relationship between man and dog is
not conveyed textually in the three-dimensional medium,
129
As the two-dimensional medium is limited in the number of
perspectives it can include, only the near hind leg is visible. The front
legs are not fully preserved, but it seems that both have been depicted.
130
Other animals are very rarely named, therefore highlighting the
special attention afforded to the hound. Janssen & Janssen, Household
Animals, 11; Brewer, Clark & Phillips, Dogs in Antiquity, 43; Houlihan,
in History of the Animal World, 117.
131
Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 25.
132
Similarly, on the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-
hotep (N-2), the dog walking among the procession in the lowest register
has its name inscribed above: Anxw ‘the living one’ [S209; see fig. 6.5].
Osborn & Osbornová, Mammals, 67.
133
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, 26.
133
Animal Husbandry
the model of Senbu (487 LC) does highlight this bond
artistically. Not only does the animal lift its head to look
up at the man, but the human figure lowers himself to the
dog’s level [M264; fig. 4.15]. The man is probably sitting
or squatting and leans slightly forward to bring himself
close to the hound. His arms are lowered and either rest
on top of or underneath the dog’s paws.134 In this attitude,
the man almost mimics the action of the animal. There
is a very clear connection between the two through the
adoption of a similar pose, physical touch and the direction
of the dog’s gaze towards the man’s face.135 This forms
a significant contrast with all of the two-dimensional
illustrations of dogs collected in this study. While some of
the scenes show the hounds in association with humans,
not one example examined portrays this same level of
interaction.
There are four categories of person with which the dog
appears in wall scenes: the tomb owner, the hunter, the
workman and the animal-keeper.136 However, in none of
these instances does the man lower himself to the level
of the dog or make direct physical contact. When shown
in relation to the tomb owner, the dog is physically
separated from him by an object or person, is outside of
his visual range and does not touch him.137 For example,
the hound positioned under the chair of Baqet I (29 UC)
on the east wall of his tomb looks in the same direction
as its master, but is isolated under the chair and does
not interact with its owner in any way [S52].138 Even in
instances where the dog is facing towards the tomb owner,
it is not shown at eye-level. The dog accompanying the
standing figure of Khety (17 UC) on the east panel of the
south wall of his tomb at Beni Hassan faces towards its
master [S97; fig. 4.18]. However, it resides near his feet
and looks straight ahead rather than up at the tomb owner’s
134
Due to the limited definition in the fashioning of the two figures, the
precise placement of the man’s arms and the positioning of the dog’s legs
cannot be determined. The man and dog certainly make contact, but it
cannot be known if the man’s hands or the dog’s paws are on top. As the
model is fashioned of pottery, both the man and dog would have been
moulded from the same piece before firing and therefore direct contact
was easier to capture than it was in wood where each figure was carved
separately. Braulińska, in Company of Images, 54.
135
This level of interaction is not unique to this model but is typical of
model human-and-dog pairs. The figures are mostly positioned opposite
each other, but they can be placed at varying distances and so do not
always make contact. See, for example, a model found in a double shaft
in the outer court of the pyramid complex of Senusret I at Lisht, now
housed in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 24.1.46. In this
example, the two figures adopt a crouching stance like the pair in the
model of Senbu but are spaced some distance apart. Arnold, Pyramid
Complex of Senwosret I, pl. 79.105; Braulińska, in Company of Images,
47.
136
In only one scene examined are dogs portrayed without any
associated human figures: on the west wall of the inner room of the tomb
of Ahanakht I (N-5) at Deir el-Bersha, five creatures reside in the third
register and form part of an object-frieze [S68]. The creatures exhibit
mythical elements, but two display some similarity with representations
of hounds. Kaper, van Walsem & Willems, in Bersheh Reports I, 46;
Miles, “Intimate contact with dogs”, BACE 21, (2010), 78.
137
Miles, “Intimate contact with dogs”, BACE 21, (2010), 78.
138
Similarly, a dog accompanies a standing figure of the tomb owner
on the west panel of the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14
UC) [S130] and on the south wall of the tomb of Nekhti (21 UC) at
Beni Hassan [S152], but each faces the same direction as the man and is
aligned with his legs.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 4.18. A dog accompanying a standing figure of the tomb owner. Tomb of Khety (17 UC). South wall, east panel, lower
section [S97]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 110 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
face.139 Similarly, in relation to the hunter, the dog regularly
appears immediately in front of the man, but does not
directly engage with him.140 In the scenes examined in this
study, the hunter is always standing and facing the same
direction as the hound and does not make any contact with
139
Interestingly, a second creature is included in the scene which is in
fact aligned with Khety’s head and faces towards him. This beast is not a
dog but rather a creature that exhibits mythical elements. Rabehl, “Grab
des Amenemhat”, 207-09.
140
Occasionally, dogs are involved in hunts without any human hunters
around them. In the scene displayed on the south wall of the tomb of
Ukh-hotep I (B2), several hounds attack the desert prey with only the
tomb owner shooting arrows; the dogs have presumably been sent out
on his order [S143].
134
it.141 On the north wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC),
two dogs are engaged in the desert hunt, both of which are
positioned immediately in front of human hunters [S153].142
Like the hounds, the hunters are engaged in pursuing their
141
It should be noted, however, that examples are known from other
sites where the hunter is shown kneeling beside the dog, grasping its neck
with one hand and gesturing ahead with the other. In these scenes, direct
engagement is displayed, with the hunter lowering himself to the level of
the dog and making direct physical contact. See, for example, the hunter
and his dog in the fifth register of the west wall of the chapel of Meryteti
in the tomb of Mereruka at Saqqara. Kanawati & Abder-Raziq, Mereruka
and his Family. Part I, pl. 46; Miles, “Intimate contact with dogs”, BACE
21, (2010), 78.
142
Similarly, in the small hunting scene displayed at the left of the third
register of the east wall of the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (N-10) at Deir el-
Bersha, the dog bites the ankle of an oryx immediately before a hunter
who shoots arrows at the same prey [S69].

prey. While there is an implied relationship, with the dogs
presumably acting under the command of the hunters, this
is not shown through direct interaction. Additionally, the
dogs that accompany workmen in the fields or marshes are
positioned alongside their handlers but do not engage with
them nor often with the task itself.143 The dog accompanying
the herdsman who attempts to separate the fighting bulls
on the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) stands behind
the man, perhaps even to avoid the fray [S139; fig. 4.16].144
There is clear separation between the dogs and humans
in these scenes, presenting a much diminished level of
interaction compared with the model.
The fourth category of person shown in the company of
dogs, the animal-keeper, does display more engagement
with the hound, but in the scenes examined in this study,
the relationship is still not as intimate as that in the model.
This figure is usually found alongside the dog under
the chair of the tomb owner in offering-table scenes.145
During the Old Kingdom, this role was often occupied by
a dwarf, as is found on the south wall of the tomb of Ipi
(481 LC) at Beni Hassan [S7].146 Although both figures in
this scene are positioned in the space beneath the chair,
no eye-contact is displayed as the dwarf stands in front of
the animal and faces the same direction. The dwarf does
not physically touch the dog, but he does make contact
through a leash.147 There is a clear relationship between
the two, with the hound under the control of the dwarf, but
without the direct engagement exhibited by the model.148
The animal-keeper under the chair of Pepyankh the Black
(A2) on the north wall of room 1 in his tomb displays more
interaction [S28; fig. 4.19]. The man is apparently standing,
but he is drawn at a more diminutive scale, resulting in
143
In a few examples from other sites, the workman and dog are
portrayed at the same level, but there is still no physical contact between
them. In scene fragment C 630 (1349) from the tomb of Ptahshepses
at Abusir, for example, a recumbent dog is positioned immediately in
front of a workman who is seated on a folded mat. The two figures are
shown at the same level, but as both face towards the right, there is no
eye-contact made nor is there any physical touch. Vachala, Abusir VIII,
132-33; Miles, “Intimate contact with dogs”, BACE 21, (2010), 79.
144
Although, it is also possible that the dog should be understood as
residing beside the workman and is only positioned behind in order to be
seen in the two-dimensional perspective. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
of Meir. Volume IV, 25.
145
While animals regularly occur under the chairs throughout the Old
Kingdom, animal-keepers only appear alongside them in some scenes
of the 5th and 6th Dynasties. El-Kilany & Mahran, “What lies under the
chair! Part I”, JARCE 51, (2015), 255.
146
Dasen, Dwarfs, 264-65.
147
Animal-keepers in other contexts contact dogs through leashes. For
example, on the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2),
three short rows of attendants accompany the tomb owner on his fowling
expedition in the marshes [S10]. In the second register, the leading man
controls three closely overlapping dogs by a leash. This implies his
authority over them, but no further interaction is depicted. Additionally,
in the desert hunt displayed on the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep
II (3 UC), two dogs are brought forward on a leash behind the large
figure of the tomb owner among other attendants [S188]. The dogs will
presumably be released when required to attack.
148
In addition to the leash, the dwarf is depicted with other authoritative
features: a projecting kilt and a baton ending in the shape of a hand. These
elements not only highlight his authority over the animal but also his
dignified status. Similarly, in the seventh register of the east panel of the
south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC), a dwarf is in a position
of authority over the animal-keeper as indicated by the sceptre that he
holds [S125]. Dasen, Dwarfs, 114, 117; Verma, Cultural Expression, 95.
135
Animal Husbandry
direct eye-contact with the seated hound. He extends one
hand towards the animal’s mouth, possibly holding some
food.149 While he does not touch the dog itself, the offering
of food and the eye-contact highlight a direct relationship
between the two. This is the greatest interaction identified
in the wall scenes examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and
Beni Hassan, yet it still does not portray the same bond
found between the man and dog in the model.
An unusual display of contact in the two-dimensional
medium, however, is found in a scene from the tomb
of Kagemni at Saqqara. On the north wall of room 3, a
man lifts a small dog to his face and makes mouth-to-
muzzle contact.150 Not only does the man touch the
dog with his hands, but he draws it towards his face
and allows it to place its tongue within his mouth. Such
intimate expressions are rare in Egyptian art, especially
between humans and animals.151 It has been proposed that
this scene depicts a stage of feeding, a task that would
have strengthened the bond between man and dog.152
Interestingly, a three-dimensional parallel is found in a
model from Giza.153 In this example, a squatting man is
positioned immediately before a standing dog. Although
the hound’s head is missing, the remains of the muzzle
indicate that it was placed within the man’s open mouth
in a very similar manner to that displayed in the scene of
Kagemni. Miles has suggested that these representations
illustrate the weaning of a pup by regurgitation, a task
that reduced the aggression of the animal and deepened
the bond with it which is important in training hunting
dogs.154 This provides an interesting comparison with the
model of Senbu (487 LC) [M264; fig. 4.15]. Although
mouth-to-muzzle contact is not portrayed in this model,
there is direct engagement as the man touches the dog with
his hands. It seems unlikely that this hound is a pup as
it appears to be fully grown,155 but the model may still
illustrate the strengthening of the bond between the animal
and its keeper. This three-dimensional representation is
certainly one of the rare examples of close interaction
between man and dog, and it is distinct from the more
limited connections typically expressed in wall scenes.
149
The dog under the chair on the north wall of the tomb of Pepyankh
the Middle (D2) is also shown with some food in its mouth, although it
is not being fed by a human handler [S8]. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
of Meir. Volume II, 26.
150
Although the animal has often been identified as a piglet, the clear
display of paws rather than hooves confirms the classification of a dog.
Harpur & Scremin, Chapel of Kagemni, pl. 98; Miles, “Intimate contact
with dogs”, BACE 21, (2010), 71-72; Evans, Animal Behaviour in
Egyptian Art, 108. For the designation of a piglet, see Janssen & Janssen,
Household Animals, 33, fig. 27; Ikram, Choice Cuts, 30.
151
Miles, “Intimate contact with dogs”, BACE 21, (2010), 72.
152
Miles, “Intimate contact with dogs”, BACE 21, (2010), 75.
153
The model is fashioned of limestone and was found in tomb G 7715
at Giza. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, pl. 94e.
154
Evans has likewise formed the same conclusion regarding the scene
of Kagemni. Miles, “Intimate contact with dogs”, BACE 21, (2010), 76-
78; Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 108.
155
The lop ears of the dog could be a sign of its young age, but they
are also a feature of certain breeds including salukis and mastiffs. The
large size of the hound may rather suggest it is fully grown. Brewer,
Clark & Phillips, Dogs in Antiquity, 33-34, 37; Braulińska, in Company
of Images, 52.
Preparing for Eternity

Figure 4.19. A diminutive animal-keeper feeding a dog beneath the tomb owner’s chair. Tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2).
North wall of room 1, east panel, register 1 [S28]. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 73 [detail]; courtesy of
the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

The dog served a highly valued role within society and accompany the deceased for eternity. Consequently, such
this is reflected in funerary artworks. Although both the differences in representation may reflect the unique role of
two- and three-dimensional media depict the animal, there each medium in the tomb.
are significant differences in representation, with a more
intimate relationship between man and dog expressed
in the model but a much greater quantity of illustrations
in wall scenes. This may be a result of the contrasting
locations of the two media. Dogs were an integral part
of many daily life activities, and it is these themes that
dominate the walls of tomb-chapels. In contrast, the burial
chamber was concerned with provisioning the deceased in
the afterlife, and so the model themes concentrated on the
activities that would produce the most vital goods for the
tomb owner’s eternal well-being. While the dog played
a dominant role in society, it was not the most essential
provision for the tomb owner’s afterlife and so rarely
appears in the three-dimensional medium. Simultaneously,
depicting a close relationship between man and dog may
have been more desirable in models as the figures would

136
 5
Craft Production
5.1 Spinning and weaving
A variety of raw materials was available to ancient Egyptian
craftsmen, enabling the production of a wide range of
specialised goods. Textiles were a particularly valuable
commodity in society, serving important functions in
both daily life and religious and funerary practices.1 An
assortment of qualities of fabric was produced, ranging
from the finest royal linen to a coarse ordinary cloth, but
the quality and quantity of material owned was dependent
upon the status and wealth of each individual. As textiles
were vital to the Egyptian economy, manufacturing centres
were established throughout the country, in temples,
palaces, large estates and small homes.2 Linen fabrics
were already being produced in the Neolithic Period,
and the Egyptians soon became proficient at the tasks of
spinning and weaving.3 Several stages were involved
in textile manufacture, from the initial task of harvesting
flax to the completion of the final product,4 and although
this craft production is represented by both wall scenes
and funerary models, not every activity is illustrated.
Those that are depicted by both media exhibit a number of
similarities in design, but several differences are discerned
in the minute details.
Considering the prominence of textiles in ancient Egyptian
society, there are surprisingly few representations of its
manufacture. Cloth production does not appear in either
the two- or three-dimensional Old Kingdom repertoires,
but both wall scenes and models of spinning and
weaving are known from the Middle Kingdom.5 These
representations are, however, restricted in number. Only
five Middle Kingdom scenes of spinning and weaving have
been documented throughout Egypt, three of which are
from Beni Hassan [S73, S92, S202] and a fourth from Deir
el-Bersha [S208].6 There is likewise a limited number
1
Textiles were used as clothing, household items, sacks, sails, currency,
funerary wrappings and shrouds, and as offerings to the gods. Vogelsang-
Eastwood, in Materials and Technology, 290-95; Spinazzi-Lucchesi,
Unwound Yarn, 75.
2
Petzel, Textiles, 140; Brewer, Redford & Redford, Domestic Plants
and Animals, 38; Vogelsang-Eastwood, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://
www.oxfordreference.com>.
3
The earliest known representation of a loom in Egypt is found on a
Neolithic dish from Badari. Broudy, Book of Looms, 14; Spinazzi-
Lucchesi, Unwound Yarn, 97.
4
Flax was the primary material used in the manufacture of linen,
although other fibres are known, including sheep’s wool, goat hair and
palm fibre, while cotton was not used in Egypt until the 1st century AD.
Donadoni Roveri, in Egyptian Civilization, 188; Vogelsang-Eastwood, in
Materials and Technology, 268.
5
Roehrig, in Mistress of the House, 19; Allen, in Ancient Egypt, Aegean,
Near East, 19; Fischer, Egyptian Women, 20.
6
The fifth scene is found in the tomb of Daga at Thebes. Davies, Five
Theban Tombs, pl. 37; Vogelsang-Eastwood, Production of Linen, table
1.
137
of three-dimensional examples, but interestingly, there
are more models than wall scenes. Allen has identified 16
spinning and weaving models throughout Egypt, three of
which originate from the sites investigated in this study.7
This theme is in fact the most commonly depicted craft
production in the three-dimensional medium.8
Although there is a greater quantity of three-dimensional
representations, it is the two-dimensional medium that
illustrates a wider range of tasks. Scenes that devote
significant wall space to the theme incorporate several
manufacturing activities, with those displayed on the north
walls of the tombs of Baqet III (15 UC) and Khety (17 UC)
at Beni Hassan particularly expansive [S73, S92]. Models,
in contrast, typically present a more condensed portrayal,
comprising one or two spinners and two weavers.9
Despite these variations in representation, the tasks
considered characteristic of the process are consistently
represented by both media.
The three spinning and weaving models examined in
this study originate from two burials, namely those of
Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) at Deir el-Bersha [M151-M152]
and Khety-aa (575 LC) at Beni Hassan [M206]. Each
of these tombs contained a relatively comprehensive
assemblage of models, with that of Djehuty-nakht
particularly expansive.10 Consequently, each tomb owner
was adequately equipped with models that could provide
the most essential provisions of food, drink and transport
as well as those that produced desirable subsidiary goods.
The inclusion of two textile manufacture models within
a single tomb is unique to the burial of Djehuty-nakht,
and the two sculptures are very similar in representation.
Each depicts two figures engaged in spinning and two in
weaving, although one model is more finely carved than
the other. In his position as governor, Djehuty-nakht could
afford superior quality linen during his lifetime, perhaps
even having authority over a textile workshop, and clearly
7
Allen, in Ancient Egypt, Aegean, Near East, 24, appendix 1, table 2.
8
Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 45.
9
Two exceptions are found where more space is devoted to spinning
and weaving in the three-dimensional medium, namely the models of
Meketre from Thebes and Gemniemhat from Saqqara which depict large
textile workshops involving several workers. Egyptian Museum, Cairo:
JE 46723; Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen: AEIN 1634. Winlock,
Models of Daily Life, pls. 25-27; Tata, “Egyptian Textile Industry”, fig.
14; Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 46.
10
Djehuty-nakht’s burial housed over 100 models covering the themes
of riverine transport, offering-bearers, agriculture, animal husbandry,
bread-making and brewing, craft production, and the military. The model
assemblage of Khety-aa was found intact and included two boats, a
granary, two offering-bearers, and a food preparation group in addition to
spinning and weaving. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 230;
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 45-46; Freed &
Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 151.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 5.1. Spinning and weaving model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), with one rover, one spinner and two weavers [M152].
Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.891.
desired to maintain access to fine linen in the afterlife.11 As
the tomb interred both the governor and his wife, it is quite
likely that a spinning and weaving model was included for
each owner.12 While it is impossible to determine which
model belonged to whom due to the disturbed nature of
the burial upon discovery, it is clear that the husband and
wife were well-equipped with both essential and luxury
provisions for eternity.
Not all preparatory stages involved in textile manufacture
are represented in the artworks, but the two-dimensional
medium illustrates a much greater number of these tasks
than models. The first stage comprised harvesting flax, an
activity that is identifiable in many scenes but is entirely
absent from the three-dimensional repertoire. The scenes
may be positioned close to spinning and weaving, as is
found on the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of
Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha [S208], or may be
separated onto a different wall, as is achieved in the tomb
11
Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 46.
12
It should not be assumed that because spinning and weaving was
largely a female profession that both models were intended for the
governor’s wife. Gender roles did not necessarily determine the types
of models included in burials and indeed spinning and weaving models
are found in tombs with solely male owners. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets
of Tomb 10A, 152.
138
of Khety (17 UC) [S92].13 Once harvested, flax fibres
were required to undergo a series of processes before they
could be spun into thread. These tasks included rippling by
drawing the fibres through a comb-like tool to remove the
seeds, retting the stems in water to extract the fibre from the
hard outer bark, beating to separate the fibres, scutching to
remove any remaining parts of stem, and finally twisting
the bundles into rough roves.14 Only a small number of
these tasks are illustrated in scenes and these motifs are
confined to the more expansive representations.15 The
activities of cleaning and straightening the fibres, for
example, are portrayed in the third register of the north
13
On the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep,
harvesting flax is illustrated in the second register while spinning and
weaving is depicted below in the fifth and sixth registers. Newberry, El
Bersheh. Part I, pl. 24. In the tomb of Khety, the harvest is displayed on
the south wall, while the textile industry is illustrated on the north wall.
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 105.
14
Hall, Egyptian Textiles, 9; Baines, Linen, 14-19; Vogelsang-Eastwood,
Production of Linen, 10-11; Riggs, Unwrapping, 115.
15
There is some discussion as to whether the task of retting is portrayed
in tomb scenes. The identification of a scene displayed in the fifth
register of the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni
Hassan as retting was first posed by Wilkinson and later adopted by other
scholars, including Allgrove McDowell and Petzel. However, Kemp
and Vogelsang-Eastwood’s classification of a garden scene is more
likely. Wilkinson, Manners and Customs. Volume III, 137-39; Allgrove
McDowell, in Pyramid Builders, 231; Petzel, Textiles, 133; Kemp &
Vogelsang-Eastwood, Ancient Textile Industry, 29; Kanawati & Evans,
Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 92.

wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) where the left-most
seated woman works the fibres in her hands [S73; fig.
5.3].16 The rarity of these preparatory tasks indicates that
they were considered supplementary and not characteristic
of the textile manufacturing process.
One preliminary stage that appears more regularly in scenes
is that of roving the fibres. During this task, the flax fibres
are rolled on a flat surface, usually the thigh, to transform
them into rough orderly lengths before being wound into
balls or coils and passed onto the spinner.17 On the east
wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2),
three women perform this task in the fifth register: the two
women on the left sit with a mass of fibres before them and
a ball of roughly spun thread, while the woman to the right
is in the process of transforming the fibres, with one hand
resting on her thigh [S208; fig. 5.4]. A significant level of
detail is incorporated into this scene, as exemplified by
the woman on the left who passes the thread through her
mouth. This action would have moistened the fibres, a
necessary state for flax fibres to successfully bind together
and produce a coherent thread.18 Each rover produces a ball
of thread ready to be spun and is therefore seated on the
ground immediately behind the spinner they are supplying.
The artist of this scene has utilised sub-registers to maintain
a close association between each pair of workers.
Two of the models include a woman who is positioned in a
very similar manner to the rovers in the scene of Djehuty-
hotep (N-2), and so perhaps likewise depict this preliminary
stage. Both models are from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht
(R-10A), and in each example, the woman squats on the
ground immediately behind the spinner [M151-M152; see
fig. 5.1]. Each figure has both knees bent up in front and
one arm lowered before her and the other extended slightly
behind. Although none of her equipment has survived, if
originally included, her position in the representation and
her posture closely resemble those of rovers displayed in
the two-dimensional medium.19 In the scene of Baqet III
(15 UC), one of the seated women preparing the fibres in the
16
Scholars have proposed various interpretations regarding the precise
activity represented in this motif: Rooijakkers and Allen identify the task
as scutching, while Tata suggests hackling (rippling), and Kemp and
Vogelsang-Eastwood postulate decortification. The figure is certainly
involved in a preparatory task as her seated co-workers conduct the
subsequent process of roving which produces thread ready to be spun by
the spinners standing in front. Tata, “Egyptian Textile Industry”, 95-98;
Allen, in Ancient Egypt, Aegean, Near East, 21; Kemp & Vogelsang-
Eastwood, Ancient Textile Industry, 30, fig. 3.13; Rooijakkers,
“Unravelling Beni Hasan”, ATN 41, (2005), 2. An almost identical
vignette is found on the north wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) [S92].
Similarly, in the fifth register of the east wall of the inner room of the
tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2), a woman seated in an upper sub-register
works some fibres while holding them in front of her face [S208; fig. 5.4].
17
Watterson, Women, 96; Vogelsang-Eastwood, in Materials and
Technology, 271-72.
18
Vogelsang-Eastwood, Production of Linen, 14; Hudáková,
Representations of Women, 39-40.
19
As a variety of materials could be incorporated into the three-
dimensional design, it is possible that each woman originally held real
thread. One of the models preserves a small indentation in the baseboard
behind the seated figure which may indicate that an object was originally
attached here, perhaps a carved piece of wood symbolising a ball of
thread or mass of fibres, or a bowl to hold the material [M152; fig. 5.1].
139
Craft Production
third register is positioned in an almost identical posture:
she is located immediately behind a spinner and squats
with one knee bent up and the near leg folded over so that
both legs may be seen in the two-dimensional perspective;
she lowers her right arm in front with her hand resting on
her thigh and extends her left arm behind to touch the ball
of thread [S73; fig. 5.3]. This close parallel between the
representations supports the identification of the crouching
women in the models as rovers. Scene-artists could more
clearly specify the precise action of the preparers through
the incorporation of minute details, but model-artists could
still convey this preparatory stage through the posture and
arrangement of the figures. This is the only preliminary
activity in cloth manufacture to be represented by the
three-dimensional medium, demonstrating that only rarely
did models expand upon the essential components of the
theme.
Once the fibres were prepared, spinning could begin.
This task appears in all two- and three-dimensional
representations of textile manufacture and should therefore
be understood as essential to the theme. The scenes portray
three main spinning methods: grasped-spindle, supported-
spindle and dropped-spindle.20 All three techniques are
undertaken by male spinners in the second register of the
north wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC): the man on the
right spins a line of thread that passes over a forked stick
and onto a spindle which he operates with both hands; the
man behind sits back on one heel while drawing a rove from
a spinning-bowl through his left hand and rolling a spindle
along his thigh with his right; the third man stands while
rotating the spindle against his thigh before it is dropped
and allowed to spin [S92; fig. 5.2].21 The specifics of each
method could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional
wall surface and as this scene devotes significant space to
the theme, multiple techniques could be displayed.
Models likewise depict spinning, but do not portray the
same variety of methods. Instead, they solely display
the dropped-spindle technique which seems to have
been the most popular method for preparing thread for
woven fabric.22 Dropped-spindle spinning requires a
standing posture so that the spindle could be dropped
after sufficient rotation and allowed to swing, giving the
thread its characteristic S-twist.23 This attitude could
be encapsulated in both two- and three-dimensions, but
20
Crowfoot, in History of Technology. Volume I, 425; Hall, Egyptian
Textiles, 12-13; Vogelsang-Eastwood, in Materials and Technology, 272-74.
21
Dothan, “Spinning-bowls”, IEJ 13.2, (1963), 105-06.
22
The other techniques of spinning are typically shown performed
by men and in association with mat-making. Allgrove McDowell, in
Pyramid Builders, 234; Allen, in Ancient Egypt, Aegean, Near East, 22.
23
Not only do flax fibres naturally twist in a clockwise direction,
the rotation of the spindle on the right thigh away from the body
also encourages this form of twist. The scene on the west wall of the
tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan in fact highlights this
minute detail: the two yarns drawn by the spinner in the fourth register
are represented as narrowly spaced parallel lines, while the outgoing
product clearly illustrates the twist applied during spinning [S202; fig.
5.5]. Barber, Prehistoric Textiles, 66-67; Kemp & Vogelsang-Eastwood,
Ancient Textile Industry, 75-76; Rooijakkers, “Unravelling Beni Hasan”,
ATN 41, (2005), 5.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 5.2. Three male spinners; their techniques from right to left are grasped-spindle spinning, supported-spindle spinning,
and dropped-spindle spinning. Tomb of Khety (17 UC). North wall, west panel, register 2 [S92]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni
Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 95 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
only in more finely crafted models is one leg raised off
the ground. Considerable care was taken in fashioning the
spinner in one of the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A): she
stands on a straight left leg and has the right leg raised and
bent at the knee with the foot carved; she rests the spindle
against her raised thigh and elevates her left arm to draw
a line of thread [M152; fig. 5.1]. The other two models,
however, simply depict the spinner standing upright with
both legs on the ground. Model-artists had to consider the
stability of their sculptures and such active postures were
more difficult to achieve in three-dimensions.
On the other hand, the details of this stance could be easily
drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface. The middle
spinner in the third register of the scene of Baqet III (15
UC) exhibits an almost identical stance [S73; fig. 5.3].24
Interestingly, the female spinners in this scene of Baqet
III and in the finely carved model of Djehuty-nakht (R-
10A) indicate that the spindle is rolled directly against the
skin, with the skirt raised in each of their designs. This
demonstrates the artists’ familiarity with the spinner’s
techniques as the use of the bare thigh produced a more
successful and smooth spin.25 Therefore, both scene- and
model-artists understood the requirements of the spinning
technique and aimed to reflect this in their designs
according to their medium’s specific capabilities as well as
their own level of skill.
Further, the artist of Djehuty-nakht’s (R-10A) model
sought to distinguish the different ages of women involved
in textile manufacture. While the three seated figures have
24
The only differences are found in the two-dimensional spinner’s
manipulation of two spindles and two lengths of thread. It has been
suggested, however, that the model spinner originally held a spindle in
each hand. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 164.
25
Crowfoot, Methods of Hand Spinning, 31.
140
close-cropped hair, the standing spinner has a long ponytail
down her back which perhaps serves as a sign of her
youthfulness [M152; fig. 5.1].26 Similarly, several female
spinners in wall scenes are discernibly younger than their
co-workers. On the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep
II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan, for example, the female spinner
in the fourth register wears a closed loincloth that leaves
her small breast bare and has long hair that unusually parts
into two [S202; fig. 5.5]. These features are indicative of
her adolescence and are contrasted with her colleagues
who wear tight-fitting dresses with one shoulder strap
and have long hair failing down the back and over the
shoulders. Further differentiation in age is achieved by
depicting two of the women with a drooping breast as a
sign of their maturity.27 Similarly, in each of the scenes of
Baqet III (15 UC) and Khety (17 UC), one of the female
spinners is discernibly younger than the other two, being
smaller in stature, having shorter hair and either naked
or attired in a bag-tunic [S73, S92; see fig. 5.3].28 Such
distinguishing details are not regularly included in the
three-dimensional medium, but the superior skill of the
model-artist of Djehuty-nakht’s sculpture enabled the
integration of some of these features and thus reflects the
real-life practices of textile manufacture.
During spinning, the worker drew thread from one or more
spinning-bowls. While much discussion has occurred in
scholarship regarding the precise purpose of these items,
26
Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 164.
27
Roehrig, in Mistress of the House, 20; Hudáková, Representations of
Women, 53-54, 61.
28
Newberry’s original rendering of the scene indicated that these young
figures were male, but a careful re-examination of the scene has indicated
that they are in fact female as they are rendered with yellow skin like their
female co-workers. Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pls. 4, 13; Vogelsang-
Eastwood & van Haeringen, “So-called boy spinners”, GM 126, (1992),
95-96; Hudáková, Representations of Women, 51.

it is most likely that they held the roves from which the
spinners drew.29 In wall scenes, the bowls are positioned
either behind or in front of the spinner, and a single spinner
may draw thread from one or more bowls. One spinner
in the scene of Khety (17 UC), for example, draws four
roves from as many bowls, with two positioned behind her
and two in front [S92]. Each bowl apparently contained
interior handles which secured the ball to prevent
entanglement and provide tension on the threads as they
were drawn,30 but as these bowls are only represented in
profile, the interiors remain hidden. The three-dimensional
medium, alternatively, had the ability to incorporate both
the exterior and interior of a single bowl. Only one of the
models examined preserves any spinning-bowls, namely
that of Khety-aa (575 LC) [M206; fig. 5.6]. Two bowls are
positioned side-by-side immediately behind the spinner,
but they are carved from solid pieces of wood and do not
specify the interior features. Consequently, the thread is
merely held in the hand of the spinner and is tied to the
dropped spindle rather than emerging from the spinning-
bowl. In the spinning and weaving model of Meketre
from Thebes, however, more detail is incorporated: a
small hole is carved into the top of each solid spinning-
bowl, out of which extends three roves, ready to be spun
together by the spinner.31 Alternatively, in a model from
Saqqara, the interior handle is distinguished as the bowl
has been hollowed out.32 With the advantage of a holistic
perspective, the three-dimensional medium could present a
more comprehensive representation of the spinning-bowl.
After the threads had been prepared for weaving, they were
laid out for transfer to the loom in a task known as warping.
This process is not included in every textile representation,
indicating that it was not considered essential to conveying
the theme. In the wall scenes examined in this study, those
of Baqet III (15 UC) and Khety (17 UC) illustrate the
set-up of the loom [S73, S92],33 while that of Djehuty-
hotep (N-2) explicitly portrays warping [S208; fig. 5.4]. In
this latter example, two different methods are illustrated,
the simplest one of which involves driving three pegs
into a wall and winding thread around them.34 Towards
the right of the fifth register, a three-pegged frame is
arranged in the space above some of the workers, with
29
For a discussion on the purposes of spinning-bowls, see Dothan,
“Spinning-bowls”, IEJ 13.2, (1963), 97-112; Vogelsang-Eastwood, “So-
called ‘spinning bowls’”, JEOL 30, (1987), 78-88; Allen, in Ancient
Egypt, Aegean, Near East, 17-38.
30
Dothan, “Spinning-bowls”, IEJ 13.2, (1963), 112.
31
Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46723. Winlock, Models of Daily Life,
pls. 25-27; Dothan, “Spinning-bowls”, IEJ 13.2, (1963), 110-11.
32
Vogelsang-Eastwood, “So-called ‘spinning bowls’”, JEOL 30, (1987),
fig. 6.
33
The loom on the right of the third register of the north wall of the
tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) is in the process of being arranged: the cloth
beam has been set up, but the warp beam has not yet been installed; in its
place resides a loop which could be the warping in its final stages before
being laid out on the loom [S73]. A similar vignette is found on the left
of the third register of the north wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC): the
pegs are positioned on the outside of the loom, indicating that the loom is
still being set up [S92]. The beams would then be fastened to these pegs
before the threads are laid out. Rooijakkers, “Unravelling Beni Hasan”,
ATN 41, (2005), 8-9; Hudáková, Representations of Women, 48-49.
34
Vogelsang-Eastwood, in Materials and Technology, 274.
141
Craft Production
the thread being wrapped around the pegs. Its transfer
is displayed below, where a woman unravels the thread
from the frame and arranges the lines on the loom.35 The
second method is found on the left of the sixth register
where two women gather threads from a frame containing
12 balls of yarn. Due to the damage incurred to the scene,
the precise destination of these threads is unknown, but
it is possible that they are gathered for arrangement on a
warping frame.36 This intermediary stage, however, is not
represented in the condensed three-dimensional artworks.
Instead, it is merely implied in all of the models examined in
this study, with the actual weaving immediately following
spinning. However, the model of Meketre from Thebes is
more expansive and is able to include a representation of
warping: two groups of three pegs are driven into the wall
of the workshop, around which women are winding real
thread.37 The holistic perspective of the model enables the
precise positioning of the warping frame to be discerned,
whereas wall scenes do not include the architectural
structure and instead simply illustrate the frame in the
empty space of the register.
The task of weaving, on the other hand, is consistently
portrayed in the representations, and during the Middle
Kingdom, this was performed on a horizontal loom.
This type of loom consists of two end beams, each
secured by a pair of pegs; the warp threads are tensioned
between the beams, allowing the weaver to interlace
the threads.38 The scene-artist selected the top-down
viewpoint for his portrayal of the loom as this is the most
recognisable perspective. Most commonly, the loom is
placed horizontally in the space above the register line,
as is achieved in the third register of the scene of Khety
(17 UC) [S92]. The top-down perspective is likewise
portrayed in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), but
uniquely this artist has placed the loom in a vertical
position on the baseline [S202; fig. 5.5]. It is clear that this
illustration is still representative of a horizontal ground
loom as the women sit beside the loom rather than with
their backs to the viewer and as the end beams rest behind
the pegs.39 As this scene is particularly abbreviated, with
the vignettes especially close together, it is probable that
this arrangement of the loom was selected to fit within
a confined space.40 Model-artists, in contrast, were not
required to select a single viewpoint for each component
and could therefore realistically position the loom on the
baseboard between the figures, as is demonstrated in one
of the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M152; fig. 5.1].
35
The purpose of warping, however, was to transfer the group of
threads together, not individually and therefore Kemp and Vogelsang-
Eastwood’s suggestion that the representation of unwinding the warp is
a misunderstanding of the process by the scene-artist seems probable.
Kemp & Vogelsang-Eastwood, Ancient Textile Industry, 322.
36
Vogelsang-Eastwood, Production of Linen, 23; Kemp & Vogelsang-
Eastwood, Ancient Textile Industry, 317.
37
Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46723. Winlock, Models of Daily Life,
pls. 25-27.
38
Hall, Egyptian Textiles, 13-14; Barber, Prehistoric Textiles,
5; Vogelsang-Eastwood, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.
oxfordreference.com>.
39
Roth, Egyptian and Greek Looms, 10-11; Broudy, Book of Looms, 38.
40
Tata, “Egyptian Textile Industry”, 111.
Preparing for Eternity

Figure 5.3. Four women preparing the fibres and three spinners using the dropped-spindle technique. Tomb of Baqet III (15 UC). North wall, register 3 [S73]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni
Hassan. Volume IV, pls. 67-68 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

Figure 5.4. Preparing the fibres, spinning, warping and weaving. Tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2). East wall of inner room, registers 5-6 [S208]. Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pl. 26 [detail];
courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society.

142

Figure 5.5. Female spinners and weavers of different ages, a male overseer and a horizontal loom. Tomb of Khnumhotep II
(3 UC). West wall, south panel, register 4 [S202]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 121 [detail]; courtesy of the
Australian Centre for Egyptology.
Moreover, the three-dimensional medium had the unique
advantage of incorporating a range of materials in its
design, some of which comprise the actual materials used
during weaving. In one of the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-
10A), the corners of the loom are marked by four thin pegs
with a wooden beam at each end that signifies the cloth
and warp beams; lines of thread are stretched between the
two beams, symbolising the warps; and a wooden rod is
interlaced across the threads acting as the shed-stick or
heddle-rod [M152; fig. 5.1]. The loom in the model of
Khety-aa (575 LC) is instead painted on the baseboard:
wooden pegs mark the corners of the loom while black-
painted lines detail the warp threads and the associated
beams [M206; fig. 5.6].41 Wall scenes, on the other hand,
could not utilise real materials, but intricate details of
the loom could be easily incorporated. In the scene of
Khnumhotep II (3 UC), for example, some of the main
tools used to manipulate the threads during weaving are
portrayed: the beater with its characteristic curved handle
is operated by the weaver on the right; the heddle-rod and
shed-stick are clearly interlaced between the warp threads;
and a loosely twisted cord passes between the warps which
serves to keep them evenly spaced [S202; fig. 5.5].42
41
Tata suggests the possibility that the painted lines served as a sketch
indicating the placement of real thread to form the loom. The remaining
evidence does not allow for confirmation, but it is equally possible that
the painted lines were all that was originally intended. Tata, “Egyptian
Textile Industry”, 138.
42
Broudy, Book of Looms, 38-39; Burnham, Warp and Weft, 87; Kemp
& Vogelsang-Eastwood, Ancient Textile Industry, 327.
143
Craft Production
Additionally, the scene-artist has detailed a finished piece
of linen wrapped around the cloth beam with a weft fringe
on its left side, a characteristic feature of cloth woven on
a horizontal loom.43 These minute details could be easily
drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface, enabling
scenes to specify the nature of the tools used in this craft
production even though they were restricted to a single
perspective.
The contrasting perspectives of the two media also caused
differences in design regarding the placement of the
weavers. The representations indicate that a minimum
of two workers were required to operate the horizontal
loom.44 With the advantage of a holistic perspective,
model-artists could depict the weavers in their actual
positions beside the loom. In each of the three-dimensional
examples examined in this study, a woman squats at one
end of the cloth beam while her co-worker sits beside her
or by the adjacent side. This positioning suggests that the
woman on the end is responsible for the warp threads
43
Roehrig, in Mistress of the House, 20; Cortes, “From ‘weft fringes’ to
‘supplementary weft fringes’”, BES 19, (2015), 200-01.
44
All of the condensed two- and three-dimensional representations
examined in this study illustrate two weavers [M151, M152, M206,
S202; see figs. 5.1, 5.5, 5.6]. During the Middle Kingdom, the figures
are consistently portrayed as female, indicating that this craft production
was performed by women during this period. However, when the vertical
loom was introduced in the New Kingdom, men began to be illustrated
as weavers. Barber, Prehistoric Textiles, 84, 285-90; Roehrig, in Mistress
of the House, 21; Fischer, Egyptian Women, 20.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 5.6. Spinning and weaving model of Khety-aa (575 LC), with one spinner, two weavers, two spinning bowls and a loom
painted on the baseboard [M206]. Courtesy of National Museums Liverpool (World Museum): 55.82.4.
while the woman on the side operates the various tools
of the loom. The two-dimensional medium attempts to
convey a similar arrangement of weavers but is restricted
by a lack of perspective. As the loom is depicted in a top-
down viewpoint and the weavers are largely portrayed in
profile, a composite image is created. This causes further
difficulty in conveying the side-by-side positioning of the
weavers. One of the main methods scene-artists used to
overcome this was by raising the woman on the far side
off the register line so that both figures would be in full
view. Of the two women operating the loom at the left
end of the scene of Baqet III (15 UC), one is seated on
the baseline while the other is situated in the space above
to indicate that she is on the far side [S73]. This breaks
the foundational use of the register line as a base for the
figures,45 whereas the scene-artist of Djehuty-hotep (N-2)
has provided a small sub-register for his raised weaver to
give her a solid foundation [S208; fig. 5.4].46 In order to
convey the precise role and positioning of the weavers,
scene-artists were required to alternate perspectives and
adjust the location of figures, whereas model-artists could
present a realistic arrangement in their three-dimensional
perspective.
45
Davis, Canonical Tradition, 33-34; Robins, Egyptian Painting, 18.
46
Robins, Proportion and Style, 6; Anderson, in Egyptian Art, 39.
144
Spinning and weaving, like other craft production, was a
carefully supervised operation. In three of the four wall
scenes identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni
Hassan, at least one official oversees the tasks of the
spinners and weavers [S73, S92, S202].47 In the scenes of
Baqet III (15 UC) and Khety (17 UC), a male and female
figure stand at the left of the third register as they supervise
the workers [S73, S92]. Their authority is indicated by
accompanying captions that state their titles: the man as
jmj-r DAtt ‘overseer of weavers’ and the woman as jrj(t) kAt
‘keeper of the work’.48 Similarly, a male overseer stands
in the middle of the spinning and weaving vignette of
Khnumhotep II (3 UC), watching over the activities of the
workshop [S202; fig. 5.5]. In this example, however, his
status is conveyed not only by his accompanying label,
but also by his appearance: he wears a long wig and a
knee-length kilt with a sash and has a portly physique.49
47
No officials appear in the scene of Djehuty-hotep (N-2), but this is
likely a matter of preservation as severe damage has been inflicted upon
the wall [S208; fig. 5.4].
48
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, 28.
49
The accompanying caption records his title as jmj-r mrw ‘overseer
of weavers’. Although this figure has been identified as female by some
scholars, the contrasting attire, hairstyle and body shape compared with
the female textile workers indicate that he is male. Kanawati & Evans,
Beni Hassan. Volume I, 43; Hudáková, Representations of Women, 38.
For the identification of a woman, see Broudy, Book of Looms, 39;
Roehrig, in Mistress of the House, 20.

Although such textual captions and distinguishing
features in appearance were more difficult to achieve in
three-dimensions, officials are still discerned in some
model-types.50 However, no overseers appear in models
of textile manufacture nor any other craft production
examined. As this theme is consistently more condensed in
the three-dimensional medium, official figures may have
been considered supplementary. It would have been more
important to dedicate the small baseboards to the actual
manufacturing operations.
No further textile processes occur in the three-dimensional
representations from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni
Hassan, but a few wall scenes include the additional
operations of mat-making and laundering.51 In the tomb
of Khety (17 UC), for example, mat-making is displayed
adjacent to the spinning and weaving scene in the second
register of the north wall: a man sits on top of his woven
material while continuing to operate the loom [S92]. It is
possible that the three men spinning thread behind him
are producing a thicker yarn to be used in the mat-making
process.52 A scene of washing cloth appears in the first
register of the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3
UC), just above the spinning and weaving operation in the
fourth register [S202].53 It is possible that these two textile
vignettes are linked, portraying the entire journey of the
cloth destined for the tomb.54 Such additional practices
were clearly not considered essential in representations of
the textile industry and therefore only appear occasionally.
Scene-artists, who were able to devote larger sections of
wall space to the theme, could portray such additional
processes, whereas models are typically more restricted in
size and so only present the operations considered most
essential.
Cloth was an essential component of daily life and the
Egyptians desired to be supplied with the material for
eternity. Pieces of cloth were frequently deposited in
burials and requests for their supply were incorporated into
offering formulae, but representations of their manufacture
50
See, for example, scribes and overseers consistently portrayed in
granaries, and officials supervising bread-making and brewing, as
discussed in chapters 2.2 and 2.3.
51
Laundry activities are only identified in a small number of wall scenes,
with Hall listing six certain examples from the Middle Kingdom, four of
which are from Beni Hassan. Hall, Egyptian Textiles, 48. Three models
from Saqqara may possibly illustrate these subsidiary processes: Quibell,
Saqqara, pl. 28.2; Firth & Gunn, Teti Pyramid Cemeteries. Volume II,
pl. 28c; Quibell & Hayter, Teti Pyramid, North Side, pl. 25. Breasted
has classified these models as representations of preparing flax for rope-
or mat-making, while Tooley has additionally proposed the laundering
process. The specifics of the figures’ actions are difficult to discern and
so a precise conclusion cannot currently be reached. If these models
do represent activities associated with textiles, they remain rare among
the three-dimensional corpus. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 55;
Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 47-48.
52
Vogelsang-Eastwood, in Materials and Technology, 272.
53
It is perhaps due to the contrasting real-life locations of textile
manufacture and laundering that they are separated into different
registers: cloth was washed in the river or canal while spinning and
weaving were performed inside the home or workshop. Forbes, Ancient
Technology. Volume IV, 83; Watterson, Women, 128.
54
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 41.
145
Craft Production
are quite rare.55 Although limited in quantity, some tombs
dedicated significant wall space to the industry, allowing
a wide range of production activities to be conveyed.
Conversely, the three-dimensional representations are
typically more condensed and are restricted to the tasks
considered most characteristic, namely spinning and
weaving. In their representation of these two processes,
scene- and model-artists were bound by the specific
technical properties of their medium as well as their own
level of skill particularly regarding their use of perspective
and their portrayal of the various tools and materials of the
trade. Consequently, these differences in design indicate
that the representations were created specifically for each
medium.
5.2 Carpentry
Wood was another important commodity in ancient Egypt,
with its utilisation in a wide range of objects produced
for both daily and funerary purposes. However, the raw
material was not readily available within Egypt, and while
native woods could be manipulated for small objects,
the Egyptians sought superior quality timber from other
countries in their development of the carpentry industry.56
The importation of wood began as early as the 1st Dynasty,
and this economic exchange increased in the Old Kingdom
with new timbers brought into Egypt, allowing carpenters
to develop more sophisticated woodworking techniques.57
While royalty and the nobility were able to afford the use
of premium imported timbers, the ordinary population
were largely restricted to native Egyptian woods.58
Some of the stages involved in constructing wooden
objects are represented in the two- and three-dimensional
media, although no single artwork depicts every activity.59
Wall scenes of woodworking are known throughout the
Dynastic Period but are limited in number, with a total
of seven examples identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha
and Beni Hassan. Carpentry is even more rarely attested
in the three-dimensional medium, with only one model
originating from the sites under investigation.60 Not
55
Jones, in Encyclopedia of Ancient History, <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com>; Peck, Material World, 51.
56
Although native timber was quite brittle and knotted, all types were
still utilised by carpenters. Techniques were developed that transformed
these small pieces into workable planks that could be used to fashion
items such as furniture, coffins and statues. However, imported woods
were preferred for large-scale constructions and high-quality objects.
Strouhal, Life, 103; Stevens & Eccleston, in Egyptian World, 147-48;
Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 24; Swinton, in Behind the Scenes, 176.
57
Cedar, juniper, yew and pine from Lebanon, and ebony from the south
were the predominant woods imported into the country. The properties of
each timber were quickly identified by Egyptian carpenters and exploited
in the advancement of their woodworking designs and manufacturing
processes. Aldred, in History of Technology. Volume I, 685; Killen,
Egyptian Woodworking, 7-8; Bienkowski & Tooley, Gifts of the Nile, 37;
Killen, Furniture. Volume I, 1.
58
Strouhal, Life, 145; Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 97; Altenmüller, in
Egypt, 87.
59
Killen, in Materials and Technology, 353; Swinton, in Behind the
Scenes, 178.
60
Tooley has identified five tombs that housed carpentry models across
Egypt, three of which are located in Saqqara. Tooley, Egyptian Models
and Scenes, 43.
Preparing for Eternity
only is there this difference in quantity, but the media
exhibit variation in the range of tasks depicted and their
representation of the minute details of each activity.
Wooden funerary furniture formed a significant component
of goods deposited in the tomb to accompany the deceased
in the afterlife. While a substantial number of these items
were found in the tombs of Beni Hassan, indicating the
presence of a thriving carpentry industry in the province,61
not a single model depicting their manufacture has been
discovered at the site. This is especially significant as
a great corpus of models was found in the tombs of the
Lower Cemetery, yet not one depicts woodworking.62
In the Upper Cemetery, four of the 12 decorated tombs
have been identified to contain carpentry scenes in their
chapels [S81, S94, S170, S200]. At the site of Deir el-
Bersha, conversely, no carpentry wall scenes have been
preserved, but the sole model identified originates from
the site [M153].63 Interestingly, all of the owners of the
tombs with preserved carpentry representations from Meir,
Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan held the top office of their
nome during their lifetimes.64 The industry may have
operated under their supervision and its representation in
their tombs reflects their distinguished position.
For the rest of the elite, housing actual furniture items
and miniature models of tools in the tomb apparently
sufficed.65 In the shaft tombs at Beni Hassan, the pieces
of furniture are mostly quite simple in design and include
bedframes, stools and chairs.66 Alternatively, miniature
carpenter’s tools are known from a number of burials. In
the tomb of Nefery (116 LC) at Beni Hassan, for example,
five such tools were found, all of which feature wooden
handles and copper blades.67 Similarly, in the burial of
Satmeket (R-10B) at Deir el-Bersha, a complete set of
carpenter’s equipment was discovered.68 It was believed
that these tools would enable the deceased to produce any
item required in the afterlife, and could therefore replace
61
Killen, in Egyptian Museum Collections. Volume I, 646.
62
See the appendix of Garstang’s documentation of his 1902-1904
excavation which lists all of the items discovered in the Lower Cemetery.
Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 211-44.
63
Due to the significant damage incurred to the cemetery, it is possible
that carpentry scenes were originally included in tomb-chapels but have
not been preserved.
64
At Meir, Ukh-hotep II (B4) held the position of nomarch while
Pepyankh the Black (A2) and Senbi I (B1) each served as overseer of
priests. The nome was an important cult centre for Hathor, with much of
the land belonging to her temple, and so this religious role was of high
esteem. The sole model owner, Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) of Deir el-Bersha,
held the title of governor. At Beni Hassan, there were two important
offices which were often held by one man: nomarch and overseer of the
eastern desert. Baqet III (15 UC), Khety (17 UC) and Amenemhat (2 UC)
all served as the former, and Khnumhotep II (3 UC) as the latter. Trigger,
et al., Ancient Egypt, 109-11; Hölzl, in Sesto Congresso Internazionale.
Volume I, 279; Grajetzki, Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, 107, 112;
Grajetzki, Court Officials, 111.
65
As the vast majority of models are constructed of wood, it is clear
that tomb owners with models in their assemblages could afford this
commodity and had access to specialised woodworkers during their
lifetimes.
66
Killen, in Egyptian Museum Collections. Volume I, 654.
67
Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 77-78.
68
Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 146-47.
146
the function of carpentry wall scenes and models.69 Housing
real items of furniture and/or miniature model tools in the
burial enabled Egyptians across many levels of society to
ensure an eternal supply of wooden items in the afterlife.
Artistic representations of their manufacture, however,
seem to have been an additional luxury only enjoyed by
the highest elite.
The sole carpentry model identified in this study is from
the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) at Deir el-Bersha
and it forms a condensed representation of the industry,
depicting only two processes: sawing a wooden log and
shaping a board [M153; fig. 5.7]. The earlier stage of
sawing regularly appears in carpentry wall scenes and
the two media display a number of similarities in their
representation of this task. The log is typically set into the
ground and lashed to a sawing post while the carpenter
uses a pull-saw to cut the log.70 The carpenter quite
consistently stands some distance away from his work
and bends forward as this is the posture most suited to
facilitating the pulling movement of the saw.71 On the
north wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan,
for example, the sawyer stands towards the left of the fifth
register while striding with his left leg and his back heel
raised [S94]. He stands some distance from the log and
leans forward to conduct his task. The sawyer in Djehuty-
nakht’s (R-10A) model likewise stands back from the log
and holds the saw about chest height, but both legs are
straight and positioned side-by-side with no indication of
the feet [M153; fig. 5.7]. Sawing required great physicality
and while the intricacies of this active stance could be
easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface, they
were more difficult to craft in three-dimensions. Although
a striding posture was certainly possible to achieve in
models,72 the side-by-side positioning presumably would
have been more cost effective. The legs of model figures
were carved from the same piece of wood as the torso,73
and so a wide striding stance would have required the use
of a thicker piece of timber. Moreover, the figure had to
be secured to the baseboard with pegs, which regularly
resulted in the absence of feet.74 Consequently, the three-
dimensional representation of the sawyer was restricted by
the construction methods of the medium.
One element of the sawyer’s posture that is consistent
across the two media is the handling of the saw. Two hands
were required to use the pull-saw: one gripped the handle
while the other pushed down on top of the blade to exert
69
Such miniature tools are particularly prominent at the sites of Beni
Hassan and Sedment. Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 43.
70
Killen, Egyptian Woodworking, 13.
71
Lane, “Pull-saw”, AEE, (1935), 57.
72
Certain model figures in other themes are quite consistently represented
in a striding posture. See, for example, the ploughman in models of land
preparation and offering-bearers in procession [M24, M66, M144, M146,
M148, M170, M226; see figs. 2.2, 3.16, 3.17].
73
Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 152.
74
Winlock, Models of Daily Life, 74; Tooley, Egyptian Models and
Scenes, 64.

Figure 5.7. Carpentry model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), with one sawyer and one man shaping a board [M153]. Photograph
© 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.412.
extra force.75 This arrangement is clearly displayed on
the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni
Hassan where the sawyer works on the right of the second
register [S170; fig. 5.8]. Interestingly, the model-artist of
Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) has likewise specified this grip:
the sawyer’s right arm is slightly bent at the elbow with
his hand clenched to grasp the handle of the saw, while his
left arm is outstretched with his palm resting on top of the
blade [M153; fig. 5.7]. The intricacies of this grip could
be captured in both two- and three-dimensions, allowing
scene- and model-artists to clearly convey the sawyer at
work.
75
Śliwa, Ancient Egyptian Handicraft, 28; Drenkhahn, Handwerker,
116; Lucas & Harris, Materials and Industries, 449
147
Craft Production
The two media also exhibit similarities in their depiction
of the saw. During the late Old and Middle Kingdoms,
the pull-saw consisted of a metal blade with a straight
back and rounded point attached to a curved wooden
handle moulded to fit the carpenter’s hand.76 In the scene
of Amenemhat (2 UC), each of these features is clearly
identified with changes in colour providing additional
detail: the lashings attaching the blade to the handle are
painted as thin black lines, the blade is coloured dark red,
and the handle is yellow to symbolise wood [S170; fig.
5.8]. A similar tool is depicted in Djehuty-nakht’s (R-
10A) model, but the three-dimensional medium had the
76
Śliwa, Ancient Egyptian Handicraft, 28; Killen, in Materials and
Technology, 355.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 5.8. A sawyer operating a pull-saw with both hands and three carpenters finishing a chest. Tomb of Amenemhat (2
UC). West wall, north panel, register 2 [S170]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 22b [detail]; courtesy of the
Australian Centre for Egyptology.
unique advantage of utilising the actual materials in its
construction of the saw [M153; fig. 5.7].77 The blade is
fashioned of sheet bronze and has a rounded point with a
straight back, while the handle is carved from wood in a
curved shape to neatly fit into the sawyer’s grip and is split
to receive the blade.78 The use of these materials presents
a more realistic portrayal of the tool, whereas scene-artists
were restricted to distinguishing the individual elements
through detailed lines and colours.
Another essential element in sawing representations is
the log of wood which is set into the ground and attached
vertically to an upright post. The timber is sawn downwards
as this is the most convenient technique for the pull-saw.79
The typical arrangement is found on the west wall of the
tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan where the
sawyer works on an upright beam in the first register [S200;
fig. 5.9]. The bindings securing the log are drawn about a
third of the way down to fasten the section already cut, and
also near the bottom to maintain the support.80 The saw
passes through the middle of the timber, indicating that
the carpenter is in the process of sawing.81 An alternative
77
The original saw attached to this model has been lost, but a
contemporaneous example has been added to the display. Museum of
Fine Arts, Boston: 20.1105. D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies
and Magic, 113-14.
78
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, “Saw from a model of carpenters
(joined to 21.412)”, viewed 25 October 2018, <https://collections.mfa.
org/objects/143261>.
79
Leospo, in Egyptian Civilization, 125; Lucas & Harris, Materials and
Industries, 449.
80
Lane, “Pull-saw”, AEE, (1935), 56; James, Pharaoh’s People, 201.
81
A similar representation is found in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC),
although this artist has excluded the bindings and unusually drawn the
saw in full view as if visible through the wood [S170; fig. 5.8]. It seems
probable that this is a mistake rather than an alternate design choice as
several other inconsistencies are evident in the register: not all of the
148
method is illustrated on the north wall of room 1 in the
tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir where the log in
the second register is fastened diagonally to a vertical post
[S27; fig. 5.10]. This unusual design requires the use of a
horizontal stick with counterweights to separate the two
halves of the log and an assistant to support the top end,
both of which have been drawn by the scene-artist.82 The
model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) follows the more typical
arrangement: the log is secured in a vertical position in one
corner of the baseboard [M153; fig. 5.7]. A small incision
across the top of the wood indicates that the sawyer has
just begun his work.83 No bindings support the timber,
but it is possible that some thread was originally wrapped
around the log that has since been lost.84 Although greater
variety is found in wall scenes, the essential components
of sawing could be conveyed in both two- and three-
dimensions.
The second process displayed in the carpentry model of
Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) is shaping a wooden board with
an adze (now missing) [M153; fig. 5.7]. This operation
took place after sawing and was used to smooth the wood
figures are firmly placed on the baseline; they are drawn at different
scales; some of their features are disproportionate; and the far legs of the
carpenters working on the bed have been excluded. Carter, et al., Beni
Hasan. Part IV, 9.
82
Śliwa, Ancient Egyptian Handicraft, 27; Hampson, “Men at Work”,
109.
83
Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 164.
84
In the carpentry model of Meketre from Thebes, a wooden plank is
tied to a post with thread bindings, demonstrating that model-artists did
make use of this real material in their designs. Egyptian Museum, Cairo:
JE 46722. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pls. 28-29. However, not all
wall scenes detail the bindings, such as that of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S170;
fig. 5.8], and therefore it is equally possible that thread bindings were
never included in Djehuty-nakht’s model.

and trim it to the required size and shape.85 The motif is
commonly included in carpentry wall scenes of the Old and
Middle Kingdoms and typically depicts the figure squatting
or kneeling on the ground while holding the timber upright
at about arm’s length.86 In the scene of Khnumhotep II (3
UC), for example, the carpenter is positioned to the right
of the sawyer and kneels with the near leg folded over and
the far knee bent up in front while stabilising a plank of
wood with his left hand [S200; fig. 5.9]. A similar position is
adopted by the carpenter in the second register of Pepyankh
the Black’s (A2) scene, but in this example, the worker
squats on top of a folded mat with both knees bent up in
front [S27; fig. 5.10].87 The far leg has been positioned
slightly ahead so that both legs can be seen by the viewer
in the two-dimensional perspective. This squatting posture
is likewise adopted by the carpenter in Djehuty-nakht’s (R-
10A) model [M153; fig. 5.7]. Although the model figure’s
legs are disproportionately small, it is clear that he bends
both knees up in front. He is positioned about an arm’s
length from the timber which he stabilises with his left
hand. His right arm is slightly bent at the elbow and his
hand clenched, indicating that he held the adze on top of the
board. This similarity in representation indicates that both
scene- and model-artists were able to reflect the attitude and
role of the adze-worker in their designs.
The components of the adze are likewise encapsulated in
both the two- and three-dimensional media. The tool consists
of a straight metal blade lashed to a curved wooden shaft
with leather thongs.88 In the second register of the scene of
Pepyankh the Black (A2), the bindings are represented by a
series of thin lines, showing the fastening of the blade to the
handle [S27; fig. 5.10]. The carpenter holds the adze against
the wood, indicating he is engaged in his task. Although the
adze in the model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) is lost, other
examples indicate the manner in which the tool could be
crafted in three-dimensions. In the woodworking model
of Meketre from Thebes, for example, several carpenters
utilise adzes, each of which is formed of a curved wooden
handle with a straight metal blade attached to it by cords,
and is held just above the timber in the carpenter’s right
hand.89 It is probable that the adze in the model of Djehuty-
nakht was crafted in a similar fashion. Once again, the
three-dimensional tool features the same components as
the two-dimensional representations but had the unique
advantage of incorporating real-life materials.
While the model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) is confined
to these two tasks, scenes illustrate several additional
activities associated with carpentry. Before manufacturing
85
James, Pharaoh’s People, 198; Killen, in Materials and Technology,
355; Brier & Hobbs, Daily Life, 204.
86
Śliwa, Ancient Egyptian Handicraft, 25; Hampson, “Men at Work”,
110.
87
This folded mat is a unique feature of all carpentry scenes. Hampson,
in Egyptian Culture and Society. Volume I, table 5.
88
The blade was attached in such a way that it was perpendicular to the
axis of the handle. Śliwa, Ancient Egyptian Handicraft, 24; Killen, in
Materials and Technology, 355.
89
Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46722. Winlock, Models of Daily Life,
pls. 28-29.
149
Craft Production
could begin, the raw material needed to be acquired and
some scenes display this process. The felling of a tree with
axes is represented in the second register of the west wall
of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) which presumably
provided timber for the boat-builders displayed to the
right and/or the carpenters above [S200].90 The large
trunks obtained during this process needed to be promptly
divided into smaller pieces,91 a task that is displayed in
the fifth register of the north wall of room 1 in the tomb
of Pepyankh the Black (A2) [S27; fig. 5.10]. In addition
to these preparatory stages, the two-dimensional repertoire
incorporates a number of finishing processes.92 In the
scenes examined in this study, the most common of these
tasks is that of using a mallet and chisel to carve holes
and fine details into the wood, and then polishing to
smooth the surfaces of the final products, both of which
are portrayed in the second register of the west wall of
the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S170; fig. 5.8].93 Further
expansion upon the theme is found in scenes that depict
artificially bending timber to construct staffs and bows,
and assembling and joining planks to build wooden
boats.94 No single tomb includes all of these processes, but
the overall repertoire of the two-dimensional carpentry
theme is considerably more expansive than that of the
three-dimensional medium.
90
Śliwa, Ancient Egyptian Handicraft, 45.
91
Śliwa, Ancient Egyptian Handicraft, 46; Killen, in Materials and
Technology, 354.
92
The intermediary stages of manufacture were apparently considered
less essential as scenes typically depict either the making of individual
parts or the completed objects themselves. The production of a single
item is not displayed from start to finish. Rather, various woodworking
operations are shown together with multiple finished products, regularly
without any clear links between the two. Drenkhahn, Handwerker, 97;
Leospo, in Egyptian Civilization, 126; Strouhal, Life, 145; Hampson, in
Egyptian Culture and Society. Volume I, 167.
93
In this scene, a man seated on top of a bed raises a mallet to strike
a chisel, while two men kneeling on top of a chest smooth down its
surface with rubbing stones. Alternatively, in the poorly preserved scene
displayed on the east wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir, the two
surviving figures each use a mallet and chisel: one works on top of a
wooden board while the other carves an upright piece [S135]. Similarly,
the only surviving carpentry motif in the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) at
Meir is found on the east wall of the outer room and consists of two
figures using mallets and chisels on an upright wooden structure [S177].
Hampson, “Men at Work”, 112; Peck, Material World, 138.
94
Some of the processes involved in artificially bending timber are
displayed on the south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni
Hassan [S81], the north wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) [S94] and
the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S170], and include
peeling bark from a branch, using steam to soften the timber and bending
the wood before the pieces dry into the desired shape. Drenkhahn,
Handwerker, 113-14; Killen, in Materials and Technology, 357. Scenes
portray the construction of both papyrus and wooden boats and the
vignettes are regularly separated from carpentry scenes as their task was
conducted in an outdoor setting while carpenters generally operated in
workshops. Boat-building was apparently considered a distinct skill
from carpentry and so specialised craftsmen were required to create
the vessels. On the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC),
boat-building and carpentry are portrayed in separate registers but are
immediately positioned above one another [S200]. Conversely, the tomb
of Ukh-hotep I (B2) at Meir contains a scene of workers constructing a
papyrus boat in the third register of the north wall, but no carpentry scene
is preserved. Instead, the boat-building scene is surrounded by marshland
activities, including the transport of papyrus stalks, fighting boatmen,
and fishing and fowling with a clap-net. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of
Meir. Volume IV, pls. 91-92. Śliwa, Ancient Egyptian Handicraft, 43-45;
Ikram, Ancient Egypt, 256; Ward, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.
oxfordreference.com>.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 5.9. One carpenter saws a plank of wood while the other uses an adze to shape a wooden board; a finished bed
decorated with lion’s head and legs. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, south panel, register 1 [S200]. Kanawati &
Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 120 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
Although Djehuty-nakht’s (R-10A) model does not depict
any of these subsidiary tasks, other three-dimensional
examples occasionally present a more expansive
representation. That of Meketre from Thebes is particularly
detailed and, in addition to sawing and shaping, the model
portrays polishing a piece of timber, creating a tenon slot
with mallet and chisel, and re-tempering tools in a fire.95
This model is exceptionally carved, allowing the precise
nature of each activity to be clearly identified. While this
example demonstrates that it was possible for such tasks
to be crafted in three-dimensions, they were clearly not
considered essential. For Djehuty-nakht and his model-
artist, the tasks of sawing and using the adze were clearly
sufficient to represent the entire carpentry industry.
A wide range of wooden items was produced by ancient
Egyptian carpenters, including chairs, beds, chests,
statues, head-rests, boats and coffins.96 The practice
of depositing wooden furniture in the grave dates to
as early as the 1st Dynasty, and such items may have
originally functioned as common household furniture
later transformed into tomb equipment or may have been
specifically designed for burial.97 Carpentry wall scenes
regularly specify the type of item being created. The
carpenters in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) are involved
in fashioning a range of wooden objects, including bows
and arrows, a type of frame, barrels, a bed and chests
[S170].98 The precise identity of each item is sometimes
95
Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46722. Winlock, Models of Daily Life,
33-35, pls. 28-29.
96
Not all households would have been able to afford timber furnishings.
The ownership of wooden items was certainly a sign of wealth.
Bienkowski & Tooley, Gifts of the Nile, 38; Peck, Material World, 81.
97
Der Manuelian, in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Volume III,
1623; Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 107.
98
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, 32-33.
150
clarified by an accompanying textual caption. The item
crafted by the carpenters using mallets and chisels in
the fourth register of the scene of Pepyankh the Black
(A2), for example, is not identifiable from the illustration
alone, but the inscription makes clear that it is a door.99
The intended destination of the completed objects is not
always certain, and although there are many similarities
in form between everyday items and funerary objects, the
latter are generally more elaborately decorated and finely
crafted.100 On the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep
II (3 UC), a finished bed decorated with a lion’s head and
legs appears on the right of the carpentry scene in the first
register [S200; fig. 5.9]. Kamrin’s suggestion that this
item is part of Khnumhotep’s funerary equipment seems
probable as, in addition to the religious symbolism of the
lion, an almost identical piece of furniture is depicted on
the funerary barque displayed on the same wall [S198; see
fig. 3.5].101 The scene-artist’s ability to include intricate
decorative features and explanatory captions in his design
and to provide connections between different vignettes by
closely arranging them on chapel walls is a clear advantage
specific to his medium.
In contrast, the model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) does
not specify the finished products nor their intended use
[M153; fig. 5.7]. Small pieces of timber were pieced
together by craftsmen to create larger items, and the
99
Part of the inscription records the dialogue of the workers, with the
man using the adze encouraging his companions to mnx Swt tw nt aA sjn
‘chisel this side/leaf of the door, quickly’. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
of Meir. Volume II, 27.
100
Leospo, in Egyptian Civilization, 127.
101
The lion was a symbol of strength, virility and fertility, and often
appears as a decorative element in funerary contexts. Kamrin, Cosmos
of Khnumhotep II, 61; Guichard, in Creatures of Earth, Water, and Sky,
175-76.
 Craft Production

Figure 5.10. Dividing large trunks into smaller pieces; sawing a plank of wood; sharpening an adze; shaping boards with
adzes; using mallets and chisels; polishing a bed. Tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2). North wall of room 1, west panel, registers
2-5 [S27]. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 73 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

151
Preparing for Eternity
standard rectangular shape of the wooden boards worked
by the carpenters in the model would allow the material
to be utilised for a variety of purposes. Additionally, the
model-artist has incorporated a supplementary piece of
wood with a red-painted guideline into his design which
was presumably the next project to be worked by the
carpenters.102 While the absence of a finished product
should partly be attributed to the condensed nature of
the representation,103 it should also be associated with
the medium’s location in the tomb. Housed in the burial
chamber, this generalised depiction of carpentry provided
the tomb owner with a supply of wood that could serve
any requirement in the afterlife rather than specific objects
that would only accommodate a limited number of uses.
Moreover, the actual finished products were housed in
the substructure alongside the model and so a miniature
representation of them was not required. This is in contrast
to wall scenes where carpentry representations were
viewed by the living, allowing the display of completed
decorative items to impress visitors with the tomb owner’s
access to high-quality woodwork and inform them of the
range of goods concealed in the substructure. Therefore,
the choice of carpentry motifs was impacted by the
medium’s location and role in the tomb.
Wooden objects were certainly highly valued in both the
domestic and funerary spheres, although representations
of their manufacture are quite rare. The two-dimensional
illustrations depict a much greater number of the carpenter’s
activities and specify the finished products which would
have publicly proclaimed the tomb owner’s superior wealth
and status. In the three-dimensional medium, on the other
hand, the carpentry theme is more condensed and focuses
on the characteristic tasks of sawing and shaping rather
than the preparatory and finishing processes. It seems that
miniature carpenter’s tools and actual wooden furniture
were valued over representations of their manufacture.
Consequently, carpentry models should be understood as a
supplementary theme that provided wealthy tomb owners
with additional access to wood and specialised craftsmen
who could produce any timber item he desired in the
afterlife.
5.3 Leatherwork
Leather items were produced throughout Egyptian history,
although the industry’s importance varied in different
periods. The treatment of hides and skins began at a very
early date in Egypt, with known leather items from burials
of the Predynastic Period.104 However, the utilisation of
102
Śliwa, Ancient Egyptian Handicraft, 50; Freed & Doxey, in Secrets
of Tomb 10A, 165.
103
Even in the more expansive carpentry model of Meketre, the wooden
boards worked by the carpenters are not clearly destined for a specific
object. Although one finished product is included in the model, it
comprises a wooden chest storing a collection of carpentry tools, and
so functions as a piece of equipment used during manufacture rather
than the end result of production. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46722.
Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pls. 28-29.
104
Lucas & Harris, Materials and Industries, 33; Stocks, in Oxford
Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>.
152
leather declined in the Old and Middle Kingdoms in favour
of fibres and textiles.105 It was not until the New Kingdom
that the commodity once again gained prominence, with
a wider range of items produced from it.106 Only one
model and four wall scenes of leatherwork were identified
from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, and in fact,
the model forms the only known three-dimensional
representation of the industry in all of Egypt.107 The
representations all indicate that the final product is sandals,
although the two- and three-dimensional media differ in
the range of manufacturing tasks they portray and their
illustration of some of the minute details.
The rarity of leatherwork representations in conjunction
with the sole focus on the production of sandals should
most likely be associated with the common practice of
depositing sandals within the burial. Such grave goods
were especially common in the Old and Middle Kingdoms,
and while they occasionally comprise sandals used in
everyday life, more commonly the footwear was made
from wood and specifically created for the tomb.108 The
sandals were placed in the burial chamber alongside the
body of the owner, usually on top of the coffin.109 It seems
that this footwear could function as a form of replacement
of artistic representations of their manufacture.110 The
burial of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) at Deir el-Bersha,
for example, contained the largest known collection of
105
Skins also seem to have been of secondary importance at this time
to commodities obtained from other animal products, such as meat
and glue. Veldmeijer, “Leatherworking”, UEE 1.1, (2008), <https://
escholarship.org/uc/item/13g5n8th>; Veldmeijer & Laidler, in History of
Science, Technology, and Medicine, 1217.
106
Although there are limitations to our knowledge of the industry, it
seems that a process of curing was used in Pharaonic Egypt as vegetable
tanning was unknown prior to the Graeco-Roman Period. Van Driel-
Murray has suggested that contact with foreign cultures sparked the
increased use of leather in Egypt. In addition to sandals, other items that
utilise leather in their construction include military equipment, furniture,
cordage, writing materials, coverings, cases and clothing. Lucas &
Harris, Materials and Industries, 36; van Driel-Murray, in Materials
and Technology, 299; van Driel-Murray, in Travail du cuir, 252, 257;
Stocks, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>;
Veldmeijer, “Leatherworking”, UEE 1.1, (2008), <https://escholarship.
org/uc/item/13g5n8th>; Moreno Garcia, in Arts of Making, 165; Skinner,
in Chariots in Ancient Egypt, 80.
107
No wall scenes of leatherwork are known from Deir el-Bersha,
but as the cemetery has suffered significant damage, it is possible that
some were originally included in tomb-chapels but have since been
lost. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 52; van Driel-Murray, in
Materials and Technology, 312-14; Desserle, “L’artisanat du cuir”, EAO
57, (2010), 32.
108
Their construction of wood and painted decoration indicate that
they could not have been used in daily life. Veldmeijer, Footwear in
Ancient Egypt, 45; Mendoza, Artifacts, 41; Veldmeijer, Footwear
Project, 214.
109
In the tomb of Intef (1 LC) at Beni Hassan, for example, two pairs of
sandals were included in the burial: one was placed on top of the coffin
and the other within the coffin at the foot end. Similarly, in the tomb of
Djetinpet (800 LC) at Beni Hassan, three pairs of sandals were found
residing on top of the coffin. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
62, 110, figs. 49, 99; Veldmeijer, Stepping through Time, 32.
110
This forms an interesting parallel with model carpenters’ tools
interred in burials which in many cases seem to have replaced the need
for carpentry representations, as was discussed in chapter 5.2. However,
unlike the tools which could produce any wooden item, the sandals
formed the final product. Model sandals are most commonly found
at sites where wooden funerary models are attested. De Meyer, “Old
Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barshā. Volume II”, 631; Veldmeijer,
Footwear in Ancient Egypt, 45.

funerary models, including five of craft production, yet
not one of leatherwork. Instead, footwear was provided by
several pairs of model sandals.111
Various proposals have been suggested by scholars to
explain the importance of sandals in the tomb: they
functioned as a sign of cultic purity or of social status and
wealth, as a form of transport for the owner to leave the
tomb, or as a symbolic representation of trampling one’s
enemies.112 As the sandals were concealed from view in the
burial chamber, it may be concluded that they solely served
the tomb owner in the afterlife. Wall scenes indicate that
sandals were mostly worn by the elite and priests,113 and
so the inclusion of footwear in the substructure may have
enabled the deceased to maintain his status and purity for
eternity. With the presence of model sandals in the tomb,
representations of their manufacture were presumably not
considered essential and therefore the leatherwork theme
should be understood as supplementary.
The sole leatherwork model originates from the tomb
of Djay (275 LC) at Beni Hassan and comprises a
particularly condensed representation with only one
manufacturing task portrayed: cutting a pair of sandal
soles [M50; fig. 5.11].114 This motif likewise appears in
all of the two-dimensional examples examined,115 and the
representations exhibit a number of similarities regarding
the placement, tools and role of the sandal-maker. During
the Old and Middle Kingdoms, the craftsman cutting
the soles was positioned on the ground with his material
immediately in front of him, as is found in the model and
in the fourth register of the north wall of the tomb of Baqet
III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan [S74; fig. 5.12].116 The two-
111
The model sandals of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) are today housed in the
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.804, 21.805, 21.847, 15-5-305.
112
Staehelin, Ägyptischen Tracht, 98-99; Taylor & Strudwick, Mummies,
88; De Meyer, “Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barshā. Volume
II”, 631; Veldmeijer, Stepping through Time, 33.
113
Sandals are only worn by minor figures when they are engaged in an
occupation that requires constant walking or running. See, for example,
three of the offering-bearers travelling at a running pace displayed on
the north wall of room 2 in the tomb of Ankhmahor at Saqqara. Klebs,
Reliefs des Alten Reiches, 95; Siebels, “Wearing of sandals”, BACE 7,
(1996), 75-78; Kanawati & Hassan, Teti Cemetery. Volume II, pl. 41;
Veldmeijer, Stepping through Time, 31.
114
Although the model soles are fashioned of wood, this is presumably
due to the fact that the whole sculpture is constructed of wood rather than
an indication of the production of wooden sandals. It is more probable
that the model portrays the manufacture of leather sandals as it exhibits
many similarities with the motif of cutting leather soles in wall scenes.
115
The details of this motif are not particularly clear in two of the scenes
examined. Four men are engaged in leatherwork in the second register of
the south wall of room 1 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir,
with the man on the right in the process of shaping the sandals, but there
is no clear evidence of a knife [S29; fig. 5.14]. In the tomb of Ukh-hotep
II (B4) at Meir, a very fragmentary scene on the east wall apparently
depicts two leatherworkers, one of whom is cutting the soles of sandals
[S177]. However, due to severe damage incurred to the scene, the motif
is barely visible. Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, 14.
116
In scenes, the material is placed on a low workbench which is
represented as a narrow rectangle on the baseline, as is found towards the
left of the lowest register of the east wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4)
[S177]. Conversely, the model craftsman cuts his material directly on the
baseboard [M50; fig. 5.11]. The absence of a workbench in the model
may indicate that it was not considered essential to the representation or
that the baseboard itself could function as the worksurface. In the New
153
Craft Production
and three-dimensional leatherworkers each hold a knife in
the right hand and rest it against one edge of the sole. The
angle of the blade indicates that the craftsmen are engaged
in cutting the leather to shape. The knife itself is also
depicted in a similar fashion, comprising a short, narrow
handle extending to a broad, curved blade.117 The precise
shape could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall
surface, as is exemplified in the first register of the west
wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan
[S169; fig. 5.13], while in the three-dimensional medium
it is carved from wood.118 The similarities in the design
of the sandal-maker indicate that both scene- and model-
artists were able to encapsulate the main elements of the
real-life process.
Additionally, both media emphasise the final product by
depicting the sandal soles at a much greater scale than the
human figures’ feet, as is particularly evident in the scene of
Amenemhat (2 UC) [S169; fig. 5.13]. The manipulation of
scale was an artistic device regularly used in wall scenes to
convey relative levels of importance,119 but here it is used
by the three-dimensional medium as well. The emphasis
on the final product provides an interesting contrast with
carpentry models where, as observed in chapter 5.2, the
focus was on the preliminary manufacturing stages without
any completed objects portrayed. While carpenters created
a wide range of wooden items that would benefit the
deceased in the afterlife, the most important item produced
by leatherworkers was sandals. Consequently, it was
necessary for the final stage to be portrayed by the model
as this formed the culmination of the process and provided
the deceased with the desired commodity.
However, there are also some differences between the
media in their representation of the sandal cutting motif
which may be chiefly attributed to their contrasting
technical capabilities. Firstly, each medium presents a
slightly different portrayal of the craftsman’s posture. In
wall scenes, the craftsman working the knife typically
kneels with the far knee bent up in front and the near one
folded over, as is displayed in the scene of Baqet III (15
UC) [S74; fig. 5.12]. This attitude was most likely selected
in order to convey a seated posture while keeping both
legs in view in the profile perspective. Conversely, in the
model of Djay (275 LC), the leatherworker squats with
both knees bent up in front [M50; fig. 5.11]. The legs are
not well formed, but an incised line separates the shins and
short protrusions at the ends signify feet. Carving the figure
with the legs bending in different directions as is achieved
in scenes would have required a particularly high level
Kingdom, leatherworkers were elevated on stools and worked at angled
tables. Drenkhahn, Handwerker, 13; Strouhal, Life, 148.
117
This is the typical blade used prior to the New Kingdom. Drenkhahn,
Handwerker, 12; Veldmeijer & Laidler, in History of Science, Technology,
and Medicine, 1216.
118
Although carpentry models indicate that multiple real-life materials
could be used in the construction of model tools, the absence of these
materials in this example may reflect a more cost-effective method of
representing the knife.
119
Robins, in Egyptian World, 360; Kanawati & Woods, Artists in the
Old Kingdom, 33.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 5.11. Leatherwork model of Djay (275 LC), with a
man cutting a pair of sandal soles [M50]. Image © National
Museums Scotland: A.1914.76.
of skill in three-dimensions. Instead, the model-artist had
the advantage of a holistic perspective that enabled him
to position the legs side-by-side without any component
being obscured from view. Therefore, each artist selected
a seated posture that was most suitable for his medium.
Secondly, differences are observed in their representation
of the sandals.120 With the limited perspective of the
two-dimensional medium, scene-artists typically portray
each object from a single viewpoint.121 For sandals, this
comprises the top-down perspective as it forms the most
recognisable aspect. This creates a composite image with
the leatherworker who is largely portrayed in profile. On
the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the sandal
being cut by the craftsman appears to stand upright on its
side although in reality it would lie flat on the workbench
[S169; fig. 5.13]. Moreover, the completed sandals reside
in the empty space of the register above the man but
should be understood as lying on the ground beside him.
The three-dimensional medium, in contrast, could present
a more realistic arrangement. In the model of Djay (275
120
Sandals can always be easily recognised in representations of their
manufacture as they conform to a standard shape and design. However,
both the archaeological record and their appearance in different scenes
indicate that a variety of types were known. The similarities across the
leatherwork representations may therefore indicate that the illustrations
were standardised in order to ensure that the theme was easily recognised.
Veldmeijer, Tutankhamun’s Footwear, 206.
121
Robins, Egyptian Painting, 11; Kanawati & Woods, Artists in the Old
Kingdom, 29.
154
LC), the sandals lie flat on the baseboard in front of the
leatherworker and are even positioned at a slight angle
to facilitate cutting [M50; fig. 5.11]. With the advantage
of a holistic perspective, model-artists could accurately
convey the precise arrangement of each component in
the motif.
Other differences between the media in their portrayal of
the sandal cutting motif may convey that a slightly different
stage of the operation is performed. In the wall scenes
examined, the leatherworker consistently cuts a single sole
to shape, as is exemplified in the scene of Baqet III (15
UC): a single sole, which has been given some definition
to indicate it is intended for the right foot, resides on the
workbench while its pair has already been shaped and is
situated in the space above [S74; fig. 5.12].122 In contrast,
the leatherworker in the model of Djay (275 LC) is in the
process of cutting a pair of sandals [M50; fig. 5.11]. His
work is not yet complete as the two soles have not been
fully formed: the top end has been shaped into two distinct
curves with an incised line extending down the middle,
while the bottom still forms one continuous edge. Perhaps
this representation portrays a slightly earlier stage in the
cutting process than is illustrated in wall scenes. This is
further highlighted by the presence of completed sandals in
some two-dimensional representations. All of the sandals
in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) appear complete, even
the one in the process of being cut: the soles are coloured
yellow and are bordered by a defined line, and the black/
white straps extend from a point at the toe end to a loop at
the heel [S169; fig. 5.13]. This is in contrast to the sandals
constructed by the model leatherworker which are simply
painted a buff colour and have no straps attached [M50;
fig. 5.11]. These differences in detail indicate that the
model-artist presented a slightly earlier stage of cutting
and ensured that all of the elements in his design reflected
this rather than simply duplicating the work of scene-
artists.
While the model of Djay (275 LC) solely depicts the
cutting of sandals, wall scenes illustrate a number of other
leatherwork tasks. However, these representations are
quite selective with several of the essential manufacturing
stages excluded from the repertoire. Van Driel-Murray has
attributed this to the unclean nature of some practices, such
as skinning the animals and cleaning the hides, as this may
have made them unsuitable for display in the cult area.123
However, the particularly unclean task of slaughtering
is a very common theme in chapel scenes, making this
interpretation unlikely. Alternatively, Veldmeijer has
suggested that some of these tasks would have been
difficult to convey pictorially, such as the choice of animal
hides and manufacturing the sandal straps.124 Explanatory
labels regularly accompany leatherwork scenes of the Old
122
The standard cutting pattern of soles was already known in the Old
Kingdom, with the left and right feet distinguished from the earliest
times. van Driel-Murray, in Materials and Technology, 314.
123
van Driel-Murray, in Materials and Technology, 302; Skinner, in
Chariots in Ancient Egypt, 80.
124
Veldmeijer, Tutankhamun’s Footwear, 206.
 Craft Production

Figure 5.12. Manufacturing leather for the production of sandals. Tomb of Baqet III (15 UC). North wall, register 4 [S74]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 69 [detail];
courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

Figure 5.13. Four figures manufacturing leather sandals; all sandals are complete and disproportionately large. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). West wall, north panel, register 1 [S169].
Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 91 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

155
Preparing for Eternity
Kingdom, but they disappear from those of the Middle
Kingdom, with the exception of the scene of Baqet III (15
UC) [S74; fig. 5.12].125 Without such captions, Veldmeijer
proposes that these processes may have been difficult to
identify. However, text would not have been understood
by all visitors to the tomb and so conveying a theme
successfully could not solely rely on inscriptions. Rather,
it should be remembered that the Egyptians never depicted
every stage in a process, but only those considered most
characteristic, with particular emphasis on the final
product.126 As small sections of wall space were dedicated
to leatherwork, only a select number of processes could be
included. Therefore, the tasks excluded from leatherwork
scenes should be understood as not considered vital to
conveying the industry.
The leatherwork scene displayed on the south wall of
room 1 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir
is one of the most expansive Old Kingdom examples of
the theme and includes some of the preparatory activities
only occasionally represented [S29; fig. 5.14].127 Four
men are at work in the second register, with the action
progressing from left to right: the first man has one hand
resting inside a container, a sign of softening or curing
the hide in liquid;128 the second man holds a rectangular
piece of leather in one hand and a small rubbing stone in
the other that will be used to smooth the material;129 the
precise tasks of the final two men are unclear from the
surviving details, but one seems to work a sheet of leather
while the other manufactures sandals. An additional
process regularly depicted in scenes that is absent from
Pepyankh the Black’s representation is staking which
involves pulling a piece of leather back-and-forth over a
trestle to make it pliable.130 All three Middle Kingdom
scenes examined include this task, as exemplified by the
man on the right of the scene of Baqet III (15 UC) [S74;
fig. 5.12].131 Although still restricted in the quantity of
processes, the illustration of these subsidiary tasks results
in a more expansive representation of the industry in the
two-dimensional medium than is witnessed in the model.
Wall scenes also have the advantage of associating
leatherwork with other manufacturing processes. Vignettes
125
The late 6th Dynasty scene of Pepyankh the Black (A2) contains
captions that identify the titles of the craftsmen and their actions [S29;
fig. 5.14], while the Middle Kingdom scenes of Amenemhat (2 UC) and
Ukh-hotep II (B4) do not incorporate text [S169, S177; see fig. 5.13].
Although, it should be noted that the scene of Ukh-hotep II is particularly
fragmentary and so the exclusion of text cannot be confirmed with
certainty. Hasanien, “Leather manufacture”, GM 161, (1997), 75.
126
Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 88.
127
Hampson, “Men at Work”, 174-75.
128
Reed, Ancient Skins, 48-51; Veldmeijer, “Leatherworking”, UEE 1.1,
(2008), <https://escholarship.org/uc/item/13g5n8th>; Hampson, “Men at
Work”, 175.
129
Veldmeijer & Laidler, in History of Science, Technology, and
Medicine, 1216-217; Hampson, “Men at Work”, 175.
130
Forbes, Ancient Technology. Volume V, 24-25; Lucas & Harris,
Materials and Industries, 35.
131
Of this motif, only the base of a three-legged trestle with the feet of
a standing man beside it is preserved in the scene of Ukh-hotep II (B4),
but it is probable that this is the task being performed [S177]. Drenkhahn,
Handwerker, 7; Schwarz, Altägyptisches Lederhandwerk, cat. A.10.
156
of craft production are regularly depicted on the same wall
of the tomb, reflecting the practice of closely associating
scenes of a similar nature.132 It is probable that many of
these industries shared similar tools and materials, and so
the craftsmen may have operated in the same workshops or
industrial areas and possibly even on the same objects.133
The west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) provides
a clear example of the close arrangement of various crafts:
immediately below the scene of leatherwork in the first
register are illustrations of carpentry and stone vessel
production in the second register, metalwork in the third,
and pottery manufacture in the fourth [S169].134 With the
dedication of a large section of wall to craft production,
multiple industries could be portrayed. Additionally, the
task of manufacturing flint knives is regularly associated
with leatherwork. In the scenes of Baqet III (15 UC)
and Amenemhat (2 UC), the two themes are portrayed
immediately side-by-side [S74, S169]. Flint tools were
used by craftsmen from the earliest times, particularly
for cutting animal products such as meat and hide,135 and
therefore the close association of these themes may reflect
a shared use of tools. The advantage of a large surface area
for artistic representation is unique to the two-dimensional
medium, allowing connections between themes to be
easily conveyed.
The model of Djay (275 LC), in contrast, does not portray
any association with other activities as the leatherworker
is situated alone on a small baseboard [M50; fig. 5.11].
In fact, none of the models examined that depict craft
production portray more than one industry. Only rarely
are multiple themes grouped in a single model,136 with
the small size of the baseboard typically restricting each
representation to a single theme. However, in a few rare
exceptions, a group model may illustrate more than one
craft production. In a model from the tomb of Gemniemhat
at Saqqara, for example, the activities of carpentry,
metalwork and pottery manufacture are all represented on
a single baseboard.137 Alternatively, tomb owners could
include multiple industries in their three-dimensional
assemblages by interring more than one model. Of the
nine models portraying craft production identified from
Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, seven originate
from two tombs: the burial of Djay (275 LC) housed one
model of leatherwork and one of brick-making [M50-
M51], while the assemblage of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)
included two spinning and weaving, one carpentry and
132
Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 72-73.
133
Stevens & Eccleston, in Egyptian World, 158; Brewer & Teeter,
Egypt and the Egyptians, 93.
134
Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 73; Kanawati & Evans, Beni
Hassan. Volume III, pl. 91.
135
Griffith, Beni Hasan. Part III, 34-38; Forbes, Ancient Technology.
Volume V, 22; Stocks, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.
oxfordreference.com>.
136
Group models portraying multiple processes are largely confined to
food preparation, with bread-making, brewing and slaughtering regularly
combined, as was discussed in chapters 2.4 and 2.6.
137
The figures are arranged within an architectural structure, with each
craft confined to its own section. Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen:
AEIN 1633. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, pl. 46b; Jørgensen,
Catalogue: Egypt I, cat. 54.
 Craft Production

Figure 5.14. Four leatherworkers; from left to right they are softening the hide, smoothing the material, working the leather
and manufacturing sandals. Tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2). South wall of room 1, register 2 [S29]. Kanawati & Evans,
Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 71c [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

two brick-making models [M151-M155]. These corpora

enabled model owners to be supplied with more than one
type of manufactured good but did not portray the same
connections between the different processes that could be
achieved in wall scenes.

Although rarely attested in the two- and three-dimensional

repertoires, leatherwork representations in both scenes and
models focus on the manufacture of sandals. This item
was clearly the most desired commodity of the industry
for the funerary sphere and therefore forms the focus of
the representations. Both media depict the task of cutting
the soles, and while they exhibit a number of similarities,
differences also occur which result from their individual
technical capabilities. The three-dimensional medium
is solely confined to this task, presenting a particularly
condensed representation, whereas scenes illustrate a
greater number of activities. It seems that models of sandals
were preferred for the substructure, with representations
of their manufacture, like other craft production processes,
considered a supplementary theme only included among
some extensive model assemblages.

157
 6
Miscellaneous
6.1 Military
The military was an important force in ancient Egypt
that was utilised not only in warfare, but also in trading
and quarrying expeditions as well as other civil tasks.1
During the Old Kingdom, there was apparently no need
for a permanent standing army as troops of young men
were temporarily conscripted to serve specific tasks
when required.2 Once assembled, these men served
under the authority of high administrative officials rather
than trained military commanders.3 A similar situation
continued in the First Intermediate Period, although
provincial governors had command of their own local
forces at this time.4 These regional troops could be called
upon by the king, but also gave the nomarchs increasing
independent power, especially significant during a period
of civil strife.5 In the Middle Kingdom, the provincial
armies continued until the second half of the 12th Dynasty,
but were augmented by a professional military force
under the direct command of the king.6 It was not until
the New Kingdom, however, that the military became a
more influential force with the development of a large
permanent standing army.7
Although the military served an important role in ancient
Egyptian society, very few military representations are
known. Battle scenes appear quite frequently in royal
contexts, particularly in New Kingdom temples, but
are rarely found in private tombs.8 In fact, only two
examples are known from the Old Kingdom, namely those
in the late 5th Dynasty tombs of Kayemheset at Saqqara and
Inti at Deshasha.9 During the First Intermediate Period
and Middle Kingdom, this number only slightly increases,
with a total of eight provincial examples known.10 Four
of these originate from the three sites under investigation,
1
Hayes, Sceptre of Egypt. Part I, 277; Shaw, Egyptian Warfare, 25;
Partridge, Fighting Pharaohs, 3.
2
Faulkner, “Egyptian military organization”, JEA 39, (1953), 32-33;
Shaw, Egyptian Warfare, 25; Gutgesell, in Egypt, 365.
3
Schulman, in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Volume I, 289-
90; Gnirs, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>;
Lloyd, Ancient Egypt, 115-16; Shaw, War & Trade, 14.
4
Partridge, Fighting Pharaohs, 83; Spalinger, in Pharaoh’s Land and
Beyond, 95.
5
Moreno Garcia, in Studies on War, 33; Spalinger, in Pharaoh’s Land
and Beyond, 109-10.
6
Faulkner, “Egyptian military organization”, JEA 39, (1953), 37;
Spalinger, in Ancient Egyptian Administration, 423.
7
Shaw, Egyptian Warfare, 26; Partridge, Fighting Pharaohs, 88.
8
Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 100; O’Connor, in Never had the Like
Occurred, 169.
9
Kanawati & McFarlane, Deshasha, pl. 27; McFarlane, Mastabas at
Saqqara, pl. 48; Mourad, “Siege scenes”, BACE 22, (2011), 135-44.
10
Schulman has identified two scenes from Assasif, one from Mo’alla,
another from Aswan and four from Beni Hassan. Schulman, “Battle
scenes”, JSSEA 12, (1982), 165-66.
159
and all are found in the cemetery of Beni Hassan,
suggesting a regional preference for the theme. These
scenes are located on the east walls of the tombs of Baqet
III (15 UC), Khety (17 UC), Khnumhotep I (14 UC) and
Amenemhat (2 UC) [S76, S96, S122, S158-S159], and in
each example, the siege of a fortress is displayed with a
battle between two opposing Egyptian forces.11 It has also
been suggested that two tombs at Deir el-Bersha originally
contained similar scenes that have not been preserved.
This conclusion, postulated by Newberry and adopted by
Schulman, is based on the appearance of wrestling scenes
in the tombs of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) and Neheri (N-4).12
While wrestling is displayed immediately above all four
Beni Hassan battle scenes, other examples show pairs
of wrestlers without any associated military combat.13
It should therefore not be assumed that these two tombs
likewise contained military scenes, although this remains
a possibility.
Among the three-dimensional medium, military
representations are likewise particularly uncommon. The
earliest extant example which dates to the Predynastic
Period, is fashioned of earthenware and depicts two
warriors defending an enclosure wall.14 Only a single Old
Kingdom example has been identified and this comprises a
single male figure carrying a spear from Naga ed-Deir.15
More examples are known from the Middle Kingdom,
but they are still restricted in number and solely display
processions of marching soldiers.16 From the sites
investigated in this study, three examples were found in the
11
Gaballa, Narrative, 39-40; Schulman, “Battle scenes”, JSSEA 12,
(1982), 176-78; Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 9.
12
On the west wall on the outer room of Djehuty-hotep’s tomb, a scene
of wrestling is displayed in the upper registers; the lower part of the wall
has been significantly damaged with the scenes largely lost. Newberry,
El Bersheh. Part I, 14. Similarly, only a single piece of the right half of
the north wall of the tomb of Neheri has survived, and this includes a
wrestling scene. Newberry & Griffith, El Bersheh. Part II, 29, pl. 11.7;
Schulman, “Battle scenes”, JSSEA 12, (1982), 166, 168.
13
The tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan, for example, displays
a scene of wrestlers in the upper register of the west panel of the south
wall with the space below occupied by scenes related to agriculture and
animal husbandry. Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 32. Similarly, on
the north wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir, three pairs of wrestlers
appear in the second register and are surrounded by vignettes of offering-
bearers, singing and dancing, agriculture and marshland activities.
Although, a series of weapons is arranged in the register immediately
above. Furthermore, the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) at Meir depicts four
pairs of wrestlers above two registers of offering-bearers on the north
wall. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pls. 78-79, 89.
14
Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908 E.3202.
Crowfoot Payne, Predynastic Egyptian Collection, cat. 27; McDermott,
Warfare, 18.
15
Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 275-77, fig. 214.
16
Kroenke has identified a total of six provenanced examples from the
Middle Kingdom: two from the tomb of Mesehti at Asyut, one from Deir
el-Bahri, and three from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) at Deir el-
Bersha. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 276.
Preparing for Eternity
tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) at Deir el-Bersha [M156-
M157] and a tentative fourth example said to be from
Meir [M257].17 The latter, however, should be examined
with caution as it is probable that it is a forgery and will
consequently not be further analysed in this study.18 The
military theme is certainly restricted in number in both the
two- and three-dimensional repertoires, and this may be
associated with the status of the artworks’ owners.
All five tomb owners identified from Meir, Deir el-
Bersha and Beni Hassan who included either two- or
three-dimensional military representations in their burials
served as governor of their respective nome.19 By the
First Intermediate Period, provincial rulers had command
over their own forces which they could use for their own
benefit and/or dispatch for the king’s service.20 Beni
Hassan and Deir el-Bersha, in particular, were major
centres of military activity during the Middle Kingdom,
so it is not surprising that many of the known military
representations are identified in these provinces.21 Given
the importance of military victory in the First Intermediate
Period, authorities of the Middle Kingdom adopted
new values that celebrated heroic behaviour.22 This is
reflected in autobiographies of the period that highlight
military success, such as that of Amenemhat (2 UC) which
records three successful expeditions to the south, two of
which were accompanied by royalty.23 The depiction
of military activities also probably reflects the role of
the governor during his lifetime. This theme may have
therefore not been accessible to individuals of lower status
and should be considered a supplementary addition for
ruling elite who desired to highlight their military success.
While the two-dimensional military illustrations display
soldiers engaged in battle, the three-dimensional
representations solely exhibit files of marching soldiers.
In the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), the soldiers
17
Only two of the three models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) were
available for examination through images. This assemblage of three
military models comprises the greatest known quantity of armed model
groups from a single burial. However, the corpus of Mesehti from Asyut
contains a greater number of model soldiers, with 80 figures across two
models. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 257, CG 258. Pirelli, in Egyptian
Treasures, 108-11; Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 158.
18
Personal correspondence with collection technician Cheryl Copson
from the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto has indicated that the model
is most likely a forgery. The features that give weight to this conclusion
include the non-standard shaping of the figures’ bodies, the unusual
colouring and design of the kilts, the feet are carved yet still sink into the
baseboard, the figures step forward with different legs, the non-standard
shape of the shield and the way in which the defensive weapon is carried,
and the too well-preserved paint on the baseboard.
19
Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), Baqet III (15 UC), Khety (17 UC),
Khnumhotep I (14 UC) and Amenemhat (2 UC) all held the title of
nomarch, while Amenemhat also served as ‘overseer of the great army
of the Oryx nome’. Schulman, “Battle scenes”, JSSEA 12, (1982), 180.
20
Faulkner, “Egyptian military organization”, JEA 39, (1953) 37;
Spalinger, in Pharaoh’s Land and Beyond, 109-10.
21
Faulkner, “Egyptian military organization”, JEA 39, (1953) 36;
McDermott, Warfare, 42.
22
Moreno Garcia, in Studies on War, 29.
23
Amenemhat speaks of his own army rather than that of the king,
demonstrating his power and independence as a nomarch. Kanawati &
Woods, Beni Hassan, 22; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III,
26-27; Spalinger, in Pharaoh’s Land and Beyond, 97.
160
walk in single or double file with the same leg advanced,
displaying strict order and discipline in their arrangement
and movement [M156-M157; see fig. 6.1]. This may be
paralleled in wall scenes where soldiers advance towards
a battle or process bringing supplies. On the east wall of
the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC), for example, a file
of soldiers apparently running towards the combat on the
right of the sixth register, followed by men walking while
carrying supplies, display similar motion [S122]. All of
the men advance with the same leg and progress in single
file, although the first group closely overlap each other
in their faster movement. However, a point of difference
between the representations is found in the positioning
of the arms. In one of the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-
10A), each figure advances with the left leg and swings the
opposite arm forward [M156; fig. 6.1]. Conversely, in the
scene of Khnumhotep I (14 UC), the same leg and arm of
each soldier carrying supplies are advanced. This should
most likely be attributed to the limited perspective of the
two-dimensional medium that required the limbs furthest
from view to be positioned in front for both to be seen.
The scene-artist had to adapt his design to overcome this
limitation, whereas the model-artist could present a more
realistic portrayal of the soldiers’ movement.
Differences are also found in the media’s portrayal of the
soldiers’ attire. The three-dimensional medium presents a
more simplified representation, with the men in Djehuty-
nakht’s (R-10A) models all wearing simple, white-painted
knee-length kilts without any additional features [M156-
M157; see fig. 6.1].24 Wall scenes, in contrast, exhibit
much greater detail and variety in the soldiers’ attire, with
some garments specifically designated to certain roles.
In the scene of Khety (17 UC), for example, the soldiers
equipped with close-combat weaponry wear short kilts,
some of which have sashes tied around the waist and/or
hanging pendant pieces [S96; fig. 6.4]. The archers, on the
other hand, are identified by their crossed chest-bands and
some also by the pouches worn at their waist and/or the
feathers in their hair.25 Such diversity in design could
be easily achieved in two-dimensions as minute elements
could be easily drawn on the wall surface, whereas such
intricacies were more difficult to accomplish in three-
dimensions.
While the soldiers portrayed in the models of Djehuty-
nakht (R-10A) are exclusively Egyptian, wall scenes
highlight the diversity of ethnicities that were recruited.
Foreign mercenaries were employed in the Egyptian army
from as early as the Old Kingdom,26 and scenes distinguish
24
The Egyptian spearmen in the model of Mesehti from Asyut, however,
wear short, white-painted kilts with the added detail of a pendant piece at
the front. This model is particularly finely carved which may account for
the greater detail displayed in attire. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 257,
CG 258. Pirelli, in Egyptian Treasures, 108-11.
25
Some of these details are specific to Nubian mercenaries employed as
archers. Schulman, “Battle scenes”, JSSEA 12, (1982), 177; Brovarski, in
Egyptian Culture and Society. Volume I, 65; Mourad, “Foreigners at Beni
Hassan”, BASOR 384, (2020), 111.
26
Redford, Slave to Pharaoh, 20; Gnirs, in Oxford Encyclopedia,
<http://www.oxfordreference.com>; Spalinger, in Ancient Egyptian

Figure 6.1. Military model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), with
four soldiers alternately equipped with shields and quivers
[M156]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston:
21.803.
these individuals by their skin colour, hairstyles, clothing
and equipment. In the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC), for
example, Nubian archers are employed in the attack on
the fortress: in the fourth register of the north panel, the
archer stringing his bow has the characteristic short curly
hair with protruding feather of the Nubian [S158; fig.
6.2].27 Nubians were particularly valued as bowmen and
are typically portrayed in this role in representations of the
Egyptian army.28 Additionally, the scene of Amenemhat
incorporates Asiatic mercenaries: in the hand-to-hand
combat displayed on the south panel, three Asiatic soldiers
advance on the right of the fifth register [S159; fig. 6.3].
The men are identified as Asiatics by their yellow skin,
coiffed hair, short pointed beards, decorated kilts, and the
throwsticks and fenestrated eye-axe that they carry.29
Although the military models examined in this study do not
include foreigners, an example from the tomb of Mesehti at
Administration, 448; Moreno Garcia, “Trade and power”, JArchRes 25.2,
(2017), 117.
27
Booth, Role of Foreigners, 9; Roth, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian
Art, 163-65.
28
Partridge, Fighting Pharaohs, 45; Spalinger, in Ancient Egyptian
Administration, 451-52.
29
While the throwstick had been utilised in the hunt for birds in the
marshes by the Egyptians from as early as the Predynastic Period, the
tool was regularly used as a weapon in battle by Asiatics. Shaw, Egyptian
Warfare, 31; Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”, 138, 351.
161
Miscellaneous
Asyut displays a company of 40 Nubian archers marching
in 10 rows.30 The model is very finely carved, allowing
distinguishing Nubian features to be clearly conveyed,
including their black skin, a decorated yellow or red
loincloth with pendant piece, and a painted necklace and
anklets.31 Interestingly, these Nubians are separated from
the Egyptian soldiers who are represented on their own
baseboard rather than integrated into the same artwork.32
In wall scenes, Nubian archers are often scattered among
the Egyptian troops, already engaged in battle,33 whereas
in the models, the soldiers process as distinct groups.
As the three-dimensional figures are not yet engaged in
combat, the figures required a different arrangement than
is exhibited in scenes. This representation of foreigners
is rare among military models,34 and demonstrates the
unusually expansive size dedicated to this theme by
Mesehti.
The three-dimensional medium is also more condensed
in the range of weapons portrayed. In the better preserved
model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), the soldiers alternate
in holding shields and quivers [M156; fig. 6.1], while the
remains of the other two military models from the burial
suggest the presence of quivers, bows and shields [M157].35
Wall scenes, conversely, display a wide variety of equipment,
some of which is held at rest while others are in use,
including bows and arrows, stones, slingshots, battle-axes,
daggers, spears, sticks and shields. Not only did the greater
amount of space dedicated to the theme accommodate this,
but the display of actual combat presumably contributed
to the representation of more weapons. The siege on the
fortress required the use of long-range weaponry while the
30
Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 257. Pirelli, in Egyptian Treasures,
108-09.
31
The figures also share a number of features with the Egyptians
displayed in the other military model from the tomb, including short hair,
white fillets tied around the heads, cosmetic lines around the eyes and
similar facial features, which may reflect an acceptance of Nubians into
Egyptian society. Roth, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 165-66.
32
Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 258. Pirelli, in Egyptian Treasures,
108-11.
33
While Nubian archers are scattered throughout the Egyptian army,
Asiatic mercenaries usually remain in their own groups. In the scene of
Khnumhotep I (14 UC), for example, a row of five Asiatics appears to
the right of the fortress in the fourth register, while a second group of
four stands at the extreme right of the sixth register [S122]. Similarly,
in the scene of Khety (17 UC), a file of at least 10 Asiatic men stand to
the right of the fortress behind two archers in the sixth register [S96; fig.
6.4]. While Newberry’s record suggests that the skin of one of the men
in the middle of the group is dark, more recent documentation by the
Australian Centre for Egyptology has indicated that the man actually has
yellow skin, suggesting that he too is Asiatic. Newberry, Beni Hasan.
Part II, pl. 15.
34
The Middle Kingdom military model from Deir el-Bahri similarly
includes two Nubian archers, but the size of the original model is
unknown as only these two figures and some equipment have survived.
Naville, Deir el-Bahari. Part I, 46; Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues,
102; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 276.
35
Freed and Doxey have postulated that the figures holding shields in the
better preserved model may have originally held a second weapon in their
pendant hands as the lowered right hand is carved while the parallel arms
of the other two figures terminate as pegs [M156; fig. 6.1]. This seems
probable as the hands are clenched and appear to have a hole piercing
their grip which would have originally helped to secure an object. While
Freed and Doxey have suggested that this item was originally a bow,
this identification cannot be determined with certainty from the surviving
evidence. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 158.
Preparing for Eternity

Figure 6.2. An attack on a fortress, with Nubians employed as archers. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). East wall, north panel, registers 4-5 [S158]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume
III, pl. 98 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

Figure 6.3. A series of hand-to-hand combats, with three Asiatic mercenaries advancing on the right of the fifth register. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). East wall, south panel, registers 4-5
[S159]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 102 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

162

hand-to-hand battles exploit close-combat equipment. As is
witnessed in the scene of Khety (17 UC), the archers stand
closest to the fortress as they begin their attack while the
soldiers equipped with close-range weapons stand behind,
awaiting the siege [S96; fig. 6.4]. This creates an expansive
representation that highlights the different weapons
employed in a single battle.
Although there is a vast difference in quantity, the
weapons that are represented by both media exhibit many
similarities in design. The quivers carried by the soldiers
in the model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) and in the scene
of Baqet III (15 UC) are long and rectangular in shape and
are decorated with patches indicating they are fashioned of
animal hide [M156, S76; see fig. 6.1].36 However, one note
of difference may be seen in the portrayal of the contents.
Quivers could be used to carry a range of weapons,
including arrows, staffs, spears and javelins.37 While the
scene of Baqet III displays several pointed tips extending
out the top of each quiver, the model quivers of Djehuty-
nakht are enclosed. This minute detail would have been
more difficult to craft in three-dimensions, and this may
perhaps explain the difference in design.
Further similarities may be identified in the manner in
which the quivers are carried. The model soldiers each
hold the left arm out straight and lean the quiver back
against the arm and shoulder [M156; fig. 6.1]. Likewise,
the three men transporting supplies in the middle of the
eighth register of the scene of Baqet III (15 UC) lean
quivers against their outstretched arms [S76]. However,
the scene is more detailed in its representation, with
each man curving his hand to support the quiver from
underneath and one soldier bending his elbow. The model
soldiers carrying quivers, conversely, exhibit straight
stick-like arms without hands. Not only was a straight
arm with limited definition much easier to craft in three-
dimensions, but as the quivers were pegged to the arms,38
no additional support from underneath was required.
Moreover, similarities may be identified in the
representation of the shield. Prior to the New Kingdom,
shields formed the principal mode of protection for
soldiers.39 The typical round-topped shape of the Egyptian
shield is portrayed in both media and the patch decoration
indicates a leather construction which would have been
firm enough to protect its bearer from attack while
remaining light for manoeuvrability.40 The two shields in
the model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) have a defined border
with small black-painted dots, quite likely indicative of the
stitching used to secure the leather to the wooden frame
[M156; fig. 6.1].41 This minute detail of stitching is also
36
Partridge, Fighting Pharaohs, 28; McDermott, Warfare, 71.
37
McDermott, Warfare, 69.
38
McDermott, Warfare, 72.
39
Partridge, Fighting Pharaohs, 52; Shaw, Egyptian Warfare, 32-34.
40
Gonen, Weapons, 65-67; Hoffmeier, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://
www.oxfordreference.com>; Brier & Hobbs, Daily Life, 251-53.
41
Gonen, Weapons, 67; Hayes, Sceptre of Egypt. Part I, 278; Peck,
Material World, 197.
163
Miscellaneous
included in some wall scenes, such as on all shields carried
by soldiers in the representation of Amenemhat (2 UC)
[S158-S159; figs. 6.2, 6.3]. However, some differences
may be noticed in the way the shields are carried. As the
two-dimensional medium is restricted in the range of
viewpoints it can portray, the shields in scenes are solely
portrayed in full view, conveying their most characteristic
aspect. The defensive weapon is held in front of the body
and consequently conceals the bearer’s arm and the rear
side of the shield. Conversely, the funerary model has the
advantage of working in three-dimensions, allowing both
sides of the shield to be conveyed. When viewed from one
angle, the defensive weapon is held against the soldier’s
side, hiding most of his body, but when viewed from the
opposite side, the back of the shield with the hand grasping
the handle is on display. Consequently, both media
encapsulate the same shield but achieve this according to
their specific capabilities.
While there is some similarity in the depiction of the soldier
and his equipment between wall scenes and models, the
media differ vastly in the content of their representations.
Two major aspects of scenes that dominate the compositions
are entirely absent from models: fortresses and combat. In
the four Beni Hassan scenes, the attack is directed against
a large fortress which fills the height of two registers
[S76, S96, S122, S158; see figs. 6.2, 6.4]. Each fortress
is shown in elevation, with one or two gateways, sloping
banks attached to the sides and a series of turrets lining the
top of the wall.42 The Egyptian landscape was familiar
with fortresses, particularly during the 12th Dynasty with
the construction of the Second Cataract Forts. These
landmarks, positioned at strategic points along the river,
served to secure trade routes, facilitate the exploitation of
natural resources, and monitor local populations.43 The
three-dimensional medium, on the other hand, does not
encapsulate such structures, and architectural features are
indeed rare among models outside of representations of
granaries.44 Instead, the sole focus of military models is on
the soldiers and their equipment.
The second dominant feature of wall scenes is the battle
itself, which in the Beni Hassan illustrations takes place
between two opposing Egyptian forces [S76, S96, S122,
S158-S159].45 All four scenes present a similar battle,
with the siege against the fortress opened by a barrage of
arrow fire and followed by men carrying close-combat
42
A fortress likewise appears in the two Old Kingdom military scenes of
Kayemheset and Inti, but the structure is shown in ground plan rather than
elevation. Schulman, “Battle scenes”, JSSEA 12, (1982), 179; Kanawati
& McFarlane, Deshasha, pl. 27; McFarlane, Mastabas at Saqqara, pl.
48; Monnier, “Iconographie égyptienne”, ENiM 7, (2014), 175-76.
43
Trigger, Nubia, 64-74; Adams, Nubia, 183-87; Taylor, Egypt and
Nubia, 17-19; Smith, Wretched Kush, 76.
44
An exception is found in the Predynastic military model that depicts
a curved enclosure wall, the top of which is wavy and has one external
buttress. This model, however, does not depict a complete structure,
but rather a single defensive wall. Ashmolean Museum, University of
Oxford: AN1896-1908 E.3202. Crowfoot Payne, Predynastic Egyptian
Collection, cat. 27.
45
Schulman, “Siege warfare”, NH 73.3, (1964), 15; Kanawati & Woods,
Beni Hassan, 9.
Preparing for Eternity
weapons who await the next stage of attack. A series
of hand-to-hand combats is also displayed, somewhat
separated from the attack on the fortress. In three of the
scenes, these vignettes are largely confined to the register
below the fortress [S76, S96, S122], while in the scene
of Amenemhat (2 UC) they are positioned on a different
panel of the same wall, divided by the entrance to the shrine
[S158-S159; figs. 6.2, 6.3]. Such separation may indicate
that the hand-to-hand combat took place away from the
fortress, somewhere in the plains.46 On the contrary,
no combat is portrayed in funerary models. Instead, the
soldiers simply march in procession with their weapons
at rest, suggesting that they are providing supplies rather
than engaging in attack [M156-M157; see fig. 6.1].47
There is no presence of an enemy, with only those soldiers
serving the tomb owner displayed.
This vast difference in content may perhaps be explained
by the location of the two media. The Beni Hassan military
scenes are displayed in the chapel and are located on the
wall opposite the entrance, causing all visitors to see
them immediately upon entering the tomb. Therefore,
the two-dimensional representations serve as a public
expression of the power, influence and achievements of
the tomb owner. The scenes may even record specific
events that would be remembered and commemorated
by the living.48 Conversely, military models are housed
in the burial chamber where they are only viewed by the
deceased. Accordingly, the three-dimensional soldiers
were designed to serve their master in the afterlife rather
46
Although Schulman has classified the hand-to-hand combat on the
south panel of Amenemhat’s (2 UC) east wall as being a separate affair
to the siege on the north panel, it seems more likely that the two scenes
should be understood as the one event, as is found in the other Beni
Hassan examples. The separation instead may be a means to differentiate
between the attack on the fortress and the hand-to-hand combat taking
place nearby and also result from the cutting of the entry to the shrine into
the centre of the wall. Schulman, “Battle scenes”, JSSEA 12, (1982), 178.
47
Additionally, the type of weaponry carried by the model soldiers does
not indicate that they are about to engage in attack. In the better preserved
model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), only shields and quivers are carried,
with no offensive equipment prepared, although it is possible that two
of the men originally carried an additional weapon in their hanging right
hands [M156; fig. 6.1]. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 158.
48
The Beni Hassan battle scenes are regularly aligned in scholarship
with the civil strife that occurred during the First Intermediate Period as
it is clear that all four battles take place between two Egyptian camps. It
is also possible, however, that they record factions between the nomes
during the Middle Kingdom. The tombs of Baqet III (15 UC) and Khety
(17 UC), dating to the 11th Dynasty, may indeed record battles of the
First Intermediate Period, but the tombs of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) and
Amenemhat (2 UC), dating to the 12th Dynasty, seem too distanced from
this tumultuous period. The fact that there is great similarity between
all four scenes may suggest that the theme became part of the genre of
the region and was adopted by each of the owners, regardless if they
themselves were engaged in the original battle. This may perhaps be
further supported by the fact that the scenes become smaller and less
complex over time. Alternatively, the close association between wrestling
and military activity on each of the tomb walls has led to the suggestion
that the battles are training for the soldiers rather than historic events.
The scenes do not include any accompanying inscriptions that would
make certain the nature of the combat depicted, but it seems most likely
that they record actual combat that occurred under the authority of the
tomb owner. Gaballa, Narrative, 40; Schulman, “Battle scenes”, JSSEA
12, (1982), 180-83; Shaw, in Battle in Antiquity, 244-46; Brovarski, in
Egyptian Culture and Society. Volume I, 66; Kanawati & Evans, Beni
Hassan. Volume III, 26-27; Bestock, Violence and Power, 256-58;
Kanawati, in Death is Only the Beginning, 62.
164
than impress visitors, so depicting a specific location and
battle would not have been required. Instead, the focus is
on the strict discipline of the soldiers who march in an
orderly procession and the weapons they have at their
disposal.
Perhaps a more appropriate comparison may be conducted
with scenes of armed attendants. On the east wall of the
inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-
Bersha, for example, a procession of attendants appears in
the lowest register [S209; fig. 6.5]. The figures all advance
with their left leg and have their feet flat on the ground.
They carry a range of equipment and weaponry, including
bows and arrows, staffs, spears, battle-axes and a large
round-topped shield. The scene is not connected with
any military battle, but rather appears among vignettes of
agriculture, food preparation and craft production as well
as a procession of Djehuty-hotep’s family.49 The role of
the attendants may be to protect the governor during the
inspection of his territories or function as a form of honour
guard.50 In either case, the focus is on the protection that
the men provide for the tomb owner without any need for
military engagement. This seems to align more closely
with the military models which likewise display armed
men walking in procession while carrying weapons at
rest. Housed in the burial chamber, the model soldiers
were most likely designed to provide protection for the
deceased in the afterlife.
Not only were battles more appropriate for display in the
public part of the tomb, but representations of combat and
violence would not have been acceptable in the substructure
where every effort was made to protect the body of the
deceased from harm. As will be further explored in chapter
7, animate beings were largely excluded from the walls
of substructures in order to protect the deceased from any
threat they might pose. It is therefore surprising that model
figures equipped with weapons could even be included
in burial chambers as they had the potential to cause
harm. For tomb owners such as Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)
who interred three-dimensional military representations
in their burials, the desire for eternal protection must
have outweighed the danger posed by the soldiers and
their weapons. As the military models depict disciplined
soldiers, they were presumably well-trained and may have
represented individuals personally known and trusted by
the tomb owner. While this theme was not often included
among model assemblages, the practice of interring
weapons was relatively common: shields are regularly
found on model boats, either attached to canopies or held
by individuals on board, and both real and replica weapons
were deposited in tombs. These items appear in the burials
of individuals of differing social status, age and gender.51
In the burial of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) at Beni Hassan, for
49
It should be noted that the wall has incurred significant damage, with a
number of scenes missing, but there are no surviving traces that indicate
any military combat was originally represented. Newberry, El Bersheh.
Part I, pl. 24.
50
Kamrin, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 224.
51
McDermott, Warfare, 72; Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 144-46.
 Miscellaneous

Figure 6.4. An attack on a fortress which occupies the height of two registers; archers begin the attack while soldiers with close-range weaponry stand behind. Tomb of Khety (17 UC).
East wall, registers 6-8 [S96]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pls. 102-03 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

Figure 6.5. A procession of attendants carrying a range of equipment and weaponry. Tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2). East wall of inner room, register 7 [S209]. Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I,
pl. 29 [detail]; courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society.

165
Preparing for Eternity
example, seven actual arrows were identified, all equipped
with sharp flint points and fletching.52 Djehuty-nakht (R-
10A), alternatively, interred alongside his model soldiers
a large collection of model weapons, including sticks,
arrows and shields.53 The placement of weapons, both
model and actual, in the tomb without soldiers may have
been considered a comparatively safe option for protection
that was preferred over military models by many tomb
owners.
Unlike a number of themes in the two- and three-
dimensional repertoires, the differences dominate in
the military representations, with great contrast in the
content displayed between the two media. Wall scenes
present large illustrations of battle, whereas models
simply depict processions of soldiers without any combat.
In fact, the models seem to align more closely with the
auxiliaries bringing supplies in battle scenes and with
illustrations of armed attendants in non-combat contexts.
These differences should most likely be attributed to
the contrasting location of the two media, with scenes
functioning as a public proclamation of the tomb owner’s
authority and earthly achievements, and models providing
protection for the deceased in the afterlife. Therefore, the
design of each artwork was carefully selected according to
the medium’s specific role and location in the tomb.
6.2 Foreigners
The ancient Egyptians viewed the land of the Nile Valley
as the centre of the ordered universe which required
protection from the surrounding chaotic foreign realms.
The foreigner was accordingly classified as the Other,
made distinct from the Egyptian identity.54 As Egypt was
protected by natural boundaries, it was able to maintain
a relatively stable and secure position in its region of the
world.55 However, engagement with other nations was
still required for securing trade routes, importing desirable
commodities, and eventually for gaining territory.56 Three
main groups of foreign neighbours were identified in
Egyptian ideology by the Old Kingdom: Libyans to the
north and west, Asiatics to the north and east, and Nubians
to the south.57 In Egyptian artistic representations, these
foreigners were sharply distinguished from Egyptians,
with each group characterised by individual stereotyped
and exaggerated features.58 While ancient literature and
52
Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 160-61, fig. 161.
53
While some of these weapons may derive from the model soldiers or
from the fleet of boats, at least those larger in size were fashioned as their
own individual models. Today these are housed in the Museum of Fine
Arts, Boston, and include: 21.427, 21.435, 21.438, 15-5-91, 15-5-365,
15-5-366, 15-5-474. Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 146.
54
Roth, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 155; Moreno Garcia,
“Ethnicity in ancient Egypt”, JEgH 11.1-2, (2018), 3.
55
The land of Egypt was protected by seas to the north and east, deserts
to the east and west, and the cataracts of the Nile to the south. Redford,
Slave to Pharaoh, 11; Roth, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 155;
Saretta, Asiatics, 45.
56
Smith, Wretched Kush, 56; Kessler, in Egypt, 43.
57
Smith, Wretched Kush, 21; Shaw, War & Trade, xiii-xiv.
58
However, the artistic distinction between each of these peoples was
not fully realised until at least the 11th Dynasty. Bader, in Pharaoh’s Land
166
royal visual culture express the notion of the foreigner as
an enemy of maat, other types of texts and artworks as
well as archaeological data present a much more complex
relationship.59 Foreigners could be enemies, subjects,
allies, trading partners or even fully assimilated into
Egyptian culture.60 Such a distinction between ideology
and reality is expressed clearly by Loprieno’s concepts
of topos and mimesis: topos signifies an idealised view of
the world while mimesis reflects the reality of everyday
experience.61 Egyptian relations with foreigners were
certainly complex and varied according to each situation.
A study of Egyptian artistic representations reveals a range
of interactivity between the local population and foreigners.
In royal scenes of the Old Kingdom, foreigners are
typically displayed in attitudes of supplication or captivity
before the Egyptian king.62 Conversely, private tomb
scenes of the same period occasionally include foreigners
in the role of servants, officials and soldiers.63 During
the First Intermediate Period, when Egypt was divided
internally, foreigners largely appear in the capacity of
mercenaries fighting alongside Egyptian troops.64 After
the re-unification of the country at the beginning of the
Middle Kingdom, interaction with foreigners significantly
increased, particularly during the 12th Dynasty with an
intensification of trading activity, military expeditions
and a consolidation of Egypt’s borders.65 Many of the
provincial elite convey the regular contact with foreigners
and Beyond, 67; Saretta, Asiatics, 48; Smith, “Ethnicity”, JEgH 11.1-2,
(2018), 114-16.
59
O’Connor, in Never had the Like Occurred, 155-57; Smith, in
Egyptian World, 239; Roth, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 156;
Moreno Garcia, State in Ancient Egypt, 101.
60
Once foreigners lived in Egypt and adopted Egyptian ideology,
they were no longer considered part of the chaotic realm beyond
Egypt’s borders and could be accepted as part of the local population.
Additionally, Egyptians are known to have lived outside their homeland.
O’Connor, in Never had the Like Occurred, 159; Schneider, in Egyptian
Archaeology, 144; Shaw, War & Trade, xv; Mourad, “Foreigners at Beni
Hassan”, BASOR 384, (2020), 108.
61
Loprieno, Topos und Mimesis, 10-13.
62
A subtle change occurred in the 5th Dynasty with the first representation
of a possible trading expedition in the mortuary temple of Sahure at
Abusir. This presented a more peaceful relation with Egypt’s neighbours
than had previously been portrayed. Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan,
70; Saretta, Asiatics, 46, 58-59.
63
While Roth has suggested that foreigners exclusively appear in royal
artworks during the Old Kingdom, a number of elite tombs of the period
do include foreigners among their representations: on the outer jamb of
the northern false door on the west wall of the early 5th Dynasty tomb
of Seshathetep at Giza, a male offering-bearer labelled NHs(j) ‘Nubian’
presents a linen bag and sandals to the tomb owner; in the early 5th
Dynasty tomb of Nesutnefer at Giza, two offering-bearers displayed in
the top two registers are labelled ‘Nubians’ and wear headdresses and
beards on the outer jamb of the northern false door on the west wall; two
siege scenes displayed in the late 5th Dynasty tombs of Kayemheset at
Saqqara and Inti at Deshasha involve Asiatics. Kanawati & McFarlane,
Deshasha, pl. 27; Kanawati, Tombs at Giza. Volume II, pls. 45, 53;
McFarlane, Mastabas at Saqqara, pl. 48; Mourad, “Siege scenes”, BACE
22, (2011), 135-44; Roth, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 162.
64
Roth, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 162; Moreno Garcia,
“Trade and power”, JArchRes 25.2, (2017), 117.
65
However, there is a limited number of surviving royal representations
of foreigners from the Middle Kingdom, most likely due to the poor
preservation of royal pyramid complexes and temples. Grajetzki, Middle
Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, 133; Lloyd, Ancient Egypt, 12; O’Connor, in
Ancient Egypt Transformed, 162.
 Miscellaneous

they experienced during their lifetimes in their tombs.66

Unlike royal representations which conformed to a strict
ideology, scenes in private contexts could convey a more
realistic view of these relations.

Three-dimensional representations of foreigners in the

Middle Kingdom are particularly rare, with only one
example identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni
Hassan. This model, found in the early 12th Dynasty tomb
of Useri and Aryt-hotep (181 LC) at Beni Hassan, depicts
an Asiatic woman carrying a child on her back [M185; fig.
6.6].67 While a number of provincial tombs from the period
display foreign males in their wall scenes participating
in a variety of tasks, female foreigners are less common.
From the sites of Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan,
only three tombs were found to contain two-dimensional
representations of foreign women, all of which date to
the 12th Dynasty: those of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) and
Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan, and Ukh-hotep III
(C1) at Meir. In these scenes, the women appear among
groups of foreigners arriving in Egypt [S122, S188; figs.
6.9, 6.10] or functioning as offering-bearers presenting
goods to the Egyptian tomb owner [S193, S217; see fig.
6.7]. Each representation conveys peaceful interactions
between foreigners and Egyptian culture, demonstrating
the acceptance of the Other by the provincial elite.

Asiatics are depicted with several stereotyped features in

the 12th Dynasty, including hooked noses, pointed beards,
large almond-shaped eyes and yellow skin.68 The female
statuette displays some of these characteristics, with
particular detail displayed in the carving of her face [M185;
fig. 6.6]. In fact, the model exhibits much greater care in
the fashioning of her features than is typical for model
figures, which was essential for distinguishing her as a
foreigner.69 She has thick curved black eyebrows residing
above large almond-shaped painted eyes, a long hooked
nose with broad nostrils, full lips that are slightly pursed,
a square chin, large detailed ears that are pushed forward,
crease lines extending from the nose to the corners of the
mouth, and yellow skin. Similar facial characteristics are
identified in the two-dimensional representations. The
Asiatic women portrayed in the third register of the north
wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) display aquiline
noses, almond-shaped eyes, full lips and yellow skin
[S188; fig. 6.8]. Although both media could encapsulate
these defining facial features, the holistic perspective of
the three-dimensional medium enabled a comprehensive
66
During the New Kingdom, the quantity and diversity of private scenes
depicting foreigners dramatically increased. O’Connor, in Ancient Egypt
Transformed, 162; Moreno Garcia, “Trade and power”, JArchRes 25.2,
(2017), 109-12.
67
Only one other model of a foreign woman carrying a child on her
back is known in all of Egypt. This is an ivory statuette with unknown
provenance which is today housed in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston:
54.994. Smith, “Five small Egyptian works of art”, BMFA 52.290,
(1954), figs. 6-7.
68
As Egyptian women are also typically portrayed with yellow skin,
additional features were required to distinguish foreign Asiatic women.
Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”, 350-53; Saretta, Asiatics, 61-63.
69
Aldred, Middle Kingdom Art, 42; Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals,
108; Arnold, in Offerings to the Discerning Eye, 17.
Figure 6.6. Model foreign woman of Useri and Aryt-hotep
(181 LC), carrying a child on her back [M185]. Image ©
National Museums Scotland: A.1911.260.
representation of the face, whereas scene-artists were
restricted to a profile viewpoint.
The hairstyle was another means for scene- and model-
artists to convey foreignness in their designs. During the
Middle Kingdom, female Asiatics could be displayed
with one of two hairstyles: long hair reaching below the
shoulders or a style piled on top of the head and held in place
by a fillet and/or wedge-shaped protrusion.70 The former is
worn by the women in the scene on the north wall of the
tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC): long black hair hangs down
their backs and over their shoulders while a white fillet is
secured around the top of their heads [S188; fig. 6.8]. The
three-dimensional female figure, in contrast, displays the
latter alternative: her black hair is piled on top with bands
fastening it in place [M185; fig. 6.6]. Additionally, the top
of her head has been flattened and has a small hole drilled
slightly off-centre.71 The suggestion that this would have
supported a load of offerings seems highly unlikely due
to the fact that the flattened area angles down towards the
back, the woman’s arm is not upraised to support the load
70
Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”, 350.
71
Arnold, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 177-78.

167
Preparing for Eternity
as is typical for offering-bearers, and she carries a child.72
Instead, Arnold’s argument that it originally secured a
comb is preferred: Arnold draws a comparison with the
women displayed on the north wall of the tomb of Ukh-
hotep III (C1) [S217; fig. 6.7].73 The upper two registers
display the tomb owner engaged in the worship of Hathor
while the lower three depict him receiving offerings from
lines of female offering-bearers.74 Scattered among the
rows are women who display the same hairstyle as the
statuette: the hair is swept up and kept in place by fillets.
Some exhibit the additional feature of an angular wedge-
shaped protrusion that appears alone or in combination
with a ponytail.75 For example, the fifth woman from the
right in the lowest register has a coiffed hairstyle with the
protrusion positioned on top of her head. Arnold identifies
this feature as a comb and observes parallels with the
hairstyles worn by Mesopotamian women as displayed in
their representations from the 3rd millennium BC.76 The
style also bears a striking resemblance to the statuette, and
so it is probable that a comb was originally inserted into
the drill hole on top of her head. Scene- and model-artists
were clearly aware of such foreign features and both were
able to incorporate them into their designs.
Additionally, both media convey the distinctive clothing
worn by foreigners. Unlike the plain white of Egyptian
linen, foreign garments were fashioned of brightly
patterned woollen textiles.77 The Asiatic women in
the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) wear long dresses
decorated with zigzags, vertical lines and dots coloured
red, white and blue [S188; fig. 6.8]. The patterns and
colours of the garments alternate so that the closely
overlapping figures may be individually distinguished in
the two-dimensional perspective. The statuette similarly
wears a long red garment which appears to be made of
heavy material: it envelops her body and is held closed at
72
The explanation of a load of offerings was first postulated by the
excavator Garstang and adopted by many scholars, including Breasted,
Aldred, Bourriau, Tooley and Booth. Garstang, Burial Customs of
Ancient Egypt, 140; Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 97; Aldred,
Middle Kingdom Art, 42; Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, 108; Tooley,
“Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 351-52; Booth, Role of
Foreigners, 21.
73
Arnold, in Offerings to the Discerning Eye, 17-31.
74
Arnold, in Offerings to the Discerning Eye, 23; Hudáková,
Representations of Women, 496-98.
75
Arnold, in Offerings to the Discerning Eye, 23-24.
76
Arnold believes that as there is no known evidence for direct contact
between Egypt and Mesopotamia prior to the early 18th Dynasty, artists
must have taken inspiration from Mesopotamian objects that may
have reached Egypt through trade and were stored in the temples of
Hathor. Conversely, Saretta argues that there is no reason to assume that
Mesopotamian musicians and singers who are known to have entered
Syria did not continue into Egypt during the 2nd millennium and therefore
Egyptian artists may have been acquainted with a certain class of Syro-
Mesopotamian women residing in the country. Mourad also notes the lack
of contemporaneous dating between the sources and postulates that the
origins of the women should instead be sought in the Delta where there
was a Levantine population during this period. What is certain is that
the hairstyle demonstrates a foreign influence that artists were familiar
with and chose to integrate into their designs. Arnold, in Offerings to
the Discerning Eye, 28; Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”, 162-63; Saretta,
Asiatics, 164-66.
77
Forbes, Ancient Technology. Volume IV, 229-30; Moreno Garcia,
“Trade and power”, JArchRes 25.2, (2017), 119.
168
the front with a V-shaped neckline; traces of a geometric
pattern were identified upon discovery, but these are no
longer preserved [M185; fig. 6.6].78 This attire, however,
contrasts with the women displayed in the scene of
Ukh-hotep III (C2) [S217; fig. 6.7]. While these women
apparently share the same hairstyle as the statuette, their
clothing comprises more typical Egyptian dress: some
wear the male white kilt and others a long tight-fitting
dress with shoulder straps and a V-shaped neckline.79
The absence of foreign attire gives these women a more
Egyptian appearance and may reflect their mixed origins
or a desire to integrate specific foreign features into an
Egyptian scene.
Footwear forms another element of foreign attire that is
displayed in the artworks. While Egyptians, particularly
servants, are typically displayed barefoot,80 foreigners may
be shown in various types of shoes and sandals. Only the
feet and ankles are visible at the bottom of the statuette’s
robe, and they are coloured yellow like her skin, but the
lack of definition of toes has led to the suggestion that she
is wearing boots [M185; fig. 6.6].81 This seems probable
as the fingers on her right hand have been individually
carved, suggesting that the model-artist would have also
detailed the toes if she was barefoot. Furthermore, this
representation finds close similarity with the Asiatic
women in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC): all four
women and the child walking in front wear red ankle boots
with a white band around the top [S188; fig. 6.8]. Although
the colouring is different, the shoes are of the same style
as those of the statuette. Such footwear served as a
distinguishing foreign feature that could be encapsulated
in both the two- and three-dimensional designs.
In addition to her facial features, hairstyle and attire, the
statuette’s foreignness is conveyed through the method
in which she carries her child. Egyptian women typically
carried children on their shoulder or astride their hip while
foreign women were regularly portrayed with children on
their back, sometimes in a basket.82 The child in the model
is held against the woman’s back and is enveloped within
78
Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 140; Arnold, in Offerings
to the Discerning Eye, 19.
79
Similarly, the Nubian women at the end of the procession of offering-
bearers in the third register of the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep
II (3 UC) are characterised by their foreign hairstyle, but they wear
the plain white linen of Egyptian garments [S193]. The tomb of Ukh-
hotep III (C1) is unique in portraying women conducting tasks typically
performed by men. This may explain the male attire worn by some of the
women in this scene. For further discussion on the prominence of women
in this tomb, see chapter 3.2. Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir.
Part VI, 15.
80
Sandals are occasionally worn by the Egyptian elite and priests as well
as servants engaged in tasks requiring constant walking or running, as
was discussed in chapter 5.3. Siebels, “Wearing of sandals”, BACE 7,
(1996), 77-78.
81
Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, 108; Booth, Role of Foreigners, 21.
82
A few examples are known in tomb scenes of the New Kingdom
where Egyptian women are portrayed with children carried in slings or
robes with only their heads showing, such as on the east wall of the tomb
of Neferhotep at Thebes. Malek and Miles postulate that this depiction
may reflect the imitation of a custom observed in foreign nurses. Davies,
Nefer-ḥotep. Volume I, pl. 23; Malek & Miles, “Early squeezes”, JEA 75,
(1989), 227-28.
 Miscellaneous

Figure 6.7. Female offering-bearers, some of whom display a coiffed hairstyle with a fillet and/or angular wedge-shaped
protrusion. Tomb of Ukh-hotep III (C1). North wall, registers 3-5 [S217]. Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part VI, pl.
18 [detail]; courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society.

Figure 6.8. Four Asiatic women wearing white fillets, red ankle boots and long dresses decorated with alternating patterns
and colours. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). North wall, register 3 [S188]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl.
46b; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

169
Preparing for Eternity
the robe with only the head visible [M185; fig. 6.6].83 This
may be compared with the four Libyan women portrayed
in the fourth register of the east wall of the tomb of
Khnumhotep I (14 UC) who likewise carry children on
their backs [S122; fig. 6.9]. The first two on the right each
carry a child without any support while the latter two utilise
a basket. Like the child in the model, only the heads of the
children in the basket are visible. The three-dimensional
perspective of the model enabled the precise positioning
of the child to be accurately conveyed, whereas the wall
scene was hindered in its arrangement by an absence of
depth. The human figure was formed of a combination
of viewpoints in the two-dimensional medium so that
each element could be easily recognised. The shoulders
of the women are accordingly presented in full view, so
the children appear to be held against the right side of
the body rather than in their actual position on the back.
Although the scene-artist was required to adapt his design
to overcome the limitations of his medium, he was still
able to convey this foreign method of carrying children.
An alternate transport method is illustrated on the north
wall of Khnumhotep II’s (3 UC) tomb where two children
are loaded in a sack on the back of a donkey with only their
heads visible [S188; fig. 6.10]. As was observed in chapter
3.3, donkeys regularly appear in wall scenes as beasts of
burden, transporting harvested grain, but apart from a few
rare exceptions, are not ridden by Egyptians.84 Instead, this
mode of transport, in addition to the method of carrying
children on the back, clearly indicates foreignness,
demonstrating that both scene- and model-artists were
aware of the distinguishing elements of foreign culture
and desired to incorporate them into their designs.
All of these distinguishing details clearly express the
foreign nature of the figures represented, but the purpose
of the foreigners’ appearance in each artwork should also
be considered. The Libyan women and children displayed
on the east wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC)
are part of a group of foreigners that also includes armed
men and animals [S122; fig. 6.9]. The group is led by an
Egyptian official who apparently calls them forward with
his raised arm and is followed by a soldier who may provide
protection. In the three registers above this vignette is a
series of wrestling figures while to the left and below is the
siege of a fortress. Several foreign mercenaries are included
83
The child’s body has not been modelled, but a slight bulge on the
woman’s back has been identified as either the woman’s back-turned left
arm supporting the child or a harness. The former seems more likely as
there is a noticeable bend of her left elbow and there is no indication
that the arm is held in front. This is further supported by the fact that the
women carrying children in the scene of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) each use
at least one hand to support the child from underneath [S122; fig. 6.9].
Aldred, Middle Kingdom Art, 42; Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, 108;
Arnold, in Offerings to the Discerning Eye, 17.
84
One of the rare examples of an Egyptian riding donkey-back is
found on the north and south walls of the tomb of Niankhkhnum and
Khnumhotep at Saqqara where each owner is seated on an elaborate
chair suspended over the backs of two donkeys. Moussa & Altenmüller,
Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep, pls. 42-43; Houlihan, Animal World, 29-
30; Brewer, in History of the Animal World, 446; Houlihan, in History of
the Animal World, 106; Kamrin, “Aamu of Shu”, JAEI 1.3, (2009), 26.
170
in the battle and fight alongside Egyptian soldiers. The close
association between the group of foreigners and the siege
has led to the suggestion that the group are prisoners of war,
but it seems more likely that they are peacefully coming to
settle in Egypt, perhaps being escorted by the local army, and
are welcomed by the tomb owner.85 Khnumhotep I served
as ‘overseer of the eastern desert’ in the Oryx nome and
while the exact nature of this role is uncertain, the position
would have involved contact with foreigners entering Egypt
through the desert.86 Therefore, this scene provides a public
proclamation of Khnumhotep’s status and influence over
the population of the region.
Khnumhotep II (3 UC) likewise served as ‘overseer of the
eastern desert’ and he similarly displays the arrival of a
group of foreigners on the north wall of his tomb [S188;
fig. 6.10].87 There has been much scholarly discussion
regarding the purpose of this scene, with a range of
suggestions being offered, including the functions of
a trading caravan, workers brought for involvement in
procuring and/or processing galena, itinerant metalworkers,
a commercial project issued by the king, part of the wpt-
rnpt festival of Horus, and as an artistic symbol of the tomb
owner’s maintenance of order over chaos.88 The Egyptian
official who leads the group offers a document to the tomb
owner which dates the event to a specific regnal year of the
king.89 This inscription historicises the event, indicating it
refers to a specific moment in Khnumhotep’s lifetime.90
The representation makes clear that the group is allowed
to enter the noble’s presence and he is the beneficiary
of their offerings and services.91 The fact that the group
85
The fact that the group are led forward by an Egyptian who does not
appear to be a soldier, the foreign men are allowed to carry weapons,
the group includes children, and foreigners fight alongside Egyptians in
the battle all suggest that the foreigners are at least temporarily settling
in Egypt and are accepted by Khnumhotep I who desired to record their
arrival in his tomb. Schulman, “Battle scenes”, JSSEA 12, (1982), 178;
Brovarski, in Egyptian Culture and Society. Volume I, 65; Mourad, “Rise
of the Hyksos”, 137; Shaw, War & Trade, 41; Mourad, “Foreigners at
Beni Hassan”, BASOR 384, (2020), 115-17.
86
Aufrère, in Egypt and Nubia, 207; Kamrin, “Aamu of Shu”, JAEI 1.3,
(2009), 22; Moreno Garcia, “Trade and power”, JArchRes 25.2, (2017),
114-15.
87
In the two registers above this scene is a representation of the desert
hunt, and in the three below are vignettes associated with the land of the
Nile Valley. Kamrin, “Aamu of Shu”, JAEI 1.3, (2009), 22-23.
88
Shea, “Artistic balance”, BA 44.4, (1981), 219-28; Goedicke,
“Abi-Sha(i)’s representation”, JARCE 21, (1984), 203-10; Kessler,
“Asiatenkarawane”, SAK 14, (1987), 147-65; Vernus, “Deux inscriptions
du Moyen Empire”, BSEG 13, (1989), 173-81; Redford, Egypt, Canaan,
and Israel, 83; Kamrin, “Aamu of Shu”, JAEI 1.3, (2009), 22-36; Bárta,
in Understanding Life in the Borderlands, 34; Kamrin, in Cultures
in Contact, 156-69; Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”, 141-50; Cohen,
“Interpretative uses and abuses”, JNES 74.1, (2015), 19-38; Saretta,
Asiatics, 87-108.
89
The inscription reads, ‘regnal year 6 under the Majesty of Horus,
Leader of the Two Lands, King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khakheperre
(Senusret II); the number of Asiatics whom the son of the count,
Khnumhotep, brought on account of the black eye-paint, namely Asiatics
of Shu, number amounting to 37’. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan.
Volume I, 48.
90
Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”, 142-143; Cohen, “Interpretative uses
and abuses”, JNES 74.1, (2015), 33-34.
91
A large-scale figure of the tomb owner appears on the right of the wall
and the scene in question is positioned directly at his eye-level indicating
that Khnumhotep II directly engages with the group and welcomes their
arrival.
 Miscellaneous

Figure 6.9. A procession of foreigners led by an Egyptian official and followed by a soldier. Tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC). East wall, register 4 [S122]. Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan.
Volume V, pl. 74 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

Figure 6.10. Part of the procession of foreigners, including men, women and children. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). North wall, register 3 [S188]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan.
Volume I, pl. 128 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

171
Preparing for Eternity
includes women and children suggests that they came to
settle in Egypt, at least temporarily, and the inscription
specifies that their arrival is associated with galena which
was a principal ingredient in black eye-paint, so it seems
most likely that they were brought into the province to
procure and/or process the material.92 The foreigners are
certainly portrayed as valued providers of expertise and/
or commodities that benefited the Egyptian elite and their
afterlife.93 Portraying their arrival in the public part of the
tomb demonstrates Khnumhotep’s desire to commemorate
this event for eternity.
Further engagement with foreigners is displayed on the
walls of Khnumhotep II’s (3 UC) tomb with two Nubian
women appearing at the end of a line of Egyptian offering-
bearers in the third register of the south wall [S193]. While
their foreignness is highlighted through their distinct
features and hairstyles, their portrayal incorporates
several Egyptian features, demonstrating their integration
into Egyptian society. They are engaged in a traditional
Egyptian role, carry typical Egyptian offerings including
jars of drink, a chest for storage and a mirror, and are
labelled with Egyptian titles.94 The women probably
served in Khnumhotep’s household during life and their
portrayal in his tomb indicates he desired their service
continually and wanted to display this publicly.
The scene of Ukh-hotep III (C1) likewise presents
foreigners who are thoroughly integrated into Egyptian
society. Foreign women often served in elite households
or as musicians and attendants in temples, both functions
that may be alluded to in this scene.95 The women are
scattered among rows of offering-bearers on the north wall
and present a range of both foreign and Egyptian goods to
the tomb owner [S217; fig. 6.7].96 Ukh-hotep III served
as ‘priest of the Mistress of Heaven’, an epithet of the
goddess Hathor whose cult centre was located at Cusae,
and it is highly likely this association with the temple
influenced the scene’s design.97 Hathor was considered
the goddess of distant places and their commodities,
creating a connection between her cult and foreigners, and
92
Lucas & Harris, Materials and Industries, 80; Kanawati & Evans,
Beni Hassan. Volume I, 48; Mourad in Beni Hassan. Volume I, 73, 77-78;
Cohen, “Interpretative uses and abuses”, JNES 74.1, (2015), 28.
93
Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 13; Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”,
150.
94
The woman on the left is labelled xtt-pr ‘the household servant’, and
the woman on the right, xtt-pr nt at Hnkt ‘the household servant of the
kitchen’. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 66.
95
Arnold, in Offerings to the Discerning Eye, 24-28; Shaw, War &
Trade, 49-50.
96
Some of the objects associated with the women are clearly foreign in
production: between the second and third figures from the right of the
third register is a table on top of which stand two bi-handled vessels. The
handles are known from the Levantine ceramic repertoire of the Early to
Middle Bronze Age. The vessels also have globular bodies and sharply
emphasised rims which Arnold suggests indicates that they are made of
metal. Additionally, a wide range of traditional Egyptian offerings are
presented, including lotus stems, birds and trays laden with food. Arnold,
in Offerings to the Discerning Eye, 24; Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”,
163.
97
Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part VI, 8; Grajetzki, Middle
Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, 107.
172
women are known to have been involved in the cult.98
The integration of both foreign women and foreign goods
into the traditional offering scene highlights the tomb
owner’s acceptance of these elements and a desire for
continued access to them in the afterlife.
While the representation of foreign women in wall scenes
can be aligned with the roles of the tomb owners during
their lifetimes, the purpose of the funerary model is more
difficult to determine. It consists of a single figure and so is
not associated with any other themes and is entirely lacking
inscriptions.99 The similarities displayed between the
figure’s hairstyle and those of the women in Ukh-hotep
III’s (C1) scene may associate her with foreign influences
adopted by servants of the cult of Hathor, although it seems
certain she was not an offering-bearer.100 Alternatively,
her dress and the fact that she is carrying a child aligns her
with the women displayed in the scenes of Khnumhotep I
(14 UC) and Khnumhotep II (3 UC), which may indicate
that she was at least a temporary resident of Egypt.
Unfortunately, little is known about the status and roles of
the model owner. Tomb 181 LC at Beni Hassan belonged
to a husband and wife named Useri and Aryt-hotep, but
the excavation record does not indicate to whom the model
belonged.101 Arnold has observed that the name Aryt-
hotep appears in the tomb of Netjer-nakht (23 UC) at Beni
Hassan as the mother of the tomb owner and a priestess
of Hathor, and suggests the possibility that the two Aryt-
hoteps were the same woman.102 Although identification
based solely on a name is hazardous, the rarity of this
name makes this interpretation a possibility. If correct,
then the female tomb owner was involved in the cult of
Hathor where she would have presumably interacted with
foreign women like Ukh-hotep III (C1). Subsequently,
representing foreigners in three-dimensional form may
also reflect the daily life experiences of the tomb owners.
However, this representation was concealed from view in
the burial chamber and so could not proclaim the owner’s
status to the living. It may therefore be suggested that
the statuette provided a desirable service for the afterlife,
possibly related to the tasks performed by foreigners as
servants in the home or in the cult of Hathor.
While the model solely focuses on female foreigners, wall
scenes also illustrate male foreigners and integrate them
into a variety of scene-types. In the scenes investigated
from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, male
foreigners appear as members of groups peacefully
98
Bleeker, Hathor and Thoth, 79; Pinch, “Offerings to Hathor”, Folklore
93.2, (1982), 139; Robins, Women, 142-44.
99
The original baseboard has been lost, but as no other similar model
figures were found in the tomb, it is probable that the figure was always
a single statuette. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 218;
Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, 108.
100
As discussed above, the identification of a comb rather than a load
of offerings originally connected to her head in conjunction with the fact
that she carries a child indicates she did not serve as an offering-bearer.
101
Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 218.
102
Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, 27; Arnold, in Ancient Egypt
Transformed, 177-78.
 Miscellaneous

entering Egypt, soldiers engaged in military battles,103

pastoralists leading cattle before the tomb owner,104 and
accompanying processions of animals.105 Due to the large
wall space dedicated to each of these themes, foreigners
could be easily integrated into the designs. The three-
dimensional medium, in contrast, did not have the same
advantage of space. A restricted quantity of figures was
included in each model and often a single figure was
representative of an entire theme. However, an exception
is found in two military models of Mesehti from Asyut,
one of which displays a company of 40 Nubian archers
and the other 40 Egyptian spearmen.106 The large size
of both models and the fact that two were commissioned
enabled an elaborate representation that incorporated both
Egyptian and foreign figures. More commonly, three-
dimensional representations were condensed to their
essential components, causing the integration of foreigners
to be a rarely attested addition.

The distinguishing characteristics of foreigners were

captured in both the two- and three-dimensional media
through the careful rendering of the figures’ facial features,
hairstyles and attire as well as by the mode in which the
women carry their children. Although depictions of
foreigners are not particularly common in the Middle
Kingdom, the examples identified from Meir, Deir el-
Bersha and Beni Hassan clearly demonstrate that residents
of Middle Egypt were engaged with foreigners in their
local areas. Wall scenes were able to incorporate foreigners
into a wider variety of themes, demonstrating the range of
activities in which foreigners were involved in everyday
life. It may have been desirable to highlight the tomb
owner’s access to foreigners and their commodities in the
public part of the tomb, which would explain the greater
quantity of representations in the two-dimensional medium.
Conversely, with the three-dimensional medium’s focus
on provisioning the deceased in the afterlife, the theme of
foreigners would not have been considered as necessary and
consequently should be understood as supplementary.

103
The military scenes of Beni Hassan, found in the tombs of Baqet III
(15 UC), Khety (17 UC), Khnumhotep I (14 UC) and Amenemhat (2 UC)
[S76, S96, S122, S158-S159; see figs. 6.2-6.4], display a battle between
two opposing Egyptian forces with the aid of foreign mercenaries, as was
discussed in chapter 6.1.
104
Cattle were an important element of the economy of pastoral
populations that regularly entered Egypt. As was observed in chapter
4.3, several scenes identified in this study display foreigners leading
cattle forward in procession. See, for example, the emaciated herdsmen
displayed on the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir and on
the north, south and west walls of the chapel of Ukh-hotep I (B2) at Meir
[S138-S140, S142, S146; see fig. 4.11], and the herdsmen wearing long,
highly decorated robes on the south walls of the tombs of Baqet III (15
UC) and Khnumhotep I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan [S80, S126]. Moreno
Garcia, “Invaders or just herders?”, WorldArch 46.4, (2014), 613;
Moreno Garcia, “Ethnicity in ancient Egypt”, JEgH 11.1-2, (2018), 9-10;
Mourad, “Foreigners at Beni Hassan”, BASOR 384, (2020), 121-22.
105
On the north wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan,
for example, four male foreigners, presumably Libyans due to the
feathers on the head of the first man, appear at the end of a procession of
animals in the sixth register [S156]. Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”, 139-
40; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, 39.
106
See chapter 6.1 for further discussion on three-dimensional military
representations. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 257, CG 258. Pirelli, in
Egyptian Treasures, 108-11.

173
 7
Survey of Differences between Funerary Models and Wall Scenes
The comparative analysis conducted in this study has
demonstrated that although wall scenes and funerary
models exhibit a number of similarities, there are also
several notable differences. As these differences have been
discussed throughout the text in relation to each theme, a
survey is presented here in order to bring together all of the
points identified. The differences between the media may
be summarised as follows: their period of use, location in
the tomb, artistic repertoire, technical properties, modes
of construction, and accessibility to tomb owners. Each
of these points will be addressed in turn, followed by a
discussion on the potential risks that the tomb owner had
to consider in his choice of medium.
7.1 Period of use
Artistic representations form a central part of tomb
design and both funerary models and wall scenes hold
an important place in this process. However, there is a
clear difference between the media in their period of use.
Although isolated examples of scenes painted on tomb
walls are known from the Naqada Period and offering-
table scenes existed on tomb-stelae in the Early Dynastic
Period, the practice of decorating tomb-chapel walls with
scenes only became established in the 3rd Dynasty.1 At
first, the repertoire concentrated on the tomb owner before
the offering-table, but the range of scenes quickly expanded
in the 4th Dynasty with the appearance of so-called ‘scenes
of daily life’. These representations remained common
throughout the Old Kingdom and even became more
extensive as they occupied entire walls of multi-roomed
superstructures in the 5th and 6th Dynasties.2 Chapels
of the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom
maintained the everyday life repertoire, but incorporated
new motifs and artistic styles into their designs.3 It was
not until the late New Kingdom that daily life scenes
gradually began to be replaced by scenes of the afterlife,4
but the two-dimensional medium certainly retained its
dominant position in funerary decoration throughout the
Pharaonic Period.
Funerary models likewise originated in the Old Kingdom,
with the first examples comprising limestone statuettes
housed in serdabs of the 4th and 5th Dynasties, although
some precursors fashioned of pottery and ivory are known
1
Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 79; Taylor, Death and Afterlife,
97-98, 149; Altenmüller, in Egypt, 81.
2
Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 175; Robins, Art of Ancient
Egypt, 67.
3
Smith, Ancient Egypt, 75; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt,
186, 200; Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 17.
4
Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 1.
175
from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods.5 The
4th and 5th Dynasty examples are confined to Memphite
tombs and consist of single figures who are engaged in
a variety of tasks, most commonly those related to food
preparation.6 These figures were initially termed ‘servant
statues’ by Breasted, but Roth has more recently proposed
the designation ‘serving statues’ to prevent their identity
and purpose from being assumed.7 This is indeed a more
appropriate designation, but the term ‘statuette’ is preferred
here to reflect the sculpture’s typically smaller size. Roth
has convincingly argued that the serving statuettes served
two principal functions in the tomb: to provision the
deceased with the sustenance he needed in the afterlife
and as cult statues representing known individuals who
increased their own chances of a successful afterlife by
beneficially serving someone presumably of influence in
the Hereafter.8
However, significant developments in model production
occurred in the late 6th Dynasty: the sculptures began
to be interred in burial assemblages across Egypt, they
were transferred to the burial chamber, they began to be
constructed of wood, and they were fashioned as groups
of figures arranged on a single baseboard.9 This has led
Roth to suggest that the three-dimensional medium no
longer functioned as cult statues, but solely as servants
working for the benefit of the tomb owner.10 Indeed, this
study has identified the primary focus of the models to be
provisioning the deceased, although it will be outlined
below in chapter 7.4 why the figures should not necessarily
be understood as representations of generic servants. Food
preparation remained central to the three-dimensional
repertoire in the late 6th Dynasty, but new themes were also
introduced to the model corpus, with boats and offering-
bearers particularly popular.11
Model production continued in the First Intermediate
Period and reached its peak in the early Middle Kingdom
in terms of quantity, distribution and range of themes
5
Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 2; Tooley, in Oxford Encyclopedia,
<http://www.oxfordreference.com>.
6
The most common motif comprises a female miller grinding grain on a
quern stone. Also frequently found are figures shaping bread loaves and
brewers straining beer-mash. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs.
Volume I”, 3-6; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 226.
7
Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 1; Roth, “Meaning of menial
labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 103.
8
Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 116-18.
9
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 7, 16; Roth,
“Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 116-18.
10
Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 118.
11
Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 16-17; Eschenbrenner-Diemer,
in Company of Images, 137-38.
Preparing for Eternity
represented.12 However, manufacture rapidly declined in
the late Middle Kingdom, apparently during the reign of
Senusret II or Senusret III, when the quantity and variety of
models significantly diminished.13 Profound changes in
funerary beliefs and practices seem to have occurred at this
time, with the concern for a safe journey to the Hereafter
becoming paramount, a purpose to which funerary models
did not contribute.14 By the New Kingdom, the three-
dimensional medium had disappeared from elite funerary
assemblages.15 This is certainly a much shorter period of
use than is witnessed for wall scenes.
The disappearance of funerary models seems to have
some correlation with the rise of the shabti and may even
be replaced by it. The earliest examples of shabtis have
been dated to the 12th Dynasty, although some possible
precursors are known from the First Intermediate Period.16
Shabtis increased in number during the late 12th Dynasty,
aligning with the time that funerary model manufacture
diminished.17 Although shabtis were initially interred
in small numbers per burial, this soon increased to large
assemblages which remained popular until the end of
the Ptolemaic Period.18 Like funerary models, shabtis
functioned to benefit the afterlife of the tomb owner, but
they were created to address one of the transformations in
funerary beliefs, namely that the deceased was required to
participate in corvée labour.19
It is commonly accepted in scholarship that the shabti
would undertake this obligatory labour so that its master
would be free from any physical burden,20 but it has also
been suggested that the figure could function as a substitute
body for the tomb owner and enable him to participate in
the mandatory tasks rather than avoid them.21 Those
inscribed with the shabti spell certainly had a servile
function that caused them to perform any work for the
deceased’s benefit and the figure responds with its willing
acceptance of the task.22 This forms a distinct role
12
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 59; Doxey, in
Secrets of Tomb 10A, 50.
13
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 67;
Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 166-67.
14
Grajetzki, Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, 57; Willems, in Ancient
Egyptian Administration, 392; Morfoisse, in Sésostris III, 214-15;
Oppenheim, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 5; Eschenbrenner-Diemer,
in Company of Images, 181; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Middle Kingdom
Palace Culture, 138.
15
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 67; Doxey, in
Secrets of Tomb 10A, 56; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images,
168.
16
Some crudely formed wax and mud figures inscribed with personal
names that are known from burials of the 9th and 10th Dynasties may
form the origin of the shabti. Schneider, Shabtis, 21; Stewart, Egyptian
Shabtis, 14-15.
17
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 84; Bourriau,
in Middle Kingdom Studies, 11.
18
Spanel, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>;
Howley, “Materiality of shabtis”, CAJ 30.1, (2020), 125.
19
Stewart, Egyptian Shabtis, 8; Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 114.
20
Stewart, Egyptian Shabtis, 8-9; Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 114.
21
Poole, in Proceedings of the Seventh ICE, 896; Assmann, Death and
Salvation, 110-11; Shedid, in Egypt, 130; Nyord, “Ancient Egyptian
mortuary religion”, JAEI 17, (2018), 75; Nyord, Seeing Perfection, 70.
22
Spencer, Death, 69; Pinch, Magic, 98; Howley, “Materiality of
shabtis”, CAJ 30.1, (2020), 124-25. The shabti came to have an
176
from the funerary model where the figures performed
activities of daily life that would benefit the deceased by
continually provisioning him with any desired goods. It
therefore seems that a transformation in funerary beliefs
required adaptations to the types of artistic representations
employed and so the funerary model was replaced by
another three-dimensional artwork that was better suited to
freeing the deceased from the demands of physical labour.
7.2 Location in tomb
Ideally, a single tomb comprised both a superstructure
and substructure, with each section created for a specific
purpose. The superstructure consisted of a single room or
multi-room chapel that remained accessible to the living
as it formed the primary location of the tomb owner’s
mortuary cult.23 Priests, family members and passers-by
would continue to visit the tomb to present offerings,
perform rituals and celebrate festivals for the deceased.24
A vertical or sloping passage led to the substructure which
principally comprised the burial chamber where the
body was housed. The subterranean part of the tomb was
intended to be secure to provide protection for the body
and funerary equipment, so was sealed after interment.25
Although wall scenes and models appear in both the
superstructure and substructure, for the majority of their
use each type of artwork was confined to a single section.
The decoration contributed to the function of the chapel
and the burial chamber, so an accurate understanding of
the role of each medium must consider their individual
locations.
The serving statuettes of the 4th and 5th Dynasties were
housed in the serdab which was positioned within the
superstructure of the tomb. This small sealed chamber
contained the statues of the tomb owner and was usually
positioned beyond the false door so that the rituals
performed and offerings presented could benefit the
sculptures.26 A narrow slot was often carved into one
wall of the serdab at the statue’s eye-level, enabling the
figure to observe the activities of the chapel.27 Apart from
the face of the principal statue, the contents of the serdab
would not have been visible and so the serving statuettes
were not intended for public display. Instead, they were
closely associated with the mortuary cult.28
agricultural focus during the reign of Thutmose IV in the 18th Dynasty,
as evidenced by the specification of agricultural tasks in the shabti spell
and the representation of agricultural implements. Spanel, in Oxford
Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>.
23
D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 54; Dodson &
Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 14.
24
Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 95; Richards, Society and Death, 62;
Lloyd, Ancient Egypt, 222-24.
25
D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 54; Kanawati,
Decorated Burial Chambers, 10.
26
Bolshakov, Man and his Double, 108; Roth, “Meaning of menial
labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 103, 106-07; Nyord, Seeing Perfection, 48.
27
Bolshakov, Man and his Double, 107-08; Nyord, Seeing Perfection,
48-49.
28
As the figures probably represented specific individuals who were
close to the tomb owner during life, their location in the serdab may have
enabled the individuals portrayed to partake in the offerings presented to
 Survey of Differences between Funerary Models and Wall Scenes
Towards the end of the Old Kingdom, when serdabs were
no longer architectural features of the tomb, the sculptures
of the tomb owner and serving figures were moved to the
burial chamber. This became the most popular location
for funerary models of the First Intermediate Period and
Middle Kingdom.29 Within the substructure, models
were positioned in close proximity to the coffin and while
the precise placement seems to have been impacted by the
space available in the chamber and the size of each model,
Tooley has suggested that the eastern side of the coffin
was the ideal position as it was here that the eye-panel and
false door were depicted.30 It was believed that through
these decorative elements the deceased could view the
activities performed by the figures and leave the coffin to
receive sustenance.31 Consequently, models, like serving
statuettes, were concealed from the view of any visitors
to the tomb, but their close association with the body and
statue of the deceased presents a direct connection between
their services and the tomb owner’s afterlife.
Wall scenes formed the principal type of representation
for the superstructure. As the public part of the tomb, the
chapel provided a significant place for self-presentation,
enabling the scenes to attract passers-by and impress
visitors by conveying the status and wealth of the tomb
owner and commemorating his achievements.32 The
two-dimensional medium therefore had a living audience
who engaged with it. It appears that the scenes could even
direct their involvement in the mortuary cult through the
type of images represented and their orientation: grand
figures of the tomb owner in a passive stance generally
face outwards as if waiting to receive the visitors and
their offerings, while workmen and offering-bearers are
oriented into the tomb, paralleling the direction of the
visitors participating in the cult.33 For example, in the
the tomb owner in the chapel. Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE
39, (2002), 116.
29
Models, however, occasionally appear in locations other than the
burial chamber: in pits located outside the tomb, within the burial shaft, or
in niches cut into the floor of the superstructure. In one unique example,
namely the burial of Nakhti from Asyut, the most finely crafted models
of the assemblage were placed in the chapel. Roth, “Meaning of menial
labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 107; Tooley, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://
www.oxfordreference.com>; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of
Images, 176-79.
30
A comprehensive understanding of the precise placement of models in
burial chambers is hindered by the plundered state of many burials and
the poor documentation of many tombs at the time of discovery. Intact
burials, however, regularly show models placed on top of the coffin and/
or to one side of it. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume
I”, 83; Podvin, “Position du mobilier funéraire”, MDAIK 56, (2000), 287.
31
Willems, Chests of Life, 47; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial
Customs. Volume I”, 83.
32
The images could be augmented by textual inscriptions that listed the
names, titles and familial relations of the tomb owner and occasionally an
autobiographical account that further highlighted his superior status and
accomplishments. Kanawati, Tomb and its Significance, 54-55; Hartwig,
Tomb Painting and Identity, 52; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient
Egypt, 115; Staring, in Old Kingdom, New Perspectives, 258.
33
Fitzenreiter, in Social Aspects of Funerary Culture, 76-77, 95-98;
Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 74; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient
Egypt, 83. Kamrin, in her discussion on the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3
UC) at Beni Hassan, identifies the different orientation of figures as a
means to reinforce the overall function of the chapel as a reflection of the
cosmos. In particular, images of the tomb owner facing outwards enable
him to be a passive figure who receives offerings and homage, while
177
tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan, the tomb
owner and his wife are each shown at a large scale seated
before an offering-table on the south wall [S160-S163].
They face right and are therefore oriented towards the
entrance of the chapel in the west wall where visitors
would enter the tomb and follow the path of the offering-
bearers who process in several registers towards the
offering-tables. The interaction between the living and the
scenes displayed in the chapel is therefore integral to the
two-dimensional medium’s function.
For a limited period of time, wall scenes are also known
from a select number of burial chambers. The earliest
examples of substructures decorated with scenes may
be dated to the late 5th Dynasty, perhaps to the reign of
Djedkare or Unis.34 Prior to this, walls of substructures
were completely void of decoration, although some coffin
and sarcophagi bore inscriptions or geometric designs.35
The earliest examples of scenes in burial chambers
closely resemble the two-dimensional representations in
tomb-chapels, with people and animals from everyday
life prominently displayed.36 However, a significant
change in decoration soon took place, perhaps at the end
of the reign of Unis, when human and animal figures were
deliberately removed from the designs.37 Instead, the
subterranean scenes concentrated on offering-lists and
piles of food and drink. Not only were such designs more
appropriate for the burial chamber as they emphasised
the provision of nourishment, but they also protected the
body from any potential threat posed by the depiction of
living creatures.38 Further precaution against harm was
also taken in the rendering of hieroglyphic signs, with
those representing humans and animals initially avoided
or truncated, but in the reign of Pepy II, those of dangerous
reptiles were also mutilated.39 The burial chambers of
Pepyankh the Middle and his wife Hewetiaah (D2) at Meir,
images of the tomb owner facing inwards portray him as an active figure
who ensures order. In this interpretation, the decoration is not dependent
on the audience, but it contributes on its own to the eternal survival of the
tomb owner and the proper functioning of the cosmos. Kamrin, Cosmos
of Khnumhotep II, 148-51.
34
Dawood has identified the earliest example of a decorated burial
chamber with secure dating as that of Senedjemib-inti from Giza who
served as the vizier under Djedkare. However, it is quite likely that his
tomb was created by his son during the reign of Unis. More recently, the
decorated burial chamber of Rashepses at Saqqara has been discovered
which may be dated slightly earlier to the reign of Djedkare. Brovarski,
Senedjemib Complex. Volume I, 79-81; Dawood, in Néferkarê aux
Montouhotep, 109-10; El-Tayeb, “Burial chamber of Rashepses”, EA 44,
(2013), 8-9; Jánosi & Vymazalová, in Art of Describing, 218.
35
Kanawati, Decorated Burial Chambers, 21. Bolshakov, alternatively,
sees the ‘ceiling stelae’ of some 2nd Dynasty tombs as the formative stage
of development in the decoration of the burial chamber. Bolshakov, Man
and his Double, 112-13.
36
The most extensive example is found in the burial chamber of
Kayemankh at Giza where all four walls are decorated with scenes that
are characteristic of Old Kingdom chapels. Junker, Giza. Band IV, pls.
2-17. However, there is much debate in scholarship regarding the precise
date of this tomb. For a discussion on the proposed dates, see Woods,
“Contribution to a controversy”, JEA 95, (2009), 161-74; Lashien,
“Ultimate destination”, ET 26.1, (2013), 403-15.
37
Kanawati, Decorated Burial Chambers, 60.
38
Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 113; Dawood, in Néferkarê aux
Montouhotep, 111; Barker, “Animate decoration”, JARCE 56, (2020),
72-73.
39
Kanawati, Decorated Burial Chambers, 60, 70.
Preparing for Eternity
dated to the reign of Pepy II, reflect this development in
subterranean scene design: all living beings are excluded
from the scenes, with the representations instead focused
on granaries, piles of food and drink and other items, and
the dangerous reptiles in Hewetiaah’s offering-list are
mutilated.40
After the Old Kingdom, burial chambers decorated with
animate wall scenes do appear but only sporadically.
Dawood has identified 17 examples of the First
Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom,41
although another two tombs may be added to this list with
the recent discovery of the decorated burial chambers of
Baqet I (29 UC) and Baqet II (33 UC) at Beni Hassan
by the Australian Centre for Egyptology.42 Similar to
the earliest subterranean scenes in the 5th Dynasty, these
burial chambers exhibit no attempt to mutilate or remove
the living creatures from their designs but rather feature
them as the main part of the representations. In the burial
chamber of the 11th Dynasty female tomb owner Kemsit at
Thebes, for example, the walls are decorated with scenes
featuring animate beings, including the tomb owner and
attendants, offering-bearers, butchers slaughtering an ox,
a procession of cattle, and a man milking a cow.43 Like
models, scenes in burial chambers were concealed from
view and so solely functioned for the benefit of the deceased
in the afterlife. However, the rarity of their appearance
in the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom
combined with the increasing popularity of models during
this time demonstrates that the three-dimensional medium
was the preferred mode of representation for the burial
chamber.
7.3 Repertoire
The two- and three-dimensional artistic repertoires
certainly feature several of the same themes, but numerous
differences have been observed throughout this book which
indicate that funerary models did not simply duplicate the
repertoire of wall scenes. The most commonly attested
themes in the model corpus also appear in scenes, but
they do not occupy as prominent a position in the two-
dimensional repertoire. Among the models examined from
Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, the most common
40
Both burial chambers follow the same overarching design, but
the wife’s scenes are unusually of superior quality. In the offering-list
displayed on the east wall of her chamber, harmful snakes and vipers
were initially transcribed, but their heads were later systematically cut
off by scratching the paint near the head. Blackman, Rock Tombs of
Meir. Part IV, pls. 18-21; Kanawati, Decorated Burial Chambers, 70-71;
Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pls. 90-97.
41
Dawood, in Néferkarê aux Montouhotep, 111.
42
The two tombs, dated variously between the 9th and 11th Dynasties,
feature animate beings on the walls of their burial chambers. Baqet I’s
substructure is unfortunately poorly preserved due to significant water
damage, but traces of a figure of the tomb owner holding a staff can
still be seen. In contrast, the burial chamber of Baqet II is very well-
preserved, with painted decoration appearing on all four walls. The
living creatures displayed include offering-bearers, officiants performing
ceremony, animals led forward in procession and three representations of
the tomb owner himself. Information about this discovery was provided
courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
43
Naville & Hall, Deir el-Bahari. Part III, pls. 2-3.
178
themes in order of popularity comprise boats, offering-
bearers, bread-making, brewing beer and storing grain in
granaries [see table 1.1]. These themes may be considered
essential in the model repertoire and a single model
assemblage regularly only includes themes from this group.
Moreover, some of these representations have a prolonged
appearance in the period of model production, with motifs
of food preparation and boats among the earliest and latest
examples of extant models. The products and services
offered by these essential themes consist of transport and
nourishment which must have been considered imperative
for the afterlife and therefore held a prime position in the
three-dimensional medium.
The importance of these themes in models is further
witnessed in the amount of space dedicated to them.
Whereas most themes in the three-dimensional repertoire
are particularly condensed, with often a single vignette
symbolising the entire process, certain themes incorporate
a greater quantity of motifs. This is particularly noticeable
in the theme of bread-making where almost the full
range of manufacturing tasks illustrated in wall scenes is
depicted in models, including many preliminary activities
that would typically be excluded from condensed
three-dimensional designs. Such a comprehensive
representation conveys the significance of the theme
in the model repertoire. Moreover, the centrality of
nourishment to the deceased’s well-being is conveyed by
the regular combination of bread-making, brewing beer
and slaughtering cattle on a single baseboard. Aside from
food preparation, group models portraying more than one
theme are rare in the three-dimensional repertoire. The
combination of these three processes conveys the desire
for a complete diet to be accessible to the deceased in the
afterlife.
The three-dimensional medium also regularly presents a
different emphasis in its representation of certain themes
compared with the two-dimensional medium. Model
boats, for example, prioritise their ability to function for
any riverine journey that the deceased may require in the
afterlife unlike wall scenes where a specific moment of
a voyage that possibly occurred during the tomb owner’s
life is often portrayed. Similarly, in representations of
carpentry, wall scenes specify the types of items being
produced, whereas models do not display the final product,
presumably to enable the model carpenters to fashion any
wooden item that the deceased may desire rather than
only a select number of products. In the same manner, the
military theme in the three-dimensional medium excludes
the vignettes of combat that are central to wall scenes
and instead presents files of disciplined soldiers equipped
for providing protection for the deceased in the afterlife.
Ritual elements that are prevalent in the two-dimensional
medium are also largely excluded from models, with
scenes of slaughtering cattle, for example, focused on
the ritual act of removing the foreleg while models do
not depict this task and instead emphasise the provision
of beef by associating the theme with motifs of food
preparation. Similarly, model offering-bearers usually do
 Survey of Differences between Funerary Models and Wall Scenes
not carry ritual items or participate in ceremonial activities
as is illustrated in wall scenes, but rather transport essential
foodstuffs or closed containers that may be symbolic of all
desired offerings. Consequently, each theme in the model
repertoire was specifically designed to serve the tomb
owner most effectively in the afterlife rather than simply
imitate the details of the two-dimensional representations.
Themes that are not as commonly attested in the model
repertoire may instead be understood as supplementary.
These representations are typically only included among
more expansive model assemblages, providing wealthy
tomb owners with desirable commodities in addition to
the more essential provisions. Among the model corpus
examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan,
these supplementary themes include land preparation,
hand-feeding cattle, cooking meat, fishing and fowling,
beasts of burden, animal husbandry, craft production, the
military and foreigners. While some of these themes are
likewise rare among wall scenes, others are particularly
prominent in the two-dimensional repertoire. Processions
of cattle, for example, are dominant among the two-
dimensional corpus, publicly conveying the superior
wealth of the tomb owner to any visitors to the tomb. In
the three-dimensional medium, conversely, this theme
is rarely attested and is usually confined to one or two
animals as the grand herd sizes exhibited in scenes were
not necessary for display in the sealed burial chamber.
This condensed nature of the three-dimensional
representation is typical of supplementary themes, with
a single motif often symbolising an entire process. For
the theme of leatherwork, for example, the task of cutting
sandal soles is the only motif represented by models, with
the preliminary tasks involved in transforming the animal
hide into workable leather not portrayed. The three-
dimensional representations are also further restricted by
their exclusion of everyday life moments. Such elements
are regularly incorporated into wall scenes, such as
disobedient draught cattle, human children suckling
from cows, individual cattle members straying from the
unified motion of the herd, and crewmen consuming food
and drink on riverine voyages. These elements would not
have held the same value in the burial chamber where the
three-dimensional artworks were concealed from view
and solely concerned with the afterlife of the deceased.
Therefore, it may be proposed that each theme was
selected and designed according to its specific value in the
three-dimensional repertoire.
Additionally, there are several themes displayed in wall
scenes that are entirely absent from the three-dimensional
record. Perhaps the most vital part of the two-dimensional
repertoire is the representation of the tomb owner
himself, yet his figure is almost completely excluded
from models. In scenes, he holds the principal position,
with all activities primarily organised around his figure.44
44
Smith, Sculpture and Painting, 333; Kamrin, in Ancient Egypt
Transformed, 30-31.
179
Scene-artists chiefly portray him in one of two roles: as
a passive figure simply watching the work of the estate
or as an active figure directly engaged in certain tasks. In
both types of scenes, he is typically distinguished from the
other figures by his grand scale, dignified pose and attire,
and youthfulness.45 As a passive figure, the tomb owner
is positioned at one end of a series of registers that depict
minor figures engaged in daily life activities.46 He faces
towards them, although is regularly separated by a vertical
inscription that states he is mAA ‘viewing’ their work.47
This arrangement highlights the tomb owner’s access to
wealth and resources during his lifetime and conveys that
he is the intended recipient of the minor figures’ service.48
On the other hand, as an active figure, the tomb owner
participates in fishing and fowling in the marshes and
hunting in the desert, activities that form some of the most
dominant themes of the two-dimensional repertoire. The
ability to engage in such activities during life would have
been a luxury of the nobility and consequently these scenes
highlight the tomb owner’s superior status.49 They may
have also functioned as symbols of rebirth, fertility and
the triumph of order, thus contributing to the deceased’s
eternal rejuvenation and the proper functioning of the
cosmos.50 Additionally, the tomb owner seated before an
offering-table is the most commonly attested theme in the
two-dimensional medium, apparently considered essential
for the tomb-chapel’s decorative scheme.51 This scene
highlights the centrality of the mortuary cult to the chapel’s
function and conveys the tomb owner as its primary
recipient. As scenes were positioned in the superstructure,
they not only contributed to the tomb owner’s eternal
survival, but also functioned as a proclamation of his
earthly life.52 The pre-eminence of his figure was probably
designed to impress visitors to the tomb and encourage
them to present offerings.
Not only is the tomb owner rarely encountered in models,
but all themes that involve his active participation are
excluded from the three-dimensional repertoire. Instead,
models are concerned with portraying the activities of
minor figures. The few models identified from Meir, Deir
el-Bersha and Beni Hassan that do depict the tomb owner
45
Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 79-80; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in
Ancient Egypt, 77, 82.
46
Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 68; Tiradritti, Egyptian Wall Painting,
111.
47
Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 30-
31; Swinton, Management of Estates, 77-78.
48
Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 68; Kamrin, in Ancient Egypt
Transformed, 31; Hudáková, in (Re)productive Traditions, 372.
49
Decker, Sports and Games, 158-60; Lloyd, Ancient Egypt, 181;
Kanawati, in Cultural Manifestations, 119.
50
De Keyser, “Chasse et pêche”, CdE 22.43, (1947), 42-49; Gamer-
Wallert, Fische und Fischkulte, 128-31; Feucht, in Intellectual Heritage
of Egypt, 157-69; Kamrin, Cosmos of Khnumhotep II, 83-89, 105-15;
Binder, in Egyptian Art, 111-28; Hartwig, Tomb Painting and Identity,
104-06; Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 69.
51
Altenmüller, in Egypt, 81; Staring, in Old Kingdom, New Perspectives,
259-60.
52
Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 44.
Preparing for Eternity
are restricted to representations of boats.53 As proposed
in chapter 3.1, the tomb owner’s occurrence on model
boats may emphasise him as the recipient of its transport
service and the models may have been commissioned by
family members after his death. Although his figure is
not rendered in any other themes of the model repertoire
examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan,54
all activities conducted still occur under his watchful gaze:
models housed in the serdab accompanied statues of the
tomb owner while those in the burial chamber were interred
alongside the body.55 Accordingly, the tomb owner was
physically present with them so neither his figure nor the
‘viewing’ inscription were required to be represented as
he could directly watch them himself. Moreover, as these
locations were concealed from view, the model did not
share the wall scene’s purpose in attracting and impressing
visitors. Consequently, the rarity of the tomb owner in
the model repertoire demonstrates that the themes were
specifically selected for the three-dimensional medium
according to its unique role in the tomb.
In relation to the activities conducted by minor figures,
there are several themes that are likewise entirely excluded
from the model repertoire. It is beyond the scope of this
study to examine every motif of the two-dimensional
medium, but some examples are presented here that may
be considered representative of the differences in corpus.
Some themes are presumably excluded from the three-
dimensional medium as portraying a later process implies
that the preliminary tasks have already been achieved. For
example, the agricultural cycle is commonly represented on
chapel walls and although not every process is displayed,
scenes feature several of the principal tasks: ploughing and
sowing, the harvest and its transport, threshing, winnowing
and sieving, and storage in granaries. The model
repertoire, conversely, entirely excludes the activities of
harvesting, threshing, winnowing and sieving. While this
may be partially explained by the technical difficulty of
crafting some of the essential components of each motif in
three-dimensions,56 it also shows an emphasis on the final
product. The granary is by far the most popular agricultural
53
It is possible that the tomb owner is portrayed in some models of other
themes but without any clear identifying features to confirm his identity,
as was discussed in relation to food preparation models in chapter 2.3.
54
The tomb owner does, however, appear in different themes in a small
number of models from other sites. One of the models of Meketre from
Thebes depicts the tomb owner seated in a raised pavilion, overseeing
the procession of cattle and their herdsmen, while in a model of Karenen
from Saqqara, two harpists and three singers clapping their hands perform
music before seated figures of the tomb owner and presumably his wife.
Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46724, JE 39130. Alternatively, a unique
model from tomb 1525 at Sedment depicts two figures carrying a sedan
chair while a third figure holds a fan, presumably for the comfortable
transport of the tomb owner. Grajetzki, Sedment, 23; Eschenbrenner-
Diemer, “Petrie Museum’s collection of funerary wooden models”, AI
21, (2018), 103.
55
Statues of the tomb owner were likewise housed in burial chambers
of the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom which enabled
wooden models to accompany the deceased himself as well as a three-
dimensional representation of his figure. D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig,
Mummies and Magic, 88; Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39,
(2002), 107.
56
The stems of the crops essential for representations of the harvest
are particularly fine and would have been difficult to carve out of wood.
180
theme among models, and as it forms the culmination of
the cycle, it implies a successful harvest has been attained.
The absence of preliminary processes is also witnessed in
other themes. The harvest of flax, for example, is entirely
unrepresented by models as the depiction of spinning and
weaving indicates that the raw material has already been
acquired. Similarly, vignettes of boat-building were most
likely not considered necessary in the three-dimensional
medium as the provision of model boats demonstrates that
construction has already been completed.
Alternatively, some motifs are presumably absent from the
three-dimensional medium in order to focus a particular theme
on the provisions considered more important for the afterlife.
In representations of animal husbandry, for example, the
three-dimensional medium is solely focused on the lifecycle
of cattle,57 whereas wall scenes feature the wide array of
species that were involved in everyday life, including sheep,
goats, donkeys, fowl, dogs and monkeys, as well as several
desert animals. As observed in chapters 4.1-4.3, cattle were
the most highly valued domestic animal in ancient Egypt, and
if only one species was to be represented in the condensed
three-dimensional medium, it is not surprising that cattle were
selected. Similarly, in the theme of food preparation, both
models and wall scenes depict the production of the staple
diet, but scenes also portray activities of viticulture. Some
of the tasks involved in wine production would have been
especially difficult to fashion in three-dimensions,58 and it was
presumably considered more imperative to be provided with
bread and beer for the afterlife as these commodities offered
essential sources of nutrition. Scene-artists, on the other hand,
could incorporate these additional themes and motifs as they
not only had a greater amount of space available for their
designs, but also sought to highlight the grandeur of the tomb
owner’s estate to any visitors to the tomb.
There are, however, a number of themes not examined
in this study that are still known from the model corpus.
These examples originate from other sites in Egypt, being
unrepresented at Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, but
are only rarely attested. This is particularly evident for the
theme of craft production. In addition to textile manufacture,
carpentry and leatherwork which have been analysed in this
study, Breasted has identified models of pottery-making,
metal-working and stone-working, the majority of which
originate from Saqqara.59 Interestingly, these craft activities
Similarly, the act of tossing grain into the air during winnowing could not
have been captured in three-dimensions.
57
Donkeys and dogs also appear in the three-dimensional medium, but
they are displayed in specific roles rather than across different stages of their
lifecycles. See chapters 3.3 and 4.4 for further discussion on these animals.
58
The streaming liquid required for the representation of squeezing juice
from the sack and pouring wine into jars could not be captured in three-
dimensional sculptures.
59
In a model from the tomb of Gemniemhat at Saqqara, for example,
the various craft professions are combined into a single workshop: in
the courtyard outside the architectural structure are two potters, one of
whom kneads clay with his hands while the other turns a vessel on a
wheel; inside one room are two blacksmiths who blow through pipes to
melt metal; and in the adjacent room are three carpenters who prepare
different pieces of wood. Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen: AEIN
1633. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 49-52.
 Survey of Differences between Funerary Models and Wall Scenes
are found among the earliest Old Kingdom single stone
statuettes and continue to be produced in the group wooden
models of the Middle Kingdom.60 With the presence of
model tools as well as manufactured funerary goods in the
burial such as furniture, vessels and jewellery, the processes
involved in their production were probably not considered
essential for representation in the three-dimensional medium.
Additionally, several of the activities displayed on chapel
walls that have been classified as sport and recreation by
Kanawati have been identified in a select number of models
from other sites, including musicians, singers, dancers,
wrestlers and games.61 Although only a small number of
examples are known, an additional theme classification
of entertainment should be made for these models as their
purpose in the burial was most likely to provide pleasure for
the deceased. Three-dimensional musicians are restricted to
harpists which are known as early as the 5th Dynasty and
continue to appear throughout the Middle Kingdom. Most
comprise single statuettes fashioned of limestone, although
some wooden examples are known.62 In a group model
from the tomb of Karenen at Saqqara, a male and female
harpist sit either side of the tomb owner and his wife.63 Also
in this model are three seated singers who clap their hands
for rhythmical accompaniment. Dancing figures, although
quite rare, are typically shown in acrobatic postures, either
in a flat bridge or arched back pose, such as a female figure
from Abydos who arches backwards with her feet, hands
and hair touching the baseboard.64 Such attitudes may
allude to the dances performed in honour of the goddess
Hathor, enabling the figures to be associated with symbols
of fertility and to promote the deceased’s continual rebirth.65
Although wrestling became popular in the Middle
Kingdom and is particularly prominent in the wall scenes
of the nobles’ tombs at Beni Hassan, surprisingly none
of the extant wrestling models originate from the site.66
Only a very small number of examples are known, and
each depicts two figures engaged in the sport, including a
limestone statuette from Abydos.67 Both active and passive
games are displayed on the walls of tomb-chapels, but do
60
Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 49; Tooley, in Oxford
Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>.
61
Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 86-92; Kanawati, Tomb and
Beyond, 102-04.
62
Kroenke has identified a total of nine provenanced examples of model
harpists. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 270-71.
63
Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 39130. Breasted, Egyptian Servant
Statues, 87-88.
64
Brooklyn Museum: 13.1024. Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten,
pl. 248; Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 89; Kroenke, “Provincial
Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 267; Alba Gómez & Tooley, in Art-facts
and Artefacts, 7-8. One of the statuettes from the tomb of Niankh-pepy-
kem (A1) at Meir has been classified as a dancer, but the designation of
fertility figurine is preferred here. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 248 /
JE 30809. The figure is positioned in a static pose rather than in the fluid
movement of a dancer and is depicted naked and with long braided hair
as is more common for fertility figurines and paddle dolls.
65
Nord, in Studies in Ancient Egypt, 141-42; Kroenke, “Provincial
Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 268-69; Alba Gómez & Tooley, in Art-
facts and Artefacts, 9-11.
66
Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 68-69.
67
Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 90-92; Bourriau, Pharaohs and
Mortals, cat. 113.
181
not typically form their own statuettes. Instead, the three-
dimensional vignettes are integrated into larger group
models, such as on a model boat of Nefwa (186 LC) from
Beni Hassan where two figures are playing the board game
senet [M191; see fig. 3.8]. While entertainment may have
been desired for the afterlife and therefore suitable for the
model repertoire, its rare attestation is probably due to the
fact that other provisions, most notably nourishment and
transport, were considered more important. Consequently,
themes such as craft production and entertainment should
be understood as supplementary, being represented only
when the essential provisions were already attained.
Unusually, there is one theme identified at Meir, Deir
el-Bersha and Beni Hassan that is represented by the
three-dimensional medium but is not attested in any
wall scenes from the period under examination. Five
models representing the manufacture of mudbricks are
known throughout Egypt, four of which originate from
the sites under investigation: one from the tomb of Henu
(L-16H50/1C) at Deir el-Bersha [M35], one from the tomb
of Djay (275 LC) at Beni Hassan [M51] and two from
the burial of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) at Deir el-Bersha
[M154, M155; see fig. 7.1].68 Each of the models includes
a standing man using a hoe to break up clods of earth
and a seated figure forming bricks with a mould, while
the more expansive examples also incorporate a seated
figure hand-mixing mud and/or two standing figures who
presumably transport the mud in vessels either suspended
from a yoke or balanced on the head. As mudbrick was the
principal building material for everyday life structures,69
the inclusion of brick-making models in the burial may
have been intended to provision the tomb owner with
the materials needed for any architectural construction
desired in the afterlife. The earliest of the burials housing
brick-making models examined in this study is that of
Henu which has been dated to the late First Intermediate
Period,70 but no scenes of brick-making are attested in
Egypt prior to the New Kingdom and in fact remain rare
during this period.71 The brick-making theme, therefore,
68
The fifth example was found in the cemetery of Naga ed-Deir.
Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, fig. 213.
69
Clarke & Engelbach, Ancient Egyptian Masonry, 207; Donatelli, in
Egyptian Civilization, 181.
70
De Meyer, “Tomb of Henu”, EA 31, (2007), 24. The brick-making
model from Naga ed-Deir has also been dated to the First Intermediate
Period. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 274-75.
71
The most famous example of a brick-making scene is from the 18th
Dynasty tomb of Rekhmire at Thebes. Davies, Rekh-mi-Re, pl. 58. Kemp
has suggested the possibility that a scene displayed on the east wall of
the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha may
likewise depict brick-making. Verhoeven has more specifically identified
the vignette in the second register of this wall as the unique motif of firing
bricks in an oven instead of the more common interpretation of a pottery
kiln. She notes that the use of fired bricks is not typically accepted before
the Roman Period but observes some examples of such bricks from
earlier archaeological contexts. If this interpretation is correct, the scene
may present the earliest known two-dimensional brick-making motif, but
it clearly depicts a different manufacturing process than is represented
by the models. Moreover, the extant models all date prior to the tomb of
Djehuty-hotep in the 12th Dynasty, making them still the earlier form of
representation for this theme. Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pls. 24, 27.2;
Klebs, Reliefs und Malereien, 118; Verhoeven, “Technologische Rarität”,
MDAIK 43, (1987), 261-63; Kemp, in Materials and Technology, 83.
Preparing for Eternity
Figure 7.1. Brick-making model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M154]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.411.
was not appropriated from the two-dimensional repertoire,
but was apparently conceived for the three-dimensional
medium.
It is difficult to identify the exact factors that impacted the
selection process of themes for each tomb’s decoration,
but it seems probable that each scheme was determined by
a combination of the tomb owner’s personal preference,
wealth and profession, the artist’s training and taste, the
location and type of tomb, the amount of space available
for decoration, and the customs of the period.72 However,
the choice of medium would have also been a major
contributing factor to the selection of themes. Only one
tomb examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni
Hassan preserves both its two- and three-dimensional
representations: the walls of both the chapel and burial
chamber of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) at Meir are decorated
with scenes [S22-S26] while a corpus of at least 25 models
was interred in a niche in the substructure [M1-M25].73
72
Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 83-84; Staring, in Old Kingdom, New
Perspectives, 269. Vernus, in his discussion on textual autobiographies
in the tomb, identifies three or four types of involvement in the selection
process, which may not necessarily be undertaken by four distinct
persons: the supervisor, whether this be the owner, his relatives or
subordinates; the experts in sacerdotal science who adapted the design
to align with the religious customs of the period; and the painters and
sculptors who were commissioned to produce the work. Such combined
efforts can also be considered for the selection of artistic representations.
Vernus, in Ancient Egyptian Biographies, 170-72.
73
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 11-12;
Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, 29.
182
Interestingly, there is a clear distinction in the themes
represented by each medium. Almost all of the themes
portrayed by the models are entirely unrepresented on
the walls of the tomb, with the repetition of only two
themes: roasting fowl and offering-bearers. It is perhaps
not surprising that offering-bearers are represented in both
the chapel and burial chamber as they were a key part of
the mortuary cult that occurred in the superstructure and
provided transport of the desired goods in the substructure.
However, the repetition of roasting fowl is somewhat
surprising considering the theme’s infrequent appearance
in the three-dimensional medium. In Niankh-pepy-
kem’s chapel, the preparation of fowl for consumption is
associated with scenes of fishing and fowling, forming the
culmination of this daily life activity, whereas in the burial
chamber, the roasting of fowl forms a single statuette that
solely functioned to nourish the deceased. The rest of
Niankh-pepy-kem’s model corpus is entirely concerned
with the provision of grain, bread, beer and transport,
suggesting that the repertoire was designed specifically
according to the medium’s role in the tomb rather than
seeking to reflect the same themes as the chapel.74
74
The themes of provision represented by the models are supplemented
by the portrayal of granaries on the south wall of the burial chamber
[S26]. Granaries were not yet a consistent part of the three-dimensional
repertoire in the late 6th Dynasty, with their appearance in the First
Intermediate Period. This may possibly explain why Niankh-pepy-kem
chose to depict the storage facilities on the walls of his burial chamber
rather than among the model corpus. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial
Customs. Volume I”, 29.
 Survey of Differences between Funerary Models and Wall Scenes
7.4 Technical properties
It has been demonstrated throughout this book that each
medium had its own specific technical capabilities that
impacted artistic design. Consequently, a number of
differences between wall scenes and funerary models may
be attributed to their distinct technical properties. One of
the major advantages of the two-dimensional medium
is the ease with which scene-artists could draw intricate
details on the wall surface. This regularly resulted in quite
detailed two-dimensional representations. In scenes of
animals, for example, specific breeds can be identified
through the incorporation of minute distinguishing details,
as was observed in illustrations of beasts of burden, cattle
in procession and dogs. Similarly, in two-dimensional
representations of calving, the discomfort of the cow is
clearly conveyed through a precise rendering of the cow’s
expression and posture. Human figures of different ages
can also be distinguished in scenes, with overseers of
mature age in granaries, for example, clearly identified
by their enlarged breasts and rolls of fat across their
stomachs. This ease of drawing intricate details also
enabled the illustration of the wide array of active postures
required during everyday life tasks. The strenuous nature
of ploughing, for example, is conveyed in scenes through
the detailed rendering of the ploughman’s strained
movement. The sailor was responsible for a number
of tasks on riverine journeys which scene-artists could
specify through modifications to the crewman’s posture.
Additionally, the scene-artist usually created his design
on a large surface of wall which provided an expansive
space for artistic representation. This regularly resulted
in multiple registers and occasionally whole walls being
dedicated to each theme. Offering-bearers, for example,
are typically portrayed in multiple lines of processions,
highlighting the great quantities of commodities presented
to the tomb owner. Similarly, several registers are devoted
to military battles, conveying multiple vignettes of
combat and files of soldiers processing towards the action.
This advantage of available space also enables multiple
themes to be grouped on the same wall, thus conveying
associations between certain activities. For beasts of
burden, the pack animals are positioned alongside
agricultural vignettes where it is certain at what stage in
the cycle they are employed. Similarly, dogs are integrated
into a range of contexts in scenes, highlighting the variety
of activities in which they were involved in daily life. With
these technical abilities, the two-dimensional medium
could present expansive, detailed representations.
On the other hand, scene-artists were hindered in their
designs by some technical restrictions specific to their
medium. Of particular significance is that the limitations
of the two-dimensional perspective required each
component to be depicted from a single viewpoint, thus
preventing a holistic portrayal. The most characteristic
aspect was selected so that each element would be easily
recognised, but this regularly resulted in the exclusion of
certain features. For spinning-bowls utilised during textile
183
manufacture, for example, the profile aspect was selected,
causing the interior handle that secured the thread to be
omitted.
Scene-artists regularly adapted their designs in order to
overcome this restriction, but this often limited the realism
of the composition. On rowing boats, for example, the
crew are positioned in single file with all oars usually
passing over the near side of the hull, but in reality, the
rowers would be aligned in pairs and half of the oars would
disappear from view. Alternatively, scene-artists could
combine multiple perspectives for a single component.
The human figure, for example, formed a composite image
which occasionally created difficulties in representation,
particularly regarding the movement of the shoulders. As
the torso is presented in profile and the shoulders in frontal
view, activities that require forward arm movement,
such as straining beer-mash through a sieve, often cause
the shoulders to be depicted in a position that does not
correspond with reality. The overall scene could also
present a combined image, with each component depicted
from a different perspective. This is exemplified in
representations of weaving where the horizontal loom is
shown from a top-down viewpoint while the weavers are
largely presented in profile.
The two-dimensional perspective also resulted in an
absence of depth which created difficulties in conveying
the arrangement of large groups of figures. Scene-artists
could not depict their actual side-by-side positioning while
keeping all figures in view, although they utilised different
methods to imply this arrangement. In processions of cattle,
the individual herd members could be spaced across the
register line in single file, placed above one another in sub-
registers, or in closely overlapping groups with alternating
colours and patterns to individually distinguish each
animal. Although scene-artists utilised different methods
to overcome these limitations of perspective, they were
unable to present a holistic and realistic representation.
The designs of model-artists were likewise impacted by
their medium’s technical capabilities, but these properties
are distinct from those of wall scenes. In contrast to the
restricted perspective of the two-dimensional medium,
funerary models enjoy a holistic perspective that enables
a more realistic composition. As the sculptures can be
viewed from every angle, all aspects of each component
are on display. The two sacks carried by the beast of
burden, for example, realistically hang over the donkey’s
back without being hidden from view. A comprehensive
representation of architectural features is also achieved in
models, portraying both the exterior and interior of a single
structure. For grain silos, this allowed the openings in both
the roof and side wall for depositing and withdrawing the
grain to appear in the designs. This holistic perspective
also enabled a realistic arrangement of groups of figures.
In the ploughing team, the two oxen are positioned in their
actual locations side-by-side while the ploughman and
driver stand behind the animals without any part of the
human and animal figures being obscured from view.
Preparing for Eternity

The realism of the three-dimensional representations was Table 7.1. Materials utilised in the manufacture of funerary
further enhanced by the medium’s ability to incorporate models and their function in the themes in which they
appear.
real-life materials into its designs. These include actual
grain stored in granaries, lines of thread to suspend
Material Theme Function in
water jars from yokes, to bind oxen’s legs for slaughter, Representation
to function as rigging for boats and as the material used
during spinning and weaving, linen for the kilts of human Linen All themes Garments for human figures
figures and the sails attached to masts, and metal for the Boats Sails
construction of carpenter’s tools [table 7.1]. Consequently,
the three-dimensional medium could present a more Thread Bread-making Suspend water jars from
realistic and holistic representation of each theme than yokes
wall scenes. Brewing beer Suspend water jars from
yokes
Yet simultaneously, model-artists were limited by certain
Slaughtering Bind oxen’s legs
technical restrictions. Incorporating the minute details cattle
regularly encountered in wall scenes would have required
a superior level of craftsmanship to achieve in three- Fishing and Fishing nets
dimensional sculptures. While some models exhibit such fowling
exceptional skill, most are quite basic in their rendering. Boats Rigging
The herdsman who leads cattle in procession, for example,
is typically depicted as a standard three-dimensional figure Secure oars
without any of his identifying characteristics that feature Cattle Tails of animals
in wall scenes. This limited incorporation of minute details
also resulted in less variety in the models’ presentation Leashes for animals
of each component. For example, a more uniform style Spinning and Tools of textile manufacture
of shaped bread loaf is represented in models of bread- weaving
making in contrast to wall scenes where a wide range of
shapes are displayed. Additionally, models typically do Brick-making Suspend vessels from yokes
not capture the strained and active movements required Grain Storing grain in Actual grain for storage
during everyday life tasks. The three-dimensional butcher, granaries
for example, simply stands or sits beside the ox’s neck
Metal Carpentry Construction of tools
while holding a knife, whereas butchers in scenes adopt a
wide range of active stances as they perform their duties.
Direct contact was also difficult to achieve in wooden roof predominates as this was an easier surface on which
models as each component had to be carved separately to attach the necessary human figures. Moreover, the three-
and attached individually to the baseboard. This hindered dimensional medium could not capture falling motion which
the model-artist’s representation of certain themes that resulted in certain motifs being excluded or merely implied
required specific types of contact, such as hand-feeding in the model repertoire, such as sowing seed and pouring
cattle, the assistance of the herdsman during calving, and beer into jars. These technical capabilities specific to the
the calf’s muzzle suckling from the cow’s teats during three-dimensional representation caused the model-artist to
nursing. create an individual design that was suitable for his medium
rather than simply duplicate the work of scene-artists.
Moreover, the model-artist had to consider the stability of
his structure, resulting in further differences from the two- A further distinguishing property between the two media
dimensional design. Sailors on model boats, for example, is their utilisation of inscriptions. As has been observed
could not be positioned on top of the boom to perform throughout this book, text formed an important part of
certain tasks as the wooden figures were too heavy for the wall scenes, with captions integrated into the images
thin twigs used to support the unfurled sail. Similarly, model to identify specific individuals, record the dialogue of
offering-bearers typically carry a smaller, although more the workers and describe the activities taking place.
realistic, quantity of offerings as the three-dimensional Inscriptions could be easily carved or painted on the
figures could not support the weight of the immense loads tomb wall in any desired position or direction, enabling
regularly transported in wall scenes. Furthermore, each them to be perfectly adapted to the composition.75 The
component had to be secured to the baseboard which in pictorial nature of the language also enabled inscriptions
many cases impacted the design. Human figures were to contribute to the aesthetic nature of the scene.76
attached with pegs and while feet were sometimes added Conversely, funerary models very rarely include any type
in plaster or paint, they were often excluded from the of text. It was not possible to integrate inscriptions into
representations. When the figures were positioned on top
of the silos in granaries, the design of the structure itself 75
Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 256-57; Robins, Art of Ancient
was adapted to accommodate this: in wall scenes, silos Egypt, 21-24.
exhibit both domed and flat roofs, but in models, the flat 76
Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 83; Baines, Visual and Written Culture, 12.

184
 Survey of Differences between Funerary Models and Wall Scenes
a three-dimensional sculpture in the same way that could
be achieved so easily in wall scenes. Enclosure walls are
only occasionally incorporated into models and are largely
confined to representations of granaries, causing most
three-dimensional artworks to not have a background on
which text could be transcribed. While it was technically
possible for captions to be inscribed on the baseboards,
this was not a technique typically utilised for wooden
models. The three-dimensional medium, therefore, did
not convey the additional information that was provided
through inscriptions in wall scenes,77 with all figures and
activities solely conveyed pictorially.
There are, however, some exceptions in the three-
dimensional medium where short captions are inscribed
to identify the figures represented. The serving statuettes
housed in serdabs of the 4th and 5th Dynasties occasionally
include labels inscribed on their bases which identify the
figures as specific individuals, usually family members or
dependents of the tomb owner.78 These people were close to
the tomb owner during life and their acts of service perhaps
demonstrated their dependence on him for their afterlives.79
The practice of labelling statuettes with names of family
members disappeared once funerary models moved to the
burial chamber in the late 6th Dynasty, with text appearing
even more rarely.80 Of the limited number of Middle
Kingdom models known that do include inscriptions, most
are representations of granaries where it is the type of grain
being stored that is identified. Occasionally, offering-bearers
or boats may include a short caption that identifies the tomb
owner or more rarely the workers themselves, but the vast
majority of models remain uninscribed.
Consequently, many scholars refer to model figures
as ‘anonymous’, implying not only an absence of an
identifying caption, but also a generic nature.81 Even Roth
who acknowledges that both inscribed and uninscribed
serving statuettes of the Old Kingdom were most likely
representations of specific individuals maintains that
77
The inscriptions on chapel walls were viewed by visitors to the tomb,
but each person’s level of comprehension was dependent upon their own
literacy skills. The vast majority of the population was illiterate, so most
visitors would not have been able to attain the additional information
provided through text unless it was recited. Robins, however, notes that
even if the viewers could not decipher the inscriptions, the presence
of text would have impressed them as it highlighted the literacy and
therefore elevated status of the tomb owner. Davis, Canonical Tradition,
62; Baines, “Restricted knowledge”, JARCE 27, (1990), 5-7; Robins, in
Egyptian World, 360; Woods & Leary, in Death is Only the Beginning,
81-82; Nyord, Seeing Perfection, 47.
78
The largest surviving group of inscribed serving statuettes belongs
to Nikau-inpu from Giza, today housed in the Museum of the Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago: E10622-E10624, E10629, E10634,
E10635. Among the group of sculptures are named sons, daughters and
a dependent who are engaged in tasks related to food preparation. Roth,
“Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 109-11.
79
Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 110.
80
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 85; Roth,
“Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 118; Jurman, in Arts of
Making, 104-05.
81
For the designation ‘anonymous’, see, for example, Tooley,
“Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 85; Tefnin, in Oxford
Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>; Shedid, in Egypt,
131; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 172.
185
models of the Middle Kingdom were anonymous, generic
servants.82 However, the absence of inscriptions should
not necessarily indicate that the three-dimensional figures
were not considered representations of specific individuals.
Rather, it is possible that we are simply unable to detect the
subtle distinguishing details.83 Wall scenes are regularly
understood as displaying typical activities that could
have occurred at any time and in any place, with many
human and animal figures likewise unlabelled.84 However,
elements of specificity are clearly identifiable in many
scenes, indicating the depiction of particular individuals
engaged in specific events. For example, the motif of the
presentation of animals before the tomb owner is especially
common and is regularly standardised, but the depiction of
certain animals and people can individualise the event. On
the north wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni
Hassan, for example, a herdsman in the fourth register
walks with unnaturally bent legs and leads forward an ox
with a distorted horn [S155]. Neither the herdsman nor the
ox is named, but their distinct appearance distinguishes
them from the rest of the procession and perhaps causes
them to be recognised as specific individuals by their
contemporaneous audience.85 Consequently, a recurring
scene does not necessarily depict an unspecific event
involving generic figures.86 The use of identifying captions
may have instead been reserved for the individuals
considered most important in each composition, with the
other figures remaining known, but unnamed. The same
situation may be true for models.
Although rare, the fact that there are examples of models
where the figures are individually labelled indicates that
the three-dimensional artworks could be understood as
representations of specific individuals. In the corpus from
Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, the only model
examined that specifies the names of the individuals
depicted is a model funerary boat of Ukh-hotep from
Meir [M224; see fig. 3.10]. The two female mourners
who accompany the coffin are labelled with their own
names as well as the divine names of Isis and Nephthys
to indicate their role as mourners: nbt-Hw.t Htp-Hw.t-Hr
mAa.t xrw ‘Nephthys Hetephathor true of voice’ and As.t
Htp.t mAa.t xrw ‘Isis Hetepet true of voice’.87 As the role
of Isis in the funerary procession was often fulfilled by
the wife of the deceased,88 it is reasonable to propose
82
Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 118-20.
83
Lashien, “Narrative in Old Kingdom wall scenes”, BACE 22, (2011),
102.
84
Kantor, “Narration”, AJA 61.1, (1957), 44; Gaballa, Narrative, 5,
27-28; Weeks, in Egyptology, 61; Groenewegen-Frankfort, Arrest and
Movement, 33-34; Davis, Canonical Tradition, 192-94.
85
Kanawati, “Specificity”, ASAE 83, (2009), 264; Barker, “Animate
decoration”, JARCE 56, (2020), 75-77.
86
Kanawati attributes the similarities of ‘typical’ scenes to the common
background setting of daily life activities, the strict conventions of the
artistic canon and the training received by artists. Kanawati, “Specificity”,
ASAE 83, (2009), 271-72.
87
Translation: N. Allon (2016), The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York, “Model boat of Ukhhotep”, viewed 25 October 2019, <https://
www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/545439>.
88
D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 56-57; Roth, in
Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>.
Preparing for Eternity
that the figures represented were close female relatives.
Although confirmation of the precise relationship is
impossible due to the absence of documentation on
the model’s exact provenance,89 the transcription of the
names indicates that these were individuals who were
known by and presumably close to the tomb owner
during life. Additionally, one of the male figures on board is
labelled with a name and title: wdp.w Nfr-jw ‘the attendant
Neferiu’.90 With the status of attendant, it is probable that this
man was not a family member of the deceased, but someone
who worked for the tomb owner during life. Therefore, it
was not only close relatives who were represented but also
specific subservient workers.91 Considering the rarity of
this practice, it is difficult to ascertain why any models are
inscribed, but some possible reasons may be considered:
the labelled individuals are particularly important to the
composition and so the captions ensure their identification;
the names and titles are markers of status and highlight
the importance of their contribution to the deceased’s
well-being; inscribed models were commissioned by the
individuals represented and interred alongside the deceased
in an attempt to share in the tomb owner’s afterlife; the
captions that alternatively identify the tomb owner himself
further guarantee him as the recipient of the services offered;
and those that state the contents of granaries emphasise the
nature of the stored goods.
Consequently, uninscribed three-dimensional figures
may likewise not represent generic servants, but rather
specific individuals who were known and trusted by the
tomb owner. This would have been especially important
in the burial chamber where the figures were positioned
alongside the body and had the potential of causing harm.
Without inscriptions, the model figures were free from
any threat posed by dangerous hieroglyphic signs, thus
providing a precautionary measure for the deceased’s
safety, as will be further discussed in chapter 7.7.92
Additionally, as the models were hidden from view, there
was no living audience who could engage with the text.
89
As the model was apparently discovered during the excavations of
Kamal, it is quite possible that it originated from the tomb of one of
the governors named Ukh-hotep. None of the preserved names in the
governors’ chapels can be clearly aligned with the names of the model
figures, but this provenance remains a possibility. The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York, “Model boat of Ukhhotep”, viewed 25 October
2019, <https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/545439>;
Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 549.
90
Translation: N. Allon (2016), The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York, “Model boat of Ukhhotep”, viewed 25 October 2019, <https://
www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/545439>.
91
Additional examples of inscribed model figures are known from other
sites. Two female offering-bearers from the tomb of the Two Brothers at
Rifeh are individually labelled with their role in the household and their
personal names and filiations. Murray, Two Brothers, pls. 17.3-4, 21.5-
6; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 245; David,
Two Brothers, 83. Alternatively, in a model rowing boat from the tomb
of the official Montuhotep at Thebes, all 21 human figures on board are
inscribed with their own names and those of their mothers. Staatliche
Museen zu Berlin: ÄM 12. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga
ed-Deir”, 3.
92
This may also potentially explain why labels are more common in the
4th and 5th Dynasty serving statuettes as these sculptures were housed in
the serdab and consequently separated from the body. Barker, “Animate
decoration”, JARCE 56, (2020), 76-77.
186
Only the deceased tomb owner could view the inscriptions
and as he would have known the individuals represented,
there was no need for identifying captions. Jurman has
also proposed the possibility that model production did
not typically employ scribes and so most of the sculptures
were fashioned by individuals who did not have the
training to incorporate inscriptions.93 In conjunction with
the technical difficulty of integrating textual captions into a
small three-dimensional artwork, the rarity of inscriptions
in the model corpus should be understood as a means to
equip the deceased with known and trusted individuals
who could safely provide effective service.
7.5 Construction
The mode of construction forms another point of difference
between the two- and three-dimensional media. Scenes
were fashioned directly on the wall of the tomb and so
artistic creation was required to take place within the tomb
itself. Consequently, the representations were executed
during the tomb owner’s lifetime or were completed by
his son after his death, but many scenes were in fact left
unfinished.94 While this may in some cases be attributed
to the tomb owner’s premature death, the regularity of this
practice suggests it was sometimes deliberately achieved,
perhaps as a means to prevent the tomb from being ready
to receive the body and therefore symbolically delaying
death.95 In the chapel, natural light flooded in which enabled
the scenes to be finely executed. Relief and painting were
the two techniques employed in the creation of wall scenes,
but the choice of style seems to have been impacted by
the type of tomb and its building materials.96 Working
conditions in the burial chamber, on the other hand, would
have in most cases been particularly poor, with scene-artists
operating in limited lighting. Scenes of substructures were
therefore often not as finely or precisely executed as those
of the chapel, with all known examples merely executed in
painting.97 In the tombs of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) and
Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir, for example, the scenes of
the chapel are crafted in fine, painted relief, whereas those
of the burial chamber are simply painted.98
Although funerary models were also housed in burial
chambers, they were not required to be fashioned in the tomb,
but rather were created in workshops and only transported
to the tomb upon completion. Consequently, models were
not left unfinished like many wall scenes, but were interred
93
Jurman, in Arts of Making, 105.
94
Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 122; Teeter, Religion and Ritual, 123.
95
Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 122; Tiradritti, in Companion to Ancient
Egyptian Art, 253-54.
96
It is commonly observed in scholarship that painted relief was the
preferred technique for wall scenes, but at some First Intermediate Period
and Middle Kingdom sites such as Beni Hassan, painting was apparently
favoured. Robins, Egyptian Painting, 20; Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian
Art, 76; Bussman, in Egyptian Art, 24; Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 76;
Tiradritti, Egyptian Wall Painting, 177; Shedid, in Egypt, 123.
97
Bolshakov, Man and his Double, 117.
98
The only scenes in Pepyankh the Black’s chapel that are not executed
in painted relief are those that remain unfinished. Kanawati, Cemetery of
Meir. Volume I, pls. 9-71; Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume
II, pls. 2-67.
 Survey of Differences between Funerary Models and Wall Scenes
as complete sculptures.99 Centres of model production are
known throughout Egypt, with Eschenbrenner-Diemer
identifying individual styles, materials and techniques that
are attributable to each workshop.100 With construction
occurring away from the tomb, models could be fashioned
in more favourable conditions, with the potential of creating
a higher quality and quantity of artworks specifically
designed for the burial chamber. This was quite likely a
major contributing factor to the preference for the three-
dimensional medium in the substructure.
The artists who created models and scenes also seem to
have had different levels of training and abilities. Painters
appear to have held relatively high status in society and
may have been associated with the scribal profession and
accordingly would have been highly trained.101 Sculptors
seem to have been of lesser status than painters but were
more distinguished than other craftsmen.102 The creation
of reliefs and sculptures required the work of both painters
and sculptors who operated as a team under the direction
of a master artist.103 However, tombs often reveal different
levels of ability in their decoration, indicating that either
a single team could comprise artists of different levels of
training or multiple teams were employed.104
The ability of the artist was further impacted by the choice
of material for the design, a factor particularly significant
for the three-dimensional medium. Limestone was the
most common material of model manufacture in the
Old Kingdom and while these statuettes could be finely
crafted, the transition to wood in the late 6th Dynasty
enabled the execution of a greater range of details.105 In
particular, more variety in body posture could be captured
and additional components could be easily attached with
pegs.106 Sculptures could also be fashioned of pottery and
so were created by potters who were not as highly trained
as artists nor held in the same esteem.107 Production of
pottery forms was further limited by the constraints of
the material as all elements had to be moulded prior to
firing.108 Indeed, all pottery models examined from
Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan are limited in
their incorporation of minute details.109 Consequently,
99
Incomplete models should therefore be attributed to damage suffered
after discovery or during plundering.
100
Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 159-61.
101
Eaton-Krauss, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.
com>; Kanawati & Woods, Artists in the Old Kingdom, 9-17.
102
Kanawati & Woods, Artists in the Old Kingdom, 23.
103
Strouhal, Life, 155-57; Robins, Proportion and Style, 26; Eaton-
Krauss in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>.
104
This variation in skill is evident in both scenes and models: a single
model assemblage could display significant variety in quality while
different scenes within a single chapel could exhibit diversity in the level
of detail incorporated. Kanawati, Tomb and its Significance, 95.
105
Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 3; Tooley, Egyptian Models and
Scenes, 16-17.
106
Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 63-64; Amoros, et al., “Study
and identification”, Hathor 1, (2012), 14.
107
Hope, Egyptian Pottery, 6-7.
108
Dorman, Faces in Clay, 8.
109
A total of six pottery models were examined in this study, depicting
the themes of granaries [M57, M291, M292], bread-making [M289],
brewing beer [M263] and dogs [M264; see fig. 4.15].
187
differences in design between the representations reflect
the skill and ability of each individual artist as well as the
capabilities of his chosen material.
7.6 Accessibility
Another significant distinction between models and wall
scenes is their accessibility to individuals from different
levels of society. While all Egyptians desired to construct
and decorate a tomb that would protect and provision them
for eternity, individuals could only achieve this according
to their own means.110 The ideal funerary monument
comprised both a superstructure and substructure, and
only the highest elite could afford extensive decoration.
Many tombs in fact did not have a chapel, and among
those that did, only a small number were decorated with
scenes.111 Consequently, the two-dimensional medium was
restricted to the highest officials, and at Meir, Deir el-
Bersha and Beni Hassan, it was the rulers of the provinces
who included elaborate decoration in their grand tombs
excavated into the high cliffs of the cemeteries.112
Conversely, all tombs had a burial chamber where the
body of the deceased was housed. Funerary models were
not as costly to produce as wall scenes, which required
the smoothing, plastering, painting and/or carving of
tomb walls, and so could be stored in substructures of
individuals of lesser means. A multitude of models was
discovered in the Lower Cemetery at Beni Hassan where
almost 900 burials belonging to the lower administrative
elite and the family of the provincial governors were
found. The vast majority of these burials comprise shaft
tombs without superstructures and so are completely
void of wall scenes.113 It must be remembered, however,
that the tomb owners of the Lower Cemetery were still
individuals of some status, with knowledge concerning
the accessibility of funerary decoration for the rest of the
population remaining largely unknown.114
Funerary models, however, are not only known from burials
of lower officials but also from some high-status tombs. As
the majority of nomarchal tombs have been extensively
plundered, the extent to which they incorporated models
among their funerary equipment is unfortunately unknown.
However, the evidence indicates that it was desirable to
include both two- and three-dimensional representations
110
Baines & Lacovara, “Burial and the dead”, JSA 2.1, (2002), 10;
Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 48.
111
The cemetery of El-Hawawish provides a clear example of the
exclusivity of two-dimensional decoration in superstructures: more than
880 rock-cut tombs have been identified at the site, but only about 60
of these have chapels decorated with wall scenes. Kanawati, Decorated
Burial Chambers, 10.
112
Badawy, History of Egyptian Architecture, 128, 136, 143; Richards,
Society and Death, 80.
113
Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 16, 45.
114
The relatively high status of model owners is further conveyed by the
fact that some themes of the three-dimensional repertoire reflect activities
and commodities that would have been exclusively available to the elite,
such as the lifecycle of cattle and the military. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom
Burial Customs. Volume I”, 373-74; Baines, “Status and purpose”, CAJ
4.1, (1994), 71-72.
Preparing for Eternity
where financially possible. As noted above, the burial of
Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) at Meir is the only tomb identified
from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan to preserve both
its two- and three-dimensional artworks.115 This tomb owner
functioned as ruler of his province, serving as ‘overseer of
priests’ and ‘overseer of Upper Egypt’.116 The rulers of
Deir el-Bersha seem to have likewise included both models
and wall scenes in their tombs, but their monuments have
suffered greater damage. The governor Djehuty-nakht (R-
10A) housed an extensive corpus of models in his burial
chamber,117 but the superstructure was entirely destroyed
by an earthquake except for one small section of wall
from the inner room. This remaining section shows no
sign of decoration, but considering the status of the noble,
the elaborate furnishing of his tomb and the exquisite
painting on his coffin, it seems probable that his chapel
was intended to be decorated with scenes if not actually
achieved.118 The tomb-chapel of the governor Djehuty-
hotep (N-2), alternatively, is comparatively well-preserved
with exquisite scenes covering the walls, including some
unique themes and motifs.119 The burial chamber, on the
other hand, was found completely plundered, so the range
and type of funerary furnishings remains unknown, but
a dump of material originating from the governor’s shaft
has recently been examined, revealing 14 human figures
originally from wooden models.120 At Beni Hassan, the
burials of the Upper Cemetery were heavily plundered
causing no complete models to be found, but Fraser’s 1890-
1891 excavation revealed a number of fragments of wooden
models, most notably some from the tomb of the governor
Baqet III (15 UC) whose chapel is extensively decorated
with wall scenes.121
The use of both two- and three-dimensional representations
in a single tomb reflects the immense wealth of the tomb
115
It seems quite likely that some of the models uncovered by Kamal
in his 1910-1914 excavation of Meir belonged to the governors of the
province, but unfortunately the precise provenance and current location
of many of these models has not been satisfactorily documented.
Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Volume I, 16. Willems, Historical and
Archaeological Aspects, 61.
116
Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, 9.
117
The burial chamber was, however, ransacked by thieves, with the
contents thrown across the chamber. D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig,
Mummies and Magic, 112; Freed, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 11.
118
Terrace, Egyptian Paintings, 22-23; Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A,
149. A comparable example is found in the tomb of the chancellor
Meketre from Thebes. The chapel has unfortunately been destroyed
through plundering and quarrying, but fragmentary remains indicate that
the walls were originally covered with scenes. The model assemblage,
alternatively, escaped plunder as it was housed in a small concealed
room. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, 9-13.
119
The scenes have unfortunately suffered some damage as a result of an
earthquake. Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, 1-2.
120
Two of these figures may be certainly identified as originating from
a model granary and eight may be attributed to a model rowing boat.
Willems, et al., “Preliminary report of the 2003 campaign”, MDAIK 62,
(2006), 309-13; Sykora, in Djehoutihotep, 23, 27.
121
Model fragments were also identified in the shafts of tombs 7 and
8 of the Upper Cemetery, but these chapels were not decorated with
scenes. It should also be considered that some of the archaeological
remains could originate from subsidiary shafts rather than the original
burials of the ruling elite. Fraser, “Mr G. Willoughby Fraser’s report
on the tombs at Beni Hasan”, in Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, 79-80;
Orel, “Chronology and Social Stratification”, 468-69; Seidlmayer, in
Archaeology and Art. Volume II, 366.
188
owner and in these instances, the models presumably
functioned as an additional safeguard for the tomb owner’s
supply of provisions for the afterlife. Moreover, examples
of models are known from the royal sphere, with an
assemblage found in the burial of King Montuhotep II of
the 11th Dynasty at Deir el-Bahri, indicating the medium’s
esteemed role in funerary decoration.122 Models were
therefore not merely the substitutes of wall scenes for
those who could not afford decorated superstructures, but
rather were a significant form of representation that was
desired by the highest elite.
As the three-dimensional medium was accessible to
more of the population, variations in quantity and quality
are noticeable, reflecting the contrasting wealth of
model owners. In poorer burials, models were regularly
fashioned of pottery due to the material’s availability
and cheapness. These sculptures could be quite crudely
formed and interred in particularly small assemblages.123
At Beni Hassan, there seems to have been a preference for
representing granaries and domed silos in pottery,124 and
in the tomb of Nebet-het-hotep (774/775 LC) the pottery
granary forms the only model of the funerary equipment
[M291].125
Wealthy tomb owners, on the other hand, could afford
models in large quantities and could commission statuettes
of superior craftsmanship. The largest known assemblage
in Egypt belongs to the governor Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)
which comprises at least 100 models [M66-M157].126
Some of these sculptures are exceptionally carved, most
notably the Bersha Procession which exhibits the hand
of a master artist who seems to have been influenced
by the sculptural works of the Old Kingdom Memphite
cemeteries [M144; see fig. 3.16].127 However, Djehuty-
nakht’s corpus also includes models that were executed
with minimum detail and care.128 The fact that crudely
122
Arnold, Tempel des Königs Mentuhotep. Band III, 11-51; Arnold,
“Amenemhat I and the early Twelfth Dynasty”, MMJ 26, (1991), 25.
The extent to which other Middle Kingdom monarchs utilised models
is unknown due to the plundered state of their burials, but several New
Kingdom kings placed model boats in their tombs. These models,
however, quite likely functioned in a different role, namely to transport
the deceased king with the divine across the sky rather than to provide
ordinary riverine transport. Jones, Model Boats, 3; Freed & Doxey, in
Secrets of Tomb 10A, 151.
123
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 86, 376-77.
124
See chapter 2.2 for further discussion on model grain storage facilities
constructed of pottery. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs.
Volume I”, 116-22.
125
Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 239.
126
There were in fact two occupants of this burial: the governor and
his wife, also named Djehuty-nakht. It is thought that the model corpus
was originally divided into two groups, but determining which models
belonged to whom is an impossible task due to the plundered state of the
burial. Even if divided, each group is still an exceptionally large corpus.
Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 151-52.
127
Freed suggests the possibility that the model-artist was either based
at the royal residence and sent by the king to Deir el-Bersha to create
the model as a show of gratitude for the governor’s support, or was a
local of the province and travelled throughout Egypt, absorbing a range
of styles and ideas. Freed, “‘Bersha Procession’ in context. Part I”, BES
19, (2015), 305.
128
D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 113; Freed &
Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 152.
 Survey of Differences between Funerary Models and Wall Scenes
formed sculptures could be interred in the burial of a
governor suggests that there was a preference for quantity
over quality and that a low level of craftsmanship did not
impede the effectiveness of the model.129 However, this
variation also raises the possibility that some models
were commissioned by family members, perhaps after
the tomb owner’s death. During life, the governor could
have ensured the quality of each sculpture created for his
tomb, but after death, family members may have sought
to quickly obtain models before interment which did
not exhibit the same level of craftsmanship.130 Although
this is merely conjecture, it is clear that lower quality
models appeared in burials of a wide range of status, but
sculptures of superior craftsmanship were only available
to individuals with access to significant wealth.
7.7 Potential risks in choice of representation
Security was a major concern for the ancient Egyptians
in the construction and decoration of their tombs as they
desired to protect their bodies and supplies of provisions
for eternity. There were two principal risks that each tomb
owner had to consider: the threat posed by representing
animate beings in the burial chamber and that caused by
turmoil in the country. As outlined above, there was a clear
move away from depicting living creatures on the walls of
substructures in the late Old Kingdom. The beings were
quickly excluded from scenes and hieroglyphic signs of
humans and dangerous animals were also affected. As it
was believed that what was represented would magically
come into existence, scholars regularly argue that this
removal of living creatures was a means to protect the
tomb owner’s body from any threat they might pose.131
Yet, despite this concern of animate figures, it was during
the late Old Kingdom that funerary models were first
interred in substructures, and this practice continued
consistently throughout the First Intermediate Period and
Middle Kingdom. In an apparent contradiction, these
three-dimensional representations of humans and animals
could be included alongside the body in the substructure
for a longer period than animate wall scenes.
Despite the risk of animate figures, many tomb owners desired
to include artistic representations in their substructures
as a further precautionary measure due to the fear that
the mortuary cult would not continue perpetually.132 The
129
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 381; Freed &
Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 152; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company
of Images, 174-75.
130
Tooley presents an interesting comparison with the models of
Meketre from Thebes which all display superior levels of craftsmanship.
These models suffered damage from insects and rodents which could
only have occurred before deposition in the sealed chamber of the tomb,
indicating that they were produced prior to Meketre’s death and so
were all presumably commissioned by the tomb owner himself. Tooley,
“Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 380-81.
131
Spencer, Death, 63; Bolshakov, Man and his Double, 118; Kanawati,
Tomb and Beyond, 113; Dawood, in Néferkarê aux Montouhotep,
111; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 15; Verma, Cultural
Expression, 37.
132
Spencer, Death, 63; Baines and Lacovara, “Burial and the dead”, JSA
2.1, (2002), 11-12; Ikram, Ancient Egypt, 297.
189
differences between the two- and three-dimensional media
outlined above demonstrate why funerary models were the
preferred mode of representation and therefore appear more
consistently in burial chambers than wall scenes. Firstly,
the themes represented by the three-dimensional medium
are almost entirely concerned with provisions. These were
of prime importance for the afterlife and so there was a
desire to protect them within a sealed section of the tomb.
Secondly, with the almost complete absence of inscriptions,
there was no threat posed by dangerous hieroglyphic signs.
Even though the figures are mostly unlabelled, they may
have still represented known and trusted individuals who
did not pose significant threat to the tomb owner’s safety.
Thirdly, as models were fashioned in workshops away from
the tomb where conditions were more favourable for artistic
creation, a potentially higher quality and quantity of artworks
destined for the substructure could be produced. Fourthly, the
medium was accessible to more of the population and could
be incorporated more easily into burials of a wider range of
status than wall scenes. This was particularly significant for
those who could not afford superstructures and so confined
all decoration to the substructure. However, the occurrence
of animate wall scenes in some First Intermediate Period
and Middle Kingdom burial chambers, as outlined in
chapter 7.2, indicates that the type of representation was a
personal choice of each tomb owner, although there was a
clear preference for the three-dimensional medium.
Alongside the threat posed by representing animate
figures, tomb owners had to simultaneously consider the
risks resulting from turmoil in the country. During the late
Old Kingdom, Egypt experienced a period of significant
instability. Increasing evidence has demonstrated that
turmoil began as early as the 5th Dynasty, perhaps with
the reign of Nyuserre.133 As high-ranking officials
attained more power, there was a growing tendency for
enrichment. Elite tombs became larger and more lavishly
constructed and decorated, with some even adopting
royal architectural elements.134 Not only was it during
this period that artistic representations were introduced
to private burial chambers, but royal substructures also
began to be decorated. King Unis from the end of the 5th
Dynasty was the first to adopt this practice, inscribing the
walls of his pyramid with spells from the Pyramid Texts.135
133
Bárta has convincingly argued that the increasing strength of high
officials was already witnessed during the reign of Nyuserre. These elite
men accumulated more wealth and official duties, and many significant
offices had already become hereditary. As a result, each king from
Djedkare onwards introduced administrative reforms that aimed to
preserve centralised kingship and curb the power of officials. Kanawati,
Governmental Reforms, 128-30; Bárta, Journey to the West, 173; Bárta,
in Experiencing Power, 271-72.
134
The tomb of the vizier Ptahshepses at Abusir, dated to the reign
of Nyuserre, has been observed by Bárta to incorporate several royal
architectural elements, including a monumental columned portico, a
statue room with three niches, an east-west oriented cult-chapel, a boat
room, and an angular vaulted ceiling over the burial chamber. He was
the first private individual to utilise these features, but other viziers and
high-ranking officials of the 5th and 6th Dynasties continued this tradition.
Bárta, Journey to the West, 175-78; Bárta, in Experiencing Power, 268-
69; Bárta, Analyzing Collapse, 134-37.
135
Ikram, Death and Burial, 38-39; Dawood, in Néferkarê aux
Montouhotep, 109.
Preparing for Eternity
Although this decoration is textual while that of private
tombs is largely figurative, there is some correlation in
their origins. The earliest securely dated examples of
private burial chambers decorated with scenes belong to
Senedjemib-inti and Rashepses who both served as viziers
under Djedkare.136 The precise relationship between the
royal and private decorative schemes and the reasons
for initiating these practices are not fully understood,137
but should perhaps be considered alongside the need
for greater security. There were a number of factors that
contributed to both political and economic instability in
the late Old Kingdom, including the weakening of divine
kingship, changes in the balance of power across the ruling
elite, a decline in resources of the central government, and
climatic changes.138 As a result, the guarantee that the
living would continually deposit offerings in the tomb
became less secure, causing tomb owners to look for
alternate means to ensure a perpetual supply. With their
ability to provide for the tomb owner in the afterlife,
both two- and three-dimensional representations became
important safeguards.
The need for security continued in the First Intermediate
Period when, alongside a collapse of central authority,
there was a rise in the influence of the provincial nobilities.
Egypt was divided into several units with provincial rulers
acting more or less independently of the central government
and who had the ability to raise their own armies.139
Centres of power emerged around Herakleopolis in the
North and Thebes in the South, with each region operating
under different administrative systems.140 The traditional
understanding of the First Intermediate Period as a ‘dark
age’ is currently being reassessed in scholarship,141 but
changes in funerary practices are certainly evident which
resulted from political fragmentation and a decreasing
reliance upon the king.142 Even after the re-unification of
136
Although Senedjemib-inti served under Djedkare, his tomb was
apparently created by his son during the reign of Unis, causing the
tomb of Rashepses to form the earliest known example. It should be
noted that dating tombs with decorated burial chambers is regularly a
difficult task as the decoration itself often forms the only datable criteria.
Consequently, revised dates may alter our understanding of the precise
origin of decorating burial chambers with wall scenes. Brovarski,
Senedjemib Complex. Volume I, 79-81; Dawood, in Néferkarê aux
Montouhotep, 109-10; El-Tayeb, “Burial chamber of Rashepses”, EA 44,
(2013), 8-9; Jánosi & Vymazalová, in Art of Describing, 216-18.
137
Vischak, “Pyramid Texts and Old Kingdom tomb design”, JARCE 40,
(2003), 135; Dawood, in Néferkarê aux Montouhotep, 109; Kanawati, in
Ali Radwan. Volume II, 57; Kanawati, Decorated Burial Chambers, 43-
44; Jánosi & Vymazalová, in Art of Describing, 217-18.
138
Bárta & Bezděk, in Chronology and Archaeology, 222; Moreno
Garcia, in 2200 BC, 86; Kanawati & Swinton, Egypt in the Sixth Dynasty,
221-23; Bárta, Analyzing Collapse, 179-92; Sabbahy, Kingship, Power,
and Legitimacy, 119-20.
139
Grajetzki, Burial Customs in Ancient Egypt, 36; Moreno Garcia, in
Ancient Egyptian Administration, 148.
140
Willems, Historical and Archaeological Aspects, 35; Moreno Garcia,
in 2200 BC, 84; Shaw, War & Trade, 33.
141
Seidlmayer, in Oxford History, 108-36; Franke, in Oxford
Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>; Moeller, “First
Intermediate Period”, EL 15, (2005), 153-67; Willems, in Companion to
Ancient Egypt, 81-100; Moreno Garcia, in 2200 BC, 85-86.
142
D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 48; Baines &
Lacovara, “Burial and the dead”, JSA 2.1, (2002), 10; Grajetzki, Burial
Customs in Ancient Egypt, 36; Morfoisse, in Sésostris III, 211-12;
Willems, Historical and Archaeological Aspects, 135-40.
190
Egypt under Montuhotep II in the 11th Dynasty, tension
and hostilities continued. The autobiography of Ankhtifi
of Mo’alla evokes the atmosphere of the period, describing
how “Upper Egypt was dying of hunger and people were
eating their children” and that in response to the violence
Ankhtifi “caused a man to embrace (even) those who had
killed his father or brother.”143 The autobiographies of
Khnumhotep I (14 UC) and Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni
Hassan, which describe the steps taken by kings to re-
establish order in the 12th Dynasty, as well as an increasing
prominence of military representations attest to the fragile
conditions of the period.144 With this instability, the fear
that provisions would not continue for the deceased was
paramount in addition to an expectation of increasing tomb
robbery.145 The burial chamber, positioned below ground
and sealed after interment, maintained an important role in
providing protection for the tomb owner’s supply of goods
for the afterlife, and indeed, both models and wall scenes
are known from substructures throughout this period.
However, the protection of the burial chamber was not
ensured. Housing objects of value, it was regularly targeted
by thieves and so several architectural measures were
taken to make the substructure more secure, including
extending the depth of the shaft, using a portcullis to block
the entrance and placing the mouth of the shaft outside
the chapel.146 For further protection of the funerary model
assemblage, some tomb owners created sealed rooms that
offered an additional safeguard in case the substructure was
interfered with.147 Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) from Meir, for
example, stored his assemblage of models in a one metre
deep niche cut into the floor of the burial chamber which
was sealed with a stone slab before the shaft was filled with
rubble, and in fact it successfully avoided theft.148 Such
sealed rooms also created separation between the three-
dimensional figures and the body and so may have had the
supplementary function of protecting the deceased from
any threat posed by the representation of animate beings.
A heightened threat of turmoil in the country seems to have
outweighed the danger of representing living creatures
in the burial chamber for many tomb owners.149 While
the choice of decoration seems to have been determined
by the individual, funerary models apparently offered a
more practical safeguard, becoming the preferred mode of
representation for the burial chamber.
143
The information provided by Ankhtifi’s autobiography should,
however, be used with caution as the events he describes are specific to a
particular region of Egypt and are most likely exaggerated to emphasise
his role in re-establishing order. Seidlmayer, in Oxford History, 118-23;
Moreno Garcia, in 2200 BC, 83, 86; Kanawati & Swinton, Egypt in the
Sixth Dynasty, 209-11.
144
Smith, Art and Architecture, 82; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan.
Volume I, 9; Moreno Garcia, “Trade and power”, JArchRes 25.2, (2017),
106; Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, 16-17.
145
Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 178; Brewer & Teeter, Egypt and the
Egyptians, 42-44.
146
Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 46; Kanawati, Decorated
Burial Chambers, 13-19.
147
Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 77.
148
Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 3; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom
Burial Customs. Volume I”, 11.
149
Barker, “Animate decoration”, JARCE 56, (2020), 79-81.
 8
Conclusion
The comparative analysis undertaken in this study has
highlighted the distinguishing characteristics of funerary
models and wall scenes, thereby demonstrating the value
in reassessing the relationship between the two- and three-
dimensional forms of funerary art. Close examination
of the repertoires of the two media has revealed that the
themes represented by models were specifically selected
and designed according to the three-dimensional medium’s
role in the tomb. The themes and motifs most commonly
attested in the model corpus are those that provide the
supplies and services of greatest benefit to the deceased’s
eternal well-being. Representations of food preparation
and transport are particularly prevalent and can therefore
be considered essential to the model repertoire. While
these themes likewise appear in wall scenes, they do not
hold the same prominent position in the two-dimensional
medium. Models also present different emphases in their
representation of these themes so that the designs would
be more suitable for the three-dimensional medium’s
function. Model boats, for example, were equipped for
any riverine journey that the deceased may encounter
rather than portraying a specific moment of a voyage, and
models of slaughtering cattle highlight the provision of
beef instead of the ritual nature of the activity.
The three-dimensional repertoire is considerably more
condensed than that of the two-dimensional medium, with
many themes and motifs rarely attested or entirely excluded
from the model corpus. Themes that convey products and
services considered desirable rather than essential appear
infrequently and are usually confined to more expansive
model assemblages, such as representations of craft
production. Alternatively, some themes are condensed in
order to focus on aspects of greater importance for the
deceased’s well-being. Animal husbandry, for example, is
solely concerned with the lifecycle of cattle in the three-
dimensional medium as this species was the most highly
valued domestic animal in society and therefore would
continually provide its wide range of esteemed products
and services for the deceased in the afterlife.
Themes that are entirely absent, on the other hand, must
not have contributed to the three-dimensional medium’s
purpose. Of particular note is the almost complete
absence of the tomb owner who in wall scenes forms the
principal figure of the representations. With the models’
location in the burial chamber, representations of his
figure were unnecessary as he was physically present with
the sculptures. He could continually view the activities
represented and receive the products of their service.
Moreover, the repertoire of models excludes all activities
in which the tomb owner takes part, such as hunting in
the desert and fishing and fowling in the marshes. These
191
themes are dominant among wall scenes as they were
crucial for the tomb owner’s self-presentation in the
public chapel but were not beneficial in the concealed
burial chamber and consequently were not required to be
portrayed by the three-dimensional medium.
Further differences between the media in their
representation of each theme and motif have been
demonstrated in this study to be a result of their contrasting
technical properties. Scene- and model-artists were
hindered by specific technical restrictions that impacted
their execution of each theme. As a result of the difficulty
of fashioning intricate details on small three-dimensional
sculptures, models are usually quite basic in the way they
are rendered and often present less detail and variety
than wall scenes. The stability of the three-dimensional
structure also had to be considered which resulted in
further variations from the two-dimensional designs.
Model offering-bearers, for example, typically carry a
smaller quantity of supplies as they could not support
the weight of the immense loads transported in wall
scenes. Moreover, model-artists could not capture falling
motion in their sculptures which prevented some motifs
from being represented, such as sowing seed during land
preparation. In addition, the three-dimensional medium
could not integrate inscriptions into its designs in the same
way that was so easily achieved in wall scenes. Textual
captions therefore appear rarely in models, causing each
theme to only be conveyed graphically.
On the other hand, model-artists were not restricted in their
use of perspective like scene-artists but had the advantage
of creating holistic compositions that allowed viewing
from multiple angles. As a result, models present a more
realistic arrangement of groups of figures and depict
each component in its entirety without any aspect being
hidden from view. The realism of the three-dimensional
representations was further enhanced by the integration
of real-life materials, such as grain stored in granaries
and linen for garments. Model-artists therefore created
individual representations that were appropriate for their
medium rather than simply replicating the work of scene-
artists.
The conclusions drawn from the two- and three-
dimensional representations preserved from Meir, Deir
el-Bersha and Beni Hassan can be applied to examples
from other sites of the same period, but it would be
valuable for further research to be conducted on some of
the other extant representations, particularly any models
that depict themes and motifs unrepresented at the three
sites. Some of these themes were briefly discussed
in chapter 7.3, including musicians, singers, dancers,
Preparing for Eternity

wrestlers and games, but further analysis is needed to
determine what each theme’s precise purpose was in the
three-dimensional repertoire and how it contributed to the
tomb owner’s afterlife.
One of the major distinguishing features of the three-
dimensional medium identified in this study is its use of
multiple materials. While the range of materials and their
purpose in the themes in which they appear were discussed
in this book, it would be interesting to examine this further.
What were the deciding factors that caused different
materials to be used? Why were some elements only
represented in wood? Which model owners and/or model-
artists had access to these materials? Were some materials
imported from other countries? Answering these questions
would provide further insight into model construction, the
purpose of using different materials, the accessibility of
these resources, and possible trade networks for material
importation. Similarly, greater understanding is required
for the small number of inscriptions that are attested in
the model corpus. A systematic analysis of these texts has
not yet been undertaken but is an important area for future
research to gain a more comprehensive understanding
of the types of captions and their function in the three-
dimensional medium.
As has been observed in this book, many models have
been impacted by modern intervention. While some
examples where this has noticeably influenced the
composition have been identified in this study based on
the unusual combination and positioning of elements,
further research is needed to determine the extent to which
the model corpus has been affected. Such research would
benefit from conservator-assisted analysis of the models
themselves to determine which elements are not from the
original compositions, as well as a detailed examination
of unpublished archives which document the state of the
models upon discovery and any changes that occurred
to the sculptures during the acquisition process. This
research would be especially valuable for distinguishing
which unique themes and motifs in the model repertoire
are original to the ancient corpus and which are modern
additions.
measure of protection. This was particularly significant
during a period of instability when there was a heightened
fear that offerings would not be continually presented by
the living and an increasing expectation of tomb robbery.
Tomb owners looked for additional methods to protect
their supply of provisions, and housing models in the
substructure became a favoured safeguard.
Wall scenes not only contributed to the deceased’s eternal
survival through depicting themes and motifs that would
promote his rebirth, sustenance and the maintenance of
order, but with their location in the superstructure, had the
additional function of publicly proclaiming his superior
status, wealth and achievements to any visitors to the
tomb. This interaction with the living was integral in the
chapel where the mortuary cult was conducted, causing
the two-dimensional illustrations to be specifically
designed and selected to impress visitors and presumably
encourage them to present offerings. Funerary models
did not share this purpose as they were concealed from
view in the subterranean burial chamber where they
were exclusively accessible to the deceased. This close
association with the body presents a direct connection
between the services offered by models and the tomb
owner’s afterlife. Therefore, the emphasis on providing
essential commodities and services witnessed in the
three-dimensional repertoire is understandable as it was
integral for the medium to fulfill its function in the tomb
successfully. Consequently, it is here concluded that the
funerary model was not simply a duplicate or substitute
of the wall scene but formed a distinct type of artistic
representation that was specifically conceived to provision
the deceased for eternity.

Artistic representations formed an important safeguard

for the tomb owner’s supply of provisions in the afterlife,
and this study has demonstrated that funerary models
were particularly desirable for this purpose. While only
the highest elite could afford decorated chapels, funerary
models were accessible to more of the population and
could be interred in burials both with and without
superstructures. Models were less costly to produce and
could be modified in both quantity and quality according
to the individual’s level of wealth. Although only a limited
number of tombs preserve both their two- and three-
dimensional representations, the evidence suggests that
for those who were financially able, it was preferable
to include both media in the tomb. Therefore, housing
models in the burial chamber as well as decorating the
tomb’s walls with scenes functioned as an additional

192
 Bibliography
Adams, M. D., “Household silos, granary models, and
domestic economy in ancient Egypt”, in Archaeology
and Art. Volume I, 1-23.
Adams, W. Y., Nubia: Corridor to Africa (Princeton,
1977).
Alba Gómez, J. M., & Tooley, A. M. J., “Finds from
the tomb of Sarenput II (QH31) in 2015: An unusual
limestone head”, in Art-facts and Artefacts, 1-13.
Alcock, J. P., Food in the Ancient World (Connecticut,
2006).
Aldred, C., “Fine wood-work”, in History of Technology.
Volume I, 684-703.
Aldred, C., Middle Kingdom Art in Ancient Egypt 2300-
1590 B.C. (London, 1969).
Allen, J. P., “The historical inscription of Khnumhotep at
Dahshur: Preliminary report”, BASOR 352 (2008), 29-
39.
Allen, S., “Spinning bowls: Representation and reality”,
in Ancient Egypt, Aegean, Near East. Volume I, 17-38.
Allgrove McDowell, J., “Kahun: The textile evidence”, in
Pyramid Builders, 226-47.
Altenmüller, H., “Daily life in eternity: The mastabas and
rock-cut tombs of officials”, in Egypt, 78-93.
Amoros, V. A., Eschenbrenner-Diemer, G., Lavier, C.,
& Pages-Camagna, S., “Study and identification of
ancient Egyptian polychrome woods: The funerary
models of the Museum of Fine Arts of Lyon (France)”,
Hathor 1 (2012), 11-29.
Anderson, J. B., “Spatial distribution”, in Egyptian Art,
37-44.
Arnold, Di., Der Tempel des Königs Mentuhotep von Deir
el Bahri. Band III: Die königlichen Beigaben (Mainz,
1981).
Arnold, Di., The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret I (New
York, 1992).
Arnold, Do., “Amenemhat I and the early Twelfth Dynasty
at Thebes”, MMJ 26 (1991), 5-48.
Arnold, Do., “An Egyptian bestiary”, MMAB 52.4 (1995),
3-64.
Arnold, Do., “The architecture of Meketre’s slaughterhouse
and other early Twelfth Dynasty wooden models”, in
Structure and Significance, 1-76.
Arnold, Do., “Egyptian art: A performing art?”, in Servant
of Mut, 1-18.
193
Arnold, Do., “Foreign and female”, in Offerings to the
Discerning Eye, 17-31.
Arnold, Do., “An expanding worldview: Conquest,
colonization, and coexistence. Catalogue 113”, in
Ancient Egypt Transformed, 177-78.
Art Institute of Chicago (2017), Collections, viewed 19
October 2017, <https://www.artic.edu/collection>.
Assmann, J., Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt
(Ithaca, 2005).
Auenmüller, J., “Society and iconography. On the
sociological analysis of iconographic programs of Old
Kingdom elite tombs”, in Perfection that Endures, 15-41.
Aufrère, S. H., “The deserts and the Fifteenth and Sixteenth
Upper Egyptian Nomes during the Middle Kingdom”,
in Egypt and Nubia, 207-14.
Badawy, A., A History of Egyptian Architecture: The First
Intermediate Period, the Middle Kingdom, and the
Second Intermediate Period (Berkley, Los Angeles,
1966).
Badawy, A., The Tombs of Iteti, Sekhem’ankh-Ptah, and
Kaemnofert at Giza (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London,
1976).
Bader, B., “Children of other gods: Social interactions”, in
Pharaoh’s Land and Beyond, 61-77.
Baines, J., “Restricted knowledge, hierarchy, and decorum:
Modern perceptions and ancient institutions”, JARCE
27 (1990), 1-23.
Baines, J., “On the status and purpose of ancient Egyptian
art”, CAJ 4.1 (1994), 67-94.
Baines, J., Visual and Written Culture in Ancient Egypt
(Oxford, 2007).
Baines, J., & Lacovara, P., “Burial and the dead in ancient
Egyptian society: Respect, formalism, neglect”, JSA
2.1 (2002), 5-36.
Baines, P., Linen, Hand Spinning and Weaving (London,
1989).
Barber, E. J. W., Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of
Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages (Princeton, 1991).
Bardoňová, M., “Grain storage in the Old Kingdom.
Relation between an object and its image”, in Perfection
that Endures, 43-60.
Bardoňová, M., “Grain Storage in Ancient Egypt
(2600-1650 BC): Typology and Socio-Economic
Implications”, PhD thesis, Charles University (Prague,
2019).
Preparing for Eternity
Barker, G., “Funerary models and wall scenes: The case of
the granary,” GM 254 (2018), 7-14.
Barker, G., “Classification of a funerary model: The
rendering of accounts theme”, JARCE 55 (2019), 5-13.
Barker, G., “Animate decoration in the burial chamber:
A comparison of funerary models and wall scenes”,
JARCE 56 (2020), 71-81.
Bárta, M., “Borderland dynamics in the era of the pyramid
builders in Egypt”, in Understanding Life in the
Borderlands, 21-39.
Bárta, M., Journey to the West: The World of the Old
Kingdom Tombs in Ancient Egypt (Prague, 2011).
Bárta, M., “Egyptian kingship during the Old Kingdom”,
in Experiencing Power, 257-83.
Bárta, M., “Kings, viziers, and courtiers: Executive power
in the third millennium B.C.”, in Ancient Egyptian
Administration, 153-75.
Bárta, M., Analyzing Collapse: The Rise and Fall of the
Old Kingdom (Cairo, 2019).
Bárta, M., & Bezděk, A., “Beetles and the decline of the
Old Kingdom: Climate change in ancient Egypt”, in
Chronology and Archaeology, 214-22.
Bass, G. F., “Sea and river craft in the ancient Near East”,
in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Volume III,
1421-431.
Bestock, L., Violence and Power in Ancient Egypt: Image
and Ideology before the New Kingdom (London, 2017).
Bienkowski, P., & Tooley, A. M. J., Gifts of the Nile:
Ancient Egyptian Arts and Crafts in Liverpool Museum
(London, 1995).
Binder, S., “The tomb owner fishing and fowling”, in
Egyptian Art, 111-28.
Blackman, A. M., The Rock Tombs of Meir. Volume I: The
Tomb-Chapel of Ukh-hotp’s Son Senbi (London, 1914).
Blackman, A. M., The Rock Tombs of Meir. Part II: The
Tomb-Chapel of Senbi’s Son Ukh-hotp (B, No. 2)
(London, 1915).
Blackman, A. M., The Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III: The
Tomb-Chapel of Ukh-hotp Son of Ukh-hotp and Mersi
(B, No. 4) (London, 1915).
Blackman, A. M., The Rock Tombs of Meir. Part IV: The
Tomb-Chapel of Pepi’onkh the Middle Son of Sebkhotpe
and Pekhernefert (D, No. 2) (London, 1924).
Blackman, A. M., & Apted, M. R., The Rock Tombs of
Meir. Part V: The Tomb-Chapels of A, No. 1 (That of
Ni-’ankh-Pepi the Black), A, No. 2 (That of Pepi’onkh
with the ‘Good Name’ of Heny the Black), A, No. 4
(That of Hepi the Black), D, No. 1 (That of Pepi), and E,
Nos. 1-4 (Those of Meniu, Nenki, Pepi’onkh and Tjetu)
(London, 1953).
194
Blackman, A. M., & Apted, M. R., The Rock Tombs of
Meir. Part VI: The Tomb-Chapels of Ukhhotpe Son of
Iam (A, No. 3), Senbi Son of Ukhhotpe Son of Senbi (B,
No. 3), and Ukhhotpe Son of Ukhhotpe and Heny-hery-
ib (C, No. 1) (London, 1953).
Bleeker, C. J., Hathor and Thoth: Two Key Figures of the
Ancient Egyptian Religion (Leiden, 1973).
Boessneck, J., Die Haustiere in Altägypten (Munich, 1953).
Boessneck, J., Die Tierwelt des Alten Ägypten (Munich,
1988).
Bolshakov, A. O., “The Old Kingdom representations of
funeral procession”, GM 121 (1991), 31-54.
Bolshakov, A. O., Man and his Double in Egyptian
Ideology of the Old Kingdom (Wiesbaden, 1997).
Bommas, M., “Travels to the beyond in ancient Egypt”, in
Sacred and Profane, 35-62.
Bommas, M., “First Intermediate Period tombs at Beni
Hassan: Problems and priorities (including BH no. 420
and the unpublished box coffin fragment BH3Liv)”,
SAK 41 (2012), 43-65.
Booth, C., The Role of Foreigners in Ancient Egypt: A
Study of Stereotypical Artistic Representations (Oxford,
2005).
Booth, C., In Bed with the Ancient Egyptians (Stroud,
2015).
Borchardt, L., Statuen und Statuetten von Konigen und
Privatleuten im Museum von Kairo, Nr. 1-1294 (Berlin,
1911).
Bourriau, J., Umm El-Ga’ab: Pottery from the Nile Valley
before the Arab Conquest (Cambridge, 1981).
Bourriau, J., Pharaohs and Mortals: Egyptian Art in the
Middle Kingdom (Cambridge, 1988).
Bourriau, J., “Patterns of change in burial customs during
the Middle Kingdom”, in Middle Kingdom Studies,
3-20.
Braulińska, K., “Middle Kingdom dog figurines: General
remarks”, in Company of Images, 35-70.
Breasted, J. H., Egyptian Servant Statues (Washington,
1948).
Brewer, D. J., “Hunting, animal husbandry and diet in
ancient Egypt”, in History of the Animal World, 427-56.
Brewer, D. J., “Agriculture and animal husbandry”, in
Egyptian World, 131-45.
Brewer, D. J., & Friedman, R. F., Fish and Fishing in
Ancient Egypt (Warminster, 1989).
Brewer, D. J., & Teeter, E., Egypt and the Egyptians, 2nd
edition (Cambridge, 2007).
Brewer, D. J., Clark, T., & Phillips, A., Dogs in Antiquity:
Anubis to Cerberus. The Origins of the Domestic Dog
(Warminster, 2001).

Brewer, D. J., Redford, D. B., & Redford, S., Domestic
Plants and Animals: The Egyptian Origins (Warminster,
1994).
Brier, B., & Hobbs, H., Daily Life of the Ancient Egyptians,
2nd edition (Connecticut, London, 2008).
Bristol Museum & Art Gallery (2017), Search our
Collection, viewed 6 October 2017, <http://museums.
bristol.gov.uk/index.php>.
British Museum, London (2017), Collection Online, viewed
25 September 2017, <https://www.britishmuseum.org/
collection>.
Brooklyn Museum (2019), Collection, viewed 18
August 2019, <https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/
opencollection/collections>.
Broudy, E., The Book of Looms: A History of the Handloom
from Ancient Times to the Present (New York, 1979).
Brovarski, E., “Ahanakht of Bersheh and the Hare Nome
in the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom”,
in Studies in Ancient Egypt, 14-30.
Brovarski, E., The Senedjemib Complex. Volume I: The
Mastabas of Senedjemib Inti (G 2370), Khnumenti (G
2374), and Senedjemib Mehi (G 2378) (Boston, 2000).
Brovarski, E., “The Hare and Oryx Nomes in the First
Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom”, in
Egyptian Culture and Society. Volume I, 31-85.
Burnham, D. K., Warp and Weft: A Textile Terminology
(Toronto, 1980).
Bussman, D., “Materials and techniques”, in Egyptian Art,
23-28.
Bussman, D., “Sacrificial slaughter”, in Egyptian Art, 101-
10.
Carter, H., Blackden, M. W., Brown, P., & Buckman, P.,
Beni Hasan. Part IV: Zoological and Other Details
(London, 1900).
Casson, L., Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World
(Princeton, 1971).
Casson, L., Ships and Seafaring in Ancient Times (London,
1994).
Clarke, S., & Engelbach, R., Ancient Egyptian Masonry:
The Building Craft (London, 1930).
Cleveland Museum of Art (2016), Collection Online,
viewed 9 October 2017, <https://www.clevelandart.
org/art/collection/search>.
Cohen, S., “Interpretative uses and abuses of the Beni
Hasan tomb painting”, JNES 74.1 (2015), 19-38.
Comité international pour l’égyptologie (2006), Global
Egyptian Museum, viewed 10 December 2018, <http://
www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/default.aspx>.
Cordin, A., “Fashion and clothing”, in Egyptian Art, 171-
80.
195
Bibliography
Cortes, E., “From ‘weft fringes’ to ‘supplementary weft
fringes’: Thoughts and discussion on weaving evolution
in Egyptian textiles”, BES. The Art and Culture of
Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of Dorothea Arnold
19 (2015), 199-218.
Crowfoot, G. M., “Textiles, basketry, and mats”, in History
of Technology. Volume I, 413-47.
Crowfoot, G. M., Methods of Hand Spinning in Egypt and
the Sudan (Bedford, 1974).
Crowfoot Payne, J., Catalogue of the Predynastic Egyptian
Collection in the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford, 1993).
D’Auria, S., Lacovara, P., & Roehrig, C. H., Mummies and
Magic: The Funerary Arts of Ancient Egypt (Boston,
1988).
Darby, W. J., Ghalioungui, P., & Grivetti, L., Food: The
Gift of Osiris. Volumes 1-2 (London, New York, 1977).
Daressy, G., “Fouilles de Deir el Bircheh”, ASAE 1 (1900),
17-43.
Dasen, V., Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece (Oxford,
1993).
David, A. R., The Ancient Egyptians: Religious Beliefs
and Practices (London, 1982).
David, A. R., The Two Brothers: Death and Afterlife in
Middle Kingdom Egypt (Bolton, 2007).
Davies, N. de G., The Mastaba of Ptahhetep and
Akhethetep at Saqqareh. Part II: The Mastaba. The
Sculptures of Akhethetep (London, 1901).
Davies, N. de G., The Rock Tombs of Sheikh Saïd (London,
1901).
Davies, N. de G., The Rock Tombs of Deir el Gebrâwi.
Part II: The Tomb of Zau and Tombs of the Northern
Group (London, 1902).
Davies, N. de G., Five Theban Tombs (being those of
Mentuherkhepeshef, User, Daga, Nehemawäy and Tati)
(London, 1913).
Davies, N. de G., Two Ramesside Tombs at Thebes (New
York, 1927).
Davies, N. de G., The Tomb of Nefer-ḥotep at Thebes
(New York, 1933).
Davies, N. de G., The Tomb of Rekh-mi-Re at Thebes
(North Stratford, 1944).
Davis, W., The Canonical Tradition in Ancient Egyptian
Art (Cambridge, 1989).
Dawood, K., “Animate decoration and burial chambers of
private tombs during the Old Kingdom: New evidence
from the tomb of Kairer at Saqqara”, in Néferkarê aux
Montouhotep, 107-27.
De Keyser, E., “Scènes de chasse et pêche”, CdE 22.43
(1947), 42-49.
Preparing for Eternity
De Meyer, M., “The tomb of Henu at Deir el-Barsha”, EA
31 (2007), 20-24.
De Meyer, M., “Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-
Barshā. Volume I: Texts and Excavations in Zone 4”;
“Volume II: Excavations in Zone 7 and Plates”, PhD
thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Leuven, 2008).
De Meyer, M., “Two cemeteries for one provincial capital?
Deir el-Bersha and el-Sheikh Said in the Fifteenth
Upper Egyptian Nome during the Old Kingdom”, in
Old Kingdom, New Perspectives, 42-49.
De Meyer, M., “An isolated Middle Kingdom tomb at
Dayr al-Barsha”, in World of Middle Kingdom Egypt.
Volume II, 85-115.
De Meyer, M., Linseele, V., Vereecken, S., & Williams,
L. J., “Fowl for the governor. The tomb of governor
Djehutinakht IV or V at Dayr al-Barshā reinvestigated.
Part 2: Pottery, human remains, and faunal remains”,
JEA 100 (2014), 67-87.
De Meyer, M., Van Neer, W., Peeters, C., & Willems, H.,
“The role of animals in the funerary rites at Dayr al-
Barshā”, JARCE 42 (2005), 45-71.
Decker, W., Sports and Games of Ancient Egypt (New
Haven, 1992).
Der Manuelian, P., “Furniture in ancient Egypt”, in
Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Volume III,
1623-646.
Desroches-Noblecourt, C., “‘Concubines du mort’ et
mères de famille au Moyen Empire. À propos d’une
supplique pour une naissance”, BIFAO 53 (1953), 7-47.
Desserle, E., “L’artisanat du cuir de l’Ancien au Nouvel
Empire”, EAO 57 (2010), 25-36.
Digby, A., “Boats and ships”, in History of Technology.
Volume I, 730-43.
Dodson, A., & Ikram, S., The Tomb in Ancient Egypt:
Royal and Private Sepulchres from the Early Dynastic
Period to the Romans (London, 2008).
Donadoni Roveri, A. M., “The art of weaving: Fashion
and furnishings”, in Egyptian Civilization, 188-217.
Donatelli, L., “Measuring instruments, tools and weapons”,
in Egyptian Civilization, 160-87.
Dorman, P. F., Faces in Clay: Technique, Imagery, and
Allusion in a Corpus of Ceramic Sculpture from Ancient
Egypt (Mainz am Rhein, 2002).
Dothan, T., “Spinning-bowls”, IEJ 13.2 (1963), 97-112.
Doxey, D. M., “Funerary beliefs and practices in the
Middle Kingdom”, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 39-63.
Doxey, D. M., “The Djehutynakhts’ burial goods”, in
Secrets of Tomb 10A, 137-49.
Drenkhahn, R., Die Handwerker und ihre Tätigkeiten im
Alten Ägypten (Wiesbaden, 1976).
196
Dunnicliff, S., “Marsh activities”, in Behind the Scenes,
109-24.
Eaton-Krauss, M., The Representations of Statuary in
Private Tombs of the Old Kingdom (Wiesbaden, 1984).
Eaton-Krauss, M., “Artists and artisans”, in Oxford
Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>.
Eggebrecht, A., Schlachtungsbräuche im Alten Ägypten
und ihre Wiedergabe im Flachbild bis zum Ende des
Mittleren Reiches (Munich, 1973).
El-Kilany, E., & Mahran, H., “What lies under the chair!
A study in ancient Egyptian private tomb scenes, part I:
Animals”, JARCE 51 (2015), 243-64.
El-Tayeb, H., “The burial chamber of Rashepses at
Saqqara”, EA 44 (2013), 8-9.
Eschenbrenner-Diemer, G., “From the workshop to
the grave: The case of wooden funerary models”, in
Company of Images, 133-91.
Eschenbrenner-Diemer, G., “The Petrie Museum’s
collection of funerary wooden models: Investigating
chronology and provenance”, AI 21 (2018), 101-08.
Eschenbrenner-Diemer, G., “A wood workshop at Meir at
the beginning of the Middle Kingdom: The case of the
wooden models”, in Middle Kingdom Palace Culture,
119-44.
Evans, L., “Animals in the domestic environment”, in
Egyptian Art, 73-82.
Evans, L., Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art:
Representations of the Natural World in Memphite
Tomb Scenes (Oxford, 2010).
Evans, L., “Beasts and beliefs at Beni Hassan: A
preliminary report”, JARCE 52 (2016), 219-29.
Eyre, C. J., The Cannibal Hymn: A Cultural and Literary
Study (Liverpool, 2002).
Fabre, D., Seafaring in Ancient Egypt (London, 2004).
Faltings, D., “Die Bierbrauerei im AR”, ZAeS 118 (1991),
104-16.
Faulkner, R. O., “Egyptian military organization”, JEA 39
(1953), 32-47.
Feucht, E., “Fishing and fowling with the spear and the
throw-stick reconsidered”, in Intellectual Heritage of
Egypt, 157-69.
Firth, C. M., & Gunn, B., Excavations at Saqqara: Teti
Pyramid Cemeteries. Volume I: Text; Volume II: Plates
(Cairo, 1926).
Fischer, H. G., “Varia Aegyptiaca”, JARCE 2 (1963), 15-
51.
Fischer, H. G., Egyptian Women of the Old Kingdom and
of the Heracleopolitan Period, 2nd edition (New York,
2000).

Fisher, W. B., The Middle East: A Physical, Social and
Regional Geography, 7th edition (London, 1978).
Fitzenreiter, M., “Grabdekoration und die Interpretation
funerärer Rituale im Alten Reich”, in Social Aspects of
Funerary Culture, 67-140.
Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (2016), Collections
Explorer, viewed 18 October 2017, <https://www.
fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/collections>.
Forbes, R. J., Studies in Ancient Technology. Volume III,
2nd edition (Leiden, 1965).
Forbes, R. J., Studies in Ancient Technology. Volume IV,
2nd revised edition (Leiden, 1964).
Forbes, R. J., Studies in Ancient Technology. Volume V, 2nd
edition (Leiden, 1966).
Forshaw, R., “The Role of the Lector (Xry-Hbt) in
Ancient Egyptian Society”, PhD thesis, University of
Manchester (Manchester, 2013).
Frandsen, P., “Taboo – bwt?”, TdE 8 (2017), 165-92.
Franke, D., “The career of Khnumhotep III of Beni Hasan
and the so-called ‘decline of the nomarchs’”, in Middle
Kingdom Studies, 51-67.
Franke, D., “First Intermediate Period (c.2220-2040
BCE)”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.
oxfordreference.com>.
Freed, R. E., “Art historical overview”, in Bersheh Reports
I, 51-63.
Freed, R. E., “Introduction”, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 11-
13.
Freed, R. E., “The ‘Bersha Procession’ in context. Part
I: An art historical examination”, BES. The Art and
Culture of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of Dorothea
Arnold 19 (2015), 293-310.
Freed, R. E., & Doxey, D. M., “The Djehutynakhts’
models”, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 151-77.
Gaballa, G. A., Narrative in Egyptian Art (Mainz am
Rhein, 1976).
Galliano, G., “Antiquités”, in Musée des Beaux-Arts, 11-
53.
Gamer-Wallert, I., Fische und Fischkulte im Alten Ägypten
(Wiesbaden, 1970).
Garstang, J., “Excavations at Beni Hasan (1902-1903-
1904)”, ASAE 5 (1904), 215-28.
Garstang, J., The Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt as
Illustrated by the Tombs of the Middle Kingdom
(London, 1907).
Geller, J., “From prehistory to history: Beer in Egypt”, in
Followers of Horus, 19-26.
Germond, P., & Livet, J., An Egyptian Bestiary: Animals in
Life and Religion in the Land of the Pharaohs (London,
2001).
197
Bibliography
Ghoneim, W., Die Ökonomische bedeutung des Rindes im
Alten Ägypten (Bonn, 1977).
Gilbert, A. S., “Zooarchaeological observations on the
slaughterhouse of Meketre”, JEA 74 (1988), 69-89.
Glanville, S. R. K., Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in
the British Museum II: Wooden Model Boats, revised
edition (Oxford, 1972).
Gnirs, A. M., “Military: An overview”, in Oxford
Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>.
Goedicke, H., “Abi-Sha(i)’s representation in Beni
Hasan”, JARCE 21 (1984), 203-10.
Gonen, R., Weapons of the Ancient World (London, 1975).
Gordon, A. H., & Schwabe, C. W., “‘Live Flesh’ and
‘Opening-of-the-Mouth’: Biomedical, ethnological,
and Egyptological aspects”, in Proceedings of the
Seventh ICE, 461-69.
Grajetzki, W., Burial Customs in Ancient Egypt: Life in
Death for Rich and Poor (London, 2003).
Grajetzki, W., Sedment: Burials of Egyptian Farmers and
Noblemen over the Centuries (London, 2005).
Grajetzki, W., The Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt:
History, Archaeology and Society (London, 2006).
Grajetzki, W., Court Officials of the Egyptian Middle
Kingdom (London, 2009).
Grajetzki, W., “The pharaoh’s subjects: Court and
provinces”, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 120-23.
Graves-Brown, C., “Beyond the technological: A novice
knapper’s experience”, in Egyptology in the Present,
39-51.
Greco, C., (ed.), Mòmies Egípcies: El Secret de la Vida
Eterna (Barcelona, 2012).
Griffith, F. L., Beni Hasan. Part III (London, 1896).
Griffith Institute, University of Oxford (2017), The Middle
Kingdom Tombs at Deir el-Bersha: Reconstruction of
Tomb Wall-Scenes using Watercolours from the Griffith
Institute Archive, viewed 4 April 2018, <http://www.
griffith.ox.ac.uk/archive/GI-watercolours/Deir-el-
Bersha/GI_wd_Deir_el_Bersha.html>.
Groenewegen-Frankfort, H. A., Arrest and Movement: An
Essay on Space and Time in the Representational Art of
the Ancient Near East (New York, 1987).
Guichard, H., “Formes et figures animales dans le mobilier
égyptien”, in Creatures of Earth, Water, and Sky, 171-
77.
Gutgesell, M., “The military”, in Egypt, 364-69.
Hagen, F., & Ryholt, K., The Antiquities Trade in Egypt
1880-1930: The H. O. Lange Papers (Copenhagen,
2016).
Hall, R., Egyptian Textiles (Princes Risborough, 1986).
Preparing for Eternity
Hampson, M., “‘Experimenting with the new’: Innovative
figure types and minor features in Old Kingdom
workshop scenes”, in Egyptian Culture and Society.
Volume I, 165-79.
Hampson, M., “Men at Work. A Comparative Study of
Workshop Scenes in Tombs of the Old Kingdom:
Applying an Anatomisation Approach”, PhD thesis,
Macquarie University (Sydney, 2012).
Handoussa, T., “Fish offering in the Old Kingdom”,
MDAIK 44 (1988), 104-09.
Harpur, Y., Decoration in Egyptian Tombs of the Old
Kingdom: Studies in Orientation and Scene Content
(London, New York, 1987).
Harpur, Y., & Scremin, P., The Chapel of Kagemni: Scene
Details (Oxford, 2006).
Hartwig, M. K., Tomb Painting and Identity in Ancient
Thebes, 1419-1372 BCE (Turnhout, 2004).
Hartwig, M. K., “Method in ancient Egyptian painting”, in
Artists and Painting, 28-56.
Harvey, J., Wooden Statues of the Old Kingdom: A
Typological Study (Leiden, 2001).
Harvey, J., “Continuity or collapse: Wooden statues from
the end of the Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate
Period”, in Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology, 157-66.
Hasanien, A. F., “Leather manufacture in ancient Egypt”,
GM 161 (1997), 75-85.
Hatchfield, P., “The ‘Bersha Procession’ in context. Part
II: Conservation history and technical study”, BES. The
Art and Culture of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of
Dorothea Arnold 19 (2015), 311-30.
Hayes, W. C., The Sceptre of Egypt: A Background for the
Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in the Metropolitan
Museum of Art. Part I: From the Earliest Times to
the End of the Middle Kingdom, revised edition (New
York, 1990).
Hays, H. M., “The death of the democratisation of the
afterlife”, in Old Kingdom, New Perspectives, 115-30.
Helck, W., Das Bier im Alten Ägypten (Berlin, 1971).
Hoffmeier, J. K., “Military: Material”, in Oxford
Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>.
Hölzl, C., “The rock-tombs of Beni Hasan: Architecture
and sequence”, in Sesto Congresso Internazionale.
Volume I, 279-83.
Hope, C. A., Egyptian Pottery (Princes Risborough, 2001).
Hornblower, G. D., “Predynastic figures of women and
their successors”, JEA 15.1/2 (1929), 29-47.
Houlihan, P. F., The Birds of Ancient Egypt (Warminster,
1986).
Houlihan, P. F., The Animal World of the Pharaohs
(London, 1996).
198
Houlihan, P. F., “Animals in Egyptian art and hieroglyphs”,
in History of the Animal World, 97-143.
Houlihan, P. F., “Birds”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://
www.oxfordreference.com>.
Houlihan, P. F., “Poultry”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://
www.oxfordreference.com>.
Howley, K. E., “The materiality of shabtis: Figurines over
four millennia”, CAJ 30.1 (2020), 123-40.
Hudáková, L., “Innovative power of Middle Kingdom
tomb decoration as reflected in the scenes of grain
processing, bread-making and brewing”, in Florilegium
Aegyptiacum, 159-88.
Hudáková, L., “Middle Kingdom transformations of an
Old Kingdom artistic tradition: The mAA-scene”, in (Re)
productive Traditions, 371-94.
Hudáková, L., “Some aspects of Middle Kingdom
agriculture: Basketry products and their utilisation as
represented in art”, in Art of Describing, 181-214.
Hudáková, L., The Representations of Women in the
Middle Kingdom Tombs of the Officials: Studies in
Iconography (Leiden, 2019).
Hull Museums (2017), Hull Museums Collections, viewed
12 October 2017, <http://museumcollections.hullcc.
gov.uk/>.
Ikram, S., “Food for eternity: What the ancient Egyptians
ate and drank, part 1: Meat, fish, fowl”, KMT 5.1
(1994), 24-33.
Ikram, S., Choice Cuts: Meat Production in Ancient Egypt
(Leuven, 1995).
Ikram, S., “Meat processing”, in Materials and Technology,
656-71.
Ikram, S., Death and Burial in Ancient Egypt (London, 2003).
Ikram, S., “Afterlife beliefs and burial customs”, in
Egyptian World, 340-51.
Ikram, S., Ancient Egypt: An Introduction (New York,
2010).
Ikram, S., “Sacrifice, pharaonic Egypt”, in Encyclopedia
of Ancient History, <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com>.
Institute of Egyptology, University of Vienna (2017),
MeKeTRE, viewed 20 November 2017, <http://
meketre.org/index.php>.
Jacquet-Gordon, H. K., Les noms des domaines funéraires
sous l’Ancien Empire égyptien (Cairo, 1962).
James, T. G. H., The Mastaba of Khentika called Ikhekhi
(London, 1953).
James, T. G. H., Pharaoh’s People: Scenes from Life in
Imperial Egypt (London, 1984).
Jánosi, P., & Vymazalová, H., “The decorated burial
chamber of Ppy-Anx 4Tw at South Saqqara: Some
preliminary observations”, in Art of Describing, 215-34.

Janssen, R., & Janssen, J., Egyptian Household Animals
(Princes Risborough, 1989).
Janssen, R., & Janssen, J., Growing Up and Getting Old in
Ancient Egypt, 2nd edition (London, 2007).
Jones, D., Model Boats from the Tomb of Tut’ankhamūn
(Oxford, 1990).
Jones, D., Boats (London, 1995).
Jones, J., “Textiles, pharaonic Egypt”, in Encyclopedia of
Ancient History, <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com>.
Jones, P., “Animal husbandry”, in Behind the Scenes, 97-
107.
Jørgensen, M., Catalogue: Egypt I (3000-1550 B.C.) Ny
Carlsberg Glyptotek (Copenhagen, 1996).
Junker, H., Giza. Band III: Die Mastabas der
vorgeschrittenen V. Dynastie auf dem Westfriedhof
(Wien, Leipzig, 1938).
Junker, H., Giza. Band IV: Die Mastaba des KAjmanx (Kai-
em-anch) (Wien, Leipzig, 1940).
Jurman, C., “To show and to designate: Attitudes towards
representing craftsmanship and material culture in
Middle Kingdom elite tombs”, in Arts of Making, 101-
16.
Kahlbacher, A., “The menu please! Individualism vs.
standardization in funerary repast scenes from the Early
Dynastic Period to the Middle Kingdom”, in Change
and Innovation, 65-81.
Kamal, A. B., “Fouilles à Déir-el-Barsheh”, ASAE 2
(1901), 14-43.
Kamal, A. B., “Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées à Deir-
el-Barshé”, ASAE 2 (1901), 206-22.
Kamal, A. B., “Fouilles à Deir-el-Barché. Exécutées dans
les six premiers mois de l’année”, ASAE 3 (1902), 276-
82.
Kamal, A. B., “Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées dans
la zone comprise entre Deirout au nord et Deir-el-
Ganadlah au sud”, ASAE 11 (1911), 3-39.
Kamal, A. B., “Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées dans
la zone comprise entre Deirout au nord et Deir-el-
Ganadlah au sud”, ASAE 12 (1912), 97-127.
Kamal, A. B., “Rapport sur les fouilles de Said Bey
Khachaba au Deir-el-Gabraoui”, ASAE 13 (1914), 161-
78.
Kamal, A. B., “Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées dans
la zone comprise entre Deirout au nord et Deir-el-
Ganadlah au sud”, ASAE 14 (1914), 45-87.
Kamal, A. B., “Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées dans
la zone comprise entre Deirout au nord et Deir-el-
Ganadlah au sud”, ASAE 15 (1915), 198-206.
Kamrin, J., The Cosmos of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan
(London, New York, 1999).
199
Bibliography
Kamrin, J., “The Aamu of Shu in the tomb of Khnumhotep
II at Beni Hassan”, JAEI 1.3 (2009), 22-36.
Kamrin, J., “The procession of ‘Asiatics’ at Beni Hasan”,
in Cultures in Contact, 156-69.
Kamrin, J., “The decoration of elite tombs: Connecting the
living and the dead”, in Ancient Egypt Transformed,
28-32.
Kamrin, J., “Understanding death: A journey between
worlds. Catalogue 161”, in Ancient Egypt Transformed,
223-25.
Kanawati, N., Governmental Reforms in Old Kingdom
Egypt (Warminster, 1980).
Kanawati, N., The Tomb and its Significance in Ancient
Egypt (Guizeh, 1987).
Kanawati, N., The Tombs of El-Hagarsa. Volume III
(Sydney, 1995).
Kanawati, N., The Tomb and Beyond: Burial Customs of
Ancient Egyptian Officials (Warminster, 2001).
Kanawati, N., Tombs at Giza. Volume II: Seshathetep/
Heti (G5150), Nesutnefer (G4970) and Seshemnefer II
(G5080) (Warminster, 2002).
Kanawati, N., Deir el-Gebrawi. Volume I: The Northern
Cliff (Oxford, 2005).
Kanawati, N., “Decoration of burial chambers, sarcophagi
and coffins in the Old Kingdom”, in Ali Radwan.
Volume II, 55-71.
Kanawati, N., “Specificity in Old Kingdom tomb scenes”,
ASAE 83 (2009), 261-78.
Kanawati, N., “Chronology of the Old Kingdom nobles of
El-Qusiya revisited”, in Perspectives on Ancient Egypt,
207-20.
Kanawati, N., Decorated Burial Chambers of the Old
Kingdom (Cairo, 2010).
Kanawati, N., The Cemetery of Meir. Volume I: The Tomb
of Pepyankh the Middle (Oxford, 2012).
Kanawati, N., “Wekhhotep III of Meir: The first advocate
of gender equality?”, BACE 26 (2016-2018), 37-46.
Kanawati, N., “Mortuary culture in the provinces:
The example of Beni Hassan”, in Death is Only the
Beginning, 56-65.
Kanawati, N., “Papyrus thickets in the Old and Middle
Kingdoms, with reference to the scenes in the tombs
of Baqet III and Khety at Beni Hassan”, in Cultural
Manifestations, 119-32.
Kanawati, N., “A unique burial of a father and a son:
Niankhpepy the Black and Pepyankh the Black, at
Meir”, in Perfection that Endures, 225-30.
Kanawati, N., & Abder-Raziq, M., The Teti Cemetery
at Saqqara. Volume VI: The Tomb of Nikauisesi
(Warminster, 2000).
Preparing for Eternity
Kanawati, N., & Abder-Raziq, M., Mereruka and his
Family. Part I: The Tomb of Meryteti (Oxford, 2004).
Kanawati, N., & Evans, L., Beni Hassan. Volume I: The
Tomb of Khnumhotep II (Oxford, 2014).
Kanawati, N., & Evans, L., The Cemetery of Meir. Volume
II: The Tomb of Pepyankh the Black (Oxford, 2014).
Kanawati, N., & Evans, L., Beni Hassan. Volume III: The
Tomb of Amenemhat (Oxford, 2016).
Kanawati, N., & Evans, L., The Cemetery of Meir. Volume
IV: The Tombs of Senbi I and Wekhhotep I (Oxford,
2017).
Kanawati, N., & Evans, L., Beni Hassan. Volume IV: The
Tomb of Baqet III (Oxford, 2018).
Kanawati, N., & Evans, L., Beni Hassan. Volume VI: The
Tomb of Khety (Wallasey, 2020).
Kanawati, N., & Hassan, A., The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara.
Volume II: The Tomb of Ankhmahor (Warminster, 1997).
Kanawati, N., & McFarlane, A., Deshasha: The Tombs of
Inti, Shedu and Others (Sydney, 1993).
Kanawati, N., & Swinton, J., Egypt in the Sixth Dynasty:
Challenges and Responses (Wallasey, 2018).
Kanawati, N., & Woods, A., Artists in the Old Kingdom:
Techniques and Achievements (Cairo, 2009).
Kanawati, N., & Woods, A., Beni Hassan: Art and Daily
Life in an Egyptian Province (Cairo, 2010).
Kanawati, N., Woods, A., Shafik, S., & Alexakis, E.,
Mereruka and his Family. Part III:1, The Tomb of
Mereruka (Oxford, 2010).
Kanawati, N., Woods, A., Shafik, S., & Alexakis, E.,
Mereruka and his Family. Part III:2, The Tomb of
Mereruka (Oxford, 2011).
Kanawati, N., Evans, L., Lashien, M., Mourad, A.-L., &
Senussi, A., The Cemetery of Meir. Volume III: The
Tomb of Niankhpepy the Black (Oxford, 2015).
Kantor, H. J., “Narration in Egyptian art”, AJA 61.1
(1957), 44-54.
Kaper, O., van Walsem, R., & Willems, H., “Tombs in the
middle of the terrace”, in Bersheh Reports I, 39-50.
Katary, S. L. D., “Land tenure and taxation”, in Egyptian
World, 185-201.
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (2018), Dayr al-
Barshā Project, viewed 2 August 2018, <http://www.
dayralbarsha.com>.
Kemp, B. J., “Soil (including mud-brick architecture)”, in
Materials and Technology, 78-103.
Kemp, B. J., Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, 2nd
edition (Oxon, New York, 2006).
Kemp, B. J., & Vogelsang-Eastwood, G., The Ancient
Textile Industry at Amarna (London, 2001).
200
Kessler, D., “Die Asiatenkarawane von Beni Hassan”,
SAK 14 (1987), 147-65.
Kessler, D., “Zur Bedeutung der Szenen des täglichen
Lebens in den Privatgräbern (I): Die Szenen des
Schiffsbaues und der Schiffahrt”, ZAeS 114.1 (1987),
59-88.
Kessler, D., “The political history of the Third to Eighth
Dynasties”, in Egypt, 40-45.
Killen, G., Egyptian Woodworking and Furniture (Princes
Risborough, 1994).
Killen, G., “Wood: Technology”, in Materials and
Technology, 353-71.
Killen, G., “John Garstang’s discovery of wooden furniture
at the Middle Kingdom necropolis of Beni Hasan”, in
Egyptian Museum Collections. Volume I, 645-56.
Killen, G., Ancient Egyptian Furniture. Volume I: 4000-
1300 B.C.; Volume II: Boxes, Chests and Footstools,
2nd edition (Oxford, Philadelphia, 2017).
Klebs, L., Die Reliefs des Alten Reiches (Heidelberg, 1915).
Klebs, L., Die Reliefs und Malereien des Mittleren Reiches
(Heidelberg, 1922).
Köpp, H., “Desert travel and transport in ancient Egypt:
An overview based on epigraphic, pictorial and
archaeological evidence”, in Desert Road, 107-32.
Kroenke, K. R., “The Provincial Cemeteries of Naga
ed-Deir: A Comprehensive Study of Tomb Models
Dating from the Late Old Kingdom to the Late Middle
Kingdom”, PhD thesis, University of California
(Berkley, 2010).
Kucharek, A., “Mourning and lamentation on coffins”, in
Ancient Egyptian Coffins, 77-115.
Landström, B., Ships of the Pharaohs: 4000 Years of
Egyptian Shipbuilding (New York, 1970).
Lane, M., “The pull-saw in Egypt”, AEE (1935), 55-58.
Lashien, M., “The so-called pilgrimage in the Old
Kingdom: Its destination and significance”, BACE 20
(2009), 87-106.
Lashien, M., “The transportation of funerary furniture in
Old Kingdom tomb scenes”, in Egyptian Culture and
Society. Volume II, 1-12.
Lashien, M., “Narrative in Old Kingdom wall scenes: The
progress through time and space”, BACE 22 (2011),
101-14.
Lashien, M., “The ultimate destination: Decoration of
Kaiemankh’s burial chamber reconsidered”, ET 26.1
(2013), 403-15.
Lashien, M., Beni Hassan. Volume II: Two Old Kingdom
Tombs (Oxford, 2016).
Lashien, M., The Nobles of El-Qusiya in the Sixth Dynasty:
A Historical Study (Wallasey, 2017).

Lashien, M., “The art in the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle.
Innovation or copying?”, in Perfection that Endures,
253-66.
Lashien, M., & Mourad, A.-L., Beni Hassan. Volume V:
The Tomb of Khnumhotep I (Oxford, 2019).
Leospo, E., “Woodworking: Furniture and cabinetry”, in
Egyptian Civilization, 120-59.
Lepsius, K. R., Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien.
Ergänzungsband (Berlin, 1913).
Lilyquist, C., Ancient Egyptian Mirrors: From the Earliest
Times through the Middle Kingdom (Munich, 1979).
Lloyd, A. B., Ancient Egypt: State and Society (Oxford,
2014).
Loprieno, A., Topos und Mimesis: zum Ausländer in der
Ägyptischen Literatur (Wiesbaden, 1988).
Lucas, A., & Harris, J. R., Ancient Egyptian Materials and
Industries, 4th edition (Mineola, 1999).
Lund, M., “Egyptian depictions of flintknapping from the
Old and Middle Kingdom, in the light of experiments
and experience”, in Egyptology in the Present, 113-37.
Lustig, J., “Kinship, gender and age in Middle Kingdom
tomb scenes and texts”, in Anthropology and
Egyptology, 43-65.
Malek, J., In the Shadow of the Pyramids: Egypt during
the Old Kingdom (London, 1986).
Malek, J., Egyptian Art (London, 1999).
Malek, J., & Miles, E., “Early squeezes made in the tomb
of Khaemhet (TT 57)”, JEA 75 (1989), 227-29.
Marshall, N., “The desert and the hunt”, in Behind the
Scenes, 125-46.
McDermott, B., Warfare in Ancient Egypt (Gloucestershire,
2004).
McFarlane, A., Mastabas at Saqqara: Kaiemheset,
Kaipunesut, Kaiemsenu, Sehetepu and Others (Oxford,
2003).
McFarlane, A., “Transportation”, in Behind the Scenes,
147-65.
McKergow, G., “Water transport”, in Egyptian Art, 225-
40.
Mee, J. F., “Managing the cow at calving time”, in
Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Conference,
AABP, 35-43.
Mendoza, B., Artifacts from Ancient Egypt (Santa Barbara,
2017).
Merriman, A., Egyptian Watercraft Models from the
Predynastic to Third Intermediate Periods (Oxford,
2011).
Milde, H., “Shabtis”, UEE 1.1 (2012), <https://
escholarship.org/uc/item/6cx744kk>.
201
Bibliography
Miles, B., “Enigmatic scenes of intimate contact with dogs
in the Old Kingdom”, BACE 21 (2010), 71-88.
Miniaci, G., “Populating Middle Kingdom fauna: Inclusion
and exclusion of zoological iconographic motifs in its
material culture”, in Art-acts and Artefacts, 63-84.
Minneapolis Institute of Art (2017), Collection, viewed 19
October 2017, <https://collections.artsmia.org/>.
Moeller, N., “The First Intermediate Period: A time of
famine and climate change?”, EL 15 (2005), 153-67.
Moeller, N., “The archaeological evidence for town
administration: New evidence from Tell Edfu”, in
Beyond the Horizon, 263-74.
Monnier, F., “Une iconographie égyptienne de
l’architecture defensive”, ENiM 7 (2014), 173-219.
Montet, P., “Les scènes de boucherie dans les tombes de
l’Ancien Empire”, BIFAO 7 (1907), 41-65.
Montet, P., Les scènes de la vie privée dans les tombeaux
égyptiens de l’Ancien Empire (Oxford, 1925).
Moreno Garcia, J. C., “Quelques observations sur l’emploi
de l’araire en Égypte ancienne”, GRAFMA 9-10 (2008),
53-60.
Moreno Garcia, J. C., “War in Old Kingdom Egypt (2686-
2125 BCE)”, in Studies on War, 5-41.
Moreno Garcia, J. C., “The territorial administration of the
kingdom in the 3rd millennium”, in Ancient Egyptian
Administration, 85-151.
Moreno Garcia, J. C., “Invaders or just herders? Libyans
in Egypt in the third and second millennia BCE”,
WorldArch 46.4 (2014), 610-23.
Moreno Garcia, J. C., “Climate change or sociopolitical
transformation? Reassessing late 3rd millennium BC in
Egypt”, in 2200 BC, 79-94.
Moreno Garcia, J. C., “Trade and power in ancient Egypt:
Middle Egypt in the late third/early second millennium
BC”, JArchRes 25.2 (2017), 87-132.
Moreno Garcia, J. C., “Leather processing, castor oil, and
desert/Nubian trade at the turn of the 3rd/2nd millennium
BC: Some speculative thoughts on Egyptian
craftsmanship”, in Arts of Making, 159-73.
Moreno Garcia, J. C., “Ethnicity in ancient Egypt: An
introduction to key issues”, JEgH 11.1-2 (2018), 1-17.
Moreno Garcia, J. C., The State in Ancient Egypt: Power,
Challenges and Dynamics (London, 2020).
Moreno Garcia, J. C., “Egyptian agriculture in the
Bronze Age: Peasants, landlords, and institutions”, in
Companion to Ancient Agriculture, 173-92.
Morfoisse, F., “Le mobilier funéraire des particuliers”, in
Sésostris III, 210-16.
Mourad, A.-L., “Siege scenes of the Old Kingdom”, BACE
22 (2011), 135-58.
Preparing for Eternity
Mourad, A.-L., “Rise of the Hyksos: Egypt and the
Levant from the Middle Kingdom to the Early Second
Intermediate Period”, PhD thesis, Macquarie University
(Sydney, 2014).
Mourad, A.-L., “Foreigners at Beni Hassan: Evidence
from the tomb of Khnumhotep I (no. 14)”, BASOR 384
(2020), 105-32.
Moussa, A. M., & Altenmüller, H., Das Grab des
Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep (Mainz am Rhein,
1977).
Murray, M. A., The Tomb of Two Brothers (Manchester,
1910).
Murray, M. A., The Splendour that was Egypt: A General
Survey of Egyptian Culture and Civilisation (London,
1949).
Murray, M. A., “Cereal production and processing”, in
Materials and Technology, 505-36.
Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon (2018), Collections en
ligne du musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon, viewed 9
January 2018, <http://collections.mba-lyon.fr/fr/>.
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (2017), Collections, viewed
6 September 2017, <https://collections.mfa.org/
collections>.
Museum of the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago (2019), Search our Collections, viewed 10
February 2019, <https://oi-idb.uchicago.edu/>.
National Museums Liverpool (2017), Collections, viewed
23 October 2017, <https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.
uk/collections>.
National Museums Scotland (2017), Search our
Collections, viewed 27 September 2017, <https://
www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/search-our-
collections/>.
Naville, E, The 11th Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari.
Part I (London, 1907).
Naville, E., & Hall, H., The 11th Dynasty Temple at Deir
el-Bahari. Part III (London, 1913).
Nelson-Hurst, M. G., “The (social) house of Khnumhotep”,
in World of Middle Kingdom Egypt. Volume I, 257-72.
Newberry, P. E., Beni Hasan. Parts I-II (London, 1893).
Newberry, P. E., El Bersheh. Part I: The Tomb of Tehuti-
hetep (London, 1894).
Newberry, P. E., & Griffith, F. L., El Bersheh. Part II
(London, 1894).
Nibbi, A., “Some remarks on ass and horse in ancient
Egypt and the absence of the mule”, ZAeS 106 (1979),
148-68.
Nord, D., “The term xnr: ‘Harem’ or ‘musical
performers’?”, in Studies in Ancient Egypt, 137-45.
202
Norwich Castle Museum & Art Gallery (2017), Norfolk
Museums Collections, viewed 12 October 2017, <http://
norfolkmuseumscollections.org/#!/home>.
Nyord, R., “‘Taking ancient Egyptian mortuary religion
seriously’: Why would we, and how could we?”, JAEI
17 (2018), 73-87.
Nyord, R., Seeing Perfection: Ancient Egyptian Images
beyond Representation (Cambridge, 2020).
O’Connor, D., “Egypt’s views of ‘others’”, in Never had
the Like Occurred, 155-85.
O’Connor, D., Abydos: Egypt’s First Pharaohs and the
Cult of Osiris (London, 2009).
O’Connor, D., “An expanding worldview: Conquest,
colonization, and coexistence”, in Ancient Egypt
Transformed, 160-63.
Oppenheim, A., “Introduction: What was the Middle
Kingdom?”, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 1-8.
Orel, S. E., “Chronology and Social Stratification in a
Middle Egyptian Cemetery”, PhD thesis, University of
Toronto (Toronto, 1993).
Orel, S. E., “John Garstang at Beni Hasan”, KMT 8.1
(1997), 54-63.
Orel, S. E., “Models (stone and wood)”, in Encyclopedia
of Ancient History, <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com>.
Osborn, D. J., & Osbornová, J., The Mammals of Ancient
Egypt (Warminster, 1998).
Otto, E., Ancient Egyptian Art: The Cults of Osiris and
Amon (New York, 1968).
Papazian, H., “The central administration of the resources
in the Old Kingdom: Departments, treasuries, granaries
and work centers”, in Ancient Egyptian Administration,
41-83.
Partridge, R. B., Transport in Ancient Egypt (London,
1996).
Partridge, R. B., Fighting Pharaohs: Weapons and Warfare
in Ancient Egypt (Manchester, 2002).
Partridge, R. B., “Transport in ancient Egypt”, in
Companion to Ancient Egypt, 370-89.
Partridge, R. B., “Transport, pharaonic Egypt”, in
Encyclopedia of Ancient History, <http://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com>.
Peck, W. H., The Material World of Ancient Egypt (New
York, 2013).
Peck, W. H., “The ordering of the figure”, in Companion to
Ancient Egyptian Art, 360-74.
Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University
College London (2005), Petrie Online Catalogue,
viewed 19 March 2020, <http://petriecat.museums.ucl.
ac.uk/>.
Petrie, W. M. F., & Brunton, G., Sedment I (London, 1924).

Petzel, F. E., Textiles of Ancient Mesopotamia, Persia, and
Egypt (Oregon, 1987).
Phillips, C. J. C., Cattle Behaviour (Ipswich, 1993).
Piacentini, P., “Scribes”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://
www.oxfordreference.com>.
Picardo, N. S., “Middle Kingdom history, politics, and
social organization”, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 17-37.
Pieke, G., “Playing with traditions. The decoration of
Djehutyhotep II’s tomb at Deir el-Bersha reconsidered”,
in Change and Innovation, 95-116.
Pinch, G., “Offerings to Hathor”, Folklore 93.2 (1982),
138-50.
Pinch, G., Votive Offerings to Hathor (Oxford, 1993).
Pinch, G., Magic in Ancient Egypt (London, 1994).
Pirelli, R., “Troop of Egyptian soldiers”, in Egyptian
Treasures, 108-11.
Pirelli, R., “Troop of Nubian archers”, in Egyptian
Treasures, 108-09.
Podvin, J. L., “Position du mobilier funéraire dans les
tombes égyptiennes privées du Moyen Empire”,
MDAIK 56 (2000), 277-334.
Poole, F., “Slave or double? A reconsideration of the
conception of the shabti in the New Kingdom and
the Third Intermediate Period”, in Proceedings of the
Seventh ICE, 893-901.
Quibell, J. E., Excavations at Saqqara (1906-1907) (Cairo,
1908).
Quibell, J. E., & Hayter, A. G. K., Excavations at Saqqara:
Teti Pyramid, North Side (Cairo, 1927).
Quirke, S., Ancient Egyptian Religion (New York, 1997).
Rabehl, S. M., “Das Grab des Amenemhat (Jmnjj) in Beni
Hassan oder der Versuch einer Symbiose”, PhD thesis,
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (Munich, 2006).
Redford, D. B., Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient
Times (Princeton, 1992).
Redford, D. B., From Slave to Pharaoh: The Black
Experience of Ancient Egypt (Baltimore, London,
2004).
Reed, R., Ancient Skins, Parchments and Leathers
(London, New York, 1972).
Reisner, G. A., Models of Ships and Boats (Cairo, 1913).
Rhode Island School of Design Museum, Providence
(2017), Collection, viewed 20 October 2017, <https://
risdmuseum.org/art-design/collection>.
Richards, J., Society and Death in Ancient Egypt: Mortuary
Landscapes of the Middle Kingdom (Cambridge, 2005).
Riggs, C., Unwrapping Ancient Egypt (London, 2014).
203
Bibliography
Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden (2017), Collection,
viewed 29 September 2017, <https://www.rmo.nl/en/
collection/>.
Ritner, R. K., The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical
Practice (Chicago, 1993).
Robins, G., Egyptian Painting and Relief (Aylesbury,
1986).
Robins, G., “Problems in interpreting Egyptian art”, DE
17 (1990), 45-58.
Robins, G., Women in Ancient Egypt (London, 1993).
Robins, G., Proportion and Style in Ancient Egyptian Art
(Austin, 1994).
Robins, G., “Art”, in Egyptian World, 355-65.
Robins, G., The Art of Ancient Egypt, revised edition
(Cambridge, 2008).
Robinson, M., “The Bersheh necropolis”, in Bersheh
Reports I, 1-9.
Robinson, M., Silverman, D. P., & Brovarski, E., “Tombs
on the High Terrace”, in Bersheh Reports I, 11-38.
Roehrig, C. H., “Woman’s work: Some occupations of
nonroyal women as depicted in ancient Egyptian art”,
in Mistress of the House, 13-24.
Roehrig, C. H., “Comprehending life: Community,
environment, and the supernatural. Catalogue 142”, in
Ancient Egypt Transformed, 207.
Rooijakkers, T., “Unravelling Beni Hasan: Textile
production in the Beni Hasan tomb paintings”, ATN 41
(2005), 2-13.
Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, San Jose (2018), Artifact
Search, viewed 19 June 2018, <https://egyptianmuseum.
org/search-collection>.
Roth, A. M., “The meaning of menial labor: ‘Servant
statues’ in Old Kingdom serdabs”, JARCE 39 (2002),
103-21.
Roth, A. M., “Funerary ritual”, in Oxford Encyclopedia,
<http://www.oxfordreference.com>.
Roth, A. M., “Representing the other: Non-Egyptians in
pharaonic iconography”, in Companion to Ancient
Egyptian Art, 155-74.
Roth, A. M., & Roehrig, C. H., “The Bersha Procession: A
new reconstruction”, JMFA 1 (1989), 31-40.
Roth, H. L., Ancient Egyptian and Greek Looms (Halifax,
1913).
Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto (2017), ROM Collections,
viewed 12 September 2017, <https://collections.rom.
on.ca/>.
Sabbahy, L. K., Kingship, Power, and Legitimacy in
Ancient Egypt: From the Old Kingdom to the Middle
Kingdom (Cambridge, 2020).
Preparing for Eternity
Sahrhage, D., Fischfang und Fischkult im Alten Ägypten
(Mainz am Rhein, 1998).
Samuel, D., “Ancient Egyptian cereal processing: Beyond
the artistic record”, CAJ 3.2 (1993), 276-83.
Samuel, D., “Archaeology of ancient Egyptian beer”,
JASBC 54.1 (1996), 3-12.
Samuel, D., “Brewing and baking in ancient Egyptian art”,
in Food in the Arts, 173-81.
Samuel, D., “A new look at old bread: Ancient Egyptian
baking”, AI 3 (1999), 28-31.
Samuel, D., “Brewing and baking”, in Materials and
Technology, 537-76.
Samuel, D., “Beer”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://
www.oxfordreference.com>.
Samuel, D., “Experimental grinding and ancient Egyptian
flour production”, in Beyond the Horizon, 456-77.
Saretta, P., Asiatics in Middle Kingdom Egypt: Perceptions
and Reality (London, New York, 2016).
Sauneron, S., The Priests of Ancient Egypt, new edition
(Ithaca, 2000).
Scanlan, B., “Animals: The hunted and the domesticated”,
in Egyptian Art, 83-100.
Schäfer, H., Principles of Egyptian Art, revised edition
(Oxford, 1986).
Schneider, H. D., Shabtis: An Introduction to the History of
Ancient Egyptian Funerary Statuettes with a Catalogue
of the Collection of Shabtis in the National Museum of
Antiquities at Leiden (Leiden, 1977).
Schneider, H. D., Spurr, S., Reeves, N., & Quirke, S.,
(eds.), The Small Masterpieces of Egyptian Art:
Selections from the Myers Museum at Eton College,
revised edition (Leiden, 2003).
Schneider, T., “Foreigners in Egypt: Archaeological
evidence and cultural context”, in Egyptian
Archaeology, 143-63.
Schulman, A. R., “Siege warfare in pharaonic Egypt”, NH
73.3 (1964), 12-21.
Schulman, A. R., “The battle scenes of the Middle
Kingdom”, JSSEA 12 (1982), 165-83.
Schulman, A. R., “Military organization in pharaonic
Egypt”, in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East.
Volume I, 289-301.
Schwarz, S., Altägyptisches Lederhandwerk (Frankfurt,
2000).
Scott, G. D. III, “The History and Development of the
Ancient Egyptian Scribe Statue. Volumes I-IV”, PhD
thesis, Yale University (New Haven, 1989).
Seidlmayer, S. J., “The First Intermediate Period (c.2160-
2055 BC)”, in Oxford History, 108-36.
204
Seidlmayer, S. J., “People at Beni Hassan: Contributions
to a model of ancient Egyptian rural society”, in
Archaeology and Art. Volume II, 351-68.
Serpico, M., “Sedment”, in Unseen Images. Volume I, 99-
180.
Serpico, M., & White, R., “Oil, fat and wax”, in Materials
and Technology, 390-429.
Shafik, S., “Force-feeding animals in Old Kingdom
scenes”, GM 227 (2010), 65-75.
Shaw, G. J., War & Trade with the Pharaohs: An
Archaeological Study of Ancient Egypt’s Foreign
Relations (Barnsley, 2017).
Shaw, I., Egyptian Warfare and Weapons (Princes
Risborough, 1991).
Shaw, I., “Battle in ancient Egypt: The triumph of Horus
or the cutting edge of the temple economy?”, in Battle
in Antiquity, 239-69.
Shea, W. H., “Artistic balance among the Beni Hasan
Asiatics”, BA 44.4 (1981), 219-28.
Shedid, A. G., Die Felsgräber von Beni Hassan in
Mittelägypten (Mainz am Rhein, 1994).
Shedid, A. G., “A house for eternity: The tombs of
governors and officials”, in Egypt, 118-31.
Shirai, Y., “Ideal and reality in Old Kingdom private
funerary cults”, in Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology,
325-33.
Siebels, R., “The wearing of sandals in Old Kingdom
tomb decoration”, BACE 7 (1996), 75-88.
Siebels, R., “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb
Decoration: An Analysis of Scenes and Inscriptions.
Part I: Text”; “Part II: Prosopography”, PhD thesis,
Macquarie University (Sydney, 2000).
Siebels, R., “Agricultural scenes”, in Egyptian Art, 55-72.
Siebels, R., “Representations of granaries in Old Kingdom
tombs”, BACE 12 (2001), 85-99.
Siebels, R., “Agricultural activities”, in Behind the Scenes,
73-96.
Silverman, D. P., Simpson, W. K., & Wegner, J.,
“Introduction. Archaism and innovation: Towards
defining the cultural expression of Egypt’s Middle
Kingdom”, in Archaism and Innovation, ix-xiii.
Simpson, W. K., The Offering Chapel of Kayemnofret in
the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Boston, 1992).
Sist, L., “Food production”, in Egyptian Civilization, 46-
75.
Skinner, L., “Looking at skin: Analysis of the leather”, in
Chariots in Ancient Egypt, 72-96.
Śliwa, J., Studies in Ancient Egyptian Handicraft:
Woodworking (Warsaw, 1975).

Smith, H. S., “Animal domestication and animal cult in
Dynastic Egypt”, in Domestication and Exploitation,
307-14.
Smith, M., “Democratization of the afterlife”, UEE 1.1
(2009), <https://escholarship.org/uc/item/70g428wj>.
Smith, S. T., Wretched Kush: Ethnic Identities and
Boundaries in Egypt’s Nubian Empire (London, New
York, 2003).
Smith, S. T., “Ethnicity and culture”, in Egyptian World,
218-41.
Smith, S. T., “Ethnicity: Constructions of self and other in
ancient Egypt”, JEgH 11.1-2 (2018), 113-46.
Smith, W. S., A History of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting
in the Old Kingdom, 2nd edition (London, 1949).
Smith, W. S., “Paintings of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom
at Bersheh”, AJA 55.4 (1951), 321-32.
Smith, W. S., Ancient Egypt as Represented in the Museum
of Fine Arts, 3rd edition (Boston, 1952).
Smith, W. S., “Five small Egyptian works of art”, BMFA
52.290 (1954), 84-87.
Smith, W. S., The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt,
3rd edition (New Haven, 1998).
Snape, S., Ancient Egyptian Tombs: The Culture of Life
and Death (West Sussex, 2011).
Sørensen, J. P., “Divine access: The so-called
democratization of Egyptian funerary literature as
a socio-cultural process”, in Religion of the Ancient
Egyptians, 109-25.
Spalinger, A. J., “The organisation of the pharaonic
army (Old to New Kingdom)”, in Ancient Egyptian
Administration, 393-478.
Spalinger, A. J., “The armies of Re”, in Pharaoh’s Land
and Beyond, 93-111.
Spanel, D. B., “Beni Hasan in the Herakleopolitan Period”,
PhD thesis, University of Toronto (Toronto, 1985).
Spanel, D. B., “Funerary figurines”, in Oxford
Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>.
Spencer, A. J., Death in Ancient Egypt (Aylesbury, 1982).
Spinazzi-Lucchesi, C., The Unwound Yarn: Birth and
Development of Textile Tools Between Levant and
Egypt (Venice, 2018).
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (2019), Online Collections
Database, viewed 20 March 2019, <http://www.smb-
digital.de/eMuseumPlus>.
Staehelin, E., Untersuchungen zur ägyptischen Tracht im
Alten Reich (Berlin, 1966).
Staring, N., “Fixed rules or personal choice? On the
composition and arrangement of daily life scenes
in Old Kingdom elite tombs”, in Old Kingdom, New
Perspectives, 256-69.
205
Bibliography
Stephens, M. A., A Categorisation and Examination of
Egyptian Ships and Boats from the Rise of the Old to
the End of the Middle Kingdoms (Oxford, 2012).
Stevens, A., & Eccleston, M., “Craft production and
technology”, in Egyptian World, 146-59.
Stevenson, A., Scattered Finds: Archaeology, Egyptology
and Museums (London, 2019).
Stewart, H. M., Egyptian Shabtis (Princes Risborough,
1995).
Stocks, D. A., “Leather”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://
www.oxfordreference.com>.
Strauss-Seeber, C., “Gifts of the Nile: The agriculture of a
river oasis”, in Egypt, 376-85.
Strouhal, E., Life in Ancient Egypt (Cambridge, 1992).
Swinton, J., “De-coding Old Kingdom wall scenes: Force-
feeding the hyena”, in Egyptian Culture and Society.
Volume II, 233-45.
Swinton, J., The Management of Estates and their
Resources in the Egyptian Old Kingdom (Oxford,
2012).
Swinton, J., “Food and drink”, in Behind the Scenes, 31-
52.
Swinton, J., “Workshops”, in Behind the Scenes, 167-83.
Swinton, J., & Evans, L., “Force-feeding animals in Old
Kingdom scenes: A reply”, GM 232 (2012), 137-42.
Sykora, T., “Djehoutihotep, le dernier nomarque du nome
du lièvre”, in Djehoutihotep, 22-38.
Tallet, P., “Le règne de Sésostris III”, in Sésostris III, 22-
29.
Tata, G., “The Development of the Egyptian Textile
Industry”, PhD thesis, University of Utah (Salt Lake
City, 1986).
Taylor, J. H., Egypt and Nubia (London, 1991).
Taylor, J. H., Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt
(London, 2001).
Taylor, J. H., & Strudwick, N., Mummies: Death and the
Afterlife in Ancient Egypt. Treasures from The British
Museum (London, 2005).
Teeter, E., Religion and Ritual in Ancient Egypt (New
York, 2011).
Tefnin, R., “Private sculpture”, in Oxford Encyclopedia,
<http://www.oxfordreference.com>.
Terrace, E. L. B., Egyptian Paintings of the Middle
Kingdom (London, 1968).
Terrace, E. L. B., “The entourage of an Egyptian governor”,
BMB 66.343 (1968), 5-27.
The Louvre, Paris (2020), Search the Collection, viewed
19 March 2020, <https://www.louvre.fr/en/moteur-de-
recherche-oeuvres>.
Preparing for Eternity
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (2017),
Collection, viewed 18 December 2017, <https://www.
metmuseum.org/art/collection>.
Tiradritti, F., “Model of three offering-bearers”, in
Egyptian Treasures, 101.
Tiradritti, F., “Model depicting the preparation of bread
and beer”, in Egyptian Treasures, 102.
Tiradritti, F., “Model of a man tilling”, in Egyptian
Treasures, 103.
Tiradritti, F., Egyptian Wall Painting (New York, London,
2008).
Tiradritti, F., “Painting”, in Companion to Ancient
Egyptian Art, 249-68.
Tooley, A. M. J., “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs:
A Study of Wooden Models and Related Material.
Volumes I-II”, PhD thesis, University of Liverpool
(Liverpool, 1989).
Tooley, A. M. J., Egyptian Models and Scenes (Princes
Risborough, 1995).
Tooley, A. M. J., “Models”, in Oxford Encyclopedia,
<http://www.oxfordreference.com>.
Trigger, B. G., Nubia under the Pharaohs (London, 1976).
Trigger, B. G., Kemp, B. J., O’Connor, D., & Lloyd, A.
B., Ancient Egypt: A Social History (Cambridge, New
York, 1983).
Tyldesley, J., Daughters of Isis: Women of Ancient Egypt
(London, 1994).
Ucko, P. J., “The interpretation of Prehistoric
anthropomorphic figurines”, JRAI 92.1 (1962), 38-54.
Ure Museum of Greek Archaeology, University of Reading
(2006), Ure Museum Database, viewed 18 October
2017, <http://uredb.reading.ac.uk/>.
Vachala, B., Abusir VIII: Die Relieffragmente aus der
Mastaba des Ptahschepses in Abusir (Prague, 2004).
van de Walle, B., La chapelle funéraire de Neferirtenef
(Brussels, 1978).
van Driel-Murray, C., “Leatherwork and skin products”, in
Materials and Technology, 299-319.
van Driel-Murray, C., “Ancient skin processing and the
impact of Rome on tanning technology”, in Travail du
cuir, 251-65.
van Walsem, R., “The interpretation of iconographic
programmes in Old Kingdom elite tombs of the Memphite
area: Methodological and theoretical (re)considerations”,
in Proceedings of the Seventh ICE, 1205-213.
Vandier, J., Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome III:
Les grandes époques. La statuaire (Paris, 1958).
Vandier, J., Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V:
Bas-reliefs et peintures. Scenes de la vie quotidienne
(Paris, 1969).
206
Vandier, J., Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI:
Bas-reliefs et peintures. Scènes de la vie agricole à
l’Ancien et au Moyen Empire (Paris, 1978).
Veldmeijer, A. J., “Leatherworking”, UEE 1.1 (2008),
<https://escholarship.org/uc/item/13g5n8th>.
Veldmeijer, A. J., Tutankhamun’s Footwear: Studies of
Ancient Egyptian Footwear (Leiden, 2011).
Veldmeijer, A. J., Footwear in Ancient Egypt: The
Medelhavsmuseet Collection (Stockholm, 2014).
Veldmeijer, A. J., Stepping through Time: Footwear in
Ancient Egypt (Zandvoort, 2016).
Veldmeijer, A. J., The Ancient Egyptian Footwear Project:
Final Archaeological Analysis (Leiden, 2019).
Veldmeijer, A. J., & Laidler, J., “Leather work in ancient
Egypt”, in History of Science, Technology, and
Medicine, 1215-220.
Verhoeven, U., “Eine technologische Rarität. Das Brennen
von Ziegeln in der Grabdekoration des Mittleren und
Neuen Reiches”, MDAIK 43 (1987), 259-66.
Verhoeven, U., “The mortuary cult”, in Egypt, 480-89.
Verma, S., Cultural Expression in the Old Kingdom Elite
Tomb (Oxford, 2014).
Vernus, P., “Sur deux inscriptions du Moyen Empire (Urk.
VII, 36; Caire JE 51911)”, BSEG 13 (1989), 173-81.
Vernus, P., “Autobiography versus biography in the second
person and biography in the third person: Textual
formats, authorship, and apocryphal/pseudepigraphic
works”, in Ancient Egyptian Biographies, 163-204.
Vinson, S., Egyptian Boats and Ships (Princes Risborough,
1994).
Vischak, D., “Common ground between Pyramid Texts and
Old Kingdom tomb design: The case of Ankhmahor”,
JARCE 40 (2003), 133-57.
Vogelsang-Eastwood, G., “A note on the so-called
‘spinning bowls’”, JEOL 30 (1987), 78-88.
Vogelsang-Eastwood, G., The Production of Linen in
Pharaonic Egypt (Leiden, 1992).
Vogelsang-Eastwood, G., Pharaonic Egyptian Clothing
(Leiden, 1993).
Vogelsang-Eastwood, G., “Textiles”, in Materials and
Technology, 268-198.
Vogelsang-Eastwood, G., “Weaving, looms, and textiles”,
in Oxford Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.
com>.
Vogelsang-Eastwood, G., & van Haeringen, J., “The so-
called boy spinners of Beni Hasan”, GM 126 (1992),
95-96.
Waki, M., “Storage in ancient Egyptian towns and cities
(with a focus on Amarna)”, GM 190 (2002), 103-12.
 Bibliography

Ward, C., Sacred and Secular: Ancient Egyptian Ships and Willems, H., De Meyer, M., Peeters, C., Vereecken, S.,
Boats (Philadelphia, 2000). Depraetere, D., Dupras, T., Williams, L., Herbich, T.,
Verstraeten, G., van Loon, G., & Delattre, A., “Report
Ward, C., “Ships and shipbuilding”, in Oxford
of the 2004-2005 campaigns of the Belgian mission to
Encyclopedia, <http://www.oxfordreference.com>. Deir al-Barsha”, MDAIK 65 (2009), 377-432.
Watterson, B., Women in Ancient Egypt (Stroud, New Wilson, H., Egyptian Food and Drink (Princes Risborough,
York, 1991). 1988).
Weeks, K. R., “Art, word, and the Egyptian world view”, Wilson, J. A., “Funeral services of the Egyptian Old
in Egyptology, 59-81. Kingdom”, JNES 3.4 (1944), 201-18.
Wegner, J., “Tradition and innovation: The Middle Winlock, H. E., Models of Daily Life in Ancient Egypt from
Kingdom”, in Egyptian Archaeology, 119-42. the Tomb of Meket-Re’ at Thebes (Cambridge, 1955).
Wild, H., Le tombeau de Ti. Fascicule II: La chapelle Woods, A., “Contribution to a controversy: A date for the
(première partie) (Cairo, 1953). tomb of KA(=i)-m-Anx at Giza”, JEA 95 (2009), 161-74.
Wilkinson, J. G., Manners and Customs of the Ancient Woods, A., & Leary, N., “‘Art’, aesthetics and the
Egyptians. Volume III (London, 1837). functioning image in ancient Egyptian elite tombs”, in
Death is Only the Beginning, 74-83.
Willems, H., Chests of Life: A Study of the Typology and
Conceptual Development of Middle Kingdom Standard Wreszinski, W., Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte
Class Coffins (Leiden, 1988). I (Leipzig, 1923).
Willems, H., “Deir el-Bersheh: Preliminary report”, GM
110 (1989), 75-95.
Willems, H., Dayr al-Barshā. Volume I: The Rock Tombs
of Djehutinakht (No. 17K74/1), Khnumnakht (No.
17K74/2), and Iha (No. 17K74/3) (Leuven, 2007).
Willems, H., “Report of the mission of the Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven to Dayr al-Barshā, 4 March – 26
April 2007”, ASAE 84 (2010), 429-65.
Willems, H., “The First Intermediate Period and the
Middle Kingdom”, in Companion to Ancient Egypt,
81-100.
Willems, H., “Nomarchs and local potentates: The
provincial administration in the Middle Kingdom”, in
Ancient Egyptian Administration, 341-92.
Willems, H., Historical and Archaeological Aspects of
Egyptian Funerary Culture: Religious Ideas and Ritual
Practice in Middle Kingdom Elite Cemeteries (Leiden,
2014).
Willems, H., “Les fouilles récentes de la KU Leuven à
Dayr al-Barcha”, in Djehoutihotep, 129-44.
Willems, H., Delvaux, L., & De Meyer, M., “La chambre
funéraire d’Abou, à al-Chaykh Ibada”, in Djehoutihotep,
173-212.
Willems, H., De Meyer, M., Depraetere, D., Peeters, C.,
Op de Beeck, L., Vereecken, S., Verrept, B., & Depauw,
M., “Preliminary report of the 2003 campaign of the
Belgian mission to Deir al-Barsha”, MDAIK 62 (2006),
307-39.
Willems, H., De Meyer, M., Depraetere, D., Peeters, C.,
Hendrickx, S., Herbich, T., Klemm, R., Op de Beeck,
L., & Depauw, M., “Preliminary report of the 2002
campaign of the Belgian mission to Deir al-Barsha”,
MDAIK 60 (2004), 237-83.

207
 Appendix 1

Catalogue of Funerary Models

This catalogue includes all 292 funerary models examined through images in this study. For each representation, the
theme(s) depicted, the owner and tomb number, the site of origin, the date, and a reference are cited. A unique catalogue
number is assigned to each model and the figure number is listed for those with images included in the book. The
representations are ordered chronologically according to generalised dates, but for all with the same date, the models are
arranged according to site, with those from Meir first, then Deir el-Bersha and lastly Beni Hassan. Models with known
owners are listed before those with unknown owners in each case. When there is some question regarding provenance, a
? is cited, with explanatory details discussed in the relevant chapter. The current museum location and accession number
of each model are listed as the reference where known. For instances where images of the models are not easily accessed
online, a bibliographic reference is cited where possible. The catalogue number is preceded by an M to indicate the
representation is a model.

Catalogue Theme Model Owner Site Date Reference Figure

Number (Tomb Number) Number

M1 Land preparation Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 249 / JE 2.4
kem (A1) Dyn. 30822; Tiradritti, in Egyptian Treasures, 103

M2 Bread-making Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 237;

kem (A1) Dyn. Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, pl. 237

M3 Bread-making Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 252 / JE

kem (A1) Dyn. 30813; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten,
pl. 252

M4 Bread-making Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 240;

kem (A1) Dyn. Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, pl. 240

M5 Bread-making Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 243;

kem (A1) Dyn. Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, pl. 243

M6 Bread-making Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 238 / JE

kem (A1) Dyn. 30820; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten,
pl. 238

M7 Bread-making Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 247 / JE

kem (A1) Dyn. 30818; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten,
pl. 247

M8 Brewing beer Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 239 / JE
kem (A1) Dyn. 30823; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten,
pl. 239

M9 Brewing beer Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 246 / JE
kem (A1) Dyn. 30816; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten,
pl. 246

M10 Brewing beer Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 253 / JE
kem (A1) Dyn. 30815; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten,
pl. 253

M11 Brewing beer Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 244 / JE 2.20
kem (A1) Dyn. 30821; Tiradritti, in Egyptian Treasures, 102

M12 Brewing beer Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 251 / JE
kem (A1) Dyn. 30817; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten,
pl. 251

M13 Roasting fowl Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 245 / JE 2.31
kem (A1) Dyn. 30814; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten,
pl. 245

209
Preparing for Eternity

Catalogue Theme Model Owner Site Date Reference Figure

Number (Tomb Number) Number

M14 Roasting fowl Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 242 / JE
kem (A1) Dyn. 30824; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten,
pl. 242

M15 Boat Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4882;
kem (A1) Dyn. Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 13

M16 Boat Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4883;
kem (A1) Dyn. Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 27

M17 Boat Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4884;
kem (A1) Dyn. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat.
192

M18 Boat Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4886 / JE
kem (A1) Dyn. 30804; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 14

M19 Boat Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4887;
kem (A1) Dyn. Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 14

M20 Boat Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4888;
kem (A1) Dyn. Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 15

M21 Boat Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4880;
kem (A1) Dyn. Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 12

M22 Boat Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4881;
kem (A1) Dyn. Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 13

M23 Male offering- Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 241 / JE
bearer kem (A1) Dyn. 30810; Tiradritti, in Egyptian Treasures, 100

M24 Procession of Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 250; 3.17
offering-bearers kem (A1) Dyn. Tiradritti, in Egyptian Treasures, 101

M25 Beasts of burden Niankh-pepy- Meir Late 6th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 254 / JE
kem (A1) Dyn. 30825; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten,
pl. 254

M26 Female offering- Hepi-kem (A4) Meir Late 6th Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen: 3.19
bearer Dyn. AEIN 670

M27 Female offering- Hepi-kem (A4) Meir Late 6th Museum of Antiquities, Eton College,
bearer Dyn. Windsor: ECM.1591-2010; Bommas, in
Sacred and Profane, fig. 30

M28 Boat Deir el- OK? Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4974;

Bersha Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 24

M29 Boat Deir el- OK? Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4975;

Bersha Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 24

M30 Bread-making (420 LC) Beni FIP Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford:
Brewing beer Hassan AN1896-1908.E.2305

M31 Bread-making Henu Deir el- Late FIP Willems, Delvaux & De Meyer, in
(L-16H50/1C) Bersha Djehoutihotep, fig. 124b

M32 Bread-making Henu Deir el- Late FIP Willems, Delvaux & De Meyer, in
(L-16H50/1C) Bersha Djehoutihotep, fig. 124a

M33 Brewing beer Henu Deir el- Late FIP Willems, Delvaux & De Meyer, in
(L-16H50/1C) Bersha Djehoutihotep, fig. 125

M34 Boat Henu Deir el- Late FIP Willems, Delvaux & De Meyer, in
(L-16H50/1C) Bersha Djehoutihotep, fig. 126

M35 Brick-making Henu Deir el- Late FIP Willems, Delvaux & De Meyer, in
(L-16H50/1C) Bersha Djehoutihotep, fig. 127

210
 Appendix 1 | Catalogue of Funerary Models

Catalogue Theme Model Owner Site Date Reference Figure

Number (Tomb Number) Number

M36 Granary Intef (1 LC) Beni Early 11th National Museums Liverpool, World
Hassan Dyn. Museum: 55.82.2

M37 Bread-making Intef (1 LC) Beni Early 11th New Walk Museum and Art Gallery,
Hassan Dyn. Leicester: L.A86.1929.0.0

M38 Brewing beer Intef (1 LC) Beni Early 11th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
Hassan Dyn. fig. 50

M39 Boat Intef (1 LC) Beni Early 11th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
Hassan Dyn. fig. 45

M40 Boat Intef (1 LC) Beni Early 11th National Museums Liverpool, World
Hassan Dyn. Museum: 55.82.3

M41 Female offering- Intef (1 LC) Beni Early 11th National Museums Liverpool, World
bearer Hassan Dyn. Museum: 55.82.1

M42 Cattle in Intef (1 LC) Beni Early 11th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
procession Hassan Dyn. fig. 48

M43 Bread-making Djay (275 LC) Beni Early 11th Bristol Museum & Art Gallery: H4596
Hassan Dyn.

M44 Brewing beer Djay (275 LC) Beni Early 11th National Museums Scotland: A.1912.295
Hassan Dyn.

M45 Hand-feeding Djay (275 LC) Beni Early 11th National Museums Scotland: A.1914.74
cattle Hassan Dyn.

M46 Boat Djay (275 LC) Beni Early 11th Hull Museums: KINCM:1989.6 HERM
Hassan Dyn.

M47 Boat Djay (275 LC) Beni Early 11th Bristol Museum & Art Gallery: H 4595
Hassan Dyn.

M48 Male offering- Djay (275 LC) Beni Early 11th National Museums Scotland: A.1914.73
bearer Hassan Dyn.

M49 Male offering- Djay (275 LC) Beni Early 11th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
bearer Hassan Dyn. fig. 95ii

M50 Leatherwork Djay (275 LC) Beni Early 11th National Museums Scotland: A.1914.76 5.11
Hassan Dyn.

M51 Brick-making Djay (275 LC) Beni Early 11th British Museum, London: EA 63837
Hassan Dyn.

M52 Boat Meir 11th Dyn. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4799;

Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 1

M53 Boat Meir 11th Dyn. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4801;

Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 2

M54 Boat Meir 11th Dyn. Norwich Castle Museum & Art Gallery:
NWHCM: 1921.37.2

M55 Boat Meir 11th Dyn. Macclesfield Museums: 1869.77

M56 Bread-making Deir el- 11 Dyn.

th
Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford:
Bersha AN1933.1446

M57 Granary Netjer-nakht (53 Beni 11th Dyn. Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford:
LC) Hassan AN1896-1908.E.2002

M58 Boat (203 LC) Beni 11th Dyn. National Museums Liverpool, World
Hassan Museum: 55.82.6

M59 Boat (203 LC) Beni 11th Dyn. National Museums Liverpool, World
Hassan Museum: 55.82.17

211
Preparing for Eternity

Catalogue Theme Model Owner Site Date Reference Figure

Number (Tomb Number) Number

M60 Female offering- Ha-itef-a (362 Beni 11th Dyn. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: E.6.1903
bearer LC) Hassan

M61 Granary (394 LC) Beni 11th Dyn. Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford:
Hassan AN1896-1908.E.2311

M62 Boat Beni 11th Dyn. St Mungo Museum of Religious Life and
Hassan Art, Glasgow: 1923.33bw

M63 Boat Senbi? Meir Late 11th Cleveland Museum of Art: 1914.604
Dyn.

M64 Boat Meir Late 11th Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, San Jose:
Dyn. RC-484

M65 Boat Meir Late 11th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4859;

Dyn. Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 10

M66 Land preparation Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.408 2.2
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M67 Granary Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.409 2.7
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M68 Granary Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.410
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M69 Granary Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.808
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M70 Granary Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 15-5-409
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M71 Bread-making Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.807
Brewing beer (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M72 Bread-making Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.886
Brewing beer (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M73 Hand-feeding Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.413 2.24
cattle (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M74 Hand-feeding Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.819
cattle (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M75 Hand-feeding Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.823
cattle (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M76 Hand-feeding Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16697
cattle (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M77 Hand-feeding Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16699
cattle (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M78 Hand-feeding Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16700
cattle (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M79 Hand-feeding Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16702
cattle (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M80 Hand-feeding Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16703
cattle (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M81 Hand-feeding Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16706
cattle (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M82 Fowling Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.802
Boat (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M83 Fowling Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.890 2.35
Boat (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

212
 Appendix 1 | Catalogue of Funerary Models

Catalogue Theme Model Owner Site Date Reference Figure

Number (Tomb Number) Number

M84 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.407
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M85 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.416
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M86 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.417
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M87 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.483
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M88 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.485
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M89 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.488
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M90 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.492
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M91 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.493
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M92 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.500
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M93 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.820
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M94 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.829
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M95 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.870
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M96 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.873
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M97 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.874
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M98 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.879 3.3
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M99 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.889
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M100 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.893
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M101 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.12492
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M102 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16704
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M103 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16720
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M104 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16721
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M105 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.487
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M106 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.489
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M107 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.495
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

213
Preparing for Eternity

Catalogue Theme Model Owner Site Date Reference Figure

Number (Tomb Number) Number

M108 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.497
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M109 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.801
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M110 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.818
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M111 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.822
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M112 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.824
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M113 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.825
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M114 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.826
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M115 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.827
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M116 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.828
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M117 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.830
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M118 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.871
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M119 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.872
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M120 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.877 3.11
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M121 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.878
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M122 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.880
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M123 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.895
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M124 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.12493
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M125 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.12497
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M126 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16705
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M127 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.406 3.9
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M128 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.415
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M129 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.490
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M130 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.494
Roasting fowl (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M131 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.800
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

214
 Appendix 1 | Catalogue of Funerary Models

Catalogue Theme Model Owner Site Date Reference Figure

Number (Tomb Number) Number

M132 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.12496
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M133 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.491
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M134 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.496
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M135 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.885
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M136 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.12491
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M137 Boat Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.12495
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M138 Female offering- Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.418
bearer (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M139 Female offering- Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.484
bearer (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M140 Female offering- Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.881
bearer (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M141 Female offering- Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.882
bearer (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M142 Female offering- Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.883 3.14
bearer (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M143 Female offering- Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.884
bearer (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M144 Procession of Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.326 3.16
offering- (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.
bearers:
the Bersha
Procession

M145 Pair of offering- Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.875
bearers (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M146 Procession of Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.887
offering-bearers (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M147 Procession of Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.888
offering-bearers (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M148 Procession of Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.12494,
offering-bearers (R-10A) Bersha Dyn. 21.11769

M149 Procession of Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 15-5-219
offering-bearers (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M150 Cattle in Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.831 4.10
procession (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M151 Spinning and Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.414
weaving (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M152 Spinning and Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.891 5.1
weaving (R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M153 Carpentry Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.412 5.7
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M154 Brick-making Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.411 7.1
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

215
Preparing for Eternity

Catalogue Theme Model Owner Site Date Reference Figure

Number (Tomb Number) Number

M155 Brick-making Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.821
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M156 Military Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.803 6.1
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M157 Military Djehuty-nakht Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.806
(R-10A) Bersha Dyn.

M158 Boat Satmeket Deir el- Late 11th Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.838
(R-10B) Bersha Dyn.

M159 Granary Deir el- Late 11th Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, San Jose:
Bersha Dyn. RC-687

M160 Boat Deir el- Late 11th Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, San Jose:
Bersha Dyn. RC-1815

M161 Boat Deir el- Late 11th New Walk Museum and Art Gallery,
Bersha Dyn. Leicester: L.A40.1924.0.0

M162 Boat Iryt-hotep (188 Beni Late 11th National Museums Liverpool, World
LC) Hassan Dyn. Museum: 55.82.115

M163 Granary Ipi (707 LC) Beni Late 11th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
Hassan Dyn. fig. 120

M164 Bread-making Ipi (707 LC) Beni Late 11th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
Brewing beer Hassan Dyn. fig. 125

M165 Boat Ipi (707 LC) Beni Late 11th Ure Museum of Greek Archaeology,
Hassan Dyn. University of Reading: E.23.3

M166 Female offering- Ipi (707 LC) Beni Late 11th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
bearer Hassan Dyn. fig. 98

M167 Boat Re-hotepi and Meir Early 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 42911;
Kaayt Dyn. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat.
148

M168 Boat Re-hotepi and Meir Early 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 42933;
Kaayt Dyn. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat.
153

M169 Beasts of burden Kay-henent Meir Early 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 3213 / JE
Dyn. 42854; Wreszinski, Atlas I, pl. 61.2

M170 Land preparation Meir Early 12th Musée des Beaux-Arts de Limoges: E.962;
Dyn. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, pl. 2b

M171 Land preparation Meir Early 12th Musée des Beaux-Arts de Limoges: E.967;
Dyn. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, pl. 2b

M172 Boat Meir Early 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4802;

Dyn. Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 2

M173 Calving Meir Early 12th Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon: 1969-409
Dyn.

M174 Milking Meir? Early 12th Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon: 1969-401 4.5
Dyn.

M175 Hand-feeding Amenemhat Deir el- Early 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 34293;
cattle (K-21) Bersha Dyn. Monnier, “Iconographie égyptienne”, ENiM
7, (2014), cat. 18

M176 Boat Amenemhat Deir el- Early 12th National Museum of Denmark: 5489
(K-21) Bersha Dyn.

216
 Appendix 1 | Catalogue of Funerary Models

Catalogue Theme Model Owner Site Date Reference Figure

Number (Tomb Number) Number

M177 Granary Nefery (116 LC) Beni Early 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 37563;
Hassan Dyn. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
fig. 60

M178 Bread-making Nefery (116 LC) Beni Early 12th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
Hassan Dyn. fig. 63

M179 Bread-making Nefery (116 LC) Beni Early 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 37663; 2.22
Brewing beer Hassan Dyn. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
fig. 62

M180 Boat Nefery (116 LC) Beni Early 12th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
Hassan Dyn. fig. 57

M181 Boat Nefery (116 LC) Beni Early 12th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
Hassan Dyn. fig. 59

M182 Female offering- Nefery (116 LC) Beni Early 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 37563;
bearer Hassan Dyn. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
fig. 64

M183 Male offering- Nefery (116 LC) Beni Early 12th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
bearer Hassan Dyn. fig. 64

M184 Boat Khnumhotep Beni Early 12th Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford:
(140 LC) Hassan Dyn. AN1896-1908.E.1992

M185 Foreign woman Useri and Aryt- Beni Early 12th National Museums Scotland: A.1911.260 6.6
hotep (181 LC) Hassan Dyn.

M186 Granary Nefwa (186 LC) Beni Early 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 37564;
Hassan Dyn. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
fig. 76

M187 Bread-making Nefwa (186 LC) Beni Early 12th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
Brewing beer Hassan Dyn. fig. 75
Slaughtering

M188 Boat Nefwa (186 LC) Beni Early 12th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
Hassan Dyn. fig. 74

M189 Boat Nefwa (186 LC) Beni Early 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 43337;
Hassan Dyn. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
fig. 73

M190 Boat Nefwa (186 LC) Beni Early 12th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
Hassan Dyn. fig. 72

M191 Boat Nefwa (186 LC) Beni Early 12th Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: 3.8
Hassan Dyn. AN1896-1908.E.2301

M192 Female offering- Nefwa (186 LC) Beni Early 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 43295;
bearer Hassan Dyn. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
fig. 77

M193 Female offering- Nefwa (186 LC) Beni Early 12th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
bearer Hassan Dyn. fig. 77

M194 Granary Khety (366 LC) Beni Early 12th Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: 2.11
Hassan Dyn. E.71e.1903

M195 Bread-making Khety (366 LC) Beni Early 12th Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: 2.14
Brewing beer Hassan Dyn. E.71d.1903

M196 Slaughtering Khety (366 LC) Beni Early 12th Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: 2.26
Hassan Dyn. E.71c.1903

M197 Boat Khety (366 LC) Beni Early 12th Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge:
Hassan Dyn. E.71b.1903

217
Preparing for Eternity

Catalogue Theme Model Owner Site Date Reference Figure

Number (Tomb Number) Number

M198 Boat Khety (366 LC) Beni Early 12th Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge:
Hassan Dyn. E.71a.1903

M199 Boat Baqta (412 LC)? Beni Early 12th National Museums Liverpool, World
Hassan Dyn. Museum: 22.3.15.1

M200 Granary Khety-aa (575 Beni Early 12th Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford:
LC) Hassan Dyn. AN1896-1908.E.2310

M201 Bread-making Khety-aa (575 Beni Early 12th Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: 2.30
Brewing beer LC) Hassan Dyn. AN1896-1908.E.2312
Slaughtering

M202 Fishing Khety-aa (575 Beni Early 12th Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: 2.37
Boat LC) Hassan Dyn. AN1896-1908.E.2297

M203 Boat Khety-aa (575 Beni Early 12th Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford:
LC) Hassan Dyn. AN1896-1908.E.2302

M204 Female offering- Khety-aa (575 Beni Early 12th Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford:
bearer LC) Hassan Dyn. AN1896-1908.E.2306

M205 Male offering- Khety-aa (575 Beni Early 12th Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford:
bearer LC) Hassan Dyn. AN1896-1908.E.2308

M206 Spinning and Khety-aa (575 Beni Early 12th National Museums Liverpool, World 5.6
weaving LC) Hassan Dyn. Museum: 55.82.4

M207 Granary Khnum-nekhti Beni Early 12th British Museum, London: EA 63838
and Netjer-nekhti Hassan Dyn.
(585 LC)

M208 Granary Khnum-nekhti Beni Early 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: number unknown;
and Netjer-nekhti Hassan Dyn. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
(585 LC) fig. 90

M209 Bread-making Khnum-nekhti Beni Early 12th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
Brewing beer and Netjer-nekhti Hassan Dyn. fig. 84
Slaughtering (585 LC)
Pair of offering-
bearers

M210 Bread-making Khnum-nekhti Beni Early 12th National Museums Liverpool, World
Brewing beer and Netjer-nekhti Hassan Dyn. Museum: 55.82.7
Slaughtering (585 LC)

M211 Boat Khnum-nekhti Beni Early 12th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
and Netjer-nekhti Hassan Dyn. fig. 86
(585 LC)

M212 Boat Khnum-nekhti Beni Early 12th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
and Netjer-nekhti Hassan Dyn. fig. 87
(585 LC)

M213 Boat Khnum-nekhti Beni Early 12th National Museum of Ireland: 1920.270;
and Netjer-nekhti Hassan Dyn. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
(585 LC) figs. 158, 163, 164 right

M214 Boat Khnum-nekhti Beni Early 12th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
and Netjer-nekhti Hassan Dyn. fig. 89
(585 LC)

M215 Boat Khnum-nekhti Beni Early 12th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
and Netjer-nekhti Hassan Dyn. fig. 88
(585 LC)

M216 Pair of offering- Khnum-nekhti Beni Early 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 37569;
bearers and Netjer-nekhti Hassan Dyn. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
(585 LC) fig. 85

218
 Appendix 1 | Catalogue of Funerary Models

Catalogue Theme Model Owner Site Date Reference Figure

Number (Tomb Number) Number

M217 Granary Sobek-hotepi Beni Early 12th British Museum, London: EA 41573
(723 LC) Hassan Dyn.

M218 Bread-making Sobek-hotepi Beni Early 12th British Museum, London: EA 41576
Brewing beer (723 LC) Hassan Dyn.
Slaughtering

M219 Boat Sobek-hotepi Beni Early 12th British Museum, London: EA 41575 3.1
(723 LC) Hassan Dyn.

M220 Boat Sobek-hotepi Beni Early 12th British Museum, London: EA 41574
(723 LC) Hassan Dyn.

M221 Female offering- Sobek-hotepi Beni Early 12th National Museums Scotland: A.1953.128
bearer (723 LC) Hassan Dyn.

M222 Boat (868 LC) Beni Early 12th Science Museum, London: 1935-0201
Hassan Dyn.

M223 Boat Ukh-hotep Meir 12th Dyn. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York: 12.183.4

M224 Boat Ukh-hotep Meir 12th Dyn. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New 3.10
York: 12.183.3

M225 Boat Inti Meir 12th Dyn. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4847;
Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 9

M226 Land preparation Meir? 12th Dyn. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto: 910.18.15

M227 Bread-making Meir 12th Dyn. Musée des Beaux-Arts de Limoges: E.969;
Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, pl. 39b

M228 Bread-making Meir 12th Dyn. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
Slaughtering York: 11.150.12

M229 Bread-making Meir 12th Dyn. Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, San Jose: 2.16
Brewing beer RC-483

M230 Bread-making Meir? 12th Dyn. Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon: 1969-408

M231 Boat Meir 12th Dyn. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4798;

Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 1

M232 Boat Meir 12th Dyn. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4805;

Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 4

M233 Boat Meir 12th Dyn. Art Institute of Chicago: 1894.241

M234 Boat Meir 12th Dyn. British Museum, London: EA 25361

M235 Boat Meir 12th Dyn. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4844;

Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 8

M236 Boat Meir 12th Dyn. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4845;

Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 8

M237 Boat Meir 12th Dyn. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4846;

Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 9

M238 Boat Meir 12th Dyn. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4869;

Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 11

M239 Boat Meir 12th Dyn. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4872;

Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 12

M240 Boat Meir 12th Dyn. Minneapolis Institute of Art: 16.496

M241 Boat Meir 12th Dyn. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4803;

Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 3

M242 Boat Meir 12th Dyn. British Museum, London: EA 25360

219
Preparing for Eternity

Catalogue Theme Model Owner Site Date Reference Figure

Number (Tomb Number) Number

M243 Boat Meir 12th Dyn. Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, San Jose:
RC-485

M244 Boat Meir 12th Dyn. Institute of Egyptian Art & Archaeology of
the University of Memphis: 1981.1.10

M245 Boat Meir 12th Dyn. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4841;

Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 7

M246 Boat Meir 12th Dyn. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4861;

Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 11

M247 Boat Meir 12th Dyn. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 42943;

Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat.
288

M248 Boat Meir 12th Dyn. Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, San Jose:
RC-480

M249 Beasts of burden Meir 12th Dyn. Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon: 1969-399

M250 Beasts of burden Meir 12th Dyn. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New 3.22
York: 11.150.8

M251 Beasts of burden Meir? 12th Dyn. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto: 910.18.3 3.24

M252 Calving Meir? 12th Dyn. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto: 4.2
910.18.16.1-3

M253 Calving Meir? 12th Dyn. Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon: 1969-402

M254 Nursing Meir 12 Dyn.

th
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New 4.4
York: 11.150.5

M255 Cattle in Meir? 12th Dyn. Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon: 1969-400 4.13
procession

M256 Cattle in Meir? 12th Dyn. Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon: 1969-403
procession

M257 Military Meir? 12th Dyn. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto: 910.18.4

M258 Boat Djehuty-hotep Deir el- 12th Dyn. Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden: F
Bersha 1939/1.3

M259 Granary Deir el- 12th Dyn. National Museum of Denmark: 5493
Bersha

M260 Bread-making Deir el- 12th Dyn. Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden: F
Brewing beer Bersha? 1939/1.4
Roasting fowl

M261 Boat Deir el- 12th Dyn. The Louvre, Paris: E 17111
Bersha

M262 Cattle in Deir el- 12th Dyn. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 03.1649a-d
procession Bersha?

M263 Brewing beer Senbu (487 LC) Beni 12th Dyn. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 43307; 4.15
Hassan Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
fig. 144

M264 Dog Senbu (487 LC) Beni 12th Dyn. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 43308; 4.15
Hassan Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
fig. 144

M265 Bread-making Beni 12th Dyn. National Museums Scotland: A.1914.71

Brewing beer Hassan

M266 Bread-making Beni 12th Dyn. National Museums Scotland: A.1914.72

Hassan

220
 Appendix 1 | Catalogue of Funerary Models

Catalogue Theme Model Owner Site Date Reference Figure

Number (Tomb Number) Number

M267 Brewing beer Beni 12th Dyn. National Museums Scotland: A.1914.77
Hassan

M268 Boat Wah-hotep? Meir Late 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 42937;
Dyn. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat.
142

M269 Boat Wah-hotep? Meir Late 12th Rhode Island School of Design Museum,
Dyn. Providence: 14.491

M270 Boat Wah-hotep? Meir Late 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 42942;
Dyn. Landström, Ships of the Pharaohs, figs.
247-248

M271 Boat Wah-hotep Meir Late 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4851;
Dyn. Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 10

M272 Slaughtering Gua (K-12) Deir el- Late 12th British Museum, London: EA 30718 2.27
Bersha Dyn.

M273 Female offering- Gua (K-12) Deir el- Late 12th British Museum, London: EA 30716
bearer Bersha Dyn.

M274 Boat Sepi I (K-15)? Deir el- Late 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4952;
Bersha Dyn. Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 23

M275 Boat Sepi I (K-15)? Deir el- Late 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4955;
Bersha Dyn. Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 24

M276 Boat Sepi II (K-14 Deir el- Late 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4951;
north) Bersha Dyn. Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 23

M277 Boat Sepi II (K-14 Deir el- Late 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4953 / JE 3.12
north) Bersha Dyn. 32823; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 24

M278 Granary Sepi III (K-14 Deir el- Late 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 32831; Tooley,
south) Bersha Dyn. Egyptian Models and Scenes, fig. 39

M279 Boat Sepi III (K-14 Deir el- Late 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4947;
south) Bersha Dyn. Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 21

M280 Boat Sepi III (K-14 Deir el- Late 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4948;
south) Bersha Dyn. Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 22

M281 Boat Sepi III (K-14 Deir el- Late 12th Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4949;
south) Bersha Dyn. Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 22

M282 Roasting fowl (L-16L25/1A) Deir el- Late 12th De Meyer, in World of Middle Kingdom
Bersha Dyn. Egypt. Volume II, fig. 12

M283 Boat Deir el- Late 12th British Museum, London: EA 35293
Bersha Dyn.

M284 Granary Ma (500 LC) Beni Late 12th University of Aberdeen: ABDUA:22166 2.12
Hassan Dyn.

M285 Boat Ma (500 LC) Beni Late 12th Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,
Hassan Dyn. fig. 91

M286 Boat Ma (500 LC) Beni Late 12th Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford:
Hassan Dyn. AN1896-1908.E.2296

M287 Granary Meir MK Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 42857

M288 Nursing Meir MK Egyptian Museum, Cairo: number unknown

M289 Bread-making (187 LC) Beni MK Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: E.35.1903

Hassan

M290 Slaughtering Seni (279 LC) Beni MK Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford:
Hassan AN1896-1908.E.2309

221
Preparing for Eternity

Catalogue Theme Model Owner Site Date Reference Figure

Number (Tomb Number) Number

M291 Granary Nebet-het-hotep Beni MK Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,

(774/775 LC) Hassan fig. 209 right

M292 Granary Beni MK Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt,

Hassan fig. 201

222
 Appendix 2

Catalogue of Wall Scenes

This catalogue includes all 220 wall scenes examined through images in this study. For each representation, the theme(s)
depicted, the owner and tomb number, the location of the scene in the tomb, the site, the date, and a reference are cited.
A unique catalogue number is assigned to each scene and the figure number is listed for those with images included in
the book. The representations are ordered chronologically, with general dates given. For each tomb, the wall scenes are
ordered in a clockwise direction, beginning with the north wall. The catalogue number is preceded by an S to indicate the
representation is a scene.

Catalogue Theme Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site Date Reference Figure
Number (Tomb Number) Number

S1 Bread-making Meniu (E1) West wall, Meir 6th Dyn. Blackman & Apted, Rock
Brewing beer registers 1-3 Tombs of Meir. Part V, pl.
Roasting fowl 48.1

S2 Cattle in An-ankhy North wall, Deir 6th Dyn. De Meyer, “Old Kingdom
procession (L-15J67/1) registers 1-3 el- Rock Tombs at Dayr al-
Bersha Barshā. Volume II”, pl. 11

S3 Offering-bearers An-ankhy East wall, register Deir 6th Dyn. De Meyer, “Old Kingdom
(L-15J67/1) 3 el- Rock Tombs at Dayr al-
Bersha Barshā. Volume II”, pl. 10

S4 Offering-bearers Imi (L-15I55/1) North thickness of Deir 6th Dyn. De Meyer, “Old Kingdom
doorway el- Rock Tombs at Dayr al-
Bersha Barshā. Volume II”, pl. 15

S5 Nursing Ipi (481 LC) North wall, Beni 6th Dyn. Lashien, Beni Hassan.
Cattle in registers 1-2 Hassan Volume II, pl. 38
procession

S6 Land preparation Ipi (481 LC) North wall, Beni 6th Dyn. Lashien, Beni Hassan.
Beasts of burden registers 3-4 Hassan Volume II, pl. 38

S7 Slaughtering Ipi (481 LC) South wall, Beni 6th Dyn. Lashien, Beni Hassan.
Roasting fowl registers 1-2 Hassan Volume II, pl. 40
Offering-bearers
Dogs

S8 Slaughtering Pepyankh the North wall, Meir Late 6th Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir.
Offering-bearers Middle (D2) registers 1-5 Dyn. Volume I, pls. 88-89
Cattle in
procession
Dogs

S9 Roasting fowl Pepyankh the East wall, north Meir Late 6th Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. 2.33
Fishing and Middle (D2) panel, registers 1-4 Dyn. Volume I, pl. 79
fowling

S10 Dogs Pepyankh the East wall, south Meir Late 6th Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir.
Middle (D2) panel, left, register Dyn. Volume I, pl. 81
2

S11 Cattle in Pepyankh the East wall, south Meir Late 6th Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir.
procession Middle (D2) panel, right, Dyn. Volume I, pl. 82
registers 1-2

S12 Boats Pepyankh the East wall, south Meir Late 6th Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. 3.4
Middle (D2) panel, right, Dyn. Volume I, pl. 82
register 3

S13 Beasts of burden Pepyankh the West wall, south Meir Late 6th Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. 3.21
Middle (D2) panel, left, Dyn. Volume I, pl. 84
registers 3-5

223
Preparing for Eternity

Catalogue Theme Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site Date Reference Figure
Number (Tomb Number) Number

S14 Land preparation Pepyankh the West wall, south Meir Late 6th Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. 2.3
Middle (D2) panel, right, Dyn. Volume I, pl. 84
registers 2-5

S15 Offering-bearers Pepyankh the West wall, north Meir Late 6th Kanawati, Cemetery of
Dogs Middle (D2) panel, left, Dyn. Meir. Volume I, pls. 47b, 85;
registers 1-2 Blackman, Rock Tombs of
Meir. Part IV, pl. 12

S16 Bread-making Pepyankh the West wall, north Meir Late 6th Blackman, Rock Tombs of 2.18
Brewing beer Middle (D2) panel, right, Dyn. Meir. Part IV, pl. 13
registers 1-3

S17 Granary Pepyankh the South wall of Meir Late 6th Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir.
Middle (D2) burial chamber Dyn. Volume I, pl. 92

S18 Granary Pepyankh the South wall of Meir Late 6th Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. 2.13
Middle (D2) burial chamber of Dyn. Volume I, pl. 94
Hewetiaah

S19 Offering-bearers Pepi (D1) East wall, north Meir Late 6th Blackman & Apted, Rock
panel, registers 1-3 Dyn. Tombs of Meir. Part V, pl.
44.1

S20 Bread-making Pepi (D1) East wall, south Meir Late 6th Blackman & Apted, Rock 2.23
Brewing beer panel, registers 1-3 Dyn. Tombs of Meir. Part V, pl.
Roasting fowl 44.2

S21 Slaughtering Pepi (D1) South wall, Meir Late 6th Blackman & Apted, Rock
register 3 Dyn. Tombs of Meir. Part V, pl. 45

S22 Slaughtering Niankh-pepy- North wall, Meir Late 6th Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of
Offering-bearers kem (A1) registers 1-4 Dyn. Meir. Volume III, pls. 67-68
Cattle in
procession

S23 Roasting fowl Niankh-pepy- East wall, registers Meir Late 6th Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of
Fishing and kem (A1) 1-4 Dyn. Meir. Volume III, pl. 69
fowling

S24 Offering-bearers Niankh-pepy- West wall, south Meir Late 6th Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of
Cattle in kem (A1) panel, registers 1-3 Dyn. Meir. Volume III, pl. 64
procession

S25 Offering-bearers Niankh-pepy- West wall, north Meir Late 6th Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of
kem (A1) panel, registers 1-3 Dyn. Meir. Volume III, pl. 65

S26 Granary Niankh-pepy- South wall of Meir Late 6th Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of
kem (A1) burial chamber Dyn. Meir. Volume III, pl. 70a

S27 Carpentry Pepyankh the North wall of Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery 5.10
Black (A2) room 1, west Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pl. 73
panel, registers 2-5

S28 Dogs Pepyankh the North wall of Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery 4.19
Black (A2) room 1, east panel, Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pl. 73
register 1

S29 Offering-bearers Pepyankh the South wall of Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery 5.14
Leatherwork Black (A2) room 1, registers Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pls. 71b-c
1-4, and west face
of projecting wall,
registers 1-3

S30 Offering-bearers Pepyankh the West wall of room Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
Black (A2) 1, right, registers Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pl. 72b
1-4

S31 Boats Pepyankh the East wall of room Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
Black (A2) 3, register 3 Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pls. 80-81

224
 Appendix 2 | Catalogue of Wall Scenes

Catalogue Theme Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site Date Reference Figure
Number (Tomb Number) Number

S32 Cattle in Pepyankh the South wall of Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery 4.12
procession Black (A2) room 3, registers Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pl. 82
2-4

S33 Boats Pepyankh the West wall of room Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
Offering-bearers Black (A2) 3, registers 1-3 Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pl. 79

S34 Offering-bearers Pepyankh the North wall of Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
Black (A2) room 4 Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pl. 89

S35 Land preparation Pepyankh the East wall of room Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
Black (A2) 4, north panel, Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pl. 90
register 1

S36 Roasting fowl Pepyankh the East wall of room Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
Fishing and Black (A2) 4, north panel, Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pl. 90
fowling registers 2-4
Cattle in
procession

S37 Offering-bearers Pepyankh the East wall of room Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery 3.13
Dogs Black (A2) 4, centre panel, Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pl. 91
registers 1-4

S38 Cattle in Pepyankh the East wall of room Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
procession Black (A2) 4, south panel, Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pl. 92
left, registers 3-4

S39 Beasts of burden Pepyankh the South wall of Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
Black (A2) room 4, east panel, Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pl. 83b
register 1

S40 Boats Pepyankh the South wall of Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
Black (A2) room 4, east panel, Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pl. 83b
registers 4-5

S41 Fishing Pepyankh the South wall of Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
Black (A2) room 4, west panel Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pl. 84

S42 Offering-bearers Pepyankh the West wall of room Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
Black (A2) 4, south panel, Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pls. 87b-c
registers 1-4,
and south face of
projecting wall,
registers 1-4

S43 Fishing Pepyankh the West wall of room Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
Black (A2) 4, north panel Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pl. 88

S44 Offering-bearers Pepyankh the North wall of Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
Black (A2) room 5 Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pl. 95

S45 Slaughtering Pepyankh the East wall of room Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery 2.28
Black (A2) 5, registers 3-4 Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pl. 96

S46 Offering-bearers Pepyankh the South wall of Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
Black (A2) room 5, register 3 Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pl. 93

S47 Offering-bearers Pepyankh the West wall of Meir Late 6th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
Black (A2) room 5 Dyn. of Meir. Volume II, pl. 94

S48 Offering-bearers Baqet I (29 UC) North wall, Beni 11th Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part
Cattle in west panel, left, Hassan Dyn. II, pl. 28
procession registers 1-4
Dogs

S49 Fishing and Baqet I (29 UC) North wall, west Beni 11th Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part
fowling panel, right, Hassan Dyn. II, pl. 28
registers 2-3

225
Preparing for Eternity

Catalogue Theme Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site Date Reference Figure
Number (Tomb Number) Number

S50 Dogs Baqet I (29 UC) North wall, east Beni 11th Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part
panel, register 1 Hassan Dyn. II, pl. 29

S51 Cattle in Baqet I (29 UC) East wall, north Beni 11th Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part
procession panel registers 1-4 Hassan Dyn. II, pl. 30

S52 Slaughtering Baqet I (29 UC) East wall, centre Beni 11th Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part
Roasting fowl panel, registers 1-3 Hassan Dyn. II, pl. 30
Offering-bearers
Dogs

S53 Slaughtering Baqet I (29 UC) East wall, south Beni 11th Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part
Offering-bearers panel, registers 1-5 Hassan Dyn. II, pl. 30
Dogs

S54 Cattle in Baqet I (29 UC) South wall, east Beni 11th Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part
procession panel, register 3 Hassan Dyn. II, pl. 31

S55 Calving Baqet I (29 UC) South wall, east Beni 11th Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part
panel, register 4 Hassan Dyn. II, pl. 31

S56 Cattle in Baqet I (29 UC) South wall, west Beni 11th Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part
procession panel, registers 2-3 Hassan Dyn. II, pl. 32

S57 Land preparation Baqet I (29 UC) South wall, west Beni 11th Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part
panel, register 5 Hassan Dyn. II, pl. 32

S58 Dogs Baqet II (33 UC) North wall, Beni 11th Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part
register 1 Hassan Dyn. II, pl. 35

S59 Fowling Baqet II (33 UC) North wall, Beni 11th Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part
register 2 Hassan Dyn. II, pl. 35

S60 Slaughtering Baqet II (33 UC) East wall, register Beni 11th Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part
Roasting fowl 1 Hassan Dyn. II, pl. 36
Cooking meat
Offering-bearers

S61 Offering-bearers Ramushenti (27 East wall, north Beni 11th Shedid, Felsgräber von Beni
UC) panel, registers 3-5 Hassan Dyn. Hassan, pl. 130

S62 Slaughtering Ramushenti (27 East wall, south Beni 11th Shedid, Felsgräber von Beni
Offering-bearers UC) panel, registers 1-3 Hassan Dyn. Hassan, pl. 130
Dogs

S63 Fishing Ahanakht I (N-5 North wall of Deir 11th Newberry & Griffith, El
/ R-5) outer room, el- Dyn. Bersheh. Part II, pl. 16
register 4 Bersha

S64 Slaughtering Ahanakht I (N-5 East wall of outer Deir 11th Brovarski, in Studies in
Cattle in / R-5) room, lower el- Dyn. Ancient Egypt, fig. 4
procession registers Bersha

S65 Beasts of burden Ahanakht I (N-5 South wall of Deir 11th Newberry & Griffith, El
/ R-5) outer room, el- Dyn. Bersheh. Part II, pl. 15
register 1 Bersha

S66 Calving Ahanakht I (N-5 South wall of Deir 11th Newberry & Griffith, El
Nursing / R-5) inner room, east el- Dyn. Bersheh. Part II, pl. 14
panel, register 2 Bersha

S67 Milking Ahanakht I (N-5 South wall of Deir 11th Freed, in Bersheh Reports I,
/ R-5) inner room, east el- Dyn. fig. 42
panel Bersha

S68 Dogs Ahanakht I (N-5 West wall of inner Deir 11th Brovarski, in Studies in
/ R-5) room, register 3 el- Dyn. Ancient Egypt, fig. 9
Bersha

226
 Appendix 2 | Catalogue of Wall Scenes

Catalogue Theme Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site Date Reference Figure
Number (Tomb Number) Number

S69 Cattle in Djehuty-nakht East wall, register Deir Late Willems, Dayr al-Barshā.
procession (N-10 / R-104) 3 el- 11th Volume I, pl. 46
Dogs Bersha Dyn.

S70 Cattle in Iha (N-8 / R-102) East wall, register Deir Late Willems, Dayr al-Barshā.
procession 3 el- 11th Volume I, pl. 52
Bersha Dyn.

S71 Land preparation Nehri I (N-4 / Fragment found Deir Late Robinson, Silverman &
R-19) on terrace in front el- 11th Brovarski, in Bersheh
of tomb Bersha Dyn. Reports I, fig. 30

S72 Dogs Baqet III (15 North wall, Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
UC) register 1 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume IV, pls.
Dyn. 67-68

S73 Spinning and Baqet III (15 North wall, Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni 5.3
weaving UC) registers 2-3 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume IV, pls. 20a,
Dyn. 67-69

S74 Cattle in Baqet III (15 North wall, Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni 5.12
procession UC) registers 4-5 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume IV, pls.
Leatherwork Dyn. 67-69

S75 Fishing Baqet III (15 North wall, Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
UC) register 6 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume IV, pls.
Dyn. 70-71

S76 Dogs Baqet III (15 East wall, registers Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
Military UC) 7-9 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume IV, pls.
Dyn. 76-78

S77 Bread-making Baqet III (15 South wall, east Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni 2.19
Brewing beer UC) panel, registers 5-6 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume IV, pls. 46,
Dyn. 81

S78 Offering-bearers Baqet III (15 South wall, east Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
UC) panel, registers 7-8 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 81
Dyn.

S79 Offering-bearers Baqet III (15 South wall, west Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
UC) panel, register 1 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume IV, pls.
Dyn. 83-84

S80 Bread-making Baqet III (15 South wall, west Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni 4.6
Hand-feeding UC) panel, registers 2-4 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume IV, pls. 48b,
cattle Dyn. 49a, 52b, 82-84
Nursing
Cattle in
procession

S81 Carpentry Baqet III (15 South wall, west Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
UC) panel, register 5 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume IV, pls.
Dyn. 85-86

S82 Fishing and Baqet III (15 South wall, west Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni 2.34
fowling UC) panel, registers 6-7 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 86
Dyn.

S83 Slaughtering Baqet III (15 West wall, south Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
Boats UC) panel, registers 1-2 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume IV, pls. 4a,
Offering-bearers Dyn. 63

S84 Granary Baqet III (15 West wall, south Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
Beasts of burden UC) panel, register 3 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 63
Dyn.

S85 Land preparation Baqet III (15 West wall, south Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
UC) panel, registers 6-7 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 63
Dyn.

227
Preparing for Eternity

Catalogue Theme Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site Date Reference Figure
Number (Tomb Number) Number

S86 Land preparation Baqet III (15 West wall, north Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
UC) panel, register 11 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 66
Dyn.

S87 Slaughtering Baqet III (15 East wall of Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
Roasting fowl UC) shrine, registers Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 88a
1-6 Dyn.

S88 Slaughtering Baqet III (15 South wall of Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
Roasting fowl UC) shrine, registers Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 88b
1-5 Dyn.

S89 Offering-bearers Khety (17 UC) North wall, east Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni 3.20
panel, registers 1-2 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 98
Dyn.

S90 Dogs Khety (17 UC) North wall, centre Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
panel Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 98
Dyn.

S91 Dogs Khety (17 UC) North wall, west Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
panel, register 1 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pls.
Dyn. 94-95

S92 Spinning and Khety (17 UC) North wall, west Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni 5.2
weaving panel, registers 2-3 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pls. 27b,
Dyn. 94-95

S93 Offering-bearers Khety (17 UC) North wall, west Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
panel, register 4 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 96
Dyn.

S94 Carpentry Khety (17 UC) North wall, west Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
panel, register 5 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pls.
Dyn. 96-97

S95 Fishing and Khety (17 UC) North wall, west Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
fowling panel, register 6 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pls.
Dyn. 96-97

S96 Slaughtering Khety (17 UC) East wall, registers Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni 6.4
Dogs 6-8 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pls. 47b,
Military Dyn. 102-104

S97 Dogs Khety (17 UC) South wall, east Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni 4.18
and centre panels Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 110
Dyn.

S98 Offering-bearers Khety (17 UC) South wall, west Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
panel, register 1 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 107
Dyn.

S99 Cattle in Khety (17 UC) South wall, west Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni 4.9
procession panel, register 2 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pls.
Dogs Dyn. 106-107

S100 Slaughtering Khety (17 UC) South wall, west Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
Offering-bearers panel, lower Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pls.
Beasts of burden section, left, Dyn. 108-109
Dogs registers 1-3

S101 Granary Khety (17 UC) South wall, west Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni 2.8
panel, lower Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pls. 67b,
section, right, Dyn. 109
register 1

S102 Land preparation Khety (17 UC) South wall, west Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
panel, lower Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 109
section, right, Dyn.
registers 3-4

228
 Appendix 2 | Catalogue of Wall Scenes

Catalogue Theme Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site Date Reference Figure
Number (Tomb Number) Number

S103 Cattle in Khety (17 UC) West wall, south Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
procession panel, registers 1-3 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 88
Dyn.

S104 Boats Khety (17 UC) West wall, south Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
panel, registers 4-5 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 88
Dyn.

S105 Bread-making Khety (17 UC) West wall, south Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
panel, lower Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 89
section, left, Dyn.
registers 1-3

S106 Roasting fowl Khety (17 UC) West wall, south Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
Cooking meat panel, lower Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 89
section, left, Dyn.
registers 4-5

S107 Slaughtering Khety (17 UC) West wall, south Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
panel, lower Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 89
section, right, Dyn.
register 1

S108 Offering-bearers Khety (17 UC) West wall, south Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
panel, lower Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 89
section, right, Dyn.
registers 2-3

S109 Cattle in Khety (17 UC) West wall, north Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
procession panel, register 4 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 91
Dyn.

S110 Fowling Khety (17 UC) West wall, north Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
panel, register 7 Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 92
Dyn.

S111 Dogs Khety (17 UC) West wall, north Beni Late Kanawati & Evans, Beni
panel, lower Hassan 11th Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 92
section, left Dyn.

S112 Cattle in Khnumhotep I West pilaster of Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni
procession (14 UC) north wall, register Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 70
2

S113 Granary Khnumhotep I West pilaster Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni
(14 UC) of north wall, Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 70
registers 3-4

S114 Beasts of burden Khnumhotep I West pilaster of Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni
(14 UC) north wall, register Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 70
5

S115 Dogs Khnumhotep I North wall, west Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni
(14 UC) panel, register 1 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 71

S116 Fowling Khnumhotep I North wall, west Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni
(14 UC) panel, register 4 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 71

S117 Beasts of burden Khnumhotep I North wall, west Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni
(14 UC) panel, register 5 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 71

S118 Dogs Khnumhotep I North wall, east Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni 4.17
(14 UC) panel, register 1 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 72b

S119 Cattle in Khnumhotep I North wall, east Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni
procession (14 UC) panel, register 2 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 72b

S120 Fishing and Khnumhotep I North wall, east Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni
fowling (14 UC) panel, registers 4-5 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 72b

229
Preparing for Eternity

Catalogue Theme Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site Date Reference Figure
Number (Tomb Number) Number

S121 Offering-bearers Khnumhotep I East pilaster Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni
(14 UC) of north wall, Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 72a
registers 3-4

S122 Dogs Khnumhotep I East wall, registers Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni 6.9
Military (14 UC) 4-6 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pls. 73-74
Foreigners

S123 Offering-bearers Khnumhotep I South wall, east Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni
(14 UC) panel, registers 4-5 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 77a

S124 Cattle in Khnumhotep I South wall, east Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni
procession (14 UC) panel, register 6 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 77a

S125 Calving Khnumhotep I South wall, east Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni
Dogs (14 UC) panel, register 7 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 77a

S126 Offering-bearers Khnumhotep I Pilaster of south Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni
(14 UC) wall, registers 4-5 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 77b

S127 Slaughtering Khnumhotep I South wall, west Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni
(14 UC) panel, register 2 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 78

S128 Cattle in Khnumhotep I South wall, west Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni
procession (14 UC) panel, register 4 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 78

S129 Fishing and Khnumhotep I South wall, west Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni
fowling (14 UC) panel, registers 5-6 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 78

S130 Dogs Khnumhotep I South wall, west Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni
(14 UC) panel, left Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 78

S131 Boats Khnumhotep I West wall, south Beni 12th Lashien & Mourad, Beni
(14 UC) panel, register 3 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume V, pl. 67

S132 Offering-bearers Senbi I (B1) North wall, Meir 12th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
registers 1-2 Dyn. of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 78

S133 Fishing Senbi I (B1) North wall, Meir 12th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
register 3 Dyn. of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 79

S134 Land preparation Senbi I (B1) North wall, Meir 12th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery 2.1
register 4 Dyn. of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 79

S135 Carpentry Senbi I (B1) East wall, north Meir 12th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
panel, lower Dyn. of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 74b
section

S136 Offering-bearers Senbi I (B1) East wall, south Meir 12th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
panel, register 1 Dyn. of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 75

S137 Dogs Senbi I (B1) East wall, south Meir 12th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
panel, lower Dyn. of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 75
section

S138 Slaughtering Senbi I (B1) South wall, Meir 12th Kanawati & Evans,
Offering-bearers registers 1-2 Dyn. Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV,
Cattle in pls. 76-77
procession

S139 Slaughtering Senbi I (B1) South wall, Meir 12th Kanawati & Evans, 4.1, 4.16
Offering-bearers registers 3-4 Dyn. Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV,
Calving pls. 76-77
Cattle in
procession
Dogs

230
 Appendix 2 | Catalogue of Wall Scenes

Catalogue Theme Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site Date Reference Figure
Number (Tomb Number) Number

S140 Fishing and Ukh-hotep I (B2) North wall, Meir 12th Kanawati & Evans,
fowling registers 1-3 Dyn. Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV,
Offering-bearers pls. 89-92
Cattle in
procession
Dogs

S141 Beasts of burden Ukh-hotep I (B2) East wall, south Meir 12th Blackman, Rock Tombs of
panel Dyn. Meir. Part II, pl. 5.1

S142 Slaughtering Ukh-hotep I (B2) South wall, Meir 12th Kanawati & Evans, 4.11
Offering-bearers registers 2-3 Dyn. Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV,
Nursing pls. 85-86
Cattle in
procession

S143 Dogs Ukh-hotep I (B2) South wall, left Meir 12th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
Dyn. of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 84

S144 Offering-bearers Ukh-hotep I (B2) West wall, south Meir 12th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
panel, registers 1-2 Dyn. of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 88

S145 Offering-bearers Ukh-hotep I (B2) West wall, north Meir 12th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
panel, register 1-2 Dyn. of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 87

S146 Cattle in Ukh-hotep I (B2) West wall, north Meir 12th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
procession panel, register 3 Dyn. of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 87

S147 Offering-bearers Ukh-hotep I (B2) South and north Meir 12th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
jamb thicknesses Dyn. of Meir. Volume IV, pls. 94b,
of statue-recess, 95b
registers 1-3

S148 Slaughtering Ukh-hotep I (B2) West wall of Meir 12th Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery
statue-recess, Dyn. of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 96
registers 1-2

S149 Land preparation Djehuty-nakht East wall, registers Deir 12th Newberry & Griffith, El
(N-1 / R-21) 2-4 el- Dyn. Bersheh. Part II, pl. 8;
Bersha Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt,
pl. 108

S150 Cattle in Nekhti (21 UC) South wall, Beni 12th Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part
procession register 1 Hassan Dyn. II, pl. 22a

S151 Fishing and Nekhti (21 UC) South wall, Beni 12th Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part
fowling registers 3-4 Hassan Dyn. II, pl. 22a

S152 Dogs Nekhti (21 UC) South wall, left Beni 12th Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part
Hassan Dyn. II, pl. 22a

S153 Dogs Amenemhat (2 North wall, Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni
UC) register 1 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pls.
93-94

S154 Offering-bearers Amenemhat (2 North wall, Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni
UC) register 3 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pls.
93-94

S155 Nursing Amenemhat (2 North wall, Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni
Cattle in UC) registers 4-5 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pls.
procession 95-96

S156 Granary Amenemhat (2 North wall, Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 2.10
UC) register 6 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pls.
95-96

S157 Dogs Amenemhat (2 North wall, lower Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni
UC) section, right Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pl. 96

231
Preparing for Eternity

Catalogue Theme Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site Date Reference Figure
Number (Tomb Number) Number

S158 Boats Amenemhat (2 East wall, north Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 3.6, 6.2
Dogs UC) panel, registers 4-6 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pls. 43a,
Military 98

S159 Boats Amenemhat (2 East wall, south Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 3.7, 6.3
Military UC) panel, registers 4-6 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pls. 53b,
102

S160 Offering-bearers Amenemhat (2 South wall, east Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 3.15
UC) panel, registers 1-4 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pls. 56,
104

S161 Slaughtering Amenemhat (2 South wall, east Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 3.18
Offering-bearers UC) panel, registers 5-6 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pls.
Cattle in 105-106
procession

S162 Offering-bearers Amenemhat (2 South wall, west Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni
UC) panel, registers 1-4 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pl. 107

S163 Slaughtering Amenemhat (2 South wall, west Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 2.29
Offering-bearers UC) panel, registers 5-6 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pls. 73a,
Cattle in 108
procession

S164 Fishing and Amenemhat (2 West wall, south Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 2.36
fowling UC) panel, register 3 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pl. 89

S165 Bread-making Amenemhat (2 West wall, south Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 2.21
Brewing beer UC) panel, register 4 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pl. 90
Cooking meat

S166 Offering-bearers Amenemhat (2 West wall, south Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni
UC) panel, registers Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pl. 90
5-7, left

S167 Bread-making Amenemhat (2 West wall, south Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 2.17
UC) panel, registers Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pl. 90
5-6, right

S168 Cattle in Amenemhat (2 West wall, south Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 4.14
procession UC) panel, register 7, Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pl. 90
right

S169 Leatherwork Amenemhat (2 West wall, north Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 5.13
UC) panel, register 1 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pls. 21b,
91

S170 Carpentry Amenemhat (2 West wall, north Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 5.8
UC) panel, register 2 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pl. 91

S171 Beasts of burden Amenemhat (2 West wall, north Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni
UC) panel, register 6 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pl. 92

S172 Land preparation Amenemhat (2 West wall, north Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni
UC) panel, register 7 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pl. 92

S173 Offering-bearers Amenemhat (2 North wall of Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni
UC) shrine, registers Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pl. 109c
1-4

S174 Offering-bearers Amenemhat (2 South wall of Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni
UC) shrine, registers Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pl. 110a
1-4

S175 Offering-bearers Amenemhat (2 West wall of Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni
UC) shrine, south and Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume III, pls.
north panels, 109a-b
registers 1-4

232
 Appendix 2 | Catalogue of Wall Scenes

Catalogue Theme Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site Date Reference Figure
Number (Tomb Number) Number

S176 Calving Ukh-hotep II North wall of Meir 12th Blackman, Rock Tombs of 4.3
Nursing (B4) outer room, lower Dyn. Meir. Part III, pls. 3-4
Cattle in registers
procession

S177 Carpentry Ukh-hotep II East wall of outer Meir 12th Blackman, Rock Tombs of
Leatherwork (B4) room, lowest Dyn. Meir. Part III, pl. 5.2
register

S178 Fishing Ukh-hotep II South wall of Meir 12th Blackman, Rock Tombs of
(B4) outer room, east Dyn. Meir. Part III, pl. 8
panel, lowest
register

S179 Fishing Ukh-hotep II South wall of Meir 12th Blackman, Rock Tombs of
(B4) outer room, west Dyn. Meir. Part III, pl. 6
panel

S180 Offering-bearers Ukh-hotep II North wall of Meir 12th Blackman, Rock Tombs of
Cattle in (B4) exterior approach Dyn. Meir. Part III, pl. 13
procession to statue-recess

S181 Offering-bearers Ukh-hotep II South jamb of Meir 12th Blackman, Rock Tombs of
(B4) exterior approach Dyn. Meir. Part III, pl. 16.1
to statue-recess,
lower registers

S182 Offering-bearers Ukh-hotep II North wall of Meir 12th Blackman, Rock Tombs of
(B4) interior approach Dyn. Meir. Part III, pl. 17
to statue-recess,
registers 1-3

S183 Slaughtering Ukh-hotep II South wall of Meir 12th Blackman, Rock Tombs of
(B4) interior approach Dyn. Meir. Part III, pl. 16.2
to statue-recess,
lowest register

S184 Slaughtering Ukh-hotep II North wall of Meir 12th Blackman, Rock Tombs of
Offering-bearers (B4) inner room, Dyn. Meir. Part III, pls. 21-22
registers 1-5

S185 Roasting fowl Ukh-hotep II East wall of inner Meir 12th Blackman, Rock Tombs of 2.32
Cooking meat (B4) room, north panel, Dyn. Meir. Part III, pls. 23.1, 24.1,
Offering-bearers registers 1-5 31

S186 Slaughtering Ukh-hotep II East wall of inner Meir 12th Blackman, Rock Tombs of
Offering-bearers (B4) room, south panel, Dyn. Meir. Part III, pls. 23.2, 24.2
registers 3-6

S187 Slaughtering Ukh-hotep II South wall of Meir 12th Blackman, Rock Tombs of
Offering-bearers (B4) inner room, Dyn. Meir. Part III, pls. 25-26
registers 2-4

S188 Dogs Khnumhotep II North wall, Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 6.8, 6.10
Foreigners (3 UC) registers 1-3 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume I, pls. 123-
124

S189 Hand-feeding Khnumhotep II North wall, Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 2.25
cattle (3 UC) registers 4-6 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume I, pls. 53,
Fowling 125-126
Cattle in
procession

S190 Dogs Khnumhotep II North wall, lower Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni
(3 UC) section, right Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume I, pl. 127b

S191 Fishing Khnumhotep II East wall, north Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni
(3 UC) panel, register 2 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume I, pl. 131b

233
Preparing for Eternity

Catalogue Theme Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site Date Reference Figure
Number (Tomb Number) Number

S192 Fowling Khnumhotep II East wall, centre Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni
(3 UC) panel Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume I, pl. 133

S193 Offering-bearers Khnumhotep II South wall, Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni
Foreigners (3 UC) registers 1-3 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume I, pls. 91b,
138-39

S194 Slaughtering Khnumhotep II South wall, Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni
Cattle in (3 UC) registers 4-5 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume I, pls. 140b,
procession 141b

S195 Granary Khnumhotep II West wall, north Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 2.9
(3 UC) panel, register 1 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume I, pl. 117

S196 Beasts of burden Khnumhotep II West wall, north Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 3.23
(3 UC) panel, register 2 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume I, pls. 17a,
117

S197 Land preparation Khnumhotep II West wall, north Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 2.6
(3 UC) panel, register 3 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume I, pl. 118

S198 Boats Khnumhotep II West wall, north Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 3.5
(3 UC) panel, register 4 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume I, pl. 118

S199 Fishing Khnumhotep II West wall, north Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni
Cattle in (3 UC) panel, register 6 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume I, pl. 118
procession

S200 Carpentry Khnumhotep II West wall, south Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 5.9
(3 UC) panel, registers 1-2 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume I, pl. 120

S201 Boats Khnumhotep II West wall, south Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 3.2
(3 UC) panel, register 3 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume I, pl. 121

S202 Bread-making Khnumhotep II West wall, south Beni 12th Kanawati & Evans, Beni 2.15, 5.5
Brewing beer (3 UC) panel, register 4 Hassan Dyn. Hassan. Volume I, pl. 121
Spinning and
weaving

S203 Dogs Djehuty-hotep East wall of outer Deir 12th Newberry, El Bersheh. Part
(N-2 / R-20) room el- Dyn. I, pl. 7
Bersha

S204 Fishing and Djehuty-hotep North wall of Deir 12th Newberry, El Bersheh. Part
fowling (N-2 / R-20) inner room, el- Dyn. I, pl. 20
registers 1-2 Bersha

S205 Land preparation Djehuty-hotep East wall of inner Deir 12th Smith, “Paintings of the 2.5
(N-2 / R-20) room, register 1 el- Dyn. Egyptian Middle Kingdom”,
Bersha AJA 55.4, (1951), fig. 2

S206 Beasts of burden Djehuty-hotep East wall of inner Deir 12th Smith, “Paintings of the
(N-2 / R-20) room, register 2 el- Dyn. Egyptian Middle Kingdom”,
Bersha AJA 55.4, (1951), fig. 1

S207 Bread-making Djehuty-hotep East wall of inner Deir 12th Smith, “Paintings of the
Brewing beer (N-2 / R-20) room, register 3 el- Dyn. Egyptian Middle Kingdom”,
Bersha AJA 55.4, (1951), figs. 1-2

S208 Spinning and Djehuty-hotep East wall of inner Deir 12th Newberry, El Bersheh. Part 5.4
weaving (N-2 / R-20) room, registers 5-6 el- Dyn. I, pl. 26
Bersha

S209 Dogs Djehuty-hotep East wall of inner Deir 12th Newberry, El Bersheh. Part 6.5
Military (N-2 / R-20) room, register 7 el- Dyn. I, pl. 29; British Museum,
procession Bersha London: EA 1147

S210 Fishing and Djehuty-hotep West wall of inner Deir 12th Newberry, El Bersheh. Part
fowling (N-2 / R-20) room, south panel, el- Dyn. I, pl. 17
registers 5-7 Bersha

234
 Appendix 2 | Catalogue of Wall Scenes

Catalogue Theme Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site Date Reference Figure
Number (Tomb Number) Number

S211 Boats Djehuty-hotep West wall of inner Deir 12th Newberry, El Bersheh. Part
(N-2 / R-20) room, centre el- Dyn. I, pl. 18
panel, register 6 Bersha

S212 Cattle in Djehuty-hotep West wall of inner Deir 12th Newberry, El Bersheh. Part 4.7, 4.8
procession (N-2 / R-20) room, centre el- Dyn. I, pls. 17-18
panel, registers 7-9 Bersha

S213 Slaughtering Djehuty-hotep West wall of inner Deir 12th Newberry, El Bersheh. Part
Offering-bearers (N-2 / R-20) room, north panel, el- Dyn. I, pl. 12
registers 1-5 Bersha

S214 Dogs Djehuty-hotep West wall of inner Deir 12th Newberry, El Bersheh. Part
(N-2 / R-20) room, north panel, el- Dyn. I, pls. 12, 19
lower section Bersha

S215 Slaughtering Djehuty-hotep East wall of Deir 12th Newberry, El Bersheh. Part
Offering-bearers (N-2 / R-20) shrine, registers el- Dyn. I, pl. 34
1-5 Bersha

S216 Slaughtering Djehuty-hotep West wall of Deir 12th Newberry, El Bersheh. Part
Offering-bearers (N-2 / R-20) shrine, registers el- Dyn. I, pl. 32
1-5 Bersha

S217 Offering-bearers Ukh-hotep III North wall, Meir 12th Blackman & Apted, Rock 6.7
Cattle in (C1) registers 3-5 Dyn. Tombs of Meir. Part VI, pl.
procession 18
Foreigners

S218 Fishing Ukh-hotep III South wall, Meir 12th Blackman & Apted, Rock
Offering-bearers (C1) registers 3-5 Dyn. Tombs of Meir. Part VI, pl.
11

S219 Offering-bearers Ukh-hotep III North wall of Meir 12th Blackman & Apted, Rock
(C1) statue-recess, Dyn. Tombs of Meir. Part VI, pl.
registers 1-4 17

S220 Offering-bearers Ukh-hotep III South wall of Meir 12th Blackman & Apted, Rock
(C1) statue-recess, Dyn. Tombs of Meir. Part VI, pl.
registers 1-4 15

235
 Index

Ahanakht I (N-5) 54, 67, 110–11, 113–16, 118–19, 133, 226 Djehuty-nakht (N-1) 16, 18, 231
Akhet-hotep (Saqqara) 116, 119 Djehuty-nakht (N-10) 122, 129, 134, 227
Amenemhat (2 UC) 14, 18–19, 25–27, 31, 33–36, 38, Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) 3, 15, 18, 22–24, 26, 36, 39,
41–42, 44, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 63, 67–68, 72–73, 76, 44–47, 49, 62, 65–67, 72–73, 76–77, 79–80, 83, 86–
79–82, 84–86, 88, 91, 94, 96–98, 100–01, 103–06, 90, 93–94, 96–99, 101, 105, 123–25, 137–41, 143,
108, 110, 116, 118, 122, 127–31, 134, 138, 146–50, 146–50, 153, 157, 159–61, 163–64, 166, 181–82,
153–56, 159–64, 173, 177, 185, 231–32 188, 212–16
Amenemhat (K-21) 46–47, 49–50, 74, 80, 216 Djetinpet (800 LC) 152
Amenemhat II 4 dog 68, 90, 129–36, 180, 183
Amenemhat III 4 donkey 105–10, 115, 170, 180, 183
Amenhotep II 72
An-ankhy (L-15J67/1) 95, 125, 223 fish 65, 67–70, 91–92
Ankhmahor (Saqqara) 21, 153 fowl 1, 59–64, 66–67, 69–70, 92, 94, 97, 100–03, 180,
Ankhtifi (Mo’alla) 190 182
Asiatic 124, 161–62, 166–70
Gemni (Saqqara) 64
Baqet I (29 UC) 19, 55, 59, 62, 67, 103–04, 111–12, 114, Gemniemhat (Saqqara) 64, 137, 156, 180
128–31, 133, 159, 178, 225–26 governor 4, 7, 21, 72, 76, 93, 105, 137–38, 146, 159–60,
Baqet II (33 UC) 57, 60, 62–63, 66, 102, 131, 178, 226 164, 186–89
Baqet III (15 UC) 13, 15, 18–19, 22, 27, 32, 36–37, grain 7, 9–10, 13, 18, 21–22, 24–35, 37–40, 42, 44, 50,
39, 41, 45, 52, 57, 60, 62, 64–67, 83, 91, 97, 100, 57–58, 64, 89, 107, 109–10, 115, 170, 175, 178, 180,
103–04, 110, 116, 118–19, 122–23, 125, 127, 130–31, 182–85, 188, 191
133, 137, 139–42, 144, 146, 149, 153–56, 159–60, Gua (K-12) 51, 53–55, 58, 98, 100–01, 221
163–64, 173, 188, 227–28
Baqta (412 LC) 76, 218 Ha-itef-a (362 LC) 95, 212
basket 8, 18, 33, 65, 70, 94, 98, 100–01, 103, 105, Hathor 3, 102, 146, 168, 172, 181
108–09, 123, 168, 170 Hemre/Isi I (Deir el-Gebrawi) 42
beer 1, 10, 13, 32, 34, 37, 39–46, 57–58, 64–65, 89, 100, Henu (L-16H50/1C) 33, 38, 41, 80, 181, 210
103, 175, 180, 182–84 Hepi-kem (A4) 97–98, 100, 102, 210
bread 1, 13, 30–42, 44–46, 57–58, 64–65, 100, 103, 175, herdsman 39, 45–50, 93, 106, 108, 112–16, 118–20,
180, 182, 184 122–27, 129, 131–33, 135, 173, 180, 184–85
burial chamber 2, 21, 24, 30, 39, 53, 59, 65, 70, 73, 76, Hewetiaah (D2) 24, 30, 105, 178, 224
80, 83–84, 88, 91–93, 95, 97–98, 101–03, 105, 110,
112, 115, 118, 120, 125, 127–29, 136, 152–53, 164, Iha (N-8) 129, 227
172, 175–80, 182, 185–92 Imi (L-15I55/1) 93, 223
inscription 2, 4–5, 19, 25, 27–28, 34, 39, 43, 49–50, 53,
calf 14, 102, 111–19, 122, 127, 184 58–59, 76, 85, 91–93, 96–97, 100, 102–03, 105, 120,
caption see inscription 124, 128, 133, 144–45, 150, 156, 164, 170, 172, 177,
cattle 1, 13–16, 18, 39, 45–55, 57–59, 61, 63–64, 90, 92, 179–80, 184–86, 189, 191–92
101, 106, 111–12, 115–16, 118–29, 131, 173, 178–80, Intef (1 LC) 22, 24, 27, 32, 44, 72–73, 86, 94, 100, 125,
183–85, 187, 191 152, 211
coffin 7, 21–22, 46, 51, 71, 74, 76, 81, 83, 85–88, 90, 92, Inti 86, 219
104–05, 145, 150, 152, 177, 185, 188 Inti (Deshasha) 159, 163, 166
Inumin (Saqqara) 30
Daga (Thebes) 137 Ipi (481 LC) 13, 18–19, 64, 94, 108, 116, 118, 120, 135,
desert 1, 4, 71, 105, 130–35, 146, 166, 170, 179–80, 191 223
Djay (275 LC) 36, 40, 45–46, 48, 80, 97, 101, 153–54, Ipi (707 LC) 27–28, 31, 38, 42, 77, 100, 216
156, 181, 211 Ipi (Thebes) 69
Djedkare 177, 189–90 Iryt-hotep (188 LC) 73, 216
Djehuty-hotep 86, 220
Djehuty-hotep (N-2) 4, 18, 20–21, 34, 38, 43, 52–53, 55, Kagemni (Saqqara) 119, 135
66, 83, 91, 104–05, 110, 120–22, 130–31, 138–39, Karenen (Saqqara) 180–81
142, 144, 159, 164–65, 181, 234–35 Kayemankh (Giza) 177

237
Preparing for Eternity

Kayemheset (Saqqara) 159, 163, 166 Netjer-nakht (53 LC) 28, 211
Kayemnofret (Giza) 108 Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep (Saqqara) 119, 170
Kayemnofret (Saqqara) 46–47 Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) 13, 16–17, 30, 32–34, 36, 40–41,
Kay-henent 108, 216 43–44, 53, 58, 60–62, 64, 66, 73, 77, 79, 94, 96,
Kemsit (Thebes) 178 98–99, 101, 104, 106, 129, 182, 188, 190, 209–10
Khentika (Saqqara) 21 Nikau-inpu (Giza) 51, 185
Khety (17 UC) 15, 22–23, 31, 33, 51, 57, 60, 62–63, 66, Nikauisesi (Saqqara) 25, 49
68, 72, 76–77, 89–91, 98, 103–04, 108, 122–23, 125, Nubian 89, 160–62, 166, 168, 172–73
127, 130–31, 133–34, 137–41, 144–46, 149, 159–61, Nyuserre 189
163–65, 173, 228–29
Khety (366 LC) 24, 26–27, 31–33, 36, 38, 41, 44, 51–52, offering-table 50–51, 57–59, 64, 70, 92, 96–97, 100–05,
63, 79–80, 217–18 130–31, 135, 175, 177, 179
Khety-aa (575 LC) 24, 36, 42, 45, 54–55, 57–58, 65, official 3–4, 7, 19, 21, 25, 27–30, 38–39, 47, 50, 55,
68–70, 80, 95, 137, 141, 143–44, 218 90, 93, 96–98, 114, 122, 128–29, 144–45, 159, 166,
Khnumhotep (140 LC) 85, 217 170–71, 186–87, 189
Khnumhotep I (14 UC) 22, 27–28, 54, 66–67, 70, 83, overseer 3–4, 19, 28, 33, 38–39, 59, 67, 91, 95–97, 112,
85, 100, 103, 106, 108, 111–14, 127, 130–33, 135, 114–15, 129, 143–46, 160, 170, 183, 188
159–61, 164, 167, 170–73, 190, 229–30 ox see cattle
Khnumhotep II (3 UC) 1, 4, 13, 16, 18–20, 22, 24–25, 28,
32–34, 38–40, 44–50, 55, 59, 65–68, 73–76, 79, 81, Penu (Saqqara) 30
85–86, 92, 96, 105–06, 108–10, 123, 127–29, 131, Pepi (D1) 36, 40, 44, 52, 55, 64, 104, 224
135, 139–41, 143–46, 148–50, 167–72, 177, 190, Pepy II 3, 64, 178
233–34 Pepyankh the Black (A2) 16, 18, 21, 50–53, 55–56, 59–
Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) 22, 24, 36, 42, 60, 64–67, 70–73, 76, 79–80, 83–85, 88, 91, 94–96,
45, 51, 54, 76, 80, 84, 89, 95, 100–01, 103, 105, 218 100, 103–05, 108, 110, 120, 125–26, 128, 131, 133,
Khufu 90 135–36, 146, 148–51, 153, 156–57, 186, 224–25
king 3, 66, 72, 90–91, 93, 97, 137, 145, 159–60, 166–67, Pepyankh the Middle (D2) 3, 13–14, 16–18, 21, 24,
170, 188–90 30–31, 36–37, 43, 53, 55, 60, 62–66, 72, 77–80, 90,
93, 101, 105–08, 122, 127–28, 131, 133, 135, 186,
linen 7, 28, 30, 38, 68, 79, 83, 85, 95, 112, 114, 137–41, 223–24
143, 145, 152, 166, 168, 184, 191 pottery 21, 24, 28–31, 40, 71–72, 133, 156, 175, 180–81,
187–88
Ma (500 LC) 25, 28–29, 76, 79, 90, 221 priest 3, 28, 51, 85–87, 91–93, 96–99, 101–02, 104, 123,
marsh 65–67, 70–71, 91–92, 125, 127, 135, 149, 159, 129, 146, 153, 168, 172, 176, 188
161, 179, 191 Ptahshepses (Abusir) 135, 189
meat 10, 45–46, 50, 52–53, 55, 57–59, 62–64, 100, 103,
111, 128, 152, 156, 179 Ramushenti (27 UC) 57, 104, 131, 226
Mehu (Saqqara) 30 Rashepses (Saqqara) 177, 190
Meketre (Thebes) 3, 44, 53, 55, 62–63, 65–66, 68–71, 91, Re 90–91
120, 128, 137, 141, 148–50, 152, 180, 188–89 Re-hotepi and Kaayt 80, 89, 216
Meniu (E1) 32, 38, 43, 62, 223 Rekhmire (Thebes) 181
Mereruka (Saqqara) 30, 49, 94–95, 134 rope 16, 48, 54–55, 65–67, 108, 114, 116, 119, 125, 127
Mery-ra-ha-shetef (Sedment) 98 royal see king
Mesehti (Asyut) 159–61, 173
metal 55, 147, 149, 156, 170, 172, 180, 184 Sahure 66, 166
Montuhotep (Thebes) 186 sandal 103, 152–57, 166, 168, 179
Montuhotep II 93, 188, 190 Satmeket (R-10B) 72, 146, 216
mortuary cult 1, 9, 45, 53, 59, 69, 92, 96–97, 100–01, scribe 24, 27–29, 38–39, 83, 95–97, 128, 145, 186
104–05, 129, 176–77, 179, 182, 189, 192 Senbi 90, 212
Senbi I (B1) 13–14, 16, 51, 53–55, 57, 68, 101–02, 104,
Nakhti (Asyut) 2, 177 111–12, 114, 122–23, 128, 130–33, 135, 146, 149,
Nebet-het-hotep (774/775 LC) 29, 188, 222 159, 173, 230
Neferhotep (Thebes) 168 Senbu (487 LC) 40, 129–31, 133, 135, 220
Neferirtenef (Saqqara) 50 Senedjemib (Giza) 49
Nefery (116 LC) 22, 24–25, 31, 42–43, 100, 146, 217 Senedjemib-inti (Giza) 177, 190
Nefwa (186 LC) 22, 32, 45, 51, 55, 76, 83–84, 88–89, Seni (279 LC) 55, 221
100, 181, 217 Seni (Saqqara) 30
Nehri I (N-4) 13, 227 Senusret I 91, 93, 133
Nekhti (21 UC) 65, 127, 133, 231 Senusret II 4, 90, 170, 176
Nesutnefer (Giza) 166 Senusret III 4, 90, 93, 176

238
 Index

Sepi I (K-15) 90, 221

Sepi II (K-14 north) 83, 90–91, 221
Sepi III (K-14 south) 22, 25–28, 73, 88, 90, 221
serdab 2, 175–77, 180, 185–86
serving statuette 30, 175–77, 185–86
Seshathetep (Giza) 166
shabti 176
Shy (Saqqara) 30
Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) 18, 25, 27–28, 36, 40, 57, 73–74,
98, 164, 219
sun-god see Re

text see inscription

textile see linen
thread 7, 42, 54, 79–80, 102, 119, 125, 138–41, 143, 145,
148, 183–84
Thutmose III 72
Thutmose IV 176
Ti (Saqqara) 49
tomb 187 LC 30, 221
tomb 203 LC 18, 83, 211
tomb 394 LC 22, 212
tomb 420 LC 38, 41, 210
tomb 868 LC 71, 79, 83, 219
tomb L-16L25/1A 60, 90, 221
tomb-chapel 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 19, 21, 30, 40, 50, 52–53,
59, 65, 70, 76, 80, 84, 88, 90, 92–95, 97, 100–01,
104–05, 110, 118, 120, 124, 129–31, 134, 136, 146,
150, 152, 154, 164, 173, 175–77, 179–82, 185–88,
190–92
Tutankhamun 72

Ukh-hotep 72–73, 85–87, 185, 219

Ukh-hotep I (B2) 51–53, 65, 68, 94, 100, 102–04, 108,
116, 118, 122–25, 127–28, 131, 134, 149, 159, 173,
231
Ukh-hotep II (B4) 50, 58, 60–63, 67–68, 98, 101–04,
111–12, 114–16, 123–25, 146, 149, 153, 156, 233
Ukh-hotep III (C1) 4, 65, 90, 93, 102, 167, 169, 172, 235
Unis 177, 189–90
Useri and Aryt-hotep (181 LC) 167, 217

Wah-hotep 74, 80, 221

Wahi (El-Hagarsa) 103
Werirni (El-Sheikh Said) 108

239
BAR IN TERNAT IONA L SE RIE S 3070

‘I would consider this book a major contribution to the field of

Egyptology as it presents new research, new material and a unique
and comprehensive analysis of material rarely studied, providing
new interpretations of the topic. There is no doubt that this research
would be of immense value to Egyptologists worldwide. But it could
also be of interest to scholars of other early cultures, many of which
also include ritual or funerary models in their source material.’
Dr Ann McFarlane, Macquarie University

‘A thoroughly worthwhile piece of research. Interest in Middle

Kingdom wooden models has increased tremendously in recent
years. I would envisage this work to be in demand worldwide.’
Dr Angela Tooley, Independent Researcher

During the late Old Kingdom to the end of the Middle Kingdom, there were two
principal types of artistic representation in the ancient Egyptian elite tomb: funerary
models and wall scenes. The two media exhibit several similarities in design, with
both depicting people and animals engaged in activities of everyday life. This has
caused scholars to regularly label funerary models duplicates or substitutes of wall
scenes, implying that they served the same purpose in the tomb. However, there are
several notable differences yet to be acknowledged. This book conducts a detailed
comparative analysis of the two artistic media, focusing on representations from the
sites of Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan in Middle Egypt. The analysis highlights
the distinguishing characteristics of each medium and establishes a more precise
understanding of the role of funerary models in the tomb and their relationship
to wall scenes.

Georgia Barker is a researcher at Macquarie University, specialising in funerary art

of the ancient Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms. She obtained her PhD from
the same institution and has worked extensively with museum collections. She has
published several articles in peer-reviewed Egyptological journals and presented
papers at international conferences.

Printed in England