The symbolism of the number three in various forms of material culture in funerary architecture during the Old Kingdom

PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021, 46–78 The symbolism of the number three in various forms of material culture in funerary architecture during the Old Kingdom1 Leo Roeten† ABSTRACT In various expressions of material culture examples not only of the use the number three but also of sub‑ ‑units of three equal and mainly simple decorative themes employed in combination with another decorative theme can be observed. The conclusion of the study, which limits itself to the Old Kingdom, is that the most expressive example of the use of this sub ‑unit in architecture and decoration at first was to be found in the palace façade panelling on the exterior walls of early dynastic elite tombs. At the end of the First Dynasty this type of decoration disappeared almost completely from the exterior tomb walls, but this decorative theme continued to be used in some of the newly developed interior cruciform chapels. If the observation that the three types of niche used in the palace façade panelling can be directly linked with the false doors with one, two or three door jambs is combined with the chronological development of the number of those door jambs during the Old Kingdom, strong indications of aconnection between the palace façade panelling and the true false door can be found. While the one ‑jamb false door disappears from the chapel in the course of the Old Kingdom, the two ‑jamb false door continues in use. Apossible conclusion is that the original offering place in front of the panelled exterior wall is likely to have been aplain single or plain compound niche, and that the latter was, in aritual sense, the most important of the two. In the course of the Old Kingdom the three‑ ‑jamb false door is introduced, probably as aderivative of the great door niche, and this feature showed an increasing use during the rest of the Old Kingdom. KEYWORDS Old Kingdom– number symbolism– serekh– false door jambs– palace façade panelling– great kA door– tomb U ‑j– tomb Hor ‑Aha– architecture رصع للاخ ةيزئانجلا ةرامعلا ىف ةيداملا ةفاقثلا نم ةفلتخم لاكشأ للاخ نم ةثلاث مقرلا ةيزمر ةميدقلا ةلودلا نيتور ويل صخلم ةثلاثل ةيعرف تادحول ًاضيأ نكلو ،ةثلاث مقرلا مادختسا ىلع طقف سيل ةلثمأ ةظحلام نكمي ،ةيداملا ةفاقثلل ةفلتخملا تاريبعتلا للاخ تلصوتو .رخآ ىفرخز عوضوم عم بكرم لكشب اهمادختسا متي ثيح ،ىساسأ لكشب ةطيسبو ةيواستم ةيفرخز تاعوضوم ترهظ ىتلا ،ةيعرفلا ةدحولا هذه مادختسا نع ًاريبعت رثكلأا لاثملا نأ ىلإ ،ةميدقلا ةلودلا ىلع طقف رصتقت ىتلا ،ةساردلا كلت ناردجلاب هيلع رثعي ام ًامئاد ىذلا ىفرخزلا لكشلا وهو ،رصقلا ةهجاو ليثمت للاخ نم ةرم لولأ رهظ ،شوقنلاو ةرامعلاب لماكلاب ةفرخزلا نم عونلا اذه ًابيرقت ىفتخا ىلولأا ةرسلأا ةياهنبو .تارسلأا ةيادب ةبقحب ةلودلا ىفظوم رابك رباقمل ةيجراخلا 1 Iwould like to thank Mr. David Sexton (former literary editor, “Evening Standard”, London) for going over my English; of course, mistakes of any kind are entirely of my hand. This article is released posthumously with the family’sconsent. 47LEO ROETEN† أدب ىتلاو ،ىبيلصلا طيطختلا تاذ ةيلخادلا نيبارقلا ريصاقم ضعبب مادختسلاا ىف رمتسا هنأ لاإ ،ةيجراخلا رباقملا ناردج نم نكمي رصقلا ةهجاو ليثمت ىف ةمدختسملا تاشينلا نم ةثلاثلا عاونلأا نأ ىلإ ريشت ىتلا ةظحلاملا تناك اذإو .ًاثيدح اهدييشت باتعأ ددعل ىنمزلا روطتلا رابتعلاا ىف ذخلأا عم ،ةثلاثلا وأ نيبتعلا وأ دحاولا بتعلا تاذ ةيمهولا باوبلأاب ةرشابم اهطبر ىمهولا بابلاو رصقلا ةهجاو نيب ةلص دوجو ىلع ًايوق ًارشؤم نوكي كلذ نإف ،ةميدقلا ةلودلا دهع للاخ ةيمهولا باوبلأا بابلا مادختسا رمتسا ،ةميدقلا ةلودلا رصع للاخ نيبارقلا ريصاقم نم دحاولا بتعلا وذ ىمهولا بابلا ىفتخا امنيبف .ىقيقحلا رباقملل ىجراخلا رادجلا مامأ نابرقلا ميدقتل ىسيئرلا ناكملا نأ وه روطتلا اذهل لمتحملا جاتنتسلاا ىقبيو .نيبتعلا ىذ ىمهولا .ةيمهأ رثكأ ىسقطلا روظنملا نم ريخلأا ربتعيو ،ًابكرم وأ ًاديحو ًاشين نوكي نأ لمتحملا نم رصقلا ةهجاو ليثمتب فرخزملاو ،ريبكلا بابلا ىذ شينلا لاكشأ نم لكشك امبر ،ةميدقلا ةلودلا رصع للاخ ةرم لولأ ةثلاثلا باتعلأا ىذ ىمهولا بابلا دييشت مت .ةميدقلا ةلودلا رصع نم ةيقبتملا ةرتفلا للاخ دايدزلاا ىف روطتلا اذه ذخأ ثيح ةلادلا تاملكلا – U ‑J ةربقم – ةميظعلا اكلا باب – رصقلا ةهجاو رظانم – ةيمهولا باوبلأا باتعأ – خرس – ماقرلأا ةيزمر – ةميدقلا ةلودلا ةرامعلا – احع روح ةربقم Fig. 1 Three types of royal tombs in the necropolis of Giza (photo L. Roeten) 48 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 As in many cultures, in ancient Egyptian daily life several numbers played arole in sym‑ bolism and magic. Apart from the culture ‑pervading importance of the number “two”, so too did, to alesser extent, the number “three” play an important role: examples can be found in several areas of cultural expression:2 Examples in the material culture are not only the triads of gods (Wilkinson 1994: 131–133; Säve ‑Söderbergh 1977: 692),3 and those of Menkaure (IV.5),4 but also the triads and pseudo ‑groups of non ‑royal persons (Manuelian 2009). Further examples can be found in architecture (palace façade panelling). The number three also plays arole in the palace façade part of the serekh; arole which will be discussed later in this study together with the palace façade panelling in architecture. The symbolism of the number three was also present in non ‑material culture, of which examples are: ● The organization of the calendar (three seasons, the month of thirty days was divided in three weeks of ten days) (Traunecker 1980); ● An example in literature can be found in the fourth and the fifth story in Papyrus Westcar (P. Berlin 3033); in the story, it is told that Redjedet will give birth to three sons, who will later be kings.5 ● In mythology there is the example of Isis, Osiris and their child Horus, and in alater period also Mut, Amun and Khonsu, their child; Atum, the creator god, who was one and became three. Other examples in cultural expression can be cited, but the most prominent and extensive use of the number three is found in architecture where it is applied in certain aspects of funerary structures. Evidence of the use of the number in this field of cultural expression can be found from Early Dynastic times on. Some examples are: In Umm el ‑Qaab, the early dynastic necropolis of Abydos, the tomb of Hor ‑Aha (I.1) (B10, B13–B16 and B19) consists of three large individual pits accompanied by eleven rows of three smaller graves, which were in contact neither with each other nor with the burial chamber (Stadelmann 1991b: 373–374). An older example is tomb U ‑j in the same necropolis: there, as afirst building stage, three rows of three rooms were built against the burial chamber, all of them directly connected, alayout that can be interpreted as the facsimile of aresidence or palace (Dreyer 2011: figs. 14.2 and 14.3) (fig. 2). In the earliest tombs of the First Dynasty the subterranean rooms around the burial chamber were arranged in rows of three, alayout that was abandoned in the second part of the dynasty (tab.1). 2 The shared importance of the numbers two and three is visible in the pseudo ‑groups (Rzepka 1996: 335). 3 For the definition of material and non ‑material culture see https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study‑ ‑guides/sociology/culture ‑and ‑societies/material ‑and ‑nonmaterial ‑culture. Accessed on 14th August 2020. 4 The spelling of the name of kings is according to Verner (2008). 5 Although these stories were placed in the Fourth Dynasty, the stories in the papyrus were apparently written in the Twelfth Dynasty (Simpson 1982: 744), although some evidence can be found that the story has adegree of truth in it (Verner 2015). 49LEO ROETEN† In the substructure of the southern tomb in the funerary complex of Djoser (III.2) both sides of three (false) entrances into the eternal residence of the king were constructed (Roe‑ ten 2020: fig. 5.1). In later royal funerary architecture there were three types of tombs (the king’spyramid complex, the smaller queen’spyramid and the mastaba for lesser royalty) (fig.1). The number three knows alimited use in non ‑royal tombs; an example thereof can be found in the mastaba of Ptahshepses at Abusir (Porter– Moss– Málek 1994: 340–342), where, in adirect line with the main entrance, aroom without columns and with three niches in its western wall has been constructed (room 4) (Krejčí 2009: fig. 1.12). Another non ‑royal tomb with three niches (preceded by two rows of three columns) is that of Rashepses (date: V.L; Porter– Moss– Málek 1981: 494–496; Lepsius 1849–1859 Textband I: 166).6 As can be seen from these examples, the role of the number three in the funerary architec‑ ture is multifunctional, and is applied both in the internal and external design of the tombs. An example dated to the Predynastic Period is the already mentioned tomb U ‑j at Abydos (fig.2). The original tomb consisted of the rooms 1 to 10, and is probably afacsimile of the palace of alocal ruler; in this interpretation, the largest subsidiary room (room 6) can be seen as an open ‑ ‑air space with the other rooms lying around it. Rooms 11 and 12 are additions of alater date. Room 1 is probably the burial chamber because traces of awooden coffin have been found in it, and the nine rooms to the east of the burial chamber not only are comparable with the model buildings at the northern side of tomb S3357, but can also be seen as aprecursor of the later tomb of Hor ‑Aha (I.1) (Abydos B10, B13–B16, B19). 6 Lepsius (1849–1859 Ergänzungsband: Bl. XLII) shows the decoration around the middle ‑niche; the offering bearers are directed toward that niche, which indicates that this was the main niche possibly with astatue standing in it. Fig. 2 Plan of tomb U‑j at Abydos (drawing L. Roeten, schematically after Dreyer 1993: fig. 4) 50 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 In tomb U ‑j the open air space is surrounded by four combinations of three rooms (2–4, 4–10, 8– 10 and 2–8). If room 1 is combined with rooms 2 to 10, interpreted as three rows of three rooms (2–8, 3–9 and 4–10), the resemblance with the tomb of Hor ‑Aha is evident. An example of somewhat later date is tomb S3357 at Saqqara; this tomb has, north of the main superstructure, asubsidiary construction (“model ‑estate”) in which three lines of dummy buildings can be distinguished, two of them consisting of three buildings while the line in the middle is formed by two buildings (Emery 1991: fig.17; Emery 1954: pls. LVII– LXVI; fig. 3 here). Due to the presence of three round forms that are most likely grain silos, the most southern of the “rooms” in the middle line can be interpreted as an open ‑air space, just like “room” 6 in tomb U ‑j. Based on the consideration that the corridors in the east and west building were not meant as entrances (Emery 1954: pls. LXIII and LXV), that the west building is shorter than the east building, and that the subsidiary construction is placed close to the northern side of the mastaba, it can be concluded that an opening directed to the west has been formed, which gives access to an open space in front of the northern wall of the superstructure. The open space can be interpreted as achapel on the northern side of the mastaba (Sta‑ delmann 1991a: 29). Remnants of this chapel design can still be seen in the chapel against the northern side of the pyramid in the funerary complex of Djoser at Saqqara.7 The direction of the opening to the west instead of to the east is possibly caused by amore difficult approach from the east side, due to the proximity of the escarpment. 7 Google maps: https://www.google.fr/maps/@29.8832366,31.219424,150 m/data=!3m1!1e3. Accessed on 14th August 2020. For adiscussion of the place of the model ‑estate in relation to the tomb itself see S. Williams (http://www.digitalsaqqara.co.uk/main/the ‑boat ‑grave ‑and ‑model ‑estate ‑of ‑tomb‑ ‑s3357/ Accessed on 14th August 2020.). Fig. 3 Plan of the model building north of the mastaba S 3357 (Porter Moss 1981: 443–444, date: tempora‑ ry Hor‑Aha [I.1]) (drawing L. Roeten, schematically after Emery 1991: fig. 17) 51LEO ROETEN† Tomb complex B10/15/19 at Abydos, which is described as belonging to the tomb of Hor‑ ‑Aha (I.1), is in fact made up of three parts. The tomb has agroup of 34 subsidiary graves, but the most important part of the tomb is the group of three large rectangular pits of which B10 is interpreted as the oldest (Kaiser − Dreyer 1982: 219). In alater stage of the construction two more pits of equal dimensions were added at the south ‑western side of B10. The final situation was agroup composed of one burial chamber with two major maga‑ zines (which is comparable with tomb U ‑j after the second building phase). The second group consists of two tombs B13/14, which, based on their place next to the original burial chamber, could be queen’stombs (Reisner 1936: 39). The third group is acollection of small pits of nearly equal dimensions which are laid out in eleven rows of three following the line of the three main rooms. Although it is beyond the scope of this study to go further into the question of their purpose, in the light of the development of the employment of subsidiary graves in this necropolis, it is very likely that we are dealing with an early form of this type of burial. The extensive use of the number three during the Early Dynastic Period can be clearly seen in the development of the mastabas on the escarpment of the northern part of the Saqqara necropolis. In these mastabas, apart from the decoration with apalace façade panelling com‑ posed of aform of the unit (see fig. 4), originally the magazines in the structure of the tomb were lined in rows of three. This design still had some similarities with those of tomb U ‑j and the tomb of Hor ‑Aha (B10, B15, B19 and subsidiary tombs) in Abydos, but during the reign of Den (I.5) this preference was abandoned and amore varied type of magazine layout was introduced.8 8 Apart from this change, the long reign of Den (I.5) saw several other architectonic changes: his tomb in the necropolis of Abydos is the first with astaircase leading to the burial chamber; it is the first to have achapel with aserdab and possibly an offering place (see Stadelmann 1991b: 376). Date King 3‑row structure Partial 3‑row structure Random structure I.1 Hor‑Aha S 3357   I.2     I.3 Djer S 3471    Djer S 2185   I.4 Djet S 3504    Djet S 3503   I.5 Den S 3507    Den  S 3035   Den   S 3036  Den   S 3506 I.6 Adjib   S 3038  Adjib   S 3111  Adjib   X  Adjib   S 3338 I.7     I.8 Qaa   S 3500 Qaa   S 2105 Qaa   S 3505 Tab. 1 The change in magazine lay‑out during the First Dynasty 52 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 THE UNIT IN (FUNERARY) ARCHITECTURE The niches that were used for decorative purposes in architecture were the plain single and the plain compound niche (fig. 4). These basic decorative elements could be combined in units of three (“the basic unit” in fig. 4). Fig. 4 The two types of niches and an example of a possible combination of two of them. 1 = Plain single niches (Tomb MO1, Abu Rawash; Clark 2016: Fig. 158); 2 = Plain compound niches (Harpur 2001: Fig. 48); 3 = Palace façade panelling of plain singles niches; 4 = Palace façade panelling of plain compound niches; 5 = Great kA door niche (Reisner 1936: Fig. 141); 6 = Great door niche flanked by palace façade panelling (Tomb QS 2405, Saqqara) (drawing L. Roeten) 53LEO ROETEN† This type of unit was not only employed in exterior funerary architecture, it was also occasionally used in the substructure of funerary complexes like that of Djoser (III.2), and in alater period on the walls of the burial chamber of the Pyramid of Unas (V.9).9 In fig. 4 two basic units, here composed of plain compound niches, are combined with another type of decorative theme (in fig. 4 the great kA door), thus forming acomposite of three elements (the unit). During the protodynastic and the Early Dynastic Period, this unit could be found on the exterior walls of tombs in the form of the palace façade panelling (an early example being the tomb of Neithhotep at Nagada which is dated to the first part of the First Dynasty). At the end of the Early Dynastic Period this form of exterior wall decoration almost completely disappeared there (Reisner 1934: 580; chart 1 here), only to reappear later in the interior of some cruciform chapels, where this type of panelling first came into use as afacsimile of the palace façade panelling of the exterior eastern wall of the mastaba (Reisner 1936: 263). Later this decoration was introduced as the serekh false door (Reisner 1936: fig. 169; Borchardt 1937: Bl. 8),10 which could, combined with one or more true false doors, also be part of the decoration of the western wall of the chapel (Borchardt 1937: Bl. 9; Junker 1944: Abb. 69, Bl. XXXVa). THE PALACE FAÇADE PANELLING This type of exterior wall design has already been found on the walls of tombs that can be dated to Dynasty 0 (= Nagada III = protodynastic) (Clark 2016: 380). It has also been found on funerary constructions that can be dated to the Early Dynastic Period such as the First Dynasty tombs on the escarpment of Saqqara and the Shunet el ‑Zebib (end Second Dynasty) at Abydos (Kemp 1991: pl. 2). Asomewhat later example is the decoration on the southern (!) exterior wall of the tomb of queen Khentkaus (LG 100, Fourth Dynasty; Porter– Moss– Málek 1994: 288–289), adecoration which is acombination of aplain compound niche with three plain single niches at both sides (Lehner– Hawass 2017: photo on p.285). The tomb of Ne‑ fermaat (date: IV.1; Porter – Moss 1968: 92–93) at Meydum had apalace façade panelling of type 4 in fig. 4 (Harpur 2001: fig. 48). Of amuch later date is the decoration of the eastern façade of the rock ‑cut tomb of Kai (date: V.E–V.M; Porter– Moss– Málek 1994: 277; Hassan 1941: pl. XII), and of the mastaba of Iteti (date: V.L; Porter– Moss– Málek 1994: 193 and plan XXX; Curto 1963: pls. Vand VI). The palace façade panelling on the exterior walls was frequently employed until the end of the Second Dynasty, from which period on its use became less frequent, finally falling all but completely out of use from the Fourth Dynasty on (fig. 4). 11 During the reign of Khasekhemwy 9 https://www.google.com/search?q=burial+chamber+pyramid+unas & tbm=isch & source=univ & sa=X & ved=2ahUKEwjdqJOjs ‑fmAhXa8OAKHSdcCPoQsAR6BAgFEAE & biw=1024 & bih=697 #imgrc=IRs1U2dYACNyMM. Accessed on 14th August 2020. 10 George Andrew Reisner (1942: 380) proposes that the unit is the decorative composite that was later introduced in the chapel in the form of the serekh false door. 11 Further in this section it can be observed that the palace façade panelling was used in royal funerary architecture. 54 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 (II.10) the exterior chapel was “drawn” into the body of the mastaba in the form of acruciform chapel, while the exterior continued in use, but now in aroofed ‑over form.12 Examples of the use of the decoration theme on interior walls can be divided into royal and non ‑royal: An early use of the decoration theme is in the chapel of the tomb of Hesire (tomb QS 2405; date: III.E; Porter– Moss– Málek 1981: 437–439; Quibell 1913: pl. 1);13 of asomewhat later date is the decoration of the western wall of the cruciform chapels of Khabausokar and his wife Neferhotephathor (S3073, date: III.M–IV.E; Porter– Moss– Málek 1981: 449–450; Reisner 1936: Figs. 158, 162). Alate use can be observed in the following royal funerary constructions: 1. In the temple of the queen’spyramid III ‑anext to the pyramid of Menkaure (IV.5) two types of palace façade panelling have been used. The basic decoration of the northern and southern walls of the court (room 1) consisted of aunit composed of two basic units of plain single niches flanking aplain compound niche. The western wall of the ante‑ chamber of the T ‑form room (room 9) was decorated with one unit of type no. 6 of fig. 4 (Reisner 1931: plans IV and V). The same type of unit is used in the chapel of the temple of queen’spyramid III ‑c (room 6), while in the courtyard (room 3) the same unit has been placed as in room 1 of pyramid III ‑a(Reisner 1931: plan VI). 2. The walls of the courtyard of the valley temple of Menkaure (IV.5) are decorated with apalace façade panelling consisting of acombination of two basic units of plain single niches flanking aplain compound niche (Reisner 1931: plan VIII). The above mentioned panelling is due to the use of mud ‑brick because the complex was hur‑ riedly completed by his successor. The western wall of the antechamber in the queen’spyramid III ‑ais identical with the same wall of the antechamber in the chapels of Hesire and Khabausokar, indicating acontinuation of aconditional use of the decoration theme until late in the Fourth Dynasty (Quibell 1913: pl.I; Reisner 1936: fig. 158).14 From the early Third Dynasty royal funerary architecture was carried out in stone, while the non ‑royal funerary constructions continued to be built in mud brick. The consequence of this adoption of stone for royal architecture was that the palace façade panelling had to be em ‑ ployed in asimplified form (e.g. the enclosure walls of the funerary complexes of Djoser [III.2] and Sekhemkhet [III.3]) while in non ‑royal tombs the mud brick architecture, which could give rise to more complicated forms, remained in use. From the start of the Fourth Dynasty stone architecture was also employed in the construction of the non ‑royal mastabas around the pyramid of Khufu (IV.2). The consequence was that there too the interior and exterior palace façade panelling fell into disuse, although some remnants of the old tradition can still be encountered (asimplified and unfinished palace façade panelling on the eastern wall of mastaba G 5080, Seshemnefer II, date: V.6; Porter– Moss– Málek 1994: 146–148); the decoration of the western wall of the chapel in the tomb of Kaemheset (date: V(?); Porter– Moss– Málek 12 Both developments were clearly meant to protect decoration placed on the walls of the chapel. 13 This chapel can be interpreted as acruciform chapel of the palace façade type with an extended western wall. Reisner (1934: 581) claims that the palace façade panelling in the chapel of this tomb is the result of aseries of reconstructions, and is too early to be part of the development of the cruciform chapel with palace façade panelling. 14 It has to be remarked that all three funerary structures are made of mud brick. 61LEO ROETEN† 4. If afalse door is surrounded by atorus moulding and acavetto cornice and the whole is taken up in aportico of two jambs and an architrave with texts, then only the part within the torus moulding is interpreted as the false door (Junker 1950: Abb. 40). 5. Aserekh false door is not included because it is not considered as afalse door in the sense of this part of the study. 6. If the tomb is rock ‑cut the surface of the inner rooms will be stated; the values given by Peter Jánosi (2005: 457, table M) will be used when available. 7. Tombs that are dated V–VI or the equivalents of the “Vor later”, are not included in the catalogues; neither are false doors of which the origin is unknown or uncertain. Adate “V.M or later” is included in the catalogue with the date “V.M ‑V.L”. 8. If the false door is monolithic and has been placed somewhat deeper in the wall, the part of the wall right next to the false door is counted as ajamb (Reisner 1942: fig. 198). The number of door jambs depends on the way the false door has been constructed (Reisner 1942: 372). 9. Due to the excavation history of the necropolis of Saqqara, for alarge number of tombs the surface of the monument could not be determined or was not given in the excavation reports. THE CHRONOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NUMBER OF JAMBS The time periods in the catalogue for Giza and Saqqara (tab.2 and 3) are taken as dynasties IV, V.E, V.M, V.L, VI.E and VI.L. The number of doors per group is expressed as apercentage of the total number of items in the period.32 32 If atomb has two types of false door, the tomb is counted twice in the total. For period IV in tab. 2 the calculation is as follows: the number of tombs in the period is 16 (+ 1 for Nefer) = 17, the number of tombs with aone ‑jamb false door is 7, thus giving 41%. Fig. 7 The niches used in palace façade panelling and the false doors derived from them (drawing L. Roeten) 62 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 Dynasty Name Porter – Moss – Málek 1994 Surface (m²) No. Jambs Date IV Hemiunu 122–123 1424 2 IV.E IV Wepemnefert 57 994 1 IV.E IV Khentka 74–75 546 1 IV.E IV Nefertyabt 59–60 493 2 IV.M IV Jabtet 134 212 2 IV.M/L IV Wonshet 139 260 2 IV.M/L IV Seshatsekhentiu 74 450 1 IV.M/L IV Nefer 72–74 357 1,2 IV.M/L IV Akhi 137 216 2 IV.L IV G 2140 77 241 1 IV.L IV G 2220 83 1265 1 IV.L IV G 4430 128 235 2 IV.L IV Nebemakhet 230–232 89 2 IV.L IV Khufukhaef 188–190 476 2 IV IV Meresankh [III] 197–199 64 1 IV IV Harzedef 191 612 2 IV V.E Merib 71–72 308 1 IV.L‑V.E V.E Nensezerkai 72 138 1 IV.L‑V.E V.E Kaunesut 274–275 314 2 IV.L‑V.E V.E Bunufer 256 52 1 IV.L‑V.E V.E Sekemkare 233–234 56 2 IV.L‑V.E V.E Rekhetre 249–250 364 1 IV.L‑V.E V.E Person 48–49 ‑‑‑ 1 V.E V.E Seshethotep 149–150 325 1 V.E V.E Seshemnefer [I] 142–143 435 2 V.E V.E Kanefer 77–78 241 2 V.E V.E Kanenesut [I] 78–79 247 1 V.E V.E Kapunesut (Kai) 135 65 1 V.E V.M Nesutnefer 143–144 38 1 V.E‑V.M V.M Thenti 141–142 ‑‑‑ 1 V.E‑V.M V.M Pehenptah 158 207 2 V.M V.M Ptahsezefa 285 97 1 V.M‑V.L V.M Neferbauptah 169–170 294 2 V.M‑V.L V.M Wepemnefert 281–282 475 2 V.M‑V.L V.M Nefer 258–259 ‑‑‑ 2 V.M‑V.L 63LEO ROETEN† Dynasty Name Porter – Moss – Málek 1994 Surface (m²) No. Jambs Date V.M Nikauhor 236–237 76 3 V.M‑V.L V.M Itisen 252–253 239 2 V.M‑V.L V.M Inkaf 248 190 1 V.M‑V.L V.M Nekhetka 240 216 1 V.M‑V.L V.M Nikauhor 236–237 ‑‑‑ 3 V.M‑V.L V.L Seshemnefer [III] 153–154 302 1 V.L V.L Sethu 135–136 ‑‑‑ 1 V.L V.L Rawer [II] 162–163 109 2 V.L V.L Khenit 162 36 3 V.L V.L Mersuankh 269–270 19 2 V.L V.L Nimaatre 282–284 99 2, 3 V.L V.L Khuwiwer 254–256 87 3 V.L V.L Khufuankh 129–130 226 2 V.L V.L Penmeru 82–83 ‑‑‑ 2 V.L V.L Senedjemib Mehi 87–89 ‑‑‑ 3 V.L V.L Neferhotep 286–287 ‑‑‑ 2 V.L V.L Neferwent 269 36 2 V V.L Washdua 288 ‑‑‑ 2 V V.L Duare 287–288 ‑‑‑ 2 V V.L Nefertnesut 281 44 2 V V.L Nikauhathor 247 171 2 V V.L Kakhernesut 271 ‑‑‑ 2 V V.L Kednas 281 27 1 V V.L Thesti 257 15 1 V V.L Kameni 260 95 1 V V.L Niankhhathor 286 25 2 V VI.E Nefer [I] 137–138 44 2 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Niuty 133 109 2, 3 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Nikaukhnum 118 56 2 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Sedaug 52–53 37 1 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Sehotpu 222 105 3 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Niankhre 223 123 2 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Seshemnefer [IV] 223–226 ‑‑‑ 2 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Akhtihotep 284 ‑‑‑ 2 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Ireru 280 84 2 V.L‑VI.E 64 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 Dynasty Name Porter – Moss – Málek 1994 Surface (m²) No. Jambs Date VI.E Shepseskafankh 272 33 2 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Sekhemankhptah 272 6 1, 2 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Washptah 280 174 2 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Kajhersetef 262 120 2 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Ankhemsaf 246 20 2 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Khent 279 16 2 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Kar 251 22 2 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Idu [I] 165 114 2 VI.E VI.E Kajherptah 166–167 141 3 VI.E VI.L Seneb 101–103 52 2 VI.L VI.L Kahif 76 54 2 VI.L VI.L Djednefert 77 8 3 VI.L VI.L Ity 134 134 3 VI.L VI.L Idu 185–186 ‑‑‑ 2 VI.L VI Ihy 159 ‑‑‑ 2 VI VI Hetepheres 227–228 ‑‑‑ 2 VI VI Kaemankh 131–133 60 1 VI VI Itjuw 103 100 1 VI VI Njankhhathor 118 57 3 VI VI Hetepheres 227–228 16 2 VI VI Ptahhotep 228 94 3 VI VI Khnemu 121 20 2 VI VI Rawer 265 8 2 VI VI Dag 271 40 1, 2 VI VI Minu 140 28 3 VI VI Kenkas [II] 152 32 2 VI VI Setka 160–161 193 2 VI VI Ptahhotep 160–161 114 3 VI VI Seshemu 260 56 2 VI VI Kadebhen 276–277 75 2 VI VI Khnumhotep 164–165 43 3 VI VI Irenptah 250–251 41 2 VI VI Ity 167 149 2 VI VI Menhebu 168 90 2 VI VI Khuy 120 29 2 VI 65LEO ROETEN† Dynasty Name Porter – Moss – Málek 1994 Surface (m²) No. Jambs Date VI Shepsesakhti 260 17 2 VI VI Khesef [I] 106 68 1 VI VI Ankhhaf 257 ‑‑‑ 2 VI VI Seshemu 260 57 2 VI VI Nisankhakhti 258 52 3 VI VI Ankhtef 275 54 2 VI VI Nisusankh 220 93 2 VI VI Semaankh 251 64 2 VI VI Heneni 222 76 2 VI VI Khenu 261 27 2 VI VI Thereru 278 15 1 VI VI Remenuka 261 9 2 VI VI Njankhkhnum 247–248 35 2 VI VI Ity 258 5 1 VI VI Ifi 250 5 2 VI VI Seshemnefer 238–239 ‑‑‑ 3 VI Dynasty Name Porter – Moss – Málek 1981 Surface (m²) No. Jambs Date IV Thenti 482 ‑‑‑ 1 IV.M‑IV.L IV Werkaptah 491 ‑‑‑ 2 IV.M‑IV.L IV Shery 490 ‑‑‑ 1 IV V.E Jjzefa 579 ‑‑‑ 2 V.E V.E Person 577–578 ‑‑‑ 2 V.E V.E Niankhsekhmet 482–483 ‑‑‑ 3 V.E V.E Washptah 456 ‑‑‑ 2 V.E V.M Ti 450 ‑‑‑ 1 V.E‑V.M V.M Nenkheftka 580 ‑‑‑ 2 V.E‑V.M V.M Senenuankh 582 ‑‑‑ 1 V.E‑V.M V.M Senezemib 451 ‑‑‑ 1 V.M V.M Tepemankh [II] 483–484 ‑‑‑ 2 V.M V.M Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep 641–644 ‑‑‑ 1 V.M V.M Kaemnefert 467–468 ‑‑‑ 2 V.M V.M Raneferefankh 585 ‑‑‑ 2 V.M Tab. 2 Giza: number of false door jambs 66 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 Dynasty Name Porter – Moss – Málek 1981 Surface (m²) No. Jambs Date V.M Nikaure 581 ‑‑‑ 2 V.M V.M Ty 468–479 1169 2 V.M V.M Hemmin 483 ‑‑‑ 2 V.M V.M Ptahshepses 464 800 2 V.M‑V.L V.M Ptahuser 456 ‑‑‑ 3 V.M‑V.L V.M Ptahhotep 462–463 ‑‑‑ 2 V.M‑V.L V.M Kai 479 569 2 V.M‑V.L V.M Zefau 466 ‑‑‑ 2 V.M‑V.L V.M Sekhemankhptah 454–455 ‑‑‑ 2 V.M‑V.L V.M Khabauptah 453–454 85 2 V.M‑V.L V.M Nufer, Kaha 639–641 ‑‑‑ 2 V.M‑V.L V.M Nekhtsas 689 ‑‑‑ 2 V.M‑V.L V.L Neteruser 485 ‑‑‑ 2 V.L V.L Ankhmaka 481 ‑‑‑ 2 V.L V.L Ptahhotep [I] 596–598 376 3 V.L V.L Ptahhotep [II] 600–605 478 2 V.L V.L Sehetepu [II] ‑‑‑ ‑‑‑ 2 V.L V.L Meresankh 488 ‑‑‑ 2 V.L V.L Isesiankh 489 ‑‑‑ 2 V.L V.L Kapure 455 ‑‑‑ 3 V.L V.L Ankhmare 455 ‑‑‑ 2 V.L V.L Kaiemsenu ‑‑‑ ‑‑‑ 1, 2 V.L V.L Khamererptah 481 ‑‑‑ 3 V VI.E Remeryptah 465 ‑‑‑ 2 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Ankhkakai 458 ‑‑‑ 2 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Snefrunufer [II] 468 ‑‑‑ 2 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Sopduhotep 481–482 259 1 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Irukaptah 639 ‑‑‑ 1 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Sekhemka 465 239 2 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Tepemankh [I] 483 ‑‑‑ 2 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Seshemnefer 595 ‑‑‑ 3 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Manufer 575–577 ‑‑‑ 2 V.L‑VI.E VI.E Mereruka 525–534 690 3 VI.E VI.E Rawer 558 30 2 VI.E VI.E Neferseshemptah 515–516 ‑‑‑ 2 VI.E 67LEO ROETEN† Dynasty Name Porter – Moss – Málek 1981 Surface (m²) No. Jambs Date VI.E Neferseshemre ‑‑‑ 663 3 VI.E VI.E Inumin ‑‑‑ 138 3 VI.E VI.E Hesi ‑‑‑ 119 3 VI.E VI.E Seankhuiptah ‑‑‑ 34 2 VI.E VI.E Merefnebef ‑‑‑ ‑‑‑ 2 VI.E VI.E Sabu 463 ‑‑‑ 3 VI.E VI.E Hefi ‑‑‑ ‑‑‑ 3 VI.E VI.E Sabu (Ibebi) 460 219 3 VI.E VI.E Kagemni 521–525 981 3 VI.E VI.E Mehu 619–622 512 3 VI.E VI.E Mereri 518–519 ‑‑‑ 2 VI.E VI.E Iy 624 ‑‑‑ 3 VI.E VI.E Neferseshemre 511–512 ‑‑‑ 3 VI.E VI.E Meryreankh 586 ‑‑‑ 3 VI.E‑VI.M VI.E Nenkheftka 580–581 ‑‑‑ 2 VI.E‑VI.L VI.L Manufer 456–457 ‑‑‑ 2 VI.L VI.L Ishfi 513 ‑‑‑ 2 VI.L VI.L Akhtihotep 633–634 ‑‑‑ 2 VI.L VI.L Kapuinpu 579–580 ‑‑‑ 2 VI.L VI.L Nihebsedneferkare 683 ‑‑‑ 2 VI.L VI.L Teti 684 ‑‑‑ 2 VI.L VI.L Hermeru 626 ‑‑‑ 3 VI.L VI.L Iyenhor 630 ‑‑‑ 3 VI.L VI.L Niankhpepy 630 ‑‑‑ 3 VI.L VI.L Nyankhnefertem ‑‑‑ 85 2, 3 VI.L VI.L Wernu ‑‑‑ ‑‑‑ 2 VI.L VI Iput 396–397 ‑‑‑ 2 VI VI Semdent 520–521 ‑‑‑ 3 VI VI Neferseshemptah 453 ‑‑‑ 2 VI VI Kednas 456 ‑‑‑ 2 VI VI Neferseshemseshet 585–586 ‑‑‑ 2 VI VI Kapuinpu 586 ‑‑‑ 3 VI VI Neferseshemseshet 585–586 ‑‑‑ 2 VI VI Serefka 307 ‑‑‑ 2 VI Tab. 3 Saqqara: number of false doors jambs 68 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 Chart 2 The chronological development of the one‑ and three‑jamb false doors in Giza Chart 3 The chronological development of the one‑ and three‑jamb false doors in Saqqara 69LEO ROETEN† For the one ‑jamb and three ‑jamb false door the results are given in charts 2 and 3. 33 Within the limits of quality of manufacture and dimensions, athree ‑jamb false door can be considered to be more expensive on average than an one ‑jamb door. In light of the hypothesized decreas‑ ing economic power during the later part of the Old Kingdom, which is based on aconstant decrease of the surface of the tombs in the necropoleis of Memphis (Roeten 2016: fig. 132), at first the three ‑jamb false door would be the leading type, later to be replaced by the two ‑jamb door and after that by the one ‑jamb door. Such an inference, however, is contradicted by the curves in both diagrams. This means that the chronological increase of the number of jambs must have originated from acause other than an economic one. The result for the two ‑jamb false doors in the necropoleis of Giza and Saqqara is more complex because the measuring points obtained in chart 4 are placed rather irregularly, and although the linear lines that can be calculated from these measuring points both show aslightly increasing tendency, the difference in increase between them is too small, and based upon points that are too variable to be able to draw conclusions from them. In chart 5 the chronological developments of the palace façade panelling, and the number of door jambs as given in charts 1 (here the mean of the values for the three different niches has been used), 2, 3 and 4 (in the latter the mean of the values for Giza and Saqqara that are given in the diagram has been calculated and placed in the diagram of chart 5) are gathered. 33 Strudwick (1985: 15–18) gives abrief overview of various chronological developments on the jambs, one of them being their number. Chart 4 The chronological development of the two‑jamb false doors in Giza and Saqqara 70 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 From this figure it can be deduced that during the disappearance of the palace façade on the exterior tomb walls the one ‑jamb and two ‑jamb false doors were already developed. This is in contrast to the three ‑jamb false door which is introduced after the disappearance of the palace façade panelling. The almost simultaneous disappearance of the one ‑jamb false door may be connected with this introduction. The observation that both the one ‑jamb false door and the two ‑jamb false door were in use from the period that the palace façade panelling disappears from the exterior walls of the mastaba shows that these types of false doors can be interpreted as the successors of the original palace façade panelling. The continuous use of the two ‑jamb false door in contrast to that of the one ‑jamb false door, which disappears, can be explained by the supposition that the former’sprecursor, the plain compound niche, is the more important of the two. The emergence of the three ‑jamb door reverts to the most important of the three niches, the great door, which apparently began to play an increasingly important role. The development and interaction of these elements can be interpreted as follows: – On the exterior walls of the tombs the main niches in use are the plain single and plain compound niche (fig. 4). – After the disappearance of the exterior wall decoration, both niches appear on the chapel walls in the form of apalace façade panelling that over the course of time transforms into aone ‑jamb and two ‑jamb false door. – The disappearance of the one ‑jamb false door and the continued use of the two ‑jamb false door indicate that already in the original palace façade panelling the role of the plain single niche was in all likelihood subordinate to that of the plain compound niche. Chart 5 The chronological development of the palace façade panelling and the number of jambs on the false door 77LEO ROETEN† Reisner, George Andrew 1931 Mycerinus. The temples of the third pyramid at Giza, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 1934 “History of the Egyptian Mastaba”, in: Anonymous (ed.). Mélanges Maspero I: Orient ancien 2, Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, pp. 579–584. 1936 The Development of the Egyptian Tomb down to the accession of Cheops, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 1942 AHistory of the Giza Necropolis. Vol. I, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Roeten, Leo 2016 Chronological developments in the Old Kingdom Tombs in the Necropoleis of Giza, Saqqara and Abusir. To‑ ward an Economic Decline during the Early Dynastic Period and the Old Kingdom, Oxford: Archaeopress [Archaeopress Egyptology 15]. 2020 Doors, Entrances and Beyond… Various aspects of entrances and doors of the tombs in the Memphite ne‑ cropoleis during the Old Kingdom, Oxford: Archaeopress [Archaeopress Egyptology]. Rzepka, Sławomir 1996 “The Pseudo ‑groups of the Old Kingdom– ANew Interpretation”, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kul‑ tur 23, pp. 335–347. Säve ‑Söderbergh, Torgny 1977 “Götterkreis”, in: Helck, Wolfgang– Westendorf, Wolfhart (eds.). Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Bd. II. Ern‑ tefest– Hordjedef, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 686–696. Simpson, William Kelly 1982 “Pap. Westcar”, in: Helck, Wolfgang– Westendorf, Wolfhart (eds.). Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Bd. IV. Megiddo– Pyramiden, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 744–746. Somaglino, Claire − Tallet, Pierre 2015 “Gebel Sheikh Suleiman: aFirst Dynasty relief after all…”, Archéo ‑Nil 25, pp. 122−134. Stadelmann, Rainer 1991a Die ägyptischen Pyramiden. Vom Ziegelbau zum Weltwunder, Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. 1991b “Das Dreikammersystem der Königsgräber der Frühzeit und des Alten Reisches”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 47, pp. 373−387. Stevenson Smith, William 1962 The Old Kingdom and the beginning of the First Intermediate Period, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [Cambridge Ancient History 1]. Strudwick, Nigel 1985 The administration of Egypt in the Old Kingdom. The highest titles and their holders, London: Kegan Paul International. Taylor, John H. 1989 Egyptian Coffins, Aylesbury: Shire Publications [Shire Egyptology Series 4]. Traunecker, Claude 1980 “Kalender”, in: Helck, Wolfgang– Westendorf, Wolfhart (eds.). Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Bd. III. Hor‑ hekenu– Megeb, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 297–299. 78 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 Verner, Miroslav 2008 “The system of dating in the Old Kingdom”, in: Vymazalová. Hana– Bárta, Miroslav (eds.). Chronology and Archaeology in Ancient Egypt (The third millennium B.C.), Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, pp. 23–43. 2015 “The miraculous rise of the Fifth Dynasty: the story of Papyrus Westcar and historical evidence”, Prague Egyptological Studies XV, pp. 86–92. Wiebach, Silvia 1981 Die ägyptische Scheintür. Morphologische Studien zur Entwicklung und Bedeutung der Hauptkultstelle in den Privat ‑Gräbern des Alten Reiches, Hamburg: Verlag Borg GmbH [Hamburger Ägyptologische Studien 1]. Wilkinson, Richard H. 1994 Symbol and Magic in Egyptian Art, London: Thames & Hudson. Williams, Bruce 2016–2017 “The monument at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman”, https://www.academia.edu/34223600/The_Ge‑ bel_Sheikh_Suleiman_Monument (online publication). Leo Roeten independent scholar; leo[email protected]