In the shadow of Kaaper. Preliminary report on the anonymous Fifth Dynasty tomb AS 881

PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVII/2021, 7–42 In the shadow of Kaaper. Preliminary report on the anonymous Fifth Dynasty tomb AS 881 Martin Odler– Katarína Arias– Jiří Honzl – Petra Brukner Havelková– Zdeňka Sůvová2 ABSTRACT This paper presents an archaeological report on the anonymous Fifth Dynasty mastaba AS 88 from the Abusir South necropolis, south ‑west of the tomb of the official Kaaper (AS 1). The tomb was reduced to the ground in antiquity and only fundaments of its architectural disposition remain: the chapel and serdab located in the southernmost third of the ground plan, and the main burial Shaft 4 with looted burial chamber to the north. The tomb owner was arobust male who lived to relatively old age, between 40 and 60 years. Neighbouring ritual Shaft 5 has been undisturbed since antiquity and near its opening, adislocated base of acombed ‑ware vessel of Syro ‑Palestinian provenance was found, probably having come from the looted burial equipment of Kaaper. Other selected ceramic, anthropological (including two undisturbed Old Kingdom burials in subsidiary shafts of the tomb), and archaeozoological finds are presented as well in the report. The last part of the article discusses the importance of similar structures in the broader understanding of the Old Kingdom at Abusir, as they provide ahumble counterpart to the pyramids and major tombs of Royal Abusir. KEYWORDS Old Kingdom Egypt– Abusir South– tomb– pottery– Fifth Dynasty– Syro ‑Palestinian combed ware– palaeo‑ anthropology– archaeozoology ةسماخلا ةرسلأا نم اهبحاص فورعم ريغ )AS 88( ةربقم نع ىئدبم ريرقت .رباك لظ يف افوفوس اكنيدز – افوكليفاه رينكورب ارتيب – لزنوه ىجي – سايرأ انيراتاك – رلدوأ نترام صخلملا اهيلع رثع ةسماخلا ةرسلأا رصعب خرؤت ىتلاو اهبحاص مسا لوهجملا )AS 88( ةبطصم نع ًايرثأ ًاريرقت ةقرولا هذه مدقت روصعلا ىف ةربقملا ناردج تمدهت . )AS 1( ربعاك فظوملا ةربقم نم ىبرغلا بونجلا ىلإ عقت ىتلاو ،ريصوبأ بونج ةنابجب ،ةربقملا ططخم نم ىبونجلا ىصقلأا ثلثلاب ناعقي بادرسلاو ةروصقملا :ىرامعملا اهساسأ ىوس اهنم قبتي ملو ،ةميدقلا نس ىتح شاع ناينبلا ىوق ةربقملا بحاص ناك .لامشلا ىلإ ةبوهنملا نفدلا ةرجح وذ 4 مقر رئبلا وهو ،ىسيئرلا نفدملاو هتلاحب هيلع رثع ىذلاو ،رواجملا 5 مقر رئبلا ىلع روثعلا مت امك .ًاماع 60 و 40 نيب رمع نع ىفوت ثيح ،ًايبسن ةخوخيشلا 1 Members of the team were: Miroslav Bárta, Lucie Jirásková, Martin Odler, and Břetislav Va‑ chala (Egyptologists), Douglas Inglis and Veronica Morriss (archaeologists), Vladimír Brůna (geoinformatician), Katarína Arias and Jiří Honzl (ceramologists), Martin Frouz (photographer), Petra Havelková and Šárka Bejdová (anthropologists), Zdeňka Sůvová (archaeozoologist). The excavations were carried out under the supervision of the inspector from the then Ministry of Antiquities, Marwan Abubakr. The workmen were overseen by the foreman Hussein Marzouk Abu Ghazal. We are very grateful to the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities and to our colleagues for their kind cooperation. 2 Relevant subchapters are marked by ashortcut of the author’sname. Chapters without the abbreviation were written by the first author. 8PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVII/2021 نم ءاج امبر ،ىنيطسلف ىروس لصأ نم طشمم ىراخف ءانلإ ةدعاق ىلع هتهوف نم برقلاب روثعلا متو ،ةميدقلا روصعلا ذنم امب( ىرخأ ةراتخم ةيرشب ماظعو ةيراخف ىناوأ اياقب ًاضيأ ريرقتلا ضرعي امك .ربعاك ةربقم نم ةبوهنملا نفدلا ةرجح عاتم .ىرخأ ةيناويح ماظع اياقب ىلإ ةفاضلإاب ،)نيتميلس ةربقملل ةيبناجلا رابلآاب امهيلع رثع ةميدقلا ةلودلا رصع نم نيتنفد كلذ ىف رفوت اهنأ ثيح ريصوبأ ىف ةميدقلا ةلودلا رصعل عسولأا انمهف للاخ نم ةلثامملا ىنابملا ىنعم لاقملا نم ريخلأا ءزجلا شقاني .ةيكلملا ريصوبأ ةقطنم نم ةيسيئرلا رباقملاو تامارهلأل ًاعضاوتم ًاهيبش ةلادلا تاملكلا ناسنلإا ملع – طشمملا ىنيطسلفلا/ىروسلا راخفلا – ةسماخلا ةرسلأا – راخف – ةربقم – ريصوبأ بونج – ةميدقلا ةلودلا ناويحلا راثآ ملع – ميدقلا AS 88 is asimple “textbook mastaba”, astructure that suffered considerably due to its location at the southern limit of the Abusir South necropolis (fig. 1). There is not much to be said about it beyond the architecture and the material culture. The dating is intriguing, as it can be set most probably to the first half or middle of the Fifth Dynasty, one of the phases of the Old Kingdom that are not so dominantly represented and known, in ceramics in particular. Since it was exca‑ vated completely and partially built on the virgin bedrock of this part of necropolis, it allows us to formulate some research questions that might influence also the research of the “important” Old Kingdom mastabas and the modelling of the local, site ‑specific chronology and development. It provides ahumble counterpart to the major mastabas of the Fifth ‑Dynasty Royal Abusir. The spring part of the 2016 season at Abusir South, conducted by the Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, focused predominantly on the documentation Fig. 1 Tomb AS 88 from the east (photo M. Odler) 9M. ODLER– K. ARIAS– J. HONZL – P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– Z. SŮVOVÁ of the late Third Dynasty boat, AS 80 (Bárta 2019). Atrench to the south ‑east of the boat was opened to clarify the situation, and it was established that there was only asingle boat, with‑ out any other structural remnants of tomb AS 54 (Bárta 2011). Two new tomb numbers were assigned during the work: AS 88 and AS 89 (fig. 2). Tomb AS 88 was excavated completely, but AS 89 was numbered and only the visible architecture was documented. The southern limit of tomb AS 81 was established and the adjacent structure AS 81b was excavated as well (except for the shafts). Several more shaft openings were identified in the space between the tombs AS 88, AS 81 and AS 1 of Kaaper (Bárta 2001: 143–191). These were not uncovered due to the lack of time, as in the middle of April, anew excavation of the tomb AC 31 started at Abusir Centre (Krejčí 2016). SUPERSTRUCTURE Tomb AS 88 was discovered in March 2016 and explored on 3rd–16th April 2016. The complete ground dimensions of the mastaba are 13.10 × 6.30 m (fig. 3). It was built of stone masonry, with acasing made of grey local limestone, typical of smaller Abusir South mastabas. Some architec‑ tural parts, e.g. parts of shaft mouths, were built of mud brick. The tomb was massively damaged by stone robbers: alarge part of the eastern outer wall and ahalf of the southern wall were removed completely, the chapel and the serdab were reduced to the ground, to the local level of tafla (figs. 4 and 5). Local erosion reduced the structure further, substantially and gradually since antiquity. The human bones found near the north ‑west corner of AS 88 could be from one of the disturbed shafts of the tomb or its vicinity (6/AS88/2016; for details, see below). Fig. 2 Location of tomb AS 88 (ArcGIS online application, details available in Bártaetal. 2020) 10 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVII/2021 Fig. 3 Ground plan of mastabas AS 88, AS 89 and AS 81b. Shaft 7 and shafts without numbering were not excavated (drawing M. Odler, L. Vařeková) 11M. ODLER– K. ARIAS– J. HONZL – P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– Z. SŮVOVÁ Fig. 4 Tombs AS 88 and AS 81b, viewed from south ‑east (photo M. Frouz) Fig. 5 North ‑south section of tomb AS 88 (drawing M. Odler, L. Vařeková) 12 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVII/2021 As the chapel and the serdab were destroyed, the only remaining architectural feature was alarge, roughly cut block (size 1.5 × 0.35 × 0.5 m) in between these areas. The function of the serdab was confirmed by the find of an outstretched hand and arm of awooden statuette (9/ AS88/2016_b, length 17 cm, width 2.3 cm; fig. 6). Another worked piece of wood (9/AS88/2016_a, 22 × 7 × 6 cm) was less determinable, but it might also have been part of the original statuary equipment of the serdab. To the east of the roughly cut block was adeposit of yellow sand and mud brick destruc‑ tion, mud brick size 23 × 11.5 × 8.5 cm, filling the presumed space of the chapel. Not asingle fragment of decoration was found. Yellow sand is often present in recent disturbances on the site, in topmost parts mixed with modern refuse including plastic bags. Moreover, tomb AS 1 of Kaaper retained traces of early twentieth ‑century excavations, such as fragments of newspapers (Bárta 2001: 177). Presumably, some fragments of the original decoration of the AS 88 could have been illegally exported long ago in the past, like the decoration fragments of the chapel of Kaaper (Fischer 1959; Bárta 2001: 143–191). Even if the whole chapel was not decorated, afalse door in its western side might have existed. Apresumable room uncovered in the northern third of the mastaba turned out to be apart of the superstructure’score filled with alarge number of ceramic fragments (the ceramic context 8.AS88.2016 is discussed below). It could also have been aspace for an unfinished shaft filled with pottery later on, when the structure was completed for the funerary cult.3 The highest preserved outer casing wall was on the north, with three courses of masonry over the ground level (height ca. 0.7 m). The casing was built directly on tafla. The layer at the northernmost part of the tomb probably has remained undisturbed since antiquity. 3 There are several examples of such filling of the hollow spaces inside Old Kingdom structures with ceramic refuse, e.g. in the tomb AC 29 (Krejčí 2013: 28) or in tomb AC 15 (Verner– Callender 2002: 18, fig. B4, pl. Bf 14). Fig. 6 Selected finds from the tomb AS 88 (photo M. Odler) 13M. ODLER– K. ARIAS– J. HONZL – P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– Z. SŮVOVÁ SUBSTRUCTURE The main burial compartment was located immediately to the north of the chapel and the serdab, with two shaft openings, Shafts 4 and 5. Shaft 4 together with the tomb’sonly burial chamber was looted in the Old Kingdom, while Shaft 5 remained undisturbed (tab.1). Shaft Inside / outside of AS 88 Opening length (m) Opening width (m) Depth (m) Burial Ceramic context Figure 1 inside 0.82 0.82 0.92 none 1, 3, 4 2 outside 0.80 0.55 0.18 8/AS88/2016 10.AS88.2016 1, 3, 4, 19 3 inside 0.90 0.80 1.28 none 13.AS88.2016 1, 3, 4, 20 4 inside 1.50 1.40 7.60 16/AS88/2016 14.AS88.2016 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 5 inside 1.50 1.50 3.97 none 15.AS88.2016 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 6 outside 0.80 0.80 1.50 4/AS88/2016 2.AS88.2016 1, 3, 17 SHAFT 4 Shaft 4 (opening 1.5 × 1.4 m, depth 7.6 m) contained aburial in the burial chamber hewn in the bedrock to the south of the shaft bottom, located under the area of the serdab and the chapel (dimensions 3.25 × 2.15 × 1.07–1.22 m). The topmost fill of the shaft was of yellow wind ‑blown sand mixed with occasional ceramic fragments. Aquartzite tool blade sharpener with traces of copper (14/AS88/2016; 16.4 × 12.4 × 3.45 cm, weight 527.5 g; fig. 6) was found half ametre below the shaft opening and could have belonged to the tomb builders or tomb looters. Astragalus (13/ AS88/2016) found ca. 3 m below the shaft opening might have been part of the original burial equipment. The fill of the shaft changed at adepth of 4 m to blocks of local yellow limestone and tafla with ceramic fragments in old brown sand. This indicated that the burial chamber had been looted in antiquity. Flint with green stains from copper was found ca. 4.5 m below the shaft opening (15/AS88/2016; 8.05 × 6.9 × 5.1 cm, weight 357.3 g; fig. 6). The bottom of the shaft was chiselled out in the form of two east ‑west running steps. Oblique chisel marks were preserved also on the walls of the burial chamber, with the width 0.5, 1.3 and 1.2 cm; in that period, the chisels were most probably made of arsenical copper (Odler 2016; Odleretal. 2021). The raised burial pit (2.20 × 0.75 × 0.45 m) at the western side of the burial chamber was built of stone masonry. Irregular stone boulders were in its south‑ ‑western sector of the burial chamber, and the complete masonry originally covered with white plaster (figs. 7 and 8). The pit was covered with two flat blocks of white limestone (the larger 106 × 60 × 6.5 cm, the smaller 75 × 55 × 9 cm), fixed by pink mortar in acut ‑out ledge in the western wall of the chamber. The body might have been originally deposited in an outstretched position, with the legs positioned to the south. The burial chamber was robbed in antiquity, but the soft tissues of the body had decayed by that time. Feet bones, several long leg bones and the pelvis were found in the raised burial pit, while one femur and the bones of the upper part of the body, including the skull, were thrown outside the pit, in the area of the burial chamber (16/ Tab.1 Shafts of AS 88 (M. Odler) 14 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVII/2021 Fig. 7 Burial chamber of Shaft 4 with adetail of the raised burial pit (photo M. Frouz) Fig. 8 Ground plan and section of Shaft 4 and its burial chamber (drawing M. Odler, L. Vařeková) 15M. ODLER– K. ARIAS– J. HONZL – P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– Z. SŮVOVÁ AS88/2016_a). The body was probably treated by asort of superficial mummification process; traces of the material were sampled (16/AS88/2016_c). Mud fragments were found in the burial chamber and in the burial pit, indicating that the body might have been covered by alayer of mud. Not asingle piece of the burial equipment was identified. Alarge complete beer jar covered with awhite layer at the eastern side of the burial chamber dates probably from the time the chamber was looted, or after it. Due to the occurrence of the Old Kingdom ceramics in the burial chamber, this might be terminus post quem the looting happened. Charcoal pieces (17/AS88/2016) were too small to be analysed by the 14C dating technique currently available in Egypt; they also could refer instead to the time of the tomb looting. SHAFT 5 Shaft 5 was found undisturbed from the surface level (opening 1.5 × 1.5 m, depth 3.97 m); the upper part of the shaft contained alarge quantity of pottery that was so much joined by hard mortar that it could be excavated only by pickaxes (fig. 9). This particular deposit was limited to the opening of Shaft 5 and was not identical with the hardened deposit north of the tomb. Ceramic concentrations were not apparent, except for agroup of aceramic stand and abread form (15‑10.AS88.2016 and 15a‑6.AS88.2016) 55 cm below the north ‑eastern corner. Ceramic fragments ceased to appear in large numbers at adepth of ca. 2 m, replaced by tafla fragments. Scattered bones (10/AS88/2016) were found at adepth of ca. 2.5 m, identified as fragments Fig. 9 Sample of plaster covering the opening of Shaft 5 (photo M. Frouz) 22 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVII/2021 Fig. 13 Selected pottery from Shaft 5 of AS 88 (drawing J. Honzl, L. Vařeková) 2018: 84–85, fig. 12). Fragments of the other beer jar (7‑1.AS88.2016) clearly came from avessel of different shape (variant J1aI) and of larger dimensions. Compared to other ceramic contexts recovered from the shafts of tomb AS 88, the one from Shaft 3 (13.AS88.2016) was much more fragmented, resembling the condition of the pottery collected from the tomb’sexterior. Thus, it clearly represents relocated refuse de‑ posited initially on the surface, likely exposed to mechanical stresses for alonger time than in the cases of other ceramic contexts from shafts. There were, however, no signs of more extensive atmospheric weathering. Beer jars were the prevailing pottery group from the 23M. ODLER– K. ARIAS– J. HONZL – P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– Z. SŮVOVÁ shaft. The two best ‑preserved examples recovered (13‑9.AS88.2016, 13‑17.AS88.2016) seem to represent relatively small specimens of ovoid beer jars (types J‑1a and J‑1b). The same is likely for most of the other recovered fragments as well. One of the beer jars fragments (13‑7.AS88.2016) had traces of white plaster on its inner side. Of other pottery classes, only bread forms were notably represented by more than afew sherds coming from at least six individual vessels. The ceramic contexts of Shaft 6 (2.AS88.2016 and 3.AS88.2016), with the burial 4/AS88/2016 found in its fill, contained several relatively well ‑preserved beer jar examples. Acomplete pro‑ file of one of the beer jars (2‑3.AS88.2016; fig. 12) was preserved. It was aslender ovoid 34 cm high vessel with aneck and asimple rim (type J‑1bII). Its general shape is well comparable to the (nearly) complete vessels from tomb AS 38 (Arias Kytnarová 2011b: Fig. 6.1, 15‑4.AS38.2010, Fig. 6.8, 2‑3.AS38.2010), but it is slightly larger. Therefore, it is possibly datable to the later part of the Fifth Dynasty. There were traces of white plaster on the jar’sexterior. Other beer jars from Shaft 6 may have been of similar shape. Some parts of the best ‑preserved beer jar (2‑3.AS88.2016) were found just below the burial 4/AS88/2016, and the rest deeper in the shaft. Fragments of another beer jar bottom (2‑6.AS88.2016) were found both below and above the burial. It had ahole punctured in its base before firing. Some of the beer jar fragments from Shaft 6 contained traces of mud coating and lumps of compact mud, probably representing the original filling of at least some of the jars, which were found alongside. All of this shows the funerary ritual purpose of at least part of the pottery recovered from the shaft. There was also alarge lower body of a bDA bread form (2‑7.AS88.2016; group F‑1). KAAPER’SDISPERSED BURIAL GOODS? (KA) Some ceramic finds from the area do not fit the relatively small size of tomb AS 88 and the presumed socio ‑economic standing of its owner, based on the building material used in the tomb, the lack of titles and the absence of other finds besides pottery (see above). There was one exceptional ceramic context, namely Shaft 5, situated north of the shaft of an unknown owner (see fig. 3). It must be noted that this shaft was only 3.97 m deep and did not contain any chamber or niche and had no traces of aburial. While its main content (context 15.AS88.2016) came from the densely packed fill of the presumably undisturbed shaft, the opening of this shaft was not clearly discernible when the excavations began to focus on this area, thus ce‑ ramics from its vicinity could have found away into the first basket with pottery. From this layer came two conjoining fragments of asingle storage jar made of aforeign fabric with large non ‑organic inclusions (15‑8.AS88.2016, fig. 14b). Given the shape, fabric and surface treatment, these fragments belong without any doubt to alarge two ‑handled storage jar with aflat base– so ‑called combed ware of Syro ‑Palestinian origin (fig. 14a; Abusir group J‑4, see e.g. Kytnarová 2009: 76–79). Considering that the owner of tomb AS 88 was very likely only alower official, the presence of agenuine imported Levantine storage jar seems quite extraordinary and unusual. Moreover, unlike the compact fill of the shaft itself that brought to light several well ‑preserved vessels of homogenous sizes and types in full shape or at least complete profile (see above), there were no other fragments of Syro ‑Palestinian fabric in the lower fill of the shaft, which makes it possible that this base was secondary or even tertiary presence in the area of the tomb AS 88. 24 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVII/2021 The analysis of Fifth ‑Dynasty two ‑handled storage jars known from the Memphite necropolis shows that during this period, and especially at the beginning of the dynasty, such vessels seem to have been reserved for high officials.6 All of them came from burial chambers and 6 For the discussion of Syro ‑Palestinian imports, see e.g. Reisner– Smith (1955: 74–76); Junker (1929: 119–126) and, most extensively, Sowada (2009), with further bibliography. Fig. 14 a) Base of atwo ‑handled Syro ‑Palestinian storage jar (drawing J. Honzl, L. Vařeková); b) detail of Syro ‑Palestinian fabric with acombed surface and large inorganic inclusions (photo K. Arias) a b 25M. ODLER– K. ARIAS– J. HONZL – P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– Z. SŮVOVÁ were undoubtedly part of the original tomb goods of the deceased (see tab.2). In several cases, the owners were clearly stated by their titles, such as Nefernisut (G 4970; Junker 1938), Seshemnefer I(G 4940), Kaaper (AS 1; Bárta 2001), Khnumnefer (G 2175; Reisner– Smith 1955), Senedjemib Inti (G 2370; Brovarski 2001) and Kaemheset (McFarlane 2003). In the absence of titles, the status of the tomb owners can be deduced from the size and material of their tombs7 or the inclusion of other precious burial goods.8 For example, the unknown owner of Shaft Ain tomb G 1031 was buried in adouble coffin and was also equipped with aporphyry stone vessel.9 The anonymous male owner of the small western tomb in Nazlet Batran was interred in adisintegrated wooden coffin, with diverse ceramic vessels placed around his head and in front of him (Kromer 1991: 40–41, Abb. 12–13). The presumed owner of Shaft Ain G 4410, Nishepsesnisut, was buried in alimestone sarcophagus and his chamber contained not only fine ceramic vessels and miniatures but also copper models, limestone canopic jars, alabaster model vessel and fragments of golden foil (Reisner 1942: 514–516). The owner of Shaft 294 was also interred in alimestone sarcophagus and had arich assemblage including calcite model vessels, acalcite table, two ovoid ceramic jars with contents, another imported vessel (aone ‑handled Palestinian jug), five red ‑slipped bowls and other finds (Hassan 1936: 145). The anonymous owner of G 2350 (G 5290) had alarge mastaba and was equipped with awooden headrest in his burial chamber.10 One of the most interesting contexts was the burial chamber of Shaft 1 in tomb D 6 in Giza that contained several objects in situ around the rectangular pit cut in stone including alarge copper ewer, acopper model chisel (see Odler– Kmošeketal. 2020), as well as acalcite tablet of seven sacred oils, calcite miniature bowls and acalcite headrest.11 Given these facts and the likely secondary nature of the imported fragment, adifferent place of origin should be considered. Tomb AS 88 is situated only 2 m west of the tomb of the official Kaaper (AS 1, Bárta 2001: 143–192), next to its tall mastaba superstructure. The limestone mastaba AS 1 is one of the largest at Abusir South, with asize of 41.20 × 19.20 m and an impressive height consisting of six preserved courses of casing. The tomb’ssingle shaft was one of the deepest at Abusir South, reaching 23.15 m.12 The finds from Kaaper’sdisturbed burial chamber included two fragmentary two ‑handled imported jars with acombed surface, made of an unidentified foreign fabric with large inclusions of quartz and limestone (Bárta 2001: 185, pl. LXXXVIIIb). Both were relatively small, with an estimated height of 32–33 cm and amaximum diameter of 22 cm (see fig. 15). It is important to stress that Kaaper served (among numerous other titles, see tab. 1) as zS mSa nswt m Wnt m Zrr m IdA xtjw-(m)fkAt xAswt imntt iAbtt, “scribe of the army of the king in Wenet, in Serer, in Tepa, in Ida, Terraces of the Turquoise and the Western and Eastern foreign lands” (Bárta 2001: 179). Some of these local‑ 7 Except for two (G 1224 in Giza and the tomb of Kaemheset in Saqqara), all the tombs were built of blocks of limestone. 8 Several of the discussed tombs remain unpublished, but the information about their sizes, contexts and finds can be found in scanned original documentation and online resources (see below and tab.1). 9 http://giza.fas.harvard.edu/sites/195/full/. Accessed on 12th August 2021. 10 http://giza.fas.harvard.edu/sites/568/full/. Accessed on 12th August 2021. 11 The two ‑handled storage jar from this tomb had been brought to the Ägyptisches Museum der Universität Leipzig but was lost during World War II (see http://www.giza ‑projekt.org/Funde/ UL_1484/UL_1484.html. Accessed on 12th August 2021; also Arias 2020). 12 For the as yet unpublished finds from Kaaper’stomb, see Kytnarová (2009: 18–21). 26 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVII/2021 Site Tomb Context Context details Owner of the tomb Title(s) of the owner of the tomb Dating of the tomb Tomb material Tomb size J-4 description Vessel no. Main resources Giza G 1031 Shaft A, BC the jar was found in a small niche west of the coffin of the owner unknown unknown Khafre – Neferirkare (Reisner – Smith 1955) limestone blocks 24.35 × 14.60 m complete storage jar with two handles and combed surface no number Reisner – Smith 1955: 76, fig. 96, pl. 51d; http://giza.fas.harvard.edu/ sites/195/full/ Nazlet Batran small west mastaba Shaft, BC found in situ next to the disintegra‑ ted wooden coffin of the deceased unknown no titles preserved IV–V (Kromer 1991) limestone 8.30 × 5.00 m complete storage jar with two handles and combed surface, with a pot mark no number Kromer 1991: 36–41, 67, fig. 1, Taf. 23, 38/4 Giza G 4410 Shaft A, BC found in frag‑ ments on the floor of the disturbed burial chamber Ni-Spss-nswt (?) jr-ant Hm-kA, possibly also Hm-kA jmj-r sSr Weserkaf or later (Porter et al. 1974; Odler 2016) limestone blocks 22.75 × 9.80 m jar, incomplete, plaster sto‑ pper with the imprint of saucer 15‑12‑67 Reisner 1942: 514–516, fig. 318; http://giza.fas.harvard.edu/si‑ tes/1027/full/ Giza G 4970 North shaft, BC found in the disturbed debris of the burial chamber in the northern shaft of the tomb, belon‑ ging to the wife of the owner, priestess Xntt-kA Nfr-nswt jmj-r aH sAb Hrj-sStA jmj-r prw msw-nswt aD-mr grgt jmj-r mnnw jmj-r nswtjw HqA Hwt aAt sSm-tA tA-wr sSm-tA wADt jmj-r wabw wrxafra xrp jmjw sAw wr-xafra Hm-nTr xafra Weserkaf – Sahure (Harpur 1987) / early – middle V (Baer 1960; Porter et al. 1974) / early V (Odler 2016) limestone blocks 23.80 × 10.00 m combed storage jar with two handles, found in fragments, reconstructed to full profile no number Junker 1929: Abb. 14:11, Taf. XLIIIb; Junker 1938: 166; http://giza.fas. harvard.edu/sites/1165/full/ Giza G 4940 Shaft B, BC probably intru‑ sive? %Sm-nfr I. rx nswt Xrj-tp nswt Hwt Hr-xpr xt HA Hm-nTr Hqt Hm-nTr Hr THnw qA-a sAb aD-mr wr mDw Sma Hrj-sStA jmj-r kAt nt nswt jmj-r sSw Xr-a nswt Hrj-wDbw m Hwt-anx jmj-r stj-DfAw smr Hm-nTr jnpw xrp aH Sahure – Neferirkare (Baer 1960) / Sahure – Nyuserre (Kanawati 2002) / Weserkaf – Nefe‑ rirkare (Harpur 1987) / early Dynasty V (Strud‑ wick 1985) limestone blocks 29.20 × 14.90 m weathered fragments, proba‑ bly intrusive 15‑1‑9 Reisner – Smith 1955: 76; http:// giza.fas.harvard.edu/sites/1161/ full/ Shaft A, BC found in the de‑ bris of the burial chamber 13 fragments of combed stor‑ age jar 15‑11‑36 fragment of two‑handled combed ware used probably as a tool (digging sherd) 15‑11‑37a Abusir AS 1 Shaft, BC found in frag‑ ments in the de‑ bris of the burial chamber KA(.j)-apr mnjw zAb(w)t zS mr(w) zAb(w)t zš pr-mDAt nfr sHD zS(w) (n) zAb zš mDAt (n) zAb zš (n) zAb zS mSa nswt m Wnt m Zrr m IdA xtjw-(m)fkAt xAswt imntt iAbtt aD-mr (n) zAb wr mD Smaw Hr(j)-sStA Da(r) mAat n nb-f wD-mdw [n Hr(jw)-wDb(w)] xrp jz DfA Hrp jzwj DfA xrp pr-HD xrp tmAt(jw) nb(w) jmj-r [...] n(j) jb nTr-f jmj-r mSa jmj-r kA(w)t (nt) nswt tp(j) Xrt nswt Hm-nTr Hqt beginning of V (Bárta 2001) limestone blocks 41.20 × 19.20 m a large storage jar with two handles and combed surface, reconstructed almost to full profile no number Bárta 2001: 185, pl. LXXXVIIIb fragments of a second storage jar with two handles no number Giza G 2175 Shaft B, BC vessel was found intact in front of the feet of the deceased $nm-nfr wab nswt first half of V (Porter et al. 1974) / Weserkaf – Raneferef (Harpur 1987) / middle – late V (Sowada 2009) limestone blocks 7.90 × 6.65 m complete storage jar with a re‑ latively tall narrow neck, two handles and combed surface 13‑1‑506 Reisner – Smith 1955: 76, fig. 96, pl. 51i; http://giza.fas.harvard.edu/ sites/730/full/ Giza Mastaba of Shaft 294 Shaft 294 vessel was found in the south‑east corner of the burial chamber, together with three other jars unknown no titles preserved middle V (Hassan 1936) limestone blocks estimated size 11.5 × 9 m jar, fragmentary, potter›s mark, inside small proportion of fatty matter no number Hassan 1936: 145, fig. 173:4 27M. ODLER– K. ARIAS– J. HONZL – P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– Z. SŮVOVÁ Site Tomb Context Context details Owner of the tomb Title(s) of the owner of the tomb Dating of the tomb Tomb material Tomb size J-4 description Vessel no. Main resources Giza G 1031 Shaft A, BC the jar was found in a small niche west of the coffin of the owner unknown unknown Khafre – Neferirkare (Reisner – Smith 1955) limestone blocks 24.35 × 14.60 m complete storage jar with two handles and combed surface no number Reisner – Smith 1955: 76, fig. 96, pl. 51d; http://giza.fas.harvard.edu/ sites/195/full/ Nazlet Batran small west mastaba Shaft, BC found in situ next to the disintegra‑ ted wooden coffin of the deceased unknown no titles preserved IV–V (Kromer 1991) limestone 8.30 × 5.00 m complete storage jar with two handles and combed surface, with a pot mark no number Kromer 1991: 36–41, 67, fig. 1, Taf. 23, 38/4 Giza G 4410 Shaft A, BC found in frag‑ ments on the floor of the disturbed burial chamber Ni-Spss-nswt (?) jr-ant Hm-kA, possibly also Hm-kA jmj-r sSr Weserkaf or later (Porter et al. 1974; Odler 2016) limestone blocks 22.75 × 9.80 m jar, incomplete, plaster sto‑ pper with the imprint of saucer 15‑12‑67 Reisner 1942: 514–516, fig. 318; http://giza.fas.harvard.edu/si‑ tes/1027/full/ Giza G 4970 North shaft, BC found in the disturbed debris of the burial chamber in the northern shaft of the tomb, belon‑ ging to the wife of the owner, priestess Xntt-kA Nfr-nswt jmj-r aH sAb Hrj-sStA jmj-r prw msw-nswt aD-mr grgt jmj-r mnnw jmj-r nswtjw HqA Hwt aAt sSm-tA tA-wr sSm-tA wADt jmj-r wabw wrxafra xrp jmjw sAw wr-xafra Hm-nTr xafra Weserkaf – Sahure (Harpur 1987) / early – middle V (Baer 1960; Porter et al. 1974) / early V (Odler 2016) limestone blocks 23.80 × 10.00 m combed storage jar with two handles, found in fragments, reconstructed to full profile no number Junker 1929: Abb. 14:11, Taf. XLIIIb; Junker 1938: 166; http://giza.fas. harvard.edu/sites/1165/full/ Giza G 4940 Shaft B, BC probably intru‑ sive? %Sm-nfr I. rx nswt Xrj-tp nswt Hwt Hr-xpr xt HA Hm-nTr Hqt Hm-nTr Hr THnw qA-a sAb aD-mr wr mDw Sma Hrj-sStA jmj-r kAt nt nswt jmj-r sSw Xr-a nswt Hrj-wDbw m Hwt-anx jmj-r stj-DfAw smr Hm-nTr jnpw xrp aH Sahure – Neferirkare (Baer 1960) / Sahure – Nyuserre (Kanawati 2002) / Weserkaf – Nefe‑ rirkare (Harpur 1987) / early Dynasty V (Strud‑ wick 1985) limestone blocks 29.20 × 14.90 m weathered fragments, proba‑ bly intrusive 15‑1‑9 Reisner – Smith 1955: 76; http:// giza.fas.harvard.edu/sites/1161/ full/ Shaft A, BC found in the de‑ bris of the burial chamber 13 fragments of combed stor‑ age jar 15‑11‑36 fragment of two‑handled combed ware used probably as a tool (digging sherd) 15‑11‑37a Abusir AS 1 Shaft, BC found in frag‑ ments in the de‑ bris of the burial chamber KA(.j)-apr mnjw zAb(w)t zS mr(w) zAb(w)t zš pr-mDAt nfr sHD zS(w) (n) zAb zš mDAt (n) zAb zš (n) zAb zS mSa nswt m Wnt m Zrr m IdA xtjw-(m)fkAt xAswt imntt iAbtt aD-mr (n) zAb wr mD Smaw Hr(j)-sStA Da(r) mAat n nb-f wD-mdw [n Hr(jw)-wDb(w)] xrp jz DfA Hrp jzwj DfA xrp pr-HD xrp tmAt(jw) nb(w) jmj-r [...] n(j) jb nTr-f jmj-r mSa jmj-r kA(w)t (nt) nswt tp(j) Xrt nswt Hm-nTr Hqt beginning of V (Bárta 2001) limestone blocks 41.20 × 19.20 m a large storage jar with two handles and combed surface, reconstructed almost to full profile no number Bárta 2001: 185, pl. LXXXVIIIb fragments of a second storage jar with two handles no number Giza G 2175 Shaft B, BC vessel was found intact in front of the feet of the deceased $nm-nfr wab nswt first half of V (Porter et al. 1974) / Weserkaf – Raneferef (Harpur 1987) / middle – late V (Sowada 2009) limestone blocks 7.90 × 6.65 m complete storage jar with a re‑ latively tall narrow neck, two handles and combed surface 13‑1‑506 Reisner – Smith 1955: 76, fig. 96, pl. 51i; http://giza.fas.harvard.edu/ sites/730/full/ Giza Mastaba of Shaft 294 Shaft 294 vessel was found in the south‑east corner of the burial chamber, together with three other jars unknown no titles preserved middle V (Hassan 1936) limestone blocks estimated size 11.5 × 9 m jar, fragmentary, potter›s mark, inside small proportion of fatty matter no number Hassan 1936: 145, fig. 173:4 28 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVII/2021 Site Tomb Context Context details Owner of the tomb Title(s) of the owner of the tomb Dating of the tomb Tomb material Tomb size J-4 description Vessel no. Main resources Giza G 1224 Shaft A no details unknown unknown Neferirkare – Wenis (Reisner – Smith 1955) mud‑brick and rubble mastaba 8.70 × 4.70 m almost complete storage jar with two handles no number Reisner and Smith 1955: 76, fig. 97, pl. 51b Giza G 2350 (=G 5290) Shaft L, BC found in the de‑ bris of the burial chamber unknown unknown Neferirkare – Wenis (Reisner – Smith 1955) limestone masta‑ ba 20.00 × 8.40 m almost complete combed jar with two handles, with a potter’s mark on upper shoulders 40‑5‑7 Reisner and Smith 1955: 76, fig. 97, pl. 52f; http://giza.fas.harvard. edu/sites/568/full/ Saqqa‑ ra Mastaba of Ka‑ emhaset South shaft, BC found during the re‑excavation of the lower part of the shaft and burial chamber of Kaemheset KA-m-Hzt jmj-r qd(w) jmj-r qd(w) Xnw wr jrt m TA-wr mDH qd nswt rx nswt Hwt HDt Hm-nTr sSAt Hrj-sStA n pr-aA late Nyuserre – Djedkare (McFarlane 2003) mud bricks 18.80 × max. 11.05 m several fragments of a large combed storage jar with two handles and a flat base TW2000:6 McFarlane 2003: 45, pl. 17, 51 Giza G 2370 Shaft B, BC found in the fill of the burial chamber %nDm-ib Inti xrp sSw nbw Xrj-tp nswt jmj-r Snwtj jmj-r pr-aHAw mDH qd nswt m prwj jmj-r prwj-HD jmj-r jswj Xkr nswt jmj-r st nbt nt Xnw jmj-r prw msw nswt jmj-r Xkr nswt jmj-r Hwt-wrt sjsw jmj-r sDmt nbt jrj-pat HAtj-a tAjtj sAb TAtj jmj-r kAt nbt nt nswt jmj-r sSw a nswt Hrj-sStA wDt-mdw nbt nt nswt Hrj-Xb smr watj middle – late Djedkare (Harpur 1987) / Djedkare (Porter et al. / Djedkare – end of V (Baer 1960) / late Djedkare (Kanawati) limestone blocks 22.80 × 20.90 m two‑handled combed jar pre‑ served in fragments but recon‑ structed to full profile; with a cylinder seal imprint on the upper shoulder 35‑7‑41 Reisner – Smith 1955: 76, fig. 98; Brovarski 2001, pl. 57a,b; http:// giza.fas.harvard.edu/sites/821/ full/ Giza D 6 Shaft 1, BC found in situ in the burial cham‑ ber of Shaft 1, next to the south‑ ‑east corner of the sarcophagus unknown no titles preserved late V (Odler 2020) limestone 10.50 × 4.60 m complete ÄMUL 1484 Odler 2020: xxx; http://www. giza‑projekt.org/Mastaba/Masta‑ ba_D6.html Tab.2 Two‑handled Syro‑Palestinian storage jars found in Fifth‑Dynasty funerary contexts in the Mem‑ phite necropolis (K. Arias) ities are connected with the Delta region and the north ‑east border of Egypt. The “Terraces of Turquoise” are traditionally identified as the well ‑known turquoise and copper mining site of Wadi Maghara in Sinai (Tallet 2018: 17, although Kaaper’s inscription is wrongly provenanced to Saqqara in this monograph). Thus, it is very likely that Kaaper had not only the access but also the means to procure original Syro ‑Palestinian imports. The ceramic journals from the 1991 season give amore detailed description of the imported vessels from Kaaper’sburial chamber. Two bases had diameters of 10.5 and 11 cm, while rim fragments had diameters of 8–9 cm. There were numerous body fragments; only one vessel could be reconstructed to ca. 2/3 of its height. The base from Shaft 1 in AS 88 fits the general sizes and fabric of Kaaper’simports. In this respect, it is important to note another possible case of asimilarly displaced vessel. One of the most characteristic parts of Kaaper’sburial assemblage was his set of miniature vessels. There were almost 300 fragments, with bases of at least 12 bowls and 10–12 cups (Bárta 2001: 185). All of them were rather large and tall, the cups reaching amaximum height of 11 cm and bowls having rim diameters of 10.5–12.5 cm and heights of up to 4.3 cm. The most frequent 29M. ODLER– K. ARIAS– J. HONZL – P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– Z. SŮVOVÁ Site Tomb Context Context details Owner of the tomb Title(s) of the owner of the tomb Dating of the tomb Tomb material Tomb size J-4 description Vessel no. Main resources Giza G 1224 Shaft A no details unknown unknown Neferirkare – Wenis (Reisner – Smith 1955) mud‑brick and rubble mastaba 8.70 × 4.70 m almost complete storage jar with two handles no number Reisner and Smith 1955: 76, fig. 97, pl. 51b Giza G 2350 (=G 5290) Shaft L, BC found in the de‑ bris of the burial chamber unknown unknown Neferirkare – Wenis (Reisner – Smith 1955) limestone masta‑ ba 20.00 × 8.40 m almost complete combed jar with two handles, with a potter’s mark on upper shoulders 40‑5‑7 Reisner and Smith 1955: 76, fig. 97, pl. 52f; http://giza.fas.harvard. edu/sites/568/full/ Saqqa‑ ra Mastaba of Ka‑ emhaset South shaft, BC found during the re‑excavation of the lower part of the shaft and burial chamber of Kaemheset KA-m-Hzt jmj-r qd(w) jmj-r qd(w) Xnw wr jrt m TA-wr mDH qd nswt rx nswt Hwt HDt Hm-nTr sSAt Hrj-sStA n pr-aA late Nyuserre – Djedkare (McFarlane 2003) mud bricks 18.80 × max. 11.05 m several fragments of a large combed storage jar with two handles and a flat base TW2000:6 McFarlane 2003: 45, pl. 17, 51 Giza G 2370 Shaft B, BC found in the fill of the burial chamber %nDm-ib Inti xrp sSw nbw Xrj-tp nswt jmj-r Snwtj jmj-r pr-aHAw mDH qd nswt m prwj jmj-r prwj-HD jmj-r jswj Xkr nswt jmj-r st nbt nt Xnw jmj-r prw msw nswt jmj-r Xkr nswt jmj-r Hwt-wrt sjsw jmj-r sDmt nbt jrj-pat HAtj-a tAjtj sAb TAtj jmj-r kAt nbt nt nswt jmj-r sSw a nswt Hrj-sStA wDt-mdw nbt nt nswt Hrj-Xb smr watj middle – late Djedkare (Harpur 1987) / Djedkare (Porter et al. / Djedkare – end of V (Baer 1960) / late Djedkare (Kanawati) limestone blocks 22.80 × 20.90 m two‑handled combed jar pre‑ served in fragments but recon‑ structed to full profile; with a cylinder seal imprint on the upper shoulder 35‑7‑41 Reisner – Smith 1955: 76, fig. 98; Brovarski 2001, pl. 57a,b; http:// giza.fas.harvard.edu/sites/821/ full/ Giza D 6 Shaft 1, BC found in situ in the burial cham‑ ber of Shaft 1, next to the south‑ ‑east corner of the sarcophagus unknown no titles preserved late V (Odler 2020) limestone 10.50 × 4.60 m complete ÄMUL 1484 Odler 2020: xxx; http://www. giza‑projekt.org/Mastaba/Masta‑ ba_D6.html cups had simple closed forms, although recurved and modelled rims were uncovered as well. All these miniatures had an unusual thin break and, most importantly, all were covered with avery fine red slip that was highly polished. Thus, they were easily distinguishable from the small, rather plain wet ‑smoothed miniatures of the later Fifth Dynasty. Such red ‑slipped miniatures, relatively rare at Abusir, were found mostly in the tombs of royal family members and high officials in the pyramid field of Abusir Centre. They make up afew types, e.g. red ‑slipped miniature bowls (MB‑4) and vases (MV‑1). The largest quantity comes from the tomb of Kakaibaef (AC 29) with dozens of specimens (Arias 2017: Fig. 4.64);13 fewer are known also from the tomb of Prince Werkaure (Arias Kytnarová 2014: 228–229, fig. 4.90, MB‑4), etc. At Abusir South, only six pieces were discovered in the complex of Princess Sheretnebty (AS 68; see Arias 2017: 283–284). One significant difference from Kaaper’sassem‑ blage was that all of these vessels were red ‑slipped but remained unpolished. 13 Notice the size and quality difference between red ‑slipped versus common untreated miniatures from the tomb of Kakaibaef. 30 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVII/2021 Therefore, it was unusual that another tomb situated immediately west of the tomb of Kaaper and north of tomb AS 88 yielded one example of such red ‑slipped and polished miniature. Alarge miniature vase of type MV‑1 (6‑1.AS81.2016, fig. 16) with an exceptionally thin sherd of only 2–3 mm was discovered in Shaft 1 of tomb AS 81 (fig. 20). It is noteworthy that tomb AS 81 was built only of mud bricks, without any traces of limestone casing or other stone elements; presumably, the owner did not have access to such valuable material. The ceramic material from Shaft 1 was heavily heterogeneous, containing not only afew fragments of Third Dynasty ware (collar beer jars and bowls with an inner ledge) but also Fifth and even Sixth Dynasty pottery (such as acharacteristic wide rounded base of tubular beer jars). Thus, there is no doubt that the whole context was heavily disturbed and that the shaft was likely filled with scattered material from all the surrounding tombs. Given that this miniature was one of the finest and most precisely ‑made miniatures that have been analysed by the present author (including all the examples from the pyramid field of Abusir), adifferent place of origin came to mind, especially given the proximity to the tomb of Kaaper with its assemblage of well ‑known red ‑slipped and polished miniatures. The consultation with Miroslav Bárta, who had personally documented the pottery from AS 1 in 1991, confirmed the suspicion that this Fig. 15 Heavily fragmented Syro ‑Palestinian storage jar of type J‑4 from the burial chamber of Kaaper in tomb AS 1 (photo M. Zemina) 31M. ODLER– K. ARIAS– J. HONZL – P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– Z. SŮVOVÁ was in all likelihood originally part of Kaaper’stomb goods, being almost identical in quality, surface treatment and finish. The question remains of how these items ended up in such diverse places. The possible answer lies in the position of the tombs. The mastaba of Kaaper is the tallest preserved struc‑ ture in all of Abusir South, creating ahighly visible feature, and tombs AS 88 and AS 81 lie underneath its western wall. Apossible solution to this enigma came to mind during avisit to the top of Kaaper’ stomb in late 2015, as asloping depression leads down to the bottom of the mastaba on the western side (see also fig. 20). Thus, it is feasible that after his burial chamber was robbed, parts of the scattered burial goods, undesired by tomb robbers (spe‑ cifically, broken pottery), were left near the top of the shaft. After some time, rain or natural erosion created adepression leading down to the western slope. Some fragments fell to the base of the mastaba and were later unintentionally incorporated into the rubble around the above ‑mentioned shafts in AS 88 and AS 81. Although this theory cannot be proved, it has to be taken into consideration, as neither the owner of AS 88 nor the owner of AS 81 would be expected to own such rare or extremely fine ceramic vessels, given the low quality of their tomb structure and the general quality (or lack) of their finds.14 Naturally, adifferent theory has to be considered as well, namely that the owners of tombs AS 88, AS 81 and AS 81b were either family members or dependents of Kaaper. In that case, Kaaper might have donated more precious burial goods to them, such as the above ‑mentioned imported vessel and the high ‑quality miniature vase. As our current knowledge makes it im‑ possible to determine the origin of the discussed pieces with certainty, both theories should be taken into consideration. In light of the specific archaeological context of these finds, however, the first theory is considered more likely by the present author. 14 Iwould like to thank Miroslav Bárta, Martin Odler and especially Lucie Jirásková for their contribution to the discussion of this topic. Fig. 16 Fine red ‑slipped and polished miniature vase from Shaft 1 in tomb AS 81 (drawing K. Arias, L. Vařeková, photos M. Frouz) 38 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVII/2021 BIBLIOGRAPHY Arias, Katarína 2017 Social dynamics in the material cuture– Pottery of the Old Kingdom from the complex of Princess Sheretnebty at Abusir South, Prague: Charles University (unpublished Ph.D. thesis). 2020 “Ceramic Finds”, in: Odler, Martin– Kmošek, Jiří (eds.). Invisible Connections: An Archaeometallurgical Analysis of the Bronze Age Metalwork from the Egyptian Museum of the University of Leipzig. With chapters by Katarína Arias, Veronika Dulíková, Lucie Jirásková, Oxford: Archaeopress [Archaeopress Egyptology 31], pp. 44–45. Arias Kytnarová, Katarína 2010 “Pottery from the tomb of Hetepi (AS 20)”, in: Bárta, Miroslav (ed.). Tomb of Hetepi (AS 20), Tombs AS 33–35 and AS 50–53, Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts [Abusir XIX], pp. 25–47. 2011a “Abusir South 2007. The Tomb of Inpunefer and the Anonymous Tomb AS 47: Preliminary Ceramics Report”, Památky archeologické CII, pp. 117–158. 2011b “Ceramic finds from the tomb of Kaiemtjenenet and the neighbouring structures”, in: Vymazalová, Hanaetal. The Tomb of Kaiemtjenenet and the Surrounding Structures (AS 57–60), Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts [Abusir XXII], pp. 63–108. 2014 “Ceramic finds”, in: Krejčí, Jaromír– Arias Kytnarová, Katarínaetal. Mastaba of Werkaure I(Old Kingdom strata), Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts [Abusir XXIV], pp. 71–260. 2015 “Burial shafts and chambers of Nefer and Neferhathor in tomb AS 68d: acomparative evaluation of the ceramic finds”, Prague Egyptological Studies XV, pp. 3–14. 2016 “Preliminary report on ceramic finds from the funerary contexts in the tomb of Duaptah (AS 68a) in Abusir South”, Bulletin de liaison de la céramique égyptienne 26, pp. 111–129. Baer, Klaus 1960 Rank and Title in the Old Kingdom. The Structure of the Egyptian Administration in the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties, Chicago: University Press. Bárta, Miroslav 1996 “Several remarks on beer jars found at Abusir”, Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 4, pp. 127–131. 2001 The cemeteries at Abusir South I, Praha: Czech Institute of Egyptology [Abusir V]. 2011 “An Abusir mastaba from the reign of Huni”, in: Bareš, Ladislav– Bárta, Miroslav– Callender, Vivi‑ enne Gae– Janák, Jiří– Krejčí, Jaromír (eds.). Times, Signs and Pyramids. Studies in Honour of Miroslav Verner on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, Prague: Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, pp. 41–50. 2019 “Wooden boat”, in: Bárta, Miroslav– Bareš, Ladislav– Krejčí, Jaromír– Megahed, Mohamed– Varadzi‑ nová, Lenka (eds.). Created for eternity: the greatest discoveries of Czech Egyptology, Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Arts, pp. 112–113. Bárta, Miroslav– Arias Kytnarová, Katarína– Odler, Martin– Sůvová, Zdeňka 2017 “‘Killed’ for eternity. Artefacts and ritual behaviour from aunique ceremonial structure in Abusir South”, in: Bárta, Miroslav– Coppens, Filip– Krejčí, Jaromír (eds.). Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2015, Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, pp. 1–21. Bárta, Miroslav– Brůna, Vladimír– Bareš, Ladislav– Krejčí, Jaromír– Dulíková, Veronika– Odler, Martin– Vymazalová, Hana 2020 “Map of archaeological features in Abusir”, Prague Egyptological Studies XXV, pp. 7–34. 39M. ODLER– K. ARIAS– J. HONZL – P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– Z. SŮVOVÁ Bárta, Miroslav– Brůna, Vladimír– Křivánek, Roman 2003 “Research at South Abusir in 2001‑2002–methods and results”, Památky archeologické XCIV, pp. 49–82. Bonnet, Hans 1928 Ein frühgeschichtliches Gräberfeld bei Abusir, Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. Brovarski, Edward 2001 The Senedjemib complex. Pt. 1. The mastabas of Senedjemib Inti (G2370), Khnumenti (G2374), and Senedjemib Mehi (G2378), Boston: Art of the Ancient World, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston [Giza Mastabas 7]. Dulíková, Veronika 2019 “Ears and beard from the burial chamber of Kaaper the Younger”, in: Bárta, Miroslav– Bareš, Ladislav– Krejčí, Jaromír– Megahed, Mohamed– Varadzinová, Lenka (eds.). Created for eternity: the greatest discoveries of Czech Egyptology, Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Arts, pp. 116–117. Dulíková, Veronika– Bárta, Miroslav– Odler, Martin– Peterková Hlouchová, Marie 2018 “Tomb at Abusir South from atime of change belonging to Ankhires, inspector of hairdressers of the Great House (AS 98)”, Prague Egyptological Studies XXI, pp. 3–33. Dulíková, Veronika– Jirásková, Lucie– Arias Kytnarová, Katarína 2016 “Jižní Abúsír– předběžná zpráva ovýzkumu vroce 2015. Kaisebiho hrobka aokolí (AS 76–78)”, Pražské egyptologické studie XVI, pp. 25–36. Dulíková, Veronika– Jirásková, Lucie– Vymazalová, Hana– Arias Kytnarová, Katarína– Havelková, Petra 2017 “The tombs of Kaisebi (AS 76) and Ptahwer (AS76b) at Abusir South”, Prague Egyptological Studies XIX, pp. 3–26. Dulíková, Veronika– Odler, Martin– Havelková, Petra 2011 “Archeologický výzkum hrobky lékaře Neferherptaha”, Pražské egyptologické studie VIII, pp. 9–16. Fischer, Henry G. 1959 “Ascribe of the army in aSaqqara mastaba of the early Fifth Dynasty”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 18/4, pp. 233–272. Fisher, Clarence S. 1924 The minor cemetery at Giza. Vol. 1, Philadelphia: University Museum [The Eckley B. Coxe Jr. Foundation New Series]. Harpur, Yvonne 1987 Decoration in Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom: Studies in Orientation and Scene Content, London– New York: Kegan Paul International. Hassan, Selim 1936 The excavations at Gîza. Vol. 2. 1930‑1931, Cairo: Government Press. Havelková, Petra 2014 “Anthropology”, in: Bárta, Miroslav (ed.). The Tomb of the Sun Priest Neferinpu (AS 37), Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts [Abusir XXIII], pp. 105–119. 40 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVII/2021 Jánosi, Peter 2017 “The mastaba of the chief physician Nfr -Hr -PtH (AS 65)”, Prague Egyptological Studies XIX, pp. 27–36. Jirásková, Lucie 2019 “Stone bowl with name of King Huni”, in: Bárta, Miroslav– Bareš, Ladislav– Krejčí, Jaromír– Mega‑ hed, Mohamed– Varadzinová, Lenka (eds.). Created for eternity: the greatest discoveries of Czech Egyp‑ tology, Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Arts, pp. 108–109. Junker, Hermann 1929 Gîza I: Bericht über die von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien auf gemeinsame Kosten mit Dr.Wilhelm Pelizaeus unternommenen Grabungen auf dem Friedhof des Alten Reiches bei den Pyramiden von Gîza. Die Maṣṭabas der beginnenden V. Dynastie auf dem Westfriedhof, Wien– Leipzig: Hölder ‑Pichler ‑Tempsky [Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch ‑Historische Klasse 69]. 1938 Gîza III: Bericht über die von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien auf gemeinsame Kosten mit Dr.Wil‑ helm Pelizaeus unternommenen Grabungen auf dem Friedhof des Alten Reiches bei den Pyramiden von Gîza. Die Maṣṭabas der vorgeschrittenen V. Dynastie auf dem Westfriedhof, Wien– Leipzig: Hölder ‑Pichler‑ ‑Tempsky. Kaiser, Werner 1969 “Die Tongefäße”, in: Ricke, Herbertetal. Das Sonnenheiligtum des Königs UserkafII. Die Funde, Wies‑ baden: Steiner [Beiträge zur ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde 8], pp. 49–82. Kanawati, Naguib (ed.) 2002 Tombs at Giza. Vol. 2: Seshathetep/Heti (G5150), Nisutnefer (G4970) and Seshemnefer II (G5080), Warmin‑ ster: Aris & Phillips [The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 18]. Krejčí, Jaromír 2013 “Das Grab des Kakaibaef in Abusir”, Sokar 27, pp. 26–37. 2016 “Archaeological excavation of tomb AC 31 in Abusir Centre. Apreliminary report”, Prague Egyp‑ tological Studies XVII, pp. 12–23. Kromer, Karl 1991 Nezlet Batran: eine Mastaba aus dem Alten Reich bei Giseh (Ägypten): österreichische Ausgrabungen, 1981‑1983, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften [Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 12]. Kytnarová, Katarína 2009 Pottery of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasty from the excavations of the Czech Institute of Egyptology in the cemeteries of Abusir South, Prague: Charles University (unpublishedM.A. thesis). Lehmann, Katja 2000 Der Serdab in den Privatgräbern des Alten Reiches, Heidelberg: Universität Heidelberg (unpublishedPh.D. thesis). McFarlane, Ann 2003 Mastabas at Saqqara: Kaiemheset, Kaipunesut, Kaiemsenu, Sehetepu and others, Oxford: Aris and Phillips [The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 20]. Odler, Martin (with contributions by Kmošek, Jiří– Dupej, Ján– Arias Kytnarová, Katarína– Jirásková, Lucie– Dulíková, Veronika– Jamborová, Tereza– Msallamová, Šárka– Šálková, Kateřina– Kmoníčková, Martina) 2016 Old Kingdom Copper Tools and Model Tools, Oxford: Archaeopress [Archaeopress Egyptology 14]. 41M. ODLER– K. ARIAS– J. HONZL – P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– Z. SŮVOVÁ Odler, Martin– Kmošek, Jiří– Dulíková, Veronika– Jirásková, Lucie– Arias, Katarína 2020 “Old Kingdom Giza”, in: Odler, Martin– Kmošek, Jiří (eds.). Invisible Connections: An Archaeometallur‑ gical Analysis of the Bronze Age Metalwork from the Egyptian Museum of the University of Leipzig. With chapters by Katarína Arias, Veronika Dulíková, Lucie Jirásková, Oxford: Archaeopres [Archaeopress Egyptology 31], pp. 34–45. Odler, Martin– Kmošek, Jiří– Fikrle, Marek– Erban Kochergina, Yulia V. 2021 “Arsenical copper tools of Old Kingdom Giza craftsmen: first data”, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 36, article 102868. Odler, Martin– Peterková Hlouchová, Marie– Havelková, Petra– Sůvová, Zdeňka– Arias Kytnarová, Katarína– Brůna, Vladimír– Jirásková, Lucie 2019 “Anew tomb of transitional type from Abusir South: mastaba of Nyankhseshat (AS 104)”, Prague Egyptological Studies XXIII, pp. 49–82. Odler, Martin– Peterková Hlouchová, Marie– Kytnarová, Katarína Arias– Havelková, Petra 2018 “New Egyptian tomb type found at Abusir South? Report on the excavations of mud brick complex AS 103”, Prague Egyptological Studies XXI, pp. 27–34. Peterková Hlouchová, Marie 2017 “New finds of Greco ‑Roman Period decorated wooden coffins from Abusir South”, in: Chyla, Ju‑ liaM.– Dębowska ‑Ludwin, Joanna– Rosińska ‑Balik, Karolina– Walsh, Carl (eds.). Current Research in Egyptology 2016. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Symposium. Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland 4–7 May 2016, Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 136–149. Peterková Hlouchová, Marie– Bělohoubková, Dana– Sůvová, Zdeňka– Havelková, Petra 2017 “Apreliminary report on the excavations of tomb AS 91 at Abusir South (autumn season 2016)”, Prague Egyptological Studies XIX, pp. 53–65. Porter, Bertha– Moss, RosalindL. B.– Málek, Jaromír– Burney, Ethel W. 1974 Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings III: Memphis. PartI: Abû Rawâsh to Abûṣîr, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Raxter, Michelle H.– Ruff, Christopher B.– Azab, Ayman– Erfan, Moushira– Soliman, Muhammad– El ‑Sawaf, Aly 2008 “Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: Anew technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature”, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 136/2, pp. 147–155. Reisner, George Andrew 1942 AHistory of the Giza Necropolis. Vol. 1, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Reisner, George Andrew– Smith, William Stevenson 1955 AHistory of the Giza Necropolis. Vol. 2. The Tomb of Hetep ‑heres, the Mother of Cheops: AStudy of Egyptian Civilization in the Old Kingdom, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Reitz, Elizabeth J.– Wing, Elizabeth J. 2008 Zooarchaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology]. Schiffer, Michael B. 1987 Formation processes of the archaeological record, New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press. 42 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVII/2021 Simpson, William Kelly 1980 Mastabas of the Western Cemetery, Boston: Department of Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston [Giza Mastabas IV]. Sowada, Karin 2009 Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Old Kingdom: an archaeological perspective, Fribourg– Göttingen: Academic Press– Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht [Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 237]. Steindorff, Georg– Hölscher, Uvo– Grimm, Alfred 1991 Die Mastabas westlich der Cheopspyramide: nach den Ergebnissen der in den Jahren 1903‑1907 im Auftrag der Universität Leipzig und des Hildesheimer Pelizaeus ‑Museums unternommenen Grabungen in Giza, Frankfurt am Main– New York: P.Lang [Münchener ägyptologische Untersuchungen 2]. Strudwick, Nigel 1985 The Administration of Egypt in the Old Kingdom. The Highest Titles and Their Holders, London: Kegan Paul International. Tallet, Pierre 2018 La zone minière pharaonique du Sud ‑Sinaï– III. Les expéditions égyptiennes dans la zone minière du Sud‑ ‑Sinaï du prédynastique à la fin de la XXe dynastie, Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale [Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 138]. Verner, Miroslav– Callender, Vivienne Gae 2002 Djedkare’sFamily Cemetery, Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Arts [Abusir VI]. Vymazalová, Hanaetal. 2011 The Tomb of Kaiemtjenenet and the Surrounding Structures, Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts [Abusir XXII]. Martin Odler Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University; [email protected] Katarína Arias Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University; [email protected] Jiří Honzl Náprstek Museum of Asian, African and American Cultures, National Museum in Prague; Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University; [email protected] Petra Brukner Havelková Department of Anthropology, National Museum in Prague; Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University; [email protected] Zdeňka Sůvová Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University; [email protected]