Exploration of the burial apartments in tomb complex AS 68. Preliminary report of the 2013 fall season

PRAGUE E GYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES Contents REPORTS Burial shafts and chambers of Nefer and Neferhathor in tomb AS 68d. A comparative evaluation of the ceramic fi nds (Katarína Arias Kytnarová) . . . . . . . . .3 Tomb of the chief physician Shepseskafankh (Miroslav Bárta) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Archaeological excavation of the mastaba of Queen Khentkaus III (tomb AC 30) in Abusir (Jaromír Krejčí – Katarína Arias Kytnarová – Martin Odler) . . . . . . . . . . .28 Exploration of the burial apartments in tomb complex AS 68. Preliminary report of the 2013 fall season (Hana Vymazalová) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 STUDIES Ritual tradition and transfer between shape and meaning – model beer jars in stone and pottery (Katarína Arias Kytnarová – Lucie Jirásková) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 A burial with a stamp seal depicting a Bes-like fi gure from Abusir (Veronika Dulíková – Martin Odler – Helena Březinová – Petra Havelková). . . . . . .69 Damage and repair of the Old Kingdom canopic jars – the case at Abusir (Lucie Jirásková) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 The miraculous rise of the Fifth Dynasty – the story of Papyrus Westcar and historical evidence (Miroslav Verner) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 Dear readers, It has been thirteen years since the fi rst issue of Prague Egyptological Studies was published in 2002. Since then it has become an important and wide-selling journal, providing both the scientifi c and laymen audience with the latest results of our fi eldwork and various studies in the fi eld of Czech Egyptology dealing with the civilisations of ancient Egypt and Sudan. After more than a decade of its existence, we are pleased to launch the fi rst issue of the English edition of Prague Egyptological Studies. The English edition is dedicated exclusively to the history, archaeology and language of third millennium BC Egypt. Yet it also aims to include studies dealing with foreign relations during the period. At the same time, we also welcome publications on the latest advances in the study of the environment and studies evaluating the signifi cance of applied sciences. Our principal aim is to accommodate studies concerning either primary research in the fi eld or those that bring up theoretical inquiries of essential importance to the indicated scope and time frame of the journal. The present issue is devoted to the excavations at Abusir, the principal fi eld of research of the Czech Institute of Egyptology. The individual reports are dedicated to the excavation projects carried out in the pyramid fi eld (Khentkaus III), as well as in the Abusir South area (tomb complex AS 68, the tomb of Shepseskafankh). In addition to these, you will also fi nd more theoretical studies focusing on the “Khentkaus problem”, which analyses the signifi cance and importance of three women bearing the same name during the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties, a study dealing with model beer jars and their typological evolution, an interesting seal with a fi gure of Bes, and an interpretation of canopic jars bearing signifi cant tokens of past treatment on their bodies. We trust that the English edition of Prague Egyptological Studies, which will be produced once a year, will fi nd a fi rm place among other Egyptological scholarly journals. We are convinced that a clearly defi ned profi le of this scientifi c journal will attract not only the attention of many readers but also submissions of signifi cant contributions from the scientifi c community and thus streamline major advances in the fi elds of third millennium BC Egypt history, archaeology and the like. Miroslav Bárta and Lucie Jirásková PRAŽSKÉ EGYPTOLOGICKÉ STUDIE (Prague Egyptological Studies) Editorial board Prof. Mgr. Miroslav Bárta, Dr. Ao. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Peter Jánosi Prof. Peter Der Manuelian Juniorprof. Dr. Joanne Rowland Mgr. Renata Landgráfová, Ph.D. Dr. Gabriele Pieke Dr. Teodozja Rzeuska Executive editors Mgr. Veronika Dulíková Mgr. Lucie Jirásková Mgr. Marie Hlouchová Publisher Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, Czech Institute of Egyptology, Celetná 20, 110 00 Praha 1, http://egyptologie.ff.cuni.cz The publication was prepared within the Programme for the Development of Fields of Study at Charles University, No. P14 “Archaeology of non-European Regions”, subprogramme “Research of ancient Egyptian civilization. Cultural and political adaptation of the North African civilisations in ancient history (5000 B.C. – 1000 A.D.)” Photographs and illustrations Archive of the Czech Institute of Egyptology FA CU, Jiří Vaněk (National museum) Language review Anthony Patrick Arias, B.A. Typography PhDr. Oleg Man Typesetting and print SERIFA, s. r. o., Jinonická 80, 150 00 Praha 5 ISSN 1214-3189 Copyright Charles University in Prague Photograph on the front page A reconstruction of the offering place in front of the false door of Nefer in tomb AS 68d (photo M. Frouz) XV/ 2015 CZECH INSTITUTE OF EGYPTOLOGY EXPLORATION OF THE BURIAL APARTMENTS IN TOMB COMPLEX AS 68 PES XV/2015 43 Introduction In previous seasons the courtyard and the corridor were uncovered, several shafts and burials in the courtyard were cleared, and the rock-cut chapels of the four associated tombs of Duaptah (AS 68a), Shepespuptah (AS 68b), Sheretnebty (AS 68c) and Nefer (AS 68d) were explored (Bárta – Vymazalová – Dulíková et al. 2014: 20–30; Vymazalová – Dulíková 2013: 26–27). The work continued in the 2013 season between September 28 and November 28, concentrating on the remaining burial apartments within the tomb complex. These included shafts in the courtyard, in the corridor and inside the four rock-cut tombs (for a briefer and less detailed report in Czech, see Vymazalová 2014). The courtyard and the corridor of tomb complex AS 68 The courtyard of tomb complex AS 68 was first discovered in the 2012 spring season. It is an almost square space sunken 4 m deep into the surrounding bedrock, with Exploration of the burial apartments in tomb complex AS 68. Preliminary report of the 2013 fall season1 Hana Vymazalová Tomb complex AS 68 consists of four rock-cut tombs of high officials (AS 68a–d), a corridor and an open courtyard that bears the name and titles of a king’s daughter of his body, Sheretnebty. The tomb complex has been explored since 2012 (see Bárta – Vymazalová – Dulíková et al. 2014: 20–33) and several studies have been published on the work, especially on the identity and social status of the tomb owners and the princess herself, who was a daughter of King Nyuserre (Vymazalová – Dulíková 2012, 2013, 2014). Plan 1 Plan of the tomb complex of princess Sheretnebty (AS 68) and the four rock-cut tombs (AS 68a–d) (drawing H. Vymazalová) 44 PES XV/2015 EXPLORATION OF THE BURIAL APARTMENTS IN TOMB COMPLEX AS 68 a corridor running to the east from the southeastern corner. It is accessible from the northeastern corner by means of a staircase made of limestone slabs, which descended along the eastern wall of the courtyard. The staircase was situated at the end of a north-south running passageway leading along the western wall of tomb AS 67. This at first, seemed to indicate that AS 67 was earlier in date than AS 68, blocking its way from the east (Bárta – Vymazalová – Dulíková et al. 2014: 15; Bárta – Vymazalová, forthcoming). Recent excavations, however, showed that the access to the whole site lead not from the east but from the north through a passageway coming from one of the side valleys from the Lake of Abusir. Even though the northern end of this passageway has not been uncovered yet, it was perhaps located by the tomb of Shepseskafankh (AS 39) (see Bárta in this issue). The passageway itself gave access on the east to the tomb of Nefershepes (Memi?) (AS 67, Bárta – Vymazalová – Dulíková et al. 2014: 17–20), and on the west to the tombs of Neferinpu (AS 37, Bárta et al. 2014), Kaiemtjenenet (AS 38, Vymazalová et al. 2011), Ptahhotep (AS 36, yet unpublished), the large anonymous tomb AS 31 (Bárta 2011), and the anonymous structure AS 40. The tomb complex of Princess Sheretnebty (AS 68) is situated at the end of this passageway, directly opposite to its presumed entrance (see fig. 1 in Bárta in this issue). The walls of the courtyard and the corridor of tomb complex AS 68 were cut in the bedrock of alternating harder and softer layers. Due to its softer parts, the bedrock was friable, and thus the walls were neither straight nor smooth. The western, northern and eastern walls of the courtyard and the corridor were cased with large limestone blocks; some of the casing blocks were noticeably larger (up to 0.60 m in width and 1.50 m in length) than blocks that were used for construction of the surrounding tombs on the site. This might correspond to the special status of the owner of this courtyard, who was a member of the royal family. No traces of casing were found by the southern wall of the courtyard and the corridor, but four limestone naoi with statues were discovered by the southern wall of the corridor in situ (see Bárta – Vymazalová, forthcoming; Bárta – Vymazalová – Dulíková et al. 2014: 22, Figs. 5–6; Vymazalová – Dulíková 2012: 345; Vymazalová – Dulíková 2014: 3–4, Fig. 2). These naoi might indicate that casing, which incorporated the naoi, might have once existed, covering at least part of the southern wall. The courtyard was originally partly roofed; one architrave and several broken roofing slabs were found in situ. The latter had to be removed for safety reasons. Two other architraves and remains of several more roofing slabs were found fallen inside the corridor. The roofing was supported by four limestone pillars, which bear a vertical hieroglyphic inscription in sunken relief with the name, title and epithet of Princess Sheretnebty (Vymazalová – Dulíková 2012: 339–342). These were the only inscriptions in the courtyard, indicating that Sheretnebty was, thanks to her status, the main figure of the tomb complex, through whom the other tomb owners gained importance (Vymazalová – Dulíková 2014: 2). The courtyard served as a place shared by the four rockcut tombs and might have been a place where the family members gathered on festivals and funerals. Pottery, as well as the fragments of animal bones, which were found in large quantity above the floor of the courtyard, confirm the occurrence of cultic activities in the courtyard that continued over a long period of time in the second half of the Old Kingdom (Sůvová – Vymazalová 2013: 56–58, 60; Arias Kytnarová 2013, 2014). At the same time, the courtyard and the corridor became the place of burial for a number of people who were most likely closely related to the owners of the four rock-cut tombs. These were presumably, above all, family relatives of later generations. A professional relationship to the tomb owners might have also been the reason for having a burial in this tomb complex. Some of the later burials were placed in the fill of the courtyard, on the floor or near to the floor (Bárta – Vymazalová – Dulíková et al. 2014: 20), but the majority of the burials was placed in burial shafts that were hewn in the floor. In total, 12 shafts were found in the courtyard itself and 4 more shafts were uncovered in the corridor. Some of these shafts were explored in the 2012 fall season Fig. 1 Shafts 6, 8, 12–16 in the courtyard and the corridor of AS 68, sections and plans of the burial chambers (drawing H. Vymazalová) EXPLORATION OF THE BURIAL APARTMENTS IN TOMB COMPLEX AS 68 PES XV/2015 45 (Bárta – Vymazalová – Dulíková et al. 2014: 20–21; Vymazalová – Dulíková 2013: 26–27), and the work continued in the remaining shafts during the 2013 fall season (see plan 1, fig. 1). Shaft 6 in the courtyard of tomb complex AS 68 This shaft is situated in the courtyard to the south of the pillars (see fig. 1). It is 1.60 × 1.60 m large and reached 5.40 m deep. Its fill consisted of grey sand with cut tafl mixed with tafl pieces and included fragments of pottery, animal bones, charcoal fragments and a hammer stone with traces of copper metal. The burial chamber was hewn 3.20 m deep to the north of the shaft, and its entrance was 0.70 m higher than the floor of the shaft. The chamber was in total 3.84 m long and maximally 2.20 m wide. The ceiling today reaches almost 2.00 m high, but its original height cannot be determined due to the intensive crumbling of the entire ceiling surface. The lowest point of the ceiling, which survived in the entrance, reached 1.20 m above the floor. The chamber was filled with brown sand with limestone fragments and several larger limestone blocks. The fill contained fragments of pottery, fragments of animal bones and five hammer stones with traces of copper. The walls of the chamber were hewn in the hard bedrock in the lower part, while the upper part of the walls and the ceiling were cut into soft tafl. Due to this, the eastern and western walls of the chamber had partly collapsed. The upper part of the western wall had an opening broken into the burial chamber of Shaft 3, which was explored in 2012 (Bárta – Vymazalová – Dulíková et al. 2014: 20; Vymazalová – Dulíková 2013: 27). It was thanks to this broken wall that the existence of this burial chamber was known in fall 2012, but it could not be cleaned at that time due to safety reasons. The northern part of the western wall of the burial chamber opened into Shaft 1, and therefore it was presumed in 2012 that this burial chamber belonged to Shaft 1 (Vymazalová – Dulíková 2013: 27). Shaft 1, however, appears to have no chamber of its own due to an apparent mistake of the builders, who must have been unaware of the existence of the chamber of Shaft 6. The northern part of the burial chamber had a floor 0.30 m higher than the southern part, and it contained a burial pit. This was situated in the north-south axis of the chamber and was discovered intact, covered with two limestone slabs joined with pinkish gypsum plaster (fig. 2). The burial pit was 1.70 m long, 0.37–0.43 m wide and 0.46–0.50 m deep. It contained an intact burial of a man 20–30 years old, who was placed in an outstretched position slightly on his left side, with head to the north, face to the east and arms over his body with hands on his crotch. By the right side of the deceased, in the area next to his pelvis and his right hand, a 9.70 cm long copper tool was discovered, which formed a part of his funerary equipment (for the tool see Odler, in preparation). Shaft 8 in the courtyard of tomb complex AS 68 Shaft 8 is located in the southeastern corner of the courtyard, in the entrance of tomb AS 68b. The shaft is 1.20 × 1.20 m wide at its opening, while only 1.10 × 1.10 m at its bottom; and reached 5.70 m in depth. The fill of the shaft consisted of brown sand mixed with tafl fragments and low number of limestone chips. The finds from the fill of this shaft included fragments of pottery (see Dulíková – Arias Kytnarová – Cílek 2014: 44–47), animal bones, a faience bead, charcoal fragments and a stone hammer with copper traces. In addition to that, a limestone false door of Hetepuni, broken into several pieces, was found at 4.35 m depth in the shaft. The false door measures 0.50 × 0.75 × 0.11 m and contains hieroglyphic inscriptions written in black paint, mentioning the usual offering formula, the owner’s name and his titles. These include jmj-rA ct xntj(w)-S pr-aA wab 200 Mn-nfr-Mrj-Ra wab aA Hm-nTr #ntj-Tnnt “overseer of the department of khentyu-she of the Great House, the wab-priest of the two hundred of the (pyramid complex) Enduring-is-theSplendor-of-Meryre (Pepy I), the great wab-priest and the hem-netjer-priest of Khentytjenenet” (for the titles see Fig. 2 The intact burial pit in the burial chamber in Shaft 6 of the courtyard of AS 68 (photo H. Vymazalová) 46 PES XV/2015 EXPLORATION OF THE BURIAL APARTMENTS IN TOMB COMPLEX AS 68 Jones 2000: 241 no. 882, 369 no. 1362, 378 no. 1401, 569 no. 2095; for more information on Hetepuni see Dulíková – Arias Kytnarová – Cílek 2014: 40–41). The false door was most likely thrown into the shaft by the ancient tomb robbers. No niche exists above the shaft and thus it is not possible to confirm the original place of this false door and conclude that Hetepuni is the deceased from Shaft 8. The burial niche was hewn 5.00 m deep to the west and southwest of the shaft, in a layer of soft tafl. Its walls were crumbling and therefore the original shape and size of the niche was no longer apparent. Today the niche is ca 2.20 m long, max. 0.90 m wide and 0.60 m high. The floor of the niche contained a burial pit that was hewn in a north-south direction and was 1.86 m long, 0.46 m wide and at least 0.20 m deep. The burial pit accommodated the burial of a man 40–60 years old, who was placed in an outstretched position with head to the north, face to the east and arms along the body. His legs were slightly bent due to the lack of space in the southern part of the pit. The deceased was once placed in a wooden coffin made of Acacia nilotica wood, which was entirely disintegrated with only a very small fragment surviving. Imprints of the coffin were, however, visible on the western and northern sides of the burial pit. Shaft 12 in the courtyard of tomb complex AS 68 This shaft is situated in the southwestern corner of the courtyard. It is located right underneath a secondary niche that was cut into the courtyard’s western wall. This was the southern of two secondary niches, each associated with a shaft. Shaft 4 underneath the northern niche was explored in 2012 (Bárta – Vymazalová – Dulíková et al. 2014: 20–21; Vymazalová – Dulíková 2013: 27). Both niches were originally covered with dark mud plaster, of which a few remains were still visible on the southern niche. In front of the niches remains of a mud floor were traced. This was ca 0.50 m above the courtyard’s original floor, and seems to have been a later cultic place made in the courtyard at a time when some of its roofing blocks and architraves had fallen from their original positions onto the floor. The shaft was 1.10 × 1.00 m wide and 5.80 m deep. The fill of the shaft in its upper part consisted of brown sand mixed with limestone chips and numerous limestone fragments; in the central part of brown sand and rubble; while in the bottom part of cut tafl mixed with a small quantity of brown sand and some limestone fragments. The fill also contained fragments of pottery, scattered fragments of bones, wooden and charcoal fragments, and a stone hammer with traces of copper. The burial chamber was hewn 4.80 m deep to the west and southwest of the shaft, in a layer of soft tafl bedrock. The chamber had slightly an irregular shape and was 2.23 m long and 0.70 meters wide and 0.64–0.96 m high. The fill contained some pottery fragments. The southern part of the chamber contained the burial of a man 40–60 years old. The burial was found on the floor in the southern part of the chamber on the left side, with head to the north, arms along the pelvis and the legs contracted. The deceased was originally placed in a wooden coffin made of Acacia wood, which had disintegrated, but its numerous fragments were found in the chamber. Fig. 3 Imprints of a wooden coffin on the burial pit in the burial niche in Shaft 13 in the corridor of AS 68 (photo H. Vymazalová) Shaft 13 in the corridor of tomb complex AS 68 The shaft was located in the western end of the corridor, which runs to the east from the southeastern corner of the courtyard. It was 1.00 × 1.00 m wide and 6.00 m deep. The fill consisted of cut tafl and contained fragments of pottery, scattered bones, charcoal fragments, two hammer stones and a few small fragments of sunken relief. The burial chamber was hewn to the south of the shaft in a layer of soft tafl bedrock. The chamber was 1.80 m long, max. 1.60 m wide and 0.62–0.80 m high, and its side walls and ceiling had crumbled. The floor of the chamber, which was 16 cm higher than the floor of the shaft, contained a rectangular burial pit, 1.60 m long, 0.44 m wide and 0.20–0.50 m deep. The pit contained the burial of a man over 50 years old, with the body placed on its back, with head to the north, face perhaps to the east. His left arm was along his body while his right arm was bent across his abdomen, and the legs were contracted. The burial was originally placed inside a coffin made of wood of Ficus sycomorus, of which only several small fragments survived; but its imprints were clearly visible on the southern part of the pit (fig. 3), and traces of the coffin were also apparent on the pit’s floor. The deceased was covered with a layer of very fine mud, most likely the remains of a funerary practice relating to renewal (see also below). Shaft 14 in the courtyard of tomb complex AS 68 The shaft was hewn in the floor in the eastern part of the corridor, right in front of the entrance to the tomb of Nefer EXPLORATION OF THE BURIAL APARTMENTS IN TOMB COMPLEX AS 68 PES XV/2015 47 (AS 68d) (for the tomb of Nefer see Bárta – Vymazalová – Dulíková – et al. 2014: 26–30; Bárta 2014; Bárta, in preparation). The shaft measured 2.00 × 0.80 m, and it reached 3.80 m in depth. It was filled with very compact brown sand mixed with a small amount of rubble, limestone fragments, and some fragments of mud brick. The fill of the shaft contained fragments of pottery, a small fragment of sunken relief, scattered bones, wood, charcoal and a faience bead. The burial chamber was hewn at 3.00 m depth to the east of the shaft, in a tafl bedrock layer. It was 2.00 m long, 0.80 m wide and 0.70–0.80 m high. Its walls had partly crumbled but the niche still kept its rectangular shape. It was filled with the same type of fill as the shaft and included some pottery fragments. The niche contained the burial of a man over 50 years old, which was placed inside a coffin made of Acacia nilotica. The deceased was placed in an almost outstretched position, on his left side with head to the north, perhaps face to the east, arms contracted to the chest and legs slightly bent. Some parts of the coffin were entirely disintegrated while other parts survived, including some planks of the head and feet sides of the coffin and the lid. Some of the planks were inscribed, bearing slightly sunken hieroglyphic inscriptions filled with white paste (265b/AS68/2013 fragments A–D). The inscriptions on the head and feet planks of the coffin both faced east and identified the deceased from Shaft 14 as jmAxw Cfxw rn.f nfr JT[j] “revered Sefekhu, his good name Itj[i]” (fig. 4). The remains of the inscription from (perhaps) the lid of the coffin also mention part of Sefekhu’s title, reading …[xn]tj [T]nnt Cfxw rn.f nfr J[Tj] “[...Khen]tytjenenet, Sefekhu, his good name I[tji]”. Sefekhu might have been priest of Khentytjenenet, which is a rarely attested title also held by Hetepuni (see above, for other title holders see for instance Dulíková – Arias Kytnarová – Cílek 2014: 40–41). It is worth mentioning that Sefekhu was the name of one of the sons of judge Inti, who was buried in a nearby mastaba in the Sixth Dynasty, where remains of inscribed wooden coffins of a very similar type were found as well (Bárta – Vachala et al.,in preparation). The name Sefekhu was not common in the Old Kingdom and we cannot entirely exclude the possibility that Sefekhu of Shaft 14 was Inti’s son (Miroslav Bárta, personal communication). Shaft 15 in the corridor of tomb complex AS 68 The shaft was situated in the central part of the corridor, in front of and within the entrance of the tomb of Sheretnebty and her family (AS 68c). The shaft was very rough and largely unfinished and had an irregular shape. Its upper part reached the maximum dimensions of 2.33 × 1.24 m. Fig. 5 The inscribed block of Ankhiemaptah and Neferhekenhathor found fallen into Shaft 16 in the corridor of AS 68 (photo M. Frouz) Fig. 4 The foot plank of the coffin of Sefekhu from his burial niche in Shaft 14 in the corridor of AS 68 (photo M. Frouz) 48 PES XV/2015 EXPLORATION OF THE BURIAL APARTMENTS IN TOMB COMPLEX AS 68 Both the southern and northern sides show very roughly hewn steps going down to the central part (1.08 × 0.60 m), which reached a depth of 0.96 m. The shaft was filled with brown sand with limestone chips that contained no finds. Shaft 16 in the corridor of tomb complex AS 68 The shaft was situated in the corridor very near to Shaft 15. Shaft 16 was 0.85 × 0.88 m wide at the opening. It was never finished and reached only 1.00 m deep. Its fill consisted of brown sand mixed with a small amount of rubble. A limestone block with sunken relief was found fallen in the shaft (372/AS68/2013, fig. 5), partly covered with another, uninscribed block of limestone. The inscribed block (98.00 × 42.00 × 29.00 cm) bears offering formulas and the names of Ankhiemaptah and his wife Neferhekenhathor (or Hekenineferhathor; for parallels see Gourdon 2007: 377.3 and 497.3; Scheele-Schweitzer 2014: 567–568). This block is likely to have been part of a false door. We can presume that this false door might have been originally placed in tomb AS 68c, where an offering table in the shape of a basin with the name of Ankhiemaptah was found (see below, for a detailed discussion see Vymazalová, in preparation). The style of the relief on this block indicates that the false door of Ankhiemaptah was later in date than the false doors of Sheretnebty and Nefer, which belonged to two of the main tomb owners in tomb complex AS 68 (Vymazalová, in preparation). This corresponds to the suggested development of the tomb of Sheretnebty and later date of some of its shafts (see below). The tomb of Duaptah (AS 68a) The entrance to tomb AS 68a is located in the southern wall of the courtyard, by its southwestern corner. It was first discovered in the 2012 spring season, when its rock-cut chapel was explored (Bárta – Vymazalová – Dulíková et al. 2014: 22–24; Vymazalová – Dulíková 2012: 343). During the 2013 fall season the two burial shafts hewn along the eastern wall of the tomb chapel were explored (Vymazalová 2014: 16–18; for the plan of the tomb see fig. 6). Shaft 1 The southern shaft in a tomb was usually prepared for the main tomb owner. The southern shaft in the tomb of Duaptah was 1.50 × 1.60 m wide at the opening and reached 4.70 m in depth. The fill of the upper part of the shaft consisted of compact cut tafl. At a depth of 2.60 m, the fill started to include larger limestone pieces. At a depth of ca. 3.80 m, the fill consisted of cut tafl, brown-grey sand and very few tafl pieces. The fill of the shaft contained fragments of pottery, a complete mud-stopper with impressions of threads, fragments of animal bones and charcoal fragments. In the bottom part of the shaft, in front of the burial chamber, the finds included fragments of wood and a few small fragments of low relief showing remains of offering bearers. The burial chamber was hewn to the south of the shaft. This unusual orientation is perhaps related to the close proximity of the northern shaft, in order to avoid stability problems of the substructure. The entrance into the burial Fig. 6 Plan and section of the tomb of Duaptah (AS 68a) (drawing H. Vymazalová) chamber was partly closed by a wall built of irregular limestone pieces and sand. It was 1.24 m wide, 1.00 m long and 1.35 m high, and its upper part had been removed by the ancient tomb robbers. In the blocking wall human bones of a woman over 50 year of age were found, disturbed by the robbers. It is not clear, however, whether these bones were thrown into the shaft, or whether they were originally placed at its bottom or even inside the burial chamber. The chamber itself was cut in hard bedrock and had an almost regular shape, 2.80 m wide and 3.20–3.30 m long in a north-south direction, and 1.55 m high. The chamber was partly filled with brown sand mixed with limestone and tafl pieces and chips, and the fill contained fragments of pottery. Parts of two pottery jars were found, perhaps in situ, on the floor of the chamber in its southeastern corner, and these seem to be the remains of the tomb equipment (Arias Kytnarová, forthcoming a). In addition, animal bones, mostly of cattle, were found on the floor of the chamber near the southwestern corner and by the southern wall of the chamber, constituting the remains of meat offerings. By the southern wall of the chamber, a small cone of mud with traces of threads on the flat bottom side was found, with a hole going through the cone and seal impressions on the EXPLORATION OF THE BURIAL APARTMENTS IN TOMB COMPLEX AS 68 PES XV/2015 49 upper side (275/AS68a/2013). The seal impressions include the serekh of +d-xaw, the Horus name of King Djedkare, which help us to date the burial of Duaptah to this king’s reign. Wooden objects were also once placed by the southern wall of the chamber but they had disintegrated entirely and were attested only by brown dust on the floor of the chamber. Their original form or shape could not be recognised. It is possible that the mud seal once closed a wooden chest, as attested in two burial chambers in the tomb of Neferinpu (AS 37, Bárta et al. 2014: 98, Figs. 6.37–6.40), or another type of object. In the northwestern corner of the chamber just behind the entrance, an inscribed block of white limestone was found leaning against the western wall of the chamber (170/AS68a/2013) (fig. 7). This block is a drum (84.00 × 20.00 × 25.00 cm), and it bore a hieroglyphic inscription in sunken relief, giving the name of the tomb owner Duaptah and his title cHD pr-aA “inspector of the Great House”. This drum most likely originally belonged at the entrance of the tomb and was originally placed under the lintel that was discovered in 2012 and bore the same title and name (Vymazalová – Dulíková 2012: 343; Vymazalová – Dulíková 2013: 27; Bárta – Vymazalová – Dulíková et al. 2014: 24). Entrances with lintels and drums placed in a similar manner are known from a number of tombs from the Old Kingdom (for the decoration of the tomb entrances with lintels and drums see Harpur 1987: 43–49; see also Vymazalová 2014: 17, Fig. 8). The floor of the burial chamber contained a north-south oriented pit, which contained a sarcophagus built of several limestone slabs joined with pinkish mortar. Only 20–24 cm of its sidewalls reached above the floor while the major part of the sarcophagus was sunken into the floor. A similar way of making a sarcophagus is also attested in the burial chamber of Shepespuptah (AS 68b), but it is quite unusual. The inside of the sarcophagus was 1.82 m long, 0.51–0.55 m wide, and 0.60 m deep. The lid of the sarcophagus was made of a single limestone slab with a rough outer surface. The sarcophagus was opened by the ancient tomb robbers, who had moved the lid to the east to get access to the burial and had used stones to support the lid in its northern part (fig. 8). Fig. 8 The burial chamber of Duaptah in Shaft 1 of tomb AS 68a (photo M. Frouz) Fig. 7 The drum of Duaptah, coming perhaps from the entrance of his tomb chapel AS 68a (photo M. Frouz) 56 PES XV/2015 EXPLORATION OF THE BURIAL APARTMENTS IN TOMB COMPLEX AS 68 fragments of a statue that matched the statues from the serdab (see Bárta – Vymazalová, forthcoming). In addition to these finds, a limestone offering table (33.50 × 24.00 × 12.50 cm) was found at 2.00 m depth in the shaft (318/AS68c/2013, fig. 15). It has the shape of a basin with a rim, which bore a hieroglyphic inscription mentioning the offering formula, the title and name of the owner – jmj-rA gc(w) Hmwt “overseer of gang(s) of craftsmen” named Ankhi[ema]ptah (for the title see Jones 2000: 268 no. 965). The same name is attested on the limestone architrave found in Shaft 16 (see above). Both of these limestone objects exhibit high quality and indicate the high position of their owner. Therefore, it seems likely that Ankhiemaptah was buried in tomb AS 68c (see also Vymazalová, in preparation). The burial chamber was hewn to the west of the shaft. It was 2.60 m long, 1.60 m wide and 1.10 m high, and its southern wall had an opening broken into the burial chamber of Shaft 4.The burial chamber was partly filled with the fill from the shaft. On top of this fill, several fragments of a large slab were found. These originally belonged to the lid of the burial pit and had been broken and moved by the ancient tomb robbers. Fragments of pottery were found in the burial chamber as well as inside the burial pit. The burial pit was hewn in the southwestern part of the burial chamber. It was 1.60 m long, 0.48 m wide and 0.54 m deep and contained the burials of two men, placed next to each other and disturbed. One man was over 50 years old, while the other man was only 25–35 years old. It is highly likely that these men were close relatives, perhaps father and son. Summary Of the six shafts that were hewn in tomb AS 68c, Shafts 1 and 2 seem to have belonged to the tomb owner and his wife, which corresponds to the Old Kingdom tradition. These were the deepest shafts in the whole of tomb complex AS 68 and were perhaps related to the large niche in the southern part of the tomb chapel, where the false doors of the tomb owners were once placed (Vymazalová 2014: 12; Vymazalová – Dulíková 2014: 3). The burials in these two shafts thus belonged to Princess Sheretnebty and her husband. The burial from Shaft 2 presumably belonged to the princess herself. Her identity will hopefully be further confirmed by an epigenetic examination of the burial, which is under preparation by Hana Píšová and Šárka Bejdová, and their comparison to the physical remains of the individuals from the royal cemetery at Abusir, above all from Djedkare’s family cemetery (Strouhal 2002). It is worth mentioning that Shaft 2 was not very large, and we cannot be sure whether its chamber was originally planned to receive a sarcophagus. The early death of this shaft’s owner prevented the builders from finishing the planned work. It is possible that the builders originally planned to enlarge the shaft to make it suitable for moving a stone sarcophagus for the princess, or that a sarcophagus was planned to be made with limestone slabs, as in the tombs of Shepespuptah and Duaptah (see above). Even though she was of royal blood, her burial apartment remained unfinished and her false door reliefs were not very finely carved (see also Vymazalová – Dulíková 2014: 7–8). The burial chamber in Shaft 1 was the most splendid in the whole of tomb complex AS 68 and contained the finest sarcophagus and equipment. The identity of Sheretnebty’s husband, who gained the privilege of being married to a king’s daughter, remains unknown and no traces of his names or titles have been found thus far. Some of the fragments of reliefs that were found in the tomb might have come from his false door (see Vymazalová – Arias Kytnarová, in preparation). However, his burial chamber in Shaft 1 indicates that he enjoyed a very high social status, comparable perhaps to the tomb owner of AS 67 but surpassing the status of the other tomb owners in tomb complex AS 68, who have shallower shafts and less splendid tomb equipment (see also Bárta – Vymazalová, forthcoming). Shafts 3 and 4 seem to correspond to the other two niches for false doors that existed in the western wall of the tomb (Bárta – Vymazalová – Dulíková et al. 2014: 25), and they were most likely planned for two members of Sheretnebty’s family, probably her children. Shaft 3, however, had never been used for a burial, and it seems likely that the shaft had been planned for someone who might have later decided to be buried in a different place. While Shafts 1–4 seem to have been planned from the beginning (they were situated in a row along the eastern wall of the chapel and were relatively large), the last two shafts in the tomb, Shafts 5 and 6 seem to have been an addition to the original plan, and they were located to the north of a secondary wall built of limestone pieces, perhaps to close the older part of the tomb (see fig. 11, see also Vymazalová – Arias Kytnarová, in preparation). Shaft 5 was located by the eastern wall, while Shaft 6 was hewn in front of the serdab by the western wall of the tomb, and its builders or later the robbers broke into the chamber of Shaft 4. The examination of the human bones and other finds from the burial shafts in tomb AS 68c has not been concluded. However, it is clear that two women were buried in Shafts 2 and 4 and four men were buried in Shafts 1, 5 and 6. An anthropological examination revealed that at least two of the burials in Shafts 5 and 6 seem to have been related to the princess due to specific features on their skulls (Petra Havelková, personal communication). This seems to confirm that the owners of the shafts in tomb AS 68c were most likely members of Sheretnebty’s closer family, including perhaps her offspring. While six persons were buried in this tomb, only four names are attested in association with the tomb. It is, however, not possible at the moment to assign all these names to the known burials. Sheretnebty’s name occurs on fragments of her false door, which were found in the tomb and around it within the tomb complex in 2012 (Vymazalová – Dulíková 2014). Her burial was most likely placed in Shaft 2. A small statue from the tomb’s serdab belonged to an “overseer of the gang” Iti (Bárta – Vymazalová, forthcoming; Vymazalová – Dulíková 2013: 29–31; Vymazalová – Dulíková 2014: 3–7), while a libation offering table and an inscribed block belonged to Ankhiemaptah, and his wife was Neferhekenhathor (see above). It is quite possible that the false door of EXPLORATION OF THE BURIAL APARTMENTS IN TOMB COMPLEX AS 68 PES XV/2015 57 Ankhiemaptah was once placed in one of the niches in the western wall of the tomb, and as Shaft 3 was unused, it would be tempting to speculate that these individuals might have been buried in Shafts 4–6 (for a more detailed discussion see Vymazalová – Arias Kytnarová, in preparation). Conclusions Of the three tombs under discussion (for the tomb of Nefer AS 68d, see Bárta – Vymazalová – Dulíková et al. 2014: 26–30; Bárta, in preparation), we may conclude that the tomb of Princess Sheretnebty and her family (AS 68c) shows signs of the higher rank of its owner. This is supported not only by the fact that he married a king’s daughter, but also by the size of his tomb chapel (Vymazalová – Dulíková 2014: 3), the depth of the burial shaft, the size of the burial chamber, and the remains of his tomb equipment that included, among other things, a very finely made monolithic sarcophagus and four canopic jars. The tomb moreover contained a serdab with beautiful statues, and its entrance was decorated with at least one large naos with engaged statues (see Vymazalová – Dulíková 2014: 3–7; Bárta – Vymazalová, forthcoming). In comparison, the tomb of Duaptah (AS 68a) and its two burials seem more modest. Not only that the chapel, shafts and burial chambers were of smaller dimensions but also no canopic jars were found. Moreover, Duaptah’s sarcophagus was made of limestone slabs instead of one piece of limestone. It is difficult to draw conclusions on the tomb of Shepespuptah (AS 68b). His burial seems very simple and no objects from the tomb equipment survived, which can be due to the ancient robbers’ activities. The size of Shepespuptah’s tomb and the remains of his chapel’s casing of Tura limestone, however, indicate that his tomb was very badly robbed, and it is therefore likely that the present appearance of this tomb very much differs from its original design. The fourth rock-cut tomb in the tomb complex of Princess Sheretnebty, the tomb of Nefer (AS 68d) has been discussed by Miroslav Bárta (see Bárta – Vymazalová – Dulíková et al. 2014: 26–30; and Bárta, in preparation). Nefer’s tomb chapel was not as spacious, the burial shafts not as deep as those of Sheretnebty and her husband, and the burials were more modest than the latter. He, however, had a serdab with beautiful statues, a roughly carved but nicely painted false door (Bárta – Vymazalová – Dulíková et al. 2014: 28), and two naoi with engaged statues that decorated the sides of his tomb’s entrance (Bárta – Vymazalová, forthcoming). Tomb complex AS 68 provides rich evidence on its continuous use for burials over the period between the late Fifth and the late Sixth Dynasties. The four rock-cut tombs contained several generations of the owner’s families while their other relatives and possibly also other associated individuals were buried in the courtyard and the corridor. The evidence from this tomb complex comprises a great deal of anthropological material and many interesting objects of tomb equipment, including the largest groups of non-royal statuary ever discovered in Abusir. Note: 1 I would like to thank the director of the Czech mission in Abusir, Prof. Miroslav Bárta, for the opportunity to work in the tomb complex of princess Sheretnebty, and for his continuous support and useful discussions on the subject. My warmest thanks also go to all the team members: Mohamed Megahed, Veronika Dulíková, Katarína Arias Kytnarová, Peter Jánosi, Petra Havelková, Eliška Maxová, Zdeňka Sůvová, Gabriele Pieke, Regine Schulz, Vladimír Brůna, Jan Novák, and Martin Frouz. We acknowledge very kind support and standing cooperation from the inspectors of antiquities in the field: Mr. Marwan Abou Baker Mahmoud, Mr. Essam Mokhtar Abd Elazim, Mr. Mahmoud Haidar, Mr. Mohammad Mamdouh, Mr. Said Sheb, Mr. Ikrami El-Saqit, Mr. Taha Mahfouz; as well as from the director of the Selim Hassan Storage Museum: Mr. Ragab Turki, and the conservators: Mr. Ashraf Youssef, Osama Saber, Ahmad Abdel Nabi. Our work would not be possible without the experience of the foremen: Tallal el-Kereti, Ahmad el-Kereti, Ibrahim Abdel Monsif and Shabaan Abdel Samad. Bibliography: Arias Kytnarová, Katarína 2013 “Jedlo a pitie pre zásvetie – keramické nálezy z komplexu princeznej Šeretnebtej”, Pražské egyptologické studie X, pp. 35–46. 2014 “Princezná a jej príbuzní? Keramické nálezy z vybraných pohrebných kontextov z komplexu Šeretnebtej”, Pražské egyptologické studie XIII, pp. 11–19. forthcoming a “Preliminary report on ceramic finds from the funerary contexts in the tomb of Duaptah (AS 68a)”, Bulletin of the Austrian Centre for Egyptology 26. forthcoming b “Interpreting the ceramic finds from the complex of Princess Sheretnebty – Depositional and post-depositional processes exemplified by Shaft 1 in AS 68c”, in: Kuraskiewicz, Kamil Omar – Kopp, Edyta – Popielska-Grybowska, Joanna, (eds.). Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology in Warsaw, Warsaw. Bárta, Miroslav 2011 “A new Old Kingdom rock-cut tomb from Abusir and its AbusirSouth context”, in: Strudwick, Nigel – Strudwick, Helen (eds.). Old Kingdom, New Perspectives. Egyptian Art and Archaeology 2750–2150 BC, Oxford – Oakville: Oxbow Books, pp. 9–21. 2014 “Objev pohřební komory hodnostáře Nefera”, Pražské egyptologické studie XIII, pp. 3–6. in preparation “Exploration of the burial shafts in the tomb of Nefer (AS 68d)” Preliminary report on the 2013 and 2014 seasons. Bárta, Miroslav – Vymazalová, Hana – Dulíková, Veronika – Arias Kytnarová, Katarína –Megahed, Mohamed – Varadzin, Ladislav 2014 “Exploration of the necropolis at Abusir South in the season of 2012. Preliminary Report”, Ägypten and Levante 24, pp. 15–38. Bárta, Miroslav et al. 2014 The tomb of the sun priest Neferinpu (AS 37), Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts [Abusir XXIII]. Bárta, Miroslav – Vachala, Břetislav et al. in preparation The Tomb of Inti, Prague: Charles University in Prague [Abusir XXI]. Bárta, Miroslav – Vymazalová, Hana forthcoming “Created for eternity: statues and serdabs in the late Fifth Dynasty tombs at Abusir South”, in: Kuraskiewicz, Kamil Omar – Kopp, Edyta – Popielska-Grybowska, Joanna (eds.). Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology in Warsaw, Warsaw. 58 PES XV/2015 EXPLORATION OF THE BURIAL APARTMENTS IN TOMB COMPLEX AS 68 Dulíková, Veronika – Odler, Martin – Havelková, Petra 2011 “Archeologický výzkum hrobky lékaře Neferherptaha”, Pražské egyptologické studie VIII, pp. 9–16. Dulíková, Veronika – Arias Kytnarová, Katarína – Cílek, Václav 2014 “Hetepuni, kněz ze dvora princezny Šeretnebtej”, Pražské egyptologické studie XIII, pp. 38–48. Harpur, Yvonne 1987 Decoration in Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom. Studies in Orientation and Scene Content, London – New York: KPI. Gourdon, Yannis 2007 Recherches sur l’anthroponymie dans l’Égypte du IIIemillénaire avant J.-C.: signification et portée sociale du nom égyptien avant le Moyen Empire, Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon 2 (unpublished thesis). Jones, Dilwyn 2000 An Index of Ancient Egyptian Titles, Epithets and Phrases of the Old Kingdom, Oxford: Archaeopress [British Archaeological Reports International Series 866]. Odler, Martin in preparation “The copper tool from the intact burial in Shaft 6 in the courtyard of princess Sheretnebty”. Scheele-Schweitzer, Katrin 2014 Die Personennamen des Alten Reiches: Altägyptische Onomastik undet Lexikographischen und Socio-kulturellen Aspekten, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz [Philippika. Marburger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen 28]. Strouhal, Eugen 2002 “The anthropological evaluation of human skeletal remains from the mastabas of Djedkare Isesi’s family cemetery at Abusir”, in: Verner, Miroslav – Callender, Vivienne G. Djedkare’s Family Cemetery, Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague – Set Out [Abusir VI], pp. 119–132. Vymazalová, Hana 2014 “Skalní hrobky v komplexu princezny Šeretnebtej (AS 68): výzkum šachet a pohřebních komor”, Pražské egyptologické studie XII, pp. 10–19. in preparation “Iti, Ankhiemaptah and Neferhekenhathor: discussion on three possible relatives of Princess Sheretnebty from Abusir South”. Vymazalová, Hana et al. 2011 The Tomb of Kaiemtjenenet (AS 38) and the Surrounding Structures (AS 57–AS 60), Prague: Charles University in Prague [Abusir XII]. Vymazalová, Hana – Arias Kytnarová, Katarína forthcoming “The development of Tomb AS 68c in Abusir South: burial place of the king’s daughter Sheretebty and her family,” in: Bárta, Miroslav – Coppens, Filip – Krejčí, and Jaromír (eds.). Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2015, Prague. Vymazalová, Hana – Dulíková, Veronika 2012 “Sheretnebty, a king’s daughter from Abusir”, Archiv orientální 80/3, pp. 339–356. 2013 “Výzkum hrobového komplexu princezny Šeretnebtej v jižním Abúsíru”, Pražské egyptologické studie X, pp. 26–34. 2014 “New evidence on princess Sheretnebty from Abusir South”, Archiv orientální 82/1, pp. 1–19. Sůvová, Zdeňka – Vymazalová, Hana 2013 “Nálezy zvířecích kostí z komplexu princezny Šeretnebtej (AS 68) v jižním Abúsíru”, Pražské egyptologické studie X, pp. 55–61. Ziegler, Christiane et al. 2007 Le Mastaba d’Akhethetep, Paris: Musée du Louvre [Fouilles du Louvre àSaqqara I]. Abstract: Exploration of the tomb complex of king’s daughter Sheretnebty, which was discovered in 2012, continued in the archaeological season of 2013. In October–November, the work concentrated on the underground parts of the tombs, including the burial shafts and burial chambers. In tomb AS 68c, two shafts were unusually deep; at a depth of 11.00 m under the ground the burial chambers of a man and a woman had been hewn. The man’s chamber contained a large sarcophagus of fine limestone and the remains of his burial and his tomb equipment, while the woman’s chamber remained largely unfinished and contained her rather simple burial placed on the floor. The so far discovered evidence indicates that this was the burial of Princess Sheretnebty. Another four shafts in the tomb contained four other burials of a female and three males, most probably the couple’s descendants. In addition, the shafts in the two western rock-cut tombs were explored. In the tomb of Shepespuptah (AS 68b), a single shaft was dug in the tomb’s chapel, while the tomb owner was buried in a burial chamber south of the chapel. The shaft in the chapel was large but reached only 1.40 m deep and was never finished and never used for burial. The two shafts in the tomb of Duaptah (AS 68a) revealed the burials of two men; the southern shaft belonged to Duaptah himself while the northern shaft to a certain Nefermin. The burials were mostly very simple, and all of them were disturbed by tomb robbers. The preserved bones might, however, still reveal important details about the individuals buried in the rock-cut tombs, and they will therefore be studied in order to trace the family relationships among the tomb owners. Abusir South – Sheretnebty – rock-cut tomb – tomb complex AS 68 Hana Vymazalová ([email protected]) Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague