Preparing for Eternity: Funerary models and wall scenes from the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms 9781407359175, 9781407359182

Citation preview

Preparing for Eternity Funerary models and wall scenes from the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms GEORGIA BARKER

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 7 0

2022

Preparing for Eternity Funerary models and wall scenes from the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms GEORGIA BARKER

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 7 0

2022

Published in 2022 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 3070 Preparing for Eternity isbn isbn doi

978 1 4073 5917 5 paperback 978 1 4073 5918 2 e-format

https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407359175

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library © Georgia Barker 2022 The Bersha Procession of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) from Deir el-Bersha. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.326. cover image

The Author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. Links to third party websites are provided by BAR Publishing in good faith and for information only. BAR Publishing disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK email [email protected] phone +44 (0)1865 310431 fax +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Of Related Interest “Yellow” Coffins from Thebes Recording and decoding complexity in Egyptian funerary arts (21st – 22nd Dynasties) Edited by Rogério Sousa Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2020

BAR International Series 3010

The Napatan Cylindrical Sheaths A catalogue and analysis of precious objects from the royal cemetery of Nuri Amarillis Pompei Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2019

BAR International Series 2948

Catalogo degli Ushabti del Museo Egizio di Firenze, Volume II Nuovo Regno (Seconda Parte) Giacomo Cavillier Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2017

BAR International Series 2872

Catalogo degli Ushabti del Museo Egizio di Firenze, Volume I II Periodo Intermedio - Nuovo Regno (Prima Parte) Giacomo Cavillier Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2016

BAR International Series 2828

Acknowledgements I would like to express my appreciation to all who supported me throughout this project. The work presented here stems from my PhD research which was conducted at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia with the financial aid of an Australian Government funded Research Training Program PhD Scholarship. I am grateful to the Department of History and Archaeology for their support of my research and in particular to Professor Naguib Kanawati who was my PhD supervisor. His kindness, encouragement and guidance have been invaluable and I am deeply thankful for his on-going support. The artistic representations examined in this study were made available to me through the generosity of many institutions. I would especially like to express my thanks to those who provided me with permission to publish the images of funerary models and wall scenes that are included in this book: Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford; Australian Centre for Egyptology; British Museum, London; Egypt Exploration Society; Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool; Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; National Museums Liverpool; National Museums Scotland; Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen; Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, San Jose; Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; and University of Aberdeen. My appreciation is also extended to Mrs Leonie Donovan who helped to prepare the line drawings of wall scenes for publication. I am grateful to have received the Michelle McLean Egyptology Travelling Scholarship which provided the financial support needed to acquire permission to publish these images. It is a great privilege to publish my research with BAR Publishing, and I would like to express my thanks to the editors Ms Jacqueline Senior and Dr Ruth Fisher for their support of my work and their guidance through the publication process. I would also like to acknowledge the reviewers for their thoughtful comments on my manuscript. Finally, I would like to express deep gratitude to my family and friends for their steadfast support and encouragement.

v

Abstract The ancient Egyptian desired to prepare a tomb that would adequately provision him for the afterlife, so great resources were expended on its construction and decoration. This funerary monument ideally comprised both a superstructure and substructure, with the former serving as the location of the mortuary cult and the latter as a secure place to protect the body. Offerings would be presented to the deceased through the mortuary cult, but it was feared that this would not continue perpetually. Consequently, several safeguards were implemented in an attempt to ensure that the deceased was well-provisioned for eternity. One of the most significant measures was the inclusion of artistic representations in the tomb. Funerary artwork was considered functional in ancient Egypt and, with its ability to magically come into existence, could contribute to the tomb owner’s eternal sustenance. During the late Old Kingdom to the end of the Middle Kingdom, there were two principal forms of representation in the elite tomb: wall scenes and funerary models. Both artistic media depict human and animal figures engaged in a variety of everyday life tasks that would provide the desired commodities and services for the tomb owner’s afterlife. There are several similarities between the two- and three-dimensional representations which have caused scholars to label funerary models duplicates or substitutes of wall scenes. This designation implies that they served the same purpose in the tomb. However, there are several notable differences yet to be acknowledged. This book therefore conducts a detailed comparative analysis of the two artistic media in order to more precisely understand the role of funerary models in the tomb and their relationship to wall scenes. In particular, the artworks from the sites of Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan in Middle Egypt are investigated. Both the similarities and differences between the representations are identified through a close examination of the two- and three-dimensional repertoires. This analysis highlights the distinguishing characteristics of funerary models and wall scenes and determines the extent to which these differences impacted the purpose of each medium. It demonstrates that scene- and model-artists selected specific themes and created individual designs that were appropriate for their medium’s unique technical capabilities and role in the tomb. As wall scenes were located in the above-ground chapel, they not only contributed to the deceased’s well-being in the afterlife, but also publicly proclaimed the tomb owner’s superior status, wealth and achievements. This was presumably designed to impress visitors and encourage them to present offerings. Funerary models, conversely, were concealed in the burial chamber alongside the body where they did not interact with the living, but rather solely functioned to serve the deceased in the afterlife. Consequently, this analysis demonstrates that funerary models should not be understood as duplicates or substitutes of wall scenes, but as a distinct type of representation that was specifically conceived for its role in provisioning the deceased for eternity.

vi

Contents List of Figures...................................................................................................................................................................... ix List of Tables...................................................................................................................................................................... xiv List of Abbreviations........................................................................................................................................................... xv Map of Egypt...................................................................................................................................................................... xx Chronology........................................................................................................................................................................ xxi 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Wall Scenes and funerary models.............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Historical and geographical context........................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Excavation history and preservation.......................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Problems in interpreting ancient Egyptian art............................................................................................................ 8 1.5 Classification of themes............................................................................................................................................. 9 2. Food Production and Preparation............................................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Land preparation...................................................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Storing grain in granaries......................................................................................................................................... 21 2.3 Bread-making........................................................................................................................................................... 30 2.4 Brewing beer............................................................................................................................................................ 39 2.5 Hand-feeding cattle.................................................................................................................................................. 45 2.6 Slaughtering cattle.................................................................................................................................................... 50 2.7 Cooking meat........................................................................................................................................................... 59 2.8 Fishing and fowling................................................................................................................................................. 65 3. Transport....................................................................................................................................................................... 71 3.1 Boats......................................................................................................................................................................... 71 3.1.1 Structure of hull and deck................................................................................................................................ 72 3.1.2 Mode of propulsion.......................................................................................................................................... 74 3.1.3 People transported on board............................................................................................................................. 83 3.1.4 Supplies transported on board.......................................................................................................................... 86 3.1.5 Supplementary features.................................................................................................................................... 91 3.2 Offering-bearers....................................................................................................................................................... 92 3.2.1 The bearers....................................................................................................................................................... 93 3.2.2 The offerings.................................................................................................................................................... 98 3.2.3 The recipient................................................................................................................................................... 103 3.3 Beasts of burden..................................................................................................................................................... 105 4. Animal Husbandry.......................................................................................................................................................111 4.1 Calving....................................................................................................................................................................111 4.2 Milking and nursing............................................................................................................................................... 115 4.3 Cattle in procession................................................................................................................................................ 119 4.4 Dogs....................................................................................................................................................................... 129 5. Craft Production......................................................................................................................................................... 137 5.1 Spinning and weaving............................................................................................................................................ 137 5.2 Carpentry................................................................................................................................................................ 145 5.3 Leatherwork........................................................................................................................................................... 152 6. Miscellaneous............................................................................................................................................................... 159 6.1 Military................................................................................................................................................................... 159 6.2 Foreigners............................................................................................................................................................... 166 7. Survey of Differences between Funerary Models and Wall Scenes........................................................................ 175 7.1 Period of use........................................................................................................................................................... 175 vii

Preparing for Eternity 7.2 Location in tomb.................................................................................................................................................... 176 7.3 Repertoire............................................................................................................................................................... 178 7.4 Technical properties............................................................................................................................................... 183 7.5 Construction........................................................................................................................................................... 186 7.6 Accessibility........................................................................................................................................................... 187 7.7 Potential risks in choice of representation............................................................................................................. 189 8.Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................................... 191 Bibliography..................................................................................................................................................................... 193 Appendix 1. Catalogue of Funerary Models..................................................................................................................... 209 Appendix 2. Catalogue of Wall Scenes............................................................................................................................. 223 Index ................................................................................................................................................................................. 237

viii

List of Figures Figure 1.1. Section A of the cemetery of Meir...................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 1.2. Section of the site plan of Beni Hassan showing tombs in the Upper Cemetery............................................... 6 Figure 2.1. Draught cattle. Tomb of Senbi I (B1). North wall, register 4 [S134]............................................................... 14 Figure 2.2. Model ploughing team of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M66]............................................................................... 15 Figure 2.3. Five ploughing teams and one sower. Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2). West wall, south panel, right, registers 2-5 [S14]..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 2.4. Model tiller of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) [M1]................................................................................................... 17 Figure 2.5. A flock of sheep trampling seed into the ground with three shepherds urging the animals forward. Tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2). East wall of inner room, register 1 [S205]........................................................................ 20 Figure 2.6. Two ploughing teams and three tillers. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, north panel, register 3 [S197].................................................................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 2.7. Model granary of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), with the exterior walls gently rising to low peaked corners [M67]...................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 2.8. Granary with two rows of silos and a courtyard. Tomb of Khety (17 UC). South wall, west panel, lower section, right, register 1 [S101]................................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 2.9. Granary with four silos shown in profile and a staircase providing access to the roof. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, north panel, register 1 [S195]..................................................................................... 25 Figure 2.10. Granary with two rows of silos, a courtyard and a portico. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). North wall, register 6 [S156]......................................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 2.11. Model granary of Khety (366 LC), with three labourers, an official and a scribe [M194]............................ 27 Figure 2.12. Model granary of Ma (500 LC), containing four open-topped silos filled with grain; an official and a scribe sit on the terrace [M284].................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 2.13. Granary without human figures. Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2). South wall of burial chamber of Hewetiaah [S18].............................................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 2.14. Food preparation model of Khety (366 LC); pounding grain, grinding grain, sieving grain, baking bread, carrying water and brewing beer [M195]..................................................................................................... 32 Figure 2.15. Grinding grain, kneading dough, shaping loaves and baking bread, all supervised by an overseer. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, south panel, register 4 [S202]...................................................................... 33 Figure 2.16. Food preparation model from Meir, with mixing dough symbolising the entire bread-making process [M229]................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 2.17. Pounding grain, grinding grain, sieving grain, shaping loaves, mixing dough, filling breadmoulds and baking bread. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). West wall, south panel, registers 5-6, right [S167]................... 35 Figure 2.18. Sieving grain, preparing dough, baking bread, straining beer-mash, preparing jars to hold beer and pouring beer into jars. Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2). West wall, north panel, right, registers 1-3 [S16]............................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 2.19. Pounding grain, grinding grain, sieving grain, dismantling bread-moulds, filling bread-moulds and brewing beer. Tomb of Baqet III (15 UC). South wall, east panel, registers 5-6 [S77]............................................... 37 Figure 2.20. Brewing beer model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1), with one figure straining beer-mash and the other preparing jars to hold beer [M11].............................................................................................................................. 41 Figure 2.21. Straining beer-mash, carrying water, preparing jars to hold beer and sealed beer-jars residing on low tables. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). West wall, south panel, register 4 [S165].................................................... 42

ix

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

List of Figures Figure 3.12. Model solar boat of Sepi II (K-14 north) [M277].......................................................................................... 91 Figure 3.13. Four female offering-bearers. Tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2). East wall of room 4, centre panel, register 4 [S37].............................................................................................................................................. 95 Figure 3.14. Model female offering-bearer of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M142]................................................................ 96 Figure 3.15. Eldest son presenting fowl to his father’s offering-table. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). South wall, east panel, registers 3-4 [S160]........................................................................................................................ 97 Figure 3.16. The Bersha Procession of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), comprising a male priest and three female offering-bearers [M144]...................................................................................................................................................... 99 Figure 3.17. Model procession of three female offering-bearers of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) [M24]................................. 99 Figure 3.18. Four male offering-bearers, positioned eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh in the procession. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). South wall, east panel, register 5 [S161].......................................................................... 101 Figure 3.19. Model female offering-bearer of Hepi-kem (A4), with a diminutive ungulate walking in front [M26]...... 102 Figure 3.20. Procession of male offering-bearers who utilise yokes to transport their loads. Tomb of Khety (17 UC). North wall, east panel, registers 1-2 [S89]........................................................................................................ 104 Figure 3.21. Donkeys transporting loads of grain in the third register; their loads are removed upon arrival in the fifth register. Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2). West wall, south panel, left, registers 3-5 [S13]..................... 107 Figure 3.22. Model beasts of burden from Meir, with rectangular sacks on their backs [M250]..................................... 107 Figure 3.23. A donkey is being loaded with two baskets of grain positioned end-on-end. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, north panel, register 2 [S196]................................................................................... 109 Figure 3.24. Model beasts of burden said to be from Meir, with a driver standing beside the rear of each animal, encouraging it to move forward with a stick [M251].................................................................................. 109 Figure 4.1. A herdsman aids the delivery of a calf; an overseer points a magical gesture; a man sleeps soundly through the birth. Tomb of Senbi I (B1). South wall, register 3 [S139].............................................................. 112 Figure 4.2. Calving model said to be from Meir [M252]................................................................................................. 113 Figure 4.3. A naked herdsman adopts an active stance as he aids the delivery of a calf; an overseer points a magical gesture; a man sleeps soundly through the birth. Tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4). North wall of outer room, second lowest register [S176]....................................................................................................................... 115 Figure 4.4. Nursing model from Meir, with the calf extending its head towards the udder but not making direct contact [M254]........................................................................................................................................................ 117 Figure 4.5. Milking model probably from Meir; a seated female worker raises one hand towards the udder; the calf stands nearby to encourage the flow of milk [M174].......................................................................................... 117 Figure 4.6. A calf and human child suckle simultaneously; the cow licks the rump of its young; a herdsman is ready to provide assistance. Tomb of Baqet III (15 UC). South wall, west panel, register 2 [S80]............................. 119 Figure 4.7. Part a large herd of cattle processing in closely overlapping groups. Tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2). West wall of inner room, centre panel, register 9 [S212]................................................................................................. 121 Figure 4.8. Calves ushered forward on leashes, with the groups separated into sub-registers. Tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2). West wall of inner room, centre panel, register 7 [S212].............................................................. 121 Figure 4.9. Cattle in procession, with the colours and patterns of each hide alternating. Tomb of Khety (17 UC). South wall, west panel, register 2 [S99]............................................................................................................ 123 Figure 4.10. Model procession of cattle of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), accompanied by three herdsmen [M150].............. 124 Figure 4.11. A Beja-herdsman leading three cattle on leashes. Tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2). South wall, register 2 [S142]................................................................................................................................................................ 124 Figure 4.12. Cattle ushered forward in procession, with the leading herdsman in each register adopting a humble attitude. Tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2). South wall of room 3, registers 2-4 [S32]..................................... 126 Figure 4.13. Model procession of cattle probably from Meir, comprising two disproportionately large cattle ushered forward by a single herdsman [M255]....................................................................................................... 126 Figure 4.14. Cattle fording a river. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). West wall, south panel, register 7, right [S168]........ 128 xi

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

xii

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

xiii

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

xiv

List of Abbreviations Art of Describing: Jánosi, P., & Vymazalová, H., (eds.), The Art of Describing: The World of Tomb Decoration as Visual Culture of the Old Kingdom: Studies in Honour of Yvonne Harpur (Prague, 2018).

2200 BC: Meller, H., Arz, H. W., Jung R., & Risch, R., (eds.), 2200 BC: A Climatic Breakdown as a Cause for the Collapse of the Old World? 7th Archaeological Conference of Central Germany, October 23-26, 2014 in Halle (Saale) (Halle, 2015).

Art-facts and Artefacts: Hudáková, L., Jánosi, P., Jurman, C., & Siffert, U., (eds.), Art-facts and Artefacts: Visualising the Material World in Middle Kingdom Egypt (London, 2018).

AEE: Ancient Egypt and the East. AI: Archaeology International.

Artists and Painting: Angenot, V., & Tiradritti, F., (eds.), Artists and Painting in Ancient Egypt (Montepulciano, 2016).

AJA: American Journal of Archaeology. Ali Radwan: Daoud, K., Bedier, S., & Abd El-Fatah, S., (eds.), Studies in Honor of Ali Radwan. Volume II (Cairo, 2005).

Arts of Making: Miniaci, G., Moreno Garcia, J. C., Quirke, S., & Stauder, A., (eds.), The Arts of Making in Ancient Egypt: Voices, Images, and Objects of Material Producers 2000-1550 BC (Leiden, 2018).

Ancient Egypt, Aegean, Near East: Phillips, J., (ed.), Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Near East: Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell. Volume I (San Antonio, 1997).

ASAE: Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte. ATN: Archaeological Textiles Newsletter.

Ancient Egypt Transformed: Oppenheim, A., Arnold, Do., Arnold, Di., & Yamamoto, K., (eds.), Ancient Egypt Transformed: The Middle Kingdom (New York, 2015).

BA: Biblical Archaeologist. BACE: Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

Ancient Egyptian Administration: Moreno Garcia, J. C., (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Administration (Leiden, Boston, 2013).

BASOR: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Battle in Antiquity: Lloyd, A. B., (ed.), Battle in Antiquity (London, 1996).

Ancient Egyptian Biographies: Stauder-Porchet, J., Frood, E., & Stauder, A., (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Biographies: Contexts, Forms, Functions (Atlanta, 2020).

Behind the Scenes: McFarlane, A., & Mourad, A.-L., (eds.), Behind the Scenes: Daily Life in Old Kingdom Egypt (Oxford, 2012).

Ancient Egyptian Coffins: Taylor, J. H., & Vandenbeusch, M., (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Coffins: Craft Traditions and Functionality (Leuven, 2018).

Bersheh Reports I: Silverman, D. P., (ed.), Bersheh Reports I (Boston, 1992).

Anthropology and Egyptology: Lustig, J., (ed.), Anthropology and Egyptology: A Developing Dialogue (Sheffield, 1997).

BES: Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar. Beyond the Horizon: Ikram, S., & Dodson, A., (eds.), Beyond the Horizon: Studies in Egyptian Art, Archaeology and History in Honour of Barry J. Kemp (Cairo, 2009).

Archaeology and Art: Hawass, Z. A., & Richards, J., (eds.), The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor. Volumes I-II (Cairo, 2007).

BIFAO: Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Archaism and Innovation: Silverman, D. P., Simpson, W. K., & Wegner, J., (eds.), Archaism and Innovation: Studies in the Culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt (New Haven, Philadelphia, 2009).

BMB: Boston Museum Bulletin. BMFA: Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts. xv

Preparing for Eternity BSEG: Bulletin de la Société d’Égyptologie, Genève.

Desert Road: Förster, F., & Riemer, H., (eds.), Desert Road Archaeology in Ancient Egypt and Beyond (Köln, 2013).

CAJ: Cambridge Archaeological Journal. CdE: Chronique d’Égypte.

Djehoutihotep: De Meyer, M., & Cortebeeck, K., (eds.), Djehoutihotep: 100 ans de fouilles en Égypte (Leuven, 2015).

Change and Innovation: Hudáková, L., Jánosi, P., & Kahlbacher, A., (eds.), Change and Innovation in Middle Kingdom Art (London, 2016).

Domestication and Exploitation: Ucko, P. J., & Dimbleby, G. W., (eds.), The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals (London, 1969).

Chariots in Ancient Egypt: Veldmeijer, A. J., & Ikram, S., (eds.), Chariots in Ancient Egypt: The Tano Chariot, A Case Study (Leiden, 2018).

EA: Egyptian Archaeology: The Bulletin of the Egypt Exploration Society.

Chronology and Archaeology: Vymazalová, H., & Bárta, M., (eds.), Chronology and Archaeology in Ancient Egypt (the Third Millennium B.C.) (Prague, 2008).

EAO: Égypte, Afrique et Oriente. Egypt: Schulz, R., & Seidel, M., (eds.), Egypt: The World of the Pharaohs, special edition (Potsdam, 2010).

Civilizations of the Ancient Near East: Sasson, J. M., (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Volumes I-IV (New York, 1995).

Egypt and Nubia: Friedman, R., (ed.), Egypt and Nubia: Gifts of the Desert (London, 2002).

Companion to Ancient Agriculture: Hollander, D., & Howe, T., (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Agriculture (Hoboken, 2021).

Egyptian Archaeology: Wendrich, W., (ed.), Egyptian Archaeology (West Sussex, 2010).

Companion to Ancient Egypt: Lloyd, A. B., (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Egypt (West Sussex, 2010).

Egyptian Art: Donovan, L., & McCorquodale, K., (eds.), Egyptian Art: Principles and Themes in Wall Scenes (Guizeh, 2000).

Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art: Hartwig, M. K., (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art (West Sussex, 2015).

Egyptian Civilization: Donadoni Roveri, A. M., (ed.), Egyptian Civilization: Daily Life (Turin, 1987).

Company of Images: Miniaci, G., Betrò, M., & Quirke, S., (eds.), Company of Images: Modelling the Imaginary World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (20001500 BC). Proceedings of the International Conference of the EPOCHS Project held 18th-20th September 2014 at UCL, London (Leuven, 2017).

Egyptian Culture and Society: Woods, A., McFarlane, A., & Binder, S., (eds.), Egyptian Culture and Society: Studies in Honour of Naguib Kanawati. Volumes I-II (Cairo, 2010). Egyptian Museum Collections: Eldamaty, M., & Trad, M., (eds.), Egyptian Museum Collections around the World: Studies for the Centennial of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo. Volume I (Cairo, 2002).

Creatures of Earth, Water, and Sky: Porcier, S., Ikram, S., & Pasquali, S., (eds.), Creatures of Earth, Water, and Sky: Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia (Leiden, 2019).

Egyptian Treasures: Tiradritti, F., (ed.), Egyptian Treasures from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (New York, 1999).

Cultural Manifestations: Di Biase-Dyson, C., & Donovan, L., (eds.), The Cultural Manifestations of Religious Experience: Studies in Honour of Boyo G. Ockinga (Münster, 2017).

Egyptian World: Wilkinson, T., (ed.), The Egyptian World (Oxon, New York, 2007).

Cultures in Contact: Aruz, J., Graff, S. B., & Rakic, Y., (eds.), Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. (New York, 2013).

Egyptology: Weeks, K. R., (ed.), Egyptology and the Social Sciences (Cairo, 1979). Egyptology in the Present: Graves-Brown, C., (ed.), Egyptology in the Present: Experiential and Experimental Methods in Archaeology (Swansea, 2015).

DE: Discussions in Egyptology. Death is Only the Beginning: Tristant, Y., & Ryan, E. M., (eds.), Death is Only the Beginning: Egyptian Funerary Customs at the Museum of Ancient Cultures, Macquarie University (Oxford, 2017).

EL: Egypt and the Levant. xvi

List of Abbreviations Encyclopedia of Ancient History: Bagnall, R. S., Brodersen, K., Champion, C. B., & Erskine, A., (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (2013), .

JArchRes: Journal of Archaeological Research.

ENiM: Égypte Nilotique et Méditerranéenne.

JEA: Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.

ET: Études et Travaux.

JEgH: Journal of Egyptian History.

Experiencing Power: Hill, J. A., Jones, P., & Morales, A. J., (eds.), Experiencing Power, Generating Authority: Cosmos, Politics, and the Ideology of Kingship in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia (Philadelphia, 2013).

JEOL: Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux.

Florilegium Aegyptiacum: Budka, J., Gundacker, R., & Pieke, G., (eds.), Florilegium Aegyptiacum: Eine wissenschaftliche Blütenlese von Schülern und Freunden für Helmut Satzinger zum 75. Geburtstag am 21. Jänner 2013 (Göttingen, 2013).

JNES: Journal of Near Eastern Studies.

JASBC: Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists.

JMFA: Journal of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

JRAI: Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. JSA: Journal of Social Archaeology.

Followers of Horus: Friedman, R. F., & Adams, B., (eds.), The Followers of Horus: Studies Dedicated to Michael Hoffman, 1944-1990 (Oxford, 1992).

JSSEA: Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities. KMT: KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt.

Food in the Arts: Walker, H., (ed.), Food in the Arts: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 1998 (Devon, 1999).

Materials and Technology: Nicholson, P. T., & Shaw, I., (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (Cambridge, 2000).

GM: Gӧttinger Miszellen.

MDAIK: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo.

GRAFMA: Grafma Newsletter. Bulletin du Groupe de Recherche Archéologique Française et Internationale sur les Métiers depuis l’Antiquité.

Middle Kingdom Palace Culture: Jiménez-Serrano, A., & Morales, A. J., (eds.), Middle Kingdom Palace Culture and its Echoes in the Provinces: Regional Perspectives and Realities (Leiden, Boston, 2021).

Hathor: Hathor – Studies of Egyptology. History of Science, Technology, and Medicine: Selin, H., (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, 2nd edition (Berlin, New York, 2008).

Middle Kingdom Studies: Quirke, S., (ed.), Middle Kingdom Studies (New Malden, 1991). Mistress of the House: Capel, A. K., & Markoe, G. E., (eds.), Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven: Women in Ancient Egypt (New York, 1996).

History of Technology: Singer, C., Holmyard, E. J., & Hall, A. R., (eds.), A History of Technology. Volume I: From Early Times to Fall of Ancient Empires (London, 1954).

MMAB: The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin.

History of the Animal World: Collins, B. J., (ed.), A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East (Leiden, Boston, Köln, 2002).

MMJ: Metropolitan Museum Journal. Musée des Beaux-Arts: Ramond, S., (ed.), Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon: Le Guide (Lyon, 2014).

IEJ: Israel Exploration Journal.

Néferkarê aux Montouhotep: Pantalacci, L., & BergerEl-Naggar, C., (eds.), Des Néferkarê aux Montouhotep: Travaux archéologiques en cours sur la fin de la VIe dynastie et la Première Période Intermédiaire (Lyon, 2005).

Intellectual Heritage of Egypt: Luft, U., (ed.), The Intellectual Heritage of Egypt: Studies Presented to László Kákosy by Friends and Colleagues on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday (Budapest, 1992). JAEI: Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections.

Never had the Like Occurred: Tait, J., (ed.), ‘Never had the Like Occurred’: Egypt’s View of its Past (London, 2003).

JARCE: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt. xvii

Preparing for Eternity NH: Natural History. Offerings to the Discerning Eye: D’Auria, S., (ed.), Offerings to the Discerning Eye: An Egyptological Medley in Honor of Jack A. Josephson (Leiden, Boston, 2010). Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology: Bárta, M., (ed.), The Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology: Proceedings of the Conference held in Prague, May 31 – June 4, 2004 (Prague, 2006). Old Kingdom, New Perspectives: Strudwick, N., & Strudwick, H., (eds.), Old Kingdom, New Perspectives: Egyptian Art and Archaeology 2750-2150 BC (Oxford, 2011). Oxford Encyclopedia: Redford, D. B., (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2005), . Oxford History: Shaw, I., (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 2000). Perfection that Endures: Kuraszkiewicz, K. O., Kopp, E., & Takács, D., (eds.), ‘The Perfection that Endures...’: Studies on Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology (Warsaw, 2018). Perspectives on Ancient Egypt: Hawass, Z. A., Der Manuelian, P., & Hussein, R. B., (eds.), Perspectives on Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of Edward Brovarski (Cairo, 2010). Pharaoh’s Land and Beyond: Creasman, P. P., & Wilkinson, R. H., (eds.), Pharaoh’s Land and Beyond: Ancient Egypt and its Neighbors (Oxford, 2017). Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Conference, AABP: Smith, R. A., (ed.), Proceedings of the FortyFirst Annual Conference, American Association of Bovine Practitioners: September 25-27, 2008, Charlotte, North Carolina (Oklahoma, 2008). Proceedings of the Seventh ICE: Eyre, C. J., (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, 3-9 September 1995 (Leuven, 1998). Pyramid Builders: David, A. R., (ed.), The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt: A Modern Investigation of Pharaoh’s Workforce (London, New York, 1986).

Sacred and Profane: Georganteli, E., & Bommas M., (eds.), Sacred and Profane: Treasures of Ancient Egypt from the Myers Collection, Eton College and University of Birmingham (London, 2010). SAK: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur. Secrets of Tomb 10A: Freed, R. E., Berman, L. M., Doxey, D. M., & Picardo, N. S., (eds.), The Secrets of Tomb 10A: Egypt 2000 BC (Boston, 2009). Servant of Mut: D’Auria, S., (ed.), Servant of Mut: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Fazzini (Leiden, Boston, 2008). Sésostris III: Morfoisse, F., & Andreu-Lanoë, G., (eds.), Sésostris III: Pharaon de légende (Lille, 2014). Sesto Congresso Internazionale: International Association of Egyptologists (ed.), Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia: Atti. Volumes I-II (Turin, 1992). Social Aspects of Funerary Culture: Willems, H., (ed.), Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdom: Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Leiden University, 6-7 June 1996 (Leuven, 2001). Structure and Significance: Jánosi, P., (ed.), Structure and Significance: Thoughts on Ancient Egyptian Architecture (Wien, 2005). Studies in Ancient Egypt: Simpson, W. K., & Davis, W., (eds.), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan: Essays in Honor of Dows Dunham on the Occasion of his 90th Birthday, June 1, 1980 (Boston, 1981). Studies on War: Vidal, J., (ed.), Studies on War in the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays on Military History (Münster, 2010). TdE: Trabajos de Egiptología. Papers on Ancient Egypt. Travail du cuir: Audoin-Rouzeau, F., & Beyries, S., (eds.), Le travail du cuir de la Préhistoire à nos jours: XXIIe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes (Antibes, 2002). UEE: UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology.

Religion of the Ancient Egyptians: Englund, G., (ed.), The Religion of the Ancient Egyptians: Cognitive Structures and Popular Expressions (Uppsala, 1989).

Understanding Life in the Borderlands: Zartman, I. W., (ed.), Understanding Life in the Borderlands: Boundaries in Depth and Motion (Athens, 2010).

(Re)productive Traditions: Gillen, T., (ed.), (Re) productive Traditions in Ancient Egypt: Proceedings of the Conference held at the University of Liège, 6th-8th February 2013 (Liège, 2017).

Unseen Images: Picton, J., & Pridden, I., (eds.), Unseen Images: Archive Photographs in the Petrie Museum. Volume I: Gurob, Sedment and Tarkhan (London, 2008).

xviii

List of Abbreviations World of Middle Kingdom Egypt: Miniaci, G., & Grajetzki, W., (eds.), The World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000-1550 BC): Contributions on Archaeology, Art, Religion, and Written Sources. Volumes I-II (London, 2015-2016). WorldArch: World Archaeology. ZAeS: Zeitschrift Altertumskunde.

für

Ägyptische

Sprache

und

xix

Map of Egypt

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

xx

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

c. 4000 – 3200 BC

Early Dynastic Period   1st–2nd Dynasties

c. 3200 – 2686 BC

Old Kingdom   3rd Dynasty   4th Dynasty   5th Dynasty     Nyuserre     Menkauhor     Djedkare     Unis   6th Dynasty     Teti     Userkare     Pepy I     Merenre     Pepy II

c. 2686 – 2160 BC

First Intermediate Period   7th–early 11th Dynasties

c. 2160 – 2055 BC

Middle Kingdom   Late 11th Dynasty     Montuhotep II     Montuhotep III     Montuhotep IV   12th Dynasty     Amenemhat I     Senusret I     Amenemhat II     Senusret II     Senusret III     Amenemhat III     Amenemhat IV   13th Dynasty

c. 2055 – 1650 BC

Second Intermediate Period   14th–17th Dynasties

c. 1650 – 1550 BC

New Kingdom   18th–20th Dynasties

c. 1550 – 1069 BC

Third Intermediate Period   21st–25th Dynasties

c. 1069 – 664 BC

Late Period   26th–31st Dynasties

c. 664 – 332 BC

Ptolemaic Period

c. 332 – 30 BC

Roman Period

c. 30 BC – AD 395

xxi

1 Introduction ‘My first noble deed was in establishing for myself a tomb’.1 ‘Those who love their life and who hate death, they will say one thousand of bread, beer, oxen and fowl for Khnumhotep’.2 These words, which are inscribed in the tomb of the noble Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan, convey the immense weight placed upon one’s preparation for death and the afterlife in ancient Egypt.1As2it was believed that in the Hereafter the deceased would require the same sustenance he enjoyed during life, it was imperative to prepare a tomb that would adequately provision him for eternity.3 Each tomb owner desired to establish a mortuary cult that would provide the required offerings, but it was feared that this would not continue perpetually. Consequently, several safeguards were implemented in the construction and decoration of the tomb in an attempt to ensure eternal nourishment. Artistic representations formed a significant contribution to this process as it was believed that what was depicted would magically come into existence.4 Consequently, funerary artworks were not simply decoration but served a specific, practical function.

of funerary artwork became established in the 3rd Dynasty and remained prevalent throughout the Pharaonic Period.6 The themes most commonly portrayed have been divided by Kanawati into seven main categories: the tomb owner and his family; rural life; fishing, fowling and the desert hunt; professions and industries; sport and recreation; funerary rites; and the afterlife.7 The creators of these scenes, who will be termed scene-artists in this book, were bound by the strict rules of the Egyptian artistic canon, resulting in a consistent, characteristic appearance.8 From the Old Kingdom to the end of the Middle Kingdom, the repertoire of the above-ground tomb-chapel was primarily concerned with conveying so-called ‘scenes of daily life’. In these scenes, subsidiary figures are engaged in arrested movement as they conduct a wide range of activities that would have regularly occurred on earth.9 Not only did these scenes provide the deceased with his desired supplies for the afterlife, they also publicly proclaimed his superior status and personal achievements to any visitors to the tomb, perhaps further encouraging the presentation of offerings.10 Additionally, the scenes may have had a symbolic function that sought to ensure the deceased’s successful rebirth in the afterlife through conveying symbols associated with fertility and the triumph of order over chaos.11 There was a careful selection process for the themes represented, with some motifs consistently adopted by tomb owners, others rarely attested, and some large sequences of activity reduced to a single stage. While it is highly likely that scenes were

During the late Old Kingdom to the end of the Middle Kingdom, two principal types of representation are dominant in the elite funerary record: wall scenes and funerary models. The two artistic media exhibit many similarities in design, with several of the same themes represented. Consequently, scholars have regularly labelled funerary models duplicates or substitutes of wall scenes. This designation implies that the two media served the same purpose in the tomb. However, there are several notable differences yet to be acknowledged. Only a comprehensive comparative analysis can determine the extent of these differences and the impact they have on the purpose of each medium, and this is undertaken here for the first time. Ascertaining the unique features of funerary models and identifying the reasons for these distinctions will reveal the three-dimensional medium’s precise relationship with wall scenes and whether it did in fact serve a unique function in the tomb.

throughout this book in order to create a clear distinction between wall scenes and the completely three-dimensional sculptural forms of models. 6  Robins, Egyptian Painting, 11; Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 149-50; Altenmüller, in Egypt, 81. 7  Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 83-112. 8  Spencer, Death, 65; Robins, Egyptian Painting, 11. 9  Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 150; Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 53, 102; Altenmüller, in Egypt, 79. Some scholars have alternatively proposed that scenes of daily life do not reflect everyday society, but rather are a projected ideal for the afterlife. Bolshakov, Man and his Double, 265-67, 279-80; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 77. This interpretation, however, does not need to exclude the other. It is possible for the scenes to depict experiences from everyday life that the tomb owner would have hoped to reoccur in the afterlife. 10   Robins, “Problems in interpreting”, DE 17, (1990), 47-48; Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 115-16; Shedid, in Egypt, 124; Swinton, Management of Estates, 12-14. 11  The leading discussion on the symbolic interpretation is found in Kamrin, Cosmos of Khnumhotep II, 167-68, where it is argued that the scenes reflect the ancient Egyptian understanding of the cosmos and the tomb owner’s contribution to maintaining cosmic order.

1.1 Wall Scenes and funerary models Wall scenes comprise two-dimensional representations painted and/or carved in relief on tomb walls.5 This form   Line 170, autobiography of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), south wall of tomb at Beni Hassan. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 35. 2   North entrance thickness of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 30. 3  Spencer, Death, 70-72; Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 1; Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 92-95; Ikram, Death and Burial, 132. 4  Hayes, Sceptre of Egypt. Part I, 80-81; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 15; Teeter, Religion and Ritual, 4-5. 5  Although it is recognised that the use of relief makes the scenes three-dimensional, the medium will be referred to as two-dimensional 1

1

Preparing for Eternity multi-functional,12 representations of daily life certainly provide insight into ancient Egyptian society and show the production of essential commodities that would have been of immense significance to the tomb owner’s well-being in the afterlife.

The themes commonly represented by models have been divided by Tooley into five principal categories: agriculture and animal husbandry; food preparation; industrial processes; offering-bearers; and boats.18 There are certainly many parallels between this classification and that of the two-dimensional medium, but there are also some notable differences. However, it is the similarities that are persistently focused upon in scholarship, with statements regularly asserted that presuppose the nature of the relationship between the two media. Taylor, for example, notes that scenes were “augmented” by models whereas Schäfer writes that the content of wall scenes was transformed into three-dimensional form.19 Similarly, Tiradritti states that models were a “three-dimensional transposition” of scenes while Malek goes further by labelling the models “three-dimensional equivalents” of tomb scenes.20 Even Tooley who devotes an entire publication to models asserts that the sculptures were “designed to replace or supplement painted scenes”.21 Not only do such statements over-emphasise the similarities between the two media, they also create the assumption that models fulfilled the same purpose in the tomb as wall scenes.

Funerary models consist of small three-dimensional sculp­ tures that depict people and animals engaged in activities of everyday life. The first examples comprise individual limestone statuettes that were housed in serdabs of 4th and 5th Dynasty tombs, but a transformation occurred in the late Old Kingdom. From the late 6th Dynasty to the end of the Middle Kingdom, the figures were fashioned of wood as group models and were typically interred in the burial chamber alongside the body of the deceased.13 While the subterranean chamber was the most popular location for wooden models, the sculptures were occasionally positioned in other parts of the tomb, including in the shaft and sealed niches cut into the superstructure.14 What is common about all of these locations, is that they remained inaccessible to the living. There is significant variation in the style and quality of funerary models, with those of the 6th Dynasty often larger and more finely crafted than those of the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom, presumably due to the smaller number of examples and the limited number of figures incorporated into each sculpture.15 The quantity and distribution of models as well as the range of themes represented reached a climax in the early Middle Kingdom, but manufacture rapidly declined in the late 12th Dynasty, with models disappearing from elite funerary assemblages by the New Kingdom.16 The creators of these three-dimensional representations have been designated model-artists in this book in order to distinguish them from the makers of wall scenes while maintaining their status as artists.17

Although funerary artistic representations have been extensively examined in scholarship, the vast majority of studies are devoted to wall scenes. Entire books are dedicated to the two-dimensional medium, with each focusing on a specific aspect of the representations or utilising a particular approach,22 whereas funerary models are very rarely the subject of whole publications. Similarly, in broader art-historical studies, wall scenes form a large basis of the discussion while funerary models are only briefly summarised if even mentioned at all.23   Tooley, in Oxford Encyclopedia, .  Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 38; Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 99-100. 20  Malek, Egyptian Art, 146; Tiradritti, Egyptian Wall Painting, 173-74. 21  Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 8. 22  Vandier, in his series Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne, focuses primarily on the themes represented, with volumes five and six dedicated to the repertoire of private tomb scenes of the Old and Middle Kingdoms. Similarly, Montet structures his publication Les scènes de la vie privée dans les tombeaux égyptiens de l’Ancien Empire according to the themes represented but focuses principally on the use of inscriptions. Harpur also addresses the themes of Old Kingdom elite tomb scenes in her Decoration in Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom: Studies in Orientation and Scene Content, but rather seeks to outline their precise location and orientation in the chapel. Alternatively, Schäfer presents a technical analysis of the compositions in his 1919 Principles of Egyptian Art, a work that remains preeminent in this area of study. Although this publication is principally concerned with two-dimensional representations, a chapter is included at the end of the work that briefly examines the rendering of figures in three-dimensional sculpture. While some comparison between two- and three-dimensional media is achieved, it is particularly restricted in its scope: it is exclusively concerned with formal statues; it examines modes of construction rather than themes represented; and it forms a cursory chapter at the end of the work instead of the primary discussion. 23   One of the leading publications in this area of study is Robins’ The Art of Ancient Egypt which presents an expansive chronological survey of royal and private architecture, reliefs, paintings and sculpture from the Early Dynastic Period to the Ptolemaic Period. Although a range of artistic forms is discussed, the extensive time period covered causes only limited detail to be presented for some types of representation, including funerary models. Similarly, Smith interweaves his chronological overview of artistic representations and architecture with a brief examination of the 18 19

  For a discussion on the multi-functional nature of daily life scenes, see van Walsem, in Proceedings of the Seventh ICE, 1205-213; Hartwig, Tomb Painting and Identity, 49-52; Swinton, Management of Estates, 127; Lloyd, Ancient Egypt, 273-80; Hartwig, in Artists and Painting, 28-56. 13  Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 2-3; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 1-4; Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 103, 117-18. 14   Unusually, some of the model assemblage of Nakhti from Asyut was uniquely placed in the chapel where the sculptures could be seen by the living. Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 107; Tooley, in Oxford Encyclopedia, ; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 176-79. 15   Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 18-19. 16  Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 59; Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 50, 56; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 166-67. 17   Difficulties were encountered in this study when determining the appropriate terminology for the creators of models. The term ‘craftsman’ was avoided as individuals of this rank were not highly trained and would have only completed the preliminary sculptural tasks. While ‘sculptor’ may seem more appropriate, sculpting was required in the creation of both models and reliefs and so the term would not have created an accurate distinction. Similarly, as painting was utilised in the production of both scenes and models, the term ‘painter’ for scene-artists could cause confusion. Consequently, the designation ‘artist’ was selected for both, with the individual medium specified for clarification. Kanawati & Woods, Artists in the Old Kingdom, 20-21. 12

2

Introduction When greater attention is devoted to three-dimensional sculpture, preference is typically given to formal statues of the king or tomb owner over representations of serving figures.24

in wall scenes, once again reflecting the bias towards the elite in scholarship. While the sources examined in Eaton-Krauss’ publication differ from those that form the basis of the present study, the work demonstrates the value of conducting comparative analysis. Eaton-Krauss examines the intricate details of the sculptures such as posture, costume and hairstyle in order to determine whether scene-artists replicated specific statues in their representations. Indeed, it is the minute details that convey some of the most important points of similarity and difference. The present study has likewise chosen to examine the intricate details of wall scenes and funerary models and to observe the differences between the media which are consistently overlooked by scholars. Therefore, an innovative comparative analysis of funerary models and wall scenes is conducted here in order to attain a more precise conclusion regarding the relationship between the two media and the specific role of the funerary model.

Indeed, very few studies are dedicated entirely to the funerary model. In 1948, Breasted published Egyptian Servant Statues which largely comprises a catalogue of known models and provides the first classification of themes for the medium. Most models are merely given a brief descriptive summary and only a succinct history of model production is presented, but the publication remained the principal work on models until Tooley’s dissertation in 1989 entitled “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs: A Study of Wooden Models and Related Material”. In this work, Tooley presents a revised examination of the threedimensional medium, observing the types of models found and trends in their geographical distribution and regional characteristics. However, only the themes of granaries, funerary boats, offering-bearers, offeringtrays and soul houses, and ‘concubines’ are examined in greater detail. This discussion remains the foundational work on funerary models, with other studies on the medium focusing only on specific model assemblages or one particular theme.25 Funerary models are beginning to receive more scholarly attention, and there are a small number of recent publications devoted to particular aspects of model production.26 While these studies have given models increased visibility in scholarship, there are still significant gaps in our understanding of the precise role of the three-dimensional medium in the tomb.

1.2 Historical and geographical context For an effective, detailed comparison to be conducted, certain parameters needed to be put on the extensive corpus of artistic material. This was primarily achieved through a restriction in sites, with only the representations from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan examined. These three sites form the cemeteries of the 14th-16th Upper Egyptian nomes and are situated in Middle Egypt. This region experienced significant economic development during the late Old and Middle Kingdoms, and the nomarchal tombs exhibit supreme wealth in their construction and decoration.27 Moreover, Middle Egypt specialised in woodcraft during the early Middle Kingdom, with the development of local styles and workshops, which encouraged the production of numerous wooden items, including funerary models.28 A rich body of both two- and three-dimensional artistic representations is therefore preserved from the three sites, enabling a comprehensive analysis.

Only one Egyptological study has been conducted that comprises a comparative analysis between two- and threedimensional artworks, namely The Representations of Statuary in Private Tombs of the Old Kingdom by EatonKrauss. This, however, consists of a comparison between formal statues of the tomb owner and their representation

The governing officials of the 14th Upper Egyptian nome were first buried at the site of Quseir el-Amarna on the east bank of the Nile. These officials served as overseers of priests in the temple of Hathor who had a major cult centre in the province.29 However, the site was soon abandoned, with Pepyankh the Middle (D2) the first to construct his tomb at Meir on the west bank during the reign of Pepy II.30 It has been demonstrated that this move was governed by a desire for a more geographically suitable location, as

historic periods in his pioneering publication The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt. Even though funerary models were prominent in the artistic record for a relatively expansive time period from the late Old Kingdom to the end of the Middle Kingdom, only exceptionally brief remarks are made on the sculptures. Alternatively, in his A History of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old Kingdom, Smith devotes almost equal attention to two- and three-dimensional representations, but keeps the two forms quite distinct, with no attempt to compare them. 24   For example, Harvey presents a comprehensive catalogue of all extant private wooden statuary of the Old Kingdom and provides criteria for more reliable dating, but focuses solely on representations of the tomb owner without any mention of the statuettes of serving figures from the same period. Harvey, Wooden Statues. 25  These publications include Winlock’s Models of Daily Life in Ancient Egypt from the Tomb of Meket-Re’ at Thebes which examines the assemblage of Meketre from Thebes, and the edited volume The Secrets of Tomb 10A: Egypt 2000 BC which includes an assessment of the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) from Deir el-Bersha. Among the themes represented by models, boats are most commonly examined by scholars, with the publications of Reisner and Merriman leading among them. Reisner, Models of Ships; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models. 26  Kroenke has analysed the chronological development of the threedimensional medium through a detailed examination of the model corpus of Naga ed-Deir, while Eschenbrenner-Diemer has conducted a technical and stylistic analysis of models that has led to the identification of four production phases. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 133-91.

  A modern study has demonstrated that the land between the 9th and 20th Upper Egyptian nomes is the most productive in the country. Although caution must be taken when applying the conditions of modern times to ancient landscapes, it seems reasonable to conclude that this region was likewise agriculturally productive in the late Old and Middle Kingdoms: supreme wealth is on display in the nomarchal tombs and there is an emphasis on agriculture and animal husbandry in the representations. Fisher, Middle East, 523; Kanawati, Governmental Reforms, 8-10; Lashien, Nobles of El-Qusiya, 3-4; Moreno Garcia, “Trade and power”, JArchRes 25.2, (2017), 94. 28   Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Middle Kingdom Palace Culture, 133-36. 29   Kanawati, in Perspectives on Ancient Egypt, 208. 30   Kanawati, in Perspectives on Ancient Egypt, 213-14. 27

3

Preparing for Eternity the topography of Quseir el-Amarna was far less suitable for the construction of rock-cut tombs.31 The cemetery of Meir remained the burial place for the Cusite officials throughout the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom, although no decorated tombs from the First Intermediate Period have been found.32 The tombs of the governing administrators are cut into the high cliffs, with five distinct areas designated A-E by Blackman [fig. 1.1], while their courtiers were typically interred in shaft-tombs down the slopes below.33 The last decorated tomb at Meir belongs to the governor Ukh-hotep III (C1) who may be dated on stylistic grounds to the reign of Senusret III.34

family of the provincial governors. Of the 39 tombs in the Upper Cemetery, only 12 are decorated with scenes and inscriptions, and all date to after the Old Kingdom.41 These tombs are positioned in a north-south row along the terrace and occupy a commanding view of the Nile [fig. 1.2]. The Lower Cemetery was first occupied in the Old Kingdom and was used continuously until at least the mid-12th Dynasty.42 The burials housed here largely comprise small shaft-tombs without above-ground structures.43 Khnumhotep II (3 UC), who served as overseer of the Eastern Desert during the reigns of Amenemhat II and Senusret II, was the last to construct a monumental decorated tomb at Beni Hassan, while his son and successor, Khnumhotep III, held a career in the capital and was buried at Dahshur in the mortuary complex of Senusret III.44

In the Hare nome, the site of El-Sheikh Said was the favoured burial place for the ruling elite during the Old Kingdom, but by the First Intermediate Period this had been replaced by Deir el-Bersha. This vast site is located on the east bank of the Nile and began to be used consistently by the governing officials of the 15th Upper Egyptian nome from the 6th Dynasty onwards.35 Several regions of the cemetery can be distinguished from the First Intermediate Period onwards, with each section devoted to a different level of society.36 It was during the Middle Kingdom that the cemetery reached its greatest expansion, with the monumental tombs of the nomarchs excavated into the high north hill, all along the same plateau.37 The extensive use of the different elevations of the cemetery indicates that not only were the governors and their families buried there, but their courtiers and a large part of the local population were as well.38 This came to an end during the 12th Dynasty, with Djehuty-hotep (N-2), dated to the reigns of Senusret II and Senusret III, the last nomarch buried at the site.39

The abandonment of provincial cemeteries during the mid-12th Dynasty was previously thought to be a deliberate action taken by Senusret III in an attempt to curb the power of these officials, but it has more recently been shown to have been a gradual process. The provincial governor’s title of ‘great overlord’ had already begun to disappear during the reign of Senusret II, and tombs of provincial rulers are still known in some nomes into the reign of Amenemhat III.45 It seems that the authority of the nomarchal governors was not removed by force, but rather through sending their sons for training in the capital where they were integrated into the highest elite of the residence.46 The timeframe for this study is therefore restricted to the period from the late Old Kingdom to the end of the Middle Kingdom, as it was during this time that the three cemeteries were actively used and that both models and wall scenes feature prominently in the funerary artistic record. These restrictions in time period and geographical region have enabled a substantial body of evidence to be examined in great detail, facilitating a thorough and worthwhile comparative analysis.

The ruling elite of the Oryx nome were buried at Zawiyet el-Maiyitin in the Old Kingdom before moving to Beni Hassan in the First Intermediate Period, a decision made by a new ruling family.40 The cemetery of Beni Hassan, which is located on the east bank of the Nile, is divided into two sections: the Upper Cemetery which contains the tombs of the nobility, and the Lower Cemetery which houses almost 900 burials of the lower administrative elite and the

1.3 Excavation history and preservation Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan are comparatively well-preserved and well-published, which has allowed

  Kanawati, in Perspectives on Ancient Egypt, 208; Lashien, Nobles of El-Qusiya, 49-50. 32  Willems, Chests of Life, 86. 33  Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Volume I, 5; Willems, Chests of Life, 83. 34  Grajetzki, Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, 109; Kanawati, “Wekhhotep III of Meir”, BACE 26, (2016-2018), 37. 35   The earliest funerary remains that have been identified at Deir elBersha date to the end of the 2nd Dynasty. The cemetery remained in use until the beginning of the 4th Dynasty, and during this time it contained simple burials of the local peasant population. Robinson, in Bersheh Reports I, 3; De Meyer, in Old Kingdom, New Perspectives, 42-49; Willems, in Djehoutihotep, 131-33. 36   Willems, in Djehoutihotep, 133-36. 37  Willems, Chests of Life, 68. 38   Robinson, in Bersheh Reports I, 3; Willems, Dayr al-Barshā. Volume I, 4. 39   Evidence of burials from the Second Intermediate Period is known, but these individuals re-used existing tombs. Willems, Chests of Life, 77; Sykora, in Djehoutihotep, 25-26. 40   Orel, “Chronology and Social Stratification”, 28-29; Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 8.

  There is some debate in scholarship regarding the date of the earliest Upper Cemetery tombs, with propositions ranging from the First Intermediate Period through to the 11th Dynasty after the re-unification. Spanel, “Beni Hasan”, 32-37; Grajetzki, Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, 112; Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 6; Bommas, “First Intermediate Period tombs at Beni Hassan”, SAK 41, (2012), 44-45. 42   Orel, “Chronology and Social Stratification”, 485-86. 43   Orel, “John Garstang”, KMT 8.1, (1997), 58; Snape, Ancient Egyptian Tombs, 161-62. 44  Grajetzki, Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, 115; Allen, “Historical inscription of Khnumhotep”, BASOR 352, (2008), 29; Nelson-Hurst, in World of Middle Kingdom Egypt. Volume I, 261. 45   Franke, in Middle Kingdom Studies, 51-67; Grajetzki, Court Officials, 114-18; Picardo, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 35-36; Willems, in Ancient Egyptian Administration, 389-92. 46  Alongside administrative reform, the changes evident in the use of provincial cemeteries should be attributed to a shift in the distribution of wealth and transformations in funerary beliefs. Trigger, et al., Ancient Egypt, 111-12; Franke, in Middle Kingdom Studies, 63-64; Grajetzki, Court Officials, 118-20; Snape, Ancient Egyptian Tombs, 156; Willems, in Ancient Egyptian Administration, 389-92; Tallet, in Sésostris III, 2325; Morfoisse, in Sésostris III, 214-15.

31

41

4

Introduction

Figure 1.1. Section A of the cemetery of Meir. Photograph by the author.

for a relatively comprehensive corpus of sources to be obtained for analysis. All three sites were the subject of expeditions commissioned by the Egypt Exploration Fund (now Society) during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Blackman directed the survey at Meir over five seasons between 1912 and 1950 while Newberry directed the expeditions at Deir el-Bersha in 1891-1892 and Beni Hassan in 1890-1892.47 These expeditions focused on the tombs of the nobles and produced quite detailed records of the scenes and inscriptions, including line-drawings, photographs and facsimiles.

brief season was undertaken in 1990 by a joint expedition of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Leiden University and the University of Pennsylvania which highlighted some previously unidentified motifs on tomb-chapel walls.49 However, the entire cemetery is now being examined by Willems and a team from the Katholieke Universiteit (KU), Leuven, a project which includes providing updated records of some of the nobles’ tombs.50 While this documentation has enabled a detailed analysis of numerous wall scenes at the three sites, the full corpus of two-dimensional representations cannot be known due to damage to the tombs caused by quarrying, earthquakes and gradual degradation. This is especially problematic at Deir el-Bersha where the excellent quality limestone enticed quarrying activities in the New Kingdom and Late Period. The cliffs have thus been weakened, causing masses of rock to fall, crushing and concealing many chambers and shafts.51 The tombs suffered further damage from earthquakes where some chapels and their scenes have been almost completely destroyed.52 Moreover, since

The initial publications produced by the Egypt Exploration Fund have long remained the primary documentation of the scenes, but current expeditions are producing updated records which include minute details and whole scenes that had not previously been identified. The Australian Centre for Egyptology under the directorship of Kanawati has been re-recording the tombs of the nobles at Meir since 2008 and Beni Hassan since 2010.48 At Deir el-Bersha, a  Newberry, Beni Hasan. Parts I-II; Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I; Newberry & Griffith, El Bersheh. Part II; Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Volume I-Part IV; Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir. Parts V-VI. 48  Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I; Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volumes II, IV; Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volumes I, III-IV, VI; Lashien, Beni Hassan. Volume II; Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V. 47

  Silverman (ed.), Bersheh Reports I.  Willems, Dayr al-Barshā. Volume I. 51   Fraser, “Mr G. Willoughby Fraser’s report on the survey of the Wady Der en-Nakhleh”, in Newberry & Griffith, El Bersheh. Part II, 58; Kaper, van Walsem & Willems, in Bersheh Reports I, 41. 52   Newberry & Griffith, El Bersheh. Part II, 2-3; Terrace, “Entourage of an Egyptian governor”, BMB 66.343, (1968), 5-6. 49 50

5

Preparing for Eternity

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

6

Introduction the re-opening of the tombs, gradual deterioration has occurred from the effects of the weather. When considering the complete repertoire of the two-dimensional medium, it must therefore be remembered that some motifs and themes that were originally represented will never be known.

became more commercial when he established division parties in which archaeological finds were allocated to patrons through lottery-style games.60 Other excavations were instigated with the express purpose of gathering artefacts for sale. Sayed Khashaba Pasha, an Egyptian merchant and collector, contracted Kamal to excavate various sites in Egypt on his behalf, including Meir. Some of the objects acquired were destined for Khashaba’s personal museum, and the collection was gradually sold over time, with the pieces now scattered in various public and private collections.61

The burials of the lower administrative elite, on the other hand, have not received the same attention as the tombs of the nobles. Archaeological expeditions of the 19th and early 20th centuries were more concerned with acquiring pieces of ‘art’ than methodically recording all finds.53 Accordingly, the documentation of funerary models and their findspots, which are almost exclusively known from the lower status burials, is regularly not sufficient. This is especially problematic at Meir and Deir el-Bersha. The only excavation of the tombs of the lower officials at Meir was undertaken by Kamal in 1910-1914, but his documentation is lacking important details in provenance.54 At Deir el-Bersha, similar work was conducted by Daressy in 1897 and Kamal in 1900-1902 which likewise produced limited documentation.55 In 1915, Reisner led a joint expedition from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston and Harvard University to Deir el-Bersha and discovered the elaborately furnished burial of the governor Djehutynakht and his wife (R-10A), but unfortunately no report was ever published.56 Alternatively, Garstang’s publication of his 1902-1904 excavation of the Lower Cemetery at Beni Hassan is quite exceptional for the period.57 Although it suffers from a lack of detail and several inaccuracies, it provides important information on a vast collection of artefacts that may have otherwise been lost.58

Unfortunately, the journeys of these artefacts were not always documented and so it is difficult to ascertain where all of the models are currently housed. Distribution lists regularly lack important identification details, with entries simply documenting the transport of ‘models’ or ‘groups’.62 Such vague documentation makes it very difficult to determine the total number of models distributed to each museum and the specific components of each sculpture. Further research is needed into unpublished archival documents produced by early archaeological expeditions to acquire additional information on the provenance of the artefacts and their modern-day journeys. When assessing the complete repertoire of the three-dimensional medium, it must therefore be considered that the preserved examples do not constitute the entire original corpus. A comprehensive understanding of the three-dimensional repertoire is further hindered by issues of preservation. As most models were constructed of wood, a material that is particularly susceptible to destruction, many examples have presumably not survived. Moreover, as each model was fashioned of several different components which were typically attached with pegs, in many cases individual elements have become separated and lost. This is particularly significant for loose elements such as linen skirts for human figures, pieces of thread for rigging on boats or leashes for animals, and actual grain stored in granaries. Damage to models also occurred during tomb robbery. Models were regularly housed on top of the coffin, causing them to be tossed across the chamber when thieves searched for valuable items.63 It is therefore important to remember that some whole models remain unknown due to poor documentation or destruction, while other models are not preserved in their entirety. However, the quantity of remaining artworks is satisfactorily extensive to be considered relatively representative of the original corpus.

Poor documentation has also caused the current whereabouts of many models to remain unknown. After excavations were completed, the finds were distributed across the globe to the institutions and private individuals who had financially supported the expeditions, sometimes with individual tomb assemblages divided.59 For Garstang, this also involved advertising the sale of artefacts in national and international newspapers, firstly to museums in the United Kingdom and the colonies, and secondly to other public institutions. This venture subsequently   Bommas, “First Intermediate Period tombs at Beni Hassan”, SAK 41, (2012), 43; Willems, Historical and Archaeological Aspects, 2. 54   Kamal, “Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées”, ASAE 11, (1911), 3-39; Kamal, “Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées”, ASAE 12, (1912), 97-127; Kamal, “Rapport sur les fouilles”, ASAE 13, (1914), 161-78; Kamal, “Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées”, ASAE 14, (1914), 45-87; Kamal, “Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées”, ASAE 15, (1915), 198-206; Willems, Chests of Life, 82. 55   Daressy, “Fouilles de Deir el Bircheh”, ASAE 1, (1900), 17-43; Kamal, “Fouilles à Déir-el-Barsheh”, ASAE 2, (1901), 14-43; Kamal, “Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées”, ASAE 2, (1901), 206-22; Kamal, “Fouilles à Deir-el-Barché”, ASAE 3, (1902), 276-82; Willems, Chests of Life, 68; Robinson, in Bersheh Reports I, 7. 56  Willems, Chests of Life, 68; Robinson, in Bersheh Reports I, 7-8. 57  Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt. 58   Orel, “Chronology and Social Stratification”, 3; Bommas, “First Intermediate Period tombs at Beni Hassan”, SAK 41, (2012), 47-50; Willems, Historical and Archaeological Aspects, 2. 59   Orel, “John Garstang”, KMT 8.1, (1997), 62-63; Killen, in Egyptian Museum Collections. Volume I, 645. 53

1.4 Problems in interpreting ancient Egyptian art In addition to the issues of preservation and documentation discussed above, there are several aspects that must be considered when analysing ancient Egyptian art. Those  Stevenson, Scattered Finds, 11-13.   Hagen & Ryholt, Antiquities Trade, 48, 260-61. 62   Serpico, in Unseen Images. Volume I, 109. 63   D’Auria, et al., Mummies and Magic, 112; Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 50. 60 61

7

Preparing for Eternity that are of prime importance for this study may be categorised as two main problems: modern interpretation and modern intervention.

of this term is not designed to impose a modern expectation on the ancient artwork. Rather, it is employed to make clear what the observable distinctions are between the two media in relation to their arrangement of components and use of perspective.

When interpreting artistic representations, it is essential to consider the principles that governed image production. Art was functional in ancient Egypt, so its system of representation was designed to enable the images to successfully serve their intended purpose.64 In twodimensional art, the Egyptian artist did not portray what he saw, but what he knew. Accordingly, each component was depicted in its most characteristic aspect, often combining multiple viewpoints. Depth was not utilised in these representations. Instead, composite images were created which combined multiple perspectives.65 All motifs were arranged in a series of registers, a system that was not intended to convey spatial or temporal relationships, but to give order to the scene.66 The ancient viewer was familiar with such conventions and could thus decode meaning from the representations, identifying each component and the function of the scene.67 It is important not to assume that a modern understanding of the ancient images is the same as how they were perceived by the original audience.68 Scenes could contain multiple meanings and an interpretation must seek to determine and understand these in their original context.

For interpreting funerary models, an understanding of modern intervention is also essential. During the early 20th century, models were a highly prized possession for museum collections. As such artefacts were destined for public display, it was desired that they would be obtained as completed sculptures.70 Consequently, model components that had become loose or separated were in many cases re-attached either by the excavators themselves or upon arrival at the museum.71 While this may restore the original composition, it is also possible that individual components may be positioned in the wrong place on the baseboard or re-attached to a completely different model, thus creating pastiche representations. Some caution is therefore necessary when analysing the current arrangements of models. In this study, five examples were identified in which the modern intervention has clearly created an incorrect assemblage, and consequently, these models could not be accurately classified as a particular theme.72 For examples where modern intervention is   Serpico, in Unseen Images. Volume I, 109-10.   Serpico, in Unseen Images. Volume I, 111-12. 72  A model said to be from Asyut, although more recently shown to originate from Meir, displays six figures oriented towards a large seated man within an open court. The figures are crafted at different scales and exhibit a variety of postures, giving the impression that they originated from different model types. While the current arrangement displays some similarities with the rendering of accounts theme, the absence of any direct parallels in the three-dimensional medium increases the probability that this is not the original composition. Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon: 1969-404. Amoros, et al., “Study and identification”, Hathor 1, (2012), 11-29; Barker, “Classification of a funerary model”, JARCE 55, (2019), 5-13. One model from Deir el-Bersha, which is today housed in the Ashmolean Museum, depicts 14 figures engaged in a variety of tasks on a large rectangular baseboard enclosed by low walls with an opening in each side. The figures’ activities are difficult to identify as the men are either not associated with any equipment or their postures do not indicate any particular action, but it seems most likely that they can be broadly classified as food preparation. A large canopy resides in the middle of the model with four vessels and two vaulted chests placed underneath. Such features are unknown from models of food preparation but are more commonly found on funerary model boats. In addition to the different scales utilised for the figures, this unusual combination of elements suggests that the model is a pastiche of at least two different sculptures. Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1922.71. In another model from Deir el-Bersha, three standing and three seated figures are arranged on a large baseboard. While many of the activities and objects represented are enigmatic, some may be identified: a baker beside a slab oven; a man adopting the stance of a ploughman but without his tools or animals; two authority figures; and trapezoidal baskets probably from offering-bearers. The model is almost certainly a pastiche, combining elements from several models of different themes. National Museum of Denmark: 5492. A small rectangular baseboard said to be from Deir elBersha displays one seated and three standing figures which are basic in their rendering. The model is today housed in the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden where it has been broadly classified as brewing. Each figure is associated with a distinct object, although only one can be identified with certainty: the figure on the right holds a bucket for measuring grain. The occurrence of this motif outside of the granary is unusual and may suggest a modern assemblage of components from different models. Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden: F 1939/1.8. Five seated figures are closely spaced on a rectangular baseboard in another model said to be from Deir el-Bersha. Their appearance is typical of male figures apart from their yellow skin. They do not appear to perform any particular 70

This study considers the unique capabilities of the two- and three-dimensional media as well as their specific technical restrictions. For interpretation, it is important to situate these in the context of the conventions and principles governing ancient Egyptian art. While the distinguishing properties of each medium are described in this book as ‘advantages’ and ‘disadvantages’, this is not intended to be a critique of the ancient artists. Rather, these terms are employed to make it clear to the modern audience what scene- and model-artists could each achieve within the technical capabilities and conventions of their medium.

71

One major example of this, which is discussed at length in this study, is the media’s contrasting use of perspective. Scene-artists created their designs as flat, not only because they operated on a two-dimensional surface, but also because depth was not employed in the Egyptian artistic canon.69 In contrast, model-artists were able to utilise their three-dimensional perspective and create a holistic representation which enabled all components to remain in view no matter where they were positioned on the baseboard. This distinction between the media is regularly referred to in this study as a difference in ‘realism’. The use  Spencer, Death, 65-67; Malek, Egyptian Art, 131.  Weeks, in Egyptology, 68-69; Robins, Egyptian Painting, 11; Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 77. 66  Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 193; Robins, Proportion and Style, 6; Kanawati & Woods, Artists in the Old Kingdom, 31. 67  Baines, “Status and purpose”, CAJ 4.1, (1994), 68; Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 21. 68  Davis, Canonical Tradition, 61; Baines, “Status and purpose”, CAJ 4.1, (1994), 67-68. 69  Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 81; Robins, Proportion and Style, 1-3. 64 65

8

Introduction only minor or has not significantly impacted the themes and motifs represented, the sculptures were incorporated into the comparative analysis. Any impact this may have on interpreting the themes and motifs represented is considered in the discussion.

production and preparation, transport, animal husbandry, and craft production, with a fifth ‘miscellaneous’ category for those few sculptures that do not easily align with any particular overarching classification. These designations focus on the end result of the activities performed by the three-dimensional figures and consequently convey their intended benefit for the tomb owner’s afterlife rather than simply providing a description of the tasks, as is typically achieved for classifications of daily life wall scenes. This prevents the assumption that the model repertoire simply reflects that of the two-dimensional medium.

1.5 Classification of themes The repertoires of the two- and three-dimensional media provide great insight into what was considered most important to the ancient Egyptians in the preparation of their tombs for eternity. Therefore, this study is centred on the themes represented by the two media. To establish the repertoire of each medium at Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, all known two- and three-dimensional representations were collected. As the repertoire of funerary models is not as expansive as that of wall scenes, the three-dimensional artworks were collected first. This set the parameters on the range of themes that would form the basis of the comparative analysis.

Initially, fertility figurines, paddle dolls, offering-trays and soul houses were also collected as these three-dimensional representations are quite often included among discussions of funerary models in scholarship.75 However, after a close analysis of the model repertoire, it was determined that these sculptural forms constitute a type of representation distinct from funerary models. All of the themes of models are concerned with conveying at least one human figure engaged in activity,76 whereas each of the other forms does not convey a particular action, but rather serves a unique purpose among funerary equipment.77 Consequently, figurines that simply depict single animals were likewise excluded from this study as they do not convey any interaction or particular activity.78 Rather, only animals depicted in combination with at least one human figure have been considered funerary models. Moreover, fragmentary remains were not examined as they regularly do not provide sufficient material for comparison and the original composition can be difficult to identify. Instead,

The process of collecting funerary models involved an extensive examination of numerous museum catalogues as well as all published excavation reports from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan. This successfully achieved an extensive list of models, but some difficulties were encountered during this process: not all institutions have their collections available online, and among those that do, photographic documentation suitable for the close analysis required in this study was not always available. Contact was therefore made with the museums directly who in many cases were able to provide more sufficient access to their collections. Additionally, the author visited some of the institutions that house a significant number of models from the three sites under investigation in order to closely examine the minute details not clear in the available photographs.73

  In Tooley’s pioneering dissertation on models, each of these categories is included in her discussion. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 249-368. Similarly, ‘concubines’ are incorporated into Breasted’s catalogue of models. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 9396. 76  There are, however, a small number of sculptures without human figures that are still classified as funerary models in this study: a few granaries and boats exclude human figures, but as they depict places that involve human activity and form part of categories that regularly portray human participation, they have still been understood as models. 77  While the term ‘concubine’ has long been used in scholarship to describe three-dimensional figures of naked women, Pinch has more recently proposed the designation ‘fertility figurine’ in order to reflect their purpose more accurately. The figures have a much more prolonged period of use than funerary models, ranging from the Predynastic Period to Graeco-Roman times, and they have also been found in nonfunerary contexts. Although much discussion has occurred regarding their function, Pinch has convincingly argued that they were concerned with protecting and promoting fertility, a purpose that would have been significant in both life and afterlife. Pinch, Votive Offerings, 225-26. For some alternate conclusions see, for example, Hornblower, “Predynastic figures of women”, JEA 15.1/2, (1929), 29-47; Desroches-Noblecourt, “Concubines du mort”, BIFAO 53, (1953), 7-47; Ucko, “Prehistoric anthropomorphic figurines”, JRAI 92.1, (1962), 38-54. Tooley describes offering-trays as being imitations of the stone altars placed in tombchapels for the presentation of offerings and pouring of libations in the mortuary cult. She argues that the soul house developed out of the offering-tray but had the additional function of serving as a substitute chapel. Both types of sculpture were often placed on the surface of the grave or beside the mouth of the shaft in the chapel and therefore were involved in the cult practised by the living. Moreover, examples have also been found in non-funerary contexts. These sculptural forms are therefore clearly different in both location and function to funerary models. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 249-53, 302-03. 78   Miniaci, in Art-facts and Artefacts, 69. 75

Although theme classifications for the model repertoire have been previously proposed in scholarship by Breasted and Tooley,74 a new categorisation was developed in this study. This revised system consists of four themes, namely food action and the model does not retain any equipment. While there are five pegs protruding from the baseboard, there is little empty space to allow for the attachment of other components. It is unusual for a model to be interred in the burial without providing any particular service for the owner, so it is quite possible that this is not the original assemblage. Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden: F 1939/1.10. 73  In particular, the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, the British Museum in London, the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge and the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford were all visited during this project. 74   Breasted’s division of themes is quite elaborate, encompassing all of the following categories: production and storage of food; preparation and processing of food; industries; servants carrying supplies for the deceased and funeral scenes; servants providing transport; entertainment; concubines and other groups of retainers; and servant figures performing unidentified tasks. Tooley, alternatively, presents a more condensed classification of five principal themes: agriculture and animal husbandry; food preparation; industrial processes; offering-bearers; and boats. While this categorisation is quite succinct, it describes the activities performed rather than focusing on the result of production. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 6-106; Tooley, in Oxford Encyclopedia, .

9

Preparing for Eternity only complete or almost complete models were collected and assessed.

as the potential risks each tomb owner had to consider in his choice of representation. Finally, the precise purpose of the funerary model and its relationship to the wall scene is proposed in the conclusion.

Subsequently, all wall scenes that exhibit the themes represented by models were collected. This process involved an examination of all published reports of the three sites, including the initial documentation of the Egypt Exploration Fund as well as the records produced by current expeditions. Additionally, the author visited the sites of Meir and Beni Hassan in order to clarify any minute details not clear in the published reports. This thorough examination enabled all details that have at one time been preserved to be identified and documented. All two- and three-dimensional representations were then organised in a database according to theme. Line drawings, photographs and facsimiles of the representations were added to the database for examination.

All artworks examined in this study are compiled in two appendices: appendix 1 for funerary models and appendix 2 for wall scenes, and the representations are referred to by their catalogue number in [ ] throughout the book. In each appendix, the representations are ordered chronologically, but it should be noted that there are many difficulties in dating. After careful consideration of any dates previously proposed in scholarship and the evidence presented for each one, the most likely date has been adopted, with general dates regularly given. It is beyond the scope of this study to provide revised dates, but any margin of error, if present, should not adversely affect the examination of chronological trends.

During analysis, one theme was examined at a time, with each two- and three-dimensional representation studied in close detail. All of the major and minute features were documented, including the architectural structures represented, the specific movements and gestures of the figures, the objects depicted, the materials utilised, the spatial relationships between the components, and the order of steps portrayed. Observations were also made about the themes, motifs and details present in one medium but excluded from the other. Table 1.1 records the total numbers of funerary models and wall scenes analysed for each theme from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan. Although the artworks examined are restricted to those from the three sites, examples from other cemeteries were drawn upon when further comparison was needed. Additionally, archaeological remains were considered for interpretation where possible, particularly for the architectural structures represented by models.

Throughout this book, the name and tomb number of the original owner of each representation is cited where

This book is structured according to the revised classification of themes proposed above for the model repertoire. Only the themes portrayed by both media are discussed in a detailed comparative analysis, while those specific to a single medium are assessed in chapter 7. One chapter is dedicated to each theme and divided into sections according to the sub-themes of the category: chapter 2 is devoted to food production and preparation, and includes land preparation, storing grain in granaries, bread-making, brewing beer, hand-feeding cattle, slaughtering cattle, cooking meat, and fishing and fowling; chapter 3 to transport, comprising boats, offering-bearers, and beasts of burden; chapter 4 to animal husbandry, including calving, milking and nursing, cattle in procession, and dogs; chapter 5 to craft production, with spinning and weaving, carpentry, and leatherwork all addressed; and chapter 6 to miscellaneous themes, which consists of the military and foreigners. In each of these chapters, the distinguishing features of the two- and three-dimensional representations are identified and discussed. Chapter 7 provides a survey of all differences observed throughout the comparative analysis and assesses the additional distinctions of period of use, location in the tomb, repertoire, technical properties, construction, and accessibility between the media as well

Theme

Number of Funerary Models

Number of Wall Scenes

Land preparation

5

12

Storing grain in granaries

22

8

Bread-making

31

8

Brewing beer

24

7

Hand-feeding cattle

11

1

Slaughtering cattle

9

29

Cooking meat

5

13

Fishing and fowling

3

28

Boats

144

12

Offering-bearers

31

63

Beasts of burden

5

11

Calving

3

5

Milking and nursing

3

7

Cattle in procession

5

40

Dogs

1

39

Spinning and weaving

3

4

Carpentry

1

7

Leatherwork

1

4

Foreign women

1

4

Military

3

4

Table 1.1. Total numbers of representations examined through images from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan for each theme.

10

Introduction known, but there are a number of instances, especially for funerary models, where the precise burial was never documented. At Deir el-Bersha, there are unfortunately several difficulties in tomb numbering as each expedition instigated a new system. In order to avoid confusion in this study, the initial of each leading excavator has been positioned before the tomb number, i.e. the tomb numbering system of Newberry is transcribed as N-, that of Reisner as R-, those of Daressy and Kamal as D- and Krespectively, and that of the KU Leuven team as L-. For the numbering of tombs at Beni Hassan, those located in the Upper Cemetery are designated UC while those positioned in the Lower Cemetery are labelled LC. At Meir, the tombs of the nobles are numbered according to Blackman’s A-E designations. Tomb numbers are all referred to in ( ) after the name of each tomb owner throughout the book. * * * While funerary models and wall scenes do exhibit many similarities at first glance, studying the representations in close detail will highlight the major and minute differences between them. It will convey the unique technical properties of each medium and how these impacted the choice of designs as well as which themes and motifs were considered essential and supplementary to each type of representation. Such a comparative analysis of the twoand three-dimensional media has not previously been undertaken but is essential for accurately determining the relationship between them and the factors that contributed to the choice of medium to be included in each tomb. It is the unique characteristics of the funerary model, which are identified for the first time in this study, that will convey whether the three-dimensional medium did indeed have a distinct role from the wall scene in the tomb.

11

2 Food Production and Preparation 2.1 Land preparation

Draught cattle always operate in pairs, but this arrangement is represented differently by each medium.5 Working in two-dimensions, scene-artists did not utilise depth which prevented wall scenes from conveying true spatial relationships.6 However, side-by-side arrangements could be suggested through overlapping.7 Draught cattle are always depicted in this manner with one displayed in full view and its partner largely obscured behind.8 In order to distinguish each animal, contrasting colours and patterns were employed.9 In the fourth register of the north wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir, for example, the ox in full view is white with large black patches while the one in partial view is decorated with small red dots on a white hide [S134; fig. 2.1]. Model-artists, in contrast, had the advantage of working in three-dimensions which allowed them to realistically arrange the cattle side-by-side without hiding any part of the animals’ figures. This also enabled the cattle to be identically decorated without causing any confusion between the two. In a model from Meir, the two cattle are similarly patterned with black dots on a white hide while standing directly side-by-side [M171]. Although scene-artists utilised different techniques to overcome the limitations of the two-dimensional perspective, their arrangement was not as realistic as that exhibited by models.

The agricultural cycle was an integral part of the ancient Egyptians’ everyday lives, with a successful harvest providing the required grain for the two main dietary staples of bread and beer. It is therefore not surprising to find elements of the cycle commonly portrayed in both the two- and three-dimensional media. In Egyptian artistic representations, the beginning and end of a process were considered to be of greater significance than the intermediary tasks.1 Consequently, not every stage of the agricultural cycle is depicted, but the first stage of preparing the land for cultivation is particularly prevalent. From Meir, Deir elBersha and Beni Hassan, seven models and 12 wall scenes have been identified that depict this process.2 The tasks of ploughing, tilling, sowing and trampling the seed are all involved, although each representation differs in the quantity of preparatory activities displayed and their arrangement. Of the tasks involved in preparing the land, ploughing is most commonly depicted, being identified in all but one of the representations examined in this study.3 The plough was used to break up clods of earth and create furrows into which the seed was dispersed and may have also helped cover the seed after it was sown.4 It was attached to two draught cattle and operated by a ploughman who was regularly assisted by a driver. The models present the most condensed form of the motif, with only one ploughing team represented in each example [M66, M170, M171, M226; see fig. 2.2], whereas wall scenes exhibit greater variety in the quantity of teams. The most condensed two-dimensional illustrations likewise feature a single ploughing team, as is found in the third register of the north wall of the tomb of Ipi (481 LC) at Beni Hassan [S6], but more expansive scenes incorporate several teams. The largest group examined is found on the west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan where the six preserved teams are spread across the north and south panels [S85-S86]. Significant amount of wall space was regularly devoted to agricultural activities, enabling multiple ploughing teams to be easily depicted.

While draught cattle are consistently portrayed walking forward calmly, obediently performing their task, scenes occasionally depict a contrasting nature. On the north panel of the west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC), the oxen forming the lead ploughing team in the eleventh register display signs of aggression: their heads are lowered and horns threaten the driver who stands in front in an attempt to bring them under control while the ploughman turns from his post to flee in fear [S86].10 Interestingly, the lead

 While the cattle employed as draught animals were almost always oxen, a few scenes unusually portray cows in this role. On the west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir, four of the five ploughing teams consist of cows whose udders are on display [S14; fig. 2.3]. None of the funerary models examined specify the genitalia of the cattle and so the gender of the animals cannot be determined. Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 59; Lashien, in Perfection that Endures, 261. 6  Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 77; Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 21. 7  Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 177-79; Robins, Proportion and Style, 8. 8   In most cases, only the legs, head, horns and front part of the chest are visible of the animal furthest from view, but occasionally a few additional details are displayed. On the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan, part of the line of the back and the hanging tail of the far ox in the pair on the left of the third register are visible [S197; fig. 2.6]. Similarly, in the team on the right, the belly of the far ox is on display and the animal raises its head, distinguishing itself from its partner. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 30. 9  Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 181; Siebels, in Egyptian Art, 56. 10   Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, 24. 5

 Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 119; Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 88. 2   Only five of the seven models were available for examination through images. 3   The exception is found in the model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) from Meir where a single figure is engaged in tilling [M1; fig. 2.4]. It should also be noted that in a wall fragment found in association with the tomb of Nehri I (N-4) at Deir el-Bersha, a single ox is preserved behind a man operating a hoe, but the fragmentary state of the representation makes it difficult to determine if the animal is part of a ploughing team or is simply being encouraged to walk forward by a fieldhand whose preserved arm rests on its back [S71]. 4  Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 158; Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 44-45. 1

13

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 2.1. Draught cattle. Tomb of Senbi I (B1). North wall, register 4 [S134]. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 32b; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

ploughman and driver in the seventh register of the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan adopt similar attitudes, but the oxen do not display signs of aggression [S172]. Although Vandier has suggested that this team is simply being turned to walk in the opposite direction in the neighbouring furrow,11 the similarity with the scene of Baqet III suggests that it likewise captures a moment of disobedience. Such everyday life episodes are a common feature of scenes, creating variety among a recurring theme that would have been seen by visitors to the tomb.12 Models, on the other hand, apparently prefer the characteristic attitudes for the cattle and associated figures, avoiding specific moments from daily life.

and feet flat on the ground, and as the handles of the plough are quite high, he only has to lean forward slightly [S172]. The ploughmen on the west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir, in contrast, exhibit more extreme gestures with both legs bent in a crouching position, the back heel raised off the ground and the arms lowered with elbows slightly bent to grasp the short handles of the plough [S14; fig. 2.3]. Such variety in attitudes could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface. Model-artists, on the other hand, encountered greater difficulty in crafting the intricacies of these postures in three-dimensions and so their representations of ploughmen are less diverse. The most strenuous attitude is adopted by the ploughman in the model of Djehutynakht (R-10A) from Deir el-Bersha who merely leans his torso forward slightly and lowers his elongated stick-like arms while stepping forward with both knees moderately bent [M66; fig. 2.2]. More often, the model ploughmen stand practically upright with their straight legs together which seems to be an ineffective position for their role.14 It therefore seems that the precise gesture of the ploughman was dependent upon the skill of the individual artist within the capabilities of his medium.

It was the role of the ploughman to press down on the plough and guide the team along the desired path. Wall scenes exhibit significant variety in the representation of his posture, particularly in relation to the inclination of his torso, the spacing of his legs and the positioning of his arms.13 The middle ploughman in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) is relatively static in his posture with straight legs  Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 241.  An alternate everyday life moment is captured in the scene of Pepyankh the Middle (D2): in the second register of the west wall, a calf frolics before its mother who is engaged in ploughing while the rare motif of a cow turning its head to scratch its muzzle with its hoof appears on the left [S14; fig. 2.3]. Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, 48-49; Lashien, Nobles of El-Qusiya, 200. 13  Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 44-45. 11

12

  See, for example, a model said to be from Meir where the ploughman is not strained in his movement but merely stands upright with his arms hanging by his side and left leg positioned only just in front [M226]. 14

14

Food Production and Preparation

Figure 2.2. Model ploughing team of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M66]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.408.

A driver regularly assists the ploughman by urging the cattle to move forward.15 His principal tool is the stick which he either raises above his head or over the back of the animal, or holds against the rump or at rest by his side.16 On the south wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan, each of the four drivers holds his stick in front to either reside above the cattle or touch its rear [S102]. Instead of a smooth, straight stick, the drivers hold tree branches with small twigs protruding at different angles. Additionally, three of the men hold the animal’s tail with their left hand to further encourage it to move forward.17 The sticks are not well-preserved in the models, but the postures of the

drivers indicate they held them over the back of the cattle or against the rump [M66, M170, M171; see fig. 2.2]. The only extant example examined in this study, which is found in a model from Meir [M170], comprises a long, rounded piece which would have presumably been easier to carve in three-dimensions than the thin twigs of the tree branch.18 Moreover, the spare hand of the model driver never holds the tail of the cattle. As the human and animal figures were carved as separate pieces and attached individually to the baseboard, it would have required exceptionally fine craftsmanship to create a smooth connection between the two. The three-dimensional medium was hindered in its ability to incorporate the minute details exhibited in scenes, but the principal components of the driver’s role could still be conveyed.

 The driver appears in all ploughing teams examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan with two possible exceptions: the only human figure in a model said to be from Meir is the ploughman, but Vandier has noted that the baseboard is not original to the model making it possible that a driver was originally included in the design that has not been preserved [M226]. Additionally, on the west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC), the team on the left of the seventh register of the south panel has no surviving driver [S85]. This, however, is most likely a matter of preservation as many details have been lost and there is an empty space between the oxen and the ploughman where the driver likely stood originally. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 7; Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 61-62. 16  Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 47-48; Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 161. 17  Klebs, Reliefs und Malereien, 70. 15

Further differences are noticed in the positioning of the driver. In scenes, he is characteristically positioned between the cattle and the ploughman, but is often partially obscured by the shaft of the plough or more rarely by the   The three-dimensional medium had the ability to incorporate a range of materials in its design, and so it would have been possible to utilise a real branch for the driver’s stick. Although this is not preserved in the examples studied, it is possible that it was achieved in the models where the stick has not survived. 18

15

Preparing for Eternity animals themselves.19 Each driver in the first register of the east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir stands in this position, with two of them on the far side of the shaft and one in full view on the near side [S35]. In some rare exceptions, the driver’s characteristic location is altered, as is found on the west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2): the driver in the second register stands behind the ploughman with his extended left hand holding a stick, while the teams in the fourth and fifth registers are led by a second driver who stands in front of the cattle and guides them with a leash and likely some fodder [S14; fig. 2.3].20 Models, on the other hand, had the advantage of a holistic perspective that enabled the driver to stand in his actual position directly next to the ploughman without being obscured from view, as is exhibited by a model from Meir [M170]. The driver held an important role in the ploughing team which was encapsulated by both scene- and model-artists according to the technical capabilities of their medium.

also preserved [M226].24 This component is quite basic in its rendering, comprising a curved wooden blade separating into two handles at one end. Wall scenes could also be quite simple in their composition of the ploughshare, but some examples are more intricate. That in the scene of Senbi I (B1) is particularly detailed, comprising a curved tapering blade connected to the shaft with a dowel and secured with several lines of rope that are kept in place by a small protrusion [S134]. Scene-artists could more easily incorporate such minute details into their compositions, whereas model-artists typically created less detailed designs but could encapsulate a holistic perspective. An additional process involved in preparing the land for cultivation is tilling which is likewise represented by both the two- and three-dimensional media, although it does not appear as frequently. Like ploughing, the hoe was used to prepare the land prior to sowing, to break up clods of earth and to cover the seed, although its less common representation suggests it was not always a necessary process.25 However, Moreno Garcia has observed that ploughing would have been reserved for great institutions and wealthy landlords, so the more common representation of the plough should not be understood as an indication that it was more frequently employed in everyday agriculture, but that it was portrayed by tomb owners as a symbol of prestige.26 One model and six wall scenes have been identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan to represent tilling. Typically, only a single figure is engaged in this task, although in the third register of the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan there are three tillers: the men closely overlap and lean forward at different angles so that each may be individually identified [S197; fig. 2.6].27 The hoe is similar in design to the plough with both tools consisting of a curved blade set into a wooden shaft and secured by a cord, although in the case of the hoe, the blade is longer than the shaft.28 In both the two- and three-dimensional representations, the tiller characteristically angles the hoe down to the ground, about to strike, as can be seen on the east wall of the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (N-1) at Deir el-Bersha [S149] and in the tilling model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) from Meir [M1; fig. 2.4].

The plough itself is comprised of two handles attached to a wooden blade with a crosspiece and a long shaft connected to a yoke tied to the cattle’s horns.21 Although none of the models examined preserve a complete plough, the remaining elements still allow for comparison with wall scenes.22 The yoke is preserved in three of the models and consists of a simple wooden bar, sometimes decorated with painted bands indicative of rope, which lies across the heads of the oxen [M170, M171, M226]. Most wall scenes, however, exclude this feature,23 probably because it was difficult to depict in combination with the animal’s profile perspective. On the north wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1), the yoke itself is not visible, but the cord attaching it to the horns is illustrated to imply its presence [S134; fig. 2.1]. Alternatively, the shaft is present in all two-dimensional ploughing teams, but it regularly disappears from view behind the cattle to indicate that it passes between the pair. For it to be fully visible, it needs to pass on the near side of the animals, as is achieved in the scene of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) [S14; fig. 2.3], but this presents a less realistic display. Models, conversely, could maintain the shaft’s actual position between the cattle while keeping all elements in view. In a model said to be from Meir, not only does the shaft assume this position, but the ploughshare is

  The ploughshare is preserved in only one other model examined in this study, namely that from a tomb at Meir [M171]. This tool comprises a roughly triangular piece inserted into the baseboard with a U-shaped top to support the shaft. 25   Murray, in Materials and Technology, 517; Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 70. 26   Moreno Garcia notes that the use of the plough was not necessary in the domestic agriculture of the ordinary population due to the conditions of the valley land following the recession of the flood. Rather, it would have been required on higher ground where the effects of the flood were more limited. The possession and maintenance of a pair of oxen to operate the plough would have also involved significant financial costs, which would have only been achievable for the wealthy. Moreno Garcia, “L’emploi de l’araire”, GRAFMA 9-10, (2008), 57-60; Moreno Garcia, in Companion to Ancient Agriculture, 182-83. 27  Presumably, the men should be understood as operating in neighbouring furrows. 28  Strouhal, Life, 95-96; Brewer, Redford & Redford, Domestic Plants and Animals, 19. 24

 Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 46-47; Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 61. 20   Harpur has alternatively identified these men in the scene of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) as coaxer-sowers. Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 160-61. 21   Donatelli, in Egyptian Civilization, 166; Siebels, in Behind the Scenes, 77. 22  An excellently preserved example, however, may be found in a ploughing model with unknown provenance now housed in the British Museum, London: EA 51090. The plough is formed of a curved wooden blade with two distinct handles that bend backwards into the hands of the ploughman. The original binding is preserved which secures the ploughshare to the shaft with a notch preventing it from slipping. More binding is wrapped around the yoke which lies across the heads of the animals, just behind the horns. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, pl. 3b. 23  Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 30-31. 19

16

Food Production and Preparation

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

However, the model tiller exhibits a number of features that are not paralleled in tilling wall scenes. The man’s limbs are quite elongated and his skin is fairly dark, causing Tiradritti to suggest that the model-artist has captured the tiller at work in the middle of the day when the haze of the heat elongated his image.29 This interpretation, however, seems unlikely as not only are darker skin tones and disproportionate features common for model figures, but Egyptian art was more concerned with conveying an object in its most recognisable form rather than how it might appear at a particular moment in time.30 Tiradritti has further suggested that the termination of the tiller’s legs at the ankles indicates that he walks in soft alluvial mud.31 While the grey paint around the man’s ankles on the baseboard may support this, it should be noted that such termination is common in models and was the result of the construction method of securing figures to the baseboard.  Tiradritti, in Egyptian Treasures, 103; Tiradritti, Egyptian Wall Painting, 125. 30  Robins, Proportion and Style, 3; Kanawati & Woods, Artists in the Old Kingdom, 29-30. 31  Tiradritti, in Egyptian Treasures, 103; Tiradritti, Egyptian Wall Painting, 125. Prior to Tiradritti’s publication, Borchardt and Breasted suggested this same interpretation as a possibility. Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, 161; Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 6. 29

Figure 2.4. Model tiller of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) [M1]. Drawing by the author.

17

Preparing for Eternity While feet were sometimes later added in plaster or paint, they were regularly excluded from the designs.32 Indeed, in models where it is certain that the figures stand on solid ground, the feet are still regularly excluded.33 A similar suggestion has been made for the ploughman and driver whose legs likewise terminate at the ankles in the ploughing model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A),34 but this interpretation seems impossible as the heavier cattle should also have sunk into the mud, yet their hooves fully reside on top of the baseboard [M66; fig. 2.2].35 All of the figures associated with land preparation in wall scenes are represented with their feet on the baseline, further supporting the attribution of the lack of feet in models to a construction technique. Consequently, this variation in representation reflects the contrasting processes involved in the creation of each medium and how they could impact the final design.

teams simultaneously,38 there is still an insufficient number of sowers for such a large representation. The scene-artist must have been content to condense this motif in his design. Only occasionally is the sower excluded from the two-dimensional illustrations and in these instances, it must be assumed that the seed has already been scattered.39 No sower is incorporated into the land preparation scene displayed on the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), but the task of sowing is implied through the presence of a basket of seed and a measuring bucket in front of the tillers [S197; fig. 2.6].40 In models, on the other hand, the sowing motif is entirely excluded from the repertoire. Not only are there no sowers depicted, but there are no baskets of seed to imply the completion of the task. Although it has been suggested that the figure accompanying the ploughman in the model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) is a sower,41 this designation seems unlikely [M66; fig. 2.2]. Not only does he stand alongside the ploughman in the position of the driver, but his right arm is extended in front presumably holding a stick instead of being upraised as would be expected for a sower.42 It is probable that a major reason for the absence of this motif among models is the technical difficulty of fashioning it in three-dimensions. The most characteristic element of the sowing motif is falling seed. This could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface, but the falling motion could not be captured by the threedimensional medium. Instead, it seems that for models, the ploughing team sufficed to convey the tasks of both ploughing and sowing.

Sowing seed was another important task in land preparation and the sower regularly appears in wall scenes in association with ploughing teams. He is characteristically displayed with one arm upraised with a stream of seed falling to the ground and the other arm supporting the basket of seed which may be slung over the shoulder, from the crook of the elbow or the hand, or cradled in the arm against the chest.36 The cascading seed is either represented as a single line of small circles descending to the ground in front of the sower, as is found in the scene of Pepyankh the Black (A2) [S35], or as a thick stream of seed with the individual grains still distinguished, as is displayed on the east wall of the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (N-1) [S149].37 The number of sowers in each scene, however, regularly does not correlate with the quantity of ploughing teams. On the west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2), a single sower appears alongside the five ploughing teams spread over four registers [S14; fig. 2.3]. Although Vandier has noted that one sower could service two ploughing

The seed needed to be covered after sowing and this could be achieved by a flock of sheep which trampled it into the ground. This motif has only been identified in one scene from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, namely that on the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha [S205; fig. 2.5]. This scene is the latest surviving example in all of Egypt, with the motif more commonly known from Memphite tombs of the Old Kingdom.43 Djehuty-hotep in fact presents a strong link to the traditions of the Old Kingdom in his tomb’s iconographic themes and layout,

 Winlock, Models of Daily Life, 74; Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 64. 33   In model boats, the figures stand on a solid wooden deck, but their legs regularly terminate at the ankles without any addition of feet. See, for example, the figures on board a boat from tomb 203 LC at Beni Hassan [M58], a sailing boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M106], and the sailing boat from the tomb of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) at Beni Hassan [M220]. 34   Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 161-62. 35   In relation to another ploughing model with a similar portrayal of the feet and hooves, Arnold has suggested that the ploughman should be understood as walking in soft mud while the cattle stand on drier ground, but this, too, seems impossible as the man and beasts walk close together in the same terrain. Arnold, “Egyptian bestiary”, MMAB 52.4, (1995), 51. 36   The sower leading the ploughing team on the north wall of the tomb of Ipi (481 LC) cradles a small container of seed in his left hand against his chest [S6]. On the north panel of the west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC), the sower instead holds the small basket by its strap in his left hand [S86]. Alternatively, the two sowers in the scene of Pepyankh the Black (A2) each suspend their basket from the crook of their elbow [S35]. The strap could also hang over the sower’s shoulder, as is exhibited in the seventh register of the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S172]. Siebels, in Egyptian Art, 56. 37   The stream is also coloured yellow to reflect the real-life hue of the grain. The scenes on the east wall have suffered significant damage, but Newberry and Griffith’s documentation suggests that these agricultural vignettes formed the second to fourth registers. Newberry & Griffith, El Bersheh. Part II, 20-21. 32

 Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 13-14.  Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 161. 40   Hudáková has suggested that the basket could also represent the tasks of recording, measuring or distributing the seed. This motif is elaborated in the scene of Djehuty-nakht (N-1) where the remains of two figures who record the quantities of seed stand either side of two large baskets on the right of the second register of the east wall [S149]. Hudáková, in Art of Describing, 186. 41   Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 162. Similarly, Taylor states that ploughing models sometimes include a figure scattering seed, but he does not provide any examples. Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 100. 42  The hand of his extended arm is damaged so it cannot be certain if he originally held a stick, but its orientation towards the rear of the oxen makes this highly likely. However, his left arm is bent sharply at the elbow with his hand cupped near the shoulder which is an unusual attitude for a driver. It is possible that he had a basket slung from this hand which could be symbolic of the role of a sower, but his primary function seems to be that of a driver. 43   Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 93, 101. 38 39

18

Food Production and Preparation more so than most other Middle Kingdom tombs.44 In his trampling scene, a coaxer-sower leads the overlapping flock in the first register by enticing them with some food in his lowered hand, while three shepherds accompany the group with whips, sticks and the so-called ‘shepherd’s implement’ to urge the animals forward.45 Both tilling and ploughing are also illustrated in the register, presenting an expansive representation of the land preparation process. The rarity of the trampling scene in the provinces may reflect regional differences in artistic design and/ or agricultural practices.46 As the production of wooden models was largely concentrated in the provincial areas of the Middle Kingdom, it is therefore not surprising that the supplementary motif of trampling is completely absent from the three-dimensional repertoire.

was achieved in wall scenes. Consequently, the details of each process are only conveyed graphically in the threedimensional medium. All wall scenes of land preparation examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan include more than one of the preliminary tasks, although the order of activities is often difficult to determine. Each scene presents a unique arrangement of the motifs, with several inconsistences between them.48 For example, on the south wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan, the sower walks in front of the ploughing team [S57],49 whereas on the north panel of the west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC), the sower appears behind the ploughman [S86]. These contrasting arrangements could either represent different agricultural practices or alternate artistic designs.50 Moreover, with the restrictions of the two-dimensional perspective, the activities are arranged in single file with limited or no separation, giving the impression that each process occurred consecutively along a single furrow.51 On the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), for example, three ploughing teams appear, with a sower between the first and second, and a tiller preceding the third [S172]. It is highly unlikely that all three groups worked along the same course, but rather that they operated simultaneously side-by-side in neighbouring furrows.52 Model-artists were not restricted by this same technical limitation as they worked in a threedimensional perspective, but interestingly each example that depicts land preparation only portrays a single task. In the three-dimensional repertoire, the theme is particularly condensed and does not occupy the same amount of space as is regularly found in wall scenes.

Textual captions regularly accompany scenes of land preparation, providing further insight into the specific figures involved, the nature of the activities taking place and the dialogue of the workers. Several labels are incorporated into the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC): the action of the three tillers is described as skA m Hnn ‘cultivating with the hoe’, the driver of the first ploughing team commands the animals to mj wr ‘come well’, and the two officials on the right are identified as jmj-r pr n sxt NTr-nxt(.w) ‘the overseer of the house of the fields, Netjernakht’ and jmj-r mSa 3nmw-Htp(.w) sA Nfr ‘the overseer of the army/expedition, Khnumhotep’s son, Nofer’ [S197; fig. 2.6].47 Such captions could be easily integrated into the image itself, forming part of the composition. In contrast, text rarely features in the threedimensional medium with no examples known from the theme of land preparation. While labels could technically be inscribed on the bases of the models, they could not be integrated into the representations in the same way that

The preparation of land for cultivation forms a vital component of the agricultural cycle and its importance as the first stage in the process resulted in its representation by both the two- and three-dimensional media. Minute differences are noticeable between the designs which largely result from the unique technical properties of each medium. However, models are certainly more condensed in their representations, portraying a smaller number of activities. The task of ploughing dominates this theme in the three-dimensional repertoire and may be understood as symbolic of the entire process. Scenes likewise

  Scene-artists of the Middle Kingdom drew inspiration from the Old Kingdom Memphite style while also reinterpreting certain themes and motifs. This was especially significant during a period of unification and consolidation after the division of the First Intermediate Period, and therefore both archaism and innovation are defining characteristics of the period. In the decorative scheme of the tomb-chapel of Djehutyhotep (N-2), several iconographic elements of the Old Kingdom are reinterpreted while simultaneously introducing new features. Some of the tomb’s motifs are especially based on the Old Kingdom repertoire, including the scene of force-feeding cranes on the north wall of the inner room which was a motif commonly found in the Old Kingdom but only rarely attested in the Middle Kingdom. Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pl. 22. Other themes adopt very traditional images while reinterpreting them with new details and innovative variations. The scenes of the tomb owner fishing and fowling are positioned in the traditional location on either side of the entrance leading to the inner room of the tomb, but a minute variation is found in the representation of the woman standing in front of him in each boat: unlike the earlier tradition, each woman is equipped with a spear and throwstick. Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pls. 8-9; Silverman, Simpson & Wegner, in Archaism and Innovation, ix-xiii; De Meyer, et al., “Fowl for the governor. Part 2”, JEA 100, (2014), 79-80; Pieke, in Change and Innovation, 95-103. 45  This scene reveals the shepherd’s implement to be a type of whip consisting of several long leather strips which were looped around the shepherd’s hand when not in use. Siebels, in Egyptian Art, 57. 46   Although the trampling motif was regularly omitted from representations, this does not necessarily mean that the practice did not occur during life. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 37-38; Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 51; Swinton, Management of Estates, 139. 47   Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 37. 44

  Vandier in fact has identified 22 different arrangements of land preparation activities in scenes of the Old Kingdom. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 12-28. 49   This wall has incurred significant damage which has caused some of the figures engaged in land preparation to be lost. On the left of the fifth register is a single ploughing team preceded by a man carrying a small container, likely containing seed. The section before him is lost, but it is possible that he carries reserve seed to be used by a sower walking in front, as is found on the north wall of the tomb of Ipi (481 LC) [S6]. 50  It should also be considered that in reality, the order of processes would most likely have varied according to the condition of the terrain. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 5-6; Murray, in Materials and Technology, 517. 51  Montet, Scènes de la vie privée, 184-85; Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 44. 52  Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 238; Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 44. 48

19

Preparing for Eternity

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

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

20

Food Production and Preparation prominently feature ploughing, but as they regularly dedicate large sections of wall space to the agricultural cycle, they could create more expansive representations which included the additional processes of tilling, sowing and trampling.

of First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom chapels, but interestingly, is more commonly found painted on wooden coffins during this time.57 Grain storage should be understood as one of the essential themes of the Middle Kingdom model repertoire, but it does not seem to have held this same status in the two-dimensional medium.

2.2 Storing grain in granaries

The theme also appears to have held a different level of importance at each of the three sites examined. The granary is especially popular at Beni Hassan, with five of the eight wall scenes and 14 of the 22 models examined originating from the site. This emphasis on food storage may reflect the agricultural wealth of the province and/or a regional preference for the theme.58 Although both scenes and models of granaries are known from Meir, there is a much smaller quantity of examples. The three Old Kingdom scenes examined all derive from the site and are confined to the walls of burial chambers.59 In the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2), for example, the storage of grain is reserved for the substructure while all other stages of the agricultural cycle are illustrated in the chapel [S17].60 Unusually, no scenes of granaries are known from Deir elBersha, although models are known in reasonable quantity, with seven examined in this study.61 Even in the highlydecorated chapel of the governor Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha, no scenes of granaries are represented, but fragments of models from the burial indicate that at least one model granary was originally interred.62 It seems that at Meir and Deir el-Bersha there was a preference for the theme to be depicted in the substructure, with the model typically forming the favoured medium for this space.63

Although not every stage of the agricultural cycle is represented by both the two- and three-dimensional media, the final task of storing grain in granaries holds an important role in both repertoires as it forms the culmination of the entire process. Grain not only provided the basis of the ancient Egyptian diet, but it functioned as a form of insurance, with additional grain kept in reserve for times of poor harvest and for the next season’s crops.53 In the context of the tomb, the granary symbolised the tomb owner’s wealth during life and provided continual sustenance for him in the afterlife. Although the theme occurs in both media, a significant difference in quantity is noticeable, with 22 models and eight wall scenes examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan.54 Grain storage is by far the most common agricultural motif in the model corpus and in fact comprises one of the most popular themes of the entire model repertoire. The two- and three-dimensional representations of the granary largely feature the same principal components of the silos, courtyard, labourers and officials, but several differences are noticeable that may be chiefly attributed to the unique technical properties of each medium. While most themes appear first in wall scenes, the granary unusually occurs first in the three-dimensional medium. The earliest known examples date to the 1st Dynasty and comprise cylindrical pottery silos from Abydos.55 However, the granary is rarely encountered among the stone statuettes of the Old Kingdom and only became popular in the First Intermediate Period when the sculptures began to be fashioned of wood. Peak production was reached during the early Middle Kingdom when model granaries were dominant among funerary assemblages and in fact all examples collected in this study date to the early 11th Dynasty or later.56 In contrast, scenes of granaries only first appeared in the mid-5th Dynasty, but became increasingly common during the late Old Kingdom. Unlike models, the theme is only occasionally attested in scenes

 Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 220; Bardoňová, “Grain Storage”, 158. Granaries appear in coffin decoration from the end of the Old Kingdom onwards. These illustrations have not been examined in this study as they comprise a type of representation distinct from wall scenes and funerary models. Bardoňová, in Perfection that Endures, 53; Kanawati & Swinton, Egypt in the Sixth Dynasty, 195-96. 58   Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 102; Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 74. 59  Only one model granary from Meir could be examined through images in this study, although at least six others were identified. A fourth scene from the site was also found, namely on the east wall of the burial chamber of Pepyankh the Black (A2), but the wall is poorly preserved with only traces of a granary remaining. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, 62. 60   In the chapel, the agricultural scenes are displayed on the west wall and are divided into two panels. Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part IV, pl. 14; Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pl. 84. 61  While most model owners only housed a single granary in their burials, the governor Djehuty-nakht and his wife (R-10A) from Deir elBersha unusually interred at least eight of these structures in their joint tomb. Most of these have only survived in fragments, but four are still relatively intact [M67-M70]. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 162. 62   Fourteen model figures were uncovered in a dump outside the tomb, with the material originating from Djehuty-hotep’s shaft. At least two of these figures derive from a model granary, each of which comprises a man carrying a sack of grain on his shoulder. Willems, et al., “Preliminary report of the 2003 campaign”, MDAIK 62, (2006), 309, 314. 63  A similar situation is witnessed at Saqqara where numerous 6th Dynasty tomb owners chose to depict granaries on the walls of their burial chambers. In the tomb-chapel of Ankhmahor, agricultural activities are displayed on the east wall of room 1 except for the grain storage theme which is reserved for the burial chamber. Alternatively, the tomb-chapel of Khentika features all of the agricultural processes, but granaries alone are repeated in the burial chamber. This again highlights the subterranean location for the grain storage theme. James, Khentika, 57

  Siebels, in Egyptian Art, 63; Katary, in Egyptian World, 188.  There are, unfortunately, only a small number of complete model granaries preserved, but the presence of the fragmentary components of staircases and labourers carrying sacks of grain attest to the theme’s widespread use. The 22 models examined comprise those that are still relatively intact and have available images, but the original corpus was presumably much larger. It should be noted that the images examined are sometimes restricted in the perspectives offered, with the exterior walls of the structures occasionally concealing some of the details housed within. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 102. 55  See, for example, those housed in the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London: UC 36721a-b, UC 36623. Waki, “Storage”, GM 190, (2002), 106; Bardoňová, “Grain Storage”, 152. 56  Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 122; Bardoňová, “Grain Storage”, 204-05. 53 54

21

Preparing for Eternity Moreover, with the common depiction of the theme on coffins, it was clearly important for granaries to be closely connected to the deceased himself. Grain was one of the most essential commodities for the tomb owner’s eternal sustenance and the popularity of the granary in substructures reflects its highly important contribution to the continual nourishment of the deceased in the afterlife.

consequently the interior of the granary complex was the preferred viewpoint for the two-dimensional medium. However, individual components are occasionally incorporated that suggest the presence of the exterior structure. This is especially noticeable in the representation of the granary displayed on the south wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan [S101; fig. 2.8]. Here, the granary scene is outlined in a yellow border that rises to two peaks along its upper edge, reminiscent of the peaked corners characteristic of wooden models.68 This may be an attempt by the scene-artist to indicate a larger architectural setting for the silos depicted in the two sub-registers within. Additionally, a red doorway is painted at the bottom left corner of the scene which probably symbolises the entry door giving access to the granary’s interior.69 These features enable the scene-artist to create a basic framework for his design, but he could not incorporate both the external and internal viewpoints of the granary in the realistic fashion presented in models.

In both the two- and three-dimensional representations of the granary, the architectural structure comprises one of the essential elements, but its appearance within the model corpus is especially striking. Aside from representations of granaries, architectural frameworks are rare among models, with figures and objects instead typically arranged on simple baseboards without any defined enclosures.64 In the granary theme, though, it forms a vital component in conveying a successful storage facility. The typical wooden model granary comprises a rectangular or square baseboard with exterior walls that meet at peaked corners.65 The walls may gently rise to low peaks, as is found in a model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) from Deir el-Bersha [M67; fig. 2.7], or the corners may be carved as sharp peaks, as is exhibited by the granary of Nefwa (186 LC) from Beni Hassan [M186]. As the structures are not enclosed by a roof, it is possible that the peaked corners are a means to convey the domed roof of real-life granaries while enabling the interior to remain visible.66 The exterior walls almost always form the boundary of the model, but in an unusual example from Deir el-Bersha, the structure is positioned on a larger baseboard, creating a small space outside the entry for additional labourers to work [M259]. Access to the interior of a model granary is granted by an entry door which is usually painted onto one wall,67 but could alternatively be carved as a separate, functioning piece and attached with a hinge, as is exhibited in the model of Intef (1 LC) from Beni Hassan [M36]. The holistic perspective of the three-dimensional medium enables all four sides of the architectural structure to be on display and for functioning components such as the door to be employed.

The interior of the granary complex is formed of two major components which feature prominently in both the twoand three-dimensional representations: the silos that store the grain and the courtyard in which the labourers work. In models, these two features are usually organised in one of two arrangements: a single row of silos on the far side of the courtyard, as is found in a model of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) from Beni Hassan [M208], or two rows of chambers flanking the court, as is exhibited by the granary of Nefery (116 LC) from Beni Hassan [M177].70 Scene-artists, on the other hand, could not maintain either of these arrangements while keeping all components in view and subsequently had to find ways to overcome this limitation. One of the ways in which this was achieved was through using superimposed registers. On the west pilaster of the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan, the single row of silos in the third register should presumably be understood as residing on the far side of the courtyard depicted directly below in the fourth register [S113]. Alternatively, the two components could be shown in profile directly next to each other, as is found in the first register of the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan [S195; fig. 2.9]. In the scene of Khety (17 UC), conversely, the action in the courtyard is unusually separated into a box positioned in the top left corner of the structure which presumably indicates it is actually located between the two rows of silos depicted to the right [S101; fig. 2.8]. Although each of these methods enabled both the silos and courtyard to be individually defined in scenes, the realistic arrangement exhibited by models could not be captured.

As scene-artists were limited in the range of perspectives they could portray, only certain aspects of the granary’s architectural structure could be included in their designs. The most important part of the granary was the silos and pls. 9, 34; Kanawati & Hassan, Teti Cemetery at Saqqara. Volume II, pls. 37a, 63; Kanawati & Swinton, Egypt in the Sixth Dynasty, 195. 64   Arnold, in Structure and Significance, 26; Adams, in Archaeology and Art. Volume I, 16. 65  Arnold, in Structure and Significance, 27-28; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 203. Only rarely do model granaries not exhibit peaked corners, with one such example found in the model of Sepi III (K-14 south) from Deir el-Bersha [M278]. 66  The peaked corners also appear in the determinative for the term Snwt ‘granary’. It should be noted, however, that the upper sections of walls are rarely, if ever, preserved in an archaeological context, and so a comparison between the peaked corners in models and the real-life structures is impossible to conduct. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 89; Arnold, in Structure and Significance, 27-28; Barker, “Funerary models and wall scenes”, GM 254, (2018), 11. 67  See, for example, the granary from tomb 394 LC at Beni Hassan where the yellow-painted door is outlined in a red band and positioned above a white-painted rectangular platform [M61].

As the storage facility of the grain, the silos are of crucial importance and both media depict the same two types   Bardoňová, “Grain Storage”, cat. ICN 51.   A similar entry is found on the right of the granary displayed in the third register of the west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan [S84]. This scene, however, is poorly preserved with most of the details of the architectural structure no longer visible. 70   Adams, in Archaeology and Art. Volume I, 5. 68 69

22

Food Production and Preparation

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

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

23

Preparing for Eternity of structure: domed silos and flat-roofed silos.71 During the Old Kingdom, the domed silo was the favoured type in wall scenes, with the chambers typically elevated on a platform which would protect the contents from the damaging effects of the inundation.72 On the south wall of the burial chamber of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir, six such chambers are arranged in a single row with a slight gap between each one [S17]. The flat roof, on the other hand, appears in scenes of the Middle Kingdom and it simultaneously functions as a terrace upon which the labourers traverse to deposit the grain.73 In the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), the four silos are depicted as a single rectangular structure, the roof of which is accessed by a staircase forming the left-hand wall [S195; fig. 2.9].

for the flat-roofed silo may reflect a chronological development in design,78 it may also result from an easier method of construction: not only are rectangular shapes less demanding to carve in wood than domed structures, but the flat surfaces of the courtyard, stairs and terrace provide ample space to position all of the necessary human figures.79 Although both media depict the same two types of silos, it seems that scene- and model-artists selected the design that was most suitable for their medium. Each silo required two different openings: a rectangular aperture in the side wall for withdrawing the contents, and a hole in the roof through which the grain could be deposited. Wall scenes, however, only depict the side aperture as they are restricted in portraying the silo from a profile perspective. In the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), the four silos are distinguished by rectangular apertures painted about halfway up the side wall [S195; fig. 2.9]. The openings in the roof can only be assumed by the presence of labourers walking up the stairs to the terrace where they will presumably pour the contents of their sacks into the silos. In contrast, model-artists could accurately depict both openings due to their advantage of working in three-dimensions. For silos covered by flat roofs, small circular holes are consistently carved into the terrace with one above each chamber, as is found in the model of Khety (366 LC) from Beni Hassan [M194; fig. 2.11]. The rectangular apertures are usually simply painted on the side wall,80 but are sometimes elevated in raised relief.81 Occasionally, a hole is carved in the wall that remains open for the grain to continually issue through, as is found in the model of Khety-aa (575 LC) from Beni Hassan [M200]. The apertures could be particularly detailed, like those in a model from Meir which are carved as separate pieces that could seemingly be slid in and out of position to allow the grain to flow out of the chambers only when required [M287]. Model-artists could therefore present a holistic depiction of the structure, incorporating the features of both the roof and side walls in a realistic fashion, whereas scene-artists were required to select the most characteristic viewpoint of the silos, resulting in the exclusion of the top-down perspective.

Models, in contrast, favour the flat roof for their representations. Only one example of domed silos was examined in this study, and this is found in a pottery model from Beni Hassan [M292]. In this model, four of originally six spherical silos are placed within a square courtyard surrounded by an enclosure wall.74 The wooden models, on the other hand, exclusively portray rectangular silos which are either uncovered or enclosed by a flat roof.75 In one of the models of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC), the silos remain open except for a small plank that covers one chamber to act as a platform for the scribe to sit upon [M207].76 Alternatively, the silos in the granary of Nefery (116 LC) are enclosed by a flat roof which is accessed by a staircase, although this surprisingly only leads to one side [M177].77 While model-artists’ preference   It has been suggested that flat-roofed silos illustrate the storage facilities of large estates while domed structures were maintained for domestic storage. Badawy, History of Egyptian Architecture, 32-33; Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 41; Adams in Archaeology and Art. Volume I, 14; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 206. Surprisingly, the model granaries of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) do not feature any silos but are especially simple in design with a square courtyard merely enclosed by exterior walls [M67-M70; see fig. 2.7]. 72  Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 198-99; Siebels, “Representations of granaries”, BACE 12, (2001), 85. 73   Flat-roofed silos are particularly common in scenes at Beni Hassan so they are not as popular for the two-dimensional medium as the corpus examined in this study suggests. Badawy, History of Egyptian Architecture, 33; Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 39. 74   Individual pottery silos found in some Upper Egyptian tombs should be considered alongside this model. These sculptures comprise individual wheel-thrown vessels that have been turned upside down with the mouth closed off, sometimes with a lid, which Tooley has identified as grain silos. Tooley “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 118-22. 75   An interesting example for comparison is found in a wooden model granary of unknown provenance today housed in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 28839. While the architectural structure itself is rectangular, the silos, which are painted on the exterior walls, have been indicated as domed structures. In fact, they bare close resemblance to the silos displayed on the walls of the burial chambers of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) [S17], his wife Hewetiaah [S18; fig. 2.13] and Niankh-pepy-kem [S26] at Meir. 76   As uncovered silos seem impractical for protecting grain from rodents, insects, dust, debris and occasional rain, Adams has convincingly suggested that they may have functioned as an artistic device that allowed the contents to remain visible rather than reflecting real-life storage facilities. Adams, in Archaeology and Art. Volume I, 5; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 204-05, 208. 77   It is expected that two staircases would be incorporated so that one could lead to the roof of each row of silos, but surprisingly this is never the case. One must have been considered sufficient to indicate roof-top access. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 226. 71

The grain itself, which is stored within the silos, is also represented differently by each medium. Notably, modelartists had the unique advantage of incorporating real materials into their designs, allowing them to store actual grain within their granaries. Six models were identified in this study to preserve real seed, although it is probable that more models originally included the substance as loose grain could be easily lost or destroyed [M177, M200,   The flat roof appears at a similar time in each medium, namely during the Middle Kingdom for scenes and the First Intermediate Period for models. Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 36-39. 79  Arnold, in Structure and Significance, 60; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 208. 80   See, for example, the granary of Intef (1 LC) where the openings are defined by red-painted lines [M36]. 81   In the model of Nefery (166 LC), for example, the three apertures in each side wall are carved in raised relief and outlined in red paint on a white background [M177]. 78

24

Food Production and Preparation

Figure 2.9. Granary with four silos shown in profile and a staircase providing access to the roof. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, north panel, register 1 [S195]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 117 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

M208, M217, M284, M287].82 In the model of Ma (500 LC) from Beni Hassan, grain is visible in each of the four open-topped silos [M284; fig. 2.12], whereas in the model of Nefery (116 LC), the cereal covers the floor of the courtyard as the chambers are closed [M177]. Sceneartists, on the other hand, were restricted to illustrating the grain as they could not incorporate real materials. A simple yellow mound was usually drawn to imitate the substance, as is found on the right of the courtyard in the granary displayed in the sixth register of the north wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan [S156; fig. 2.10], although occasionally the individual granules are specified within the pile by small circles, as is found in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S195; fig. 2.9].83 With the use of real grain, model granaries not only artistically symbolised an abundant supply of nourishment, but also provided the actual foodstuff for consumption.

identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, but the granary displayed on the west wall of room 1 in the tomb of Nikauisesi at Saqqara provides an example of such identifying labels.86 The rarity of these inscriptions in both media indicates that text was not considered essential to the grain storage theme, but when included, may have emphasised the variety and abundance of cereals available to the tomb owner and perhaps a particularly valuable type of grain. A supplementary component of the architectural structure that occasionally appears in the representations is a portico which is reserved for the officials who administer the facility. In scenes, this area is chiefly identified by its supporting columns which evoke the granary’s important administrative role.87 The two columns in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) are quite detailed, with a lotiform shape, square abacus, decorative bands and a rounded base [S156; fig. 2.10]. The portico is positioned above the courtyard but should presumably be understood as residing alongside it.88 Models likewise reserve a space for officials, but do not exhibit the same detail in structure. Two of the examples examined in this study incorporate a small canopy within the courtyard: one from an unknown tomb at Deir el-Bersha [M159] and the other from the tomb of Sepi III (K-14 south) at Deir el-Bersha [M278]. Each example comprises a thin rectangular board supported by a simple cylindrical column at one end and either the silo or exterior wall at the other. The model columns do not exhibit the minute details encountered in scenes as such intricacies would have been more difficult to craft in threedimensions, but the canopy could be more precisely and realistically positioned within the courtyard.

Alternatively, the contents of the silos could be specified by an accompanying label, and unusually, this is a technique used by both scene- and model-artists. Granaries are one of the rare themes in which inscriptions appear in the three-dimensional medium. Hieratic dockets presumably specifying the type and/or quantity of grain stored within the silos are occasionally painted on the walls of the model structures, as is found in that of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) from Beni Hassan [M217].84 Accompanying inscriptions are not particularly common in granary wall scenes, resulting in the contents of silos regularly remaining unspecified, but some scenes of the Old Kingdom include an identifying label either on the face of the silo or alongside the structure.85 No examples were  Kroenke has recognised at least 10 model granaries from across Egypt that still contain real grain, although notes that only two of these substances have been properly identified through scientific analysis. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 206. 83   Such artistic representations, however, are unable to provide a clear distinction between the different types of grain. Murray, in Materials and Technology, 512. 84   Unfortunately, these labels are regularly poorly preserved and remain untranslated. Jurman, in Arts of Making, 104-05. 85   Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 411; Siebels, “Representations of granaries”, BACE 12, (2001), 88. 82

  A line of text appears above the row of six silos and identifies the three different types of grain stored within: pxA ‘pekha grain’, jt mH ‘Lower Egyptian barley’, and bSA ‘malted barley’. Kanawati & Abder-Raziq, Teti Cemetery. Volume VI, pl. 48; Siebels, “Representations of granaries”, BACE 12, (2001), 88. 87  Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 277; Arnold, in Structure and Significance, 58; Moeller, in Beyond the Horizon, 269. 88   A portico is also found in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), but here it is positioned adjacent to the courtyard with its own entryway and is supported by three columns [S195; fig. 2.9]. 86

25

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 2.10. Granary with two rows of silos, a courtyard and a portico. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). North wall, register 6 [S156]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 95 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

In addition to the architectural structure of the granary, the labourers who manage the grain form another essential element of the theme. These workmen perform three principal tasks: collecting the grain in measuring buckets, transporting the grain in sacks to the silos, and removing the grain from storage.89 The first two of these roles are especially prominent, occurring in every artwork examined in this study that incorporates human figures.90 The labourer involved in measuring grain is portrayed very consistently across the two media, with one of the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M67; fig. 2.7] and the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S156; fig. 2.10] forming a prime comparative example. In each of these representations, the man leans over while striding forward with one leg and lowers a measuring bucket towards the ground with one hand holding each end. The bucket itself is also portrayed similarly, comprising a cylindrical shape painted white with black bands passing around the two ends and the middle.91 That of Amenemhat, however, is only shown in profile due to the restricted perspective of the two-dimensional medium. The characteristic posture of the measurer could certainly be captured in both media, enabling his important role to be easily identified.

The carrier is often portrayed on his journey up the stairs to the roof of the silos but can also appear in the courtyard or more rarely on the terrace.93 During transport, the sack is either balanced on the shoulder of the labourer or carried on the back. In the model of Khety (366 LC), the carrier advances up the stairs with the sack balanced on his left shoulder: his right arm stretches over his head with his hand supporting the top of the load while his left arm is bent at the elbow with his hand on his hip for stabilisation [M194; fig. 2.11]. A virtually identical posture is exhibited by the three carriers progressing up the stairs in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S156; fig. 2.10]. In the alternate method of carrying the sack on the back, however, some differences between the media are observed. The torso of the human figure is shown in profile in the two-dimensional medium, causing difficulties in depicting the load on the back.94 Although this arrangement has been attempted by the scene-artist of Khety’s (17 UC) granary [S101; fig. 2.8],95 the shoulder method is typically preferred in scenes as this was more suitable for the profile viewpoint. Modelartists, on the other hand, did not encounter this same restriction of perspective and could realistically position the sack on the labourer’s back. All four carriers in the model of Sepi III (K-14 south) have the sack lying flat against the back with the arms sharply bent at the elbows so the hands may support the load at the shoulders [M278].

The second role of transporting the grain in sacks also displays a number of similarities between the two media. In the condensed artworks, a single figure is engaged in this task, but in the more expansive representations, several labourers progress towards the silos in single file.92

three labourers progress up the stairs in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) while a fourth has already arrived on the terrace [S156; fig. 2.10]. 93   In only two models examined in this study are labourers shown in the act of emptying their sacks into the silos: one carrier has reached the top of the stairs and lowers the sack over the dividing wall of the silo in a model from Deir el-Bersha [M159], while two labourers stand in the courtyard with their arms reaching into the uncovered silos in another model from Deir el-Bersha [M259]. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 280-81. 94   Hudáková, in Art of Describing, 197-98. 95   In this scene, the carrier begins his climb up the stairs with his back arched forward as he bears the weight of the load. Both arms are bent sharply at the elbows, indicating the load rests on the back and needs the support of both hands at the shoulders.

  Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 407-09.   The third role of removing the grain is only known from scenes of the 5th Dynasty and consequently was not identified in this study. Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 408. 91  The shape of the bucket is similar to the container used as the determinative for the term HqAt ‘measure’. Bardoňová, “Grain Storage”, 227. 92   The largest group of carriers identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan is found in the model of Sepi III (K-14 south) where four men walk in single file to deposit their loads in the silos [M278]. Similarly, 89

90

26

Food Production and Preparation

Figure 2.11. Model granary of Khety (366 LC), with three labourers, an official and a scribe [M194]. © Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: E.71e.1903.

While the overall movement and role of the carrier is consistent between the two media, model-artists had more freedom in selecting their designs as both transport modes could be easily represented.

position on top of the silos and his scribal equipment.97 He is typically seated with a writing board resting on his lap or on a small table and with a reed pen in his hand.98 The seated position of the scribe is often conveyed in wall scenes as a kneeling posture with the near leg folded over and the far knee bent up in front, as is adopted by one of the scribes in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S156;

Another essential figure in the granary is the scribe whose role is to carefully document the quantities of grain deposited and/or withdrawn. Scribes were very important within the operation of the Egyptian state as they kept records at all levels of administration, and as the granary was an important economic institution, it is not surprising that at least one scribe appears in every representation examined that incorporates human figures.96 In both media, the scribe is usually identified by his elevated

  In a few exceptions to the elevated position, the scribe is located in the lower courtyard. On the west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC), the scribe kneels near the entry door with a man approaching him [S84]. It is possible he is positioned within a portico as there appear to be traces of a column behind, but the limited surviving remains make this uncertain. The two scribes in the model of Sepi III (K-14 south) are both positioned within the courtyard: one is seated beneath the canopy while the other stands beside the wall near the entry [M278]. 98  In models, the writing board occasionally displays short lines of painted text, as is found in the model of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) [M217]. Sometimes a piece of unrolled papyrus is specified instead, like in the model of Nefery where the roll is still present at one end [M177]. The palette, when portrayed in models, could either be painted on the writing board, as is found in the model of Ipi (707 LC) from Beni Hassan [M163], or carved as its own piece, as in the model of Intef (1 LC) [M36]. 97

  One exception is found in the granary scene of Khnumhotep I (14 UC), although as the scene is quite poorly preserved, it is highly likely that a scribe was originally included in the design but has since been lost [S113]. Piacentini, in Oxford Encyclopedia, ; Papazian, in Ancient Egyptian Administration, 59; Grajetzki, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 158. 96

27

Preparing for Eternity fig. 2.10]. It is possible that this was a two-dimensional representation of the cross-legged posture characteristic of scribal statues.99 Although models had the capability of portraying this cross-legged attitude, the lower body of the model scribe is typically fashioned as a simple block, as is found in the model of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) [M217]. This design was most likely selected because it was easier to craft in smaller sculptures and the legs are largely hidden from view beneath the writing board.

the pile of grain in the courtyard exhibits an enlarged breast and rolls of fat across his stomach, differentiating him from the thin-bodied labourers around [S195; fig. 2.9]. Signs of old age could be used to convey status in Egyptian art, symbolising wealth and maturity.102 The intricacies of this appearance would have been especially difficult to craft in small three-dimensional sculptures and consequently, are almost never expressed by models.103 While both media highlight the elevated status of the overseer, each artist achieved this by utilising the advantages of his medium.

Wall scenes, on the other hand, had the additional advantage of distinguishing the scribe through accompanying inscriptions. All three scribes in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) are individually labelled: the two within the portico are specified as jmj-r pr n pr n Dt ‘the overseer of the house of the funerary estate’ and sS NTr-nxt(.w) ‘the scribe, Netjernakht’, while the one seated on the terrace is jmj-r pr n DAtwt NTrw-Htp(.w) ‘the overseer of the house of the estates, Netjeruhotep’ [S195; fig. 2.9].100 These captions are positioned in the space immediately above each scribe, clearly conveying to which figure they belong. The information provided highlights the status of the scribes and identifies the specific individuals involved in the administration. Models, on the other hand, could not integrate inscriptions into their designs as easily, causing all figures in the three-dimensional granaries to remain unlabelled and for the status of the scribes to solely be conveyed graphically.

A few of the model granaries examined include a supplementary official who is enveloped in a white-painted cloak with only the head emerging: he is positioned beneath the canopy alongside the scribe in a model from Deir elBersha [M159] and in the model of Sepi III (K-14 south) [M278], and is raised on the terrace in the model of Ma (500 LC) [M284; fig. 2.12]. His attire and location within the granary certainly convey him as someone of authority, but his precise identification is difficult to determine without accompanying inscriptions. It has been suggested that he is a scribe,104 and while there is some similarity with the cloaked scribe in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S195; fig. 2.9], his arms are restrained within the cloak making it impossible for him to carry out any scribal duties. Alternatively, Vandier has proposed that the figure may represent the tomb owner himself.105 Although rarely represented in the three-dimensional medium, the tomb owner is depicted in this attire on several model boats, and as only one cloaked figure is present in each of the granaries, this is a possible interpretation.106 However, it is also plausible that the enveloped figure is simply an overseer who supervises the activities of the labourers. In each example, the figure sits passively without engaging in any particular action and so is probably the person of highest authority to whom the final quantities of grain will be reported. This could be a role fulfilled by the tomb owner himself or by a trusted official in his place. Although his precise identity cannot be confirmed, his superior status is still clearly conveyed.

An additional official who appears in several of the representations is the overseer who supervises the work of the labourers in the granary. He is typically positioned on the terrace directly opposite the stairs in order to receive and direct the labourers as they arrive at the silos. In the model of Ipi (707 LC) from Beni Hassan, the overseer is seated beside the scribe with both arms lowered, pointing towards the labourers in the courtyard below [M163]. Similarly, the overseer in the scene of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) stands at the top of the stairs, facing the men who ascend with their loads [S113]. This elevated position was a technique used by both scene- and model-artists to highlight the overseer’s dignified status. However, each artist also used methods unique to his medium to differentiate the overseer from the other figures. As the three-dimensional medium had the advantage of incorporating a range of materials, the model-artist of Khety’s (366 LC) granary seemingly chose to distinguish the overseer by his clothing: a piece of linen is wrapped around the official’s waist while the labourers below merely wear white-painted kilts [M194; fig. 2.11].101 On the other hand, the scene-artist of Khnumhotep II’s (3 UC) granary illustrates features of old age to create distinction: the overseer who stands among

While the labourers and officials serve central roles in the granary, a few representations in both media unusually exclude human figures, with the focus instead on the architectural structure. This choice of design, though, can be attributed to specific reasons for each medium. Among models, all granaries without human figures are fashioned of pottery: a rectangular enclosure with two uncovered silos and a courtyard from the tomb of Netjer-nakht (53 LC) at Beni Hassan [M57], a rectangular structure with  Tyldesley, Daughters of Isis, 24; Janssen & Janssen, Growing Up and Getting Old, 151. 103   Intricate carving of the human figure is more commonly seen in large, formal statues of the tomb owner. However, a few rare examples of model figures that exhibit features of old age are known: a single figure of a priest separated from its original baseboard unusually has defined pectoral muscles and rolls of fat across his stomach. Bristol Museum & Art Gallery: H4599. 104   Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 114-15. 105  Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 227-28. 106   See chapter 3.1 for a discussion on the identification of the tomb owner on model boats. 102

 For the characteristic three-dimensional scribal posture, see, for example, the Old Kingdom ‘Seated Scribe’ statue from Saqqara now housed in The Louvre, Paris: E 3023. Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 251-53. For a discussion on the development of the scribal statue, see Scott, “Ancient Egyptian Scribe Statue. Volumes I-IV”. 100   Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 36. 101   It is possible, however, that linen garments were originally included for the other model figures but have since been lost as the material could easily become separated from the model and is more susceptible to degradation. 99

28

Food Production and Preparation

Figure 2.12. Model granary of Ma (500 LC), containing four open-topped silos filled with grain; an official and a scribe sit on the terrace [M284]. © University of Aberdeen: ABDUA:22166.

a courtyard and two rows of three uncovered chambers from the tomb of Nebet-het-hotep (774/775 LC) at Beni Hassan [M291],107 and a square granary with originally six spherical silos from Beni Hassan [M292].108 It has been noted in scholarship that pottery was used as a substitute for wood to make the sculptures more affordable, and so the absence of human figures may have been a means to further limit the costs by crafting a less complicated design.109 However, it should also be noted that fashioning

small sculptural forms like human figures in terracotta was significantly limited by the constraints of the material. All details of pottery sculptures needed to be moulded prior to firing, causing intricate details to not be as easily incorporated as when carved in wood.110 The exclusion the material for representations of the granary. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 86, 116-17; Bardoňová, “Grain Storage”, 206. 110  Dorman, Faces in Clay, 8. An interesting granary for comparison is found in a pottery model possibly from Salamiya, now housed in Norwich Castle Museum & Art Gallery: NWHCM 1921.37.1. It comprises a rectangular structure with five spherical silos positioned on top of a row of rectangular chambers. No three-dimensional figures have been included, but unusually several figures have been painted on the exterior walls, including a scribe seated on top of a pile of grain with one man measuring the seed and two others waiting for their sacks to be filled as well as five male and three female labourers carrying sacks of grain. It is possible that this unusual design resulted from the fact that it would have been easier to paint the figures in two-dimensions than to fashion them in pottery in three-dimensions. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 228-30; Hudáková, Representations of Women, 180-84.

 Although not visible in the available photograph, Tooley has identified the feet of a figure on the right of the silos as well as additional holes in the courtyard which may attest to the presence of a number of human figures originally. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 118. 108   A fourth example is known from Beni Hassan, found in association with tombs 521 and 523 LC, although was not available for examination through images. Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN18961908.E.808. 109  Tooley has also suggested that due to the frequent occurrence of pottery at Beni Hassan, there may have been a regional preference for 107

29

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 2.13. Granary without human figures. Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2). South wall of burial chamber of Hewetiaah [S18]. Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pl. 94; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

of human figures therefore seems to be directly related to the choice of material for the representations, making it a factor specific to the three-dimensional medium.

agricultural cycle. The two types of representation feature the same principal components of the silos, courtyard, labourers and officials, but differences in representation occur due to their contrasting technical properties. Modelartists had the advantage of working in three-dimensions, enabling a holistic perspective to be presented of the architectural structure and the openings of the silos, as well as utilising a range of materials including linen garments and actual grain. Scene-artists, on the other hand, were restricted to a two-dimensional perspective which created a less realistic arrangement of the granary complex and caused certain features to be excluded, but they had the advantage of incorporating more minute details and identifying labels. The prominence and early appearance of the granary theme in the model repertoire as well as its occurrence in substructures in both two- and threedimensional forms highlight its important contribution to provisioning the deceased in the afterlife.

Among scenes, all representations of granaries without human figures examined in this study are found at Meir in the substructures of 6th Dynasty tombs: on the south wall of the burial chamber of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) [S17] and of his wife, Hewetiaah [S18; fig. 2.13], and on the south wall of the burial chamber of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) [S26]. Each scene depicts a row of domed silos in profile view and several associated piles of foodstuffs. During the Old Kingdom, granaries occasionally appear alongside agricultural scenes in tomb-chapels at other sites, but in many cases are likewise confined to the burial chamber.111 As noted above, this subterranean placement is most likely due to the theme’s important contribution to the deceased’s nourishment in the afterlife. While human figures appear in granary scenes displayed in tomb-chapels, they are distinctly avoided in burial chambers. As will be outlined in chapter 7, animate beings were largely excluded from the twodimensional designs of substructures as it was presumably feared that they could come to life and potentially cause harm to the deceased. Consequently, the two-dimensional granary theme was reduced to the architectural structure in burial chambers where the threat from human figures was avoided and the provision of grain was maintained.

2.3 Bread-making Bread was one of the staples of the ancient Egyptian diet, providing an essential form of nourishment in both life and death. Not only did it supply daily sustenance for the whole population, but it held a vital role in the economy, formed a principal component of the offering-list and was deposited in the tomb as a funerary offering.112 It is therefore not surprising that the production of bread holds a dominant position within both the two- and threedimensional repertoires. Although no single artwork displays all of the stages involved in the process, several

The granary is an important theme in both the two- and three-dimensional media, forming the culmination of the   See, for example, the site of Saqqara where granaries are represented in numerous 6th Dynasty burial chambers, including those of Mehu, Mereruka, Inumin, Penu, Shy and Seni. In each example, the theme is confined to the architectural structure with human figures entirely excluded. Kanawati, Decorated Burial Chambers, 63-74; Kanawati & Swinton, Egypt in the Sixth Dynasty, 195-96. 111

 Helck, Bier, 64; Darby, Ghalioungui & Grivetti, Food. Volume 2, 532-33; Sist, in Egyptian Civilization, 58; Samuel, in Materials and Technology, 537. 112

30

Food Production and Preparation of the most important steps are depicted.113 Notably, bread-making is the most expansive theme in the model repertoire regarding the quantity of stages represented. Whereas most themes in the three-dimensional medium are particularly condensed, often featuring a single activity, the bread-making theme incorporates almost the full range of tasks depicted in wall scenes. Moreover, model owners usually included multiple bread-making motifs among their assemblage, either combined on a single baseboard or through a collection of separate statuettes. The two media display many similarities in their representation of each bread-making task, but there are still a number of differences that may be chiefly attributed to their unique technical properties.

were examined,120 whereas only eight wall scenes were identified. The preparation of the staple diet certainly held a prominent position in the three-dimensional repertoire and may therefore be considered an essential theme. At the beginning of the bread-making process, the grain required cleaning and the dough needed to be prepared. This involved a number of preliminary activities which are represented by both the two- and three-dimensional media. The two principal grains of emmer wheat and barley were stored still hulled and so an initial pounding stage was necessary to remove the chaff.121 The representations convey that this was conducted by one or two men using mortar and pestle. Nine models and three wall scenes examined in this study incorporate the motif, and the two media present very similar depictions. The man usually stands at arm’s length from the mortar and grips the pestle with both hands. Model-artists could depict the hands together while keeping both in view, as is achieved in the model of Ipi (707 LC) from Beni Hassan [M164], whereas scene-artists were required to spread the hands apart so that each one could be seen in the two-dimensional perspective.122 The models consistently portray a single figure engaged in pounding, with the pestle residing within the mortar.123 In the model of Khety (366 LC) from Beni Hassan, the pestle is angled forward as the man is engaged in pushing it to crush the grain [M195; fig. 2.14]. The scenes, conversely, each depict two figures who stand on opposite sides of a single mortar and alternate in pounding. In the lower section of the west wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan, one man raises the pestle in the air in the second register, gaining momentum, while his companion lowers the pestle into the mortar [S105]. For the pestle to be raised off the ground in three-dimensional sculptures, it would need to be secured in the man’s grip. Although this was certainly possible, it may have been easier for model-artists to stabilise the pestle by resting it within the mortar.124 Such minute variations

The popularity of the bread-making theme is not only witnessed in the quantity of tasks depicted, but also in its prolonged appearance in the model repertoire. The earliest models, namely the limestone serving statuettes of the 4th and 5th Dynasties, are chiefly concerned with food preparation.114 These individual figures are mostly engaged with tasks involved in bread-making, with the most common motif comprising a female miller grinding grain on a quern stone.115 When the sculptures began to be fully constructed of wood in the late 6th Dynasty, several baking tasks were incorporated into single models.116 Peak production was reached in the early Middle Kingdom, and even though model manufacture rapidly declined towards the end of this period, a few late Middle Kingdom limestone sculptures of bread-making are still known.117 Similarly, the production of bread first appeared in wall scenes of the late 4th Dynasty and was a particularly popular theme during the Old Kingdom.118 However, there are fewer examples from the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom which suggests that during these periods there was a preference for the theme to be represented in model form.119 In the corpus from Meir, Deir elBersha and Beni Hassan, 31 models of bread-making

  An additional model may perhaps be classified as bread-making. This example from Beni Hassan is fashioned of pottery and depicts two women seated at opposite ends of a rectangular baseboard, facing different directions. Each woman sits with the knees bent up close to the chest and the right forearm extended with a small hole or indentation in the hand to hold an item now lost. Although Garstang has described the women to be “squatting aimlessly”, it is probable that they are engaged in a particular action. However, classification is hindered by the fact that intricate details could not be easily incorporated into pottery models. It seems probable that the figures are engaged in some food preparation activity, most likely bread-making as this was the operation in which women were most heavily involved and is a theme that is particularly prominent among the model corpus. National Museums Scotland: A.1955.91. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 195. 121   Samuel, “Cereal processing”, CAJ 3.2, (1993), 278; Samuel, “New look at old bread”, AI 3, (1999), 28-29. 122   See, for example, the pounding scene in the sixth register of the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan where each figure places both hands towards the middle of the pestle, but with one higher than the other [S167; fig. 2.17]. 123   The pestle itself comprises a long shaft that tapers towards the top and becomes wider and rounder at the base, a shape that could be captured in both two- and three-dimensions. Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 162. 124   Only one model in this study elevates the pestle above the mortar demonstrating that this attitude was possible to achieve in threedimensions. This example is found in one of the models of Nefery (116 LC) from Beni Hassan where the mortar is especially shallow, comprising a simple white-painted dish with low walls [M178]. 120

  Several difficulties arise when attempting to use the representations alone to determine the actual order of tasks involved in the preparation of bread. Assessing the accuracy of the representations is beyond the scope of this study, but for further discussion, see Samuel, in Food in the Arts, 173-81. 114  Smith, Sculpture and Painting, 101; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 226. 115  Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 4-5; Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 104-05. 116   Initially, two figures were combined onto a single baseboard before this was increased to large group models. The model assemblage of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) from Meir demonstrates this transition with the six bread-making statuettes each comprising either single or double figures [M2-M7]. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 61; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 227. 117  One Middle Kingdom example collected in this study is in fact fashioned of pottery [M289]. This single figure from tomb 187 LC at Beni Hassan appears to depict a man grinding grain on a small quern stone, but the limited detail makes precise identification uncertain. Bourriau, Umm El-Ga’ab, cat. 236; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 230-34. 118   Samuel, in Materials and Technology, 537; Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 161. 119   Samuel, in Materials and Technology, 537-38; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 230; Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 161. 113

31

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 2.14. Food preparation model of Khety (366 LC); pounding grain, grinding grain, sieving grain, baking bread, carrying water and brewing beer [M195]. © Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: E.71d.1903.

reflect the individual technical restrictions that impacted the two- and three-dimensional designs, yet the pounding motif could still be clearly conveyed.

miller to stand.128 The two millers in the early 12th Dynasty model of Khety (366 LC) stand directly behind the quern with their bent knees touching the edge of the structure [M195; fig. 2.14]. The emplacement is typically depicted as a solid rectangular block with a concave upper surface in which the quern is embedded,129 but in a few unusual examples the quern is elevated on a table-like structure. On the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan, the quern in the fourth register is set into a table shown in profile with an adjoining catchment at one end for collecting the flour [S202; fig. 2.15].130 Similarly, the model of Nefwa (186 LC) from Beni Hassan depicts a quern positioned on top of a table although seemingly

After pounding, the grain was milled into flour on a quern stone. This activity was apparently considered the most important preliminary task as it is the most commonly illustrated bread-making motif, appearing in at least 21 models and five wall scenes examined in this study. The saddle quern was used throughout the Pharaonic Period, although the representations indicate it underwent significant development during this time.125 In the Old Kingdom, the quern was positioned directly on the ground, causing the miller to kneel.126 In one of the late 6th Dynasty models of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) from Meir, the two female millers sit back on their heels and lean their torsos forward to reach over the quern [M2].127 At the end of the First Intermediate Period, the quern was embedded in an emplacement, elevating it off the ground and causing the

 Greater strength would have been required by the miller when kneeling and more stress would have been placed on the knees and wrists. Raising the quern off the ground would have made the miller’s work more comfortable which Samuel argues would have increased the quantity of flour produced by each individual. Samuel, in Beyond the Horizon, 467; Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 164-65. 129   The scenes usually create a clear distinction between the quern and the emplacement through a defined line and change in colour. On the south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan, the two querns in the fifth register are coloured red while the emplacements are white [S77; fig. 2.19]. Model-artists, on the other hand, usually carved the quern and emplacement as a single piece without creating any differentiation, as is found in the model of Intef (1 LC) from Beni Hassan [M37]. 130  Hudáková has suggested that the lighter and more manoeuvrable ‘stool-querns’ may have been more suitable for transport. Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 165-66. 128

  The saddle quern was replaced by the rotary quern during the GraecoRoman Period. Forbes, Ancient Technology. Volume III, 146; Samuel, in Materials and Technology, 538. 126  Forbes, Ancient Technology. Volume III, 146; Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 164. 127   The same type of low quern seems to be used on the right of the third register of the west wall of the 6th Dynasty tomb of Meniu (E1) at Meir [S1]. However, this section of the scene is almost completely lost, with only the sloping end of what is presumably the quern and the figure’s hands with a handstone resting on top preserved. 125

32

Food Production and Preparation

Figure 2.15. Grinding grain, kneading dough, shaping loaves and baking bread, all supervised by an overseer. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, south panel, register 4 [S202]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 121 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

without a catchment [M187].131 The same development of the quern is witnessed in both scenes and models demonstrating that both types of artists could reflect changing technology in their designs.

The profile view presented in scenes, on the other hand, prevents these details from being expressed. The length of the handstone in the first register of the scene of Khety (17 UC) is unknown and in an attempt to convey a sideby-side positioning, the scene-artist has placed one of the miller’s hands in front of the other [S105].134 Although the grinding grain motif displays many similarities across the representations, the minute differences indicate that the designs had to be specifically created according to the capabilities of each medium.

The representations regularly portray two millers engaged in grinding grain, although the media exhibit differences in the arrangement of the figures. In wall scenes, the millers are consistently positioned directly opposite each other, with the ends of the querns sometimes making contact, as is found in the fifth register of the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan [S167; fig. 2.17]. It is probable that this arrangement was a means for the scene-artist to convey the side-by-side positioning commonly found in models.132 In the grinding model of Henu (L-16H50/1C) from Deir el-Bersha, the three millers are positioned side-by-side, evenly spaced across the baseboard without any one being obscured from view [M32]. The advantage of the holistic three-dimensional perspective is also seen in the portrayal of the handstone which the miller rubbed up and down the quern to grind the grain. The top-down view enables the length of the handstone and the positioning of the miller’s hands to be clearly conveyed.133 In a model of Niankhpepy-kem (A1), the handstone is longer than the width of the quern with the ends overhanging, and the miller’s hands are placed evenly side-by-side on top of the stone [M5].

Further differences that result from the contrasting perspectives of the two media are found in their representation of sieving, a task that cleaned the grain of any impurities. This activity is not commonly represented, with only one model and four wall scenes identified in this study that incorporate the motif [M195, S1, S16, S77, S167].135 In the representations, the sifter is typically seated on the ground with both knees bent up in front and holding the sieve with both hands.136 This is the attitude adopted in the model of Khety (366 LC) where the model-artist has been especially detailed in crafting the sifter’s hands and fingers on each side of the sieve [M195; fig. 2.14]. The sieve itself is represented as a white circular disc with black dots across the top which most likely indicate the holes of the mesh. This top-down perspective is the most characteristic viewpoint of the sieve and is consequently that most often selected by scene-artists. On the right of the sixth register

 This table, however, seems to have been incorrectly positioned as the miller should stand at one end of the quern rather than in her current position on the side. 132  One exception to the side-by-side arrangement in the threedimensional medium is found in a model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) where the querns are positioned end-on-end [M6]. Hudáková, Representations of Women, 239. 133   Samuel, in Beyond the Horizon, 466. 131

 Hudáková, Representations of Women, 224.   More examples, however, are known from the early Old Kingdom, with a number of single limestone statuettes of the 4th and 5th Dynasties depicting a woman sieving flour into a basket. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 25; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 4. 136   Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 163. 134 135

33

Preparing for Eternity of the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC), the circular sieve with defined dots is depicted as if it is held vertically when in reality the woman would hold it horizontally above the ground with only the side view visible [S167; fig. 2.17]. Scenes commonly comprised composite images, with each component rendered in its most recognisable aspect. In this instance, the top-down perspective of the sieve is combined with the profile viewpoint of the sifter’s arms and torso. Although this technique limits the realism of the scene, it enables the motif to be clearly conveyed.

The representations demonstrate that these activities were usually conducted by a kneeling figure on a low rectangular workbench with one rounded end. In models, the upper surface of the workbench is regularly painted white to signify it is covered with flour, and one hand of the kneader is often carved as a white-painted ball to indicate it is enveloped by dough, as is exhibited by a model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) [M3]. While wall scenes typically portray the workbench from a profile viewpoint, the artist of Khnumhotep II’s (3 UC) scene has instead selected the top-down perspective [S202; fig. 2.15]. This enables both the shape of the workbench and the mound of dough resting on top to be clearly seen.

Another preparatory task that is represented by both the two- and three-dimensional media is mixing dough. During the Middle Kingdom, this was conducted by a figure who stood at a thigh-high vessel with one or two hands plunged into the mixture.137 On the left of the sixth register of the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC), a woman leans over a vessel with one hand seemingly resting on the rim and the other submerged in the mixture [S167; fig. 2.17].138 A very similar portrayal is found in models, with a standing man in a model from Deir el-Bersha positioned before a thigh-high vessel with both hands carved as white balls indicating they are covered with dough [M56]. A streak of white paint runs down the side of the vessel, expressing the liquid nature of the contents.139 Unusually, no other bread-making activities are depicted in this model, causing the mixing task to symbolise the entire process. This is likewise the situation in two other models examined: one from Meir where two standing figures mix dough in a smaller vessel elevated on a stand [M229; fig. 2.16], and the other also likely from Meir where four women lean over thigh-high vessels with their hands resting on the rims [M230].140 Subsidiary tasks are not often included in the model repertoire, with the medium typically preferring the most characteristic activity, so the appearance of several mixing dough motifs attests to the particularly expansive nature of the three-dimensional bread-making theme.

Shaping dough into loaves could either be performed by the kneader himself or by a separate figure.142 He likewise knelt before a low workbench as he fashioned the loaves into a wide range of shapes including ovals, semi-circles, triangles and squares or in later periods, more elaborate forms like humans and animals.143 Scenes could capture this variety of loaf shape as the forms could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface. In the space above the kneeling man in the fifth register of the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) is a collection of pre-shaped loaves including five circles, two indented triangles and one rectangle [S167; fig. 2.17]. Models, on the other hand, only occasionally portray shaped loaves, and these are more uniform in style. Beside the kneader in a model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) are 10 pre-formed rectangular loaves arranged in two piles [M4].144 Crafting the variety of shapes encountered in scenes would have been more difficult to achieve in three-dimensions and so shaping dough is regularly excluded from food preparation models and instead, the task of kneading is generally favoured. Alternatively, three of the models examined imply that shaping has already been completed by portraying a standing woman transporting a tray of loaves to the baker [M43, M71, M72]. In one of the models of Djehutynakht (R-10A) from Deir el-Bersha, the tray is balanced on the left shoulder and the individual loaves on top are distinguished through incised lines [M72]. Unusually, this transport motif was not identified in any scenes examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, and so may have been a preferred means for model-artists to indicate the production of hand-shaped loaves.

For the production of flatbread, a firmer dough was used which required kneading and shaping into loaves.141   In the earlier representations of the Old Kingdom, the vessels were only knee-high and were sometimes elevated on a stand. Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 168. 138  A contrasting portrayal of mixing is found on the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha [S207]. Although the wall has suffered significant damage, two women in the third register remain who are apparently engaged in mixing grain: each woman kneels while stirring the contents of a small vessel angled towards her with an accompanying caption describing her action as preparing grain. Hudáková, Representations of Women, 218, 225. 139  This type of liquid dough would have been suitable for baking in moulds rather than in loaves. Hudáková, Representations of Women, 207. 140   This model was said to be from Asyut, but a recent study undertaken by the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon has demonstrated that it was probably manufactured in Meir. Amoros, et al., “Study and identification”, Hathor 1, (2012), 11-29. In this representation, the dough is unrepresented, but the attitude of the women, the size of the vessels and the association with a water-carrier makes the classification of mixing dough most probable. Alternatively, in a model from Meir, a seated figure surrounded by vessels and beer-jars seems to be engaged in mixing dough, but the available photograph unfortunately largely conceals his action from view [M228]. In this example, mixing is not the only bread-making motif, but pounding, grinding, kneading and baking are also represented. 141   Samuel, in Materials and Technology, 563. 137

Once the grain had been cleaned and the dough prepared, baking could begin. The motif of a baker before an oven is especially popular in both the two- and three-dimensional representations as it is one of the characteristic tasks of the bread-making process. While it is portrayed very   On the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), the two tasks are performed by separate figures on their own workbenches who kneel directly opposite each other [S202; fig. 2.15]. Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 170. 143   The more ornamental shapes were introduced in the New Kingdom. Darby, Ghalioungui & Grivetti, Food. Volume 2, 517-22; Wilson, Food and Drink, 16; Samuel, “New look at old bread”, AI 3, (1999), 28. 144  Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, 156; Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 27. 142

34

Food Production and Preparation

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

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

35

Preparing for Eternity consistently, there are some notable differences in the depiction of the oven. Bread was regularly baked in conical moulds that were pre-heated in a stack above a hearth before being filled with dough.145 This method is illustrated on the west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir where a tall stack of moulds appears on the left of the third register [S16; fig. 2.18]. The moulds are quite roughly stacked with the tapering ends leaning out from the pile at different angles.146 While such a composition could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface, model-artists utilised a range of techniques that conveyed a carefully balanced stack while maintaining a stable construction. In some examples, the structure was carved from a single piece of wood with each individually shaped mould protruding from the centre, as is seen in a model probably from Deir el-Bersha [M260].147 More commonly, the moulds are distinguished simply through incised lines on a wooden block as has been achieved in the model of Djay (275 LC) from Beni Hassan [M43]. In the model of Khety (366 LC), alternatively, the modelartist has merely painted the conical shapes on the side of a trapezoidal block [M195; fig. 2.14].148 These designs convey the range of techniques available to model-artists which did not compromise the stability of their sculptures.

fig. 2.30].151 The method of baking bread in moulds was apparently preferred in two-dimensional representations, with only a small number of baking techniques for flatbread portrayed in scenes: the cylindrical oven appears on the west wall of Khnumhotep II’s (3 UC) tomb [S202; fig. 2.15], while hand-shaped loaves are baked in a stack in the third register of the scene of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) [S16; fig. 2.18]. The fact that models portray a vast range of baking techniques highlights the comprehensive nature of the three-dimensional bread-making theme. The baker is consistently portrayed seated with her right hand lowered and holding a poker towards the base of the oven and her left arm sharply bent at the elbow with the open hand in front of her face to provide protection from the heat and/or glare.152 Only occasionally are there exceptions to this representation. In a number of models, the left arm of the baker is not bent, but is held straight and is either lowered or upraised. The baker in one of the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) has elongated stick-like arms, with the left lowered straight towards the oven and the end flattened in an attempt to indicate an open hand [M71]. Only in more finely crafted models is the hand fully formed and held in front of the face, an example of which is found in a model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) [M5]. Consequently, variations from the characteristic design may be attributed to the more limited skill of many modelartists. Scene-artists did not encounter this same difficulty as the bent arm and open hand could be more easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface. Instead, variation in the baker’s attitude is sometimes found when the oven is particularly tall. In the sixth register of the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC), the baker angles her poker towards the top of the tall pile of moulds, requiring her to adopt a standing position rather than the typical seated posture [S167; fig. 2.17].153 Each artist created an individual design that was influenced by his own level of skill as well as the capabilities of his medium.

For flatbread, the dough was baked either on a stone over a fire or inside a clay oven.149 This method of baking is represented in both wall scenes and models but is more common in the three-dimensional medium. The slab oven was one of the earliest types used and consisted of vertically placed discs with an additional one positioned horizontally across the top.150 Such a structure is found in one of the models of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) where the side nearest the baker remains open to give access to the interior [M6]. Alternatively, models could display simple cylindrical ovens, as is found in one of the models of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) from Beni Hassan [M209], or domed structures, as is exhibited by the model of Khety-aa (575 LC) from Beni Hassan [M201; see

Although bread-making models are more expansive than other themes, there are still some subsidiary tasks that only appear in wall scenes. After pre-heating the moulds, the stack required dismantling, a process that uniquely appears on the south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan [S77; fig. 2.19].154 The woman on the right of the sixth register stands before a stack of conical bread moulds while drawing one out with the aid of a stick. Behind her is a woman who is engaged in the supplementary task of filling

  The moulds of the Old Kingdom were wide and heavy, whereas those of the Middle Kingdom were more slender. Samuel, in Materials and Technology, 565; Kemp, Ancient Egypt, 174; Swinton, in Behind the Scenes, 40. 146   A similar arrangement is found in the sixth register of the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC), but with the more slender form of Middle Kingdom moulds, they are piled in an even domed shape [S167; fig. 2.17]. Hudáková, Representations of Women, 250. 147   The Rijksmuseum van Oudheden records that this model is said to be from Deir el-Bersha, but Tooley has identified it more specifically as a model uncovered by Kamal in the tomb of a lady named Djehuty-hotep (K-23, chamber 2). Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 42; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 796. 148   Garstang has identified the red streaks as flames of the furnace, but the classification of bread-moulds is more likely: they are painted in distinctly conical shapes and are arranged in rows with the tapering ends leaning outwards as is typically illustrated in wall scenes. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 128. 149   Darby, Ghalioungui & Grivetti, Food. Volume 2, 512; Wilson, Food and Drink, 13-14. 150   The slab oven is generally confined to models of the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period, although a few later examples are known. Klebs, Reliefs des Alten Reiches, 92; Forbes, Ancient Technology. Volume III, 58; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 232. 145

  The model of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) from Beni Hassan appears to display both a domed and cylindrical oven, but only one baker [M218]. Although the available image has the baker directed towards the cylindrical structure, in the current arrangement on display in the British Museum, London, she is oriented towards the domed oven. It is therefore probable that the cylindrical structure is in fact a vessel storing dough rather than a second oven. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga edDeir”, 797. 152   For the characteristic posture, see the female baker in a model from Beni Hassan [M266], and the baker in the third register of the east wall of the tomb of Pepi (D1) at Meir [S20]. Montet, Scènes de la vie privée, 236; Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 27. 153   Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 168-69. 154  Hudáková, Representations of Women, 227. 151

36

Food Production and Preparation

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

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

37

Preparing for Eternity the pre-heated moulds. She stands before three conical moulds placed on the ground while lowering a small ball of dough towards one.155 Alternatively, the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha displays the motif of storing baked bread loaves [S207]. A woman kneels before two superimposed trays of conical loaves in the third register and is about to place another loaf on the pile.156 The absence of these additional bread-making tasks in models may be partially due to the greater difficulty of crafting them in three-dimensions. However, their rare occurrence in wall scenes demonstrates that they were not considered essential to conveying the theme and so only appear in the most expansive representations.

and attire in addition to her role as miller indicate that she is female even though the model-artist has strayed from the usual design.163 However, both the two- and three-dimensional media also present exceptions to the typical gender designations. In a model from the tomb of Henu (L-16H50/1C) [M31] and in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S167; fig. 2.17], it is women who are engaged in pounding grain with mortar and pestle.164 The women are distinguished by their yellow skin and the sexuality of the model figure is further highlighted through the definition of the nipples and pubic triangle in black paint.165 Alternatively, some of the artworks depict a male baker rather than the typical female figure, including a model from Meir where the seated baker has red skin, a short white kilt and short black hair [M228], and the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) where the hairstyle and attire of the standing male baker are distinct from the female miller positioned just in front [S202; fig. 2.15]. It is interesting that such variations are found in both media, demonstrating that scene- and model-artists may have reflected the individual practices of real-life baking institutions in their designs.

In both media, each of the tasks involved in bread-making is typically portrayed as being specific to a single gender: men pound the grain, women grind it into flour and pass it through a sieve, men knead the dough and shape the loaves, and women bake the bread. Bread-making is one of the few production processes in which women are heavily involved, and they are consistently portrayed in working attire.157 Commonly, a fillet is tied around the hair to prevent it from falling into the mixture or in front of the face, and in the model of Khety (366 LC), the women’s hair is curved at the bottom to indicate it has been pulled up by the red-painted fillet [M195; fig. 2.14].158 The skirt was also preferred over the dress as it provided greater manoeuvrability for work.159 In models, it could simply be painted white on the figure’s lower body or a piece of linen could be wrapped around the waist, as is preserved in the model of Ipi (707 LC) [M164]. However, this attire can occasionally present difficulties in distinguishing between male and female figures in the artworks.160 Although illustrations of women are typically distinguished by their yellow skin to presumably indicate greater time spent indoors,161 there are exceptions to this practice. In one of the bread-making models of Khnumnekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC), the miller is depicted with long black hair, a white-painted dress beginning below the breasts, and red skin [M209].162 The figure’s hairstyle

In addition to the workers, the overseer or scribe who supervises the preparation of bread appears in a number of two- and three-dimensional representations. A scribe is seated in one corner of the model from tomb 420 LC at Beni Hassan with a writing board on his lap, carefully recording the manufacturing process [M30].166 In another model from Beni Hassan, an overseer stands beside the brewer, but presumably supervises the entire bread- and beer-making operation [M265]. His authority over the workers is suggested by his extended arm which seems to gesture a command. Alternatively, the authority figure in a model likely from Meir is seated on a low stool, watching the activities of the workers [M230]. While this figure has been identified as the tomb owner himself,167 it seems more likely that he is an overseer as the tomb owner rarely appears in models, although without an accompanying

  The motif of filling moulds also appears on the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S167; fig. 2.17] and on the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) [S207]. During the Middle Kingdom, the dough was of a stiffer substance than in the earlier period, causing it to be put into the moulds by hand rather than poured from a vessel. Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 169. 156   A similar scene is found in the fourth register of the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) where a man seems to facilitate the storage of bread: 10 conical loaves reside above a rectangular tray placed on a low table [S165]. 157  Robins, Women, 102; Samuel, in Food in the Arts, 180; Fischer, Egyptian Women, 21. 158   The fillet is also depicted in wall scenes, with an example found on the west wall of the tomb of Meniu (E1) where the streamers hang from the back of the head of the woman sieving grain in the third register [S1]. Vogelsang-Eastwood, Egyptian Clothing, 173-74; Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 177. 159  Watterson, Women, 101. 160   Additionally, the short hairstyle is common for female bread-makers, causing further difficulty in distinguishing them from male figures. Hudáková, Representations of Women, 247. 161   Fischer, “Varia Aegyptiaca”, JARCE 2, (1963), 20; Robins, Women, 180-81; Tyldesley, Daughters of Isis, 23. 162   Unusually, the baker positioned next to the miller also has red skin yet has short hair and wears a skirt, so it is possible that the baker is actually male. Interestingly, a similar situation is found in the other bread-making 155

model of the tomb where the baker has red skin while the two millers have yellow skin [M210]. If the bakers of these two models are male, perhaps these tomb owners sought to reflect the real-life practice of their household. 163   A similar situation is found in a model from Meir: one of the standing figures who bends over a low quern has red skin and long black hair [M227]. Although the yellow skin tone is avoided, it is quite likely this figure is female. In its current arrangement, the model displays several variations from its earlier presentation in Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, pl. 39b. It seems more likely that restoration work has resulted in an incorrect assemblage as some of the figures are positioned in attitudes of work but are not engaging with any particular objects. 164  Samuel, in Food in the Arts, 180; Hudáková, Representations of Women, 247-48. 165   De Meyer has suggested the possibility that the model figure was originally wrapped in a linen garment but notes that there is no surviving evidence for this. It is probable that the figure was always naked as the nipples and navel are highlighted. De Meyer, “Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barshā. Volume II”, 619. 166   The scribe appears in the Ashmolean Museum’s archival photographs of the model, but in the current arrangement on display, the scribe has been replaced by another seated male figure. It is therefore possible that the scribe is not original to the model. 167   Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 179.

38

Food Production and Preparation caption his identity cannot be confirmed.168 Official figures are often more easily identified in wall scenes as signs of status could be easily incorporated into the twodimensional designs.169 On the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), an overseer stands immediately before the miller and baker [S202; fig. 2.15]. His elevated status is indicated by the stick that he holds, physical signs of older age and the accompanying caption that states his title.170 Due to the economic importance of bread, it is not surprising that administrative figures appear in both media, but the difficulty of including minute details and accompanying captions in models often prevents certain identification.

Alternatively, a standing figure mixing dough appears in the courtyard of a granary model from Deir el-Bersha [M259]. This association conveys the end result of the grain stored within the facility. While connecting motifs of different themes is not commonly a technique applied in models, the wide appearance of bread-making highlights the desire to be adequately provisioned with bread for eternity. The production of bread certainly holds a prime position in both the two- and three-dimensional representations, forming a vital source of nourishment for the tomb owner. Both media depict several of the same stages and although there are many similarities in design, differences still occur as each artwork was fashioned according to its unique capabilities and the skill of its artist. However, what is most striking about bread-making in the threedimensional medium is the consistent portrayal of a large number of activities. Whereas most themes are condensed in the three-dimensional medium, the representation of bread-making is quite expansive. Models not only depict several of the subsidiary tasks found in wall scenes, but also portray multiple baking techniques. Such a comprehensive representation conveys the importance of the theme in the three-dimensional repertoire. It seems probable that this significance should be attributed to the models’ location in the burial chamber where a perpetual supply of nourishment could be accessed by the deceased in the afterlife.

Bread-making tasks are typically grouped together in the representations, either on the same baseboard or on the same section of wall and are usually surrounded by other food preparation processes. However, in one unusual scene, bread-making is specified as taking place outside in the fields. This scene is found on the west panel of the south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) and is positioned at the end of a long procession of cattle in the second register [S80]. Three men are engaged in producing bread, but their equipment is not as large or permanent as that found in bakeries. This may be due to the need for regular transport as the accompanying label indicates that they are sqr xAD Hr sH sDrt ‘kneading the dough in the shed where the night will be spent’.171 Herdsmen slept outside to keep watch over their charges and so it was necessary for their meal to be prepared each night in the fields.172 The careful arrangement of motifs on the wall enabled the scene-artist to convey the context of this specific activity. Models, on the other hand, typically confine each theme to its own baseboard, although bread-making is occasionally incorporated into themes not directly related to food preparation. In a wooden model boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), two figures on board are engaged in food preparation tasks: one man grinds grain on a quern stone while another strains beer-mash [M131]. In this context, the bread and beer provide sustenance for the crew.

2.4 Brewing beer Beer formed another staple of the ancient Egyptian diet and, like bread, was essential in both life and afterlife. In addition to forming a fundamental source of nutrition for the whole population, beer was a major component of offerings to the deceased and divine, and an important economic commodity.173 Consequently, representations of brewing beer, like bread-making, are common in both the two- and three-dimensional media. A smaller number of brewing activities are represented than is found for breadmaking, although the two processes seem to have shared some preliminary tasks.174 The most popular motif of beer preparation comprises a brewer straining beer-mash, but the more expansive representations also depict the tasks of mixing the mash, malting, carrying water, and preparing and storing beer-jars.175 In the corpus from Meir, Deir elBersha and Beni Hassan, 24 models and seven wall scenes

  Among the models examined in this study, the tomb owner is only known in representations of boats, whereas officials are more commonly associated with depictions of food preparation. The figure in this model is smaller than the surrounding workers and is seated on a simple stool, which seems an unlikely choice for the tomb owner. Another authority figure is found in a food preparation model from Meir where he is seated before a row of beer-jars while workers are engaged in mixing dough [M229; fig. 2.16]. His high status is suggested by his lighter skin tone and the more intricate carving of his features. As he is accompanied by a scribe and the final product of beer is presented to him, it is perhaps more likely in this instance that it is the tomb owner who is represented. 169   A few of the models depict a standing figure who is not engaged in any bread-making tasks and so may be an overseer, but without the additional symbols of status, such identification cannot be certain. In a model from Beni Hassan, for example, the standing figure accompanying the baker and water-carrier is of greater height than the other figures and holds a stick which likely suggests he is an official [M266]. 170   The official is labelled jmj-r pr-Sna ‘overseer of the storehouse’, and his older age is conveyed by an enlarged breast and rolls of fat across his stomach. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 43. 171   Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, 41. 172   Presumably, this bread is for the nourishment of the herdsmen rather than the animals as an exceptionally large quantity would be needed to feed the herd and the cattle could graze on the grass. Klebs, Reliefs des Alten Reiches, 67; Boessneck, Tierwelt, 68. 168

  Darby, Ghalioungui & Grivetti, Food. Volume 2, 531-33; Geller, in Followers of Horus, 20; Samuel, in Oxford Encyclopedia, . 174   It can therefore be difficult to assign the representations of preparatory tasks to just one of these processes; the activities that may have been shared by both are addressed in chapter 2.3 in the discussion on breadmaking. 175  Scholarship has often solely relied upon the artistic record to understand the brewing process, but the ambiguity of the representations has led to much dispute over certain aspects of production, including the order of steps, the use of bread, the addition of flavourings and the practice of malting. Samuel, however, has more recently proposed an updated explanation that considers both the archaeological and artistic evidence. Samuel, “Archaeology of ancient Egyptian beer”, JASBC 54.1, (1996), 3; Samuel, in Food in the Arts, 173-81; Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 172-73. 173

39

Preparing for Eternity were examined that depict one or more tasks specifically associated with beer preparation. The two media exhibit many similarities in their representation of these activities, but there are notable differences in the minute details which indicate each artwork was designed according to its specific technical capabilities.

three-dimensional medium had the advantage of presenting a holistic perspective, the precise posture of the brewer could be accurately conveyed. The typical representation is exhibited by the brewer in the model of Djay (275 LC) from Beni Hassan who stands with legs together and knees slightly bent [M44].183 His arms are lowered straight in front with his hands resting side-by-side on top of the sieve, although in more finely crafted examples, the elbows are slightly bent and the hands are crossed over each other, as is achieved in one of the brewing models of Niankh-pepykem (A1) from Meir [M11; fig. 2.20].

Like bread-making, brewing appears early in the artistic record and maintains a prominent position. Wall scenes of brewing are first documented in the late 4th Dynasty but were quickly integrated into the decoration of numerous Old Kingdom chapels.176 The theme continues to appear in scenes of the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom but, like the preparation of bread, seems to have held greater importance in the model repertoire during this time.177 After millers grinding grain, the most popular motif of the 4th and 5th Dynasty limestone statuettes is brewers straining beer-mash followed by figures preparing beer-jars.178 The owners of these models usually interred between one and three single figures engaged in food preparation, but as paired statuettes began to be fashioned in the late 6th Dynasty, a single model could convey multiple tasks.179 Brewing remains a common theme in models of the First Intermediate Period and increases in popularity in the early Middle Kingdom. Although model manufacture rapidly declined in the late Middle Kingdom, brewing still appears among this smaller corpus.180 The preparation of bread and beer was certainly important in the model repertoire throughout the medium’s period of use, contributing a vital source of nourishment for the deceased in the afterlife.

Scene-artists, on the other hand, were restricted to a two-dimensional perspective which obscured many components from view. For both legs of the brewer to be seen, the characteristic posture had to be modified. In all scenes examined, the brewer strides forward with one leg instead of standing with the legs side-by-side.184 On the left of the second register of the east wall of the tomb of Pepi (D1) at Meir, the left leg, that furthest from view, is positioned in front to allow both to be seen [S20; fig. 2.23]. In relation to the brewer’s arms, both are lowered in front with the hands placed on top of the sieve, as is achieved in models, but the scene-artist encountered difficulty in representing the shoulders. As the torso is presented in profile and the shoulders in frontal view, the forward arm movement required in straining beer-mash causes the shoulders to be depicted in a position that does not always correspond with reality.185 While most scene-artists chose to represent the far shoulder in full view and the near shoulder in profile, the brewers in the fourth register of the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan have both shoulders pushed forward awkwardly [S202]. The limitations of the two-dimensional perspective certainly created difficulties in capturing active postures, yet scene-artists were able to find means to overcome these restrictions.

In the representations, the most characteristic task of the brewer comprises straining beer-mash through a sieve into a large vessel where it would then likely be left to ferment.181 This is systematically represented as a figure standing directly before a knee- or waist-high vessel with the hands pressing down on top of the sieve.182 As the

Differences resulting from the media’s unique perspectives are also found in the representation of the sieve that resides on top of the vessel. Models, with their holistic perspective, could capture both the profile and top-down viewpoints in a realistic fashion. The side of the sieve in a model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) is coloured yellow and decorated with incised horizontal lines which probably symbolise basketry [M8]. The sieve itself, visible from a top-down perspective, could simply be painted as a small grid, as is found in a model from Beni Hassan [M265], or could be

 Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 81; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 95; Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 161. 177   Samuel, in Materials and Technology, 537-38; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 230; Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 161. 178   Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 226. 179   The late 6th Dynasty assemblage of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) from Meir includes 13 single or paired statuettes associated with food preparation, five of which convey activities involved in brewing beer [M8-M12]. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 15; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 226-28. 180   Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 61; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 233-34. 181   In the Old Kingdom, straining could be conducted by either a male or female brewer, whereas in the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom, men are solely portrayed in this role. One exception may be found in a model from Beni Hassan dated by Breasted to the 12th Dynasty which appears to depict a female brewer [M267]. The woman adopts the typical stance of the brewer, but as this attitude displays a number of similarities with that required for mixing dough in bread-making, this classification cannot be certain. The upper surface of the vessel is hidden from view in the available images, preventing any identification of a sieve. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 39; Samuel, in Food in the Arts, 178-79; Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 176. 182  Indeed, the determinative for af.ty ‘brewer’ comprises a figure adopting this posture. Even when fashioned of pottery, the characteristic stance is still conveyed, as is achieved in a model from the tomb of 176

Senbu (487 LC) at Beni Hassan [M263; see fig. 4.15]. The constraints of the material prevented the incorporation of the fine details that could be carved in wooden models, but the brewer’s posture before the vessel could still be encapsulated. Klebs, Reliefs und Malereien, 121; Helck, Bier, 97. 183   It is here proposed that this model, housed in the National Museums Scotland, is the same as that presented in Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, pl. 47.2, which Tooley identifies as originating from the tomb of Djay (275 LC) at Beni Hassan. 184   It should be noted, however, that the advanced leg is also adopted by the brewer in a select number of models, with one such example found in that of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) from Beni Hassan [M218]. 185  Smith, Sculpture and Painting, 309-10; Robins, Egyptian Painting, 38-39.

40

Food Production and Preparation

Figure 2.20. Brewing beer model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1), with one figure straining beer-mash and the other preparing jars to hold beer [M11]. Drawing by the author.

indicated through small carved holes, as is achieved in the model of Khety (366 LC) from Beni Hassan [M195; see fig. 2.14].186 Moreover, the three-dimensional perspective enables the chaff that remained behind as the mixture was passed through the sieve to be represented.187 In the model from the tomb of Henu (L-16H50-1C) at Deir el-Bersha, four small mounds of chaff formed of plaster and painted red are positioned around the edge of the sieve [M33].188 Each of these features could be easily incorporated into the three-dimensional design, enabling models to present a comprehensive portrayal of the sieve.

Scene-artists were required to select the most characteristic viewpoint of each component in their designs and, for the vessel and its sieve, this comprised the profile perspective. Consequently, the top-down elements of the sieve that feature in models are absent in scenes. The sieve is instead typically distinguished from the vessel through its size, shape and colour. On the south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan, the sieve in the sixth register is slightly wider than the vessel it is situated upon, has upward curving ends and is coloured white while the vessel beneath is red [S77; see fig. 2.19]. In a few rare instances, scene-artists have attempted to combine two perspectives in order to incorporate the top-down elements even though in reality they would be hidden from view. On the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan, the sieve in the fourth register is shown in profile, but a small section of black cross-hatching is painted in the middle to indicate the mesh on top [S165; fig. 2.21]. This composition does not present the same realistic arrangement as models, but it does allow the principal elements of the sieve to be distinguished.

 Only occasionally is the sieve unrepresented on top of the model vessel. In the brewing and bread-making model from tomb 420 LC at Beni Hassan, the cylindrical vessel before the brewer is painted red without any definition of a sieve [M30]. This should most likely be attributed to the more limited skill of the model-artist as all equipment represented in the model is quite basically rendered. 187   These masses should be understood as chaff as has been proposed by Samuel rather than bread-dough as was previously thought. Samuel, in Food in the Arts, 179; Kemp, Ancient Egypt, 174. For the interpretation of bread-dough, see Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 126-28; Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, 105. 188   De Meyer, “Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barshā. Volume II”, 620-21. 186

Straining beer-mash would not have been possible without a supply of water, and so the representations often portray 41

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 2.21. Straining beer-mash, carrying water, preparing jars to hold beer and sealed beer-jars residing on low tables. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). West wall, south panel, register 4 [S165]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 90 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

a figure carrying water-jars, usually suspended from a yoke balanced across the shoulders.189 This motif is relatively common in models, with nine examples identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan [M164, M179, M195, M201, M218, M227, M230, M260, M266; see figs. 2.14, 2.22, 2.30]. The water-carrier is often oriented towards the brewer, but as water is required in other food preparation processes, the figure is sometimes directed towards the baker.190 Working in three-dimensions, the jars had to be properly secured to the yoke to remain pendulous. The suspension could simply be carved as a small bar of wood attached to the yoke, as is found in the model of Ipi (707 LC) from Beni Hassan [M164], or it could more accurately reflect reality through utilising different materials. In a bread-making model from Meir, a short length of thread hangs from each end of a yoke to which two jars would have originally been tied [M227]. Wall scenes, in contrast, did not have to consider the actual suspension of the jars as the vessels could simply be drawn in an elevated state. On the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the water-carrier stands directly opposite the brewer with a yoke stretched across his shoulders [S165; fig. 2.21]. The jars are suspended in netted sacks which hang by cords drawn on the wall surface. Unusually, this is the only scene to incorporate the motif in this study and in fact comprises the only known Middle Kingdom example.191 As was witnessed in breadmaking, the depiction of subsidiary motifs in models such as water-carriers attests to a more expansive representation than is typical for the three-dimensional medium.

Other supplementary brewing tasks also appear in the model repertoire, further highlighting the comprehensive three-dimensional portrayal of the theme. In a model from the tomb of Nefery (116 LC) at Beni Hassan, a man stands within a waist-high vessel with his lower body submerged in the white contents [M179; fig. 2.22]. His action has variously been classified as kneading dough, crushing dates and mixing beer-mash.192 Considering the large quantity of brewing activities displayed around him, it seems probable that he is engaged in mixing the mash with his feet, although it is possible that dates were also added at this time. This is the only representation examined in this study that incorporates the motif,193 and the model in fact presents quite an expansive representation with six figures involved in brewing and a seventh in bread-making. Alternatively, two of the models examined incorporate large vessels lying on their sides which Samuel suggests could be malting vessels: six jars lie before the brewers in the model of Nefery (116 LC) [M179; fig. 2.22] and two vessels with a painted mesh pattern across their mouths lie on a low table in a model of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) from Beni Hassan [M210].194 Although there is debate in scholarship regarding the use of malting in ancient Egyptian brewing, Samuel notes that the side-turned vessel would have been effective for this process.195 This interpretation of malting seems quite  Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 76; Montet, Scènes de la vie privée, 250; Forbes, Ancient Technology. Volume III, 71; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 222. 193   Hudáková has noted that the motif of a man standing within a vessel is known from scenes of the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period but has not yet been identified for the Middle Kingdom. See, for example, the east wall of the tomb of Hemre/Isi I at Deir el-Gebrawi where a man stands within a knee-high vessel beside a man straining beer-mash on the left of the fourth register. Davies, Deir el Gebrâwi. Part II, pl. 20; Kanawati, Deir el-Gebrawi. Volume I, pl. 49; Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 173. 194   Samuel, in Materials and Technology, 552-53. 195  Samuel observes that the side-turned vessel would have created a large surface area for the grain to be spread out and subsequently rolled. Darby, Ghalioungui and Grivetti discuss the appearance of the word bSA in a number of tomb scenes depicting the harvest of grain, breadmaking and brewing, and consider the possibility that this term should be understood as ‘malt’. Alternatively, Lucas and Harris remark that malting may have been used in brewing, but that it is entirely unrepresented. Darby, Ghalioungui & Grivetti, Food. Volume 2, 534-35; Lucas & Harris, Materials and Industries, 14; Samuel, in Materials and Technology, 552. 192

  In a couple of rare exceptions, the jars are not carried on a yoke, but are either supported on the back, as in a bread-making model likely created in Meir [M230], or balanced on the head, as in a food preparation model likely from Deir el-Bersha [M260]. 190  In the bread-making and brewing model of Khety-aa (575 LC) from Beni Hassan, the two water-carriers face towards the baker but presumably serviced all activities that required water [M201; see fig. 2.30]. Alternatively, in a model from Beni Hassan, baking is the only task represented and so the accompanying water-carrier is solely used in the preparation of bread [M266]. Alcock, Food, 110. 191   Hudáková has identified this illustration as the only know Middle Kingdom scene of water-carriers. Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 174. 189

42

Food Production and Preparation

Figure 2.22. Food preparation model of Nefery (116 LC), with six figures engaged in brewing beer and a seventh in breadmaking [M179]. Archive image JG-B-716; courtesy of the Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool.

likely, causing these models to present another auxiliary task that was not considered essential to the brewing theme, once again demonstrating the thorough three-dimensional representation of the preparation of the staple diet.

the jar’, indicating he is preparing the material for the men storing beer above [S16; see fig. 2.18].198 Although models are not able to clarify such details with textual captions, the characteristic posture of the figure preparing the jars could be depicted, allowing the motif to still be clearly conveyed.

Once brewing was completed, the jars had to be prepared to hold the beer, a task that involved smearing the inner surfaces with clay to make them impenetrable.196 This activity is represented in both scenes and models of the Old Kingdom and is encapsulated by a seated figure who has one hand plunged into a jar.197 A man in one of the models of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) has both legs outstretched with only the heels touching the ground and the jar supported between his feet [M11; fig. 2.20]. The seated figure in the second register of the west wall of the tomb of Meniu (E1) at Meir adopts a similar posture with the far knee bent close to the chest and the near leg extended with the end of the jar balanced against the toes [S1]. It is probable that the modified position of the far leg was achieved so it would remain in view in the two-dimensional perspective. Scenes, however, had the advantage of integrating inscriptions that could specify the use of clay to seal the jars. On the west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir, the action of the man on the left of the second register is described as Hw sjn r orHt ‘beating the clay for

Alternatively, the task of pouring beer into jars could not be represented by both media. The stream of liquid that was necessary for the motif could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface, enabling scenes to depict this activity. On the left of the first register of the scene of Pepyankh the Middle (D2), the standing figure angles a small vessel towards a beer-jar with a thin line joining the two to represent the flowing beer [S16; see fig. 2.18].199 Conversely, streaming liquid could not be captured in three-dimensions and so all of the models examined exclude this motif. Instead, the models simply imply that  Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, 52.  This task also appears to be depicted on some wall fragments discovered by Smith that originate from the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha [S207]. In fragments 51-56 are the remains of two figures standing on either side of a row of jars while angling a vessel towards them. Although Smith has suggested that the scene could illustrate the production of oil, the remaining motifs do not depict the wringing of the sack press that was essential for the theme. The fragmentary nature of the scene prevents certain identification, but the motif’s placement adjacent to bread-making further supports brewing as a more likely classification. Smith, “Paintings of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom”, AJA 55.4, (1951), 326; Serpico & White, in Materials and Technology, 406-07. 198 199

 Montet, Scènes de la vie privée, 251; Faltings, “Bierbrauerei”, ZAeS 118, (1991), 114. 197  Montet, Scènes de la vie privée, 251; Darby, Ghalioungui & Grivetti, Food. Volume 2, 547; Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 175. 196

43

Preparing for Eternity this activity has been completed through depicting sealed beer-jars, an example of which may be found in a model from Meir where a row of jars sealed with black stoppers is arranged before a seated figure [M229; see fig. 2.16]. However, an attempt has been made to convey this activity without the stream of beer in the finely crafted brewing and bread-making model of Meketre from Thebes: a standing figure leans over a beer-jar with another vessel angled towards it, and although the beer itself is unrepresented, the attitude of the man conveys a pouring motion.200 The three-dimensional medium could consequently only imply the pouring of beer into jars, whereas the two-dimensional medium had the ability to depict it specifically.

Figure 2.23. Straining beer-mash, pouring beer into jars and sealing beer-jars. Tomb of Pepi (D1). East wall, south panel, register 2 [S20]. Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part V, pl. 44.2 [detail]; courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society.

The beer-jars themselves are represented quite consistently, with both scenes and models reflecting the development from ovoid shapes with pointed bases in the Old Kingdom to globular jars with rounded bottoms in the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom.201 Each of these forms would not have been able to stand upright on its own, yet scenes regularly depict the jars standing on the baseline without any form of support. In the second register of the east wall of the tomb of Pepi (D1), several conical beer-jars stand upright with the pointed bases simply touching the register line [S20; fig. 2.23]. As the jars were drawn on the wall surface, the scene-artist did not need to consider any form of stabilisation. Conversely, the model-artist was required to provide a structural support for his three-dimensional jars. In a model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1), the 10 sealed beer-jars with pointed bases lean against a framework consisting of a long rectangular plank slotted into two shorter perpendicular pieces [M12]. The addition of the structural support reflects the constraints of the three-dimensional medium, but it also more accurately reflects the requirements of real-life beer storage.

in the model of Khety (366 LC), the overflowing contents of the open jar are indicated by red streaks painted down the sides [M195; see fig. 2.14]. Such vessels even appear in the condensed single statuettes that solely depict a brewer straining beer-mash, like that of Intef (1 LC) from Beni Hassan [M38], highlighting their integral nature to the motif. Storage jars convey the great quantity of beer available to the tomb owner, and their prominence in models should most likely be attributed to their important contribution to the tomb owner’s eternal sustenance.

Additional beer-jars were also regularly included in the representations to indicate the great supply of beer ready for consumption. In scenes, this usually consists of several superimposed rows of sealed beer-jars. On the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the beer-jars reside on two low tables that are positioned one above the other [S165; fig. 2.21].202 This arrangement conveys a side-by-side positioning while enabling both tables and their contents to remain in view. Alternatively, models regularly feature large storage jars that either remain open or are sealed.203 In the two models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) from Deir el-Bersha, a large jar sealed with a pointed stopper stands immediately in front of each brewer [M71-M72], while

Both scenes and models display a close association between brewing beer and bread-making. The assumption that beer was made from partially baked bread loaves has been disproven by Samuel, but the two commodities certainly shared some of the same ingredients and preliminary activities and may have been prepared in the same location, and this most likely explains their regular affiliation.204 However, the artworks often create some form of distinction between the two processes. In more condensed scenes, like that of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), both operations are combined within a single register, although here brewing is confined to the left and bread-making to the right [S202]. More commonly, the processes are spread across multiple rows, as is found on the east wall of the tomb of Pepi (D1) where brewing is illustrated in the second register and bread-making immediately below in the third register [S20]. The west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), alternatively, portrays the production and storage of four different foodstuffs in the fourth register, but confines each commodity to its own compartment [S165]. The careful arrangement of motifs on each wall enables

  The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 20.3.12.   Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 175. 202   There is some minute variation in the shape and colour of the beerjars in this scene. It is probable that they all contain beer as the scene is solely dedicated to brewing, but it is possible that each kind of vessel holds a different type of beer. Several varieties of beer are known, with each type distinguished by its strength. Kemp, Ancient Egypt, 174; Swinton, in Behind the Scenes, 43. 203   It is possible that the open vessels are symbolic of the process of fermentation. Samuel, in Materials and Technology, 569; Hudáková, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 208.

204  Samuel, “Archaeology of ancient Egyptian beer”, JASBC 54.1, (1996), 3; Samuel, in Food in the Arts, 178-79; Samuel, in Materials and Technology, 569. Prior to Samuel’s analysis, it was commonly thought that brewing involved crumbling partially cooked bread loaves and straining them through a sieve with water. Instead, Samuel has demonstrated that grain was used: it was divided into two batches, with one sprouted and dried and the other milled and cooked before being mixed together and strained through a sieve. For the earlier interpretation, see, for example, Forbes, Ancient Technology. Volume III, 71; Sist, in Egyptian Civilization, 60; Wilson, Food and Drink, 18-19; Faltings, “Bierbrauerei”, ZAeS 118, (1991), 112-14.

200 201

44

Food Production and Preparation 2.5 Hand-feeding cattle

connections to be made between different activities while also distinguishing each production process.

In addition to the staples of bread and beer, wealthy individuals could supplement their diet with meat. Both wall scenes and models display some of the stages involved in acquiring this commodity, namely fattening the animal, slaughtering and cooking. Beef obtained from cattle was particularly significant not only for its nutritional value, but also for its role in the mortuary cult. For the highest quality beef, select cattle were fed a specialised diet.206 Representations of this preparatory stage are regularly labelled ‘force-feeding’ due to the fact that the animals are fed by hand while they are tethered and/or recumbent.207 However, this interpretation does not take into account the cattle’s actual behavioural characteristics. Rather, Evans’ proposition that the images combine a sequence of events illustrating the feeding and subsequent rumination of the cattle is more likely.208 Accordingly, the designation ‘hand-feeding’ is preferred here for representations of this activity.

Group models of the Middle Kingdom usually convey a single theme, but those that depict brewing are regularly combined with bread-making and slaughtering. However, the three food preparation processes are regularly kept quite distinct, with each confined to its own space on the baseboard. One of the models of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) is arranged on a long rectangular baseboard with slaughtering positioned at one end, brewing in the middle and bread-making at the other [M209]. Although there are no defined boundaries, each is clearly distinguished through the arrangement of figures. Architectural frameworks, which were occasionally incorporated into group models of the 12th Dynasty, could also aid the division of themes.205 In the model of Nefwa (186 LC) from Beni Hassan, the baseboard is provided with a partial enclosure wall as well as a low interior wall that divides the activities into two distinct sections: breadmaking on one side and slaughtering and brewing on the other [M187]. The combination of the three processes demonstrates the tomb owner’s access not only to the staples of bread and beer, but also to the more prestigious supplement of beef. Such collective representations are largely confined to food preparation in the threedimensional repertoire, highlighting the importance of providing a complete diet for the tomb owner’s afterlife.

Hand-feeding cattle was introduced to the twodimensional repertoire during the Old Kingdom where it appeared quite commonly in Memphite tombs.209 However, only two examples were identified from the three sites under investigation, both of which date to the Middle Kingdom. These two scenes originate from Beni Hassan and while both display the feeding of cattle, only one involves hand-feeding [S80, S189].210 Due to this restricted number of examples, some hand-feeding scenes from Old Kingdom Memphite tombs will be drawn upon for further comparison. This small quantity of scenes is contrasted with a greater number of models, with a total of 11 examples identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan. However, this significant size difference should not necessarily indicate that the theme was more popular in the three-dimensional medium as the 11 models originate from only three burials: those of Djay (275 LC) at Beni Hassan [M45], Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) at Deir

Motifs of brewing beer commonly appear in the artistic record, highlighting the commodity’s vital role in providing nourishment. Wall scenes and models display several of the same production activities and exhibit many similarities in design, but differences do occur due to their contrasting technical abilities. Model-artists had the advantage of working in three-dimensions which enabled a more accurate portrayal of the stance of the brewer and the sieve used to strain the beer-mash as well as the ability to incorporate real-life materials. However, some intricate details could not be conveyed, causing motifs such as pouring the beer into jars to be excluded from the three-dimensional designs. On the other hand, sceneartists could easily draw minute details on the wall surface and were not required to provide any structural support for unstable objects such as beer-jars, yet the limitations of the two-dimensional perspective caused certain features to be hidden from view or modifications to be made to the characteristic representation. The regular occurrence of brewing among models and its close association with bread-making and slaughtering emphasise the importance of food supply in the three-dimensional repertoire and its significant contribution to the deceased’s eternal nourishment.

  It would not have been economically viable to feed large herds of cattle a specialised diet, and as the meat of those kept for physical labour was quite tough, only select oxen would have been chosen for fattening. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 2; Brewer, in History of the Animal World, 436, 444; Swinton, in Behind the Scenes, 36. 207   This classification was proposed by Vandier but has since been adopted by many scholars. See, for example, Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 80-83; Ikram, “Food for eternity, part 1”, KMT 5.1, (1994), 27; Tyldesley, Daughters of Isis, 106; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 100; Jones, in Behind the Scenes, 101. 208   Evans has identified a number of problems associated with the forcefeeding interpretation: the beasts would have been too powerful to be held down by a simple leash; it is not possible to force-feed a ruminant without endangering its health; and such measures would have been unnecessary as, given the right food, cattle continue to eat without encouragement. Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 57; Swinton, in Egyptian Culture and Society. Volume II, 235; Swinton & Evans, “Force-feeding animals”, GM 232, (2012), 141. 209  Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 161; Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 56-57. 210  The two scenes are found in the late 11th Dynasty tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) [S80] and the 12th Dynasty tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S189]. On the south wall of Baqet III’s tomb, the four cattle on the right of the third register are not fed by hand, but rather feed from piles of food on the ground under the supervision of two relaxed herdsmen. 206

 Food preparation is one of the rare themes in which architectural structures appear in the model repertoire aside from granaries. In most instances, the framework borders the outside edge of the model with a small opening in one wall that functions as an entryway, as is exhibited by the model of Khety-aa (575 LC) [M201; see fig. 2.30]. Arnold, in Structure and Significance, 33; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 233. 205

45

Preparing for Eternity el-Bersha [M73-M81] and Amenemhat (K-21) at Deir el-Bersha [M175].211 Nine of the models in fact derive from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht which also housed the burial of his wife. Even if the nine models were divided between the two owners, it is still an exceptionally high quantity of representations of this theme for one burial.212 Accordingly, hand-feeding cattle is only rarely attested in both media and should be understood as a supplementary theme.

In both the two- and three-dimensional representations of hand-feeding, the oxen are typically displayed recumbent. The hind legs are brought forward to rest alongside the prostrate body, although in the profile perspective presented in the two-dimensional medium only the near leg could be portrayed. On the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan, a group of three oxen are hand-fed by a single herdsman in the fifth register, although only one is recumbent [S189; fig. 2.25]. The animals are oriented towards the right and so it is the right hind leg of the recumbent ox that is on display. The hind legs of prostrate model cattle are likewise brought forward, but with a holistic three-dimensional perspective, both are visible. As the legs were held close to the body, they were carved from the same piece of wood instead of being fashioned separately and attached with pegs as was achieved for some models of standing cattle.215 In some examples, the hind legs are hardly distinguishable from the body,216 while in others they are more distinct. In one of the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), the hoof of the hind leg is painted black and terminates in a square-cut block while the rest of the leg has been given some shaping [M73; fig. 2.24]. Unusually, in eight of the nine models of Djehuty-nakht, the oxen have been carved from the same piece as the baseboard.217 Typically, all components of models were carved separately and attached to a plain rectangular baseboard with pegs,218 but in these examples the overall shape of the base has been impacted, exhibiting a curved end and protrusions that follow the contours of the recumbent animal.

The fact that the theme is even represented by the threedimensional medium is quite surprising. Models were typically interred in small quantities and the latter stages of production were usually favoured over the preparatory activities as these provided the tomb owner with the desired commodity. In relation to the preparation of meat, slaughtering cattle is much more frequently attested as this formed the culmination of the process. It would therefore be expected that hand-feeding only appears in expansive model assemblages where slaughtering is already represented, but the three owners of hand-feeding models examined in this study in fact do not include any representations of slaughtering. This is particularly surprising in the burial of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) which housed over 100 models, among which are a number of rarely attested themes, yet not a single illustration of slaughtering cattle.213 While it is possible that such models were originally interred but have since been lost, the evidence does not seem to suggest this.214 It seems likely that the focus on the preparatory stage was a personal preference of these tomb owners. The reasons for this can only be speculated, but as meat had to be preserved before storage unlike products such as bread and beer, perhaps these model owners desired to depict living cattle which could be slaughtered only when required so that fresh beef could be obtained.

The forelegs display more variation in their positioning. In wall scenes, usually only the near foreleg is displayed, and this is bent back and tucked underneath the body, as is exhibited by the recumbent ox in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S189; fig. 2.25].219 However, some scene-artists of the Old Kingdom incorporated both forelegs into their representations. On the east wall of the tomb of Kayemnofret at Saqqara, for example, the recumbent ox positioned on the papyrus boat in the second register has the near foreleg tucked in the typical position while the left, that furthest from view, is extended with the hoof resting on deck.220 This variation in arrangement was required to enable both forelegs to be seen by the viewer. Models, likewise, could portray both forelegs tucked under the body, as is found in the model of Djay (275 LC) [M45], or have one foreleg extended. In seven of the nine models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), the left foreleg is outstretched while the right is tucked underneath

 Additionally, Tooley has noted that models of cattle husbandry are especially popular in Middle Egypt, with the hand-feeding theme confined to Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 76. 212   The nine models are particularly consistent in their design, although there is some variation in quality. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 151, 160. 213  The themes of brick-making and processions of soldiers, which are rare in the three-dimensional repertoire, are found among Djehutynakht’s model assemblage. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 175. 214   The model assemblage of Djay (275 LC) contained some other rarely attested themes, including brick-making and leatherwork. Additionally, a single figure of a man carrying the leg of an ox was found which may symbolise the completion of the butchering process without the actual slaughter being portrayed [M48]. Garstang proclaimed the burial undisturbed at the time of discovery, but Bommas has more recently cast some doubt on this due to the absence of vessels. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 221; Bommas, “First Intermediate Period tombs at Beni Hassan”, SAK 41, (2012), 63. During Kamal’s excavation of the tomb of Amenemhat (K-21), a collection of models was found piled on top of the coffin, including the hand-feeding representation, but the objects were found in a state of disorder. Kamal, “Fouilles à Déir-elBarsheh”, ASAE 2, (1901), 18. The tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) was plundered at least once, hurriedly excavated by the 1915 joint HarvardBoston expedition and then left in storage for several years prior to being transferred to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. It is therefore possible that part of the model corpus was lost at some point during this process of acquisition, but the vast quantity of models uncovered would suggest that most, if not all, were recovered. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 151, 175. 211

  See, for example, the cattle in procession in a model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) where the connection between each leg and the body is clearly visible [M150; see fig. 4.10]. 216   In two of the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), for example, the hind legs display almost no definition and so merge into the body [M78-M79]. 217   In the one exception, the animal has been fashioned as a separate piece and attached [M80]. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 161. 218   Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 152. 219  Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 56. 220   Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 04.1761; Simpson, Kayemnofret, pl. 23a. 215

46

Food Production and Preparation

Figure 2.24. Hand-feeding model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M73]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.413.

[M73-M76, M78-M79, M81; see fig. 2.24].221 Although both legs could be tucked under the body and remain in view in the three-dimensional medium, the depiction of the extended leg probably reflects an alternate real-life posture adopted by recumbent cattle.222 Therefore, both scene- and model-artists created designs that reflected the behavioural characteristics of the animals within the capabilities of their medium.

underneath the leg with the tip peeking out.224 This latter arrangement is exhibited by the prostrate ox in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) and forms a contrast with the ox standing beside who has a long, hanging tail [S189; fig. 2.25]. The recumbent positioning of the oxen required a specific arrangement of body parts and both media were able to achieve this in their designs according to their technical properties.

When recumbent, the tail sweeps around the body of the cattle, a positioning that is exhibited by both media. In models, the tail is often painted on the body as this movement was presumably easier to achieve with a two-dimensional technique rather than carving it out of wood. For example, in one of Djehuty-nakht’s (R-10A) models, the black tail sweeps over the right side of the ox’s recumbent body and ends with four thin lines marking the hair [M75]. The two-dimensional medium similarly displays the tail of the recumbent ox sweeping across the body and over the hind leg,223 but it could also pass

Typically, each ox is fed by its own herdsman in the representations, but occasionally more than one animal is fed simultaneously. In the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), three oxen are attended by a single man, and although only one is recumbent, all three are being hand-fed [S189; fig. 2.25]. Only the model of Amenemhat (K-21) incorporates more than one animal among the three-dimensional corpus examined, if indeed all of the cattle are original to the representation and reside in their ancient arrangement: five recumbent cattle are scattered across the baseboard, all carved in different sizes and positioned at varying angles [M175]. Only one of these animals, however, is fed by the herdsman.225 The other four lie prostrate with

  In the other two models of Djehuty-nakht, one ox has both forelegs tucked under the body [M80] while the other appears to have only the right foreleg extended, but the left has broken off [M77]. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, “Model of a man feeding an ox”, viewed 6 September 2017, . 222  Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 55. 223   See, for example, the east wall of the tomb of Kayemnofret at Saqqara where the oxen being hand-fed are depicted with their tails sweeping across their near hind legs. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 04.1761; Lepsius, Denkmäler. Ergänzungsband, pl. 32; Simpson, Kayemnofret, pl. 23a. 221

 Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 56.   Unusually, there is a second human figure incorporated in the model: he is enveloped in a white cloak with only his head emerging and is seated towards one end of the baseboard while being angled away from the animals. He is not engaged in any particular action and the nature of his attire suggests that he may function as an official who supervises the feeding process. It is also possible that he does not belong to the original hand-feeding model as such cloaked figures are more typically found on model boats. 224 225

47

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 2.25. Three oxen being hand-fed by a single herdsman. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). North wall, register 5 [S189]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 125 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

their forelegs tucked under their bodies, suggesting that they have already been fed and remain recumbent for rumination.226 The incorporation of more cattle provides an expansion on the basic theme, highlighting the great supply of fattened cattle available to the tomb owner.

portray the animals sitting dutifully on the baseboards. It seems probable that the most effective means of conveying the restraint in three-dimensions would be through utilising real rope as this connection would have been difficult to carve out of wood. If so, this difference in representation may be a matter of preservation as material leashes could be easily lost or destroyed. However, in the model of Djay (275 LC) an alternate mode of restraint is possibly portrayed [M45]. The herdsman holds a short, thin object in his lowered left hand. Although it has been identified as a knife,229 without the presence of a blade or handle it appears more likely to be a simple stick. The purpose of this tool, if original to the model, is unclear, but perhaps it was used to control the animal if required. If so, this representation would demonstrate an alternate method of restraining the cattle.

In the two-dimensional representations, the oxen are usually restrained during hand-feeding. A short leash is often attached to the ox’s neck or muzzle and is held by the herdsman.227 In the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), short leashes are connected to the muzzles of all three oxen, although the ends of the ropes simply hang down before the man’s feet [S189; fig. 2.25]. Illustrating this device conveyed the restricted movement of the animals during feeding, an important element in successful fattening.228 Models, in contrast, do not utilise this restraint, but rather

The posture of the herdsman who feeds the ox is quite consistent across the representations. In each artwork examined in this study, the figure sits with both knees

 Although rumination can occur while standing, cattle show a preference for lying down with their forelegs tucked under their bodies and hind legs brought forward. The four unattended cattle in the model in fact adopt this posture, whereas the single ox being fed exhibits a contrasting stance with at least one foreleg extended. Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 56. 227  Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 56. 228  Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 57. 226

  National Museums Scotland, “Tomb-model, figure”, viewed 12 July 2019, . 229

48

Food Production and Preparation bent up in front and his feet flat on the ground, enabling him to directly engage with the animals.230 The models, however, depict him in a stiff, upright posture and often provide limited detail in the fashioning of his legs: they are sometimes out of proportion to the rest of his body,231 or are merely painted red to be distinguished from the white kilt.232 In one of the more finely carved models of Djehutynakht (R-10A), the man’s legs have been given some further definition: they are separated by an incised line and terminate in small rectangular blocks which signify feet [M80]. Carving the intricacies of the legs’ muscles and bones would have required exceptional skill to achieve in small three-dimensional sculptures, whereas sceneartists could easily draw these details on the wall surface. Consequently, the herdsman in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) exhibits more details in the rendering of his figure: he wears a short white kilt with a sash around his waist and squats with his knees bent close to his chest and his back arched forward; his feet are flat on the ground immediately in front of his body, with the arch of the sole specified [S189; fig. 2.25]. However, only the left leg is shown in its entirety, with the right obscured except for the outline of the toe. Although the attitude of the herdsman could be captured in both two- and three-dimensions, the contours of the human figure could be more easily defined on the two-dimensional wall surface.

animal figures and, with a more detailed depiction of the herdsman’s hands, could illustrate a variety of intricate actions. Examples of the Old Kingdom display the man’s hand touching the muzzle of the ox, cupping its lower lip, plunged inside its mouth or holding some food.235 In the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), the herdsman bends both arms at the elbow and positions them close to the animals so his hands may both offer food and control the leashes [S189; fig. 2.25]. A vessel is positioned between him and the oxen, probably storing the specialised diet or water for after the meal.236 The ability of the scene-artist to precisely convey the movement of the herdsman’s hands enabled the two-dimensional medium to specify the details of the activity, whereas model-artists were restricted to conveying the elements in a more basic fashion. Scene-artists had the additional advantage of utilising inscriptions to provide further information on the task portrayed. Although not present in every representation, scenes that incorporate the label wSA ‘fattening’ clearly specify the purpose of the operation.237 The scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) includes this label, with the caption stating wSA rn n jwA ‘fattening the prime oxen’ [S189; fig. 2.25].238 Shafik has proposed that scenes without captions where the herdsman’s hand is placed within the ox’s mouth may depict oral care instead of hand-feeding,239 and while this is possible, the similarity between these representations and those with identifying labels probably indicates that the same task is consistently portrayed. A similar understanding must be assumed for the threedimensional artworks where textual captions could not be integrated into the representations. None of the handfeeding models include any inscription, so the theme is solely conveyed graphically. Although this is a limitation of the three-dimensional medium, the characteristic posture of the ox and herdsman could still be captured, allowing the theme to be easily recognised.

The restricted ability of the model-artist in depicting the intricacies of the herdsman’s movement did, however, prevent the medium from precisely conveying the actual feeding. It was important for a hand to be extended towards the animal as this indicated that the cattle were being hand-fed a specialised diet.233 All of the model herdsmen examined exhibit stick-like arms without any definition of bones or muscle. In each example, one arm is angled towards the ox and although the hand itself is not carved, the end of the arm is regularly flattened in an attempt to indicate an open palm.234 This could sometimes be held quite close to the animal’s mouth, as in one of the models of Djehutynakht (R-10A) [M81], but no direct contact is portrayed. Moreover, no food is represented in any of the models causing the task of feeding to only be implied. In contrast, wall scenes portray direct contact between the human and

One feature that is evident in the three-dimensional medium but absent in wall scenes is the depiction of an architectural  Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 82-83; Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 56. On the north wall of the tomb of Ti at Saqqara, the herdsman engaged in hand-feeding uses one hand to grasp a short leash connected to the ox’s muzzle and the other to proffer some food. Wild, Ti II, pl. 124. Alternatively, on the east wall of the tomb of Senedjemib at Giza, the herdsman simply rests his hand on the animal’s muzzle. Lepsius, Denkmäler. Ergänzungsband, pl. 23c. In the tomb of Mereruka at Saqqara, the three herdsmen engaged in hand-feeding in the first register of the north wall of room A13 all have their right hands plunged deep inside the oxen’s mouths. Kanawati, et al., Mereruka and his Family. Part III:1-2, pl. 78. 236  Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 80. 237  Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 82; Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 57. A number of scenes from the Old Kingdom do not include this caption. For example, the two oxen individually hand-fed by the herdsman on the east wall of the tomb of Senedjemib at Giza are not accompanied by any inscriptions. Lepsius, Denkmäler. Ergänzungsband, pl. 23c. Alternatively, the recumbent oxen displayed above the doorway on the south wall of room 1 in the tomb of Nikauisesi at Saqqara are individually labelled as rn jwA ‘young oxen’ or jwA ‘oxen’, but the herdsmen’s actions are not specified. Kanawati & Abder-Raziq, Teti Cemetery. Volume VI, 36, pl. 47. 238   Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 51. 239   Shafik, “Force-feeding animals”, GM 227, (2010), 68-69. 235

  Some scenes of the Old Kingdom alternatively display a kneeling posture with one knee bent up in front and the other bent over on the ground, as is exhibited by the herdsmen on the east wall of room 3 in the tomb of Senedjemib at Giza. Lepsius, Denkmäler. Ergänzungsband, pl. 23c. 231   For example, the man in one of Djehuty-nakht’s (R-10A) models has particularly thin legs which are disproportionately shorter than the rest of his body [M77]. 232  The lower half of the herdsman involved in hand-feeding in the model of Amenemhat (K-21), for example, is painted white with two red lines down the front to suggest the presence of legs [M175]. This section of his body is merely carved in a block shape with very limited modelling of the feet. 233  Moreover, it demonstrates that the animal was given individual, specialised attention by a single herdsman. Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 57. 234   Most commonly, it is the arm on the same side as the ox’s extended foreleg that is held in front, as can be seen in one of the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) where the right arm of the man and the left foreleg of the ox are extended [M75]. 230

49

Preparing for Eternity setting. In one corner of the model of Amenemhat (K-21) resides a tall crenelated tower decorated with painted windows [M175].240 The edges of the baseboard have suffered some damage, so it is possible that more than one tower was originally included.241 Architectural structures are rare in the three-dimensional medium outside of representations of granaries, and the presence of one in this model is unique for the hand-feeding theme. It certainly provides an architectural setting for the activity, although its precise function is uncertain. If it is original to the model, it may be connected to the care of the animals and serve as a storage facility for the food.

condensed in their representation and if only one animal was to be represented in this role, cattle were the most significant due to the importance of beef in providing nourishment. Therefore, the elements considered most essential for the tomb owner’s afterlife were selected first for the model repertoire. The task of hand-feeding cattle was an important preparatory stage in the production of the best quality beef for consumption. Although displayed by both the two- and three-dimensional media, there are a number of differences in design, largely concerning the illustration of minute details. Wall scenes were able to be more precise in their representation of the herdsman’s posture and could clarify the activity through accompanying inscriptions. Moreover, the expansive wall space enabled multiple species to be depicted and for connections to be made with other outdoor activities. On the other hand, model-artists created a more condensed representation that was limited in its incorporation of minute details, but the characteristic posture of the ox and herdsman could still be conveyed. Consequently, each artist created his design of the hand-feeding theme according to the technical abilities of his medium.

Background environments are also not common in wall scenes with the context instead regularly implied by its relationship to surrounding vignettes.242 No architectural structures are present in hand-feeding scenes, but on the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), the theme is accompanied by processions of animals [S189], while on the east wall of the tomb of Neferirtenef at Saqqara, it is surrounded by scenes of agricultural pursuits, suggesting that the animals were fed outside in the fields.243 The expansive size of the wall surface enabled multiple themes to be depicted on the same wall and carefully arranged to convey certain associations. Model-artists, conversely, created their representations on small baseboards that regularly only accommodated a single theme and so handfeeding models do not display the same connections to other motifs that is witnessed in scenes.

2.6 Slaughtering cattle The slaughter of the animal forms the most characteristic stage of meat production and it consequently holds a prominent place in the funerary artistic repertoire. Not only did it provide a significant source of food, but it also functioned as an important ritual act. Cattle were especially valued as sacrificial beasts, forming a central part of the funerary ritual as well as festivals and temple offerings.247 Scenes of slaughtering were especially popular during the Old Kingdom, appearing in almost every known decorated tomb of the period, and although the theme remained in the two-dimensional repertoire throughout the Pharaonic Period, it became less prevalent after the Middle Kingdom.248 At Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, slaughtering scenes are frequently attested, with 19 tombs identified to contain at least one such illustration. While in some of these examples the theme is quite condensed, in other cases it is particularly elaborate: in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir, 10 vignettes of slaughtering are illustrated on a single wall [S45; fig. 2.28],249 while in the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) at Meir, the theme appears on four different walls of the chapel [S183, S184, S186, S187]. Three-dimensional representations of slaughtering also appeared during the Old Kingdom, but the theme did not become popular until the early Middle Kingdom, and indeed, all nine examples examined in this study date to this period.250

Although both media convey the essential components of the herdsman and ox for the hand-feeding theme, wall scenes regularly expand upon this by illustrating other animals. Both wild and domestic species are hand-fed in scenes, including the ibex, oryx, antelope, addax, gazelle, hyena and birds.244 On the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), multiple animals are hand-fed, with all the vignettes grouped together in the fifth register: from left to right are three birds, two oryxes, four goats and three oxen [S189]. Each vignette is captioned wSA ‘fattening’ and each species is attended by one or two herdsmen.245 With a greater amount of space available to scene-artists, such additions could be easily included. Moreover, as the meat of wild animals was reserved for the highest officials,246 the display of these creatures in the public part of the tomb would have impressed visitors. In contrast, the three-dimensional medium confines the hand-feeding theme to cattle. Models are typically more   Kamal, “Fouilles à Déir-el-Barsheh”, ASAE 2, (1901), 31.   This is probable at least in the corner diagonally opposite where there is a rectangular gap roughly the same size as the preserved tower. 242  Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 72-73; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 84-85; Kanawati, “Specificity”, ASAE 83, (2009), 271. 243  Van de Walle, Neferirtenef, pl. 12. Alternatively, hand-feeding vignettes could be positioned near scenes of slaughtering or the tomb owner before an offering-table, demonstrating the ultimate destination of the fattened cattle. Swinton, in Behind the Scenes, 37. 244  Smith, in Domestication and Exploitation, 309; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 100. 245   Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 51. 246   Swinton, in Behind the Scenes, 34. 240 241

  Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 96; Ikram, in Encyclopedia of Ancient History, . 248  Ghoneim, Ökonomische bedeutung des Rindes, 178; Ikram, Choice Cuts, 81-82; Bussman, in Egyptian Art, 101. 249  It should be noted that this scene includes the slaughter of cattle, oryxes and gazelles. 250   Most Old Kingdom statuettes are related to processing cereal grains and only secondarily to the production of meat. Those that depict 247

50

Food Production and Preparation These models could either appear on their own baseboard or be combined with other food preparation activities, but usually only a single slaughtering vignette was included in each assemblage.251 The slaughtering theme is easily recognised in both the two- and three-dimensional media, but differences in representation are discerned not only in their illustration of minute details, but more significantly in the range of activities depicted and the focus of the theme.

Alternatively, the three-dimensional medium begins with the second stage which involved slitting the ox’s throat. The head was turned over, giving the butcher access to the neck to sever the carotid artery.256 This task is in fact the most commonly represented stage among models and is regularly the only one portrayed. In every slaughtering model examined in this study, one butcher either sits or stands beside the neck of the ox with a knife angled towards it. The butcher in the model of Khety (366 LC) from Beni Hassan bends over so that his left hand rests on the muzzle to control the head, and his right hand holds the knife against the throat [M196; fig. 2.26]. The cut is indicated by a red-painted line across the neck, demonstrating that the task has already begun. While this stage features prominently in models, it is only occasionally represented in wall scenes. Instead, the blood is sometimes shown flowing from the throat to indicate that the task has already been performed,257 but often it is completely excluded.258 In one scene where the second stage is portrayed, the representation is particularly graphic: on the west panel of the south wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan, the butcher leans over the body of the middle ox in the sixth register and plunges the knife into the neck with the blood dripping from the wound [S163; fig. 2.29]. There is certainly a vast difference in the prominence of this stage between the two media which creates a contrast in focus of the slaughtering process.

Several stages were involved in slaughtering cattle, beginning with bringing down the beast and ending with jointing the pieces before they were preserved or consumed.252 Not every stage is illustrated in each artwork, although some tasks appear more commonly than others. The two-dimensional medium certainly portrays a much greater number of these activities, beginning with the first stage of binding the animal. In this task, a front and hind leg were tied together, causing the animal to fall, as is displayed in the first register of the lower section of the south wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan [S100].253 Once down, the remaining legs were bound and the animal was turned on its back.254 On the west wall of the statue-recess in the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) at Meir, a man is tightening the bondage of an ox already brought down [S148]. The animal is offering some resistance with its head raised and turned towards its handler, and its tongue is protruding to indicate its vocalised distress.255 This initial stage is not represented by the three-dimensional medium, with the model beasts instead already brought down and bound.

In association with this stage is a man whose role is to collect the blood and then examine it to pronounce the animal pure and healthy.259 This figure does not appear in all representations, but when he does, he either kneels beside the head of the animal while holding a vessel or stands to transport it away.260 In the models examined in this study, the former positioning is exclusively portrayed, with three examples incorporating this figure [M187, M196, M228; see fig. 2.26].261 In a model from Meir, the man kneels beside the neck and holds a shallow dish immediately next to the slit in the throat [M228]. The upper surface of the

slaughtering are known from 4th and 5th Dynasty Memphite tombs but are absent from 6th Dynasty assemblages. The Old Kingdom examples depict single butchers leaning over bound oxen or calves while holding a knife against the animal’s body, as can be seen, for example, in two statuettes from the 5th Dynasty tomb of Nikau-inpu at Giza. Museum of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: E10625, E10626. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, pls. 32a, 34b; D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 102; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 15, 61; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 226, 258. 251   Only one model collected from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan displays the slaughter of more than one ox, namely that from the tomb of Gua (K-12) at Deir el-Bersha [M272; fig. 2.27]. In this example, seven men are involved in slaughtering and processing two oxen. Alternatively, the tomb of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) at Beni Hassan contained two models that depict slaughtering [M209-M210]. Although all of the models in this tomb were found deposited on top of one coffin, it is possible that one slaughtering model was originally intended for each of the two owners. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 89-91; Podvin, “Position du mobilier funéraire”, MDAIK 56, (2000), 300. 252  The representations, however, do not always agree on the exact order of activities. Ikram, Choice Cuts, 51; Ikram, in Materials and Technology, 657. 253   The man in this scene is in the process of tying the two legs together. He wraps his arms around the forelegs and lifts them off the ground in an attempt to bring the ox down. Ikram, Choice Cuts, 44. 254   Sometimes the man presses down on the horns to gain further control of the animal, as can be seen in the lowest register of the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir: in the leftmost slaughtering vignette, one man tightens the bondage while a second man leans over the animal to firmly grasp the horn and hold it on the ground [S139]. 255   Evans has demonstrated that in representations of living cattle, the protruding tongue serves as a sign of vocalisation, but when the tongue makes contact with the ground, as is found on the west panel of the south wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan [S163; fig. 2.29], it probably indicates death. The protruding tongue, however, does not typically feature in models and this should most likely be attributed to the technical difficulty of crafting such a minute feature in three-dimensions. Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 60.

 Eggebrecht, Schlachtungsbräuche, 35; Ikram, in Materials and Technology, 657. 257   An example of this may be found in the second register of the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) where a blood line across the neck of the ox closest to the offering-table indicates that the throat has already been cut [S138]. The butchers are not positioned near the neck, but rather are removing the legs. 258   Most of the scenes examined in this study do not include, or at least do not preserve, a slit line across the neck even when it is clear that this task must have already been completed. For example, none of the slaughtered animals on the east wall of room 5 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) exhibit a slit line across the neck even though several are in the process of having their legs removed [S45; fig. 2.28]. Eyre, Cannibal Hymn, 97. 259   The examination of the blood was most likely carried out by a priest, although it is possible that butchers also served in this role. Darby, Ghalioungui & Grivetti, Food. Volume 1, 137-38; Ikram, Choice Cuts, 46. 260  Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 173-74; Eyre, Cannibal Hymn, 97. 261  The model of Nefwa (186 LC) from Beni Hassan, however, was only available for examination through one image which does not reveal the precise task of the secondary figure [M187]. His positioning next to the neck opposite the butcher, though, most likely indicates that he is collecting blood. 256

51

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 2.26. Slaughtering model of Khety (366 LC); slitting the neck, collecting the blood and possibly cooking joints of meat [M196]. © Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: E.71c.1903.

dish is coloured red, presumably to indicate the collected blood. On the other hand, the alternate positioning is more common in the two-dimensional medium.262 In the third register of the east wall of room 5 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), two men stand while each carrying a vessel that presumably contains the blood: one walks away from the slaughter while the other still faces the butcher [S45; fig. 2.28].263 Although the collection of blood is portrayed by both media, the different attitudes adopted result in contrasting emphases. The models display the man more directly involved in the process and this is most likely due to the medium’s emphasis on the second stage of slitting the throat. Alternatively, as wall scenes largely exclude this activity, they preferred to convey that the blood had already been collected.

While the three-dimensional medium focuses on the second stage of slaughtering, wall scenes emphasise the next task of removing the foreleg.264 This was the first piece to be severed due to its prime ritual significance and its removal features prominently in scenes.265 In fact, in the most condensed illustrations, it is typically the only slaughtering stage portrayed.266 The two-dimensional designs are quite consistent, with the typical arrangement exhibited on the east wall of the shrine of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan: the three legs of the ox in the third register are bound  For a discussion on whether the animal was alive or dead during the removal of the foreleg, see Junker, Giza. Band III, 229-31; Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 136-38; Eggebrecht, Schlachtungsbräuche, 64-73; Ikram, Choice Cuts, 50-51; Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 60. 265  The foreleg formed a standard part of the offering ritual and was associated with the Opening of the Mouth ceremony. Gordon & Schwabe, in Proceedings of the Seventh ICE, 467; Eyre, Cannibal Hymn, 53-54, 91; De Meyer, et al., “Role of animals in the funerary rites”, JARCE 42, (2005), 64. 266   See, for example, the south wall of the tomb of Pepi (D1) at Meir where the sole slaughtering scene comprises two men severing the foreleg [S21], or in the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) where the only butchering vignette on the south wall consists of a single butcher conducting the amputation [S142]. Klebs, Reliefs und Malereien, 173; Eggebrecht, Schlachtungsbräuche, 53-54; Eyre, Cannibal Hymn, 91. 264

  In only one tomb-chapel examined does this figure adopt the positioning beside the head of the ox: on the east and west walls of the shrine of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha, the man stands before the head of the animal in the fourth register while holding a vessel out towards the butcher [S215-S216]. As he is standing, however, it seems that the blood has already been collected, but he does not yet transport it away. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 173-74. 263   The man who walks away from the slaughter most likely has already filled his vessel with blood, whereas the one facing the butcher may be yet to collect it. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 184. 262

52

Food Production and Preparation together while the foreleg is kept separate and held upright [S87]. A butcher holds the knife towards the joint while an assistant helps to support the leg. Models, in contrast, not only exclude the task of removing the foreleg, but display all four legs still attached and bound together.267 Only one model examined in this study indicates the removal of the foreleg, namely that from the tomb of Gua (K-12) at Deir el-Bersha [M272; fig. 2.27]. In this example, the actual severing of the leg is not portrayed, but rather one foreleg of each ox has already been removed and is transported away.268 This difference in emphasis of the slaughtering process should most likely be explained by the contrasting locations of the media. The chapel was the primary place of offerings and intimately connected with the mortuary cult.269 As the foreleg held a prominent ritual role, the display of its removal was especially important in the cult area. Conversely, the burial chamber was sealed after interment and the goods stored within were primarily concerned with provisioning the deceased in the afterlife. The ritual of removing the foreleg was therefore not as significant in the substructure and so the three-dimensional medium focused its representation on a different aspect of the slaughtering process.

subsidiary stages. One possible exception is found in the model of Gua (K-12) where four men carrying the severed legs of the oxen face towards a tall stand [M272; fig. 2.27]. This feature is cylindrical in shape with a defined upper surface on which a foreleg is placed.272 One man stands immediately before it with a knife in hand, apparently jointing the legs. It is probable that this stand functions as a workbench, and its presence may imply the subsequent jointing of all pieces of meat. Although this is a possible indication of subsequent processing, such subsidiary tasks are typically excluded from the three-dimensional medium. An additional activity only associated with slaughtering wall scenes is sharpening the butcher’s knife. This motif appears alongside butchering scenes from the 5th Dynasty onwards, and although not essential to conveying slaughtering, appears quite commonly.273 The sharpening stone was one of the butcher’s principal tools,274 and in scenes, it often appears attached to his belt, as is exhibited by four of the six butchers on the north wall of the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) at Meir [S22]. Alternatively, scenes could portray the actual sharpening of the knife. The stone is typically depicted as a thin stick-like instrument held in the right hand, often touching the blade of the knife which is held in the left,275 as is performed by four of the butchers on the south wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S161, S163; see fig. 2.29].276 While the task of sharpening held a certain prominence in scenes, neither the action nor the tool is portrayed in any of the models examined in this study.277 This difference in representation provides another example of the more expansive nature of the two-dimensional slaughtering theme.

Following the removal of the foreleg, the rest of the carcase was dismembered. This involved several steps, including flaying the skin, removing the viscera and jointing the pieces.270 Although these tasks do not feature prominently in wall scenes, they are sometimes specified directly and in other cases simply implied. On the south wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2), for example, the heart and ribs are piled on top of the body of the ox in the second register, indicating that the internal organs have been extracted even though the animal has not yet been sliced open [S142]. Alternatively, the task is more directly displayed on the west wall of the shrine of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha: the ox in the fourth register lies on its back with the forelegs already removed, blood spurting from the neck and the body sliced open with the ribcage visible [S216]. One butcher stands with his hands plunged inside the body, probably extracting the internal organs or heart.271 Models, in contrast, do not display these

An important feature of the representations across all stages of butchering is the positioning of the cattle. The animals were forced down and turned on their backs with their legs bound, immobilising them for slaughter.278 Due to the limited perspective of the two-dimensional medium, alternate viewpoints were combined in the portrayal of the ox in wall scenes so that each element could be easily recognised. An example of this may be seen on the north wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir: the ox in the third register lies on its back with one foreleg raised and the head turned over, yet the remaining legs are

  Even in the expansive slaughtering model of Meketre from Thebes, it is the task of slitting the throat that is portrayed rather than the removal of the foreleg: two oxen are slaughtered and all four legs of each animal are still attached and bound together. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 20.3.10. 268   The body has been coloured red at the joints to indicate the issuing blood resulting from the amputation. 269  Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 95; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 13-14, 21-22. 270   Sist, in Egyptian Civilization, 71; Ikram, in Materials and Technology, 657. 271  In other instances, the task of extracting the viscera is expressed through accompanying captions. On the south wall of Baqet III’s (15 UC) shrine, one of the butchers in the second register proclaims jr(.j) Sdt HAtj.f ‘I will cause its heart to be extracted’ [S88]. Although the figures are not completely preserved, it is possible that the man on the left has one arm inserted into the body and would therefore be the one performing this task. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, 47. Occasionally, dismemberment was achieved by removing the fore and hind legs simultaneously. In the second register of the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1), the legs of the first animal are unbound and held upright, with one man working on the foreleg and another on the hind leg [S138]. 267

  The red colouring of the upper surface may be indicative of the blood issuing from the severed limbs. 273   Graves-Brown has suggested that the sharpening motif was included to convey the expertise of the butcher. Graves-Brown, in Egyptology in the Present, 44-45. 274   The tool also appears as a sign in the butcher’s title. Montet, “Scènes de boucherie”, BIFAO 7, (1907), 48; Graves-Brown, in Egyptology in the Present, 45; Lund, in Egyptology in the Present, 114. 275   Lund, in Egyptology in the Present, 114. 276  In some scenes, the sharpening stone is still attached to the belt when in use. In that of Pepyankh the Black (A2), for example, the men sharpening knives pull the stones around their bodies with the cords still connected to the back of their kilts [S45; fig. 2.28]. 277   In a 5th Dynasty limestone statuette from Giza, however, a handle emerges from the top of the butcher’s belt which probably belongs to a sharpening stone. Museum of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: E10626. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 35-36. 278  Ikram, Choice Cuts, 44-45; Eyre, Cannibal Hymn, 88-89. 272

53

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 2.27. Slaughtering model of Gua (K-12); slitting the neck, transporting the severed legs and jointing the pieces [M272]. © The Trustees of the British Museum, London: EA 30718. All rights reserved.

bound as if it lies on its side [S8]. Models, alternatively, could depict a more realistic arrangement of the ox. In that of Khety-aa (575 LC) from Beni Hassan, the animal lies on its side with its legs brought together at the ankles and its head turned upside down [M201; fig. 2.30]. While this more natural positioning can be attributed to the holistic perspective of the medium, it may also be explained by the different stage represented. Scenes focus on the removal of the foreleg and so it is necessary for the joint to be held upright, whereas models depict the slitting of the throat and so could lie the ox on its side with all four legs together.

[S139].280 Models, on the other hand, had the advantage of utilising real string to bind the oxen’s legs. As such material elements could be easily lost or destroyed, it is probable that more models originally included this feature,281 but only one example is preserved from the corpus examined in this study: in a model from Meir, the hooves of the ox are brought together and the thread binds the ankles [M228]. The animal’s legs are particularly wellcarved with bends at the knees and clearly defined hooves. However, not all models exhibit this same level of detail. In some of the less finely carved oxen, the legs are fashioned as a single piece rather than carved individually. This can be witnessed in a model from the tomb of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) at Beni Hassan where the legs are clearly brought together at the ankles, but there is no space separating them from each other [M210]. The detail in bondage was certainly impacted by the skill of each individual artist as well as the capabilities of his medium, but the immobility of the oxen forms an essential element of the slaughtering theme and so is regularly portrayed.

The binding that secures the legs is another significant feature of the representations as it conveys the immobility of the cattle.279 This is particularly clear in the fourth register of the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir where the rope wrapped around the legs of each ox is particularly detailed and includes the knot tied at the end

  Not all scenes, however, display any bondage. In some instances, the legs of the ox are individually held upright, as is found on the east wall of the outer room of the tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5) at Deir el-Bersha where the animal lies on its back with its legs in the air [S64]. A similar situation is seen on the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan: the forelegs of the animal are unbound and held upright, but the positioning of the hind legs is unknown as the lower half of the body has been lost [S127]. 279

  The first two oxen on the left have all four legs bound, while the third has two and the fourth, three. 281   This is quite likely in one of the models of Khnum-nekhti and Netjernekhti (585 LC) where the paint around the ankles is highly worn, suggesting that some thread originally served as a bondage [M209]. 280

54

Food Production and Preparation Further differences between the media are noticeable in their portrayal of the butchers. In wall scenes, these men adopt a range of active stances as they carry out their tasks: they stride forward while standing upright,282 press one foot down on the animal,283 straddle the head,284 bend far forward,285 or kneel beside the beast.286 In the scene of Pepyankh the Black (A2), for example, the artist has encapsulated a wide variety of active stances, the majority of which express forward motion, but the man tightening the binding of the middle animal in the fourth register noticeably leans backwards and looks slightly up, suggesting he is pulling on the rope [S45; fig. 2.28]. The choice of posture often depends on the task performed, but it is clear that scene-artists could capture the active attitudes required during slaughtering. Models, in contrast, do not display the same range of movement as active stances were more difficult to craft in three-dimensions. The model butcher typically stands beside the neck and leans forward, either with his knees bent or one leg striding in front, as is exhibited by the man in the model of Seni (279 LC) from Beni Hassan [M290].287 This more static movement still enables the butcher’s task to be conveyed but does not create the same variety or expression that is achieved in scenes.

panel of the south wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the butcher working on the middle animal in the sixth register plunges a knife into the neck: the handle protrudes from the beast and exhibits intricate detail and terminates in a rounded knob [S163; fig. 2.29].289 The three-dimensional medium similarly displays knives both with and without defined handles. Mostly the knife is very basic in its shaping and in fact forms an extension of the arm. In the model of Khety-aa (575 LC), for example, the butcher extends his right arm towards the ox’s neck and as the blade forms the end of his arm, no handle has been fashioned [M201; fig. 2.30]. Alternatively, the knife could be carved as its own piece and inserted into the man’s grip, as is found in the model of Gua (K-12) [M272; fig. 2.27]. In this example, further detail has been added through a red-painted line along the blade to indicate blood. Such variation across both media conveys the range in skill of model- and scene-artists as well as the different knives utilised by butchers. The architectural setting of the slaughterhouse is not regularly specified in the representations, but both media occasionally incorporate elements that suggest butchering occurred within a specified area. The models could be arranged on baseboards surrounded by low walls, as is found in the model of Khety-aa (575 LC) [M201; fig. 2.30].290 This feature creates a defined environment for the slaughter and other food preparation activities. Archaeological investigation of architectural remains has suggested that butchering was conducted in open spaces surrounded by enclosure walls, and the models may indicate this environment.291 Alternatively, the slaughtering model of Meketre from Thebes comprises a complete architectural structure including four walls, a sloping roof, two levels and columns.292 In the lower area, men slaughter two oxen under the supervision of officials while two others prepare to cook the meat. In the upper section, joints of meat are suspended from two cords, possibly air-drying for preservation. It seems probable that this model depicts a facility that combines food storage and preparation rather than a structure simply used as a slaughterhouse.293

An aspect of similarity in the portrayal of the butcher is, however, found in the illustration of the knife. The basic shape of this principal tool is quite consistently depicted in the representations, comprising a straight back, curved blade and pointed tip.288 However, there is significant variety among both media in the amount of detail incorporated, particularly in relation to the handle. In scenes, the blade can simply be held in the hand without any definition of a handle, as is found in the fourth register of the south wall of Senbi I’s (B1) tomb [S139], but in other examples the handle is well-defined. On the west   The man holding the knife in the scene of Pepi (D1), for example, stands upright while stepping forward with his right leg, but as he stands on the far side of the animal, his lower legs are hidden from view [S21]. He extends one arm to hold the foreleg and lowers the other arm to angle the knife against the joint. 283   On the east wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan, two men work on an animal in the third register of the centre panel: each man presses one foot down on the animal, presumably to restrain the legs [S52]. 284   In the fourth register of the north wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2), the butcher straddles the head and leans over the body in order to reach the hind legs [S8]. 285   The man positioned before the head of the leftmost animal in the fifth register of the west wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) leans his whole body forward to reach over the animal and pushes down on the horn with one hand; his knees are bent and his heels are raised, indicating physical strain [S213]. 286   On the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1), the butcher who slits the throat of the second ox from the left in the fourth register kneels beside the head with only his near leg on display [S139]. 287   An exception is found in the model of Gua (K-12) where the butcher engaged in slitting the throat sits with both knees bent up in front and his feet flat on the baseboard [M272; fig. 2.27]. 288   Both flint and metal knives were used, although the latter were more expensive and difficult to work. Discerning between the two materials in representations can be difficult, but the presence of sharpening stones indicates with certainty the use of flint knives. Additionally, the shape of the knife underwent transformation during the Old and Middle Kingdoms. Eggebrecht, Schlachtungsbräuche, 111; Ikram, Choice Cuts, 63-65, 70. 282

Wall scenes, in contrast, do not specify a complete slaughterhouse, but some examples do include specific architectural elements. Columns or pillars appear in some Old and Middle Kingdom scenes in association with the task of drying meat and only occasionally with butchering   A similar tool is used on the fifth animal from the left in the lowest register of the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan [S194]. 290   Two other examples of enclosure walls were identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan [M187, M228]. The wall in the model of Nefwa (186 LC), however, only occupies most of one side of the baseboard rather than surrounding the entire group [M187]. 291   Arnold, in Structure and Significance, 15. 292  The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 20.3.10. A similar, although smaller, slaughterhouse is found in a model of unknown provenance now housed in the Museum of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: E11197. It likewise has upper and lower levels, with slaughtering taking place in the latter, but there is no roof or columns. 293   Arnold, in Structure and Significance, 56, 62-63. 289

55

Preparing for Eternity

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

56

Food Production and Preparation their close proximity in the representations indicates that they shared a similar function in the tomb. Consequently, the role of slaughtering in the three-dimensional repertoire was to provide a source of food for the deceased alongside bread and beer. In contrast, the slaughtering wall scenes examined do not display association with bread-making and brewing, but rather with ritual activities.297 The vast majority of examples are closely connected with the offering-table scene.298 In the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), two of these scenes occupy the south wall: on the east panel is one dedicated to the tomb owner [S161] and on the west panel, one to his wife [S163]. Before each figure are six registers of activities, the upper five of which are devoted to the offering-list, the performance of ceremony and offeringbearers, and the sixth to the slaughter of animals. It is clear that these beasts are intended for the table with the entire wall concentrated on the presentation of offerings to the tomb owner and his wife.299 Although slaughtering regularly occurs in group models, only rarely is it associated with offering-bearers, with only one example identified in this study. In one of the models of Khnumnekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC), two large female offering-bearers stand behind the slaughtered ox [M209]. However, the goods they carry are not joints of meat, but rather other items including containers that presumably hold bread and beer produced by the other workers in the model. Although this slaughter is associated with the presentation of offerings, the focus is once again on the provision of food instead of any ritual significance.

Figure 2.29. One figure sharpens the knife while the other slits the neck of a bound ox, with blood dripping from the wound. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). South wall, west panel, register 6 [S163]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 108 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

and jointing.294 For example, in the middle of the east wall of Baqet III’s (15 UC) shrine, various joints of meat hang from a light wooden structure supported by two decorative columns [S87]. The rarity of complete architectural structures in the representations suggests these were not considered essential in portraying the theme, but the incorporation of some structural elements enables both media to convey a designated area for tasks associated with slaughtering.

Not only is meat presented as an offering to the tomb owner in scenes associated with slaughtering, but the presentation of the foreleg is given particular prominence in the two-

The environment of the slaughter is, however, conveyed in greater detail by its association with other themes. Both media surround their representations of slaughtering with other activities, but there is a clear contrast in the type of themes selected. This consequently alters the significance of the slaughtering theme. In the three-dimensional medium, slaughtering regularly forms part of group models that also display figures engaged in the preparation of bread and beer.295 In the model of Khety-aa (575 LC), these three food processing activities are mixed together with little empty space [M201; fig. 2.30], whereas in the model of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) from Beni Hassan, the figures are confined to their own groups across the baseboard, with bread-making on the left, brewing in the middle and slaughtering on the right [M218]. This combination of different themes is not a technique commonly utilised by model-artists, so its employment here is of particular note. Although it is unlikely that all three processes actually occurred in the same location,296

 In only one scene examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan is any association portrayed between slaughtering and the preparation of bread and beer: on the west wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC), both slaughtering and grinding grain are illustrated in the first register of the lower section, but they are separated by the false door which again holds great ritual connotation [S105, S107]. 298   In an unusual portrayal on the east wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC), slaughtering is not associated with the offering-table, but is rather positioned in the bottom right corner of a large wrestling and military scene [S96]. However, the presence of an offering-list immediately above the slaughter and the performance of a ritual before a statue of the tomb owner in the adjacent vignette still gives the scene ritual significance. Eyre, Cannibal Hymn, 53. 299   Similar representations are found in several other tombs examined in this study. On the east wall of the tomb of Baqet II (33 UC) at Beni Hassan, for example, a slaughtering vignette appears among a line of offering-bearers who process towards a large seated figure of the owner before an offering-table [S60]. Although the table scene was not recorded by Newberry, traces of it still remain quite visible, as was observed during a visit by the author to the site. In the tomb of Ramushenti (27 UC) at Beni Hassan, the offering-table scene is likewise depicted on the east wall, and the partial remains of what is probably a slaughtering scene appear in the lowest register [S62]. Similarly, on the west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC), the slaughter is positioned immediately below the small offering-table scene in the first and second registers of the west wall [S83]. Two slaughtering vignettes are positioned at the head of a procession of offering-bearers on the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) immediately before a seated figure of the tomb owner at the offering-table which occupies the height of the first and second registers [S138]. 297

 Ikram, Choice Cuts, 82-84; Arnold, in Structure and Significance, 17; Arnold, in Servant of Mut, 6. 295   In only three examples examined does slaughtering appear on its own baseboard [M196, M272, M290; see figs. 2.26, 2.27]. 296   Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 230.

294

57

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 2.30. Food preparation model of Khety-aa (575 LC); pounding grain, grinding grain, baking bread, carrying water, straining beer-mash and slitting the neck of an ox; baseboard surrounded by low walls with an opening in one side [M201]. © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2312.

dimensional medium.300 This joint lay at the heart of the funerary ritual and held great symbolic significance.301 Its status as the prized joint is demonstrated by its regular appearance as the first offering in procession and its frequent presentation to the tomb owner by his eldest son.302 On the north wall of the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1), the slaughtering vignettes appear at the end of long lines of offering-bearers [S22]. The leading six bearers in the lowest register are of higher status than the other figures as indicated by their shoulder-length wigs, sashes and titles, and each carries a foreleg. On the east panel of this wall, immediately to the right of the slaughter, the eldest son presents a foreleg to a large standing figure

of his father.303 The emphasis on the foreleg in both its removal and presentation promotes the ritual significance of the slaughtering theme in the two-dimensional medium. As noted above, the task of removing the foreleg is not depicted in models and so the emphasis on the foreleg exhibited in wall scenes is absent in the three-dimensional medium. However, in the slaughtering model of Gua (K12), greater emphasis is given to the foreleg [M272; fig. 2.27]. Not only have the two oxen already had a foreleg removed, but three of the men transport the joint towards the workbench at the centre of the model for further processing.304 As this representation is not combined with other food preparation processes, it is possible that it does share some of the ritual connotation prevalent in scenes, but the rarity of this motif demonstrates that the ritual role of slaughtering was not considered as significant in the three-dimensional medium.

  Joints of meat regularly feature among the piles of goods laden on and around the offering-table, and on the south wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4), the foreleg occupies the prime position on top of the reeds/bread loaves [S187]. 301  Wilson, Food and Drink, 35; Gordon & Schwabe, in Proceedings of the Seventh ICE, 469; Eyre, Cannibal Hymn, 53-54; Teeter, Religion and Ritual, 141-42. 302  As will be discussed in chapter 3.2, model offering-bearers very rarely carry forelegs, with only one example identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan [M48]. Spencer, Death, 54; Swinton, in Behind the Scenes, 38. 300

  The caption identifies the bearer as zA.f smsw ‘his eldest son’. Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, 42. 304   It is possible that at least one of the other figures facing the centre of the model originally carried a foreleg as one of his arms has broken off while the other is lowered in a similar attitude to that adopted by the other men. 303

58

Food Production and Preparation Further ritual connotation could be provided in wall scenes through the careful choice of location in the chapel. Scenes of slaughtering sometimes appear near the false door, as is found on the east wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan. Here, two slaughtering vignettes are displayed: one in the register beneath the offering-table scene [S52] and the other to the right of the false door [S53]. Alternatively, the scenes could be positioned in the offering-room, as is found in the chapel of Pepyankh the Black (A2) where 10 vignettes of slaughtering are displayed on the east wall of room 5 below two registers of offerings [S45].305 Both the false door and offeringroom are closely connected to the mortuary cult, and these choices of location highlight the sacred nature of the slaughter.306 In contrast, models were housed in the burial chamber which was inaccessible to the living and therefore were more concerned with nourishing the deceased in the afterlife rather than contributing to the mortuary cult practised by the living in the chapel.

Representations of slaughtering cattle are certainly important in the funerary artistic repertoire, featuring prominently in both the two- and three-dimensional media. Wall scenes illustrate a greater number of stages involved in the process and create a livelier portrayal of the actions, but they largely concentrate on the task of removing the foreleg. Models, on the other hand, typically present a more condensed portrayal with limited variety in the attitudes of the butchers and oxen, and emphasise the alternate task of slitting the throat. This distinction in emphasis changes the significance of the slaughtering theme. Wall scenes highlight the ritual nature of the slaughter which is further supplemented by the surrounding scenes of offeringbearers and the offering-table. Models, instead, emphasise the provision of beef by creating close association with other food preparation activities. Positioned in the chapel, slaughtering scenes formed a significant part of the mortuary cult, whereas slaughtering models, housed in the burial chamber, primarily served to nourish the deceased in the afterlife.

Although discerning between representations of sacred and secular slaughter is not always possible, the incorporation of inscriptions can make this distinction clear.307 A range of texts appear in slaughtering wall scenes, including the names, titles and conversations of the butchers, labels for the animals and explanatory captions,308 as well as texts that specifically associate the butchery with ritual.309 On the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan, one of the men in the first butchering vignette on the left of the fifth register exclaims xws nfr hrw m-a.k jp dpHt-Htp ‘cut up, how happy is the day with your charge; assemble the funerary meal’, while a caption between the third and fourth animals reads mAa n kA.f ‘making presentation to his ka’ [S194].310 These inscriptions demonstrate that the slaughter is performed in order to acquire funerary offerings for the deceased. As models could not integrate inscriptions like wall scenes, text only rarely appears in the three-dimensional medium. None of the slaughtering models include any form of text, causing the activities and purpose of the slaughter to only be conveyed graphically.

2.7 Cooking meat The final stage in the production of meat involves cooking, a theme that is represented by both the two- and threedimensional media. Although the earlier processes largely centre on the preparation of cattle for consumption, the representations of cooking meat primarily focus on poultry. The meat of oxen was restricted to the tables of the highest elite, whereas fowl formed a significant part of the diet of all Egyptians.311 Birds were plentiful along the Nile and could be easily caught by any individual for consumption.312 The representations indicate that fowl were thrust on a spit and roasted over a brazier by a cook who used a fan to maintain the heat. This theme appears quite commonly in wall scenes with 12 examples identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan and an additional four scenes that display the alternate task of cooking beef. Although it is not as prominent in the repertoire of models, cooking is one of the earliest themes to appear in the three-dimensional medium.313 Statuettes of men roasting birds are known from as early as the 5th Dynasty and examples are found into the early Middle Kingdom.314 Two Old Kingdom and three Middle Kingdom model fowl roasters were examined in this study, with the

  The other walls of this offering-room are likewise closely associated with the presentation of offerings: on the south wall is the offering-list, provisions of food and drink, and offering-bearers; on the west wall is the false door and the tomb owner seated before an offering-table; and on the north wall is another offering-table scene with piles of provisions and bearers presenting offerings [S44-S47]. 306  Eyre, Cannibal Hymn, 187; Staring, in Old Kingdom, New Perspectives, 262. 307  Ikram, Choice Cuts, 43-44; Bussman, in Egyptian Art, 102. 308   A range of these texts is integrated into the butchery vignettes on the south wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). On the east panel of the wall, the conversation of the butchers in the third group from the left of the sixth register is recorded: the one on the right says sxA(x) jwf-n-Hat n kA.f mAa ‘hasten (with) the fillet for his righteous ka’, to which his companion responds jrjj(.j) Hst.k wrt ‘I will do what you praise greatly’ [S161]. On the west panel of the wall, the middle ox is labelled rn n wnDw ‘prime short-horned ox’ while the two men working on it are both captioned jmj-r st ‘overseer of a storehouse’ [S163]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, 51-52. 309   Not all slaughtering scenes include textual captions. See, for example, S7, S87, S96, S100, S107. 310   Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 68. 305

 Brewer, Redford & Redford, Domestic Plants and Animals, 16; Ikram, Choice Cuts, 24. 312   The captured birds were not always killed immediately but could be kept in poultry yards until required. This enabled them to be available all year round and not just in the migratory season. Ikram, Choice Cuts, 24; Houlihan, in Oxford Encyclopedia, ; Ikram, Ancient Egypt, 236-37. 313   Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 4-5; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 226. 314   The theme is in fact the only meat production activity represented by the three-dimensional medium during the late Old Kingdom. Slaughtering models are known from the 4th and 5th Dynasties in roughly the same quantity as fowl roasters but are absent from the 6th Dynasty repertoire. During the First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom, however, slaughtering becomes more prevalent and cooking is less commonly attested. Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 34; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 226, 258. 311

59

Preparing for Eternity earlier examples comprising single statuettes and the latter forming part of group models. These three-dimensional representations display many similarities with wall scenes, but differences are discerned in the execution of minute details as well as the range of motifs depicted.

use of perspective. Models, crafted in three-dimensions, present a holistic view of the artwork, with each element arranged in a realistic fashion. Consequently, the bird could lie flat over the brazier with the whole body still visible, as is seen in a model of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) [M13; fig. 2.31]. In contrast, scene-artists worked in a two-dimensional perspective and accordingly depicted each element in its most recognisable form. This created a composite image with objects portrayed from different viewpoints displayed in the same scene and even different perspectives combined within a single object or figure.321 In relation to roasting, the head of the bird is displayed in profile while the body is shown from the top-down, as is found in the second register of the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir [S9; fig. 2.33]. Such a combined viewpoint enabled scene-artists to overcome the limitation of perspective in their medium by illustrating features that would in reality be hidden from view.

During roasting, the bird was thrust lengthways onto a spit through either the head or tail end and held horizontally over a brazier.315 The representations regularly indicate that the head, feet and wing-tips were removed.316 On the south wall of the shrine of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan, the three birds being roasted in the lowest register exhibit rounded bodies with four short protrusions signifying the docked legs and wings and with no presence of a head [S88]. Not all of the models examined preserve the bird, but in one of the examples of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) from Meir, it adopts the same portrayal with four bulges carved around the edges of the body [M13; fig. 2.31]. Alternatively, in a number of wall scenes, the head is still attached, and is either thrust along the stick or hangs down.317 Unusually, some model fragments found in tomb L-16L25/1A at Deir el-Bersha feature two birds connected to spits who still have their heads connected [M282].318 One of the birds, which has the spit through the rear, has the head upright with the legs hanging down and the feet still attached. Its body displays a painted pattern marking the feathers, suggesting it has not yet been plucked. The second bird, which is stuck through the neck, has a whole wing carved on the side of the body. These elements suggest that the birds have not been fully prepared for cooking, and almost look as if they are still living.319 This is particularly unusual for the roasting theme and limits the realism of the representation but was perhaps selected to ensure that the birds were easily identifiable.

The difficulties encountered in the two-dimensional perspective are further witnessed in the portrayal of the brazier. The side-view is the most characteristic perspective of this item and so scenes display it in profile. Most of the illustrations simply depict it from this angle, as is found in the second register of the east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir, but this perspective caused the interior to remain hidden [S36]. In other instances, scene-artists adapted their designs in order to depict the coals stored within. On the east wall of the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) and the south wall of the shrine of Baqet III (15 UC), the coals are represented as a series of small circles along the upper surface of the brazier even though this positioning does not correspond with reality [S23, S88].322 Alternatively, the scene-artist of the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) at Meir has dissected the brazier in the second register to maintain the profile perspective while enabling the coals filling the interior to be seen [S185; fig. 2.32]. The rim of the dish is coloured blue while the middle is painted red with black dots to indicate the coals. Models, on the other hand, had the advantage of displaying both the side and top of the brazier without compromising the perspective. The two roasting models of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) depict a mound of coals on top of the brazier, with one comprising a rounded bulge decorated with black dots [M14], and the other featuring individually carved coals painted red and black [M13; fig. 2.31]. The three-dimensional perspective of funerary models enabled a holistic representation of each component, whereas scene-artists were required to modify the arrangement if they desired to depict both the interior and exterior of a single object.

Although the positioning of the bird directly over the brazier is consistent across the representations,320 a distinction is noticeable between the two media in the  Wilson, Food and Drink, 53; Alcock, Food, 104.   Ikram, in Materials and Technology, 658. 317   On the east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir, for example, the bird roasted in the second register has its head thrust along the stick facing the man [S36]. Alternatively, both birds in the first register of the east wall of the tomb of Baqet II (33 UC) at Beni Hassan have the spit thrust through the body-cavity, with the head hanging down [S60]. Ikram, “Food for eternity, part 1”, KMT 5.1, (1994), 32. 318  These fragments were discovered by the KU Leuven expedition alongside a model fan. They may have originally belonged to either one or two roasting models, and although fragmentary, are incorporated into this study due to the limited number of extant examples of roasted birds and the interesting details they exhibit. Willems, et al., “Preliminary report of the 2003 campaign”, MDAIK 62, (2006), 327-28; De Meyer, in World of Middle Kingdom Egypt. Volume II, 95. 319   It could be suggested that these fragments originate from offeringbearer models, but this seems improbable as bearers carry fowl by the wings while these birds are attached to spits through the head or tail end, as is typical of the roasting theme. De Meyer, in World of Middle Kingdom Egypt. Volume II, 95. 320   In the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan, the lower section of the west wall, where the roasting fowl vignette is positioned, is poorly preserved, causing the brazier to be lost [S106]. However, considering that the cook holds the spit horizontally before him, it can be assumed that the brazier was placed in the typical position on the register line directly beneath the bird. 315 316

The coals in the brazier needed constant fanning to remain hot and the cook is characteristically portrayed engaged  Robins, Proportion and Style, 3; Kanawati & Woods, Artists in the Old Kingdom, 30; Peck, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 363. 322  The brazier in the scene of Niankh-pepy-kem is shared by two cooks, whereas the scene of Baqet III displays two braziers, but only one incorporates the coals. 321

60

Food Production and Preparation

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

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

61

Preparing for Eternity in this task.323 In wall scenes, the fan is consistently held above the brazier and angled down,324 as is found on the east wall of the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) where the two fans are particularly detailed with lines marking the individual fibres [S23]. It is probable that this almost vertical position not only conveyed the fanning motion, but also enabled the whole tool to be seen in the twodimensional perspective. Models portray a fan of the same design,325 but provide more variation in the angle at which it is held. The cook seated on board a model boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) from Deir el-Bersha lowers his right arm towards the brazier and similarly holds the fan above it [M130]. However, unlike scenes, the fan is held almost horizontally, but with the three-dimensional perspective, the entire tool can still be seen. Alternatively, in one of the models of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1), the fan is held upright near the face [M13; fig. 2.31]. Although this positioning could indicate that the cook has not yet begun his task, it may also suggest that the tool was used to provide protection from the heat and/or glare. This function is attested in only one of the scenes examined, namely that on the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4), but here, the fowl roaster in the second register does not employ a fan, but rather holds an open hand immediately in front of his face [S185; fig. 2.32]. The variation witnessed in the positioning of the fan in three-dimensions demonstrates that model-artists did not simply copy the designs of scenes but created individual representations according to their medium’s specific technical abilities.

tomb of Meniu (E1) at Meir [S1], or positioned slightly ahead, as is achieved in the second register of the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) [S9; fig. 2.33]. Some of the scenes display the cook in a kneeling attitude with the far knee bent up in front and the near one folded over, as is found in the upper register of the east wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan [S52]. A standing posture is unusually adopted by one of the cooks in the scene of Ukh-hotep II (B4): although only partially preserved, the middle figure in the third register steps forward with one leg and leans over with both arms lowered while holding a spit and fan [S185; fig. 2.32].328 These variations in posture create greater variety among the two-dimensional representations and enable both legs to remain in view. While most cooking representations merely depict the actual roasting, some wall scenes present a more expansive illustration by portraying the preparatory stages. These tasks include wringing the neck, plucking the feathers and removing the internal organs and extremities.329 On the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2), two naked men sit back-to-back in the second register [S9; fig. 2.33]. Each man holds a bird and conducts a different preliminary activity: the one on the left wrings the neck while the one on the right plucks the feathers. Once prepared, these birds will be passed to the two cooks on the right of the register for roasting. Similarly, in the shrine of Baqet III (15 UC), the preparation of birds is displayed, although it is largely kept distinct from cooking: two fowl roasters operate on the south wall, with one man plucking the feathers in between, while four men are engaged in further preparatory activities on the east wall [S87-S88].330 In each of these tombs, the scene-artist has devoted more wall space to the theme, enabling the depiction of subsidiary tasks in addition to the characteristic motif.

The characteristic posture of the cook engaged in roasting is likewise captured in both the two- and three-dimensional media. He is typically seated on the ground with his feet flat and both knees bent up in front.326 The man in one of the models of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) is particularly wellcarved: he sits upright at one end of the baseboard with his knees bent quite close to his chest [M13; fig. 2.31]. His legs are individually formed below the kilt instead of simply being painted and his feet are modelled on the base with the toes and toenails defined.327 This posture is likewise adopted in a number of scenes, but the two-dimensional perspective caused the far leg to either be concealed from view, as is found in the first register of the west wall of the

The three-dimensional medium, in contrast, largely excludes these preparatory processes, instead presenting a more condensed representation. All of the examples examined in this study solely display the cook before a brazier without any preliminary stages. However, examples from other sites occasionally portray these activities. In the slaughterhouse model of Meketre from Thebes, for example, a figure seated by the door is plucking

 Klebs, Reliefs des Alten Reiches, 77; Wilson, Food and Drink, 53.  Only one wall scene examined depicts the fan held at a slightly different angle: on the east wall of the tomb of Baqet II (33 UC), the fan is positioned to the side of the brazier but is still angled down towards the coals [S60]. This alternate arrangement is probably due to the presence of a short sub-register immediately above which restricts the amount of available space over the brazier. Additionally, the fan is not preserved in the scene of Khety (17 UC) but was presumably gripped in the cook’s lowered right hand [S106]. If so, the fan is unusually not held above the fowl, but rather alongside the brazier. As the fan is not preserved, it cannot be determined what perspective the scene-artist used to depict the tool in this lowered position. 325  The fan in one of the models of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) similarly distinguishes the individual fronds through painted lines [M13; fig. 2.31]. 326  Ikram, Choice Cuts, 74-75. 327   The lower body of seated model figures is more commonly carved as a single block with the legs simply painted red on the white kilt, as is exhibited by the cook on the model boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M130]. 323

 Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, 31.   The task of removing the viscera is not explicitly displayed in scenes, but it is often indicated that birds presented as offerings have already had their internal organs extracted. Immediately above the cooking scenes on the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4), several men in the first register carry a large tray loaded with food items including poultry [S185]. A vertical incision is visible on the bellies of the birds indicating that their entrails have already been removed. Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, 30; Ikram, Choice Cuts, 57-61; Ikram, in Materials and Technology, 658. 330   The figures of the men on the east wall are not entirely preserved, so their action cannot be determined with certainty. It is quite likely that they are also engaged in plucking, but it is also possible that they are cutting the heads, feet and wing-tips. This scene should be understood in association with that of roasting fowl on the south wall even though they are separated onto different walls. Both are positioned in the shrine where the scenes are devoted to producing meat for the tomb owner’s table. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, 47, 50.

324

328 329

62

Food Production and Preparation

Figure 2.33. Wringing the neck, plucking feathers, roasting fowl and hanging cuts of meat. Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2). East wall, north panel, register 2 [S9]. Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pl. 79 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

a bird.331 Unusually, this is the only motif related to cooking poultry represented in the model and therefore symbolises the whole operation. Alternatively, in an Old Kingdom limestone statuette from Giza, a single figure is cutting up a bird.332 The man appears alone, occupying the entire space of the small baseboard, causing the motif to likewise be representative of cooking. Although the artists of these models have unusually chosen a preparatory stage to convey the cooking process, it is clear that the three-dimensional medium devotes a more limited amount of space to the theme than wall scenes. In such condensed representations, the final task of roasting was most commonly selected as it formed the culmination of the process and provided the deceased tomb owner with meat ready for consumption.

kneels before a cauldron placed above a pile of hot coals with the pieces of meat residing on top.336 Cooking beef is rarely attested in the three-dimensional medium but is sometimes found in association with slaughtering models.337 In one corner of the slaughtering model of Khety (366 LC) from Beni Hassan, a man stands while leaning over a circular dish, perhaps a cauldron, elevated by three legs [M196; fig. 2.26]. His attention is directed towards the space beneath, with one hand lowering a long stick.338 As no items have been specified on top of the dish, his precise role is uncertain, but it is possible that he is cooking the joints of meat obtained in the slaughter while stoking the flame underneath.339 In both the two- and three-dimensional media, slaughtering was apparently the preferred motif for the preparation of beef for consumption, while cooking was favoured for fowl. The reasons for this contrast in representation are difficult to determine, but for scenes, the ritual significance of the slaughter was presumably more essential for display in the

Further expansion upon the theme was occasionally achieved through the illustration of cooking the meat of oxen. While it may be expected that this motif would feature prominently due to the common display of slaughtering cattle, it is in fact rarely represented.333 Only four wall scenes were identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan to depict this process, yet they do illustrate the range of cooking methods employed [S60, S106, S165, S185]. Like poultry, beef could be prepared through roasting, although illustrations of this method are particularly rare.334 One example is found alongside the fowl roaster in the second register of the scene of Ukh-hotep II (B4): two men stand on either side of a large brazier, rotating a whole ox on a spit [S185; fig. 2.32]. The method of boiling, alternatively, is more commonly displayed.335 On the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan, the motif is confined to a single compartment in the fourth register [S165]. Here, a cook

 As witnessed in the representation of coals on top of the brazier in roasting poultry scenes, the pieces of meat should be understood as residing within the cauldron. Another example of boiling is found behind the preparation of fowl in the first register of the east wall of the tomb of Baqet II (33 UC) where the cook stands beside a cauldron while using a stick to arrange several joints of meat [S60]. Boiling also appears to be displayed in the fourth register of the lower section of the west wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC), but in this case the cauldron has been dissected, allowing the interior to be seen [S106]. The food items being cooked within are difficult to identify with certainty, but it is possible they are pieces of meat, perhaps a rack of ribs. 337   Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 223. 338   A hole is also pierced through his clenched right hand, but the object he originally held has been lost. 339  Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, 106. A similar example is found in a slaughtering model from Asyut where one man stands facing a brazier. He angles a fan towards it, suggesting he is heating the coals for cooking. As in the model of Khety, there is no clear indication of the item being cooked, but the location of the brazier beside the slaughter of an ox and the posture of the man suggest it could be pieces of beef. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 04.1781. Alternatively, two men sit beside cauldrons and fan the flame in the slaughterhouse model of Meketre from Thebes. These vessels are most likely used to cook the blood of the oxen. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 20.3.10. Gilbert, “Zooarchaeological observations”, JEA 74, (1988), 79; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 223. 336

  The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 20.3.10.   This model was found in tomb G 2088 at Giza and may be dated to the 4th-5th Dynasties. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 38.2147. 333   Sist, in Egyptian Civilization, 71. 334  Darby, Ghalioungui & Grivetti, Food. Volume 1, 150-52; Ikram, “Food for eternity, part 1”, KMT 5.1, (1994), 32. 335   Brewer, in History of the Animal World, 438; Alcock, Food, 105-06. 331 332

63

Preparing for Eternity cult area than cooking, whereas for models, the slaughter provided a whole ox ready to be divided and prepared according to the deceased’s needs in the afterlife.

of the shrine of Baqet III (15 UC) are devoted to meat provisions, with the scenes displaying rows of offerings, the roasting of fowl and slaughtering oxen before a large seated figure of the tomb owner at an offering-table [S87S88]. The expansive nature of the wall surface enabled scene-artists to carefully arrange several themes on a single wall and subsequently convey the precise context of each activity. The wide variety of scenes associated with cooking highlights the prominence of the task in everyday life and in ritual practices.

The context of the cooking theme is regularly conveyed by its association with other activities in the representations, a technique particularly significant in the two-dimensional medium. Scenes of roasting fowl are often closely associated with the everyday life task of fowling with a clap-net. In both the tombs of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) and Niankh-pepy-kem (A1), the cooking of poultry is displayed in the second register of the east wall in between two different stages of clap-netting [S9, S23].340 This provides a clear progression of events involved in the acquisition and roasting of fowl. Alternatively, cooking scenes can appear alongside other food preparation activities, especially the manufacture of bread and beer. On the east wall of the tomb of Pepi (D1) at Meir, a fowl roaster is depicted in the first register while the two lower rows are devoted to brewing and bread-making tasks [S20].341 This combination of scenes highlights the important role fowl played in providing nourishment.

Fowl roasting models could likewise portray connections with other themes, although they exhibit a much more restricted range of activities. The two fowl roasters of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) are fashioned as single figures on individual baseboards and therefore do not display any association with other activities [M13-M14; see fig. 2.31]. This design should be explained by the early date of the model owner. During the 4th and 5th Dynasties, threedimensional serving figures comprised single statuettes, but in the late 6th Dynasty, pairs and small group models began to appear.345 The assemblage of Niankh-pepykem, dated to the reign of Pepy II, forms an example of this transition period, predominantly consisting of single figures but with a few pairs and a group of three.346 Consequently, the cooking models occur alone as this was the practice of the period.

On the other hand, cooking could occasionally convey ritual significance through close association with scenes of the offering-table or slaughtering.342 An unusual arrangement is found on the south wall of the tomb of Ipi (481 LC) at Beni Hassan where the fowl roaster is positioned on top of the reeds/bread loaves lining the offering-table [S7]. Although this precise placement is presumably due to a lack of available space,343 it does provide a clear connection between the roasted poultry and the other food presented for the funerary meal.344 Similarly, the east and south walls

However, group models of the Middle Kingdom had the ability to combine multiple themes. Although this technique is not commonly utilised in the threedimensional repertoire, it appears most regularly in the theme of food preparation, and indeed, fowl roasters are known from such group models. In a bread-making and brewing model likely from Deir el-Bersha, a fowl roaster is seated in one corner of the baseboard [M260].347 Several figures are involved in the production processes and all are closely arranged with little empty space. This close association with the production of bread and beer conveys that fowl roasting was valued in the threedimensional medium for its contribution to the deceased’s nourishment.348 Unusually, a cook is also found on board

  These two scenes display many similarities, particularly in relation to the layout of the wall. The artist of Niankh-pepy-kem’s scene was certainly influenced by, if not copied, the scene of Pepyankh the Middle. The placement of the final task of cooking between the two earlier stages of fowling is certainly unusual and seems to have been designed in order to position the presentation of fowl at the eye-level of the large standing figure of Pepyankh the Middle at the north end of the wall. This arrangement of registers was adopted in the later tomb of Niankh-pepykem even though the presentation of fowl was rather aligned with the tomb owner’s chest. Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, 4345; Lashien, Nobles of El-Qusiya, 190-91. 341  The upper register is not well-preserved, with an empty space immediately behind the cook which presumably contained a second figure who may have conducted an additional food preparation activity. A similar arrangement is found in the second register of the east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) where two figures immediately opposite the fowl roaster are apparently engaged in preparing dough for baking [S36]. The brazier is quite large with empty space on top beside the bird possibly for the placement of loaves. The precise identity of the items held by the two men is not certain, but it seems that the standing youth is being instructed to place his piece on the fire: the seated figure commands dj xpr nw njs.k r nfrw r wnm t ‘let this be done, that you may call the young men to eat the bread’, to which the boy responds jrjj(.j) ‘I will do’. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, 51. 342  Eyre, Cannibal Hymn, 105-06. 343  Lashien, Beni Hassan. Volume II, 28. 344  A second, although unusual, example may be found in the fourth register of the east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) [S36]. A fowl roaster appears in a short sub-register immediately before a scene of the painter Iri seated at a table laden with food. The fowl is certainly intended for the table but unusually not for the tomb owner. 340

 Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 2-3; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 229; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 138, 148. 346  Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 11-12; Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, 18. 347   The man holds a fan in his right hand, but the spit has been lost from his left. However, a hole in his left hand indicates one was originally grasped. The brazier is unusually positioned behind him, but this should most probably be attributed to incorrect restoration, with either the man facing the opposite direction or the brazier and cook pegged into each other’s holes. 348   Group models from other sites likewise associate cooking with food preparation. In a model from the tomb of Gemni at Saqqara, a man roasting a bird appears alongside two figures engaged in bread-making and one in brewing. The figure grinding grain, however, has been lost from the model. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin: ÄM 1366. Similarly, in a model from the tomb of Gemniemhat at Saqqara, the production of meat, bread and beer are all portrayed, but the activities are divided into separate rooms: bread-making and brewing are spread across two sections and meat processing is confined to the third. In this final compartment, three figures are engaged in slaughtering an ox while a fourth is seated beside 345

64

Food Production and Preparation a model boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M130]. Here, he is the only figure engaged in food processing, but he is accompanied by two sealed beer-jars and two baskets presumably storing bread. This food probably provided sustenance for the crew across the large model fleet.349 The three-dimensional medium does not portray the array of associations for the cooking theme that is encountered in wall scenes, but rather emphasises a connection with other food preparation tasks. Located in the burial chamber, models provisioned the deceased in the afterlife and so the importance of the cooking theme lay in its ability to supply an eternal source of food.

Three-dimensional representations of fishing and fowling as a profession, however, are particularly rare. Two model boats from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) at Deir el-Bersha have been classified as representations of fowling,353 but it will be outlined below why this categorisation should be reconsidered [M82-M83; see fig. 2.35]. Each comprises a wooden watercraft operated by crewmen which has two birds simply lying amidships. Only a single model fishing boat has been identified from the three sites investigated in this study, and this belongs to Khety-aa (575 LC) from Beni Hassan [M202; fig. 2.37]. No fishing operations are performed, but the associated equipment is displayed on board. Alternatively, fishing is directly undertaken in two model boats from the tomb of Meketre at Thebes, and as these models are unique in their depiction, they will be briefly considered here.354 The rarity of fishing and fowling among the three-dimensional medium is noticeable and forms a distinct contrast from the abundant two-dimensional illustrations.

Representations of cooking display many similarities between the two- and three-dimensional media, with both depicting the characteristic motif of a man roasting a bird on a spit over a brazier. However, there are also several minute differences in representation that result from the individual technical capabilities of each medium. In particular, the three-dimensional representations benefited from a holistic perspective that captured a realistic arrangement of each component, whereas scene-artists were required to adapt their designs for each element to be easily recognised in the two-dimensional perspective. On the other hand, scenes could more easily devote greater space to the theme and could consequently expand upon the characteristic motif by illustrating some of the preparatory stages and integrating it into a wider variety of scene-types. The typically more condensed portrayal of models was principally concerned with conveying the theme’s contribution to a sufficient food supply which was imperative in the burial chamber for the deceased’s eternal sustenance.

In wall scenes, fowling as a profession characteristically comprises a team of men operating a clap-net.355 The typical illustration is exhibited in the sixth register of the south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan: the hexagonal net lies in a marshy area while the fowlers hold the rope connected to it, awaiting the order to pull from the signalman who is camouflaged in a clump of papyrus [S82; fig. 2.34].356 Sometimes an early stage of the process is displayed with the men in static, upright postures,357 while in other instances the pull has already begun with the fowlers in a range of vigorous stances.358 Often more than one fowling scene is incorporated into the chapel’s decoration, sometimes showing successive stages of movement.359 On the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2)

2.8 Fishing and fowling

 D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 115; Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 173; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, “Model of a fowling boat”, viewed 2 January 2020, , . 354  The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 20.3.6; Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46715. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pls. 51-52. 355   In one exception, women are engaged in this task instead of men, namely in the fifth register of the south wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep III (C1) at Meir [S218]. Women are prominent throughout this chapel’s decoration, the reasons for which are discussed in chapter 3.2. It should also be noted that scenes of trapping birds in trees have not been collected in this study as they are not associated with the marshes and are aimed at protecting crops, and therefore are distinct from the model fowling boats examined. 356  Dunnicliff, in Behind the Scenes, 117; Swinton, Management of Estates, 101. 357   For example, the fowlers in the third register of the south wall of the tomb of Nekhti (21 UC) at Beni Hassan stand upright, having not yet begun to pull the rope [S151]. 358   On the east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir, the fowlers in the second register have fallen onto the ground with their legs outstretched and they are leaning backwards to pull the rope [S36]. Similarly, the fowlers on the north wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) at Meir each adopt individual, animated postures in the pull [S140]. 359  Such scenes do not necessarily depict two stages of a single event. On the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), two clap-nets lie immediately next to each other and are ultimately controlled by the same figure. However, the upper net is situated on a homogenous green background, perhaps indicating a location near agricultural land, and a variety of avian species are within it, while the lower net is positioned on a pool of water coloured blue with horizontal zigzag lines and only ducks are ensnared, suggesting that these fowling operations occurred at different times and in different places [S189]. Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 75. 353

Fishing and fowling formed a central part of the ancient Egyptians’ everyday lives. The river and marshes teemed with aquatic life which could be easily obtained by all people.350 As a profession, fishing and fowling involved teams of men who caught large quantities of birds and fish for the purposes of food acquisition. As a sport, they were recreational activities practised by the tomb owner and his family which may have held symbolic value.351 Both functions appear prominently in scenes displayed on chapel walls, whereas models exclusively depict fishing and fowling as professions.352 Consequently, only scenes of these activities as a profession have been collected in this study for comparison. a brazier, roasting a bird on a spit. Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen: AEIN 1631. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 798-99. 349   The model assemblage of Djehuty-nakht included an exceptionally large fleet of 58 boats which will be discussed in chapter 3.1. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 166. 350  Houlihan, Animal World, 129, 135-36; Germond & Livet, Egyptian Bestiary, 45, 64. 351   Donatelli, in Egyptian Civilization, 167-69; Kanawati, Tomb and its Significance, 119; Strouhal, Life, 120-23; Lloyd, Ancient Egypt, 181. 352  The reasons for the absence of three-dimensional representations of the tomb owner spear fishing and fowling with a throwstick will be addressed in chapter 7.3.

65

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 2.34. Fowling with a clap-net. Tomb of Baqet III (15 UC). South wall, west panel, register 6 [S82]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 86 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

at Meir, for example, the clap-net remains open with the fowlers just beginning the pull in the third register while the later stage is depicted in the first register where the net is closed and the men energetically pull the rope [S9]. The theme could occasionally be expanded to include additional motifs such as men retrieving captured birds from the net, the storage of fowl in crates, the presentation of the catch, and the preparation for consumption.360 While fowling with a clap-net is almost exclusively conducted by minor figures, in two rare examples, the tomb owner and/or his son are directly engaged, namely on the north and east walls of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan [S189, S192] and on the north and west walls of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha [S204, S210].361 In all scenes, the clap-net is filled with large quantities of birds, showing the catch to be successful. Fowl were plentiful in the marshes, with the Nile constituting a major stop on the migratory route of many species.362 A successful catch was an integral part of everyday life, providing an important source of nourishment for the whole population.

birds simply lie on deck without any fowlers or fowling equipment portrayed.363 It is more likely that the boats are either bringing back the results of a successful catch in the marshes or that the fowl were transported as food for the crew. The task of fowling itself is certainly unrepresented and so the models should not be classified as such. Rather, they primarily function as transport boats with the birds comprising a supplementary motif. A similar situation is witnessed in the fishing and fowling model boat of Meketre from Thebes.364 A male and female figure present fowl to the tomb owner and his son who are seated on deck while the clap-net itself is disassembled and lashed to the canopy framework. Once again, fowling is merely implied. It seems that a major contributing factor to the absence of fowling in the three-dimensional medium is the difficulty in representing the environment. In all wall scenes examined in this study, the marshland constitutes an integral element and is often depicted with great detail and accuracy.365 The net is laid in a marshy area filled with aquatic plant and animal life while the fowlers are positioned on land, sometimes with swamp vegetation interspersed between them, as is exhibited in the third register of the scene of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) [S9].366 Models, in contrast, rarely specify the natural environment, with the figures typically attached to plain baseboards. In the

The two model boats of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) classified as representations of fowling do not exhibit these same processes or details [M82-M83; see fig. 2.35]. The  The two fowling scenes displayed on the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) are separated by a register depicting the presentation of birds and their preparation for consumption [S9]. A similar arrangement is found on the east wall of the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) at Meir [S23]. On the west wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehutyhotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha, the results of the catch are suspended from cords or stored in crates in a sub-register above the fowlers [S210]. Alternatively, a man stands immediately beside the clap-net and bends over to retrieve the captured birds on the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) [S36], on the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S189], and probably on the north wall of the tomb of Baqet II (33 UC) at Beni Hassan [S59]. Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 142. 361   In the tomb of Khnumhotep II, it is the son who controls both clapnets on the north wall with the assistance of two teams of fowlers, while on the centre panel of the east wall, the tomb owner operates a clap-net single-handedly. Alternatively, Djehuty-hotep is aided in the operation by a team of fowlers on the west wall and his son on the north wall. The depiction of the tomb owner fowling with a clap-net is not attested in Old Kingdom private tombs, and Hudáková identifies the precursor as the royal representation of Sahure in his pyramid complex at Abusir. Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 75; Hudáková, Representations of Women, 148, 153. 362  Ikram, Choice Cuts, 23-24; Houlihan, in Oxford Encyclopedia, . 360

  One boat has a single helmsman preserved [M82], while the other retains a helmsman, pilot and paddler [M83; fig. 2.35]. The former apparently had an additional two figures, as evidenced by two holes on deck, but it is probable that these comprised members of the crew to supplement the helmsman. It is possible that a clap-net was originally laid on deck that has been lost, but this cannot be proven with the surviving evidence. 364  The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 20.3.6. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pl. 51. 365   Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 64. 366   Different perspectives were often utilised in these scenes so that each component could be depicted in its most recognisable form. In the fourth register of the east panel of the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan, for example, the marsh and clap-net are depicted from a top-down view while the aquatic life is shown in profile [S120]. Alternatively, in the seventh register of the west wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan, the marshland is represented in profile as two solid rectangular blocks with individual stems protruding from the top while the clap-net is portrayed in a top-down perspective [S110]. Dunnicliff, in Behind the Scenes, 117; Kanawati, in Cultural Manifestations, 120-21. 363

66

Food Production and Preparation

Figure 2.35. Model boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), with two fowl lying on deck [M83]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.890.

fowling models examined, all comprise boats without any distinction of the marshes nor the riverbank. Consequently, the clap-netting operation could not be represented in the typical manner of scenes, and model-artists have instead depicted the result of the catch.

as naked or wearing an abbreviated kilt or close-fitting tunic, reflecting their lowly status.370 The dragnet itself comprises a long strip of netting supported by an upper line equipped with floats and a lower line weighted with sinkers.371 That exhibited on the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan is particularly detailed with the netting painted over the fish and a decorative band of water below [S164; fig. 2.36]. Unlike fowling, only a single moment of dragnetting is depicted in scenes, namely when the net is full of fish and the men begin to haul in the catch.372 The hunt is always met with success, again highlighting the abundant quantities of aquatic life available for capture and consumption.

Several fishing techniques are known from wall scenes, but the most common for professional fishing is the dragnet. These scenes often occupy the height of two registers and the fishermen are typically positioned on a raised sub-register line that indicates the riverbank with the water depicted below.367 That displayed in the third register of the north wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan comprises the typical representation: the fishermen are divided into two equal groups, each grasping an end of the rope attached to the net [S49].368 Sometimes the men are supervised by an overseer who stands between the two groups leaning on a staff, or an additional man is positioned at each end who stands in the water to help pull the edges of the net.369 The fishermen are regularly distinct in their appearance and attire, often displayed

Additionally, a number of scenes depict small-scale fishing techniques which often take place on board a boat. On both the south and west walls of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir, two fishermen are depicted on board a small watercraft: one reclines lazily while holding the end of a fishing line and the other stands and pulls a   The fishermen portrayed on the north wall of the outer room of the tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5) at Deir el-Bersha wear nothing except for a simple belt tied around the waist [S63]. Alternatively, those in the sixth register of the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) wear close-fitting tunics which cover the upper body and loin area and pass over both shoulders [S129]. A shoulder sling is also often worn which is attached to the rope to aid the task of hauling, as is exhibited by four of the fishermen on the north panel of the east wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S191]. Donatelli, in Egyptian Civilization, 169; Brewer & Friedman, Fish and Fishing, 42; Alcock, Food, 10. 371  Strouhal, Life, 123; Sahrhage, Fischfang und Fischkult, 105-07. 372   Donatelli, in Egyptian Civilization, 169-70; Dunnicliff, in Behind the Scenes, 119. 370

 Extra space was needed for a detailed representation of a wide band of water containing a variety of aquatic life while maintaining the uniform height of the figures in the area above. Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 145. 368   Brewer & Friedman, Fish and Fishing, 42-44; Dunnicliff, in Behind the Scenes, 119. 369   An overseer is found in the scene displayed in the lowest register of the south wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) at Meir [S178], while two of the fishermen stand in the water in the scene in the sixth register of the north wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) [S75]. Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 145-46. 367

67

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 2.36. Fishing with a dragnet. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). West wall, south panel, register 3 [S164]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 89 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

hand-net filled with fish out of the water [S41, S43].373 In all such scenes, the boat comprises a small papyrus skiff which could easily navigate the shallow waters near the riverbank. As small-scale fishing operations could be conducted by a single fisherman, they were a convenient means for individuals to catch fish, perhaps for their own consumption.374

as successive stages of movement.376 Like scenes of dragnetting, the catch of small-scale fishing operations is always met with success. Similarly, the model of Khety-aa (575 LC) associates fishing with a boat, but unlike wall scenes, the actual task of fishing is not portrayed [M202; fig. 2.37]. Instead, a pile of netting is simply situated on deck beneath the canopy alongside other tools,377 and no fish are represented on board, indicating that the catch has not yet occurred. As noted above, fishermen in scenes are regularly distinct in their appearance, but the figures on board Khety-aa’s model boat assume the form of crewmen: they wear simple white-painted and linen kilts and function in the roles of pilot, punters, sailors and helmsman. Additionally, the boat itself comprises a wooden watercraft which would have been less suitable for fishing in the shallow waters along the riverbank than a papyrus skiff. Consequently, the emphasis of the model boat is on its role in providing transport and the presence of the net merely implies the supplementary motif of catching fish.

Similar techniques could also be used by fishermen on shore or standing in shallow water. On the north wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir, a naked man with receding hairline exerts great effort to haul a hand-net filled with an exceptionally large number of fish out of the shallow water [S133]. All of these small-scale operations as well as fishing with a rod are performed by men on shore and wading in shallow water on the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S199].375 Alternatively, the north wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan uniquely exhibits the method of stacking leafy tree branches across the water to create an attractive habitat for fish [S95]. A net is set around the leafy trap, and once the fish seek safety in the foliage, the men drive them out of the branches and into the net. This operation is depicted in Khety’s scene

However, the two fishing models of Meketre from Thebes do depict specific fishing techniques. On board one boat are two men holding harpoons to spear fish: one raises the tool, about to throw, while the other points it down

  Similar scenes are found on the west panel of the south wall of the outer room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) [S179] and in the third register of the north wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) [S140], although in the latter example only a single fisherman is involved and he is accompanied by a dog. 374   Germond & Livet, Egyptian Bestiary, 45-46; Dunnicliff, in Behind the Scenes, 120-21. 375   Brewer and Friedman, and Sahrhage have identified this scene as the earliest known representation of fishing with a rod. Brewer & Friedman, Fish and Fishing, 30; Sahrhage, Fischfang und Fischkult, 100. 373

  Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, 32-33.   It is unclear if any floats or sinkers are associated with this net. A rounded wooden piece appears on deck alongside the net which may comprise one of these parts, but this is uncertain from the available images. Also lying on deck beneath the canopy are two knives and an axe while an adze is attached to one of the sailor’s belts. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 409. 376 377

68

Food Production and Preparation

Figure 2.37. Model boat of Khety-aa (575 LC), with fishing equipment on deck beneath the canopy [M202]. © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2297.

towards the deck to deposit his catch.378 The men are attired as fishermen with a white-painted shoulder strap and are distinct from the crewmen on board who wear plain kilts. The second model uniquely incorporates two papyrus skiffs which are attached to a wooden baseboard painted green to represent the river and with a dragnet spread between them.379 On each boat are men specifically designated to operate the net and others to propel the watercraft. The net is filled with fish while several more are deposited on deck. These models of Meketre are unique in specifying the activities of the fishermen and the second example is unusually solely devoted to the theme. The rarity of such representations indicates that fishing was not considered an essential theme in the model repertoire.

in chapter 3.2, fowl form one of the principal products presented by model offering-bearers, and as was noted in chapter 2.7, the cooking of poultry appears in both single statuettes and group models. A different situation, however, is noticeable for fish. Not only is fishing rarely represented by models, but the final product does not appear in any other theme portrayed by the three-dimensional medium. Interestingly, there is some parallel with wall scenes in this regard. It has been noted that in Memphite tombs of the Old Kingdom, fish rarely appear among the goods associated with the offeringtable scene or in offering-lists, and the shape of the animal forms the determinative for the word bw.t, often translated as ‘taboo’ or ‘abomination’.380 Consequently, it has been suggested that there was a taboo that made fish an unsuitable item for the deceased.381 However, fish certainly formed a central part of the ancient Egyptian diet and they are regularly presented to figures of the living

The fact that both fishing and fowling constitute preparatory processes may perhaps explain their rare appearance among the three-dimensional medium. Models are typically more condensed than wall scenes, and so it was more important to depict the end result rather than the processes of acquisition. While fowling itself is not displayed, the final product holds an important place in the three-dimensional repertoire. As will be discussed

 Brewer & Friedman, Fish and Fishing, 12-15; Houlihan, Animal World, 129-30. Frandsen has convincingly cautioned against translating bw.t as ‘taboo’ due to the difficulty in equating the modern definition of the term with a phenomenon from another cultural setting. Frandsen, “Taboo”, TdE 8, (2017), 166, 188-89. 381   Various reasons have been proposed as to the surprising absence of fish in offering scenes: fish provided nourishment for the tomb owner’s courtiers rather than for the tomb owner himself; they provided payment for the upkeep of his tomb and mortuary cult; they were an everyday commodity that lacked ritual value; and they functioned as a symbol of protection and rebirth. Handoussa, “Fish offering”, MDAIK 44, (1988), 104-09; Brewer & Friedman, Fish and Fishing, 12-15; Houlihan, Animal World, 129-30; Swinton, Management of Estates, 96. 380

  The fishermen also grasp reels that will be used to draw the harpoons back in. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 20.3.6. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pl. 51. 379   Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46715. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pl. 52. The arrangement of the dragnet spread between two boats is not present in any wall scenes examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, but a parallel example may be found on the east wall of the Ramesside tomb of Ipi at Thebes. Davies, Two Ramesside Tombs, pl. 30. 378

69

Preparing for Eternity tomb owner in association with scenes of fishing and fowling.382 This importance of fish is displayed in scenes reflecting everyday life, but the almost complete absence of the commodity from the model repertoire indicates that other foodstuffs were considered more imperative to be accessed by the deceased in the burial chamber for the afterlife. There is certainly a clear contrast in the prominence of the fishing and fowling theme between the two media. Everyday life tasks dominate scenes publicly displayed on chapel walls and a great amount of space was regularly devoted to marshland activities. In contrast, fishing and fowling are almost entirely excluded from the threedimensional repertoire. This rarity may be explained by the omission of the natural environment, the primary function of model boats in providing riverine transport, and the preference for displaying the final product. The models of Meketre that unusually specify certain fishing techniques should be understood as supplementary themes included among an extensive corpus. The tomb of Meketre at Thebes housed 24 models, enabling auxiliary motifs to be represented alongside those considered essential. Two of the 12 model boats could therefore be dedicated to procuring fish and fowl while leaving a sufficient quantity to provide riverine transport. Although not as expansive, the burial of Khety-aa (575 LC) housed at least seven models which not only encompassed all of the major transport and food preparation motifs, but also the supplementary theme of spinning and weaving. Most model owners, however, apparently considered fishing and fowling to not be essential and excluded the theme from their burial assemblages.

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

70

3 Transport 3.1 Boats

planks and papyrus skiffs are fashioned of bundles of papyrus lashed together, whereas papyriform boats are constructed of wood but imitate the shape of papyrus craft.6 While wooden and papyriform vessels are prominent among both wall scenes and funerary models, papyrus skiffs are unique to the two-dimensional medium in the corpus examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan.7 This type of watercraft is ubiquitous in the repertoire of wall scenes, featuring prominently in illustrations of marshland activities. Papyrus was plentiful along the Nile and could be easily worked, making it a useful material for the creation of everyday watercraft.8 Simple skiffs were used on a daily basis by the general population, particularly for fishing and local transport, but were not especially durable.9 As the repertoire of the two-dimensional medium during the Old and Middle Kingdoms largely concentrated on everyday life activities, it is not surprising to find abundant scenes of papyrus craft. Conversely, models are primarily concerned with provisioning the deceased for the afterlife; wooden and papyriform vessels may have been considered more effective in providing enduring, reliable transport. Therefore, for an effective comparison, only representations of wooden and papyriform boats in wall scenes were collected in this study.

The boat was the most significant form of transport to the ancient Egyptians, serving an essential role in everyday life. It provided the most effective means of communication and the transport of people, livestock, material and goods up and down the Nile.1 The river flows the length of the whole country, enabling swift and convenient transport throughout Egypt in contrast to arduous overland journeys across the desert terrain.2 Not only did the river profoundly influence the Egyptians’ means of travel, but it also permeated their religious beliefs and ideology. Boats were integral in temple and funerary processions, in pilgrimages to holy sites and for transporting the divine and the deceased. From the earliest times, the boat was considered indispensable to the deceased’s afterlife and so it quickly became a fundamental part of funerary equipment.3 It is therefore not surprising that representations of boats abound in both the two- and threedimensional media. It is beyond the scope of this study to classify the boats according to function, so all examples have been examined together as one group.4 Overall, the representations exhibit many similarities, but there are some noticeable differences between the two media, and these will form the main part of the discussion below.

In the three-dimensional medium, the boat is particularly prominent, comprising the most frequently represented theme. Not only is this popularity witnessed in the quantity of models, but also in their appearance both before and after the standard period of model usage. The earliest examples date to the Predynastic Period and comprise hollow crafts with limited internal structure made of pottery, ivory or bone.10 Wooden model boats did not appear until the 4th and 5th Dynasties, but became a regular part of burial equipment in the 6th Dynasty.11 The

According to structure, there are three main types of boats identifiable in representations: wooden, papyriform and papyrus.5 Wooden vessels are assembled from wooden  Vinson, Boats and Ships, 7; Peck, Material World, 162; Moreno Garcia, State in Ancient Egypt, 17. 2  Jones, Boats, 9; Partridge, Transport, 3. 3  Jones, Boats, 11; Ward, Sacred and Secular, 2-6. 4   Model boats are regularly classified according to function in scholarship, with distinctions generally between everyday transport, funerary or pilgrimage use, and specialised religious functions. However, it is often difficult to categorise many boats as there are not consistent criteria that can be used for each type. A model sailing boat from tomb 868 LC at Beni Hassan, for example, has been classified by Tooley as a pilgrimage boat [M222]. This is based on the presence of four cloaked figures positioned around the owner which Tooley identifies as the Four Sons of Horus. However, it is equally possible that the figures are rowers at rest, which would make the model a simple transport boat. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 153. Similar difficulties in classification are present in wall scenes. In funerary processions, for example, wooden rowing and sailing boats appear as tugs for papyriform vessels, as is found on the east wall of room 3 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir [S31]. The self-propelled boats could simply be classified as everyday transport, but their connection to the papyriform vessel bearing the coffin could equally give them a funerary character. Proposing a more precise classification system is beyond the scope of this study and its absence does not impede the comparative analysis conducted here. 5   In his examination of model boats, Reisner formulated categorisations based on both structure and function. According to structure, he classified model boats as either wooden or papyrus craft. According to function, he identified those for ordinary use, funeral purposes and solar boats. In combining these two classifications, he created a typology of seven classes which still forms the standard categorisation of model boats in current scholarship. Some new revisions have also been put forward, 1

most notably those of Merriman whose proposed classification seeks to recognise the major nautical construction attributes of the vessels. Reisner, Models of Ships, ii-iii; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 31-54. 6  Jones, Boats, 36-45; Partridge, Transport, 12. 7   Papyrus skiffs form Reisner Type III but no examples are presented in his study. Only one model papyrus skiff is known from all of Egypt, namely a pair of fishing boats crafted as a single model from the tomb of Meketre at Thebes, which was discussed in chapter 2.8. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46715. Reisner, Models of Ships, xvii; Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pl. 52; Stephens, Egyptian Ships and Boats, 20-21. 8  Casson, Ships and Seafaring, 15; Jones, Boats, 44; McFarlane, in Behind the Scenes, 148-49. 9  Partridge, Transport, 13; Brier & Hobbs, Daily Life, 237. 10  Jones, Model Boats, 1; Tooley, in Oxford Encyclopedia, . 11   Wood comprises by far the most popular material for model boats. Stone was also occasionally used, with two examples identified in this study [M28-M29]. The earliest model boats do not include any human figures, but crew begin to appear in the late 6th Dynasty. Later models lacking crew, with the exception of solar boats, should be attributed to poor preservation, such as M52, M59, M65, M137, M275. Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 53; Jones, Boats, 26.

71

Preparing for Eternity models are also known beyond the Middle Kingdom, with examples from royal New Kingdom burials.12 However, like other model-types, the pinnacle period of use remains the early Middle Kingdom.13 From Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, 172 model boats have been identified, 147 of which could be examined through images. This is by far the greatest model-type collected in this study and it is probable that the original total was even higher.14 Although many tombs were simply furnished with one model boat, it was common for at least a pair to be included: one equipped for rowing and the other for sailing, which provided the owner with transport both up and down the river.15 In some instances, even more were interred, with the largest known assemblage comprising a fleet of 58 model boats from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) at Deir el-Bersha which included simple rowing and sailing crafts as well as boats equipped with cabins, military weapons, figures preparing food and funerary equipment [M82-M137].16 The prominence of the theme in the three-dimensional repertoire highlights the immense value placed upon maintaining access to riverine transport in the afterlife.

The two- and three-dimensional representations of wooden and papyriform boats exhibit many similarities in design, but there are some notable differences that largely result from the unique advantages and limitations of each medium. Across both media, the main elements of the watercraft representations may be divided into four overarching categories: the structure of the hull and deck, the mode of propulsion, the people carried on board, and the supplies transported. Each of these categories will be examined below in order to highlight both similarities and differences in artistic design. 3.1.1 Structure of hull and deck The depiction of the boat itself, namely the hull and deck, is of crucial significance, and forms the first main category. The profile view of the hull is very similar across the two- and three-dimensional representations. Both types of design exhibit variety in the minute details, although the overall shape of wooden boats is quite consistent. A model boat from Meir illustrates the typical representation: a shallow hull with a rising bow and stern, with the stern higher than the bow [M246]. The bow is pointed with a bowsprit attached while the stern is rounded and incurved.18 This may be paralleled with the scene on the south panel of the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan where all three boats in the sixth register exhibit this same formation [S159; fig. 3.7].19 Similarly, the overall shape of papyriform vessels finds many resemblances between the two media. As imitations of papyrus craft, the bow and stern finials end as papyrus umbels and usually rise to similar heights and curve gracefully, as is found in the model rowing boat of Intef (1 LC) from Beni Hassan [M39] and in the scene on the west wall of room 3 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir [S33].20 The boats are often painted to replicate the colour of the plant, with the hulls green and the finials yellow or white with lines of binding.21 A wedjat-eye is often painted on the side of the bow, although with

Boats are likewise salient in the two-dimensional medium, although they are not quite as dominant in the repertoire. The earliest examples are found on Predynastic decorated pottery and rock-drawings, although it is in the 4th Dynasty that numerous images of boats appear in tomb scenes.17 The boat remained a crucial element of wall scenes, continuing to feature throughout the Pharaonic Period. At Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, eight tombs were found to contain scenes of wooden and/or papyriform boats, with a total of 47 individual crafts. The vessels do not appear singly but are always shown in a group, with the largest fleet found on the west wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan which consists of eight boats [S104]. The total quantity of representations is not nearly as high as that of models, but this number should be considered alongside the abundant representations of papyrus skiffs. While two-dimensional wooden and papyriform vessels were clearly of importance, they were perhaps not as indispensable as they were among models.

 Instead of being incurved, it was also common for the stern to be fitted with a notch to support the rudder oar, as is exhibited by another model rowing boat from Meir [M64]. Occasionally, the notch could form a complete loop through which the rudder oar is inserted, as is found in another wooden boat from Meir [M233]. 19  The bow and stern are occasionally fashioned into the shape of an animal head, typically understood as a hedgehog, as is found in the right sailing boat on the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir [S12; fig. 3.4]. Such shapes would have been easier to depict in two-dimensions as they could be easily drawn on the wall surface. Jones, Boats, 36; McFarlane, in Behind the Scenes, 151. 20  Alternatively, the bow may rise vertically while the stern is sickleshaped, as is exhibited in the model papyriform vessel of Satmeket (R-10B) from Deir el-Bersha [M158] and on the north panel of the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S158; fig. 3.6]. Jones, Boats, 19; McKergow, in Egyptian Art, 225-26. 21   In the model papyriform vessel belonging to Ukh-hotep from Meir, the hull is painted green while the bow and stern finials are white [M223]. Lines of binding are identifiable on a model papyriform boat of Djehutynakht (R-10A): along the bow and stern are black zigzag lines on a white background bordered in red, most likely a decorative form of stitching [M100]. Similarly, in the papyriform vessel on the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the hull is coloured green while the bow and stern finials are painted white with defined lines of lashing [S158; fig. 3.6]. D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 114; McKergow, in Egyptian Art, 226. 18

  The model fleets of Amenhotep II and Thutmose III consist of fragmentary remains and some practically intact examples, whereas the flotilla of Tutankhamun was found complete, comprising 35 model boats. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 67; Jones, Model Boats, 3. 13   Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 61; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 165. 14  The next most populous model-types collected from Meir, Deir elBersha and Beni Hassan are offering-bearers with 31 examples examined, bread-making with 31, brewing beer with 24, and granaries with 22. Issues of preservation and an absence of provenance have presumably caused many examples to be lost. 15   It appears that this type of assemblage was common for earlier burials, but the quantity and variety of boats per tomb increased over time. David, Ancient Egyptians, 118-19; Jones, Model Boats, 2. 16   It should be noted that both the governor Djehuty-nakht and his wife were interred in this tomb, with the model boats presumably distributed between the two owners. The original division of models, however, is impossible to determine due to the plundered state of the burial upon discovery. Even if divided, each corpus is still exceptionally large. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 166. 17  Jones, Boats, 11; McKergow, in Egyptian Art, 226. 12

72

Transport this decoration, the three-dimensional medium has the advantage of displaying its occurrence on both the port and starboard sides.22 As the shape of the hull is most identifiable from a profile viewpoint, both media could encapsulate it quite similarly and realistically.

of the boat’s structural features. The deck of wooden boats comprised a series of beams which provided structural support for the hull, a secure location for deck fittings and could function as seats for rowers.27 As models can be viewed from the top-down, the details of the deck beams are clearly on display. In most models, the beams are simply painted red on a white deck, as exemplified by a sailing boat from Meir [M55]. However, in some instances, they are carved of wood, either from the same piece as the hollowed hull or inserted as separate parts.28 In five of the models of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) from Meir, the hulls have been hollowed out leaving actual beams stretching across the deck [M15-M17, M19-M20]. The mast and rudder oar stanchion have been stepped through holes pierced into the beams. This precise placement of the fittings is also made clear in decks with painted beams. In one of the sailing boats of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), the rudder oar stanchion is stepped into the aft-most painted deck beam and the single pole mast is stepped into a beam just forward of midships with a painted U-shaped mast shoe [M113]. With the limitation of a single perspective, the details of the deck’s formation are entirely absent from wall scenes. The arrangement of the fittings is still visible from a profile perspective but their precise connection to the deck remains unknown.29 Consequently, without a top-down viewpoint, scene-artists were required to exclude such details.

In both two- and three-dimensional representations, the hull characteristically displays a flat bottom. While this sometimes simply reflects the nautical structure of the hull, it is also applied in illustrations of round-bottomed boats on account of each medium’s technical properties. In models, a flat bottom is incorporated to enable the artwork to stand on its own, which is important for its placement in the burial chamber.23 In the rowing boat of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) from Beni Hassan, the flattened area occupies the full length of the central deck [M219; fig. 3.1].24 Occasionally, model-artists chose to maintain a round bottom but crafted a plinth to enable their artwork to stand. In two model boats from the tomb of Sepi III (K-14 south) at Deir el-Bersha, a small rectangular plinth carved from the same piece as the hull acts as a stand. In one, the plinth is distinguished from the hull through a change in colour [M280], whereas in the other it is less distinct, being painted the same colour as the hull [M279].25 Wall scenes likewise display hulls with flat bottoms, but this is not due to the same technical limitation. Instead, this feature regularly results from the placement of the boat directly on the straight register line or waterline. On the south wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), the section of the hull of each boat that touches the waterline is flattened [S40].26 Each type of artist was bound by the properties of his medium, and while sceneartists had to consider the register structure, model-artists had to provide the appropriate structural support.

As the deck fittings themselves could be conveyed in a profile perspective, they appear in both media. However, there are some differences in their arrangement. This may be exemplified by the depiction of the double rudder oar stanchions consistently found on papyriform vessels. With the advantage of working in three-dimensions, the actual placement of the stanchions side-by-side in the stern could be displayed in models. In the sailing boat from the tomb of Intef (1 LC), a stanchion is positioned on both the port and starboard sections of the stern with a rudder oar passing over each side of the hull [M40].30 Conversely, with only one side of the hull portrayed in two-dimensions, sceneartists could not illustrate this same realistic arrangement. For both stanchions to be included in scenes, they needed to be positioned in front of each other rather than side-byside. On the east wall of room 3 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), the two papyriform vessels in the third register are each displayed with double rudder oars and stanchions [S31]. On each boat, the diminutive helmsman stands in front of both stanchions, with the three forming a

Significant differences between the media, however, are noticeable in the depiction of the deck. With the advantage of working in three-dimensions, model-artists were not restricted to a profile view but could realistically capture all   On a model papyriform vessel of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), both the starboard and port sides of the hull are decorated with two pairs of blackpainted wedjat-eyes on a white background [M99]. On the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan, the port side of the papyriform vessel’s hull is similarly decorated with two wedjat-eyes, one on the bow and one on the stern [S198; fig. 3.5]. However, as the starboard side is hidden from view, it is unspecified as to whether this decoration is repeated on the other side of the hull. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 254. 23   It can accordingly be difficult to distinguish between boats that actually had a flat bottom and those that had a round bottom. Merriman identifies the distinction as the angle of the planking: those with a hard chine are representative of a flat bottom and those with a soft chine, a round bottom. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 22; Partridge, in Companion to Ancient Egypt, 371. 24   Merriman identifies this model as representative of a round-bottomed boat. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 443. 25   In the papyriform vessel, the hull is green, whereas the rectangular plinth is red, while in the wooden boat, both the hull and plinth are yellow. Only rarely is a true round bottom conveyed, with an example found in the model boat of Iryt-hotep (188 LC) from Beni Hassan where the rounded hull is today supported on a modern stand [M162]. 26   In the Old Kingdom, the flat-bottomed craft predominated, but in the Middle Kingdom, flat and rounded hulls co-existed. Accordingly, some scenes do display the actual nautical structure of the boat. Landström, Ships of the Pharaohs, 93; Jones, Boats, 45. 22

 Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 17.  Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 17. 29   One exception is the mast shoe or knee which could be shown from a profile perspective at the base of the mast. On the right sailing boat on the north panel of the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the pole mast is secured with lashing to a single knee [S158; fig. 3.6]. However, its point of connection to the deck remains unknown. 30   In papyriform vessels bearing funerary characteristics, the stanchions and rudder oars are sometimes elaborately decorated. In that of Ukhhotep from Meir, the stanchions, oars and crossbeam are topped with falcon heads, while the blades are elaborately painted with lotus flowers and wedjat-eyes [M223]. 27 28

73

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 3.1. Model rowing boat of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) [M219]. © The Trustees of the British Museum, London: EA 41575. All rights reserved.

single line.31 In reality, the man would be positioned in the middle of the deck between the two posts, but instead, the arrangement has been altered to allow both stanchions and the helmsman to be seen by the viewer.

Model-artists, conversely, had a three-dimensional view of the hull and so could evenly spread all of the figures and fittings across the deck. Ten figures as well as a canopy, mast and double rudder oar stanchions appear on a model sailing boat likely from the tomb of Wah-hotep at Meir [M269].34 The figures are evenly spaced along the deck, with some positioned side-by-side: the pilot is followed by two lookouts, three sailors, three figures under the canopy and a helmsman. The arrangement is not overcrowded, but each figure and fitting has its own space on deck. Model boats could be particularly large, providing more than adequate space for all figures. A boat from the tomb of Amenemhat (K-21) at Deir el-Bersha is 144cm in length, with the 10 crewmen, three funerary officiants, boat fittings and coffin evenly spaced along the deck [M176].35 The holistic perspective of models gives the medium the advantage of space, enabling a more accurate arrangement of everything carried on board.

The use of double rudder oars required a supporting crossbeam which was positioned across the deck at the base of the stern finial.32 Once again, with multiple perspectives, this feature is clearly visible in the threedimensional designs, as is found in a papyriform vessel from Deir el-Bersha [M161]. This structural feature is not seen in a profile perspective and is therefore absent from wall scenes. Accordingly, scene-artists were required to either exclude certain deck fittings from their designs or present them in a less realistic arrangement as a result of their medium’s limitations in perspective. Due to this altered arrangement of deck fittings, the boats in wall scenes can often appear to be particularly crowded. Everything depicted on board had to fit within a single two-dimensional line. This is especially evident on the south panel of the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan where all of the individuals and deck fittings are tightly packed, occupying the full length of the hull [S201; fig. 3.2]. With members of the tomb owner’s household carried on board as well as the crew, the scene-artist has used overlapping and variations in size in an attempt to fit them all within a confined space.33

3.1.2 Mode of propulsion The second major feature of watercraft representations is the mode of propulsion. Two main methods were utilised wall of room 3 stand four men carrying funerary furnishings on a short sub-register line [S33]. While this may indicate that the figures walk on shore alongside the boats, they could also be understood as being on board. This would prevent the deck from being over-crowded while maintaining all of the key figures of the scene. Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part V, 54. 34   The specific tomb attribution has been suggested by Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 140. 35  The pilot and helmsman are missing, but they too would have originally fitted on deck. The measurement excludes the length of the rudder oar. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 455.

  The rudder oars, however, do pass over the port and starboard sides of the stern, with one of the shafts partially disappearing behind the hull. 32  Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 28. 33   An alternate method may have been adopted by the artist of Pepyankh the Black’s (A2) scene: between the two papyriform boats on the west 31

74

Transport

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

75

Preparing for Eternity for travel along the Nile: rowing north with the current and sailing south with the prevailing wind.36 In fact, most boats were equipped for both types of travel, allowing them to change direction for the return journey.37 On rowing boats, the mast with yards, rigging and furled sail was regularly stowed on deck in a mast rest,38 while in sailing boats, the oars were often secured along the hull and the seats for rowers remained on deck.39 In a few unusual instances, both types of propulsion were utilised simultaneously, perhaps to aid the movement of the boat as it began its journey or to help gain momentum when the wind was not strong enough.40

preserved, such as the burial chamber of Nefery (116 UC) at Beni Hassan. Both a rowing and sailing boat were found in their original positions: the rowing boat resided on top of the coffin facing north-west, and the sailing boat was situated on the floor of the chamber, beside the coffin, oriented south [M180-M181].44 Like the positioning of scenes on the wall, the model boats could also be precisely deposited to reflect the true direction of travel. The typical arrangement of oarsmen rowing is in pairs along the deck facing the stern. The men are shown in unified motion, either standing or sitting, with their posture dependent upon the moment of the stroke.45 When seated, the rowers could be positioned on stools or on the deck beams. As the hulls of model boats could be hollowed, the oarsmen could be physically positioned on the wooden beams with their legs sinking into the hull, as is found in a rowing boat from Meir [M240]. Even in model boats with solid hulls and painted deck beams, the positioning of the oarsmen could be precisely conveyed. In one of the rowing boats of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), the six rowers are each carefully positioned on a painted beam [M98; fig. 3.3]. Although their legs could not sink into the solid hull, it seems that their posture indicates they adopted a similar position: the legs are completely covered by whitepainted kilts with no clear indication of the lower legs. While this could imply a kneeling posture, it seems more likely that it designated the sinking of the legs into the hull.46 Alternatively, stools could be carved separately and attached to the flush deck, as is found in a model wooden boat from Meir [M232].47 Individual seats could likewise be displayed in the two-dimensional medium,48 but with the deck being obscured from view, the positioning of the rowers on the beams could only be implied. On the south wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), the lower bodies of the rowers in the third boat from the left of the fourth register are hidden behind the raised gunwale

The mode of prolusion was intimately associated with the direction of travel,41 and this is highlighted in scenes with the choice of location on the chapel’s walls. Scenes of boats are regularly placed on either the east or west wall so that the rowing and sailing boats could be directed true north and south respectively.42 In the tomb of Khety (17 UC), for example, four boats are displayed in each of the fourth and fifth registers of the west wall [S104]. The rowing boats are confined to the upper register where they are directed to the right, while the sailing boats are depicted below, oriented to the left. It appears that there was also a conscious effort to correctly direct model boats in the burial chamber. Unfortunately, the exact placement of models is often unknown due to destruction through plunder or inadequate documentation by early excavators.43 However, in some cases the original arrangement has been   McFarlane, in Behind the Scenes, 151; Peck, Material World, 162.  Landström, Ships of the Pharaohs, 55; Partridge, Transport, 57. 38  See, for example, three of the four boats displayed in the fourth register of the south wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) [S40]. The fourth boat is most likely missing this feature in order to make space for the inscription above. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, 38. The mast rest is often not preserved in models, although an example is found in a rowing boat from Meir [M64]. The associated mast, however, has been incorrectly stepped in the rudder oar stanchion hole. More commonly, the unstepped mast simply lies on deck between the two lines of rowers, as is found in two model boats from the tomb of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) at Beni Hassan [M211-M212], or in a boat likely from the tomb of Baqta (412 LC) at Beni Hassan [M199]. The specific tomb attribution of the latter example has been suggested by Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 518. 39  In the model sailing boat from the tomb of Ma (500 LC) at Beni Hassan, the mast is raised and the sailors are at work while the oars are stowed along the hull through rowlocks, ready for the return journey [M286]. Similarly, in the scene displayed on the north panel of the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the right-most boat in the sixth register has the sail raised and oars stored along the hull as well as seats for rowers lined along the deck [S158; fig. 3.6]. In one of the rowing boats on the south panel of the same wall, these seats are in use by the rowers [S159; fig. 3.7]. 40   On the north panel of the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the middle boat has the sail half-hoisted while the rowers are stroking [S158; fig. 3.6]. Similarly, in a model boat from the tomb of Nefwa (186 LC) at Beni Hassan, both sailors and rowers are at work: three pairs of rowers lean backwards with their hands lowered as if currently in motion while three standing sailors raise their arms to work the rigging [M191; fig. 3.8]. Stephens, Egyptian Ships and Boats, 118; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, 42. 41  In fact, the hieroglyphic sign for xdi ‘to travel north’ is a rowing boat and that for xnti ‘to travel south’ is a sailing boat. McKergow, in Egyptian Art, 225; Partridge, in Encyclopedia of Ancient History, . 42  Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 38; Lashien, “Pilgrimage in the Old Kingdom”, BACE 20, (2009), 100. 43  Richards, Society and Death, 68. 36 37

 Tooley has noted that this placement of model boats was common at Beni Hassan. At this site, the Nile bends sharply to the west, and so travelling north would require a north-westerly orientation in order to traverse the bend in the river. The sailing boat, conversely, could face true south as the river runs fairly straight in this direction. This placement reflects an understanding and consideration of the local topography. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 56; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 172-73. 45  The rowers had to rise to their feet to scoop the blade of the oar through the water before sitting back down to finish the stroke. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 709-10; Casson, Ships and Seamanship, 18. 46  It is interesting that the posture of the helmsman in this model is clearly distinct from that of the rowers. He sits with his knees bent up in front and his lower legs and feet are painted red, indicating that they are on the deck. This is found quite consistently across Djehuty-nakht’s model rowing boats and may suggest that a conscious effort was made to distinguish between the two types of posture. In two instances of the governor’s fleet, the rowers are specified as kneeling with the lower legs painted red along the bottom of the kilt, parallel to the hull [M94, M100]. 47   Several similar examples are found in other rowing boats from Meir. See, for example, M234-M239. 48   On the south panel of the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), for example, the rowers on the left boat are seated on stools while the oarsmen on the right boat are standing [S201; fig. 3.2]. The two groups are in different stages of motion, with the seated rowers about to lift their oars out of the water and the standing oarsmen just beginning the pull of the stroke. 44

76

Transport

Figure 3.3. Model rowing boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M98]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.879.

[S40]. The deck itself is hidden from view, but it is implied that the rowers are situated on this lower level. While the rower is clearly identifiable by his posture in both media, this distinction in the detail of his positioning on deck results from the contrasting perspectives conveyed.

In a variation of rowing, some boats display crews of paddlers. This mode of propulsion was particularly common for rivercraft during the Old Kingdom but was largely replaced by rowing for larger vessels in the 5th Dynasty.50 Accordingly, very few representations of paddling have been identified in this study. Unlike rowing, the paddles were not secured to the hull and the stroke required fore to aft movement.51 The paddlers may be shown moving in unison or in a staggered motion. Representations of paddling may be principally identified by the forward-facing direction of the oarsmen.52 Two of the 6th Dynasty models of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) depict paddlers in motion who are seated in pairs facing the bow [M21-M22]. The paddles are mostly lost, but those that are preserved are held in extended arms with the blades resting alongside the hull. A few other model boats examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan also depict forward-facing oarsmen, but this may be attributed to incorrect restoration rather than the original design.53 Although none of the two-dimensional wooden or papyriform vessels collected in this study depict paddling, the mode of propulsion is found in some scenes of papyrus

Further differences are noticeable in the arrangement of the oarsmen. In models, the rowers are realistically positioned in pairs along the deck, with one on port and the other on starboard.49 However, with the absence of depth, sceneartists could not display this same composition. In scenes, rowers are typically placed in single file filling the length of the hull. The two rowing boats on the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir, for example, each display a single line of rowers [S12; fig. 3.4]. This portrayal could either indicate that the whole crew is represented, with it being understood that half are actually on the far side of the deck, or that only one rower of each pair is illustrated. In the lower boat, an odd number of oarsmen appear, making the latter alternative more likely. In only one scene collected in this study is there an attempt to indicate the pairing of the oarsmen: on the west wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC), the right-most rowing boat in the fourth register features a crew of 14 rowers arranged in closely overlapping pairs [S104]. This presumably indicates that the crew occupied both sides of the deck, yet all oars pass over the near side of the hull when in reality half should disappear from view. The holistic perspective is unique to the three-dimensional medium, with scene-artists unable to capture the same accurate arrangement of the crew.

  Digby, in History of Technology. Volume I, 732; Casson, Ships and Seamanship, 18. 51  Jones, Boats, 68; Fabre, Seafaring, 112. 52  Bass, in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Volume III, 1423; Stephens, Egyptian Ships and Boats, 76. 53   In a model boat from the tomb of Ipi (707 LC) at Beni Hassan, for example, the six oarsmen are seated in pairs facing the bow [M165]. This model has apparently been incorrectly configured during conservation as there are a number of inaccuracies in arrangement. Not only do the oarsmen face the bow, but the pilot incorrectly faces the stern and the rudder oar rests against the bow. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 482. 50

 An especially large crew is found on a model boat from Meir, comprising 40 oarsmen seated in 20 pairs [M53]. 49

77

Preparing for Eternity

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

78

Transport craft.54 Both scene- and model-artists understood the reallife developments that occurred in watercraft and this is equally reflected in their designs.

This use of real-life materials is a unique advantage of the three-dimensional medium and is likewise witnessed in the construction of the sail. The linen sail was spread between the upper yard and lower boom and could be formed of several panels stitched together, as is demonstrated in the sailing model of Ma (500 LC) from Beni Hassan [M286]. Scenes could not utilise such additional materials, but the lines of the panels could be drawn on the wall surface. In the scene of Pepyankh the Middle (D2), the panels of the two sails are laid horizontally in a similar manner to those in the model [S12; fig. 3.4]. However, this scene also demonstrates a unique advantage of the two-dimensional medium that allows it to indicate the movement of the wind. The forward edge of each sail was drawn with an outward curve and the aft edge, an inward one, suggesting that the wind is pushing the boat forward from behind. In contrast, the linen sails of the models, although realistic in material, could only hang down. The ease with which intricate details could be incorporated into the two-dimensional medium often resulted in more detailed designs.

A similar chronological development is witnessed in representations of sailing. During the Old Kingdom, the bipod mast was used which comprised two uprights widely separated at the base and converging at the top. In the 6th Dynasty, the pole mast was introduced and, for a period, both types of mast remained in use.55 This development is witnessed in both media, with the bipod and pole masts appearing concurrently in the late 6th Dynasty representations of Pepyankh the Black (A2) and Niankh-pepy-kem (A1). Among the model sailing boats of Niankh-pepy-kem are three propelled by bipod masts [M15-M17],56 and two by single pole masts [M19-M20]. Similarly, on the south wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black, two of the sailing boats feature bipod masts while the third has a tapering pole mast [S40].57 After this time, the bipod mast was completely replaced by the pole mast which became the principal method of suspending the sail in the Middle Kingdom,58 and is consistently featured in both types of representation.

Differences in detail are further witnessed in the role and posture of the sailors. With the difficulty of crafting intricate details and movements in three-dimensions, model figures do not display the same range of attitudes as those in wall scenes. Across the three-dimensional representations, the depiction of the sailor is especially consistent: he stands upright, aft of the mast, with legs side-by-side and arms outstretched with one hand over the other.61 Often two or three model sailors are shown in this attitude, standing alongside each other and angled towards the mast, as is found in the sailing boat of Sobekhotepi (723 LC) [M220].62 This posture characteristically identifies the figure as a sailor working lines of rigging.

In addition to the mast, the sail, yard, boom and rigging were integral to propulsion, and while these features appear in both media, there are some notable differences in the way they are represented. Minute elements could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface, enabling more details to be included. This is especially noticeable in the representation of the rigging used to manipulate the sail. On the north panel of the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the rigging of the two sailing boats is quite intricate, comprising forestays, backstays, halyards, lifts and shrouds [S158; fig. 3.6].59 Most models do not portray such details, but this is likely a matter of preservation. Pieces of thread were attached to the models to represent the rigging, but such material elements could be easily lost, destroyed or misplaced. In a rarely preserved example from Meir, a significant level of detail is incorporated: several lines of rigging are wound around the mast, yard and boom, with some additional lines hanging down to the deck [M245].60

While this attitude is also represented in the two-dimensional medium,63 a much wider range of roles and stances for the sailor is also exhibited. Some of these variations in posture are witnessed in the two sailing boats displayed on the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) [S12; fig. 3.4]. A sailor sitting on top of the roof of the cabin leans backwards and looks up at the sail. His knees are bent up in front with the left leg slightly extended and the toes upraised. Additionally, two sailors are positioned directly opposite each other on deck before the mast. Each kneels with the near leg folded over and the far one bent up in front while their arms are lowered with hands grasping the rigging. Alternatively, on the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), two figures are seated upon the boom: one kneels facing the bow with his arms stretched behind him, gripping the rigging, and

  For example, in the fourth register of the east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), a single paddler appears on one of the papyrus skiffs, propelling the boat alongside the punter [S36]. 55  Fabre, Seafaring, 114; Stephens, Egyptian Ships and Boats, 82-83. 56  Reisner has suggested that a fourth model boat from the burial originally contained a bipod mast [M18]. This is based on the presence of a pair of holes in the deck, but Stephens has noted that the holes are aft of the usual place and there is no means of securing the mast, making this classification unlikely. Reisner, Models of Ships, 56; Stephens, Egyptian Ships and Boats, 12-13. 57  Unusually, the two bipod masts have their legs drawn very close together. This may reflect an actual structural technique used by shipbuilders to increase the usefulness of this mast form. Stephens, Egyptian Ships and Boats, 100, 158. 58  Casson, Ships and Seamanship, 19; Jones, Model Boats, 55. 59  Casson, Ships and Seafaring, 21; Vinson, Boats and Ships, 24; Stephens, Egyptian Ships and Boats, 104, 132. 60  Conservators sometimes re-create this portrayal with modern materials, such as in the sailing boat from tomb 868 LC at Beni Hassan [M222]. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 28. 54

  The legs typically terminate as pegs so that the figures may be secured to the baseboard. Occasionally, the feet have been included, either painted on the deck, as in one of the sailing boats of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M107], or modelled in plaster or carved in wood, as in the sailing boat of Khety (366 LC) from Beni Hassan [M198]. 62  Occasionally, a greater quantity of sailors is depicted. In a model sailing boat from Meir, eight sailors adopt this position: two forward of the mast facing aft, and six aft facing forward [M244]. 63   For example, in the sailing boat displayed on the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), four closely overlapping sailors stand aft of the mast with their arms raised to work the rigging [S198; fig. 3.5]. 61

79

Preparing for Eternity the other sits with the near leg hanging down [S198; fig. 3.5]. Not only would such intricacies of movement have required especially fine craftsmanship to achieve in three-dimensions, but the weight of the model figures would have been too heavy for placement on top of the boom. In models, the yard and boom were often fashioned of thin pieces of wood or simple twigs,64 and so would not have been strong enough to support the weight of wooden figures. Model-artists were bound by the limitations of their materials and consequently a more standard representation of the sailor is portrayed in three-dimensions.

in contrast to their role in model sailing boats where they serve as an additional aid to gain momentum and/or to push the boat off any sandbanks rather than as the primary form of propulsion. The function of the punter may have been especially important in the burial chamber where the model boat needed to be adequately prepared to overcome any riverine obstacle that the tomb owner might encounter in the afterlife. This distinction in emphasis is also observable in the moment of propulsion portrayed by the two media. While the actions of both rowing and sailing are clearly identifiable in wall scenes, elements of variation are regularly included to convey the progress of a journey. On the north panel of the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), each sailing boat is depicted in a slightly different moment of propulsion [S158; fig. 3.6]. The right vessel is underway with the sail completely hoisted and the oars stowed, while the left boat is following behind with the sail only half-raised and the rowers still required to help gain momentum. Similarly, on the south panel of the same wall, the two rowing crews are depicted in different stages of the stroke [S159; fig. 3.7]. Those on the left boat are seated, having already pulled the blade through the water, whereas those on the right vessel are standing with their oars lowered, about to begin the stroke. Such variation in artistic details enabled scene-artists to highlight particular moments of propulsion and the progression of a voyage. This may have been particularly important in the tombchapel where everyday life moments were publicly displayed.

An additional crewman is the punter who, like the sailor, is identifiable by a characteristic posture. He appears quite regularly in models, especially in sailing boats where he uses a pole to push the boat off the riverbank.65 Typically, two punters stand side-by-side in the bow of model sailing boats behind the pilot, facing aft. Their posture is particularly active, comprising a lunging position with the torso lowered to push down on the punt-pole. The outside arm is bent sharply at the elbow with the hand near the shoulder to rest on top of the pole while the inside arm is lowered to support the shaft.66 The punters may be almost upright, as in one of the sailing models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M121], or may lean especially far forward with their bodies almost parallel to the deck, as in the sailing model of Khety (366 LC) from Beni Hassan [M198].67 The punt-poles themselves are mostly lost but, when preserved, comprise simple thin sticks.68 In contrast, punters rarely appear in two-dimensional wooden and papyriform boats, with only one man exhibiting a similar posture identified in this study. He stands amidships, facing towards the stern in the left-most boat of the fourth register of the south wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) [S40].69 Punters appear more frequently in wall scenes on papyrus skiffs where they function as the main propeller of the small craft along the river.70 This is

Models, on the other hand, are not as precise in their portrayal of the riverine voyage. In the model rowing boats examined in this study, the oarsmen are consistently seated or kneeling with their arms lowered in front and hands brought together above their knees, as is found in those of Djay (275 LC) from Beni Hassan [M46] and Khety (366 LC) [M197].71 Although issues of preservation may prevent the precise original placement of the oars from being known, the posture of the rowers suggests that the oars were simply held over the hull without any particular moment of the stroke being conveyed.72 Similarly, in model sailing boats, the sail was apparently either fully

  The sailing boat of Khety (366 LC) preserves the upper yard which is fashioned of a thin twig tied to the wooden pole mast with thread [M198]. 65   Of the 59 model boats under sail examined in this study, at least 26 feature punters. There are also two boats with punters that display no means of propulsion [M127, M261; see fig. 3.9], and one whose crew has been lost [M135]. Kroenke has identified that punters are only found on model sailing boats from select sites, including Beni Hassan and Deir el-Bersha, suggesting it was a regional variation of the standard design. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 171; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 107. 66   The outside hand is often cupped so that it may rest securely on top of the punt pole, as is seen in the sailing model boat of Djay (275 LC) from Beni Hassan [M47]. 67  Interestingly, the forward leg of each punter in Khety’s model terminates mid-thigh, suggesting that the leg descends into the hull. This is distinct from the other leg which extends straight behind the body. Due to such a deep lunging position, the inside arm is not used to support the punt-pole but rather rests on deck to provide stability. 68   See, for example, the punt-poles found with a model sailing boat of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) [M215]. 69  Another man stands opposite him who either uses a punt-pole or sounding pole. Unusually, this boat is neither under sail nor oars, and so the punt-pole may actually serve as the main mode of propulsion. 70   For example, on the east wall above the doorway in the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) is a papyrus skiff propelled by four men utilising puntpoles. Three of the men stride forward, facing towards the bow rather than the stern like the punters of models. Jones, Boats, 45; Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pl. 81; Swinton, Management of Estates, 111. 64

  Only in a couple of exceptions is this posture varied and the rowers shown standing: in the model rowing boat of Re-hotepi and Kaayt from Meir, the oarsmen stand with their legs sinking into the hull [M167]; the rowers in a model boat of Amenemhat (K-21) step forward with the left leg, but this may not be original as it is quite likely the figures are pastiche [M176]. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 455. Alternatively, in an unusual model rowing boat likely from the tomb of Wah-hotep at Meir, the rowers maintain the seated posture, but they lean backwards with their legs outstretched as though having just pulled the oar through the water [M268]. The specific attribution of the tomb of Wah-hotep has been suggested by Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 142. 72  In some instances, the oars were apparently piled on deck when interred as there was not enough room in the burial chamber for them to extend over the sides of the hull, as was discovered in the tomb of Henu (L-16H50/1C) at Deir el-Bersha [M34]. De Meyer, “Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barshā. Volume II”, 624. The oars could also be secured to the gunwale with thread rowlocks, as is found, for example, in a model boat of Khety-aa (575 LC) from Beni Hassan [M203] and a rowing boat from Meir [M231]. 71

80

Transport

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

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

81

Preparing for Eternity

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

82

Transport furled or hoisted rather than in the process of being raised.73 With the sailors in the characteristic standing attitude of operating the lines of rigging, as is found in a sailing boat from tomb 203 LC at Beni Hassan [M58], models consistently portray generalised sailing rather than the beginning or end of a journey. In the sealed burial chamber, it would not have been as significant to portray a specific moment, but rather that the boats were adequately equipped for rowing and/or sailing.

being propelled magically without any need for rowing or sailing fittings. 3.1.3 People transported on board Alongside the crew, boats transported a range of people, forming the third main category of watercraft representations. The most important of these individuals was the tomb owner. His presence is identifiable on many boats, and both media portray him with some of the same distinguishing features: an enveloping white cloak,79 a broad collar,80 lighter skin tone,81 and his position on a chair and/or under a canopy.82 He usually sits or stands without being engaged in any action, but in a rare example found on a model boat of Nefwa (186 LC) from Beni Hassan, he is playing a game of senet [M191; fig. 3.8]. While the rest of the figures on board are crewmen or armed guards, two individuals are engaged in this leisurely activity, demonstrating their elevated status.83 Sometimes the owner is attended by servants, as in a model boat of Sepi II (K-14 north) from Deir el-Bersha where a man standing before the canopy housing the owner leans forward with a type of backpack on his back [M276]. Similarly, on the west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan, a scribe and a bowing attendant are positioned outside the cabin, facing the owner [S83].84

In addition to sailing and rowing, boats could be represented without any form of propulsion. In wall scenes, such vessels are clearly specified as being towed with the towropes connecting them to a self-propelled boat. Papyriform vessels were often pulled in such a manner, and this is especially common in funerary scenes. The funerary procession of Pepyankh the Black (A2) is displayed in a series of registers on the east and west walls of room 3 in his tomb. On each wall, the papyriform vessel is illustrated twice in the lowest register, bearing the coffin of the owner and funerary officiants. On the east wall, the procession begins on the left where the papyriform vessel is towed by two rowing boats; the towropes are drawn connecting the forward section of deck to the aft sections of the rowing boats [S31].74 To the right of the register, the papyriform vessel is pulled ashore by a team of men holding a single towrope.75 Similarly, on the west wall, one of the boats is hauled by a partially preserved group of men ashore while the other is moored on the bank for the people to board [S33].

Model boats also occasionally distinguish a female owner,   In a model sailing boat from Meir, the owner is seated immediately in front of the rudder oar stanchion facing the bow [M172]. He is positioned upon a block stool while enveloped in a painted cloak with only his head emerging. Similarly, on the west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan, the owner is seated within a cabin on the towed boat in the second register [S83]. He is visible through the window, wearing a white-painted cloak with only his head appearing. 80   In the model sailing boat from tomb 868 LC at Beni Hassan, the owner is seated on deck wearing an encompassing white cloak with a decorative broad collar painted on it [M222]. Although limited detail is preserved, a broad collar can still be identified on the standing figure of the owner displayed on the towed boat on the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan [S131]. 81   This is only identifiable in one example, namely one of the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M127; fig. 3.9]. Here, the owner is seated under the shade of the canopy with his yellow head emerging from an enveloping, white-painted cloak. The absence of the lighter skin tone in the scenes examined may be a result of the poor preservation of painted colours or may have simply not been utilised. 82   In a model boat from Beni Hassan, the owner is seated on a small, yellow block stool amidships and has the additional feature of a linen garment tied around his body [M62]. On the west wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha, traces of a figure of the owner survive on the left-most boat of the sixth register [S211]. He is seated on a carrying chair which will presumably be used to transport him overland once the boat has reached shore. 83   Although unlabelled, the figure positioned under the canopy may be the owner, while the one positioned opposite him may be a member of his household, perhaps his son. It has also been suggested that the two figures are expedition leaders and while this is possible, it seems unlikely as senet was typically played by members of the tomb owner’s household in representations. What is certain is that the two figures hold the highest status of those on board. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 158; Kanawati & Woods, Artists in the Old Kingdom, 71. 84   A scribe is also known on board a model boat from Meir [M241]. He stands towards the bow facing the stern with a white rectangular writing board tucked under his arm. There is no representation of the tomb owner in this model, but a hole in the deck in front of the double rudder oar stanchions may have originally served to secure his figure as this is a position in which he often resides. 79

In contrast, many model boats do not feature any form of propulsion, yet they are entirely absent of towropes.76 It is possible that such lines were originally attached but have not been preserved, although there is no surviving evidence to suggest this. The connection may not have been displayed artistically, but it may still have been conceived, as model boats without propulsion are known from assemblages with both sailing and rowing vessels.77 In the fleet of 58 model boats in the tomb of Djehutynakht (R-10A), at least six display no signs of propulsion [M127-M132; see fig. 3.9],78 yet there was clearly an adequate quantity of self-propelled boats that could act as tugs if required. However, the provenance of all model boats lacking propulsion is not known, so it cannot be established if each example originally had a rowing or sailing partner. With their service intended for the afterlife, it is also possible that model boats were conceived as   It should be noted that only in a small number of examples is the sail preserved, but the consistency of the sailor’s posture indicates that the same operation was portrayed across all model sailing boats. 74   One of the rowing boats has largely been lost due to the insertion of a false door that disrupts the scene. Although the crew has disappeared, the end of an unstepped mast is visible, indicating that the boat was rowed rather than sailed. 75   Two lines are connected to the bow but only one leads to the team of men. 76   In models, these boats comprise both wooden and papyriform types. See, for example, M225, M248, M270, M271, M274. 77  Reisner, Models of Ships, xxiii. 78   Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 166. 73

83

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 3.8. Model boat of Nefwa (186 LC), operated by rowers and sailors; the tomb owner sits on board, playing a game of senet [M191]. © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2301.

reflecting the double occupancy of some burials. In the tomb of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) at Beni Hassan, the two model sailing boats each feature a figure of the owner: one the female occupant [M214] and the other the male [M215].85 This demonstrates that models functioned to serve both tomb owners in the afterlife. Wall scenes, in contrast, solely feature the male owner as the principal figure on wooden and papyriform vessels. This was especially important in the public chapel where visitors would be impressed by the male owner’s superior status. In fact, his figure is particularly prominent in scenes where he appears at least once in all but one of the scenes of wooden boats examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan.86 Such two-dimensional representations highlight the access he had to a riverine fleet during life and convey him as the principal recipient of its service.

anomaly, with at least 21 examples identified among the 147 model boats examined in this study.87 The physical presence of his body in the burial chamber presumably did not necessitate the representation of his figure in models. Rather, the repertoire concentrated on the activities of servants who would provision him in the afterlife. It is therefore quite surprising to find him at all represented on model boats. It is unknown whether all models were fashioned during the tomb owner’s lifetime or whether some were commissioned by family members and deposited in the tomb after his death. If the latter, the presence of the tomb owner’s figure may have been a means to identify him as the recipient of the boat’s service. The case of Niankhpepy-kem and his son, Pepyankh the Black, may be considered here. The father’s tomb-chapel (A1) at Meir was executed and decorated after his death by his son who also constructed an adjoining tomb (A2) for himself.88 It is possible that the models were likewise commissioned by the son which would indicate that they were created after Niankh-pepy-kem’s death. Although the tomb owner

The presence of the tomb owner in model boats is of particular significance as his figure rarely features in the repertoire of the three-dimensional medium. In fact, among the corpus from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, this is the only theme in which he appears. Although he does not feature prominently, his presence is not an

 It should be noted that identifying the tomb owner cannot always be done with certainty in models as textual labels were rarely used. He is often only discernible by an encompassing white cloak which could also be worn by other figures on board. The 21 instances identified in this study are those that seem most likely, but it is possible that more examples in the examined corpus should also be classified as such. 88  Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, 9; Kanawati, in Perfection that Endures, 227-29. 87

 Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cats. 317, 331; EschenbrennerDiemer, in Company of Images, 156-57. 86   The exception is found on the south wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) where his figure is unusually not identifiable on any of the seven boats [S40]. Occasionally, the owner appears on more than one vessel in the same scene, as is found on the south panel of the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S159; fig. 3.7]. 85

84

Transport is not represented on any of Niankh-pepy-kem’s model boats, this example highlights the possibility of family members being responsible for the supply of models in the burial. The incorporation of the tomb owner’s figure was apparently not essential for model boats but may have been considered a subsidiary measure to ensure that the boat successfully served him for eternity.

to Ukh-hotep from Meir are identified specifically as the goddesses through inscriptions painted on their chests [M224; fig. 3.10].92 More typically, however, the female mourners are distinguished simply through their attire and posture. On the model sailing boat of Khnumhotep (140 LC) from Beni Hassan, a diminutive female figure is seated at either end of the coffin [M184]. The two figures have pale yellow skin, wear linen garments and lower their arms to rest alongside the coffin. Likewise, on each of the papyriform boats displayed on the west wall of room 3 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), a female mourner is either seated or standing at each end of the coffin [S33]. The women wear fillets in their hair and long dresses with a single shoulder strap, and two of them adopt a respectful attitude with one arm crossed over the chest. The positioning at the head and foot of the coffin is visible in a profile perspective and so could be realistically displayed in both media.

Occasionally appearing in wall scenes alongside the tomb owner on boats are members of his household. These figures are often readily identifiable through accompanying captions. Of the two rowing boats displayed on the south panel of the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), one carries male members of the household and the other, female [S201; fig. 3.2]. The first four of the large standing figures behind the tomb owner on the right boat are probably identified by the label msw HAtj-a ‘the children of the count’, classifying them as sons of the owner.89 Of the five women displayed on the left boat, two are individually labelled with names and titles, while the other three are designated msw HAtj-a Hmwt ‘the female children of the count’.90 Although identifying captions occasionally appear on model boats, the vast majority of figures on board are unlabelled. It is possible that some of these figures are members of the tomb owner’s household, but this cannot be confirmed without accompanying captions. Artistic features, however, may serve as identifying markers. In a model boat from Meir there are 12 cloaked figures on board, two of whom are carved at a larger scale and demonstrate finer quality craftsmanship [M247]. The one towards the bow is presumably the tomb owner as he is seated on a painted block stool, while the one at the stern end may be a male relative, perhaps a son. Such identifications may only be suggested for the three-dimensional representations, but in wall scenes, can be made with certainty due to the medium’s common integration of inscriptions.

The priests usually stand on the sides of the coffin, a position that encountered difficulties in the two-dimensional medium. Scene-artists could either maintain this position and obscure some of the other figures and features on board or could alter the arrangement to allow all figures to be seen. In the funerary procession of Pepyankh the Black (A2), the scene-artist has chosen the latter alternative and displayed the priests in front and behind the coffin [S31, S33]. Alternatively, in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), the artist has used partial overlapping, placing two of the priests on the far side of the coffin with their lower bodies partially obscured [S198; fig. 3.5]. The priest wearing the distinctive leopard-skin attire holds a censer horizontally across his body and extends his right arm in front with the hand open, palm facing down.93 Although this captures his actual positioning beside the coffin, it is probable that both his right hand and the censer are in reality held over the coffin. While a lack of depth prevented this arrangement from being precisely conveyed in two-dimensions, modelartists could depict it realistically. In a model boat from Deir el-Bersha, three figures are positioned alongside the coffin, two on port and one on starboard [M261]. They are angled towards it, each extending one arm over the top, performing the relevant rituals.94 With the advantage of a

Also present in both two- and three-dimensional representations of boats are priests and mourners. These figures are typically associated with funerary boats bearing the coffin of the owner. Both male and female mourners are represented on board, but of particular importance are the two Dryt-mourners in the guise of Isis and Nephthys who stand at the foot and head of the coffin respectively.91 In a rare use of text, the two women on a model boat belonging

  On the woman at the head of the coffin is written nbt-Hw.t Htp-Hw.t-Hr mAa.t xrw ‘Nephthys Hetephathor true of voice’ and on the woman at the foot is As.t Htp.t mAa.t xrw ‘Isis Hetepet true of voice’. Translation: N. Allon (2016), The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, “Model boat of Ukhhotep”, viewed 25 October 2019, . 93   This distinctive attire could also be portrayed in the three-dimensional medium. In one of the model boats of Ukh-hotep from Meir, a priest stands on either side of the Nephthys mourner [M224; fig. 3.10]. Both men exhibit a shaven head and wear long leopard-skin garments draped over one shoulder. One holds an unrolled scroll, reciting the formulae, while the other holds a censer in his lowered left hand and gestures his right towards the coffin. This is a very similar illustration to that found in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) where there is likewise a priest reading from a scroll [S198; fig. 3.5]. This role was typically adopted by a lector priest, and indeed both the two- and three-dimensional figures are labelled as such. Bárta, Journey to the West, 243; Forshaw, “Role of the Lector”, 53. 94   At least one of the figures has a hole pierced through his hand, indicating that he originally held an object, perhaps a censer. 92

  Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 43.   Such figures, however, are not always labelled in scenes. In the similar illustrations of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) and Amenemhat (2 UC), the women transported in the cabins have no accompanying captions, but it is probable that they too illustrate female members of the tomb owners’ households [S131, S159; see fig. 3.7]. In the scene of Khnumhotep I, the absence of inscriptions may be a result of poor preservation. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 43; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, 43; Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, 24. 91  The presence of these women associates the deceased with the resurrection of Osiris. Wilson, “Funeral services”, JNES 3.4, (1944), 204; Otto, Ancient Egyptian Art, 29; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 113-14; Hudáková, Representations of Women, 621-22. Kucharek has also proposed that the goddesses may have simply provided protection for the deceased instead of mourning. Kucharek, in Ancient Egyptian Coffins, 79. 89 90

85

Preparing for Eternity holistic perspective, the three-dimensional medium could precisely display the positioning of the figures and their associations with each other, whereas scene-artists had to modify this arrangement to overcome the limitations of their medium.

appear in the framework, indicating they are residing within. Although the overall shape of the shelters could be conveyed in two-dimensions, scenes could not present the same complete structure as models. 3.1.4 Supplies transported on board

The human figures transported on boats are often provided with shade and shelter from an open-sided canopy or enclosed cabin. Both media display these structures prominently and exhibit much variation in their designs, but the two main types of covering are clearly identifiable.95 They range from small awnings supported by posts over a single person to long deckhouses occupying the entire length of the deck.96 The main distinction between the two- and three-dimensional representations, however, is once again the use of perspective. Being crafted in threedimensions, models could keep all sides of the structure in view. On one of the towed model boats of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) stands a large enclosed cabin extended by an awning [M127; fig. 3.9]. Carved into the front wall of the cabin, visible beneath the awning, is a pair of hinged doors that lead to the interior of the walled structure.97 Such a holistic perspective also enabled the top and underneath surfaces of a canopy roof to be displayed, as is found in one of the model boats of Ukh-hotep from Meir [M223]. Here, the upper surface of the roof is decorated with a yellow and black leopard-skin while underneath are white stars on a blue background.98

In addition to people, a variety of supplies are transported on boats, forming the fourth category of watercraft representations. Of particular significance is the coffin which is depicted regularly in both artistic media. Both funerary processions and pilgrimages to holy sites required travel across water, and the coffin was typically included on these ventures.100 The anthropoid coffin is particularly common in models and is usually shown lying on a rectangular bier, although sometimes the bier remains empty.101 That of Ukh-hotep from Meir is particularly detailed: a rectangular bier with two carved lion heads, two short tails projecting from the end and four lionshaped legs resides amidships [M224; fig. 3.10]. On top lies an anthropoid coffin coloured white with a yellow face, long blue wig and beard, and a decorative collar.102 The anthropoid coffin and bier displayed in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) are very similar, exhibiting the same decorative features [S198; fig. 3.5]. Alternatively, the rectangular box-coffin could be displayed, as is found in the model boats of Inti from Meir [M225] and Wahhotep from Meir [M271], both of which are unusually inscribed for the owner.103 Similarly, the box coffin is displayed in wall scenes, although this is almost always simply portrayed from a side view. In one exception, the scene-artist has combined multiple viewpoints to highlight the different features of the coffin. This is found on the left

Wall scenes, in contrast, could only present a profile view of each structure. For an open-sided canopy, this could simply comprise two upright posts and the near edge of the roof, such as that covering the bier on the papyriform boat of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S198; fig. 3.5]. It is presumed that each post should be understood as doubled, with a total of four actually supporting the structure.99 In enclosed cabins, it is also the side view that is on display, but openings in the wall could make some of the interior visible. On the boat transporting the female members of Khnumhotep II’s (3 UC) household on the south panel of the west wall is a large enclosed cabin with three rectangular apertures occupying the upper half of the wall [S201; fig. 3.2]. The heads of five female figures

 There is much debate in scholarship as to whether these funerary representations depict the funeral with the body stored within the coffin or simply the procession of the furniture to the tomb with the coffin empty. It is probable that both the funerary furniture and the body went through the same procession and rituals on their journeys to the tomb, before and after the death of the tomb owner respectively, and as the tomb owner is consistently depicted living in scenes, it seems quite likely that the representations should be understood as the funerary procession rather than the actual funeral. For further discussion, see Gaballa, Narrative, 28-30; D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 56-57; Bolshakov, “Representations of funeral procession”, GM 121, (1991), 31-54; Bolshakov, Man and his Double, 95-105; Kanawati, “Specificity”, ASAE 83, (2009), 261-63; Lashien, in Egyptian Culture and Society. Volume II, 1-12. 101   The coffin is regularly identified as a mummy by scholars, but the shape resembles that of an anthropoid coffin. On four of the papyriform vessels of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), a small white rectangular bier stands towards the stern under a canopy [M94, M100, M119, M122]. While it has been suggested that a coffin or mummy originally lay on each of the beds, there are no holes or pegs to suggest this. Rather, it is probable that the biers were always empty which could either be symbolic of the coffin or simply function as a place of rest for long journeys. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 68; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 137; Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 174. 102   Unusually, the model papyriform boat of Ukh-hotep carries a large number of other funerary goods, including a seated statue of the owner on an inscribed throne, two upright anthropoid coffins, an empty chair and a disproportionately large standing figure of the owner or a priest [M223]. With the carving of different scales and unusual arrangement, it is possible that not all of these features are original to the model. Hayes, Sceptre of Egypt. Part I, 273-74; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 141. 103   Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 137. 100

 Stephens, in his study of both two- and three-dimensional boating representations of the Old and Middle Kingdoms, has identified 10 different forms of cabin. Stephens, Egyptian Ships and Boats, 50-61. 96   On the sailing model boat of Intef (1 LC), a small canopy stands aft of midships: four posts support a rectangular roof with a square hole cut through the middle which is now covered by modern gauze [M40]. Similarly, on the bow of each rowing boat displayed on the south panel of the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) is a small opensided canopy shown in profile with two uprights and a horizontal roof that covers the owner [S159; fig. 3.7]. Alternatively, a large enclosed decorated cabin with a vaulted roof occupies the majority of the deck in a model boat belonging to Djehuty-hotep from Deir el-Bersha [M258]. Enclosed cabins also appear in scenes, featuring on all seven boats displayed on the west wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehutyhotep (N-2), although it is hidden from view in the second boat from the right [S211]. Each one is rectangular in shape and occupies a significant proportion of the deck. 97   D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 115. 98  Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 141. 99  Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 732. 95

86

Transport

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

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

87

Preparing for Eternity papyriform boat of the west wall of room 3 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) where it combines a long side, a cavetto cornice and a curved roof [S33].104 While this combination does not present a realistic arrangement, it allows the scene-artist to capture multiple features of the coffin.

Shields are by far the most common weapon represented, appearing in every one of the two- and three-dimensional boats bearing military equipment examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan. These may be held in the hands of sailors or guards,108 reside on deck,109 or, most commonly, hang on the sides of a cabin or canopy. Two shields typically hang on each side of the structure’s roof. On the north panel of the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), two round-topped shields appear on the side of the rectangular cabin of the right-most boat [S158; fig. 3.6]. The decoration consists of an animal hide pattern and a defined border with lines indicative of stitching. Similarly, on a model sailing boat of Djehutynakht (R-10A), painted shields feature on the canopy roof, although in this case they are visible on both sides of the structure [M106].110 Model-artists also had the option to carve the shields out of wood, as is achieved in a sailing boat of Khnum-nekhti and Nejter-nekhti (585 LC) where a round-topped shield is attached to the canopy framework [M215]. The prominence of the shield in the representations suggests a defensive role of the equipment carried on board. The weaponry was therefore not primarily designed for military attack, but rather to offer a means of protection during riverine travel.

Representations of the coffin, like those of the living tomb owner, are in fact quite surprising in models as the artworks were housed in the burial chamber alongside the actual coffin. As noted in relation to the depiction of the tomb owner above, it is possible that some models were commissioned by family members after the tomb owner’s death. Consequently, model boats with coffins may have been representative of the actual funeral which involved transport across the river. Supporting this conclusion is the fact that almost all model boats with coffins examined in this study do not include a figure of the living owner.105 The presence of the coffin on these boats may have been symbolic of a successful journey of the deceased to his place of burial. Also transported on boats are military weapons which provide protection for those travelling on board. This equipment does not appear commonly in the representations, but among those examined in this study, more examples are known from the three-dimensional medium. Of the 147 model boats examined, 17 were found to contain some type of weaponry, whereas of the 47 individual boats studied in wall scenes, only four were identified. None of these examples date prior to the late 11th Dynasty which coincides with the appearance of military scenes on the walls of a number of Beni Hassan tombchapels.106 This correlation in date may suggest that the presence of military equipment was associated with civil unrest in the country. It is in fact quite surprising to find weapons displayed on model boats when considered in conjunction with the rarity of military figures in the threedimensional repertoire, as will be discussed in chapter 6.1. With the belief that what was represented in the tomb would come into reality in the afterlife,107 the inclusion of weaponry in the burial would have posed a potential threat to the deceased’s safety. However, its appearance on some model boats may have been considered acceptable due to an emphasis on defensive equipment.

After shields, the next most common type of weaponry on model boats are quivers storing spears, although these are far less frequent. The quivers may stand on deck or hang from a canopy, and are identifiable by their long, roughly cylindrical shape and painted animal hide decoration.111 On a model sailing boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), two quivers are attached to the canopy framework [M120; fig. 3.11].112 Each one is finely carved with pointed spear tips emerging from one end. Quivers are not present in any of the two-dimensional boats examined in this study, although spears are known to be held by some of the individuals on deck. On the bow of the boat transporting the female relatives of Amenemhat (2 UC) on the south panel of the east wall of his tomb, two men stand holding spears: one rests the weapon by his side and the other across his chest [S159; fig. 3.7]. Similarly, some figures on model boats also hold spears, including two figures in the bow of the  Two model boats from Deir el-Bersha display an almost identical arrangement: towards the stern of each boat stand five men armed with military equipment [M160, M283]. Almost all have one arm sharply bent at the elbow with the fist close to the shoulder, to which a small shield was originally carved or attached. Glanville, Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum II, 54. Alternatively, in a model rowing boat of Nefwa (186 LC), a man in the bow, possibly the pilot, holds a round-topped shield on his left arm [M189]. A slightly different arrangement is found on the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC): a man standing in the bow of the middle boat on the north panel likewise holds a shield, although here he raises it above his head, perhaps creating shade for the owner who sits on a chair underneath [S158; fig. 3.6]. 109   On deck between the two lines of rowers on a model boat of Djehutynakht (R-10A) stand two round-topped shields which lean against a forked upright holding a quiver of spears [M84]. This positioning is not found in the wall scenes examined in this study. 110   The black-spotted animal hide is indicated through painting and small black dots on a white border specify stitching. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 170. 111  Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 109. 112   A single quiver is found in a similar position in a model sailing boat from the tomb of Nefwa (186 LC) [M190]. 108

  Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, 33; Lashien, Nobles of El-Qusiya, 210. 105   Two exceptions, however, are found in a boat from Meir [M248] and one from the tomb of Sepi III (K-14 south) [M280]. Both models depict the living tomb owner in an enveloping white cloak at one end of the coffin. If these figures are correctly identified as the tomb owner, then it is unlikely that the funeral itself is depicted. 106   The earliest examples identified are from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), dated to the late 11th Dynasty [M84, M106, M117, M120, M123], and another model from Deir el-Bersha, likewise dated to the late 11th Dynasty [M160]. Merriman, in her study of all model boats, similarly dates the occurrence of military equipment to the 11th and 12th Dynasties. Badawy, History of Egyptian Architecture, 122; Schulman, “Battle scenes”, JSSEA 12, (1982), 176; Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 61; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 108. 107  Hayes, Sceptre of Egypt. Part I, 80-81; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 15; Kanawati, Decorated Burial Chambers, 21. 104

88

Transport

Figure 3.11. Model boat of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A); the canopy is decorated with painted shields and has two quivers lashed to the framework [M120]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.877.

sailing boat of Re-hotepi and Kaayt from Meir [M168]. In a few rare examples, model boats incorporate other weapons, including bows and arrows, and battle-axes.113 Although the inclusion of such offensive equipment is rare, these model owners must have considered the importance of the weaponry to outweigh the potential danger it posed.

food preparation tasks [M130-M131].115 Similarly, two boats in the wall scenes examined contain food supplies [S12, S198; figs. 3.4, 3.5], and only one features figures engaged in preparing food [S104]. In one of the model boats of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), this motif dominates the representation, occupying most of the deck [M131]. Two figures stand and lean forward with their arms lowered as they carry out their work: the one on starboard grinds grain on a raised quern stone while the one on port strains beermash through a sieve into a large vessel. There are very few crew members on board, so it is probable that the food being produced was to satisfy the figures across the whole fleet.

An additional supply that features on some boats is food to nourish the crew and those travelling on board. Although nourishment would have been essential on riverine journeys, it only occasionally appears in the representations. Three model boats have been found to contain food supplies [M63, M242, M285],114 and an additional two examples include figures engaged in

A similar representation is found on the west wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) [S104]. In the right-most boat of the fifth register, a figure in the bow facing aft leans forward with his arms bent and lowered in front and his hands resting on top of a partially preserved object. Although the details are no longer completely clear, his posture exhibits many similarities with brewers straining beer-mash, so it seems highly likely that he is engaged in this task. Seated opposite him is a figure with both hands resting on a low worksurface, perhaps kneading dough. Furnishing boats with bread-makers, brewers and foodstuffs would have

  On a model boat of Nefwa (186 LC), a man with black skin stands in the bow facing starboard [M191; fig. 3.8]. In one hand he holds a long bow and in the other he originally held two arrows, although now holds a stick. This type of weaponry in combination with his dark skin may suggest he is a Nubian archer. Alternatively, on a model rowing boat of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC), a man stands between the two lines of rowers towards the bow, facing starboard [M213]. Originally, in his left hand he held a round-topped shield and in his right was a battleaxe. 114   A possible fourth example is found in a model rowing boat from Meir [M239]. Hanging from a line on the port side of the bow is an object in the shape of a drinking vessel sealed with a stopper. This is distinct in shape from the plumb-line that hangs off the stern. Its unusual placement may suggest that it is not original to the model. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 495. An additional three model boats contain chests, the contents of which are unknown, but presumably comprise supplies for the journey which may include food and drink [M127, M215, M220; see fig. 3.9]. 113

 Additionally, a model boat from Meir features two men striding forward with sacks on their backs, presumably filled with grain [M243]. However, the unusual combination and arrangement of figures suggests that the model is pastiche; it is probable that these two men rather derive from a model granary. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 146. 115

89

Preparing for Eternity enabled these vessels to accomplish longer journeys. Perhaps the rarity of this motif in representations of boats is due to the regular appearance of the food preparation theme in both models and wall scenes. With only limited space available on deck, it may have been more important to depict the crewmen and boat fittings rather than the supplementary motif of food preparation. In large fleets such as those of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) and Khety (17 UC), individual boats could be dedicated to these additional processes as there was a sufficient supply of watercraft offering transport.

chapel, models are more concerned with providing for the deceased’s most essential needs. Household animals such as monkeys formed a supplementary motif that was not necessary for the deceased’s riverine journeys.119 An additional component transported on boats, which is in fact unique to the three-dimensional medium, is solar attributes. These model boats are devoid of crew and propulsion and carry a range of symbolic objects associated with the sun-god, including feathers of maat, objects with falcon heads attached, and blocks or chests decorated with the Ssm-sign.120 A total of six have been identified in this study, three of which could be examined through images [M243, M277, M281; see fig. 3.12].121 Such watercraft have been termed ‘solar boats’ and understood as giving the deceased the ability to travel in the company of the divine.122 During the Old Kingdom, this prerogative was reserved for royalty where it was believed that the deceased king would join the sun-god on his daily journey in his barque across the sky and the underworld,123 but at least by the Middle Kingdom, private individuals seem to have gained access to some divine symbolism.124 The solar model boats with known provenance identified in this study may be dated to the late 12th Dynasty, specifically to the reigns of Senusret II or Senusret III.125 By this time, provincial officials had attained increasing independence and chose to proclaim their authority in their tombs by adopting several royal attributes. In the tomb of Ukh-hotep III (C1) at Meir, this is especially prevalent in the statuerecess where it is expressed that all resources of the land

A distinction between the two media in relation to the supply of food, however, is found in the depiction of its consumption. This motif is found in wall scenes but is absent from models. On the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2), a figure seated on the cabin roof of the right sailing boat drinks from a vessel [S12; fig. 3.4]. His arms are bent as he raises it to his mouth, with one hand supporting the base and the other near the rim. Models, conversely, do not show food and drink being consumed, but rather the supplies are simply positioned on deck, as is found in a boat likely from the tomb of Senbi at Meir [M63],116 or the rowing boat of Ma (500 LC) [M285]. While this may be partly attributed to the technical difficulty of crafting intricate movements in three-dimensions, it may also reflect a difference in emphasis. Models were concerned with provisioning the tomb owner for the afterlife and in relation to boats, this principally comprised riverine transport. Nourishment was rather accommodated by models of food production and preparation. While the consumption of food and drink is still quite rare in wall scenes, it demonstrates the sceneartist’s desire to incorporate everyday life moments into his work.

  This is also noticeable in the rare representation of dogs in the threedimensional repertoire, as will be discussed in chapter 4.4. 120  Reisner, Models of Ships, xxv-xxvii; Jones, Boats, 13, 16; Tooley, in Oxford Encyclopedia, ; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 102-03. 121   For the other three examples identified, see Daressy, “Fouilles de Deir el Bircheh”, ASAE 1, (1900), 26-28; Reisner, Models of Ships, fig. 152; De Meyer, in World of Middle Kingdom Egypt. Volume II, 92. The solar boat from Meir is not currently configured as a solar boar, but carries a large number of human figures, a sail, a coffin and a canopy, all of which are apparently not original to the model [M243]. Merriman has classified this as an altered solar boat, with the only original features comprising the solid white hull with finials and a box decorated with a falcon. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, 103, cat. 146. 122   This type of boat forms Reisner Type VI. Reisner, Models of Ships, xxv-xxvii; Jones, Boats, 16. 123   In fact, kings often buried actual boats in pits associated with their tombs during the Old Kingdom, with the most notable examples belonging to Khufu of the 4th Dynasty. Murray, Splendour that was Egypt, 209-10; Vinson, Boats and Ships, 21-22; Ward, Sacred and Secular, 2; Grajetzki, Burial Customs in Ancient Egypt, 28; Ikram, Death and Burial, 42. 124   The process in which private individuals began to adopt royal beliefs and practices has been termed ‘the democratisation of the afterlife’. More recently, scholars have debated the accuracy of the term and have proposed that some of these privileges were already available to them in the Old Kingdom and accordingly, there were gradual changes in funerary practices rather than a sudden transformation of beliefs. For further discussion, see Willems, Chests of Life, 244-49; Sørensen, in Religion of the Ancient Egyptians, 109-25; Smith, “Democratization”, UEE 1.1, (2009) ; Wegner, in Egyptian Archaeology, 119-32; Hays, in Old Kingdom, New Perspectives, 115-30; Morfoisse, in Sésostris III, 210-13. 125   These examples originate from the tombs of Sepi I (K-15), Sepi II (K-14 north), Sepi III (K-14 south) and tomb L-16L25/1A at Deir elBersha. Daressy, “Fouilles de Deir el Bircheh”, ASAE 1, (1900), 2638; De Meyer, in World of Middle Kingdom Egypt. Volume II, 92-94; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 180. 119

This emphasis on daily life is further witnessed in the depiction of animals aboard some two-dimensional boats. Although only partially preserved, a monkey appears on the cabin roof of the left-most boat in the scene of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) [S12; fig. 3.4]. It is unclear if such animals belong to a member of the crew or tomb owner or if they are part of the goods transported,117 but their presence captures a lively moment of everyday life boating. Model vessels, in contrast, do not feature any animals on board. A possible exception is found in a model boat from Meir where a small standing ox is today kept in association with the vessel, but it is highly likely that it did not originate from the model [M54].118 While everyday life moments are a prominent feature of scenes publicly displayed in the   The specific tomb attribution of the tomb of Senbi has been suggested by Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 410. For a discussion on the provenance of Meir, see Berman & Bohač, Catalogue of Egyptian Art, cats. 140, 151. 117   Evans, in Egyptian Art, 76. 118   There are a number of inaccuracies with the presence and arrangement of the human figures on board, making it highly likely that the model is pastiche. Norwich Castle Museum & Art Gallery, “Model boat (model)”, viewed 12 October 2017, ; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 346. 116

90

Transport

Figure 3.12. Model solar boat of Sepi II (K-14 north) [M277]. Drawing by the author.

were at the tomb owner’s disposal as if he were the king himself.126 The placement of model solar boats in burial chambers should perhaps be understood as the adoption of another royal prerogative by private individuals. There is certainly a religious emphasis in this type of boat which may have been more relevant in the burial chamber where the goods interred were solely for the deceased’s benefit in the afterlife. In the two-dimensional medium, conversely, afterlife themes were not incorporated until the New Kingdom.127 This distinction in motif therefore demonstrates that artists selected their designs according to the specific role and context of their medium within the tomb.

hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha are clearly defined within the band of water [S211]. Occasionally, aquatic life is also incorporated into the environment, as is found on the west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) where a line of fish appears beneath the boats [S83].129 With the definition of water, scene-artists could also create a clear distinction between the activities occurring on land and those on the river. On the west wall of room 3 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), a group of figures stand on the baseline to the left of the band of water, waiting to board the boat [S33]. This defines their activity as taking place on land, distinct from the river, and it conveys the specific moment of the beginning of the journey.130 Models, conversely, do not incorporate the riverine environment into their designs. Unlike other model-types, model boats are not fashioned onto a baseboard, resulting in an absence of any surrounding environment and associated land activities.131 Instead, the focus of the three-dimensional medium is solely on the boat itself and all of the supplies and people on board.

3.1.5 Supplementary features In addition to the four main categories of watercraft representations, wall scenes include the supplementary feature of the surrounding riverine environment. Most scenes incorporate a rectangular band of water decorated with closely spaced vertical zigzag lines that is positioned on top of the register line with the boats raised above.128 The band could either be transparent with details of the boat’s fittings visible through the water, or solid with all submerged elements hidden from view. In the two boating scenes displayed on the east wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the oars of the rowers descend into the water and disappear from view [S158-S159; figs. 3.6, 3.7], whereas both the blades of the oars and the lines securing the three closely overlapping boats to the bank on the west wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-

Alongside the representation of land-based activities, wall scenes could specify the particular riverine voyage depicted through accompanying captions. These may refer to a specific event in the tomb owner’s life, as is found in the scene of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) where the inscription states that the tomb owner is being transported to view the cattle count [S211],132 or it may indicate a real or symbolic   Unusually, no clear waterline is associated with the fish. It is possible that this was never included, but it is perhaps more likely a result of poor preservation. Aquatic life is particularly prevalent in scenes of fishing and fowling in the marshes where the creatures are essential to conveying the theme, as was discussed in chapter 2.8. 130   The scene of Khety (17 UC) similarly depicts a land-based activity: on the left of the fifth register of the west wall, two men stand on shore using mallets to drive a mooring stake into the ground, although the thin band of water is poorly preserved [S104]. 131  Only one exception is known, namely the pair of papyrus skiffs attached to a single baseboard from the tomb of Meketre at Thebes, which was discussed in chapter 2.8. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46715. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pl. 52. 132  The line of text above the boats begins, ‘Arriving in peace, approaching to the hall of the great counting of his cattle of-before-theking and his cattle of [the house of] eternity from the farms of the Hare nome…’. Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, 26-28. 129

 Among the decoration of the statue-recess are deities personifying the natural resources of the land who make offerings to Ukh-hotep, and a priest pronouncing ‘an offering which the king gives and Re to the count, the overseer of priests, Ukh-hotep; may he appear in glory as/ like the king of Upper Egypt and may he appear in glory as/like the king of Lower Egypt, for ever and ever’. Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part VI, 31-37; Kanawati, “Wekhhotep III of Meir”, BACE 26, (2016-2018), 37. Similarly, Amenemhat (2 UC) dates the construction of his tomb in his autobiography not only to a regnal year of King Senusret I, but also to a specific year of his own governance. Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 59-60; Lloyd, Ancient Egypt, 163. 127  Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 1. 128  Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 237-39. 126

91

Preparing for Eternity journey to a holy site like Abydos or Busiris.133 On the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), the journey to Abydos is displayed on the north panel while the return trip is on the south panel [S198, S201; figs. 3.2, 3.5].134 While model boats are one of the rare themes in which text does appear in the three-dimensional medium, these inscriptions do not state the destination or describe the journey. Rather, as noted above, they consist of labels that simply identify some of the individuals on board or the name of the tomb owner himself.135 This suggests that the focus of models is on their ability to provide the appropriate transport for the afterlife, whereas wall scenes are more concerned with portraying activities in which the tomb owner himself was engaged during life, whether real or symbolic.

However, some of the distinctions reflect a contrast in emphasis. Wall scenes often portray a specific moment of the riverine journey which most likely occurred during the life of the tomb owner. This would have been more significant for public display in the above-ground chapel. In particular, this is noticeable in the depiction of landbased activities, such as the boarding of people and the mooring of the boat, as well as accompanying inscriptions that specify the destination. Additionally, the precise moment of propulsion could be specified in the stance and stroke of the rowers as well as the range of tasks conducted by the sailors. Models, in contrast, are apparently less concerned with portraying moments from everyday life. Instead, the boats are simply equipped for transport, with the crew largely represented in characteristic postures that simply identify the mode of propulsion rather than specify a particular stage of the journey. Moreover, the absence of supplementary motifs such as the consumption of food and drink and the transport of animals in addition to the exclusion of papyrus skiffs from the repertoire removes the focus from everyday life. Overall, the model boats prioritise their ability to function for any riverine journey encountered by the tomb owner during the afterlife.

* * * The differences between the two media in their representation of watercraft as outlined above may largely be attributed to their unique technical properties. Modelartists had the advantage of working in three-dimensions and could accordingly present a more realistic depiction. This is especially evident in the arrangement of the deck fittings and crew as well as the structures of the cabins and coffins. They could also incorporate a range of materials into their designs to add greater realism. Simultaneously, with the difficulty of crafting minute features and varied movement in small three-dimensional sculptures, less detail is often incorporated. Examples of this are especially seen in the depiction of the rigging and the posture of the sailors. On the other hand, such intricacies could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface, enabling scene-artists to present a typically more detailed representation. Minute features such as the precise moment of propulsion and the wind in the sails could therefore be encapsulated in their designs. However, scene-artists concurrently had to overcome the limitations of perspective which often compromised the realism of the representations, as is found in the arrangement of the rowers and the positioning of the priests. It also causes any features only visible from the top-down to be excluded, most notably, the deck fittings. The unique properties of each medium certainly influenced the designs, resulting in some artistic differences between the two media.

The primary role of the boat in providing transport is certainly witnessed in both the two- and three-dimensional media and the representations do display many similarities in design. However, this role seems to have been particularly significant in the burial chamber where the focus was on provisioning the deceased. Model boats are particularly prominent in the three-dimensional repertoire, highlighting their esteemed value for the tomb owner’s afterlife. With the advantage of a holistic perspective, the boats are represented in a realistic fashion and are equipped with the necessary fittings, crew and supplies to successfully serve the deceased for eternity. 3.2 Offering-bearers One of the principal modes of travel overland was on foot, with people carrying a wide array of items. The transport of these goods to the tomb was particularly significant as it provided the deceased with the necessary nourishment and supplies for the afterlife. In life, wealthy tomb owners established a mortuary cult that would ideally enable the desired offerings to be presented perpetually, but the maintenance of this cult could not be ensured.136 Accordingly, the representation of figures presenting offerings formed a vital safeguard in the eternal provisioning of the deceased, with numerous examples known from both the two- and three-dimensional media.137

 There remains much ambiguity as to whether the pilgrimages to holy sites occurred during life as part of the funerary procession or symbolically in the afterlife. As the provinces of Middle Egypt are some distance away from Abydos and Busiris, it seems unlikely that all tomb owners could have accomplished such a long journey during their lifetimes. For further discussion, see Otto, Ancient Egyptian Art, 32-34; Spencer, Death, 162; Kessler, “Szenen des täglichen Lebens (I)”, ZAeS 114.1, (1987), 74-77, 87-88; D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 56; Quirke, Egyptian Religion, 54-57; O’Connor, Abydos, 34. 134  Part of the caption on the north panel reads, ‘Sailing southward to acknowledge the requirements of Abydos…’, while the text on the south panel begins, ‘Returning on bringing about the requirements of Abydos…’. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 38, 42. 135  Six model boats examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan contain textual captions [M223-M225, M248, M258, M271]. 133

 David, Ancient Egyptians, 79-80; Spencer, Death, 63; Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 95; Baines & Lacovara, “Burial and the dead”, JSA 2.1, (2002), 15-16. 137   Bearers presenting goods appear in a range of contexts, as will be discussed below, but in this study certain motifs have been excluded from this theme, including processions of foreigners, figures carrying weapons, the presentation of fish and fowl in association with marshland activities, and the parade of oxen, as each of these is discussed in another chapter. Additionally, representations of the offering-table scene on the 136

92

Transport The theme consists of two main elements, namely the bearers and their offerings, and the two media display many similarities in representation. Differences result, however, from both the unique technical properties of each medium and their contrasting locations in the tomb. Wall scenes, located in the chapel, were intimately associated with the rituals conducted by the living, whereas models, concealed from view in the burial chamber, were primarily concerned with provisioning the deceased for the afterlife.

emphasise the theme through quantity and the models through quality, it is clear that representing the transport of offerings overland held a highly valued role within the funerary sphere. 3.2.1 The bearers The human figure forms one of the two principal components of the offering-bearer theme and although both male and female bearers are represented, the two media display contrasting preferences. Male figures dominate wall scenes, with the vast majority of twodimensional processions solely featuring men. Only 19 scenes examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan incorporate any female bearers,142 and only one tomb solely displays women in this role. Ukh-hotep III (C1) of Meir is unique in not only emphasising women in his offering scenes, but also featuring them in all professions displayed on the walls of his tomb. Female offering-bearers appear on the north and south walls of his chapel, although many are attired in the traditional male kilt or carry offerings ordinarily associated with male bearers [S217-S218; see fig. 6.7].143 The reasons for this prominent portrayal of women are uncertain, but Ukhhotep III does claim several royal attributes in his tomb and his close association with women may form another such example.144

Although the theme of offering-bearers is prominent in the repertoires of both the two- and three-dimensional media, there is a vast difference in quantity. The presentation of offerings constitutes a standard element of tomb scenes, perhaps forming the most important theme in the chapel.138 Almost all decorated tombs incorporate a variation of this theme and many feature multiple scenes of bearers. From Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, examples were identified on over 60 different walls of 22 different tombs, with the largest scene comprising 42 bearers spread across three registers, found on the north wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir [S8]. Such extensive displays highlight the immense value of the theme to tomb owners. While scenes almost exclusively portray bearers in procession,139 models depict three different types of arrangement: single figures, pairs, and processions of three or more, with the first alternative vastly more common. Of the 31 models examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, 22 depict single bearers, three illustrate pairs, and six portray processions.140 Tomb owners typically only housed a single model bearer in their burials, but Djehutynakht (R-10A) of Deir el-Bersha uniquely furnished his tomb with six single figures, one pair and five processions [M138-M149]. The overall quantity of three-dimensional bearers is smaller, but the esteemed value of the theme is evident in the superior quality of craftsmanship often reserved for it. Some of the finest examples of models known belong to this theme, with some even comparable to statues of the tomb owner.141 While the scenes

In contrast to the emphasis on men found in wall scenes, female figures predominate among three-dimensional offering-bearers. This is especially noticeable in the single figures where 17 of the 22 examples identified in this study comprise women.145 It is possible that these female figures demonstrate an association with mortuary estates. In scenes of the Old Kingdom, the estates were personified as female offering-bearers carrying baskets on their heads   See S7, S34, S37, S62, S121, S126, S138, S142, S144, S163, S166, S173-S174, S193, S213, S217-S220. 143   Three rows of female bearers approach a large standing figure of the owner on the north wall [S217; see fig. 6.7]. The herdsman’s short straw kilt and male wig are worn by the fifth and sixth women from the left of the fourth register. Similarly, the second and third women from the right of the fifth register wear the traditional male kilt. On the south wall, three women preceded by a possible male official approach the owner who inspects three rows of riverine activities [S218]. The second woman has a foreleg hanging in her right hand, an offering that is characteristically transported by male bearers. In the statue-recess, however, it is male offering-bearers who are displayed [S219-S220]. These men are identified as priests and funerary officiants in the accompanying captions. Such roles evidently could only be performed by men. Unusually, personifications of deities also present offerings to the tomb owner in these scenes as if he were the king. Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part VI, 19-20, 24, 33-37; Grajetzki, Court Officials, 117. 144   In royal funerary monuments, kings such as Montuhotep II, Senusret I and Senusret III were buried surrounded by their wives and daughters. Grajetzki proposes that Ukh-hotep III was influenced by this royal practice and desired to likewise display a close association with women in his tomb. Kanawati, alternatively, suggests the possibility that as Ukhhotep was unable to produce a male heir, he may have desired to advocate for the equality of women so that his only daughter could successfully assume his position as governor. Grajetzki, Court Officials, 117-18; Kanawati, “Wekhhotep III of Meir”, BACE 26, (2016-2018), 44. 145  This emphasis on women has also been noted by Tooley in her examination of model offering-bearers across Egypt. Of the 213 provenanced examples identified in her study, 187 are female and 26 are male. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 225. 142

false door have been excluded as they constitute a different type of tomb decoration. 138   Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 121; Altenmüller, in Egypt, 81-82. 139   Only rarely do bearers appear as single figures in wall scenes, an example of which may be found on the north thickness of the doorway of the tomb of Imi (L-15I55/1) at Deir el-Bersha [S4]. The bearer in this scene faces into the tomb and presents a bird, while another figure offers incense on the south thickness. It is quite likely that both figures are the sons of the owner who are referenced in the associated text. De Meyer, “Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barshā. Volume I”, 62-63; De Meyer, “Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barshā. Volume II”, pl. 16. 140   A total of 47 models of offering-bearers were identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, with the images of only 31 available for examination. 141   Of particular note is the so-called ‘Bersha Procession’ from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) which incorporates elements of symmetry and an exceptional level of detail as well as utilises different types of wood in its construction [M144; fig. 3.16]. D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 102-03; Roth & Roehrig, “Bersha Procession”, JMFA 1, (1989), 39; Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 26; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 176; Hatchfield, “‘Bersha Procession’ in context. Part II”, BES 19, (2015), 315-16.

93

Preparing for Eternity who brought the produce of their respective regions.146 The characteristic model female bearer likewise adopts this attitude, suggesting that she too may have been symbolic of the real or idealised estates from which the provisions were drawn.147 This type of representation would have been especially important in the typically more condensed three-dimensional medium where a single bearer encompassed the provisions of a whole estate.

(A1) from Meir, the feet are realistically detailed with carved toes and painted toenails [M23]. Wall scenes, in contrast, could only portray the feet in profile and sceneartists selected the inside of the foot for both feet as this was the most characteristic side. Consequently, only the big toe and arch of the foot are on display.150 The male bearers on the north wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) at Meir walk towards the left with apparently two right feet [S140]. While these alterations in design enabled all bodily features to be readily identified in two-dimensions, they hindered the realism of the composition.

In their representation of the human figure, artists were bound by the specific technical properties of their medium. For scene-artists working in two-dimensions, a composite image was created with each part of the human body depicted from its most characteristic perspective.148 Model-artists were not bound by this same limitation as they had the advantage of working in three-dimensions. The resulting differences in design may be exemplified in the depiction of the female bearer. She is regularly attired in the traditional tight-fitting dress which typically extends from below the breast to mid-calf with one or two shoulder straps.149 With the frontal view available in models, both bare breasts are on display. The single female bearer of Intef (1 LC) from Beni Hassan, for example, has a whitepainted shoulder strap passing between two rounded breasts marked with black dots for nipples [M41]. In the composite image presented in scenes, on the other hand, a single bare breast is shown in profile on a full-view chest, as is exhibited by all four women on the east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir [S37; fig. 3.13].

The composite design of the human figure was strictly organised according to the canon of proportions in wall scenes. This was principally used for major figures and to a lesser extent, minor figures, including offering-bearers.151 In some scenes, the grid is still present, as is identified on the north and west walls of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) [S140, S144-S145].152 Models, with their focus on subsidiary figures, apparently seem to largely avoid the use of this system, but it has been determined that some examples of offering-bearers did in fact use the grid in their construction. Among the corpus examined in this study, the last figure in the procession of female bearers of Niankhpepy-kem (A1) [M24; fig. 3.17], and all four figures in the so-called ‘Bersha Procession’ of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M144; fig. 3.16] have been identified to have utilised the standardised canon of the period in their designs.153 The use of this system should perhaps be understood in conjunction with the higher quality craftsmanship often reserved for model offering-bearers.154 The care taken in fashioning these figures highlights the value of this theme to their owners.

Similar differences are identifiable in the representation of the bearers’ feet. Model human figures regularly lack feet as they were required to be secured to the baseboard with pegs, but in many model offering-bearers the feet have been carved from wood or modelled in plaster. In the finely carved single male bearer of Niankh-pepy-kem

As noted above, the female bearer is regularly attired in her characteristic tight-fitting dress in both the two- and three-dimensional media. However, the models also utilise nudity in their representations. Several of the single female bearers are depicted naked with the nipples, navel and pubic triangle indicated through black dots, as is exemplified by one of the figures from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M142; fig. 3.14].155 Occasionally, they are adorned with painted jewellery, like two of the model female bearers of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) from Beni Hassan [M209], or have a linen skirt wrapped around the waist, like that belonging to Khety-aa (575 LC) from

  See, for example, the south wall of room A6 in the tomb of Mereruka at Saqqara where several female figures process towards a large standing figure of the tomb owner. Each woman balances a basket on her head with one hand and holds an additional item by her side in the other, and is identified as the personification of an estate by an accompanying label. Kanawati, et al., Mereruka and his Family. Part III:1-2, pls. 81-82. It has been suggested that scenes moved away from this type of representation during the 6th Dynasty due to the disappearance of these figures from tombs in the capital, but female bearers balancing baskets on their heads are known from numerous provincial scenes after this period. On the south wall of the late 6th Dynasty tomb of Ipi (481 LC) at Beni Hassan, for example, two female bearers each balance a basket on their head and carry fowl in their hanging hand [S7]. Likewise, in the 12th Dynasty tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan, two female bearers appear on the south wall of the shrine in a similar attitude [S174]. There is no reason to assume that these figures too were not personifications of estates. Jacquet-Gordon, Noms des domaines funéraires, 30-31; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 175-76; Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 103; Freed, “‘Bersha Procession’ in context. Part I”, BES 19, (2015), 293-94. 147  Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome III, 147; JacquetGordon, Noms des domaines funéraires, 34-39; Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 103; Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 105; Orel, in Encyclopedia of Ancient History, . 148  Davis, Canonical Tradition, 27-28 Robins, Proportion and Style, 13; Peck, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 363. 149  Vogelsang-Eastwood, Egyptian Clothing, 95-96; Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 76. 146

 Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 295; Robins, Proportion and Style, 13. 151  Davis, Canonical Tradition, 24-26; Auenmüller, in Perfection that Endures, 32. 152   Work on the chapel of Ukh-hotep I must have been abandoned at an early stage of decoration as the scenes display sections executed in relief at different stages of completion or simply in drawing with the grid still remaining. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 38. 153   Roth & Roehrig, “Bersha Procession”, JMFA 1, (1989), 39; Freed, “‘Bersha Procession’ in context. Part I”, BES 19, (2015), 299. 154   Interestingly, Harvey has identified that the canon was often used for female offering-bearers, those both intricately carved and more crudely fashioned. Harvey, in Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology, 165-66. 155  Sometimes the nipple is encircled with smaller black dots for emphasis, as is found on another female bearer of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M141]. 150

94

Transport

Figure 3.13. Four female offering-bearers. Tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2). East wall of room 4, centre panel, register 4 [S37]. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 91 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

Beni Hassan [M204],156 but often the women are entirely naked. Although, it must be remembered that loose linen garments could easily become separated or destroyed, so it is possible that at least some of these figures were originally wrapped in skirts that have since been lost.

it was in the chapel where representations were designed to impress visitors. Instead, nudity was largely reserved in the two-dimensional medium for children and members of the lowest class of society and scenes of intimacy were also avoided.160 With their location in the chapel, scenes needed to be suitable for public display and therefore all two-dimensional female bearers are clothed.

Tooley has suggested that nudity is a regional variation largely attributable to Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan while Vandier and Kroenke have identified it as a chronological feature of the late 11th to mid-12th Dynasties.157 It has been postulated that the use of nudity indicates the youthfulness of the bearer or that it ensures the rejuvenation of the deceased.158 Perhaps there is some correlation between the nude female bearers and the fertility figurines which likewise occur in burial chambers. Pinch has classified these figurines according to six main types and argues that all probably represented ideals associated with female sexuality, including rebirth and fertility.159 The nude model female offering-bearers do not exhibit the same emphasis on their sexuality, but it is possible that they share similar connotations with the figurines. As the models were concealed from view in the burial chamber, the display of nudity was apparently considered more appropriate than

For male bearers, the short tight white kilt forms the typical garment in both the two- and three-dimensional representations.161 However, variations in attire also distinguish individuals of different status. One such alteration is the projecting kilt which is typically worn by overseers or scribes.162 In wall scenes, this comprises a triangular projection at the front of the kilt, as is exhibited by the leading three bearers on the east wall of the tomb of An-ankhy (L-15J67/1) at Deir el-Bersha [S3]. Although these figures are unlabelled, they are distinguished from the two bearers behind who wear the standard tight kilt, making it probable they are of a more prominent rank.163   Due to the absence of sexual intercourse in chapel scenes, it must be assumed that this was considered inappropriate for display in the funerary sphere. At most, the scenes only hint at intimacy, an example of which can be found on the west wall of room A10 in the tomb of Mereruka at Saqqara. Here, the tomb owner and his wife walk hand-in-hand towards the bed which is prepared by attendants. The wife serenades Mereruka with music, but no further intimacy is displayed. Hall, Egyptian Textiles, 64; Tyldesley, Daughters of Isis, 161; Kanawati, et al., Mereruka and his Family. Part III:1-2, pls. 98-99; Booth, In Bed, 15-18. 161  In the three-dimensional medium this is typically painted on the model, but in the male bearer of Khety-aa (575 LC), it comprises a strip of linen wrapped around the waist [M205]. 162  Hall, Egyptian Textiles, 63; Brier & Hobbs, Daily Life, 133. 163   De Meyer, “Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barshā. Volume I”, 53. Examples are also known where higher status bearers are labelled. 160

  The single female bearer from the tomb of Ha-itef-a (362 LC) at Beni Hassan similarly has a strip of linen wrapped around her body [M60]. Although a white-painted skirt is present beneath the garment, unusually the pubic triangle has been painted over the top. It seems most likely that this was a mistake by the model-artist. 157  Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome III, 151; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 241; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 196. 158   Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 241; Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 155. 159  Pinch, Votive Offerings, 211, 220. 156

95

Preparing for Eternity A few models likewise incorporate the projecting kilt which is carved from the same piece of wood as the legs. In the model procession of male bearers of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), the leading two figures each wear this garment which is further adorned with a carved knotted sash around the waist, distinguishing them from the lower status bearers behind who wear plain painted kilts [M148].164 An alternate attire that is present in scenes but absent in models is a long transparent skirt that was worn over the short tight kilt.165 Scene-artists could easily distinguish the two garments by simply drawing the outline of the overskirt and only adding colour to the kilt underneath, an example of which may be found adorning the leading bearer in the third register of the north wall of the shrine of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan [S173].166 Modelartists could not distinguish the transparent material, and consequently the garment is excluded from the threedimensional repertoire. Although both media display the same principal garments, scene-artists had the advantage of presenting a more expansive selection. Wall scenes also had the ability to identify specific individuals among the lines of bearers. The eldest son of the tomb owner is particularly prominent, highlighting his role as the chief celebrant in his father’s mortuary cult.167 He regularly assumes the leading position in the procession and is often depicted at a larger scale than the other bearers, as is achieved for the eldest son of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) who stands before a pile of offerings in the second register of the south wall of his father’s tomb at Beni Hassan [S193]. The eldest son may also be distinguished by more elaborate attire and adornment. In the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the eldest son, who stands immediately opposite the offering-table on the east panel of the south wall, is elaborately adorned with a shoulder-length wig, highly decorated collar and bracelets, a long transparent overskirt with detailed sash, another sash across the chest, and yellow skin, which presents him in stark contrast to the smaller, less elaborately attired red-skinned bearers around him [S160; fig. 3.15]. Moreover, with the integration of inscriptions, scenes could specifically identify the eldest son with an accompanying caption. On the east panel of the north wall of the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1), the two men positioned immediately before a large figure of the owner, separated from the rest of the bearers on the west

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

Figure 3.14. Model female offering-bearer of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M142]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.883.

96

Transport

Figure 3.15. Eldest son presenting fowl to his father’s offering-table. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). South wall, east panel, registers 3-4 [S160]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 104 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

panel, are each designated the ‘eldest son’ [S22].168 While it is possible that some model bearers represent the son of the tomb owner, these same characteristic features are absent from the three-dimensional representations and so his figure is impossible to identify. Only one model bearer examined in this study incorporates any text, namely one of the female bearers of Hepi-kem (A4) from Meir, but this specifies the name and titles of the tomb owner rather than the bearer herself [M27].169 It was important for the eldest son to be publicly displayed fulfilling his duties to his father in the chapel where the mortuary cult was carried out, whereas the burial chamber was inaccessible to the living and consequently the identification of the son

would presumably have not been considered as vital. Also distinct from the regular bearers are scribes, officials and priests. Unlike the eldest son, these individuals are readily identified in both media. Scribes are principally recognised by their scribal equipment, with examples identified in three models examined in this study: one appears in a procession of bearers [M148] while the others are confined to their own baseboards [M49, M145].170 The equipment of the scribe in the procession of male bearers of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) is particularly detailed: a plain white rectangular writing board and a long palette with two circular depressions for red and black paint and two reed pens are held under his arm [M148]. An almost identical illustration is found on the south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan where a scribe stands before a line of bearers with a palette and writing board tucked under his arm [S78]. Officials are likewise identified by their appearance, and in wall scenes they are regularly positioned at the head or rear of a procession of offeringbearers. In the first register of the south wall of the tomb

 The man presenting incense is labelled zA.f smsw mrjj.f smr watj Xrj-Hbt jmj-r Hm(w)-nTr 1nj-km ‘his eldest son, his beloved, the sole companion, the lector priest, the overseer of priests, Heni the black’; and the man offering a foreleg is captioned zA.f smsw mrjj.f Hor Hwt smr watj Xrj-Hbt 1nnjt ‘his eldest son, his beloved, the estate manager, the sole companion, the lector priest, Henenit’. Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, 42. 169  The caption is inscribed on the lid of the chest balanced on her head: ‘seal-bearer of the king of Lower Egypt, sole friend, overseer of priests, the honoured one, Hepi-kem’. Bommas, in Sacred and Profane, 46. Model offering-bearers with inscriptions are likewise rare across Egypt, with Tooley only identifying 10 examples from her 213 corpus. These texts similarly identify the beneficiary or they express the action of bringing the supplies rather than the names of the bearers themselves. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 245-46. 168

  Although these two latter models of scribes are distinct from offeringbearers, they originate from burials where model offering-bearers are also housed, namely those of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) from Deir el-Bersha and Djay (275 LC) from Beni Hassan. 170

97

Preparing for Eternity of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan, an official stands before the procession gesturing towards the bearers [S98]. He is distinguished by a projecting kilt with a sash around his waist and a baton in his hanging right hand. Only one model examined contains officials, and unusually they are confined to their own baseboard: three male figures with yellow skin and long white kilts walk with empty hands hanging by their sides in a model of Djehuty-nakht (R10A) [M146]. Their features and attitude differentiate them from the other model male bearers in the burial and indicate that they occupied an official status that did not involve outdoor manual labour.171

model bearers had already arrived at their final destination of the burial chamber where the goods were accessible to the deceased. However, some model-artists still chose to display the forward movement captured in wall scenes. Three female bearers in a model from the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) are arranged in single file in diminishing height order, stepping forward with their left legs [M24; fig. 3.17]. It has been suggested by Tiradritti that this particular representation may depict the progression of a single bearer, becoming larger as she approaches the owner.175 This interpretation, however, seems questionable, as not only does the leading figure seem to have held an additional offering in her lowered right hand that is not carried by the other two,176 but such a display of progression is rarely found in Egyptian art.177 Rather, the model more likely depicts three individual bearers who walk in single file while carrying similar loads. With the advantage of working in three-dimensions, model-artists could choose either a walking or stationary stance for their figures.

Similarly, priests are distinguished by both their appearance and the items they transport.172 The figure leading the Bersha Procession (R-10A) is identified as a priest by his pale pink skin, closely shaved head, long projecting kilt and the hes-vase and censer that he carries [M144; fig. 3.16].173 On the north wall of the shrine of Amenemhat (2 UC), two similarly distinguished priests appear at the head of the upper two registers: both wear long transparent overskirts and one holds a censer while the other pours libations from a hes-vase [S173].174 Administrative and religious officials are certainly more common in the twodimensional repertoire as they contributed to the tomb owner’s public display of status and wealth. However, the fact that examples are known from both media highlights their important function in overseeing the transport of offerings in both life and death.

3.2.2 The offerings The second major element of the offering-bearer representations is the goods transported. A wide variety of items are carried by the bearers, spanning the provision of food and drink as well as items for personal use and ritual. All of the goods transported by the model bearers examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan are likewise found in wall scenes. By far the most common load in the three-dimensional repertoire is a container, most frequently baskets, but also boxes, chests and a type of backpack.178 The basket is especially common for female bearers who are characteristically represented supporting it on their head with a raised hand while their other hand hangs by their side either empty or grasping an additional item.179 In both media, the typical basket is depicted as a trapezoidal shape, often decorated with lines of basketry. A key difference between the two types of representation, however, is the indication of the contents stored within. These are regularly specified in wall scenes,

All of the individuals represented in offering-bearer wall scenes are characterised by a walking pose. This posture is partially the result of the limited perspective of the two-dimensional medium that required one leg to be positioned in front so that both could be seen by the viewer. However, this also seems to have been a deliberate design choice to indicate movement. The principal role of the bearer was to transport their load to the desired location and so a walking pose was an essential element of the design. Models likewise portray this forward motion, but a number of three-dimensional figures are represented with their legs side-by-side, as is exhibited by all of the single female bearers of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M138M143; see fig. 3.14]. Although the advanced leg was not necessary in the three-dimensional perspective as both legs could be seen by the viewer, it seems unusual that any of the model bearers would be represented in a stationary stance. Perhaps this design resulted from the fact that the

  Tiradritti, in Egyptian Treasures, 101.   A hole is pierced through the woman’s clenched right fist, suggesting that she originally carried a second offering. 177   One example that displays progression for a single individual may be found in the three statues of the tomb owner discovered in the tomb of Mery-ra-ha-shetef at Sedment which depict him in three successive stages of life: youthful, mature and older. Petrie & Brunton, Sedment I, 2-3, pls. 7-10. 178   The rear figure in the procession of female bearers of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) balances a rectangular red box on her shoulder [M147]; one of the female bearers of Hepi-kem (A4) supports a white chest with a vaulted lid on her head with her raised left hand [M27]; the single male bearer of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) has a type of backpack with painted lines of basketry on the sides which is attached to a white strap passing around his neck [M23]. The contents of each of these containers are unspecified. 179   The raised hand usually simply rests against the side of the basket, as is found in the model of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) from Beni Hassan [M221], but in more finely crafted examples, the fingers could fold over the top of the basket, as is witnessed in the model of Gua (K-12) from Deir el-Bersha [M273] 175 176

  Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 157.   Apart from the eldest son, priests were the main cult personnel and were responsible for maintaining the offerings and rituals. D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 53; Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 175. 173   While priests usually had shaved heads for purity, this figure has yellow clay on his head to represent close-cropped blond hair. This colour of hair is quite rare in Egyptian art but not unique. The modelartist has further emphasised his authority through assigning him a larger area on the baseboard compared to the equidistantly spaced women. Freed, “‘Bersha Procession’ in context. Part I”, BES 19, (2015), 295, 297. 174   The priest in the third register on the south panel of the east wall of the inner room in the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) at Meir is alternatively distinguished by a leopard-skin garment [S186]. 171 172

98

Transport

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

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

99

Preparing for Eternity often emerging from the top while being partially obscured by the side of the basket, as is found on the east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) [S37; fig. 3.13].180 For the contents to be depicted in full view in the profile perspective, they were required to be lined across the top of the basket, as is displayed on the north wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S154].181 Scene-artists could also use an accompanying caption to identify the products. Some of the male bearers carrying baskets on the south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC), for example, are labelled with the name of the department from which their offerings originate [S78].182

at Beni Hassan [M166].184 The birds could be intricately modelled with the feathers and webbing detailed or they could be crafted in a more basic shape.185 Both male and female bearers in wall scenes likewise transport birds in their hanging hand,186 although a distinction is noticeable in the positioning of the bird. On the east panel of the south wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the tenth figure from the left of the fifth register holds a bird by the wings in his hanging right hand [S161; fig. 3.18]. Instead of facing left like the bearer, the bird is directed to the right and occupies the space behind the man’s body. As the bird is held in the hand on the near side of the body, the sceneartist needed to arrange the figures so that the bearer was not obscured from view. By orienting the bird in this way, only a small section of the wings passes in front of the man instead of the whole body of the bird.187 Such an adaptation was important in the two-dimensional medium so that the scene-artist could overcome the limitations of perspective, whereas model-artists could realistically position the bird alongside the bearer’s body without hiding any part of the human figure.

Model offering-bearers, on the other hand, only occasionally have the contents of their baskets specified.183 While this medium had the ability to depict hollow containers with the contents actually stored within, the vast majority of loads are crafted as solid pieces, suggesting this was a deliberate design choice. The typical representation is exhibited by the model female bearer of Nefery (116 LC) from Beni Hassan: the upper surface of the basket balanced on her head remains flat without any indication of the contents [M182]. Representing such closed containers may have enabled the loads to be symbolic of all types of offerings. This was probably of particular importance in the condensed three-dimensional medium where a single model could encapsulate all of the desired provisions. In contrast, it was presumably more important for the contents of containers to be specified in scenes displayed on chapel walls as this was the location of the mortuary cult. The tomb owner may have used the two-dimensional illustrations to encourage the maintenance of his cult by the living and to specify the goods he most desired.

In relation to the transport of fowl, scenes depict a motif that is excluded from the three-dimensional repertoire, namely wringing the bird’s neck. This task holds a prime position in the two-dimensional medium, with its abundant occurrence, regular location at the head of the procession and performance by the eldest son. On the north wall of room 5 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), the motif dominates the scene, with seven of the 12 bearers engaged in the task [S44], while on the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan, the bearer immediately opposite the offering-table wrings the neck of a bird while two lie already dead at his feet [S123]. Fowl formed one of the principal offerings of the mortuary cult and the wringing of the neck comprised a key element in

The second most common item transported by model offering-bearers is fowl which again forms part of the standard depiction of the female bearer. With her left hand steadying the basket on her head, her right hand hangs by her side and regularly clasps a bird by the wings, as is exemplified by the bearer from the tomb of Ipi (707 LC)

 Occasionally, the female bearer grasps more than one bird, as is achieved by the figure of Intef (1 LC) [M41] and both bearers of Nefwa (186 LC) [M192-M193] from Beni Hassan. 185   The bird carried by one of the female bearers of Hepi-kem (A4) is painted in great detail with the body coloured brown and accentuated with white markings for feathers [M27]. Similarly, the two fowl transported in the Bersha Procession (R-10A) have been carved in precise body positions: the legs are tucked against the body with defined webbing, the tails point down and the heads adopt individual postures, with the first curling its neck and bringing the head close to the body and the second raising its head with the beak pointing up [M144; fig. 3.16]. Alternatively, the bird could be relatively basic in its shaping without intricate carving or painting to specify the minute details, like that carried by one of the bearers of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) [M216]. Terrace, “Entourage of an Egyptian governor”, BMB 66.343, (1968), 13-15; Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 154. 186  Scenes also display live birds transported in crates, particularly untamed large birds. On the south wall of room 5 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), for example, three of the bearers in the third register have a small crate containing birds at their feet and hold two birds by the wings in their hands [S46]. Darby, Ghalioungui & Grivetti, Food. Volume 1, 273. 187   Occasionally, the scene-artist has not chosen to make this adaptation, causing the bird to obscure a significant portion of the bearer’s body. The first female bearer in the third register of the south wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) carries a bird by the wings in her hanging right hand as she processes towards the right [S142]. The bird likewise is oriented to the right, passing on the near side of her body and causing her legs to be partially obscured. 184

 The baskets transported by the women in the fourth register are overflowing with loaves of bread, jars of beer and cuts of meat, all of which lean at different angles as they partially or fully emerge from the baskets. 181   The fifth bearer from the right in the third register balances a basket on his shoulder. On top stands a series of small vessels depicted in full view which are presumably understood as residing within. 182   In the seventh register, four of the men transport baskets, three of which have their contents depicted and two simply have an unspecified mound emerging from the top. The captions identify the departments of the kAmw ‘grape-harvest’, t ‘the bake-house’ and Hnqt ‘the brew-house’, indicating the type of products transported. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, 38. 183   Only four exceptions where the contents are specified in models were found in this study: on top of the basket carried by one of the female bearers of Hepi-kem (A4) are carved bread loaves and beer-jars [M26; fig. 3.19]; the basket of the second female bearer in the Bersha Procession (R-10A) has five beer-jars emerging from the top [M144; fig. 3.16], as does that carried by the rear figure in the procession of male bearers from the same tomb [M148]; and on top of the basket of the female bearer of Gua (K-12) reside several individually formed food items, including cuts of meat and loaves of bread [M273]. 180

100

Transport

Figure 3.18. Four male offering-bearers, positioned eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh in the procession. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). South wall, east panel, register 5 [S161]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 106 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

the associated rituals.188 The depiction of this motif in the public sphere was important as this was where the living presented their offerings and performed the appropriate ceremonies. In the burial chamber, the importance of fowl was principally as a form of nourishment and so the representation of the ritual action of wringing the neck would not have been considered as essential.

representation [M273]. Rather than being held individually in front of the body with both hands, as is performed by the male bearer of Djay, it appears in miniature form on top of a basket carried on her head among other food offerings. In this arrangement, the foreleg appears to be a form of nourishment rather than a symbolic, religious offering. The presentation of the foreleg was closely associated with the mortuary cult that was carried out in the chapel and therefore prominently features in offering scenes but was of less significance in the burial chamber.

A similar distinction is seen in the presentation of a foreleg. As noted in the discussion on slaughtering cattle in chapter 2.6, the foreleg was the prized joint of the ox and held a prominent ritual role.189 Wall scenes of offering-bearers regularly display the transport of the foreleg and, like the wringing of the neck of fowl, it occupies a prime position in the procession. On the north wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) at Meir, these two motifs dominate the procession in the fifth register [S184]. Of the nine remaining bearers, the first five offer a foreleg and the following three wring the necks of birds.190 In contrast, model bearers only rarely transport a foreleg, with only one example from the tomb of Djay (275 LC) at Beni Hassan identified in this study [M48].191 The model female bearer from the tomb of Gua (K-12) at Deir el-Bersha also transports a foreleg, but this does not follow the typical

Other ritual items do appear in the three-dimensional repertoire, but these still only occur rarely. Three models examined in this study include hes-vases and/or censers among the goods transported by the bearers.192 These items are principally carried by male figures [M144, M183; see fig. 3.16], although one hes-vase is unusually transported by a female bearer from the tomb of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) [M216].193 Instead of conducting rituals with these goods, the model bearers merely transport them. In contrast, rituals form a key component of many wall scenes, especially those associated with the offering-table, and consequently ritual items regularly appear in the two-dimensional medium. On the north panel of the west wall of the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1), five men performing the purification ceremony appear in the first register while the leading man in the second register burns incense [S25]. Below is a line of

  The pintail duck, in particular, was a prized sacrificial offering. Houlihan, Birds, 71; Germond & Livet, Egyptian Bestiary, 66. 189   Gordon & Schwabe, in Proceedings of the Seventh ICE, 469; Eyre, Cannibal Hymn, 53-54; Swinton, in Behind the Scenes, 38. 190   A similar prominence is found, for example, on the west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) where eight of the 10 bearers each carry a foreleg [S15], and in the first register of the east wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir where the remains of the two leading bearers before the offering-table indicate the presentation of a foreleg and birds who have had their necks wrung [S136]. 191   Kroenke has noted that the presentation of forelegs by model offeringbearers is rare across Egypt, with only five other examples known, all of which originate from Naga ed-Deir. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 199. 188

 A fourth example should probably be added to this list. The priest leading the procession of male bearers from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) has lost the offering that he carried, but the posture of his right arm and the remaining peg in his hand suggest he originally leant a hesvase back against his shoulder [M148]. 193   Freed has noted that this is in fact the only extant example across Egypt of a model female bearer carrying a hes-vase. Freed, “‘Bersha Procession’ in context. Part I”, BES 19, (2015), 302. 192

101

Preparing for Eternity offering-bearers presenting forelegs and fowl, with all figures oriented towards the offering-table.194 The processes of pouring libations and burning incense were integral to the rituals that were carried out in the cult area, and funerary priests regularly functioned as private ritualists to conduct these ceremonies.195 Such rituals did not occur in the burial chamber which was sealed after interment and accordingly, ritual items were not an essential motif of the three-dimensional offering-bearer theme. The other types of offerings transported by model bearers only occur infrequently. In addition to the containers and fowl carried by the two female bearers belonging to Hepikem (A4),196 a diminutive ungulate walks in front of each figure [M26-M27; see fig. 3.19].197 Both animals have incurred some damage to the head, so the species cannot be identified with certainty, yet it is generally assumed that both represent a calf.198 There is an unrealistic contrast in size between the bearer and animal which is most likely a means to exaggerate the importance of the bearer and the other gifts she transports rather than indicating a dwarfed creature.199 In fact, diminutive animals are often associated with estate figures in Old Kingdom tomb scenes, perhaps further supporting the identification of the single model female bearers as personifications of estates.200 While animals are a common offering presented in scenes, aside from the women displayed on the north wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep III (C1) who take on male roles [S217; see fig. 6.7], none of the two-dimensional female bearers examined in this study transport them. Instead, this role is exclusively reserved for men. The animals either appear scattered among lines of bearers presenting other goods, as is found on the east wall of the tomb of Baqet II (33 UC) at Beni Hassan [S60], or they are confined to their own processions.201 Although this type of offering is common in scenes, it is rarely attested in models. The presentation of animals aside from fowl may have been considered a supplementary motif in the three-dimensional repertoire that was not essential to the deceased’s sustenance in the afterlife.

Figure 3.19. Model female offering-bearer of Hepi-kem (A4), with a diminutive ungulate walking in front [M26]. Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen: AEIN 670.

  In some scenes, the goods presented are largely ceremonial, such as those displayed in the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) in the upper register of the south jamb of the exterior approach to the statue-recess [S181] and on the north wall of the interior approach to the statue-recess [S182], as well as those presented by the personifications of deities in the statue-recess of Ukh-hotep III (C1) [S219-S220]. 195  D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 58-59; Sauneron, Priests, 61; Ikram, Death and Burial, 189. 196  One of these models is inscribed for Hepi-kem [M27] while the other [M26] has been attributed to the same burial based on the striking similarities in design. Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, cat. 90; Jørgensen, Catalogue: Egypt I, cat. 35. 197  Although it has been suggested that the animals were originally leashed, there is no evidence that any thread was secured around the neck nor is there any available space for the thread to be held in the hands. Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 22. 198  Bourriau has alternatively suggested that one of the animals may depict a young oryx or gazelle [M27]. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 61; Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, 103; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 184; Jørgensen, Catalogue: Egypt I, cat. 35; Schneider, et al., Small Masterpieces, cat. 4. 199   Osborn & Osbornová, Mammals, 12-13. 200  Jacquet-Gordon, Noms des domaines funéraires, 30-31; Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 82-83. 201   See chapter 4.3 for a discussion on the theme of cattle in procession. 194

Other auxiliary offerings that occasionally appear in the model repertoire include mirrors and fans. Mirrors may have functioned for cosmetic purposes as well as holding some religious significance,202 while fans were used in  The goddess Hathor was especially associated with mirrors in the Old and Middle Kingdoms and in scenes, mirrors are often brought in processions with specific references to her. On the north wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1), for example, one of the male bearers in the first register carries a partially preserved mirror case [S132]. The procession is spread across two registers and contains many references to Hathor, most notably the presentation of sistra and menat-necklaces and the accompanying captions that identify the goddess. A similar scene is found on the south panel of the west wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) [S144]. In this illustration, a female figure standing behind the tomb owner and his wife in the first register holds a mirror and a mirror-case. Interestingly, both representations have been identified as scenes of the Festival of Hathor where the blessing of the goddess is bestowed upon the tomb owner. Mirrors, with their ability to reflect light, also had an association with the religious concepts of life, creation and regeneration. Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Volume I, 24-25; Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part II, 202

102

Transport the cooking of food and for cooling individuals.203 These items were identified in two models examined in this study: the final figure in the Bersha Procession (R-10A) has a mirror-case suspended from a cord in her raised right hand with the mirror-handle extending out the top [M144; fig. 3.16], and one of the bearers of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) holds a decorated fan in her lowered left hand [M216].204 As the burials that both of these models originate from house more than one model offering-bearer, the model-artists could expand upon the most essential provisions. More typically, owners of models only furnished their tombs with one or two bearers and so the offerings considered more vital were given priority. When specified, the offerings most typically represented in models are associated with the provision of bread, beer and fowl, three of the principal components of offering-lists.205 In contrast, scene-artists typically had a more extensive space in which to represent offeringbearers and could consequently expand upon the theme. It can be difficult to make certain identifications of all offerings represented, but there is certainly a much wider variety of goods transported than is displayed in models. Some of these items include fruits and vegetables, trussed birds, lotus and papyrus stems, pieces of furniture, cloth, items of adornment, sistra and sandals.206 With a greater number of bearers represented, a wider range of goods could be transported.

Further differences between the media are noticeable in the mode in which the goods are transported. Model bearers merely carry their loads on their heads or shoulders or in their hands. While the same methods are utilised in scenes, the two-dimensional bearers also employ a range of tools to aid them in this task, enabling them to carry a larger number of items. One of the most common tools is a tray which typically balances on a shoulder of the bearer, as is found on the south wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) [S187]. Several figures in the third register steady on one or two shoulders a tray that is piled with a range of foodstuffs including loaves of bread, fruits and trussed fowl. Alternatively, a yoke could pass across the shoulders with items suspended from each end either on trays, in crates or in sacks of netting.207 All of the offeringbearers displayed in the upper two registers of the east panel of the north wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) utilise a yoke to transport their loads, with waterskins and baskets suspended from cords [S89; fig. 3.20]. While most bearers carry their loads individually, occasionally more than one figure is required to transport an extra-large supply. A large tray piled with an exceptional mound of foodstuffs is carried across the shoulders of a row of bearers, the traces of at least four of which remain, in the upper register of the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) [S185]. Such immense loads could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface. Model-artists, in contrast, had to consider the weight of each carved piece so that the load was not too heavy to be held by the threedimensional figure. As a result, model bearers are usually more restricted in the quantity of offerings they carry.

24-25; Lilyquist, Ancient Egyptian Mirrors, 75, 97; Tyldesley, Daughters of Isis, 177-78; Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 27-28; Hudáková, Representations of Women, 495-99. 203  In addition to scenes of bread-making and cooking discussed in chapters 2.3 and 2.7, fans are shown being used by attendants to cool the tomb owner. In the tomb of Wahi at El-Hagarsa, for example, large figures of the tomb owner and his wife are featured on the west wall accompanied by an attendant who waves a fan behind their heads. Kanawati, Tombs of El-Hagarsa. Volume III, pl. 24. 204  Both mirrors and fans are likewise presented by two-dimensional offering-bearers. Of the three female bearers in the fifth register of the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the third woman holds a strap attached to a mirror-case in her right hand while the first woman holds both a mirror by the handle without a case and a highly decorated fan [S166]. Likewise, on the east pilaster of the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC), one of the female bearers carries a mirror in a mirror-case while another holds a decorated fan [S121]. 205  Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 96; Kahlbacher, in Change and Innovation, 67. 206  On the west wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), for example, a range of vessels and wooden furniture items are transported by the bearers and the accompanying captions associate the scene with the presentation of cloth to the owner [S42]. On the centre panel of the east wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan, the line of bearers processing towards the offering-table in the upper register incorporates an array of offerings including piles of fruit, lotus flowers and cuts of meat [S52]. The birds transported by the bearer in the third register of the south jamb thickness of the statue-recess of Ukh-hotep I (B2) are clearly identified as trussed with their hanging heads, clipped wings and feet, and dots covering the bodies to indicate plucked feathers [S147]. Similarly, two of the birds carried on the south wall of room 1 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) display an incision line on the belly indicating that the viscera have already been removed [S29]. Several items of adornment are transported by the bearers in the first register of the south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) [S79]. Each one is accompanied by a caption that identifies the product, including necklaces, pendants, symbols of office and sandals. On the pilaster of the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC), the two female bearers in the fifth register each present a large decorated sistrum and necklace [S126].

3.2.3 The recipient A final aspect to consider is the context in which the twoand three-dimensional offering-bearers appear. Model bearers are almost exclusively restricted to their own small baseboards without any associations with other themes. As the focus was solely on the bearer and their offerings and the figures had arrived at their destination of the burial chamber, there was no need for any other activities to be displayed. There is, however, one exception identified in this study, namely a pair of female bearers from the tomb of Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) who stand side-by-side in one corner of a food preparation model [M209]. Such an association may imply that the contents of the baskets and vessels carried by the women comprise bread, beer and/or cuts of meat obtained in the surrounding activities of bread-making, brewing and slaughtering. Scenes of bearers, on the other hand, occur in a range of scene-types. Most commonly, they process before a large figure of the tomb owner seated at a table of offerings, an example of which may be found on the west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) [S83]. The offering-table scene is the earliest theme of the two-dimensional repertoire and   It should be noted that model figures carrying yokes are known from food preparation models where they transport water-jars for brewing beer and bread-making, as was discussed in chapter 2.4. 207

103

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 3.20. Procession of male offering-bearers who utilise yokes to transport their loads. Tomb of Khety (17 UC). North wall, east panel, registers 1-2 [S89]. Kanawati & Evans. Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 98 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

remains essential throughout the Pharaonic Period.208 The incorporation of bearers into this scene clearly identifies the tomb owner as the recipient of their provisions and highlights their purpose in supplying sustenance. The tomb owner also receives offerings in other scene-types: bearers appear in scenes of his transport by palanquin,209 among the funerary procession,210 or simply in lines before large standing or seated depictions of his figure.211 In these

contexts, the superior status and wealth of the tomb owner is on display as the scenes convey his ability to acquire large quantities of goods from vast estates and to equip his tomb with sufficient funerary furnishings. These scenes also directly interacted with the living as the bearers are usually oriented into the tomb, guiding visitors towards the place of offerings.212 On the north wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), for example, the vast majority of bearers face right towards the entrance to the offeringroom [S34].213 Such careful arrangement was important in the chapel as it encouraged visitors to enter the inner part of the tomb and contribute to the mortuary cult.

 The offering-table scene is the most regular theme included in chapels and often comprises the only decoration. It is first found on niche stelae and in cruciform chapels of the 3rd and early 4th Dynasties. Later examples, however, expand the table scene to incorporate additional motifs such as bearers presenting offerings and priests performing ceremony. Malek, Shadow of the Pyramids, 53; Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 79; Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 115; Altenmüller, in Egypt, 81; Staring, in Old Kingdom, New Perspectives, 259-60. 209   The tomb owner is transported by palanquin on the east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) [S37]. Before the palanquin are four registers of bearers with both male and female figures represented. 210   On the west wall of room 3 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), four male bearers carrying a selection of ceremonial vessels and a table or stand appear on a sub-register line between the papyriform boats transporting the coffin in the funerary procession [S33]. Presumably the same four men, accompanied by a fifth man, reappear at a later stage of the journey in the first register. Bearers also appear in processions of the statue of the tomb owner, as is found on the south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) [S79] and on the north wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) [S93]. Similarly, the colossal statue of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) is transported on the west wall of the inner room of his tomb at Deir el-Bersha; immediately to the right is a section of wall dedicated to the presentation of offerings and the slaughter of cattle [S213]. Items of funerary furniture can also be simply processed before a large standing figure of the tomb owner, as is found on the north wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan [S48]. In the second and third registers behind the owner are male bearers carrying a range of objects including a headrest which would have been destined for the tomb. 211   While the upper two registers of the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) are directed towards the offering-table scene, the lower two rows process towards a large standing figure of the owner accompanied by a small figure of his wife [S138-S139]. Similarly, lines of bearers process towards a large standing figure of Ramushenti (27 UC) on the north panel 208

While the majority of scenes portray the tomb owner as the beneficiary, a few examples indicate a different recipient. Sometimes the wife is depicted alongside her husband at the offering-table where she is an active recipient of the offerings presented.214 On the south wall of the tomb of of the east wall of his tomb and towards the offering-table on the south panel [S61-S62]. Three bearers in superimposed registers face large standing figures of the tomb owner and his wife on the east wall of the tomb of Pepi (D1) at Meir [S19], while on the south panel of the west wall of the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1), bearers process towards a seated figure of the owner [S24]. Both a standing and seated figure of Ukh-hotep II (B4) appear on the north wall of the exterior approach to the statuerecess in his tomb, with bearers progressing towards each one [S180]. 212  Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 225; Fitzenreiter, in Social Aspects of Funerary Culture, 76-77. 213   Similarly, on the west wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC), the bearers in the lower section are directed towards the false door [S108], and in the shrine of Amenemhat (2 UC), bearers appear on the entrance wall [S175] where they guide visitors towards the grand statue of the owner cut into the native rock on the east wall. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 74. 214   On the west wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2), for example, the owner and his wife are depicted in equal size, seated before a single table of offerings on the south panel [S144]. Similarly, on the north wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2), the owner and his wife are seated

104

Transport Amenemhat (2 UC), however, she has her own offeringtable scene with lines of bearers proceeding towards her [S162-S163].215 Alternatively, Djehuty-hotep (N-2) of Deir el-Bersha dedicates a complete offering-table scene to his father as well as one to himself. The two scenes are almost identical, with the one on the west wall of the shrine assigned to himself [S216] and the one on the east wall to his father [S215]. This unusual devotion may have been a means for the father to participate in the family’s mortuary cult even though he was most likely buried far away in the capital.216 Only rarely are individuals other than family members depicted as the recipient of offerings. In a unique display on the west wall of room 1 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), the bearers in the first register are specifically stated in the accompanying caption to provide sustenance for the craftsmen portrayed at work before the large standing figure of the tomb owner [S30].217

be attributed to the fear of illustrating living creatures on the walls of substructures, as will be addressed in chapter 7.7. The depiction of the offerings themselves removed the potential threat posed by living creatures while maintaining the provision of goods. This representation forms a distinct contrast from models which likewise occur in substructures but feature both the bearers and their provisions. * * * The offering-bearer theme is certainly an important aspect of both the two- and three-dimensional repertoires, comprising a major contributor to the sustenance of the tomb owner. Both types of representation feature the two main aspects of the bearers and their offerings, but there are a number of differences in design. The twodimensional medium dedicated more space to the theme and consequently illustrated a greater number of bearers and range of offerings. Models, conversely, were typically more condensed, with a single figure often encompassing the entire theme. Wall scenes also exhibit a ritual emphasis through the presentation of a wide spectrum of ritual items and figures engaged in ceremonial activity. This was essential for public display in the chapel as it encouraged the living to participate in the mortuary cult. Models, on the other hand, were concealed from view in the burial chamber and did not function in the cult celebrated by the living. The three-dimensional offerings presented are usually unspecified so that they may be symbolic of all desired goods for the afterlife, but when designated, typically comprise the most essential foodstuffs. Therefore, the offering-bearer theme was designed in each medium according to its specific location and role in the tomb.

This range of contexts and recipients is not evident in the three-dimensional medium as the models are housed in the burial chamber alongside the body of the tomb owner and therefore solely functioned for his benefit. In some cases, the burials comprised a double occupancy, usually the owner and his wife, and the models may have served one or both of these individuals. The tomb of the governor Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), for example, also housed the burial of his wife, and tomb 585 LC at Beni Hassan interred both Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti. Both of these tombs contained more than one model offering-bearer, so each owner may have had their own designated procession.218 This close association with the body presents a direct connection between the services of the model offering-bearers and the deceased’s afterlife. Two-dimensional representations of offerings in burial chambers consist of object-friezes and offering-lists, with the bearers themselves rarely represented. Indeed, the offering-list is identified in almost every known decorated burial chamber, usually on the east wall where it would be seen by the deceased from his coffin.219 In the burial chamber of Hewetiaah, the wife of Pepyankh the Middle (D2), the east wall is decorated with an offering-list while the north wall illustrates a series of food and drink offerings.220 The absence of bearers in such scenes may

3.3 Beasts of burden The principal beast of burden in ancient Egypt was the donkey, favoured for its ability to transport substantial loads over long and short distances. It was used for expeditions within the country as well as across borders as it required only limited attention and could survive on little water and desert shrubs.221 Beginning in the 5th Dynasty, the donkey commonly features in representations where it is laden with sacks or baskets, and only rarely conveys people.222 From Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, seven models illustrating pack animals have been identified, although only five were available for examination through images,223 and wall scenes of the theme have been found

at opposite sides of the same table with long lines of bearers processing towards them [S8]. 215   It should be noted, however, that the wife’s scene is significantly smaller than that of her husband [S160-S163]. A similar situation is found on the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S193]. 216   Sykora, in Djehoutihotep, 31. 217   The vertical text before the bearers states jnt xt n Hmwtjw ‘bringing things/meals for the craftsmen’. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, 26. 218   It has been postulated that the Bersha Procession [M144; fig. 3.16] from tomb R-10A was dedicated to the governor on account of its superior craftsmanship while the lesser quality procession of male bearers [M148] belonged to the wife. The plundered state of the burial prevents such a classification from being known, and it seems hazardous to make assumptions based on the quality of the models. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 158; Freed, “‘Bersha Procession’ in context. Part I”, BES 19, (2015), 302. 219  Bolshakov, Man and his Double, 117. 220  Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pls. 95-96.

 The lighter the load, the further the donkey could travel. Nibbi, “Remarks on ass and horse”, ZAeS 106, (1979), 153; Janssen & Janssen, Household Animals, 36-37; Brewer, Redford & Redford, Domestic Plants and Animals, 100; Partridge, Transport, 95. 222   Egyptians are rarely shown riding donkey-back, although foreigners are more regularly represented utilising this mode of transport, as will be discussed in chapter 6.2. 223  Interestingly, all except one of these seven models originate from Meir which suggests there was a regional preference for the theme. The exception is that from the tomb of Nakht (711 LC) at Beni Hassan which was not available for examination through images. Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2304. 221

105

Preparing for Eternity in 11 tombs. These representations display a number of similarities, but some differences are noticeable which largely result from the unique technical properties of each medium. However, a difference in context is also observed which impacts the emphasis of the theme.

accurately as possible.226 This is prevalent in scenes where minute distinguishing features could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface. The donkey in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) is particularly detailed in its representation, with defined genitalia, black hooves, a black mane and white belly distinct from its grey hide, an intricate eye and mouth, and a yellow rectangular blanket covering its back [S196; fig. 3.23]. In some instances, the specific breed can even be identified, as is found on the west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) where the donkeys in the third register can be classified as the Somali wild ass [S13; fig. 3.21].227

Several stages are involved in transporting heavy loads across land: loading the animal, the journey to the desired location, the deposit of the load, and the return trip. Both the two- and three-dimensional representations are typically quite condensed in their compositions, with usually a single motif symbolic of the entire operation. Wall scenes most commonly abbreviate the theme to the stage of transporting the load,224 but occasionally sceneartists selected a different motif. On the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan, the lone donkey in the second register is positioned in its point of departure with a man in the act of securing its load [S196; fig. 3.23], while the donkey in the sixth register of the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan has reached its destination with its load already removed and a man pouring the contents on the threshing-floor [S171]. In more expansive representations, scene-artists could incorporate several donkeys and/or more than one stage of the process. On the west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir, one man accompanies two packs of donkeys laden with large sacks in the third register while the loads are being removed from two donkeys who have arrived at their destination below in the fifth register [S13; fig. 3.21]. Alternatively, a single donkey is perhaps being driven to the granary on the west pilaster of the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan [S114],225 while a returning pack of overlapping donkeys is followed by a team of running men in the fifth register of the north wall [S117].

Model donkeys, in contrast, are especially basic in their rendering. Those in a model from Meir now housed in New York are plain in colour without any indication of a blanket and have roughly cylindrical bodies with thin stick-like legs that lack any definition of muscle or hooves [M250; fig. 3.22]. The heads are quite rectangular in shape, with slight bulges for ears, crudely incised eyes and no manes. Even though the animals are presumably walking forward, their legs are positioned side-by-side in a rather static posture.228 Incorporating the fine details and movements encountered in wall scenes would have required a higher level of craftsmanship to achieve in three-dimensions than is exhibited by the models examined. Although the donkey was the principal beast of burden, one model uniquely depicts an ox in this role. This was found in the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) at Meir and comprises a single white and black ox with two sacks loaded on its back [M25]. The feet of a man are preserved on the baseboard which presumably belonged to a driver who ushered the animal forward from behind. Oxen are known to pull sledges from as early as the Old Kingdom and could drag large quantities of material.229 As they have a higher pulling power than carrying capacity, they were favoured as draught animals rather than pack animals.230 This representation of the ox as a beast of burden is unique among the two- and three-dimensional corpora.231 Although this design is unusual, it demonstrates that this model-artist did not replicate the standard motif of wall scenes, but created his own composition.

Models, in contrast, only display the theme in an abbreviated form and exclusively depict the stage of transporting the load. The typical composition is exhibited by a model said to be from Meir, now housed in Toronto: two donkeys laden with sacks stand side-by-side on the baseboard but with one much further in front [M251; fig. 3.24]. Each animal is accompanied by its own driver who stands beside the rear and encourages it to move with a stick. The task of transporting the load is the most important role of the pack animal and is consequently the only stage selected for the condensed three-dimensional representations.

The load carried by the pack animal is another integral element of the theme, but some differences are discernible in  Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 1.   Lashien has noted that the black stripes on the legs of these donkeys are characteristic of the Somali wild ass which is stronger than the domestic Egyptian donkey and could travel longer distances. Lashien, Nobles of El-Qusiya, 203-04; Lashien, in Perfection that Endures, 26263. 228   In contrast, the donkeys that are stationary in scenes, like those of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S171] and Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S196; fig. 3.23], are depicted with the far legs in front as if they are moving. However, this should be understood as an artistic technique that allows all four legs to be visible in the two-dimensional perspective. 229   Köpp, in Desert Road, 110. 230  Boessneck, Haustiere, 12; Houlihan, in History of the Animal World, 105; Köpp, in Desert Road, 110. 231   Köpp has identified this model as the only known representation of the ox as a pack animal in Egypt. Köpp, in Desert Road, 110. 226 227

The donkey itself forms one of the principal components of the theme in both wall scenes and models, although differences in detail are noticeable between the two media. The Egyptians were careful observers of animals, and artists endeavoured to reproduce their appearance as   Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 237.  The scenes on the west pilaster are only partially preserved, but Lashien and Mourad have suggested that the herdsman with his arm raised on the left of the fifth register is ushering a donkey away from the threshing-floor displayed on the right and towards the granary depicted above. Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, 27. 224 225

106

Transport

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

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

107

Preparing for Eternity its representation between the two- and three-dimensional media. A variety of forms is identifiable in wall scenes, with Vandier classifying the sacks of the Old Kingdom according to five main categories and Siebels according to three.232 Although each donkey would have carried two sacks, with one hanging over each side of its back, only a single load is typically portrayed.233 The limited perspective of the two-dimensional medium causes the sack furthest from view to be concealed. In some instances, scene-artists have attempted to overcome this restriction and portray both loads. Two hemispherical baskets are loaded on the donkey’s back in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), but they are unrealistically positioned end-onend when in reality one would be hidden from view on the far side of the body [S196; fig. 3.23].234

example, stands behind the donkey and leans forward with one arm wrapped around the sack as he begins the task of unloading [S13; fig. 3.21]. Alternatively, the five men who guide the pack animals on the return trip on the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) are displayed in a running motion with their legs striding and heels raised off the ground [S117]. With the three-dimensional medium’s sole focus on the transport stage, only the role of the driver is portrayed in models.235 In the Toronto model, a man is positioned beside the rear of each donkey with a stick raised in one hand to encourage the animal forward [M251; fig. 3.24]. A similar situation is found in the scene displayed on the south wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan where two drivers accompany a line of donkeys in the third register [S100]. Each man stands directly behind one animal with one hand grasping a stick and the other hand either steadying the load or resting on the donkey’s rear. This role is essential during transport and is therefore captured by both media.

Models, on the other hand, display a realistic arrangement of the loads, but exhibit less variety in shape. The majority of the examples examined depict rectangular sacks, as can be seen in the New York model [M250; fig. 3.22], but that from the tomb of Kay-henent at Meir unusually features roughly trapezoidal sacks decorated with painted lines symbolic of fastening ropes [M169]. The variety of forms witnessed in wall scenes would have been more difficult to craft in three-dimensions and this may account for the more limited repertoire. However, models do realistically display the sacks hanging over each side of the animal. The sacks were apparently carved as a single piece with the wood forming a continuation across the back of the animal, as can be witnessed in the Toronto model [M251; fig. 3.24]. The holistic perspective of the three-dimensional medium enabled a realistic arrangement of the load to be displayed, whereas scene-artists could more easily draw a range of shapes on the wall surface and therefore create more variety in their designs of the sacks.

Variation in this characteristic role of the driver is sometimes achieved, however, through reducing the size of one of the figures. In the model of Kay-henent from Meir, the figure behind the first donkey is depicted on a much smaller scale than his companion [M169]. While this could be a result of poor craftsmanship or the combination of pre-made figures not designed specifically for the model, there is some parallel with wall scenes of the Old Kingdom. When two figures accompany a single donkey, the one positioned on the side of the animal is often portrayed at a reduced scale.236 Although this combination is not identified in any of the scenes examined in this study, the lone driver positioned alongside the donkey on the north wall of the tomb of Ipi (481 LC) at Beni Hassan is much smaller in size than the other agricultural workers occupying the fourth register [S6]. It has been suggested that this use of scale either emphasises the weight of the load or indicates the youthfulness of the driver.237 The latter alternative seems most probable which would indicate that both scene- and model-artists chose this design to reflect a reallife practice of employing youth in outdoor tasks.

The men accompanying the donkeys are portrayed in different attitudes according to the stage of the process represented. In wall scenes, they may be loading or unloading the sacks from the animal or driving the donkey forward. The man on the left of the fifth register of the west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2), for

The context of the beasts of burden theme forms a clear distinction between the two media. In wall scenes, these animals exclusively appear in the context of the

  The loads carried by the donkeys on the west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) [S13; fig. 3.21] and in the first register of the south wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir [S39] are hexagonal in shape, with the former taller than wide and the latter wider than high. Alternatively, the sacks transported on the south wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan are trapezoidal in shape [S100], while those in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) are hemispherical [S196; fig. 3.23]. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 128-29; Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 239-46. 233   On the east wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) at Meir, two men are about to load/unload a trapezoidal basket onto/from the back of a donkey [S141]. Only one basket is portrayed, but Hudáková has noted that the presence of two loops at the bottom of the basket and the rope for fastening indicates that a second one should be understood as hiding behind. Hudáková, in Art of Describing, 206. 234  A similar situation is found in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC), although here the baskets have been removed from the donkey’s back [S171]. Two hemispherical containers stand end-on-end on the ground between the herdsman and the threshing-floor. The baskets are apparently connected by some type of hinge which is grasped by the man with his right hand. Hudáková, in Art of Describing, 192. 232

 Unusually, a model from Meir now housed in Lyon does not incorporate any human figures: the donkeys stand alone on the baseboard without any holes or pegs to indicate other figures were originally included [M249]. 236   See, for example, the scene displayed on the west wall of the tomb of Werirni at El-Sheikh Said where the figure alongside the loaded donkey in the third register is particularly diminutive. Davies, Sheikh Saïd, pl. 16. Alternatively, the figure walking next to each donkey in the second register of the east wall of the tomb of Kayemnofret at Giza is depicted at a similar scale to his companion, but he is naked while the driver is clothed. Badawy, Tombs at Giza, fig. 30a. 237  Siebels notes that if the reduced scale was used to emphasise the weight of the load as suggested by Harpur, then it would be expected to be found in every representation, but many examples are known where this is not the case. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI, 146; Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 208; Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 252-54; Swinton, Management of Estates, 62. 235

108

Transport

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

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

109

Preparing for Eternity agricultural cycle where they transport grain obtained in the harvest. During the Old Kingdom, the donkeys were typically depicted on their journey to the threshing-floor where they would deposit the sheaves.238 On the south wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir, for example, the donkey and its driver are directed towards the threshing-floor in the first register while the earlier stage of the grain harvest is depicted immediately below [S39]. In the Middle Kingdom, however, the load was more commonly transported to the granary, although some examples of the earlier arrangement are still known.239 On the west wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan, the remains of two donkeys and their drivers appear in the third register progressing left towards the granary [S84]. Although there is a shift in emphasis,240 through the careful arrangement of motifs, sceneartists could clearly convey the precise destination of the load. Grain cultivation forms a principal component of the everyday life scenes prominently displayed on chapel walls and the donkey’s importance in the twodimensional medium resides in its contribution to the agricultural cycle.

overland transport for any loads required by the deceased in the Hereafter. Beasts of burden comprised an important mode of overland transport and so it is not surprising to find representations of the theme in both the two- and three-dimensional media. Even though it is easily identifiable in the representations, there are a number of design differences that may be attributed to the unique capabilities of each medium. Wall scenes exhibit greater detail and variety in their designs yet had to alter the positioning of the loads to overcome the limitations of perspective. Models, on the other hand, are relatively basic in their rendering, but could present a more realistic arrangement of the sacks. Moreover, the media exhibit distinct contexts for the theme, with scenes conveying a clear connection with the agricultural cycle that is absent in models. With their location in the burial chamber, the three-dimensional pack animals primarily functioned as an important mode of transport for carrying any heavy loads that would benefit the deceased in the afterlife.

Models, on the other hand, do not display this same agricultural association. Each of the three-dimensional beasts of burden examined in this study are situated on their own baseboards without any other activities portrayed. It therefore cannot be determined what stage of the agricultural cycle is depicted or even if there is any agricultural connection at all. However, it is interesting to note that all three models that represent rectangular sacks have the sign for pr-HD ‘treasury’ incised into the side of each load [M249-M251; see figs. 3.22, 3.24]. This possibly indicates that the sacks are filled with grain. While it has been suggested that the loads contained taxes being sent to the treasury,241 it is more probable that the grain has been removed from the treasury to be deposited in the tomb. With the models’ concealed location in the burial chamber, the tomb owner’s fulfillment of his taxation obligations could not have been publicised and grain was one of the most essential commodities to be accessible for the afterlife. Subsequently, the importance of the donkey in the three-dimensional medium lies in its ability to provide   Hudáková, in Art of Describing, 202-03.   See, for example, the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) where the donkey forms the joining element between the grain field and the threshing-floor [S171], or that of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) where the donkey stands among the harvest [S196; fig. 3.23]. The exact context of the donkey displayed on the south wall of the outer room of the tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5) at Deir el-Bersha [S65] or that on the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha [S206] is difficult to determine due to the scenes’ fragmentary states. In the scene of Ahanakht I, a donkey being prepared to take a load and a man presumably driving a second donkey are all that remain in the first register. The rest of the row and the scenes immediately below have been completely lost and so the destination is unknown. In the scene of Djehuty-hotep, there are no traces of a granary which may suggest that the load presumably being prepared for the donkey in fragments numbered 46-50 is associated with work in the fields. 240   Hudáková has identified the change of destination from the threshingfloor to the granary as a shift from illustrating production to the product itself. Hudáková, in Art of Describing, 202-03, 207. 241  Hayes, Sceptre of Egypt. Part I, 266. 238 239

110

4 Animal Husbandry 4.1 Calving

for the specialisation of animal husbandry.7 Lustig has noted that cattle feature especially prominently at Meir, with the animal appearing more commonly than any other non-human creature in wall scenes from the site.8 Interestingly, this phenomenon is also identifiable among models, with all known three-dimensional examples depicting the earliest stages of the cycle, namely calving and nursing, originating from Meir. This emphasis on cattle in the representations highlights the importance of the animal in both life and afterlife as well as the prominence of animal husbandry in the daily lives of the individuals of this particular region.9

Cattle held an esteemed role within ancient Egyptian society as they not only provided meat for consumption but also other valuable products including milk, fat, hide and bone, as well as a source of power for manual labour.1 The animals were a vital economic commodity and formed the principal component of the ‘cattle count’ where the wealth of the land was measured.2 Owning cattle was therefore a sign of high social status, and the display of the animals in funerary artworks reveals the superior wealth of their owners. Representations of animal husbandry chiefly focus on cattle, with various stages in the animal’s lifecycle from mating and birth to slaughter regularly displayed. The Egyptians had a thorough understanding of the needs and characteristics of their animals which artists endeavoured to capture as accurately as possible.3 The first stage of the lifecycle that is depicted by both wall scenes and models is the birth of a calf. Both media capture the very moment of delivery with the head and forelegs of the calf already emerged from its mother. There is great similarity in the portrayal of this theme between the two types of representation, although differences in detail result from their specific technical capabilities.

Both the two- and three-dimensional calving representations depict the same moment of the process: a standing cow with the help of at least one human assistant is in the moment of delivery, with the calf’s head and forelegs already emerged. A normal delivery is consistently portrayed in which the forelegs appear first followed by the muzzle.10 Variations across the artworks occur, however, in the extent to which the newborn’s body has emerged from its mother. In some representations, only the head and forelegs are visible, as is found in both models now housed in Lyon [M173, M253], whereas in others, the shoulders have also appeared, as is witnessed in the model now housed in Toronto [M252; fig. 4.2] and in the scene on the north wall of the outer room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) at Meir [S176; fig. 4.3].11 One minute detail that forms a distinction between the two- and three-dimensional media is the representation of the amniotic membrane. On the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir, the fluid emerges alongside the calf in the third register [S139; fig. 4.1].12 The inclusion of this minute detail highlights the Egyptians’ intimate knowledge of the calving process. While it could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface, incorporating it into the three-dimensional design would have required exceptionally fine carving. As it is not essential to conveying the process, the theme could still be successfully expressed without it, but the models are less detailed in their representation as a result.

While calving appears in a number of wall scenes from the Old Kingdom, particularly in tombs at Giza and Saqqara, the quantity of Middle Kingdom examples is particularly restricted. A total of five calving scenes dated to this latter period are known throughout Egypt, all of which originate from Middle Egypt: two from Meir [S139, S176], one from Deir el-Bersha [S66] and two from Beni Hassan [S55, S125].4 Though it has been stated that only a single model depicting calving is known,5 a total of three have been identified in this study, all of which derive from Meir [M173, M252, M253].6 Middle Egypt was particularly fertile and appears to have been one of the main locations

 Boessneck, Tierwelt, 66-67; Houlihan, Animal World, 10-11; StraussSeeber, in Egypt, 381; Jones, in Behind the Scenes, 101. 2  Montet, Scènes de la vie privée, 126-49; Kanawati & Swinton, Egypt in the Sixth Dynasty, 163. 3  Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 1, 6. 4   Roehrig has identified four of these scenes as the only known examples of the period from all of Egypt, but the fifth example, namely that on the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan [S125], has only recently been discovered during re-documentation of the cemetery by the Australian Centre for Egyptology. Roehrig, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 207. 5  Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 8; Houlihan, Animal World, 14. 6   The model today housed in Toronto is said to be from Meir [M252], whereas one of the models in Lyon was said to be from Asyut, but a recent study undertaken by the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon has demonstrated that it was probably manufactured in Meir [M253]. Amoros, et al., “Study and identification”, Hathor 1, (2012), 11-29; Roehrig, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 207. 1

 Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 49-50; Eyre, Cannibal Hymn, 176. 8   Lustig, in Anthropology and Egyptology, 58. 9  Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 49-50. 10  Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 170; Jones, in Behind the Scenes, 99. 11   The calves in the scenes displayed on the south wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan [S55] and on the south wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5) at Deir el-Bersha [S66] have suffered some damage in the region of the calf, preventing identification of the extent to which the newborn has emerged. 12   It appears that the amniotic membrane may have also been included in the calving scenes of Ahanakht I (N-5) [S66] and Ukh-hotep II (B4) [S176; fig. 4.3], but damage to the scenes prevents certain identification. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 24. 7

111

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 4.1. A herdsman aids the delivery of a calf; an overseer points a magical gesture; a man sleeps soundly through the birth. Tomb of Senbi I (B1). South wall, register 3 [S139]. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 76 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

The depiction of the cow also exhibits many parallels between the two media. Although in reality the cow would lie down during delivery until the complete expulsion of the calf, all of the two- and three-dimensional representations display the animal in a standing position.13 This may indicate that the cow experienced difficulties during delivery.14 In fact, the discomfort of the cow is especially highlighted in wall scenes through the careful illustration of the animal’s posture. All five scenes examined depict the tail raised in the air which is a sign of the restlessness of the animal during delivery.15 The cow in the fourth register of the south wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan also exhibits an arched back, a lifted head and locked front legs as if it is bracing itself for the pain it will endure [S55].16 An additional feature portrayed in the scene of Senbi I (B1) is the protruding tongue which symbolises vocalisation during the pain of labour [S139; fig. 4.1].17 All of these minute details indicate physical

discomfort and they could be easily drawn on the twodimensional wall surface, enabling scene-artists to clearly illustrate the difficulties experienced during calving. Models, on the other hand, do not display this same level of discomfort. This difference in representation should be attributed to the difficulty of crafting such intricate details in three-dimensions. One of the Lyon models is quite crudely carved, with the cow relatively basic in its rendering [M253]. It has a roughly cylindrical body, thin wobbly stick-like legs without defined hooves or muscle, and is lacking ears, horns and tail.18 With such basic rendering in detail, no features of pain are present aside from its standing position and imminent delivery. The Toronto calving model exhibits greater definition in the shaping of the cow: the head is fully formed with muzzle, eyes, ears and horns displayed, and the legs are well-carved with defined muscle and hooves [M252; fig. 4.2]. With higher quality carving, the model-artist had the potential of including features that express the animal’s discomfort. In this example, the hind legs are straight and thrown slightly forward indicating a locked position.19 However, the raised tail, which is especially popular in wall scenes, is not included in the model. The three-dimensional medium had the advantage of utilising a variety of materials, and for the tail, plaited linen created a more naturalistic portrayal.20 The nature of this material, however, required it to hang down, thus preventing the manipulation of the tail’s position to reflect the discomfort

 Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 170.  Evans has rightly noted that the standing posture was not due to an inability to depict the cow lying down as both scenes and models display the hand-feeding of recumbent cattle. Rather, it must have been a deliberate design choice. The question then arises as to why this difficulty of labour is portrayed in tombs. Evans has suggested the possibility that tomb owners desired to publicly proclaim specific occasions where they were able to achieve a successful delivery under extreme circumstances. However, the fact that difficulty in birth is also represented in models which were concealed from view in the burial chamber makes this unlikely. Evans’ alternate proposal that abnormal deliveries were common due to the naivety or deliberate practice of Egyptian herdsmen to mate large bulls with small cows causing greater difficulties in labour is more likely. Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 170-72. 15   Mee, in Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Conference, AABP, 36. 16   Newberry’s documentation positions this scene in the second register of the south wall, but it was observed by the author during a visit to the site that Newberry has incorrectly reversed the second and fourth registers in his recording. Montet, Scènes de la vie privée, 98; Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 171. 17  The protruding tongue is also noticeable on the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) [S125] and probably on the north wall of the outer room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) [S176; fig. 4.3], but poor preservation prevents certain identification. Evans notes that cows usually vocalise during delivery and although the tongue is not usually visible when calling, scene-artists include it as a visual sign of the 13 14

animal’s bellowing during labour. Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 171. 18   Two small holes at the top of the head may suggest that horns were originally included but have since been lost. 19   This same attitude is adopted by the cow in one of the Lyon models, although the legs are not as well-shaped [M173]. It is possible that this model also conveys pain through bulging eyes as the eyes have been painted onto slightly protruding curves in the wood. Darby, Ghalioungui & Grivetti, Food. Volume 1, 108. 20  One of the Lyon models also presumably included a material tail originally as a small hole is noticeable in the animal’s rear [M173].

112

Animal Husbandry

Figure 4.2. Calving model said to be from Meir [M252]. Courtesy of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, © ROM: 910.18.16.1-3.

of the animal. Therefore, the incorporation of details of distress was limited by the technical restrictions of the three-dimensional medium as well as dependent upon the skill of the individual artist.

the udder unless the scene-artist deliberately altered the arrangement of the legs. Conversely, the whole cow is visible in three-dimensions and so all aspects of the figure needed to be considered. Those components not essential to a particular theme, such as the udder in calving, are therefore still incorporated into the design. It has already been observed that the model cows examined in this study range in quality, yet in all three examples, the udder is carved of wood underneath the rear part of the animal with the teats well-defined [M173, M252, M253; see fig. 4.2]. The model-artist was required to consider the technical capabilities of his medium which resulted in a design distinct from that of wall scenes.

Model-artists, however, had the advantage of a threedimensional perspective which enabled a holistic representation of the cow not encountered in twodimensional scenes. This is exemplified in the depiction of the udder. As the calving process does not require the udder, its presence is not essential in the representations. Accordingly, scene-artists have either excluded it from their designs,21 or indicated it in a more minute fashion. In the second register of the south wall of the inner room of Ahanakht I’s tomb (N-5) at Deir el-Bersha, the udder of the cow in labour is given some basic definition but is partially hidden behind one hind leg [S66].22 This may be contrasted with the adjacent scene of suckling where the udder is essential to the process and so is more prominently displayed. In two-dimensions, the profile view of the cow would cause the near hind leg to at least partially obscure

Alongside the cow and her calf, the human figures who assist in the delivery are integral to calving representations. This feature presents the greatest variety across the artworks, with differences in the quantity of figures involved and the postures they adopt.23 In all of the representations examined, there is at least one man who assists directly in the delivery. He stands or kneels immediately behind the cow and pulls/supports the calf as it emerges.24 Although this figure appears in both media, greater variety and detail is exhibited in wall scenes. In the

  See, for example, the cow in the seventh register of the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) which displays no sign of the udder [S125]. 22   Although Newberry has recorded that the calving and nursing scene is located on the south wall of the outer room, the 1915 joint HarvardBoston expedition has revealed that the second and third registers in fact belong to the south wall of the inner room. Brovarski, in Studies in Ancient Egypt, 14. 21

 Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 67.   Normal calving does not require human assistance, so the presence of the herdsman may be another sign that the cows experienced difficulties during birthing. Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 170. 23 24

113

Preparing for Eternity two-dimensional medium, the herdsman’s attire consists of a short kilt with a sash or a simple loincloth,25 while on the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) and on the north wall of the outer room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4), he is fully naked [S139, S176; figs. 4.1, 4.3]. The model herdsmen, conversely, all wear simple white-painted kneelength kilts which is by far the most common attire for all three-dimensional figures as it could be easily painted on the figure’s lower body. The herdsman in the Toronto model, though, also preserves a linen garment wrapped around his waist [M252; fig. 4.2].

include a secondary figure, but in neither example does he exhibit signs of superior status. In the Toronto model, the two human figures are almost identical in appearance, both dressed in the same garments and adopting similar postures [M252; fig. 4.2]. The man in front of the cow is carved at a slightly larger scale than his companion which perhaps suggests he holds some authority, although it is more likely that he is a herdsman of equal status who soothes the cow during delivery. The role of the figure who stands in front of the cow in one of the Lyon models, alternatively, is more difficult to comprehend: he stands some distance away from the animal and, in conjunction with his diminutive size, seems unable to contribute to the care for the cow [M253].28 It is therefore quite possible that he does not originally belong to this representation. Due to the restricted range of movement that could be captured in three-dimensions, the specifics of the secondary figure’s role cannot always be determined with certainty.

Further differences are witnessed in the posture of the herdsman. In the scenes of Senbi I (B1) and Ukh-hotep II (B4), the man adopts a particularly active stance as he exerts great effort to pull down on the calf [S139, S176; figs. 4.1, 4.3]. He strides forward with his left leg while lowering his right knee to the ground and leans backwards with each hand gripping a foreleg. In contrast, the model herdsmen all stand upright with their legs together and arms simply extended to aid in the delivery. The range of postures utilised for human figures in all models is considerably restricted as carving the strained and active movements displayed in wall scenes would have been difficult to achieve in three-dimensions. Moreover, as each figure was carved separately and attached individually to the baseboard, it was difficult for model-artists to create physical connections between them. For the herdsman, this resulted in his hands merely residing next to the calf, as is exhibited in one of the Lyon models [M173], rather than grasping the legs. The variation found in the two-dimensional representations of the herdsman resulted from the ease with which modifications in both attire and posture could be drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface, whereas model-artists were hindered in their ability to achieve such variety.

Wall scenes likewise depict an additional herdsman but could more clearly express his precise role through a detailed depiction of his posture. The man before the cow in the seventh register of the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan is attired as a herdsman like his companion,29 and adopts a lowered, active stance as he pulls on a rope looped around the cow’s rear leg presumably to prevent it from kicking [S125].30 Alternatively, the scenes of Senbi I (B1) and Ukh-hotep II (B4) include a third human figure who is unusually seated on a folded mat, sleeping soundly despite the noise of the birth [S139, S176; figs. 4.1, 4.3].31 This motif captures a moment of everyday life and highlights the variety of attitudes that could be more easily captured in two-dimensional designs. Further differences in representation are witnessed in the proportional size between the human figures and the cows. In scenes, the humans and animals are usually conveyed in realistic proportions, as is found on the north wall of the outer room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) [S176; fig. 4.3]. However, in the scenes displayed on the south wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) and the south wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5), the herdsman who is directly involved in the delivery is depicted at a much smaller scale than the surrounding human and animal figures [S55, S66]. The manipulation of size was regularly used as an artistic device not only to convey the relative importance of the figures, but also to effectively utilise the

A second human figure appears in some of the representations who either stands in front of the cow and attempts to soothe the animal or behind the cow to supervise and direct the work of the herdsman.26 In some scenes, this man is clearly distinguished as an overseer through his attire and posture. On the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1), for example, the overseer leans on a tall staff and wears a striped projecting kilt, whereas the herdsman is naked [S139; fig. 4.1]. The official stands behind the animal and raises one hand in a pointed gesture towards the delivery. While this attitude may simply emphasise his command to the herdsman, it has also been suggested to symbolise a magical gesture to protect the newborn calf.27 Two of the models examined likewise

égyptienne. Tome V, 65-66; Ritner, Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, 227-31; Pinch, Magic, 59. 28   The man’s arms are missing, so any action he may have performed remains unknown. 29   Both men wear a short white kilt and neither exhibits any clear sign of authority. 30   The use of rope during calving is unusual and, in this scene, it is only tied around one leg, so the animal could still kick with the other. Rope is more common in milking scenes where it is bound around both hind legs to prevent the cow from kicking. It is possible that its use in the calving scene of Khnumhotep I was a copying error by the artist who confused the two similar motifs. For a discussion on the use of rope in milking scenes, see chapter 4.2. Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 181. 31  Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, 13; Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 25.

  The kilt is worn by the herdsman in the scenes displayed on the south wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5) [S66] and on the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) [S125], while the loincloth appears on the south wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) [S55]. 26  Klebs, Reliefs des Alten Reiches, 62; Swinton, Management of Estates, 37. 27   An almost identical scene is found on the north wall of the outer room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4), although this example has suffered considerable damage [S176; fig. 4.3]. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie 25

114

Animal Husbandry

Figure 4.3. A naked herdsman adopts an active stance as he aids the delivery of a calf; an overseer points a magical gesture; a man sleeps soundly through the birth. Tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4). North wall of outer room, second lowest register [S176]. Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, pl. 4 [detail]; courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society.

available wall surface.32 It is probable that the small size of the herdsman in these scenes facilitated his standing posture while positioning him within the confined space underneath the cow’s raised tail.

artists, in contrast, encountered greater difficulty in crafting strained movement in three-dimensions and consequently presented less detailed and varied designs. The essential elements of the theme could still be captured in threedimensions, and with their location in the burial chamber, calving models provided the tomb owner with an eternal supply of cattle which would offer a range of valuable commodities and services for his afterlife.

In models, on the other hand, the cows are consistently emphasised through their immense size as they occupy the majority of space on the baseboard and often reach a greater height than their human companions. This is especially evident in one of the Lyon models where the human assistant is only just tall enough to aid in the delivery of the calf [M173]. Although the cow forms an integral element of both two- and three-dimensional calving representations, its emphasis in models is especially noticeable. The lifecycle of cattle features prominently in wall scenes, allowing the twodimensional medium to highlight the animal’s importance through quantity of illustrations, whereas models are typically more condensed in their representation. If a single model of cattle was interred in the tomb, size was an important means to emphasise the animal’s immense value to the tomb owner.

4.2 Milking and nursing Both the two- and three-dimensional media depict the next stage in the lifecycle of cattle, namely the calf nursing from its mother and the associated task of milking. There is, however, a greater preference for nursing in the representations examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan,33 with two models and six wall scenes that illustrate the process and only one model and one wall scene that depict milking.34 The representations demonstrate the   One of the nursing models, however, should be considered with caution. This example is housed in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo and comprises two different animal species arranged on a single baseboard: four of the figures are identified as cattle with their black and white hides, while the remaining three should be classified as donkeys by their colouring, the shaping of their muzzles and the black cross lines on their necks [M288]. These two species do not usually appear together in representations and, in conjunction with their unusual arrangement on the baseboard, it is quite likely that the model is pastiche. Further, the donkeys are lacking some colouring on their backs indicating that they may have originally carried a load, possibly sacks of grain, and so may originate from a transport model. If the positioning of the animals in this model is correct, then it appears that a small calf is approaching its mother to suckle. 34   A second milking scene was identified in this study which could not be examined as no record has been produced. It was identified by the 1990 joint Boston-Pennsylvania-Leiden expedition on the west wall of tomb N-M at Deir el-Bersha and is described as depicting a diminutive herdsman kneeling at a cow’s udder in a very similar manner to that displayed on the south wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5) at Deir el-Bersha [S67]. Robinson, Silverman & Brovarski, in Bersheh Reports I, 27. 33

Although the calving theme is not commonly found in the two- and three-dimensional media and should therefore be considered supplementary, its more regular occurrence in Middle Egypt highlights the prominence of animal husbandry in the region. Both media exhibit a similar portrayal of the theme, highlighting the Egyptians’ knowledge of breeding and birthing practices, although several differences occur as a result of their contrasting technical properties. With the ease of drawing minute details and active postures on the wall surface, scene-artists could clearly convey the pain of the cow and specify the roles of the human figures. Model Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 230; Robins, in Egyptian World, 360. 32

115

Preparing for Eternity Egyptians’ knowledge of the animal’s behaviour during these processes and the methods required in obtaining its products. Milk was a valuable commodity, providing a source of nourishment, although due to the great expense in maintaining cows, would have only been available to the elite.35 Its acquisition by man through milking and calves through suckling is represented similarly by sceneand model-artists, but there is considerable variety in their portrayal of the minute details and subsidiary components of the theme.

tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) at Meir [S142].39 The calf in the nursing model housed in Cairo is similarly fashioned at a small scale and so resides mostly beneath its mother with its head upraised [M288], while the model housed in New York portrays a larger calf who stands adjacent to the cow with only its head reaching under the mother’s belly [M254; fig. 4.4]. This, in fact, reflects the real-life positioning of the nursing calf who stands with its body alongside its mother and suckles between the back and front legs.40 The two-dimensional medium, on the other hand, does not utilise depth, causing the calf to appear as if it fully resides beneath its mother. The artist of the scene displayed in the second register of the south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan has attempted to overcome this limitation of perspective by depicting the cow’s head turned back to lick the rump of the calf [S80; fig. 4.6]. For this contact to be possible, at least the rear of the young must remain to the side of her body. With the advantage of a holistic perspective, models could more accurately convey the spatial relationship between the cow and calf during nursing.

While the formative stages of the calf’s development do appear in a number of representations, only rarely is more than one displayed in a single tomb. In fact, only one tomb from the sites examined in this study depicts all three processes of calving, milking and nursing, namely that of Ahanakht I (N-5) at Deir el-Bersha where all three are displayed on the south wall of the inner room [S66S67].36 The only other tomb to contain more than one of these motifs is that of Ukh-hotep II (B4) at Meir where both calving and nursing are displayed on the north wall of the outer room [S176], although it is possible that other examples originally existed which are not preserved. In the three-dimensional medium, on the other hand, each process is confined to its own baseboard and therefore does not display any association between the motifs. As all of the examples identified in this study originate from Meir,37 it is possible that more than one model depicting the early stages of the cattle’s lifecycle was interred in a single tomb, but unfortunately the precise provenance of each example remains unknown. Perhaps a single process could symbolise all of the earliest stages of the cattle’s lifecycle in both the two- and three-dimensional media.

A close connection between the cow and calf is also a vital aspect of the milking procedure and is therefore displayed in the representations. Egyptian herdsmen were aware that the cow’s supply of milk was most abundant with the presence of her calf and after the young had been allowed to suckle.41 Accordingly, the calf is regularly displayed standing close-by in both models and scenes of milking and is usually unrestrained.42 In the model housed in Lyon, the calf stands adjacent to its mother, looking in the direction of the udder [M174; fig. 4.5]. A man stands beside it with one arm raised, most likely in a ready position to hold the calf back if required. The calf, however, shows no signs of distress at being kept away from the milk nor does it display any attempt to move forward, which may suggest that it has already been fed.43 In contrast, wall scenes occasionally display the calf physically restrained with ropes, presumably to indicate that the young has just been pulled back from the udder.44 Although this use of restraint is not evident in the milking scene analysed in this study,45 it is found in some Old Kingdom Memphite tombs. On the north wall of the tomb of Akhet-hotep at Saqqara, for example, a calf is restrained by a herdsman who holds a rope tied to one of its forelegs while its mother is milked.46 The absence of restraint in the three-dimensional medium does not seem to be the result of technical limitations as models could certainly incorporate rope materials in their designs. Rather, it reflects the variation that was available to both scene- and model-artists in their portrayal of auxiliary elements of the motif.

In representations of milking and nursing, a close relationship between the cow and her calf is portrayed as it is of paramount importance to the success of both processes. One of the ways in which this is conveyed artistically is through positioning the animals close together, although the media exhibit differences in their arrangement. In nursing wall scenes, the calf is positioned beneath the cow with its head upraised to reach the udder.38 When the calf was no longer a newborn, it was required to bend its legs to fit within this small space, as is seen in the second register of the south wall of the

  Sist, in Egyptian Civilization, 63; Brewer, in Egyptian World, 142; Swinton, in Behind the Scenes, 47. 36   The milking vignette was not recorded by Newberry but was identified by the 1990 joint Boston-Pennsylvania-Leiden expedition. Unfortunately, its documentation only captures a small section of the scene and so analysis is confined to this segment, which comprises two herdsmen and the rear part of the cow [S67]. Freed, in Bersheh Reports I, 53. 37   The milking model today housed in Lyon was said to be from Asyut, but a recent study undertaken by the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon has demonstrated that it probably originates from Meir [M174]. Amoros, et al., “Study and identification”, Hathor 1, (2012), 11-29. 38  See, for example, the small calves standing beneath their mothers in the second register of the north wall of the tomb of Ipi (481 LC) at Beni Hassan [S5], the fourth register of the north wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan [S155], and on the north wall of the outer room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) [S176]. 35

 Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 178.  Phillips, Cattle Behaviour, 104. 41  Boessneck, Tierwelt, 67; Phillips, Cattle Behaviour, 103; Scanlan, in Egyptian Art, 86. 42  Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 181. 43  Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 182. 44  Montet, Scènes de la vie privée, 107; Boessneck, Haustiere, 12. 45  As the only pictorial documentation of the milking scene from the tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5) solely records the rear part of the cow and the associated herdsmen, the presence of a calf remains unknown [S67]. 46  Davies, Ptahhetep and Akhethetep. Part II, pl. 17. 39 40

116

Animal Husbandry

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

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

117

Preparing for Eternity One element of distinction between the two media that is attributable to their specific technical capabilities is the display of contact between the figures. In both milking and nursing, direct contact is required between the calf and cow as well as the herdsman and cow. However, it is distinctly avoided in the three-dimensional representations. In the Lyon milking model, the female worker seated beneath the cow raises one hand towards the udder but does not actually contact the teats [M174; fig. 4.5]. Similarly, the calf in the New York nursing model extends its neck to reach the udder and although the muzzle is slightly parted, it does not actually suckle [M254; fig. 4.4]. This is contrasted with wall scenes where direct contact is consistently portrayed. In the milking scene displayed on the south wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5), the herdsman works the udder by grasping the teats with one hand and the vessel with the other [S67].47 Likewise, the nursing calf in the fourth register of the north wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan clasps its muzzle around one of the teats and seems to pull down as the udder is especially elongated [S155]. Further contact between mother and calf is displayed in the second register of the south wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) where the cow turns its head back to lick the rump of the calf to guide it towards the udder [S142].48 The absence of such touch in models is quite striking and should be attributed to the difficulty of crafting direct contact in three-dimensions. For model figures to be joined, they needed to be carved from the same piece of wood or fashioned at a precise scale to be neatly fitted together. This would have required an exceptionally high level of craftsmanship. Instead, modelartists fashioned each component separately and attached each one individually to the baseboard. Therefore, the three-dimensional medium was hindered by modes of construction, with the grips of the herdsman’s hand and the calf’s muzzle merely implied by positioning the figures close to one another.

the animal’s sequence of motion: the cow would walk in procession and then stop to allow its young to suckle, or vice versa.50 In contrast, models could accurately capture the stationary stance by aligning its legs in its front and hind pairs without any component being hidden from view, as is achieved in the New York nursing model [M254; fig. 4.4]. Working in three-dimensions, model-artists had the advantage of a holistic perspective that enabled a more naturalistic representation of the cow’s static posture. While the cow and calf are integral to the nursing theme, the herdsman’s role is not essential and therefore he only occasionally appears in the representations.51 On the south wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2), for example, the calf suckles under the care of its mother without any human supervision [S142]. Similarly, no human figures are present to support the animals in the two nursing models examined [M254, M288; see fig. 4.4].52 However, in scenes where a human child is suckling directly from the cow’s udder, a herdsman is represented. On the south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC), a herdsman stands behind the cow in a slightly bent posture with his belt swung over one arm and his arms lowered towards the animals ready to provide assistance if required [S80; fig. 4.6], while on the south wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5), the herdsman in the second register kneels while grasping the cow’s hind legs to give the child clear access to the udder [S66]. These two representations of children suckling are quite unusual and perhaps illustrate unique moments experienced by the tomb owners during their lifetimes. In the scene of Ahanakht I, the child appears alone, whereas in that of Baqet III, it suckles alongside the calf. Displaying such remarkable motifs in the chapel made them accessible to visitors to the tomb and so continually remembered. The absence of children suckling in models is therefore presumably due to the medium’s concealed location in the burial chamber. Commemorating everyday life moments was not a priority of the three-dimensional medium, with the models instead concerned with provisioning the deceased for the afterlife.

Another point of contrast between the media is found in their portrayal of the stance of the cow, but in this instance, it may be attributed to a technical restriction of the twodimensional medium. In wall scenes, cows nursing their young stride forward with their far legs which appears to indicate movement. For this operation to be successful, however, the cows would need to stand still. The cow in the second register of the north wall of the tomb of Ipi (481 LC) at Beni Hassan stands among a procession of cattle and steps forward with its left legs [S5]. This posture should be understood as a means to keep all four legs in view in the profile perspective, and the motif’s association with the procession demonstrates the technique of arranging associated vignettes on the same wall.49 However, it is also possible that the scene-artist attempted to convey both the movement and stationary pose simultaneously to express

The herdsman is essential to the operation of milking and is consequently portrayed in both two- and threedimensional representations of this process. He is consistently positioned under the belly to reach the udder, although there is considerable variety in the depiction of his posture. In the milking scene of Ahanakht I (N-5), the man adopts an active stance with one knee resting on the ground and the other leg striding in front [S67]. This strained movement is not as easily achieved in three-dimensions and consequently the worker in the

 Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 34.  Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 68. 52   It is possible that a human figure was originally included in the New York model due to the presence of two small holes in the baseboard at the end opposite the cow [M254; fig. 4.4]. However, the holes are positioned some distance away from the animals which suggests that if a human figure was attached, he/she was not actively involved in the nursing process. 50 51

  This scene has apparently suffered some damage and so the intricacies of the man’s hands can no longer be identified. From the surviving details, it seems probable that both hands are directly engaged in the process. 48  Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 178. 49  Smith, Sculpture and Painting, 333; Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 293; Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 72-73. 47

118

Animal Husbandry prevent it from kicking.56 Old Kingdom wall scenes often show the cow restrained by ropes which either pass around both hind legs or are attached to the horns before being tied to the rear legs,57 but in the scene of Ahanakht I (N-5), the herdsman kneels directly behind the cow and holds the hind legs together with his hands [S67]. This restraint served an important role in preventing injury to the herdsman as well as any loss of milk.58 However, the cow in the Lyon model stands completely unrestrained and the second herdsman simply accompanies it and the calf [M174; fig. 4.5].59 It seems that the presence of the calf was enough to calm the cow and facilitate a steady flow of milk and the herdsman contributed to soothing the cow and watching the calf rather than restraining the legs. For supplementary components such as the secondary herdsman, significant variety is achieved across the representations which highlights the range of designs available to both scene- and model-artists.

Figure 4.6. A calf and human child suckle simultaneously; the cow licks the rump of its young; a herdsman is ready to provide assistance. Tomb of Baqet III (15 UC). South wall, west panel, register 2 [S80]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 84 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

The theme of milking and nursing should be understood as supplementary due to the limited number of representations, but its occurrence in both media highlights the importance of cattle in both life and afterlife. Its portrayal features the same principal components in the two- and threedimensional media, but there are a number of differences in detail. Many of these result from the specific technical capabilities of each medium, with model-artists presenting realistic arrangements of the animals but unable to create direct physical contact, and scene-artists portraying more active postures of the herdsmen yet hindered by an absence of depth. However, much of the diversity is also found across both media, particularly concerning the less essential elements of the motifs. Model-artists were therefore not required to duplicate wall scenes but could create individual designs within the capabilities of their medium.

Lyon model, who is in fact female,53 is simply seated on disproportionately small legs on the baseboard [M174; fig. 4.5]. Both of these figures use a vessel to catch the milk, and in the scene of Ahanakht I, it is raised to rest directly against the teats, allowing the milk to flow immediately into it, while in the Lyon model, it is placed on the lap, some distance away from the udder.54 This more removed location is not unique to the three-dimensional medium but is exhibited in several wall scenes from the Old Kingdom. For example, in the tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep at Saqqara, a large vessel is positioned on the ground beneath the cow on the west wall of the outer hall in a similar manner to the model, but in this case the scene-artist has included the additional detail of streams of milk.55 The model-artist could not incorporate flowing liquid into his three-dimensional design and so could only imply the collection of milk through the placement of the vessel beneath the udder. While the model is more limited in detail, the positioning of the worker and vessel beneath the cow still conveys the task of milking.

4.3 Cattle in procession With the esteemed value of their products and services, cattle formed a vital part of the Egyptian economy and were the most highly valued domestic animal.60 Only the highest elite could afford a herd of cattle and consequently representations of cattle in procession convey the superior

Although only a single herdsman is required during milking, the representations sometimes include an additional figure who restrains the legs of the cow to

 Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V, 72-74.   There is some chronological development in the method of tying the rope to the animal. Most examples of the Old Kingdom illustrate the hind legs tied together, as can be seen on the north wall of the hall of the 5th Dynasty tomb of Akhet-hotep at Saqqara. Davies, Ptahhetep and Akhethetep. Part II, pl. 17. Beginning in the 6th Dynasty, however, the rope could be attached to the horns before passing to the hind legs, as is achieved on the north wall of the pillared hall of the tomb of Kagemni at Saqqara. Harpur & Scremin, Chapel of Kagemni, fig. 7; Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 181. 58  Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 181; Jones, in Behind the Scenes, 100. 59  While it is possible that thread was originally wrapped around the cow’s legs, this seems unlikely as the hind legs are slightly parted rather than held close together and there is no human figure standing at the rear to operate the restraint. 60   Germond & Livet, Egyptian Bestiary, 55; Houlihan, in History of the Animal World, 104-05. 56 57

  The figure may be identified as female by her yellow skin and long black hair which contrasts with the red complexion of her male coworker. She wears a simple white skirt which would have been more appropriate for work in the fields than the tight-fitting dress. The depiction of a woman is surprising in this role as wall scenes consistently display men engaged in milking. Ghoneim, Ökonomische bedeutung des Rindes, 222; Watterson, Women, 101. 54   The vessel in the scene of Ahankhat I (N-5) comprises a globular jar with a narrow neck which finds some similarity with the hieroglyphic sign for irTt ‘milk’, whereas in the model, it consists of a shallower dish without a neck. Such variety in vessel shape is in fact common across all milking representations. Montet, Scènes de la vie privée, 107; Ghoneim, Ökonomische bedeutung des Rindes, 224-25. 55   Moussa & Altenmüller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep, pl. 76. 53

119

Preparing for Eternity status and wealth of their owners.61 It is therefore not surprising to find abundant representations of cattle in procession on tomb-chapel walls where the animals would be admired by visitors to the tomb. From Meir, Deir elBersha and Beni Hassan, examples were identified on over 35 different walls of 21 different tombs. The animals appear in parades of herds before the tomb owner, in groups for the cattle count, led across bodies of water, and as offerings presented for eternity. Conversely, in the threedimensional medium, cattle in procession do not feature nearly as prominently, with only five models identified from the three sites under investigation. In addition to this vast difference in corpus, there are several contrasting details in the design of the cattle and herdsmen as well as the context of the processions. These differences indicate that scene- and model-artists each created a representation of the theme according to their medium’s specific role in the tomb.

Textual captions are rarely utilised in the three-dimensional medium and none of the model processions feature any inscriptions. Such a vastly restricted number of cattle should most likely be attributed to the medium’s location in the burial chamber. Concealed from view, the models could not contribute to the public proclamation of the tomb owner’s wealth and status and therefore a large herd was unnecessary. Instead, the three-dimensional medium functioned for the deceased’s benefit in the afterlife and so a single ox may have been considered sufficient to provide the desired services. Further contrast between the two- and three-dimensional media is found in their arrangement of multiple cattle in a single herd. Working in three-dimensions, modelartists could position the animals in any location on the baseboard without any component being hidden from view. In a model likely from Meir, for example, the two cattle are arranged as a pair standing side-by-side on the baseboard [M256]. Conversely, scene-artists were restricted to a two-dimensional perspective that prevented the same realistic arrangement. The animals are depicted in profile and if they were to be positioned side-by-side, only the one nearest to the viewer would be seen. Therefore, scene-artists utilised different methods to overcome this difficulty and convey multiple cattle arranged in a single group. One of the ways in which this was achieved was through placing the animals seemingly above one another, as is found in the scene of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) where the groups of calves are separated into different sub-registers [S212; fig. 4.8].65 In such an arrangement, the animals are understood as standing side-by-side with the one above further from the viewer.66 Alternatively, the herd could be positioned in single file along the register line, as is seen in the second register of the north wall of the tomb of Ipi (481 LC) at Beni Hassan [S5]. This arrangement could convey that the group either stands next to each other or behind one another.67 From the representation alone, it cannot be deduced which positioning is expressed, but through a comparison with the three-dimensional medium, it may be assumed that the animals walk alongside each other.

The size of the herd represented is especially important in wall scenes as it visually expresses the tomb owner’s superior status to any visitors to the tomb. Therefore, exceptional numbers of cattle are a prominent feature of the two-dimensional medium. One particularly large herd is observed on the west wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha where three groups of calves are displayed in the seventh register, a procession of five oxen in the eighth register and a very large herd of over 60 cattle in the lowest register [S212; fig. 4.7]. The grandeur of the herds is further emphasised in scenes through accompanying inscriptions. By the late 6th Dynasty, herd numbers were regularly cited in these labels, sometimes with extremely large quantities.62 Although only a small number of cattle are depicted iconographically in the third and fourth registers of the east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir, the captions indicate they are representative of large herds [S38]. The pair of cattle in the third register is labelled jdt 10,100 ‘10,100 cows’ while the second ox in the fourth register is captioned xA ngAw ‘1,000 longhorned oxen’.63 In contrast, models do not display grand herd sizes nor do they include captions citing herd numbers. Each model procession examined in this study comprises only one or two oxen,64 and although these animals may be symbolic of larger herds, the representations do not emphasise this.

More commonly, the technique of lateral laying is utilised by scene-artists which involves closely overlapping the body of one animal with that of the next.68 This arrangement clearly conveys that the herd advances beside one another rather than in single file. These groups are typically in unified motion, with the cattle adopting the

 Janssen & Janssen, Household Animals, 28; Brewer, in Egyptian World, 142; Jones, in Behind the Scenes, 97. 62   This increase in herd sizes was particularly significant during the late Old Kingdom when the administration sought to enhance the productivity of the land in Upper Egypt as a response to a series of low Nile floods. The captions demonstrate that the provincial administrators were able to achieve this with considerable success. Swinton, Management of Estates, 42-45, 132-33; Kanawati & Swinton, Egypt in the Sixth Dynasty, 121, 125. 63   Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, 54. 64  A rare exception to the small herd sizes represented in the threedimensional medium is found in a model from the tomb of Meketre at Thebes. In this unique example, a large procession of cattle under the supervision of several herdsmen is paraded before the tomb owner. These animals are presented for inspection and the rendering of accounts. 61

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46724. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pl. 13. 65   A similar situation is witnessed on the north wall of the tomb of Ukhhotep III (C1) at Meir where two oxen are placed one above the other in the fourth register [S217; see fig. 6.7]. In this example, however, there is no secondary register line, but rather the upper ox simply resides in the empty space. 66   Anderson, in Egyptian Art, 39; Tiradritti, Egyptian Wall Painting, 1819. 67  Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 172-73. 68  Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 178-79; Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 63.

120

Animal Husbandry

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

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

121

Preparing for Eternity same stance.69 In order for each animal to be individually distinguished, the decoration of the hide is regularly alternated. On the south wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan, for example, a large herd of closely overlapping cattle is displayed in the second register [S99; fig. 4.9]. The colours and patterns of the hides alternate between light and dark shades, and spotted and plain decoration. However, incorporating such a large number of animals in a small section of wall often resulted in the absence of certain elements, most commonly the hind legs.70 Khety’s group comprises a typical example where both front legs are depicted for each animal, but the hind legs have been detailed for the last few oxen only. While each of these techniques allowed scene-artists to overcome the limitations of their medium and convey multiple cattle in a single herd, they could not achieve the same realistic arrangement as models.

behind walks a third animal, possibly a calf, which is even smaller in size and does not have fully grown horns.72 Such details could not be as easily fashioned in threedimensions, causing models to usually present a more basic rendering of the animal. Both media, however, utilise the technique of altering the size of the cattle to emphasise certain components. In one of the models likely from Meir, the cattle are much larger than the herdsman, dominating both the length and height of the model [M255; fig. 4.13]. As was observed in the discussion on calving in chapter 4.1, this disproportionate size probably emphasises the importance of cattle in more condensed representations. Scene-artists could also modify the size of the animals, but in some instances, the cattle are disproportionately small. Four cattle are scattered among the procession of offering-bearers in the fifth register of the east panel of the south wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan [S161]. Each one is unrealistically small, although the first three are individually labelled as either rn n jwA ‘prime ox’ or rn n wnDw ‘prime shorthorned ox’.73 Unlike processions in the field, cattle in lines of offering-bearers form one type of commodity among a range of goods. In these scenes, the emphasis is rather on the quantity and array of products and the importance of the offering-bearers who presented them.

Occasionally, an individual member of the herd adopts a different action or motion, interrupting the uniformity of the overlapping group. A number of these irregularities are displayed in the procession on the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir [S138]. In the second register, one herd member lowers its head to nibble on a shrub while close behind another has laid on the ground, apparently refusing to move. In a small group at the extreme left of the register, one cow turns its head back and protrudes its tongue suggesting vocalisation, while the last animal unusually stops to scratch its head with its hind leg.71 Such minute details capture a sense of realism, expressing moments as they would have occurred in everyday life. These details, however, are not found in the three-dimensional medium. Not only would the intricacies of these actions be extremely difficult to carve in three-dimensions, but models were more concerned with functioning for the deceased’s benefit. In these condensed representations, such everyday life details were not essential.

The herdsman was responsible for the cattle and so he appears consistently alongside the processions in both the two- and three-dimensional representations. In wall scenes, he is distinguished by a unique appearance, generally quite lean, often unshaven and/or balding, wearing a garment ranging from a simple belt to a short, tight kilt, with sagging stomach muscles, and carrying supplies for himself and his animals.74 There is, however, much variety within these parameters. The herdsmen on the south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan exhibit diversity in attire, with those in the second register mostly wearing the plain short kilt while two in the fourth register solely wear a simple belt tied around the waist [S80]. Alternatively, the projecting kilt of the master drover is worn by all four herdsmen in the upper two registers of the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir [S11]. Variety in body weight is identified on the west wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) at Meir where the elderly official walking behind the herd exhibits rolls of fat across his stomach [S146], while in the scene of Baqet III (15 UC), the second herdsman leading a single ox in the second register is noticeably lean and walks with the aid of a tall staff [S80]. Additionally, the unkempt appearance of the herdsman is discernible in many scenes, including in the sixth register of the

Further differences are found in the media’s rendering of each animal. Scene-artists could more easily incorporate intricate details that distinguish different ages, genders and breeds. On the east wall of the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (N-10) at Deir el-Bersha, for example, the leading longhorned ox in the third register is especially large with strong muscular definition and so is probably a bull, while the second animal is smaller, less muscular and has quite horizontal horns, indicating it may be a cow [S69]. Close   The herd in the ninth register of the west wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) is seemingly divided into smaller groups [S212; fig. 4.7]. Almost all of the cattle closely overlap, although the line is broken up by some animals displayed in full view. This arrangement creates the impression of several rows of cattle, with those in full view marking the end of each line. Furthermore, the cattle in each ‘row’ adopt the same stance, with the lines alternating between legs striding forward, and the front and hind legs aligned in pairs. 70   Only rarely are all four legs drawn for each animal in large herds. One example is found on the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir where all seven cattle in the overlapping herd in the third register have all four legs displayed [S139]. Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 184-85. 71   The scratching of the head is in fact a rarely attested action in wall scenes. Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 63, 76; Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 23. 69

 Willems, Dayr al-Barshā. Volume I, 42.  Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, 51-52. Similarly, a diminutive ox is led by the leading offering-bearer in the third register of the north wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir [S8]. The elevated status of the bearer is conveyed by his projecting kilt and sash. A wide variety of other goods are transported by the bearers behind who wear simple tight-fitting kilts. 74  Strouhal, Life, 109; Swinton, Management of Estates, 39. 72 73

122

Animal Husbandry

Figure 4.9. Cattle in procession, with the colours and patterns of each hide alternating. Tomb of Khety (17 UC). South wall, west panel, register 2 [S99]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 65a [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan where one of the men standing among the herd of cattle displays a receding hairline and beard [S189]. This scene also illustrates some of the supplies transported, with another herdsman carrying vessels and a basket suspended from a yoke across his shoulders. Additionally, the herdsman could be portrayed with signs of physical deformities. Particularly common are deformed legs, as is displayed in the scene of Baqet III (15 UC) where at least two of the herdsmen leading cattle in the second register walk with unnaturally bent legs [S80]. Incorporating such details in scenes conveys the age, status and health of the herdsmen who tended the cattle in everyday life. The intricacies of this appearance could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface, enabling scene-artists to achieve considerable variety and detail in their rendering of his figure.

the herdsman’s appearance. Model figures are typically carved with basic body structures that lack bone and muscular definition, and while such details are achieved in formal statues, they are rarely incorporated in statuettes of serving figures.75 Consequently, a model figure is typically only identified as a herdsman by his location alongside a procession of cattle. The two-dimensional medium achieves further elaboration in its representation of the herdsman by distinguishing foreigners. In particular, the Beja-herdsman was a renowned pastoralist whose services were highly valued by the Egyptians especially following the First Intermediate Period.76 He may be easily identified in scenes by his unique appearance: he has bushy hair, an unshaven face, an emaciated body with very thin limbs and prominent ribs and shoulder-bones, and leans on a staff fashioned from a tree-branch.77 The Beja-herdsman typically assumes the leading position in the procession, as can be seen in the second register of the south wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) [S142; fig. 4.11].78 This figure in fact has been given particular attention by the scene-artist with unusually high

Model herdsmen, in contrast, do not exhibit the same physical characteristics nor do they display such variation in design. In four of the five models examined, the herdsmen all have short black hair and wear short, tight, white-painted kilts [M42, M255, M256, M262; see fig. 4.13]. With this appearance, they form standard figures that could be associated with any theme. Alternatively, the model from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) at Deir el-Bersha features some of the herdsman’s distinguishing characteristics: the two leading herdsmen wear short, white-painted kilts with one end hitched up over the shoulder while the man walking behind the cattle wears a simple knee-length garment; one of the leading herdsmen is balding with the red skin of his crown emerging from a rim of black-painted hair [M150; fig. 4.10]. These details are quite unusual in the three-dimensional medium and demonstrate the desire and skill of this model-artist to achieve the herdsman’s characteristic appearance. More typically, however, such intricacies are excluded from the three-dimensional designs due to the difficulty of fashioning them in small sculptural forms. This factor is particularly significant for achieving variation in body weight which is one of the identifying features of

 Formal statues of the tomb owner are typically carved at a larger scale and exhibit a finer quality of craftsmanship. Serving figures are not usually given the same attention. A rare example of a model figure displaying fat and muscle is found in a statuette of a priest housed in the Bristol Museum & Art Gallery: H4599. The man has defined pectoral muscles and rolls of fat across his stomach, showing an exceptional level of carving for a small sculpture. 76   Roth, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 162-63; Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 23; Moreno Garcia, State in Ancient Egypt, 101-02. 77  Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Volume I, 32; Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 49. 78   Beja-herdsmen adopt the initial position in many scenes, including in the second register of the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) [S138-S139], and on the north wall of the outer room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) at Meir [S176]. Interestingly, the foreigner appears in three separate processions in the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2): in addition to his depiction on the south wall, he features on the north and west walls [S140, S146]. There are some differences in the rendering of these three Beja-herdsmen which may suggest they are representations of different individuals. 75

123

Preparing for Eternity

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

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

skill exhibited in the rendering of his features.79 Scenes also display evidence of foreign cattle being utilised by the Egyptians alongside those bred domestically. On the north wall of the outer room of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) at Meir, for example, an accompanying inscription identifies some of the cattle in the lowest register as aAmw,

often understood as Asiatic [S176].80 While this foreign influence is identifiable in wall scenes, all of the herdsmen displayed in the models examined are recognisably Egyptian with their red skin, black wigs and white kilts. Foreigners, in fact, rarely appear in the three-dimensional repertoire with the known examples discussed in chapter

  While much of the decoration of the chapel was left unfinished or was completed in haste, great care was taken in the rendering of this foreign figure. Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part II, 17-18; Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 39.

80

  The inscription is associated with the much-defaced group of cattle on the right of the register: ‘the bulls of the aAmw, brought from…’. Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, 13; Saretta, Asiatics, 122; Moreno Garcia, “Trade and power”, JArchRes 25.2, (2017), 115-16.

79

124

Animal Husbandry 6.2. Additionally, with the absence of explanatory labels, the origins of the model cattle can only be assumed to be Egyptian. The representation of foreigners in association with herds in wall scenes forms an expansion upon the theme and allows the tomb owner to publicly proclaim his access to specialised herdsmen and foreign animals during life.

indoor activities.85 The model of Djehuty-nakht therefore may be more appropriately classified as the procession of cattle before the tomb owner. To encourage the cattle to move forward, the herdsmen adopt several different methods. One technique represented by both media is the use of a leash. This rope is fastened to the muzzle and is typically held by a herdsman walking in front of the animal. In the model from the tomb of Intef (1 LC) at Beni Hassan, the herdsman leads an ox with his right arm lowered in front [M42]. A small hole in his clenched hand and one piercing the nose of the ox suggest that a leash was originally connected to the animal and held by the herdsman.86 The two-dimensional medium could not utilise real rope, but a leash is regularly drawn in the scene. Most often, it simply touches the muzzle without any clear indication of how it is connected, as is found in the fourth register of the north wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) [S74]. However, in some scenes more detail is provided. In the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2), for example, an overlapping group of three oxen is led on ropes held by a Beja-herdsman in the second register of the south wall [S142; fig. 4.11]. The ox furthest from view has the additional detail of the rope tied around its muzzle, providing a clear indication of the leash’s attachment.87 This method of controlling the animals’ movement is common across the representations and could be conveyed in both two- and three-dimensions.

In processions, the herdsman’s role is to guide the cattle forward in an orderly manner. The representations typically depict at least one herdsman at the front of the parade and one at the rear with sometimes more scattered throughout.81 In wall scenes, the herdsman who walks in the leading position often adopts an attitude of respect as he approaches a large figure of the tomb owner. On the south wall of room 3 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), the leading herdsman in each of the three registers adopts a humble attitude: all three men bend forward slightly and one crosses the left arm over the chest as they approach a large seated figure of their master [S32; fig. 4.12]. The man at the rear of each procession, in contrast, stands upright as he is not directly in the tomb owner’s presence. A similar arrangement is found in the model of Djehutynakht (R-10A) [M150; fig. 4.10]. This sculpture has previously been classified as transporting cattle through marshland based on two main elements: the bent posture of the leading herdsmen and the sinking of the figures’ feet into the baseboard.82 However, both features may be more adequately explained. Only the leading two herdsmen bend forward and direct their gaze towards the ground while the man walking at the rear stands upright.83 This closely parallels the posture of the herdsmen in the scene of Pepyankh the Black (A2). Although there is no representation of the tomb owner in the model, its placement in the burial chamber positions it near the body and accordingly the leading herdsmen still approach their master. Additionally, the absence of feet may be understood as a construction technique rather than a design to indicate mud. The figures were attached to the baseboard with pegs, causing the legs to terminate at the ankles unless the feet were added in paint or plaster.84 Figures without feet are found in a wide range of models, many of which depict

A second technique involving prodding the cattle forward with sticks is also exhibited by both media. The herdsman using this tool typically stands behind the cattle and raises it above them, ready to strike if required. In a model said to be from Deir el-Bersha, a herdsman walks behind the oxen with both arms extended in front [M262]. His left hand is clenched with a hole pierced through it, suggesting that he originally held a stick above the animals. Similarly, the rear herdsman in the model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) grips a stick, although he holds it at rest by his side [M150; fig. 4.10]. The two models likely from Meir now housed in Lyon likewise feature a man positioned behind the cattle [M255-M256; see fig. 4.13].88 Although the Musée des   See, for example, models depicting bread-making and brewing beer [M43, M56, M71, M72, M164, M178] and spinning and weaving [M151, M152, M206] where it is certain that the figures stand on solid ground, yet no feet are represented on the baseboard. 86  A similar situation is found in the model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) where the two leading herdsmen each grasp a leash that is connected to an ox [M150; fig. 4.10]. This model, however, has been restored and so the thread leashes are not original. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 62; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, “Model of men herding cattle”, viewed 6 September 2017, . 87   This scene has the unusual detail of a second rope utilised to control the oxen: a herdsman standing behind the group holds a rope seemingly attached to their horns. Alternatively, on the north wall of the same tomb, three cattle are ushered forward and each has a leash connected to its mouth yet only that of the first is held by the Beja-herdsman while the other two simply hang down [S140]. Presumably, this indicates that the same herdsman holds the leashes of all three oxen, but to prevent the ropes from obscuring any figure from view, they are portrayed as pendant. 88   Both models were said to be from Asyut, but a recent study undertaken by the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon has demonstrated that they probably originate from Meir. Amoros, et al., “Study and identification”, Hathor 1, (2012), 11-29. 85

 Only rarely are processions of cattle portrayed without herdsmen. One example may be found on the west wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) where the parade of cattle in the third register advances towards the right without any direct human assistance [S103]. In other instances, an absence of herdsmen may be attributed to poor preservation, such as on the north wall of the tomb of An-ankhy (L-15J67/1) at Deir el-Bersha [S2] and on the north wall of the exterior approach to the statue-recess of Ukh-hotep II (B4) [S180]. 82   Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 158-61. 83   Freed and Doxey have proposed that the final man’s upright posture indicates that he has not yet entered the marshy area. This seems improbable as the human and animal figures are positioned close together and so would be walking in the same environment. Additionally, his feet are likewise missing which, according to their explanation, would suggest that he too is walking through mud. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 161. 84  Winlock, Models of Daily Life, 74; Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 64. 81

125

Preparing for Eternity

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

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

126

Animal Husbandry Beaux-Arts de Lyon has classified them as representations of ploughing, the human figures adopt the attitude of herdsmen rather than ploughmen.89 Their arms are held straight and at least one has a hole pierced through each hand indicating that items were originally held, possibly sticks.90 Wall scenes present this same manipulation of the tool. On the west pilaster of the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan, the herdsman raises a stick above the rear of the final animal in the second register [S112]. Alternatively, the herdsmen on the west wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehutyhotep (N-2) use their sticks to rally the cattle into one large group: the men stand at each end of the procession in the ninth register and face towards the animals in an active stance with their sticks raised [S212]. This tool is prominent across the representations demonstrating that both scene- and model-artists could convey the main methods adopted by herdsmen to maintain control of their charges.

displayed in models, but no calves are exhibited in any of the three-dimensional processions. Instead, the focus is solely on the two principal elements of the cattle and herdsmen. An additional motif associated with herds of cattle that is only represented in the two-dimensional medium is the activity of fording the river. Cattle were moved around the estate for continual access to food and at times this journey required transport across water.93 Scenes that illustrate this movement display the herdsmen carefully guiding their charges across the water, protecting them from any dangers. Depending on the depth of the river, the cattle either swim or wade, and are often enticed forward by a herdsman who suspends a calf over the side of a boat.94 On the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), for example, the cattle progress through deep water with only their heads visible [S168; fig. 4.14]. The herdsmen are positioned in two boats, one on either side of the herd, with a calf suspended from the first boat by a rope.95 This riverine journey, however, is not included in the model repertoire. Not only would it have been extremely difficult to capture the riverine environment in threedimensions, but the motif expresses an everyday life moment that would not have been required in the burial chamber.

Wall scenes, however, expand upon the theme by illustrating some additional methods used to usher the oxen forward. One approach of particular interest is the use of a calf to entice the mother. Egyptian herdsmen were aware that the bond between a cow and her newborn calf was so strong that if the young was separated from its mother, the cow would make every effort to be reunited with it.91 Accordingly, many scenes show a calf carried by a herdsman while the mother cow and the rest of the herd follow closely behind. The calf may be carried on the back of the herdsman with the hind legs hanging down, as is displayed on the south wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) [S142], or it may be held across the shoulders with its head and legs secured against the chest, as is found on the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) [S189]. The distress of both the cow and calf is exhibited in a number of scenes, with that on the north wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) particularly expressive: the calf in the fourth register turns its head to look behind while the mother extends her head towards her young and protrudes her tongue as an indication of vocalised distress [S155].92 Not only is this method of enticing the cattle forward not

Scene-artists regularly position the processions to occur under the watchful gaze of the tomb owner. His figure is typically represented at a grand scale at the forefront of a series of registers with the herds of cattle sometimes aligned with his head, highlighting their esteemed value.96 On walls devoted to agriculture and animal husbandry, his figure usually adopts a formal standing posture with one

was so prominent that it was copied in many tombs and inserted into different spaces without the necessity of the herd. 93   While it has regularly been assumed that fording scenes illustrate the movement of herds to and from the Delta, some doubt has been cast over this as marshy areas existed everywhere along the Nile. Instead, the cattle probably remained in the vicinity of the tomb owner’s estate. Janssen & Janssen, Household Animals, 27; Brewer, in History of the Animal World, 444; Strauss-Seeber, in Egypt, 381; Swinton, Management of Estates, 49. 94   A total of six fording scenes were identified from Meir, Deir elBersha and Beni Hassan, and in these representations, the cattle typically move in an ordered manner, although occasionally they display signs of distress [S36, S48, S64, S109, S168, S199]. On the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), the cattle appear agitated with two of the herd lifting their bodies out of the water and attempting to swim in the opposite direction [S199]. Crocodiles appear in the water, and although they regularly feature in this motif without frightening the cattle, in this instance they must have come too close. The cattle are not preserved in the fording scene displayed on the west wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC), but the presence of a calf dangled over the side of a boat by herdsmen attests to their occurrence in the original design [S109]. Klebs, Reliefs des Alten Reiches, 60-61; Arnold, in Servant of Mut, 2-4; Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 71; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 39-40; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, 22. 95   Some of the herdsmen in the boats extend one arm with their hand in a pointed gesture, possibly uttering spells to protect the cattle from the dangers of the river. Ritner, Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, 225-31; Pinch, Magic, 121; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, 31. 96   The procession is aligned with the tomb owner’s head on the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) [S11]. Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 15; Swinton, Management of Estates, 39.

 Both men stand upright rather than bending forward in an active stance like the ploughman. While the fieldhand lowers both arms to grip and push down on the plough, the arms of these model figures are held straight with at least one man extending an arm towards the cattle. Moreover, there is no sign of any yokes or ploughs on the oxen nor on the baseboards, and the separated pieces appear to be tails rather than ploughs as they are coloured in the same pattern as the animals’ hides and the rears of the cattle display signs of damage. See chapter 2.1 for a discussion on ploughing representations. Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon, “Le labourage – Modèle funéraire”, viewed 9 January 2018, ; . 90   The holes piercing the man’s hands are clear in one record [M256] but are not discernible in the images available for the other [M255; fig. 4.13]. 91  Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 72. 92  Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 72. Unusually, in a number of scenes the minute detail of the calf turning its head is incorporated when there are no cattle walking behind: on the south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) [S80], on the north and south walls of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) [S119, S124], and on the south wall of the tomb of Nekhti (21 UC) at Beni Hassan [S150]. This suggests that the motif 89

127

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 4.14. Cattle fording a river. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). West wall, south panel, register 7, right [S168]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 90 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

hand holding a long staff,97 although he can also be seated on a chair or palanquin.98 A viewing inscription regularly separates his figure from the registers and specifies the nature of the activities taking place.99 On the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1), a standing figure of the owner occupies the height of the two lowest registers which are largely devoted to processions of cattle and slaughtering [S139]. The accompanying inscription identifies the tomb owner’s action as mAA jwAw sDAw ‘viewing the precious oxen’.100 Conversely, both the tomb owner and the viewing inscription are excluded from the three-dimensional corpus examined in this study. This should be attributed to the medium’s location in the burial chamber where the model cattle were able to process directly to the deceased himself, and therefore a representation of his figure was unnecessary.101

gathered outside in the fields [S32, S38; see fig. 4.12]. Such environmental details are not included in models, with the baseboards instead remaining undecorated.103 The context of the procession could also be specified in scenes through its precise placement on the wall. Similar themes are regularly arranged on the same wall and with the advantage of space, multiple scenes could be grouped together. In some instances, scribes appear before the processions indicating that the animals are specifically gathered for the cattle count. On the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), for example, the parade of herds not only approaches a group of scribes, but administrative officials are scattered throughout the animals, tallying and recording the quantities [S189].104 Alternatively, processions could appear alongside scenes of slaughtering, as is found on the south wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) [S142].105 Such association presumably indicates the destination of the cattle and that their meat provides nourishment for the tomb owner’s table. The model processions examined, on the other hand, occur on their own baseboards without any other themes represented.106 Consequently, the animals are not associated with any particular daily life task, but rather are housed in the burial chamber where they are devoted to serving the deceased in the afterlife.

In addition to situating the theme before the tomb owner’s figure, scenes could depict a specific context in which the procession occurs. Herds of cattle mostly occur without a specific background setting,102 but occasionally environmental details are included. For example, the processions displayed on the south wall of room 3 and the east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) include small shrubs and other plants scattered between the animals’ legs which clearly indicates that the animals are

Scene-artists also incorporate cattle among processions of offering-bearers who advance towards the offering-

  See, for example, the south wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan where the tomb owner is displayed once on the east panel overseeing four registers devoted to the activities of cattle [S54], and once on the west panel where he views five registers of figures wrestling, processions of animals and agricultural activities [S56]. 98   Ukh-hotep I (B2) is shown seated on a chair with a low cushioned back and lion’s legs while holding a staff in one hand and a folded cloth in the other on the north wall of his tomb [S140]. Alternatively, on the east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2), the tomb owner has just arrived by palanquin to inspect the cattle count: he is squatting on a seat placed on the ground in the top register to the right of the doorway with a flail in one hand and a baton in the other [S38]. Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I “, 17-19. 99   Swinton has categorised the viewing inscriptions according to three main types: those that describe the offerings or activities viewed, those that pronounce the source of the offerings or activities, and those that denote the geographical location. Swinton, Management of Estates, 12021; Hudáková, in (Re)productive Traditions, 373. 100   Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 24. 101  The close association between models and the body of the tomb owner will be further discussed in chapter 7. 102   Kanawati, “Specificity”, ASAE 83, (2009), 271. 97

  Of the models examined, only that likely from Deir el-Bersha displays paint covering the surface of the baseboard, and this is plain black rather than utilising colours and patterns of the natural environment [M262]. 104  Moreover, the viewing inscription associated with the scene specifically designates the procession as the cattle count: mAA jrt jrw mnmnt nbt … ‘viewing the undertaking of the count of all animals…’ [S189]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 44-45. This same designation is identified on the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) where the viewing inscription reads jrt jrw n mnmnt awt n spAwt Hrjwt-jb mAA jwA wnDw ‘making the count of the cattle and the small animals in the middle provinces, and viewing the oxen and goats’ [S11]. The text expresses that it is the wealth of the province that is being counted under the direction of the nomarch. Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, 41. 105   Similarly, in the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) a muzzled ox is led towards a series of slaughtering vignettes in the sixth register of the east panel of the south wall [S161]. 106   One exception may be found in the model of Meketre from Thebes where the procession is supervised by many scribes and officials which indicates that the cattle count is portrayed. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46724. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pl. 13. 103

128

Animal Husbandry table. The animals are either scattered throughout the procession, as is found on the north wall of the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) at Meir [S22], or form their own parade, as is seen on the east wall of the tomb of Iha (N-8) at Deir el-Bersha [S70]. The men who lead these animals forward are distinct in appearance from the unkempt herdsman. On the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), these men are identifiable as offering-bearers who belong to an official class: they have shoulder-length hair, short beards and tight kilts over which the overseers layer a long, transparent garment [S194]. Alternatively, on the east wall of the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (N-10), a bald man who leads the second animal may be a priest [S69].107 This modification to the human figures identifies the cattle as offerings presented to the tomb owner and therefore highlights their ritual value. This is further emphasised in the illustration of cattle with deformed horns or wearing decorative scarfs and blankets which identifies them as sacrificial animals. On the north wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), for example, the leading ox towards the right of the fourth register has a decorative blanket draped over its back while the third ox in the procession exhibits distorted horns [S155].108 As was observed in the discussion on slaughtering cattle and offering-bearers in chapters 2.6 and 3.2, ritual practices are intertwined with the mortuary cult carried out in the tomb-chapel and therefore ritual elements are regularly incorporated into wall scenes. Models, on the other hand, are concealed in the burial chamber where they did not participate in the cult practised by the living, but rather provisioned the deceased for eternity. Accordingly, ritual elements are excluded from three-dimensional representations of cattle in procession.

Models, on the other hand, were concealed in the burial chamber, causing them to solely serve the deceased rather than interact with the living. Therefore, the designs of scene- and model-artists were not only impacted by their medium’s technical capabilities, but also by the individual context and purpose of their representation in the tomb. 4.4 Dogs While animals such as cattle were especially valued for their economic and dietary benefits, other species held a more societal role, enjoying close relationships with their owners. Dogs, in particular, held a prominent place within ancient Egyptian society and this is reflected in the artistic record. The earliest known representations of the animal in Egypt date to the Neolithic Period, but by the Middle Kingdom, a more diverse range of breeds is portrayed.109 Dogs feature in numerous scenes displayed on tomb-chapel walls, highlighting their esteemed value to their owners. At Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, examples were identified on 33 different walls of 17 different tombs. This prominence, however, is not witnessed in the threedimensional medium, with only one model identified in this study. Although small single figurines of a wide range of animals, including dogs, are common among Middle Kingdom burials, these are not here considered funerary models as they are largely constructed from faience and their isolated nature prevents any clear action from being emphasised. Rather, only the sculptures that exhibit human-and-animal interaction conform with the category. Braulińska, who examined all Middle Kingdom dog sculptures including both individual figures and group models, identified only eight human-and-dog examples, one of which is from the three sites under investigation.110 This model is from the 12th Dynasty tomb of Senbu (487 LC) at Beni Hassan and comprises a man and dog seated opposite each other on a small baseboard [M264; fig. 4.15].111 As it is fashioned of earthenware, the details are not very well-defined. This vast distinction in quantity between the two- and three-dimensional representations demonstrates the different level of importance that dogs held in the repertoires of wall scenes and funerary models.

The representation of cattle in procession conveys the animal’s immense value in both life and afterlife, but the media exhibit significant differences in both quantity and design. Scene-artists created expansive representations that incorporated much variety and detail but had to alter the arrangement of the herds to enable each animal to be seen. Model-artists could present a more realistic arrangement of the procession yet condensed it to the most essential elements of the cattle and herdsmen. Additionally, the compositions are heavily impacted by the location of the medium. Displayed in the public part of the tomb, wall scenes aimed to proclaim the wealth of the owner to any visitors and therefore elements of grandeur were appropriate for the two-dimensional designs.

The two media also display differences in the contexts in which the dogs appear and the interaction between the human and animal figures. Dogs are found in a wide range of scene-types, demonstrating the variety of

 Willems, Dayr al-Barshā. Volume I, 42.  Interestingly, cattle with deformed horns are sometimes led by herdsmen who also exhibit signs of imperfection, as is found in this scene of Amenemhat where the man walks with unnaturally bent legs. The scarfs and blankets of sacrificial animals are often highly decorated with patterns and colours. On the left of the east wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC), for example, the ox leading the procession in the third register has a green and yellow blanket draped over its back while the ox in the fourth register wears a decorative red scarf/collar [S51]. The colouring of the decorative elements was observed by the author during a visit to the site. Similarly, each ox in the procession on the west wall of the tomb of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) wears a decorative scarf/collar and one exhibits deformed horns [S24]. Malek, Shadow of the Pyramids, 4142; Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, 32. 107

  Dogs are known from Neolithic rock art where they are accompanied by humans, cattle, giraffes and antelope, and from an Amration bowl which depicts a type of greyhound. Brewer, Redford & Redford, Domestic Plants and Animals, 114-16; Houlihan, Animal World, 77; Houlihan, in History of the Animal World, 116; Brewer, in History of the Animal World, 449-50. 110   Braulińska, in Company of Images, 38. 111   Although the features of the figure accompanying the dog are not especially clear, the identification of a man seems probable due to the presence of a short black wig, painted facial details, traces of a white kilt and through a comparison with parallel examples where this figure is more clearly identifiable. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 146. 109

108

129

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 4.15. Model dog (right) and figure brewing beer (left) of Senbu (487 LC) [M264]. Archive image JG-B-438; courtesy of the Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool.

roles for which they were valued in society. Of perhaps greatest significance was their role as a hunter. Dogs were employed in the hunt from their earliest appearance and they became a central element of the desert hunt scene commonly displayed on tomb-chapel walls.112 On the east wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir, this role is given great prominence, with at least nine dogs engaged in the hunt [S137].113 The hunting capabilities of the animal were further exploited in military battles, with a dog featuring in each of the four military scenes at Beni Hassan.114 In these illustrations, the hound appears behind the archers, presumably awaiting the storming of the fortress for its command to attack, as is exemplified in the seventh register of the east wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) [S76].115 Moreover, dogs can appear among lines

of attendants bearing weapons. On the south panel of the east wall of the tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan, a dog walks on the baseline of the second register among a line of attendants who face towards a large seated figure of the tomb owner [S53].116 As the entire register is devoted to weaponry,117 the dog should likewise be considered a type of weapon, valued for its role as a hunter and guard for the tomb owner. Dogs also appear in more intimate situations where their relationship with their master is highlighted.118 Most commonly, they feature under the chair of the tomb owner when seated at the offering-table,119 as can be seen on the 6.2]. However, the dog is still at the extreme left of the register and is just below the archers, so it is probable that both the dog and the other soldiers are awaiting the storming of the fortress for close-range combat. 116   A second animal appears in this register which has often been mistaken for a dog when it is in fact an Egyptian mongoose as identified by Evans. It is positioned in the space above the dog while being led forward on a leash by the man in front. Perhaps it too should be understood as a type of weapon. Evans, “Beasts and beliefs”, JARCE 52, (2016), 220-23. 117   A similar scene is found on the west panel of the north wall of the same tomb where a dog, although only partially preserved, appears at the end of a row of men carrying weapons towards a large standing figure of the tomb owner [S48]. These figures are probably serving as guards to protect him as he views the activities of his estate. 118   Evans, in Egyptian Art, 74. 119   Depicting animals under the chair of the tomb owner was a prominent motif of the offering-table scene from the Old Kingdom through to the Late Period, although few examples are known from the Middle Kingdom. El-Kilany & Mahran, “What lies under the chair! Part I”, JARCE 51, (2015), 244, 247.

  The superior senses of smell and hearing alongside the great speed of the dog were utilised by hunters to help locate, track and capture their prey. Houlihan, in History of the Animal World, 117; Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 122. 113   This scene is not entirely preserved and so it is possible that more dogs were originally included in the design. Unusually, only the curled tail of a single dog is found in the large hunt displayed on the east wall of the outer room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha, but as the scene is fragmentary, it is quite possible that more dogs were originally represented [S203]. 114   These scenes are found on the east walls of the tombs of Baqet III (15 UC) [S76], Khety (17 UC) [S96; see fig. 6.4], Khnumhotep I (14 UC) [S122] and Amenemhat (2 UC) [S158; see fig. 6.2]. 115   A slight variation is found in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) where the dog is not immediately positioned next to the archers but rather behind men holding weapons of hand-to-hand combat [S158; see fig. 112

130

Animal Husbandry west wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) at Meir [S15].120 This positioning highlights the esteemed value of the dog and its loyalty to its master. The animals are also shown escorting the tomb owner during his inspection of the work conducted on his estate. A large standing figure of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) accompanied by three dogs appears on the right of the north wall of his tomb at Beni Hassan [S190]. In front of him are several rows of activities, including processions of animals and the arrival of foreigners [S188-S189]. Similarly, on the east wall of room 4 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir, the tomb owner is transported by palanquin with five dogs appearing among the lines of attendants heading the procession [S37].121 While these scenes may express a close relationship between the dog and tomb owner, it is quite likely that in many of these instances the hound’s role was primarily to provide protection, again emphasising its value as a guard.

opportunity for model-artists to integrate dogs into these themes. Moreover, the tomb owner himself is rarely represented in models, and as he is one of the main figures that dogs accompany in wall scenes, it is seldom possible for the animals to be integrated into the three-dimensional artworks. In the model of Senbu (487 LC), a close bond between the man, probably a servant, and the dog is highlighted, but its solitary nature prevents the specific role of the animal from being conveyed. Several breeds of dog are known from the Old and Middle Kingdoms yet identifying them in representations is often a difficult task.124 However, certain physical characteristics may be more easily distinguished. The hound in the model of Senbu (487 LC) has a spotted coat and lop ears [M264; fig. 4.15].125 These features are likewise found in a number of two-dimensional illustrations. On the east wall of the tomb of Ramushenti (27 UC) at Beni Hassan, two dogs are positioned beneath the tomb owner’s chair: one in the space between the chair legs and the other in the register below [S62]. While the upper one has a plain coat, the lower one is decorated with spots. The attribute of lop ears is exhibited by one of the two dogs that stand facing the large figure of Amenemhat (2 UC) on the north wall of his tomb at Beni Hassan [S157]. However, wall scenes display a more diverse range of physical characteristics, including pricked ears,126 long or short legs,127 and curled or straight tails.128 With a greater quantity of representations, sceneartists were able to create more variety in their design of the dogs.

Furthermore, connections may be displayed between dogs and workers of the estate, highlighting the aid they provided in the completion of various outdoor tasks.122 On the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1), a hound accompanies a herdsman who is separating a pair of fighting bulls in the third register [S139; fig. 4.16], while on the north wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) at Meir, a dog is seated on a small papyrus boat alongside a fisherman [S140]. The integration of the dog into such a wide variety of contexts in wall scenes highlights the animal’s importance in society and its value to its owner.123 This diverse utilisation of dogs in the two-dimensional repertoire is in direct contrast with the sole funerary model that displays a man and dog with no surrounding activities [M264; fig. 4.15]. The absence of this range of representations may perhaps be attributed to the exclusion of many of these themes from the three-dimensional medium. The offering-table scene and the desert hunt do not appear in the model repertoire and so there is no

Wall scenes also display greater diversity in the hound’s posture. When engaged in a physical task, the animal is portrayed in an active stance. This is especially prominent in scenes of the desert hunt where the dog is chasing or attacking its prey. On the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan, the desert hunt occupies the entire first register [S115, S118; see fig. 4.17]. The dog on the west panel arches its back and lowers its head to bite the rear leg of a wild bull, while the hound on the east panel

  In this example, there are in fact two figures of the tomb owner seated at opposite ends of a single offering-table with a dog positioned under each chair. The hound on the left has prominent teats indicating it is female, while the one on the right does not, perhaps suggesting it is male. The latter hound has an elaborate red collar still preserved around its neck, a common accessory for dogs. Evans, in Egyptian Art, 73. 121   It is quite likely that the tomb owner is being transported to inspect the cattle count which is depicted on the south panel of the same wall [S38]. Here, he is shown again in his carrying chair, but is positioned on the ground, with herds of animals processing before him. Similarly, Djehuty-hotep (N-2) is seated on a chair within a light structure on the west wall of the inner room of his tomb while viewing processions of animals and boats arriving for the count while a dog stands beneath his chair [S214]. 122  Houlihan, Animal World, 77. 123   Dogs regularly appear in more than one of these scene-types in a single tomb. In the tomb-chapel of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan, for example, dogs appear on all four walls: they accompany the tomb owner as he views the activities of his estate, are seated beneath his chair at the offering-table and at the entrance to the tomb, are alongside herdsmen working with cattle, attack prey in the desert hunt, and stand among the army engaged in battle [S90, S91, S96, S97, S99, S100, S111; see figs. 4.18, 6.4]. Some of these hounds exhibit the same characteristics, which could indicate that they are the same dogs represented multiple times. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, 35. 120

  The breeds of dog that have been identified in ancient Egypt include the tesem, greyhound, saluki, pariah, mastiff and some short-legged varieties. Osborn & Osbornová, Mammals, 61-67; Germond & Livet, Egyptian Bestiary, 74. 125   Due to the limited definition in the fashioning of the model, not all of the dog’s physical features can be clearly identified. There is apparently no fashioning of a tail and the legs are not all individually distinguished. 126  Erect, pointed ears are especially common, particularly among hunting dogs. See, for example, the hounds employed in the desert hunts on the north walls of the tombs of Baqet I (29 UC) [D52] and Baqet II (33 UC) [S58] at Beni Hassan. Germond & Livet, Egyptian Bestiary, 72-74; Marshall, in Behind the Scenes, 134. 127   A clear contrast in the formation of the legs is seen in the illustration of the three dogs accompanying the large standing figure of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) on the north wall of his tomb: the two dogs with pricked ears have noticeably short legs while the saluki above has much longer legs and lop ears [S190]. Osborn & Osbornová, Mammals, 66. 128   Like pricked ears, tightly curled tails are especially common among hunting dogs. Two hounds are engaged in the hunt on the north wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC), both of which exhibit short, pricked ears and tightly curled tails [S72]. In contrast, the dogs accompanying the figure of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) on the north wall of his tomb display straight tails which either hang down or rise up [S190]. Germond & Livet, Egyptian Bestiary, 72-74; Marshall, in Behind the Scenes, 134. 124

131

Preparing for Eternity

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

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

132

Animal Husbandry bounds up to straddle its fleeing prey. Such active motion could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface and contributed to the heightened drama of the scene. Conversely, in scenes where the dog adopts a more passive role, the hound may be simply standing or seated. Under the chair of Pepyankh the Black (A2) on the north wall of room 1 in his tomb, a dog sits upright with its front legs straight and its hind legs bent [S28; fig. 4.19].129 Alternatively, on the north wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2), the dog under the tomb owner’s chair lies down with the front and rear legs resting on the ground [S8]. It is this attitude that is encapsulated in the model. Although each individual leg of the three-dimensional dog is not clearly defined, the lowered body indicates that all four legs must rest on the ground [M264; fig. 4.15]. The three-dimensional medium certainly does not capture the same range of movement as scenes, and while this may be largely due to the greater quantity of illustrations in the two-dimensional medium, it also reflects the greater ease with which scene-artists could capture an array of attitudes in their designs.

the model of Senbu (487 LC) does highlight this bond artistically. Not only does the animal lift its head to look up at the man, but the human figure lowers himself to the dog’s level [M264; fig. 4.15]. The man is probably sitting or squatting and leans slightly forward to bring himself close to the hound. His arms are lowered and either rest on top of or underneath the dog’s paws.134 In this attitude, the man almost mimics the action of the animal. There is a very clear connection between the two through the adoption of a similar pose, physical touch and the direction of the dog’s gaze towards the man’s face.135 This forms a significant contrast with all of the two-dimensional illustrations of dogs collected in this study. While some of the scenes show the hounds in association with humans, not one example examined portrays this same level of interaction. There are four categories of person with which the dog appears in wall scenes: the tomb owner, the hunter, the workman and the animal-keeper.136 However, in none of these instances does the man lower himself to the level of the dog or make direct physical contact. When shown in relation to the tomb owner, the dog is physically separated from him by an object or person, is outside of his visual range and does not touch him.137 For example, the hound positioned under the chair of Baqet I (29 UC) on the east wall of his tomb looks in the same direction as its master, but is isolated under the chair and does not interact with its owner in any way [S52].138 Even in instances where the dog is facing towards the tomb owner, it is not shown at eye-level. The dog accompanying the standing figure of Khety (17 UC) on the east panel of the south wall of his tomb at Beni Hassan faces towards its master [S97; fig. 4.18]. However, it resides near his feet and looks straight ahead rather than up at the tomb owner’s

A further advantage of the two-dimensional medium is its ability to integrate inscriptions into its designs. The value of the dog to its owner is exemplified in the provision of a name, and scenes occasionally inscribe this above the image of the dog. Almost 80 names have been identified in texts across Egypt, and these refer to the animal’s colour, character, qualities or foreign influences.130 On the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1), the dog accompanying the herdsman in the third register is labelled 7Aw n anx n 4nbj ‘Breath-of-life-of-Senbi’,131 a name that highlights the esteemed value of the animal to its owner [S139; fig. 4.16].132 Alternatively, the text could record a command given to the dog, as is found in the desert hunt scene of Baqet III (15 UC): above the hound attacking the wild bull is inscribed nDr ‘take possession’, and above the dog biting the hartebeest is nDr hbn ‘take possession of the female antelope’, both of which are presumably orders given by the hunters [S72].133 The three-dimensional medium, on the other hand, could not integrate inscriptions into its design in the same manner as wall scenes and so the model of Senbu (487 LC) is uninscribed [M264; fig. 4.15]. Accordingly, the use of text is a specific property of the two-dimensional medium that enables it to further emphasise the training, obedience and loyalty of the dog.

  Due to the limited definition in the fashioning of the two figures, the precise placement of the man’s arms and the positioning of the dog’s legs cannot be determined. The man and dog certainly make contact, but it cannot be known if the man’s hands or the dog’s paws are on top. As the model is fashioned of pottery, both the man and dog would have been moulded from the same piece before firing and therefore direct contact was easier to capture than it was in wood where each figure was carved separately. Braulińska, in Company of Images, 54. 135   This level of interaction is not unique to this model but is typical of model human-and-dog pairs. The figures are mostly positioned opposite each other, but they can be placed at varying distances and so do not always make contact. See, for example, a model found in a double shaft in the outer court of the pyramid complex of Senusret I at Lisht, now housed in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 24.1.46. In this example, the two figures adopt a crouching stance like the pair in the model of Senbu but are spaced some distance apart. Arnold, Pyramid Complex of Senwosret I, pl. 79.105; Braulińska, in Company of Images, 47. 136  In only one scene examined are dogs portrayed without any associated human figures: on the west wall of the inner room of the tomb of Ahanakht I (N-5) at Deir el-Bersha, five creatures reside in the third register and form part of an object-frieze [S68]. The creatures exhibit mythical elements, but two display some similarity with representations of hounds. Kaper, van Walsem & Willems, in Bersheh Reports I, 46; Miles, “Intimate contact with dogs”, BACE 21, (2010), 78. 137   Miles, “Intimate contact with dogs”, BACE 21, (2010), 78. 138   Similarly, a dog accompanies a standing figure of the tomb owner on the west panel of the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) [S130] and on the south wall of the tomb of Nekhti (21 UC) at Beni Hassan [S152], but each faces the same direction as the man and is aligned with his legs. 134

Although the close relationship between man and dog is not conveyed textually in the three-dimensional medium,  As the two-dimensional medium is limited in the number of perspectives it can include, only the near hind leg is visible. The front legs are not fully preserved, but it seems that both have been depicted. 130  Other animals are very rarely named, therefore highlighting the special attention afforded to the hound. Janssen & Janssen, Household Animals, 11; Brewer, Clark & Phillips, Dogs in Antiquity, 43; Houlihan, in History of the Animal World, 117. 131   Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 25. 132   Similarly, on the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehutyhotep (N-2), the dog walking among the procession in the lowest register has its name inscribed above: Anxw ‘the living one’ [S209; see fig. 6.5]. Osborn & Osbornová, Mammals, 67. 133   Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, 26. 129

133

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 4.18. A dog accompanying a standing figure of the tomb owner. Tomb of Khety (17 UC). South wall, east panel, lower section [S97]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 110 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

face.139 Similarly, in relation to the hunter, the dog regularly appears immediately in front of the man, but does not directly engage with him.140 In the scenes examined in this study, the hunter is always standing and facing the same direction as the hound and does not make any contact with

it.141 On the north wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), two dogs are engaged in the desert hunt, both of which are positioned immediately in front of human hunters [S153].142 Like the hounds, the hunters are engaged in pursuing their   It should be noted, however, that examples are known from other sites where the hunter is shown kneeling beside the dog, grasping its neck with one hand and gesturing ahead with the other. In these scenes, direct engagement is displayed, with the hunter lowering himself to the level of the dog and making direct physical contact. See, for example, the hunter and his dog in the fifth register of the west wall of the chapel of Meryteti in the tomb of Mereruka at Saqqara. Kanawati & Abder-Raziq, Mereruka and his Family. Part I, pl. 46; Miles, “Intimate contact with dogs”, BACE 21, (2010), 78. 142   Similarly, in the small hunting scene displayed at the left of the third register of the east wall of the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (N-10) at Deir elBersha, the dog bites the ankle of an oryx immediately before a hunter who shoots arrows at the same prey [S69]. 141

  Interestingly, a second creature is included in the scene which is in fact aligned with Khety’s head and faces towards him. This beast is not a dog but rather a creature that exhibits mythical elements. Rabehl, “Grab des Amenemhat”, 207-09. 140   Occasionally, dogs are involved in hunts without any human hunters around them. In the scene displayed on the south wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2), several hounds attack the desert prey with only the tomb owner shooting arrows; the dogs have presumably been sent out on his order [S143]. 139

134

Animal Husbandry prey. While there is an implied relationship, with the dogs presumably acting under the command of the hunters, this is not shown through direct interaction. Additionally, the dogs that accompany workmen in the fields or marshes are positioned alongside their handlers but do not engage with them nor often with the task itself.143 The dog accompanying the herdsman who attempts to separate the fighting bulls on the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) stands behind the man, perhaps even to avoid the fray [S139; fig. 4.16].144 There is clear separation between the dogs and humans in these scenes, presenting a much diminished level of interaction compared with the model.

direct eye-contact with the seated hound. He extends one hand towards the animal’s mouth, possibly holding some food.149 While he does not touch the dog itself, the offering of food and the eye-contact highlight a direct relationship between the two. This is the greatest interaction identified in the wall scenes examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, yet it still does not portray the same bond found between the man and dog in the model. An unusual display of contact in the two-dimensional medium, however, is found in a scene from the tomb of Kagemni at Saqqara. On the north wall of room 3, a man lifts a small dog to his face and makes mouth-tomuzzle contact.150 Not only does the man touch the dog with his hands, but he draws it towards his face and allows it to place its tongue within his mouth. Such intimate expressions are rare in Egyptian art, especially between humans and animals.151 It has been proposed that this scene depicts a stage of feeding, a task that would have strengthened the bond between man and dog.152 Interestingly, a three-dimensional parallel is found in a model from Giza.153 In this example, a squatting man is positioned immediately before a standing dog. Although the hound’s head is missing, the remains of the muzzle indicate that it was placed within the man’s open mouth in a very similar manner to that displayed in the scene of Kagemni. Miles has suggested that these representations illustrate the weaning of a pup by regurgitation, a task that reduced the aggression of the animal and deepened the bond with it which is important in training hunting dogs.154 This provides an interesting comparison with the model of Senbu (487 LC) [M264; fig. 4.15]. Although mouth-to-muzzle contact is not portrayed in this model, there is direct engagement as the man touches the dog with his hands. It seems unlikely that this hound is a pup as it appears to be fully grown,155 but the model may still illustrate the strengthening of the bond between the animal and its keeper. This three-dimensional representation is certainly one of the rare examples of close interaction between man and dog, and it is distinct from the more limited connections typically expressed in wall scenes.

The fourth category of person shown in the company of dogs, the animal-keeper, does display more engagement with the hound, but in the scenes examined in this study, the relationship is still not as intimate as that in the model. This figure is usually found alongside the dog under the chair of the tomb owner in offering-table scenes.145 During the Old Kingdom, this role was often occupied by a dwarf, as is found on the south wall of the tomb of Ipi (481 LC) at Beni Hassan [S7].146 Although both figures in this scene are positioned in the space beneath the chair, no eye-contact is displayed as the dwarf stands in front of the animal and faces the same direction. The dwarf does not physically touch the dog, but he does make contact through a leash.147 There is a clear relationship between the two, with the hound under the control of the dwarf, but without the direct engagement exhibited by the model.148 The animal-keeper under the chair of Pepyankh the Black (A2) on the north wall of room 1 in his tomb displays more interaction [S28; fig. 4.19]. The man is apparently standing, but he is drawn at a more diminutive scale, resulting in  In a few examples from other sites, the workman and dog are portrayed at the same level, but there is still no physical contact between them. In scene fragment C 630 (1349) from the tomb of Ptahshepses at Abusir, for example, a recumbent dog is positioned immediately in front of a workman who is seated on a folded mat. The two figures are shown at the same level, but as both face towards the right, there is no eye-contact made nor is there any physical touch. Vachala, Abusir VIII, 132-33; Miles, “Intimate contact with dogs”, BACE 21, (2010), 79. 144  Although, it is also possible that the dog should be understood as residing beside the workman and is only positioned behind in order to be seen in the two-dimensional perspective. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, 25. 145   While animals regularly occur under the chairs throughout the Old Kingdom, animal-keepers only appear alongside them in some scenes of the 5th and 6th Dynasties. El-Kilany & Mahran, “What lies under the chair! Part I”, JARCE 51, (2015), 255. 146  Dasen, Dwarfs, 264-65. 147   Animal-keepers in other contexts contact dogs through leashes. For example, on the east wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2), three short rows of attendants accompany the tomb owner on his fowling expedition in the marshes [S10]. In the second register, the leading man controls three closely overlapping dogs by a leash. This implies his authority over them, but no further interaction is depicted. Additionally, in the desert hunt displayed on the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), two dogs are brought forward on a leash behind the large figure of the tomb owner among other attendants [S188]. The dogs will presumably be released when required to attack. 148   In addition to the leash, the dwarf is depicted with other authoritative features: a projecting kilt and a baton ending in the shape of a hand. These elements not only highlight his authority over the animal but also his dignified status. Similarly, in the seventh register of the east panel of the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC), a dwarf is in a position of authority over the animal-keeper as indicated by the sceptre that he holds [S125]. Dasen, Dwarfs, 114, 117; Verma, Cultural Expression, 95. 143

  The dog under the chair on the north wall of the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) is also shown with some food in its mouth, although it is not being fed by a human handler [S8]. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, 26. 150   Although the animal has often been identified as a piglet, the clear display of paws rather than hooves confirms the classification of a dog. Harpur & Scremin, Chapel of Kagemni, pl. 98; Miles, “Intimate contact with dogs”, BACE 21, (2010), 71-72; Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 108. For the designation of a piglet, see Janssen & Janssen, Household Animals, 33, fig. 27; Ikram, Choice Cuts, 30. 151   Miles, “Intimate contact with dogs”, BACE 21, (2010), 72. 152   Miles, “Intimate contact with dogs”, BACE 21, (2010), 75. 153   The model is fashioned of limestone and was found in tomb G 7715 at Giza. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, pl. 94e. 154   Evans has likewise formed the same conclusion regarding the scene of Kagemni. Miles, “Intimate contact with dogs”, BACE 21, (2010), 7678; Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, 108. 155   The lop ears of the dog could be a sign of its young age, but they are also a feature of certain breeds including salukis and mastiffs. The large size of the hound may rather suggest it is fully grown. Brewer, Clark & Phillips, Dogs in Antiquity, 33-34, 37; Braulińska, in Company of Images, 52. 149

135

Preparing for Eternity

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

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

accompany the deceased for eternity. Consequently, such differences in representation may reflect the unique role of each medium in the tomb.

136

5 Craft Production 5.1 Spinning and weaving

of three-dimensional examples, but interestingly, there are more models than wall scenes. Allen has identified 16 spinning and weaving models throughout Egypt, three of which originate from the sites investigated in this study.7 This theme is in fact the most commonly depicted craft production in the three-dimensional medium.8

A variety of raw materials was available to ancient Egyptian craftsmen, enabling the production of a wide range of specialised goods. Textiles were a particularly valuable commodity in society, serving important functions in both daily life and religious and funerary practices.1 An assortment of qualities of fabric was produced, ranging from the finest royal linen to a coarse ordinary cloth, but the quality and quantity of material owned was dependent upon the status and wealth of each individual. As textiles were vital to the Egyptian economy, manufacturing centres were established throughout the country, in temples, palaces, large estates and small homes.2 Linen fabrics were already being produced in the Neolithic Period, and the Egyptians soon became proficient at the tasks of spinning and weaving.3 Several stages were involved in textile manufacture, from the initial task of harvesting flax to the completion of the final product,4 and although this craft production is represented by both wall scenes and funerary models, not every activity is illustrated. Those that are depicted by both media exhibit a number of similarities in design, but several differences are discerned in the minute details.

Although there is a greater quantity of three-dimensional representations, it is the two-dimensional medium that illustrates a wider range of tasks. Scenes that devote significant wall space to the theme incorporate several manufacturing activities, with those displayed on the north walls of the tombs of Baqet III (15 UC) and Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan particularly expansive [S73, S92]. Models, in contrast, typically present a more condensed portrayal, comprising one or two spinners and two weavers.9 Despite these variations in representation, the tasks considered characteristic of the process are consistently represented by both media. The three spinning and weaving models examined in this study originate from two burials, namely those of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) at Deir el-Bersha [M151-M152] and Khety-aa (575 LC) at Beni Hassan [M206]. Each of these tombs contained a relatively comprehensive assemblage of models, with that of Djehuty-nakht particularly expansive.10 Consequently, each tomb owner was adequately equipped with models that could provide the most essential provisions of food, drink and transport as well as those that produced desirable subsidiary goods. The inclusion of two textile manufacture models within a single tomb is unique to the burial of Djehuty-nakht, and the two sculptures are very similar in representation. Each depicts two figures engaged in spinning and two in weaving, although one model is more finely carved than the other. In his position as governor, Djehuty-nakht could afford superior quality linen during his lifetime, perhaps even having authority over a textile workshop, and clearly

Considering the prominence of textiles in ancient Egyptian society, there are surprisingly few representations of its manufacture. Cloth production does not appear in either the two- or three-dimensional Old Kingdom repertoires, but both wall scenes and models of spinning and weaving are known from the Middle Kingdom.5 These representations are, however, restricted in number. Only five Middle Kingdom scenes of spinning and weaving have been documented throughout Egypt, three of which are from Beni Hassan [S73, S92, S202] and a fourth from Deir el-Bersha [S208].6 There is likewise a limited number   Textiles were used as clothing, household items, sacks, sails, currency, funerary wrappings and shrouds, and as offerings to the gods. VogelsangEastwood, in Materials and Technology, 290-95; Spinazzi-Lucchesi, Unwound Yarn, 75. 2  Petzel, Textiles, 140; Brewer, Redford & Redford, Domestic Plants and Animals, 38; Vogelsang-Eastwood, in Oxford Encyclopedia, . 3   The earliest known representation of a loom in Egypt is found on a Neolithic dish from Badari. Broudy, Book of Looms, 14; SpinazziLucchesi, Unwound Yarn, 97. 4  Flax was the primary material used in the manufacture of linen, although other fibres are known, including sheep’s wool, goat hair and palm fibre, while cotton was not used in Egypt until the 1st century AD. Donadoni Roveri, in Egyptian Civilization, 188; Vogelsang-Eastwood, in Materials and Technology, 268. 5   Roehrig, in Mistress of the House, 19; Allen, in Ancient Egypt, Aegean, Near East, 19; Fischer, Egyptian Women, 20. 6   The fifth scene is found in the tomb of Daga at Thebes. Davies, Five Theban Tombs, pl. 37; Vogelsang-Eastwood, Production of Linen, table 1. 1

  Allen, in Ancient Egypt, Aegean, Near East, 24, appendix 1, table 2.  Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 45. 9   Two exceptions are found where more space is devoted to spinning and weaving in the three-dimensional medium, namely the models of Meketre from Thebes and Gemniemhat from Saqqara which depict large textile workshops involving several workers. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46723; Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen: AEIN 1634. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pls. 25-27; Tata, “Egyptian Textile Industry”, fig. 14; Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 46. 10   Djehuty-nakht’s burial housed over 100 models covering the themes of riverine transport, offering-bearers, agriculture, animal husbandry, bread-making and brewing, craft production, and the military. The model assemblage of Khety-aa was found intact and included two boats, a granary, two offering-bearers, and a food preparation group in addition to spinning and weaving. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 230; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 45-46; Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 151. 7 8

137

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 5.1. Spinning and weaving model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), with one rover, one spinner and two weavers [M152]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.891.

desired to maintain access to fine linen in the afterlife.11 As the tomb interred both the governor and his wife, it is quite likely that a spinning and weaving model was included for each owner.12 While it is impossible to determine which model belonged to whom due to the disturbed nature of the burial upon discovery, it is clear that the husband and wife were well-equipped with both essential and luxury provisions for eternity.

of Khety (17 UC) [S92].13 Once harvested, flax fibres were required to undergo a series of processes before they could be spun into thread. These tasks included rippling by drawing the fibres through a comb-like tool to remove the seeds, retting the stems in water to extract the fibre from the hard outer bark, beating to separate the fibres, scutching to remove any remaining parts of stem, and finally twisting the bundles into rough roves.14 Only a small number of these tasks are illustrated in scenes and these motifs are confined to the more expansive representations.15 The activities of cleaning and straightening the fibres, for example, are portrayed in the third register of the north

Not all preparatory stages involved in textile manufacture are represented in the artworks, but the two-dimensional medium illustrates a much greater number of these tasks than models. The first stage comprised harvesting flax, an activity that is identifiable in many scenes but is entirely absent from the three-dimensional repertoire. The scenes may be positioned close to spinning and weaving, as is found on the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha [S208], or may be separated onto a different wall, as is achieved in the tomb

 On the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep, harvesting flax is illustrated in the second register while spinning and weaving is depicted below in the fifth and sixth registers. Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pl. 24. In the tomb of Khety, the harvest is displayed on the south wall, while the textile industry is illustrated on the north wall. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 105. 14  Hall, Egyptian Textiles, 9; Baines, Linen, 14-19; Vogelsang-Eastwood, Production of Linen, 10-11; Riggs, Unwrapping, 115. 15   There is some discussion as to whether the task of retting is portrayed in tomb scenes. The identification of a scene displayed in the fifth register of the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan as retting was first posed by Wilkinson and later adopted by other scholars, including Allgrove McDowell and Petzel. However, Kemp and Vogelsang-Eastwood’s classification of a garden scene is more likely. Wilkinson, Manners and Customs. Volume III, 137-39; Allgrove McDowell, in Pyramid Builders, 231; Petzel, Textiles, 133; Kemp & Vogelsang-Eastwood, Ancient Textile Industry, 29; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 92. 13

 Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 46.  It should not be assumed that because spinning and weaving was largely a female profession that both models were intended for the governor’s wife. Gender roles did not necessarily determine the types of models included in burials and indeed spinning and weaving models are found in tombs with solely male owners. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 152. 11

12

138

Craft Production wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) where the left-most seated woman works the fibres in her hands [S73; fig. 5.3].16 The rarity of these preparatory tasks indicates that they were considered supplementary and not characteristic of the textile manufacturing process.

third register is positioned in an almost identical posture: she is located immediately behind a spinner and squats with one knee bent up and the near leg folded over so that both legs may be seen in the two-dimensional perspective; she lowers her right arm in front with her hand resting on her thigh and extends her left arm behind to touch the ball of thread [S73; fig. 5.3]. This close parallel between the representations supports the identification of the crouching women in the models as rovers. Scene-artists could more clearly specify the precise action of the preparers through the incorporation of minute details, but model-artists could still convey this preparatory stage through the posture and arrangement of the figures. This is the only preliminary activity in cloth manufacture to be represented by the three-dimensional medium, demonstrating that only rarely did models expand upon the essential components of the theme.

One preliminary stage that appears more regularly in scenes is that of roving the fibres. During this task, the flax fibres are rolled on a flat surface, usually the thigh, to transform them into rough orderly lengths before being wound into balls or coils and passed onto the spinner.17 On the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2), three women perform this task in the fifth register: the two women on the left sit with a mass of fibres before them and a ball of roughly spun thread, while the woman to the right is in the process of transforming the fibres, with one hand resting on her thigh [S208; fig. 5.4]. A significant level of detail is incorporated into this scene, as exemplified by the woman on the left who passes the thread through her mouth. This action would have moistened the fibres, a necessary state for flax fibres to successfully bind together and produce a coherent thread.18 Each rover produces a ball of thread ready to be spun and is therefore seated on the ground immediately behind the spinner they are supplying. The artist of this scene has utilised sub-registers to maintain a close association between each pair of workers.

Once the fibres were prepared, spinning could begin. This task appears in all two- and three-dimensional representations of textile manufacture and should therefore be understood as essential to the theme. The scenes portray three main spinning methods: grasped-spindle, supportedspindle and dropped-spindle.20 All three techniques are undertaken by male spinners in the second register of the north wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC): the man on the right spins a line of thread that passes over a forked stick and onto a spindle which he operates with both hands; the man behind sits back on one heel while drawing a rove from a spinning-bowl through his left hand and rolling a spindle along his thigh with his right; the third man stands while rotating the spindle against his thigh before it is dropped and allowed to spin [S92; fig. 5.2].21 The specifics of each method could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface and as this scene devotes significant space to the theme, multiple techniques could be displayed.

Two of the models include a woman who is positioned in a very similar manner to the rovers in the scene of Djehutyhotep (N-2), and so perhaps likewise depict this preliminary stage. Both models are from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), and in each example, the woman squats on the ground immediately behind the spinner [M151-M152; see fig. 5.1]. Each figure has both knees bent up in front and one arm lowered before her and the other extended slightly behind. Although none of her equipment has survived, if originally included, her position in the representation and her posture closely resemble those of rovers displayed in the two-dimensional medium.19 In the scene of Baqet III (15 UC), one of the seated women preparing the fibres in the

Models likewise depict spinning, but do not portray the same variety of methods. Instead, they solely display the dropped-spindle technique which seems to have been the most popular method for preparing thread for woven fabric.22 Dropped-spindle spinning requires a standing posture so that the spindle could be dropped after sufficient rotation and allowed to swing, giving the thread its characteristic S-twist.23 This attitude could be encapsulated in both two- and three-dimensions, but

  Scholars have proposed various interpretations regarding the precise activity represented in this motif: Rooijakkers and Allen identify the task as scutching, while Tata suggests hackling (rippling), and Kemp and Vogelsang-Eastwood postulate decortification. The figure is certainly involved in a preparatory task as her seated co-workers conduct the subsequent process of roving which produces thread ready to be spun by the spinners standing in front. Tata, “Egyptian Textile Industry”, 95-98; Allen, in Ancient Egypt, Aegean, Near East, 21; Kemp & VogelsangEastwood, Ancient Textile Industry, 30, fig. 3.13; Rooijakkers, “Unravelling Beni Hasan”, ATN 41, (2005), 2. An almost identical vignette is found on the north wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) [S92]. Similarly, in the fifth register of the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2), a woman seated in an upper sub-register works some fibres while holding them in front of her face [S208; fig. 5.4]. 17  Watterson, Women, 96; Vogelsang-Eastwood, in Materials and Technology, 271-72. 18  Vogelsang-Eastwood, Production of Linen, 14; Hudáková, Representations of Women, 39-40. 19  As a variety of materials could be incorporated into the threedimensional design, it is possible that each woman originally held real thread. One of the models preserves a small indentation in the baseboard behind the seated figure which may indicate that an object was originally attached here, perhaps a carved piece of wood symbolising a ball of thread or mass of fibres, or a bowl to hold the material [M152; fig. 5.1]. 16

 Crowfoot, in History of Technology. Volume I, 425; Hall, Egyptian Textiles, 12-13; Vogelsang-Eastwood, in Materials and Technology, 272-74. 21   Dothan, “Spinning-bowls”, IEJ 13.2, (1963), 105-06. 22  The other techniques of spinning are typically shown performed by men and in association with mat-making. Allgrove McDowell, in Pyramid Builders, 234; Allen, in Ancient Egypt, Aegean, Near East, 22. 23   Not only do flax fibres naturally twist in a clockwise direction, the rotation of the spindle on the right thigh away from the body also encourages this form of twist. The scene on the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan in fact highlights this minute detail: the two yarns drawn by the spinner in the fourth register are represented as narrowly spaced parallel lines, while the outgoing product clearly illustrates the twist applied during spinning [S202; fig. 5.5]. Barber, Prehistoric Textiles, 66-67; Kemp & Vogelsang-Eastwood, Ancient Textile Industry, 75-76; Rooijakkers, “Unravelling Beni Hasan”, ATN 41, (2005), 5. 20

139

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 5.2. Three male spinners; their techniques from right to left are grasped-spindle spinning, supported-spindle spinning, and dropped-spindle spinning. Tomb of Khety (17 UC). North wall, west panel, register 2 [S92]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 95 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

only in more finely crafted models is one leg raised off the ground. Considerable care was taken in fashioning the spinner in one of the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A): she stands on a straight left leg and has the right leg raised and bent at the knee with the foot carved; she rests the spindle against her raised thigh and elevates her left arm to draw a line of thread [M152; fig. 5.1]. The other two models, however, simply depict the spinner standing upright with both legs on the ground. Model-artists had to consider the stability of their sculptures and such active postures were more difficult to achieve in three-dimensions.

close-cropped hair, the standing spinner has a long ponytail down her back which perhaps serves as a sign of her youthfulness [M152; fig. 5.1].26 Similarly, several female spinners in wall scenes are discernibly younger than their co-workers. On the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan, for example, the female spinner in the fourth register wears a closed loincloth that leaves her small breast bare and has long hair that unusually parts into two [S202; fig. 5.5]. These features are indicative of her adolescence and are contrasted with her colleagues who wear tight-fitting dresses with one shoulder strap and have long hair failing down the back and over the shoulders. Further differentiation in age is achieved by depicting two of the women with a drooping breast as a sign of their maturity.27 Similarly, in each of the scenes of Baqet III (15 UC) and Khety (17 UC), one of the female spinners is discernibly younger than the other two, being smaller in stature, having shorter hair and either naked or attired in a bag-tunic [S73, S92; see fig. 5.3].28 Such distinguishing details are not regularly included in the three-dimensional medium, but the superior skill of the model-artist of Djehuty-nakht’s sculpture enabled the integration of some of these features and thus reflects the real-life practices of textile manufacture.

On the other hand, the details of this stance could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface. The middle spinner in the third register of the scene of Baqet III (15 UC) exhibits an almost identical stance [S73; fig. 5.3].24 Interestingly, the female spinners in this scene of Baqet III and in the finely carved model of Djehuty-nakht (R10A) indicate that the spindle is rolled directly against the skin, with the skirt raised in each of their designs. This demonstrates the artists’ familiarity with the spinner’s techniques as the use of the bare thigh produced a more successful and smooth spin.25 Therefore, both scene- and model-artists understood the requirements of the spinning technique and aimed to reflect this in their designs according to their medium’s specific capabilities as well as their own level of skill.

During spinning, the worker drew thread from one or more spinning-bowls. While much discussion has occurred in scholarship regarding the precise purpose of these items,

Further, the artist of Djehuty-nakht’s (R-10A) model sought to distinguish the different ages of women involved in textile manufacture. While the three seated figures have

  Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 164.   Roehrig, in Mistress of the House, 20; Hudáková, Representations of Women, 53-54, 61. 28   Newberry’s original rendering of the scene indicated that these young figures were male, but a careful re-examination of the scene has indicated that they are in fact female as they are rendered with yellow skin like their female co-workers. Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pls. 4, 13; VogelsangEastwood & van Haeringen, “So-called boy spinners”, GM 126, (1992), 95-96; Hudáková, Representations of Women, 51. 26 27

 The only differences are found in the two-dimensional spinner’s manipulation of two spindles and two lengths of thread. It has been suggested, however, that the model spinner originally held a spindle in each hand. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 164. 25  Crowfoot, Methods of Hand Spinning, 31. 24

140

Craft Production it is most likely that they held the roves from which the spinners drew.29 In wall scenes, the bowls are positioned either behind or in front of the spinner, and a single spinner may draw thread from one or more bowls. One spinner in the scene of Khety (17 UC), for example, draws four roves from as many bowls, with two positioned behind her and two in front [S92]. Each bowl apparently contained interior handles which secured the ball to prevent entanglement and provide tension on the threads as they were drawn,30 but as these bowls are only represented in profile, the interiors remain hidden. The three-dimensional medium, alternatively, had the ability to incorporate both the exterior and interior of a single bowl. Only one of the models examined preserves any spinning-bowls, namely that of Khety-aa (575 LC) [M206; fig. 5.6]. Two bowls are positioned side-by-side immediately behind the spinner, but they are carved from solid pieces of wood and do not specify the interior features. Consequently, the thread is merely held in the hand of the spinner and is tied to the dropped spindle rather than emerging from the spinningbowl. In the spinning and weaving model of Meketre from Thebes, however, more detail is incorporated: a small hole is carved into the top of each solid spinningbowl, out of which extends three roves, ready to be spun together by the spinner.31 Alternatively, in a model from Saqqara, the interior handle is distinguished as the bowl has been hollowed out.32 With the advantage of a holistic perspective, the three-dimensional medium could present a more comprehensive representation of the spinning-bowl.

the thread being wrapped around the pegs. Its transfer is displayed below, where a woman unravels the thread from the frame and arranges the lines on the loom.35 The second method is found on the left of the sixth register where two women gather threads from a frame containing 12 balls of yarn. Due to the damage incurred to the scene, the precise destination of these threads is unknown, but it is possible that they are gathered for arrangement on a warping frame.36 This intermediary stage, however, is not represented in the condensed three-dimensional artworks. Instead, it is merely implied in all of the models examined in this study, with the actual weaving immediately following spinning. However, the model of Meketre from Thebes is more expansive and is able to include a representation of warping: two groups of three pegs are driven into the wall of the workshop, around which women are winding real thread.37 The holistic perspective of the model enables the precise positioning of the warping frame to be discerned, whereas wall scenes do not include the architectural structure and instead simply illustrate the frame in the empty space of the register. The task of weaving, on the other hand, is consistently portrayed in the representations, and during the Middle Kingdom, this was performed on a horizontal loom. This type of loom consists of two end beams, each secured by a pair of pegs; the warp threads are tensioned between the beams, allowing the weaver to interlace the threads.38 The scene-artist selected the top-down viewpoint for his portrayal of the loom as this is the most recognisable perspective. Most commonly, the loom is placed horizontally in the space above the register line, as is achieved in the third register of the scene of Khety (17 UC) [S92]. The top-down perspective is likewise portrayed in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), but uniquely this artist has placed the loom in a vertical position on the baseline [S202; fig. 5.5]. It is clear that this illustration is still representative of a horizontal ground loom as the women sit beside the loom rather than with their backs to the viewer and as the end beams rest behind the pegs.39 As this scene is particularly abbreviated, with the vignettes especially close together, it is probable that this arrangement of the loom was selected to fit within a confined space.40 Model-artists, in contrast, were not required to select a single viewpoint for each component and could therefore realistically position the loom on the baseboard between the figures, as is demonstrated in one of the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M152; fig. 5.1].

After the threads had been prepared for weaving, they were laid out for transfer to the loom in a task known as warping. This process is not included in every textile representation, indicating that it was not considered essential to conveying the theme. In the wall scenes examined in this study, those of Baqet III (15 UC) and Khety (17 UC) illustrate the set-up of the loom [S73, S92],33 while that of Djehutyhotep (N-2) explicitly portrays warping [S208; fig. 5.4]. In this latter example, two different methods are illustrated, the simplest one of which involves driving three pegs into a wall and winding thread around them.34 Towards the right of the fifth register, a three-pegged frame is arranged in the space above some of the workers, with  For a discussion on the purposes of spinning-bowls, see Dothan, “Spinning-bowls”, IEJ 13.2, (1963), 97-112; Vogelsang-Eastwood, “Socalled ‘spinning bowls’”, JEOL 30, (1987), 78-88; Allen, in Ancient Egypt, Aegean, Near East, 17-38. 30   Dothan, “Spinning-bowls”, IEJ 13.2, (1963), 112. 31   Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46723. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pls. 25-27; Dothan, “Spinning-bowls”, IEJ 13.2, (1963), 110-11. 32   Vogelsang-Eastwood, “So-called ‘spinning bowls’”, JEOL 30, (1987), fig. 6. 33   The loom on the right of the third register of the north wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) is in the process of being arranged: the cloth beam has been set up, but the warp beam has not yet been installed; in its place resides a loop which could be the warping in its final stages before being laid out on the loom [S73]. A similar vignette is found on the left of the third register of the north wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC): the pegs are positioned on the outside of the loom, indicating that the loom is still being set up [S92]. The beams would then be fastened to these pegs before the threads are laid out. Rooijakkers, “Unravelling Beni Hasan”, ATN 41, (2005), 8-9; Hudáková, Representations of Women, 48-49. 34   Vogelsang-Eastwood, in Materials and Technology, 274. 29

 The purpose of warping, however, was to transfer the group of threads together, not individually and therefore Kemp and VogelsangEastwood’s suggestion that the representation of unwinding the warp is a misunderstanding of the process by the scene-artist seems probable. Kemp & Vogelsang-Eastwood, Ancient Textile Industry, 322. 36  Vogelsang-Eastwood, Production of Linen, 23; Kemp & VogelsangEastwood, Ancient Textile Industry, 317. 37   Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46723. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pls. 25-27. 38  Hall, Egyptian Textiles, 13-14; Barber, Prehistoric Textiles, 5; Vogelsang-Eastwood, in Oxford Encyclopedia, . 39  Roth, Egyptian and Greek Looms, 10-11; Broudy, Book of Looms, 38. 40   Tata, “Egyptian Textile Industry”, 111. 35

141

Preparing for Eternity

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

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

142

Craft Production

Figure 5.5. Female spinners and weavers of different ages, a male overseer and a horizontal loom. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, south panel, register 4 [S202]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 121 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

Moreover, the three-dimensional medium had the unique advantage of incorporating a range of materials in its design, some of which comprise the actual materials used during weaving. In one of the models of Djehuty-nakht (R10A), the corners of the loom are marked by four thin pegs with a wooden beam at each end that signifies the cloth and warp beams; lines of thread are stretched between the two beams, symbolising the warps; and a wooden rod is interlaced across the threads acting as the shed-stick or heddle-rod [M152; fig. 5.1]. The loom in the model of Khety-aa (575 LC) is instead painted on the baseboard: wooden pegs mark the corners of the loom while blackpainted lines detail the warp threads and the associated beams [M206; fig. 5.6].41 Wall scenes, on the other hand, could not utilise real materials, but intricate details of the loom could be easily incorporated. In the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), for example, some of the main tools used to manipulate the threads during weaving are portrayed: the beater with its characteristic curved handle is operated by the weaver on the right; the heddle-rod and shed-stick are clearly interlaced between the warp threads; and a loosely twisted cord passes between the warps which serves to keep them evenly spaced [S202; fig. 5.5].42

Additionally, the scene-artist has detailed a finished piece of linen wrapped around the cloth beam with a weft fringe on its left side, a characteristic feature of cloth woven on a horizontal loom.43 These minute details could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface, enabling scenes to specify the nature of the tools used in this craft production even though they were restricted to a single perspective. The contrasting perspectives of the two media also caused differences in design regarding the placement of the weavers. The representations indicate that a minimum of two workers were required to operate the horizontal loom.44 With the advantage of a holistic perspective, model-artists could depict the weavers in their actual positions beside the loom. In each of the three-dimensional examples examined in this study, a woman squats at one end of the cloth beam while her co-worker sits beside her or by the adjacent side. This positioning suggests that the woman on the end is responsible for the warp threads

  Roehrig, in Mistress of the House, 20; Cortes, “From ‘weft fringes’ to ‘supplementary weft fringes’”, BES 19, (2015), 200-01. 44  All of the condensed two- and three-dimensional representations examined in this study illustrate two weavers [M151, M152, M206, S202; see figs. 5.1, 5.5, 5.6]. During the Middle Kingdom, the figures are consistently portrayed as female, indicating that this craft production was performed by women during this period. However, when the vertical loom was introduced in the New Kingdom, men began to be illustrated as weavers. Barber, Prehistoric Textiles, 84, 285-90; Roehrig, in Mistress of the House, 21; Fischer, Egyptian Women, 20. 43

  Tata suggests the possibility that the painted lines served as a sketch indicating the placement of real thread to form the loom. The remaining evidence does not allow for confirmation, but it is equally possible that the painted lines were all that was originally intended. Tata, “Egyptian Textile Industry”, 138. 42  Broudy, Book of Looms, 38-39; Burnham, Warp and Weft, 87; Kemp & Vogelsang-Eastwood, Ancient Textile Industry, 327. 41

143

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 5.6. Spinning and weaving model of Khety-aa (575 LC), with one spinner, two weavers, two spinning bowls and a loom painted on the baseboard [M206]. Courtesy of National Museums Liverpool (World Museum): 55.82.4.

while the woman on the side operates the various tools of the loom. The two-dimensional medium attempts to convey a similar arrangement of weavers but is restricted by a lack of perspective. As the loom is depicted in a topdown viewpoint and the weavers are largely portrayed in profile, a composite image is created. This causes further difficulty in conveying the side-by-side positioning of the weavers. One of the main methods scene-artists used to overcome this was by raising the woman on the far side off the register line so that both figures would be in full view. Of the two women operating the loom at the left end of the scene of Baqet III (15 UC), one is seated on the baseline while the other is situated in the space above to indicate that she is on the far side [S73]. This breaks the foundational use of the register line as a base for the figures,45 whereas the scene-artist of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) has provided a small sub-register for his raised weaver to give her a solid foundation [S208; fig. 5.4].46 In order to convey the precise role and positioning of the weavers, scene-artists were required to alternate perspectives and adjust the location of figures, whereas model-artists could present a realistic arrangement in their three-dimensional perspective.

Spinning and weaving, like other craft production, was a carefully supervised operation. In three of the four wall scenes identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, at least one official oversees the tasks of the spinners and weavers [S73, S92, S202].47 In the scenes of Baqet III (15 UC) and Khety (17 UC), a male and female figure stand at the left of the third register as they supervise the workers [S73, S92]. Their authority is indicated by accompanying captions that state their titles: the man as jmj-r DAtt ‘overseer of weavers’ and the woman as jrj(t) kAt ‘keeper of the work’.48 Similarly, a male overseer stands in the middle of the spinning and weaving vignette of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), watching over the activities of the workshop [S202; fig. 5.5]. In this example, however, his status is conveyed not only by his accompanying label, but also by his appearance: he wears a long wig and a knee-length kilt with a sash and has a portly physique.49

  No officials appear in the scene of Djehuty-hotep (N-2), but this is likely a matter of preservation as severe damage has been inflicted upon the wall [S208; fig. 5.4]. 48   Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, 28. 49  The accompanying caption records his title as jmj-r mrw ‘overseer of weavers’. Although this figure has been identified as female by some scholars, the contrasting attire, hairstyle and body shape compared with the female textile workers indicate that he is male. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 43; Hudáková, Representations of Women, 38. For the identification of a woman, see Broudy, Book of Looms, 39; Roehrig, in Mistress of the House, 20. 47

 Davis, Canonical Tradition, 33-34; Robins, Egyptian Painting, 18.  Robins, Proportion and Style, 6; Anderson, in Egyptian Art, 39.

45 46

144

Craft Production Although such textual captions and distinguishing features in appearance were more difficult to achieve in three-dimensions, officials are still discerned in some model-types.50 However, no overseers appear in models of textile manufacture nor any other craft production examined. As this theme is consistently more condensed in the three-dimensional medium, official figures may have been considered supplementary. It would have been more important to dedicate the small baseboards to the actual manufacturing operations.

are quite rare.55 Although limited in quantity, some tombs dedicated significant wall space to the industry, allowing a wide range of production activities to be conveyed. Conversely, the three-dimensional representations are typically more condensed and are restricted to the tasks considered most characteristic, namely spinning and weaving. In their representation of these two processes, scene- and model-artists were bound by the specific technical properties of their medium as well as their own level of skill particularly regarding their use of perspective and their portrayal of the various tools and materials of the trade. Consequently, these differences in design indicate that the representations were created specifically for each medium.

No further textile processes occur in the three-dimensional representations from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, but a few wall scenes include the additional operations of mat-making and laundering.51 In the tomb of Khety (17 UC), for example, mat-making is displayed adjacent to the spinning and weaving scene in the second register of the north wall: a man sits on top of his woven material while continuing to operate the loom [S92]. It is possible that the three men spinning thread behind him are producing a thicker yarn to be used in the mat-making process.52 A scene of washing cloth appears in the first register of the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), just above the spinning and weaving operation in the fourth register [S202].53 It is possible that these two textile vignettes are linked, portraying the entire journey of the cloth destined for the tomb.54 Such additional practices were clearly not considered essential in representations of the textile industry and therefore only appear occasionally. Scene-artists, who were able to devote larger sections of wall space to the theme, could portray such additional processes, whereas models are typically more restricted in size and so only present the operations considered most essential.

5.2 Carpentry Wood was another important commodity in ancient Egypt, with its utilisation in a wide range of objects produced for both daily and funerary purposes. However, the raw material was not readily available within Egypt, and while native woods could be manipulated for small objects, the Egyptians sought superior quality timber from other countries in their development of the carpentry industry.56 The importation of wood began as early as the 1st Dynasty, and this economic exchange increased in the Old Kingdom with new timbers brought into Egypt, allowing carpenters to develop more sophisticated woodworking techniques.57 While royalty and the nobility were able to afford the use of premium imported timbers, the ordinary population were largely restricted to native Egyptian woods.58 Some of the stages involved in constructing wooden objects are represented in the two- and three-dimensional media, although no single artwork depicts every activity.59 Wall scenes of woodworking are known throughout the Dynastic Period but are limited in number, with a total of seven examples identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan. Carpentry is even more rarely attested in the three-dimensional medium, with only one model originating from the sites under investigation.60 Not

Cloth was an essential component of daily life and the Egyptians desired to be supplied with the material for eternity. Pieces of cloth were frequently deposited in burials and requests for their supply were incorporated into offering formulae, but representations of their manufacture

  Jones, in Encyclopedia of Ancient History, ; Peck, Material World, 51. 56   Although native timber was quite brittle and knotted, all types were still utilised by carpenters. Techniques were developed that transformed these small pieces into workable planks that could be used to fashion items such as furniture, coffins and statues. However, imported woods were preferred for large-scale constructions and high-quality objects. Strouhal, Life, 103; Stevens & Eccleston, in Egyptian World, 147-48; Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 24; Swinton, in Behind the Scenes, 176. 57   Cedar, juniper, yew and pine from Lebanon, and ebony from the south were the predominant woods imported into the country. The properties of each timber were quickly identified by Egyptian carpenters and exploited in the advancement of their woodworking designs and manufacturing processes. Aldred, in History of Technology. Volume I, 685; Killen, Egyptian Woodworking, 7-8; Bienkowski & Tooley, Gifts of the Nile, 37; Killen, Furniture. Volume I, 1. 58  Strouhal, Life, 145; Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 97; Altenmüller, in Egypt, 87. 59  Killen, in Materials and Technology, 353; Swinton, in Behind the Scenes, 178. 60   Tooley has identified five tombs that housed carpentry models across Egypt, three of which are located in Saqqara. Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 43.

 See, for example, scribes and overseers consistently portrayed in granaries, and officials supervising bread-making and brewing, as discussed in chapters 2.2 and 2.3. 51   Laundry activities are only identified in a small number of wall scenes, with Hall listing six certain examples from the Middle Kingdom, four of which are from Beni Hassan. Hall, Egyptian Textiles, 48. Three models from Saqqara may possibly illustrate these subsidiary processes: Quibell, Saqqara, pl. 28.2; Firth & Gunn, Teti Pyramid Cemeteries. Volume II, pl. 28c; Quibell & Hayter, Teti Pyramid, North Side, pl. 25. Breasted has classified these models as representations of preparing flax for ropeor mat-making, while Tooley has additionally proposed the laundering process. The specifics of the figures’ actions are difficult to discern and so a precise conclusion cannot currently be reached. If these models do represent activities associated with textiles, they remain rare among the three-dimensional corpus. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 55; Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 47-48. 52   Vogelsang-Eastwood, in Materials and Technology, 272. 53  It is perhaps due to the contrasting real-life locations of textile manufacture and laundering that they are separated into different registers: cloth was washed in the river or canal while spinning and weaving were performed inside the home or workshop. Forbes, Ancient Technology. Volume IV, 83; Watterson, Women, 128. 54   Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 41.

55

50

145

Preparing for Eternity only is there this difference in quantity, but the media exhibit variation in the range of tasks depicted and their representation of the minute details of each activity.

the function of carpentry wall scenes and models.69 Housing real items of furniture and/or miniature model tools in the burial enabled Egyptians across many levels of society to ensure an eternal supply of wooden items in the afterlife. Artistic representations of their manufacture, however, seem to have been an additional luxury only enjoyed by the highest elite.

Wooden funerary furniture formed a significant component of goods deposited in the tomb to accompany the deceased in the afterlife. While a substantial number of these items were found in the tombs of Beni Hassan, indicating the presence of a thriving carpentry industry in the province,61 not a single model depicting their manufacture has been discovered at the site. This is especially significant as a great corpus of models was found in the tombs of the Lower Cemetery, yet not one depicts woodworking.62 In the Upper Cemetery, four of the 12 decorated tombs have been identified to contain carpentry scenes in their chapels [S81, S94, S170, S200]. At the site of Deir elBersha, conversely, no carpentry wall scenes have been preserved, but the sole model identified originates from the site [M153].63 Interestingly, all of the owners of the tombs with preserved carpentry representations from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan held the top office of their nome during their lifetimes.64 The industry may have operated under their supervision and its representation in their tombs reflects their distinguished position.

The sole carpentry model identified in this study is from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) at Deir el-Bersha and it forms a condensed representation of the industry, depicting only two processes: sawing a wooden log and shaping a board [M153; fig. 5.7]. The earlier stage of sawing regularly appears in carpentry wall scenes and the two media display a number of similarities in their representation of this task. The log is typically set into the ground and lashed to a sawing post while the carpenter uses a pull-saw to cut the log.70 The carpenter quite consistently stands some distance away from his work and bends forward as this is the posture most suited to facilitating the pulling movement of the saw.71 On the north wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) at Beni Hassan, for example, the sawyer stands towards the left of the fifth register while striding with his left leg and his back heel raised [S94]. He stands some distance from the log and leans forward to conduct his task. The sawyer in Djehutynakht’s (R-10A) model likewise stands back from the log and holds the saw about chest height, but both legs are straight and positioned side-by-side with no indication of the feet [M153; fig. 5.7]. Sawing required great physicality and while the intricacies of this active stance could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface, they were more difficult to craft in three-dimensions. Although a striding posture was certainly possible to achieve in models,72 the side-by-side positioning presumably would have been more cost effective. The legs of model figures were carved from the same piece of wood as the torso,73 and so a wide striding stance would have required the use of a thicker piece of timber. Moreover, the figure had to be secured to the baseboard with pegs, which regularly resulted in the absence of feet.74 Consequently, the threedimensional representation of the sawyer was restricted by the construction methods of the medium.

For the rest of the elite, housing actual furniture items and miniature models of tools in the tomb apparently sufficed.65 In the shaft tombs at Beni Hassan, the pieces of furniture are mostly quite simple in design and include bedframes, stools and chairs.66 Alternatively, miniature carpenter’s tools are known from a number of burials. In the tomb of Nefery (116 LC) at Beni Hassan, for example, five such tools were found, all of which feature wooden handles and copper blades.67 Similarly, in the burial of Satmeket (R-10B) at Deir el-Bersha, a complete set of carpenter’s equipment was discovered.68 It was believed that these tools would enable the deceased to produce any item required in the afterlife, and could therefore replace

  Killen, in Egyptian Museum Collections. Volume I, 646.  See the appendix of Garstang’s documentation of his 1902-1904 excavation which lists all of the items discovered in the Lower Cemetery. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 211-44. 63   Due to the significant damage incurred to the cemetery, it is possible that carpentry scenes were originally included in tomb-chapels but have not been preserved. 64  At Meir, Ukh-hotep II (B4) held the position of nomarch while Pepyankh the Black (A2) and Senbi I (B1) each served as overseer of priests. The nome was an important cult centre for Hathor, with much of the land belonging to her temple, and so this religious role was of high esteem. The sole model owner, Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) of Deir el-Bersha, held the title of governor. At Beni Hassan, there were two important offices which were often held by one man: nomarch and overseer of the eastern desert. Baqet III (15 UC), Khety (17 UC) and Amenemhat (2 UC) all served as the former, and Khnumhotep II (3 UC) as the latter. Trigger, et al., Ancient Egypt, 109-11; Hölzl, in Sesto Congresso Internazionale. Volume I, 279; Grajetzki, Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, 107, 112; Grajetzki, Court Officials, 111. 65  As the vast majority of models are constructed of wood, it is clear that tomb owners with models in their assemblages could afford this commodity and had access to specialised woodworkers during their lifetimes. 66   Killen, in Egyptian Museum Collections. Volume I, 654. 67  Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 77-78. 68   Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 146-47. 61 62

One element of the sawyer’s posture that is consistent across the two media is the handling of the saw. Two hands were required to use the pull-saw: one gripped the handle while the other pushed down on top of the blade to exert

  Such miniature tools are particularly prominent at the sites of Beni Hassan and Sedment. Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 43. 70  Killen, Egyptian Woodworking, 13. 71   Lane, “Pull-saw”, AEE, (1935), 57. 72   Certain model figures in other themes are quite consistently represented in a striding posture. See, for example, the ploughman in models of land preparation and offering-bearers in procession [M24, M66, M144, M146, M148, M170, M226; see figs. 2.2, 3.16, 3.17]. 73   Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 152. 74  Winlock, Models of Daily Life, 74; Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 64. 69

146

Craft Production

Figure 5.7. Carpentry model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), with one sawyer and one man shaping a board [M153]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.412.

extra force.75 This arrangement is clearly displayed on the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan where the sawyer works on the right of the second register [S170; fig. 5.8]. Interestingly, the model-artist of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) has likewise specified this grip: the sawyer’s right arm is slightly bent at the elbow with his hand clenched to grasp the handle of the saw, while his left arm is outstretched with his palm resting on top of the blade [M153; fig. 5.7]. The intricacies of this grip could be captured in both two- and three-dimensions, allowing scene- and model-artists to clearly convey the sawyer at work.

The two media also exhibit similarities in their depiction of the saw. During the late Old and Middle Kingdoms, the pull-saw consisted of a metal blade with a straight back and rounded point attached to a curved wooden handle moulded to fit the carpenter’s hand.76 In the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC), each of these features is clearly identified with changes in colour providing additional detail: the lashings attaching the blade to the handle are painted as thin black lines, the blade is coloured dark red, and the handle is yellow to symbolise wood [S170; fig. 5.8]. A similar tool is depicted in Djehuty-nakht’s (R10A) model, but the three-dimensional medium had the

  Śliwa, Ancient Egyptian Handicraft, 28; Drenkhahn, Handwerker, 116; Lucas & Harris, Materials and Industries, 449

76

  Śliwa, Ancient Egyptian Handicraft, 28; Killen, in Materials and Technology, 355.

75

147

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 5.8. A sawyer operating a pull-saw with both hands and three carpenters finishing a chest. Tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC). West wall, north panel, register 2 [S170]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 22b [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

unique advantage of utilising the actual materials in its construction of the saw [M153; fig. 5.7].77 The blade is fashioned of sheet bronze and has a rounded point with a straight back, while the handle is carved from wood in a curved shape to neatly fit into the sawyer’s grip and is split to receive the blade.78 The use of these materials presents a more realistic portrayal of the tool, whereas scene-artists were restricted to distinguishing the individual elements through detailed lines and colours.

method is illustrated on the north wall of room 1 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir where the log in the second register is fastened diagonally to a vertical post [S27; fig. 5.10]. This unusual design requires the use of a horizontal stick with counterweights to separate the two halves of the log and an assistant to support the top end, both of which have been drawn by the scene-artist.82 The model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) follows the more typical arrangement: the log is secured in a vertical position in one corner of the baseboard [M153; fig. 5.7]. A small incision across the top of the wood indicates that the sawyer has just begun his work.83 No bindings support the timber, but it is possible that some thread was originally wrapped around the log that has since been lost.84 Although greater variety is found in wall scenes, the essential components of sawing could be conveyed in both two- and threedimensions.

Another essential element in sawing representations is the log of wood which is set into the ground and attached vertically to an upright post. The timber is sawn downwards as this is the most convenient technique for the pull-saw.79 The typical arrangement is found on the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan where the sawyer works on an upright beam in the first register [S200; fig. 5.9]. The bindings securing the log are drawn about a third of the way down to fasten the section already cut, and also near the bottom to maintain the support.80 The saw passes through the middle of the timber, indicating that the carpenter is in the process of sawing.81 An alternative

The second process displayed in the carpentry model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) is shaping a wooden board with an adze (now missing) [M153; fig. 5.7]. This operation took place after sawing and was used to smooth the wood

 The original saw attached to this model has been lost, but a contemporaneous example has been added to the display. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 20.1105. D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 113-14. 78  Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, “Saw from a model of carpenters (joined to 21.412)”, viewed 25 October 2018, . 79   Leospo, in Egyptian Civilization, 125; Lucas & Harris, Materials and Industries, 449. 80   Lane, “Pull-saw”, AEE, (1935), 56; James, Pharaoh’s People, 201. 81   A similar representation is found in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC), although this artist has excluded the bindings and unusually drawn the saw in full view as if visible through the wood [S170; fig. 5.8]. It seems probable that this is a mistake rather than an alternate design choice as several other inconsistencies are evident in the register: not all of the 77

figures are firmly placed on the baseline; they are drawn at different scales; some of their features are disproportionate; and the far legs of the carpenters working on the bed have been excluded. Carter, et al., Beni Hasan. Part IV, 9. 82   Śliwa, Ancient Egyptian Handicraft, 27; Hampson, “Men at Work”, 109. 83   Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 164. 84   In the carpentry model of Meketre from Thebes, a wooden plank is tied to a post with thread bindings, demonstrating that model-artists did make use of this real material in their designs. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46722. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pls. 28-29. However, not all wall scenes detail the bindings, such as that of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S170; fig. 5.8], and therefore it is equally possible that thread bindings were never included in Djehuty-nakht’s model.

148

Craft Production and trim it to the required size and shape.85 The motif is commonly included in carpentry wall scenes of the Old and Middle Kingdoms and typically depicts the figure squatting or kneeling on the ground while holding the timber upright at about arm’s length.86 In the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), for example, the carpenter is positioned to the right of the sawyer and kneels with the near leg folded over and the far knee bent up in front while stabilising a plank of wood with his left hand [S200; fig. 5.9]. A similar position is adopted by the carpenter in the second register of Pepyankh the Black’s (A2) scene, but in this example, the worker squats on top of a folded mat with both knees bent up in front [S27; fig. 5.10].87 The far leg has been positioned slightly ahead so that both legs can be seen by the viewer in the two-dimensional perspective. This squatting posture is likewise adopted by the carpenter in Djehuty-nakht’s (R10A) model [M153; fig. 5.7]. Although the model figure’s legs are disproportionately small, it is clear that he bends both knees up in front. He is positioned about an arm’s length from the timber which he stabilises with his left hand. His right arm is slightly bent at the elbow and his hand clenched, indicating that he held the adze on top of the board. This similarity in representation indicates that both scene- and model-artists were able to reflect the attitude and role of the adze-worker in their designs.

could begin, the raw material needed to be acquired and some scenes display this process. The felling of a tree with axes is represented in the second register of the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) which presumably provided timber for the boat-builders displayed to the right and/or the carpenters above [S200].90 The large trunks obtained during this process needed to be promptly divided into smaller pieces,91 a task that is displayed in the fifth register of the north wall of room 1 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) [S27; fig. 5.10]. In addition to these preparatory stages, the two-dimensional repertoire incorporates a number of finishing processes.92 In the scenes examined in this study, the most common of these tasks is that of using a mallet and chisel to carve holes and fine details into the wood, and then polishing to smooth the surfaces of the final products, both of which are portrayed in the second register of the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S170; fig. 5.8].93 Further expansion upon the theme is found in scenes that depict artificially bending timber to construct staffs and bows, and assembling and joining planks to build wooden boats.94 No single tomb includes all of these processes, but the overall repertoire of the two-dimensional carpentry theme is considerably more expansive than that of the three-dimensional medium.

The components of the adze are likewise encapsulated in both the two- and three-dimensional media. The tool consists of a straight metal blade lashed to a curved wooden shaft with leather thongs.88 In the second register of the scene of Pepyankh the Black (A2), the bindings are represented by a series of thin lines, showing the fastening of the blade to the handle [S27; fig. 5.10]. The carpenter holds the adze against the wood, indicating he is engaged in his task. Although the adze in the model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) is lost, other examples indicate the manner in which the tool could be crafted in three-dimensions. In the woodworking model of Meketre from Thebes, for example, several carpenters utilise adzes, each of which is formed of a curved wooden handle with a straight metal blade attached to it by cords, and is held just above the timber in the carpenter’s right hand.89 It is probable that the adze in the model of Djehutynakht was crafted in a similar fashion. Once again, the three-dimensional tool features the same components as the two-dimensional representations but had the unique advantage of incorporating real-life materials.

  Śliwa, Ancient Egyptian Handicraft, 45.   Śliwa, Ancient Egyptian Handicraft, 46; Killen, in Materials and Technology, 354. 92   The intermediary stages of manufacture were apparently considered less essential as scenes typically depict either the making of individual parts or the completed objects themselves. The production of a single item is not displayed from start to finish. Rather, various woodworking operations are shown together with multiple finished products, regularly without any clear links between the two. Drenkhahn, Handwerker, 97; Leospo, in Egyptian Civilization, 126; Strouhal, Life, 145; Hampson, in Egyptian Culture and Society. Volume I, 167. 93   In this scene, a man seated on top of a bed raises a mallet to strike a chisel, while two men kneeling on top of a chest smooth down its surface with rubbing stones. Alternatively, in the poorly preserved scene displayed on the east wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir, the two surviving figures each use a mallet and chisel: one works on top of a wooden board while the other carves an upright piece [S135]. Similarly, the only surviving carpentry motif in the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) at Meir is found on the east wall of the outer room and consists of two figures using mallets and chisels on an upright wooden structure [S177]. Hampson, “Men at Work”, 112; Peck, Material World, 138. 94   Some of the processes involved in artificially bending timber are displayed on the south wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan [S81], the north wall of the tomb of Khety (17 UC) [S94] and the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S170], and include peeling bark from a branch, using steam to soften the timber and bending the wood before the pieces dry into the desired shape. Drenkhahn, Handwerker, 113-14; Killen, in Materials and Technology, 357. Scenes portray the construction of both papyrus and wooden boats and the vignettes are regularly separated from carpentry scenes as their task was conducted in an outdoor setting while carpenters generally operated in workshops. Boat-building was apparently considered a distinct skill from carpentry and so specialised craftsmen were required to create the vessels. On the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), boat-building and carpentry are portrayed in separate registers but are immediately positioned above one another [S200]. Conversely, the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) at Meir contains a scene of workers constructing a papyrus boat in the third register of the north wall, but no carpentry scene is preserved. Instead, the boat-building scene is surrounded by marshland activities, including the transport of papyrus stalks, fighting boatmen, and fishing and fowling with a clap-net. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pls. 91-92. Śliwa, Ancient Egyptian Handicraft, 43-45; Ikram, Ancient Egypt, 256; Ward, in Oxford Encyclopedia, . 90 91

While the model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) is confined to these two tasks, scenes illustrate several additional activities associated with carpentry. Before manufacturing  James, Pharaoh’s People, 198; Killen, in Materials and Technology, 355; Brier & Hobbs, Daily Life, 204. 86   Śliwa, Ancient Egyptian Handicraft, 25; Hampson, “Men at Work”, 110. 87   This folded mat is a unique feature of all carpentry scenes. Hampson, in Egyptian Culture and Society. Volume I, table 5. 88   The blade was attached in such a way that it was perpendicular to the axis of the handle. Śliwa, Ancient Egyptian Handicraft, 24; Killen, in Materials and Technology, 355. 89   Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46722. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pls. 28-29. 85

149

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 5.9. One carpenter saws a plank of wood while the other uses an adze to shape a wooden board; a finished bed decorated with lion’s head and legs. Tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC). West wall, south panel, register 1 [S200]. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 120 [detail]; courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.

Although Djehuty-nakht’s (R-10A) model does not depict any of these subsidiary tasks, other three-dimensional examples occasionally present a more expansive representation. That of Meketre from Thebes is particularly detailed and, in addition to sawing and shaping, the model portrays polishing a piece of timber, creating a tenon slot with mallet and chisel, and re-tempering tools in a fire.95 This model is exceptionally carved, allowing the precise nature of each activity to be clearly identified. While this example demonstrates that it was possible for such tasks to be crafted in three-dimensions, they were clearly not considered essential. For Djehuty-nakht and his modelartist, the tasks of sawing and using the adze were clearly sufficient to represent the entire carpentry industry.

clarified by an accompanying textual caption. The item crafted by the carpenters using mallets and chisels in the fourth register of the scene of Pepyankh the Black (A2), for example, is not identifiable from the illustration alone, but the inscription makes clear that it is a door.99 The intended destination of the completed objects is not always certain, and although there are many similarities in form between everyday items and funerary objects, the latter are generally more elaborately decorated and finely crafted.100 On the west wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC), a finished bed decorated with a lion’s head and legs appears on the right of the carpentry scene in the first register [S200; fig. 5.9]. Kamrin’s suggestion that this item is part of Khnumhotep’s funerary equipment seems probable as, in addition to the religious symbolism of the lion, an almost identical piece of furniture is depicted on the funerary barque displayed on the same wall [S198; see fig. 3.5].101 The scene-artist’s ability to include intricate decorative features and explanatory captions in his design and to provide connections between different vignettes by closely arranging them on chapel walls is a clear advantage specific to his medium.

A wide range of wooden items was produced by ancient Egyptian carpenters, including chairs, beds, chests, statues, head-rests, boats and coffins.96 The practice of depositing wooden furniture in the grave dates to as early as the 1st Dynasty, and such items may have originally functioned as common household furniture later transformed into tomb equipment or may have been specifically designed for burial.97 Carpentry wall scenes regularly specify the type of item being created. The carpenters in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) are involved in fashioning a range of wooden objects, including bows and arrows, a type of frame, barrels, a bed and chests [S170].98 The precise identity of each item is sometimes

In contrast, the model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) does not specify the finished products nor their intended use [M153; fig. 5.7]. Small pieces of timber were pieced together by craftsmen to create larger items, and the   Part of the inscription records the dialogue of the workers, with the man using the adze encouraging his companions to mnx Swt tw nt aA sjn ‘chisel this side/leaf of the door, quickly’. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, 27. 100   Leospo, in Egyptian Civilization, 127. 101  The lion was a symbol of strength, virility and fertility, and often appears as a decorative element in funerary contexts. Kamrin, Cosmos of Khnumhotep II, 61; Guichard, in Creatures of Earth, Water, and Sky, 175-76. 99

  Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46722. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, 33-35, pls. 28-29. 96   Not all households would have been able to afford timber furnishings. The ownership of wooden items was certainly a sign of wealth. Bienkowski & Tooley, Gifts of the Nile, 38; Peck, Material World, 81. 97   Der Manuelian, in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Volume III, 1623; Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 107. 98   Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, 32-33. 95

150

Craft Production

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

151

Preparing for Eternity standard rectangular shape of the wooden boards worked by the carpenters in the model would allow the material to be utilised for a variety of purposes. Additionally, the model-artist has incorporated a supplementary piece of wood with a red-painted guideline into his design which was presumably the next project to be worked by the carpenters.102 While the absence of a finished product should partly be attributed to the condensed nature of the representation,103 it should also be associated with the medium’s location in the tomb. Housed in the burial chamber, this generalised depiction of carpentry provided the tomb owner with a supply of wood that could serve any requirement in the afterlife rather than specific objects that would only accommodate a limited number of uses. Moreover, the actual finished products were housed in the substructure alongside the model and so a miniature representation of them was not required. This is in contrast to wall scenes where carpentry representations were viewed by the living, allowing the display of completed decorative items to impress visitors with the tomb owner’s access to high-quality woodwork and inform them of the range of goods concealed in the substructure. Therefore, the choice of carpentry motifs was impacted by the medium’s location and role in the tomb.

leather declined in the Old and Middle Kingdoms in favour of fibres and textiles.105 It was not until the New Kingdom that the commodity once again gained prominence, with a wider range of items produced from it.106 Only one model and four wall scenes of leatherwork were identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, and in fact, the model forms the only known three-dimensional representation of the industry in all of Egypt.107 The representations all indicate that the final product is sandals, although the two- and three-dimensional media differ in the range of manufacturing tasks they portray and their illustration of some of the minute details. The rarity of leatherwork representations in conjunction with the sole focus on the production of sandals should most likely be associated with the common practice of depositing sandals within the burial. Such grave goods were especially common in the Old and Middle Kingdoms, and while they occasionally comprise sandals used in everyday life, more commonly the footwear was made from wood and specifically created for the tomb.108 The sandals were placed in the burial chamber alongside the body of the owner, usually on top of the coffin.109 It seems that this footwear could function as a form of replacement of artistic representations of their manufacture.110 The burial of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) at Deir el-Bersha, for example, contained the largest known collection of

Wooden objects were certainly highly valued in both the domestic and funerary spheres, although representations of their manufacture are quite rare. The two-dimensional illustrations depict a much greater number of the carpenter’s activities and specify the finished products which would have publicly proclaimed the tomb owner’s superior wealth and status. In the three-dimensional medium, on the other hand, the carpentry theme is more condensed and focuses on the characteristic tasks of sawing and shaping rather than the preparatory and finishing processes. It seems that miniature carpenter’s tools and actual wooden furniture were valued over representations of their manufacture. Consequently, carpentry models should be understood as a supplementary theme that provided wealthy tomb owners with additional access to wood and specialised craftsmen who could produce any timber item he desired in the afterlife.

  Skins also seem to have been of secondary importance at this time to commodities obtained from other animal products, such as meat and glue. Veldmeijer, “Leatherworking”, UEE 1.1, (2008), ; Veldmeijer & Laidler, in History of Science, Technology, and Medicine, 1217. 106  Although there are limitations to our knowledge of the industry, it seems that a process of curing was used in Pharaonic Egypt as vegetable tanning was unknown prior to the Graeco-Roman Period. Van DrielMurray has suggested that contact with foreign cultures sparked the increased use of leather in Egypt. In addition to sandals, other items that utilise leather in their construction include military equipment, furniture, cordage, writing materials, coverings, cases and clothing. Lucas & Harris, Materials and Industries, 36; van Driel-Murray, in Materials and Technology, 299; van Driel-Murray, in Travail du cuir, 252, 257; Stocks, in Oxford Encyclopedia, ; Veldmeijer, “Leatherworking”, UEE 1.1, (2008), ; Moreno Garcia, in Arts of Making, 165; Skinner, in Chariots in Ancient Egypt, 80. 107  No wall scenes of leatherwork are known from Deir el-Bersha, but as the cemetery has suffered significant damage, it is possible that some were originally included in tomb-chapels but have since been lost. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 52; van Driel-Murray, in Materials and Technology, 312-14; Desserle, “L’artisanat du cuir”, EAO 57, (2010), 32. 108  Their construction of wood and painted decoration indicate that they could not have been used in daily life. Veldmeijer, Footwear in Ancient Egypt, 45; Mendoza, Artifacts, 41; Veldmeijer, Footwear Project, 214. 109   In the tomb of Intef (1 LC) at Beni Hassan, for example, two pairs of sandals were included in the burial: one was placed on top of the coffin and the other within the coffin at the foot end. Similarly, in the tomb of Djetinpet (800 LC) at Beni Hassan, three pairs of sandals were found residing on top of the coffin. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 62, 110, figs. 49, 99; Veldmeijer, Stepping through Time, 32. 110  This forms an interesting parallel with model carpenters’ tools interred in burials which in many cases seem to have replaced the need for carpentry representations, as was discussed in chapter 5.2. However, unlike the tools which could produce any wooden item, the sandals formed the final product. Model sandals are most commonly found at sites where wooden funerary models are attested. De Meyer, “Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barshā. Volume II”, 631; Veldmeijer, Footwear in Ancient Egypt, 45. 105

5.3 Leatherwork Leather items were produced throughout Egyptian history, although the industry’s importance varied in different periods. The treatment of hides and skins began at a very early date in Egypt, with known leather items from burials of the Predynastic Period.104 However, the utilisation of   Śliwa, Ancient Egyptian Handicraft, 50; Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 165. 103   Even in the more expansive carpentry model of Meketre, the wooden boards worked by the carpenters are not clearly destined for a specific object. Although one finished product is included in the model, it comprises a wooden chest storing a collection of carpentry tools, and so functions as a piece of equipment used during manufacture rather than the end result of production. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46722. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, pls. 28-29. 104  Lucas & Harris, Materials and Industries, 33; Stocks, in Oxford Encyclopedia, . 102

152

Craft Production funerary models, including five of craft production, yet not one of leatherwork. Instead, footwear was provided by several pairs of model sandals.111

and three-dimensional leatherworkers each hold a knife in the right hand and rest it against one edge of the sole. The angle of the blade indicates that the craftsmen are engaged in cutting the leather to shape. The knife itself is also depicted in a similar fashion, comprising a short, narrow handle extending to a broad, curved blade.117 The precise shape could be easily drawn on the two-dimensional wall surface, as is exemplified in the first register of the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan [S169; fig. 5.13], while in the three-dimensional medium it is carved from wood.118 The similarities in the design of the sandal-maker indicate that both scene- and modelartists were able to encapsulate the main elements of the real-life process.

Various proposals have been suggested by scholars to explain the importance of sandals in the tomb: they functioned as a sign of cultic purity or of social status and wealth, as a form of transport for the owner to leave the tomb, or as a symbolic representation of trampling one’s enemies.112 As the sandals were concealed from view in the burial chamber, it may be concluded that they solely served the tomb owner in the afterlife. Wall scenes indicate that sandals were mostly worn by the elite and priests,113 and so the inclusion of footwear in the substructure may have enabled the deceased to maintain his status and purity for eternity. With the presence of model sandals in the tomb, representations of their manufacture were presumably not considered essential and therefore the leatherwork theme should be understood as supplementary.

Additionally, both media emphasise the final product by depicting the sandal soles at a much greater scale than the human figures’ feet, as is particularly evident in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S169; fig. 5.13]. The manipulation of scale was an artistic device regularly used in wall scenes to convey relative levels of importance,119 but here it is used by the three-dimensional medium as well. The emphasis on the final product provides an interesting contrast with carpentry models where, as observed in chapter 5.2, the focus was on the preliminary manufacturing stages without any completed objects portrayed. While carpenters created a wide range of wooden items that would benefit the deceased in the afterlife, the most important item produced by leatherworkers was sandals. Consequently, it was necessary for the final stage to be portrayed by the model as this formed the culmination of the process and provided the deceased with the desired commodity.

The sole leatherwork model originates from the tomb of Djay (275 LC) at Beni Hassan and comprises a particularly condensed representation with only one manufacturing task portrayed: cutting a pair of sandal soles [M50; fig. 5.11].114 This motif likewise appears in all of the two-dimensional examples examined,115 and the representations exhibit a number of similarities regarding the placement, tools and role of the sandal-maker. During the Old and Middle Kingdoms, the craftsman cutting the soles was positioned on the ground with his material immediately in front of him, as is found in the model and in the fourth register of the north wall of the tomb of Baqet III (15 UC) at Beni Hassan [S74; fig. 5.12].116 The two-

However, there are also some differences between the media in their representation of the sandal cutting motif which may be chiefly attributed to their contrasting technical capabilities. Firstly, each medium presents a slightly different portrayal of the craftsman’s posture. In wall scenes, the craftsman working the knife typically kneels with the far knee bent up in front and the near one folded over, as is displayed in the scene of Baqet III (15 UC) [S74; fig. 5.12]. This attitude was most likely selected in order to convey a seated posture while keeping both legs in view in the profile perspective. Conversely, in the model of Djay (275 LC), the leatherworker squats with both knees bent up in front [M50; fig. 5.11]. The legs are not well formed, but an incised line separates the shins and short protrusions at the ends signify feet. Carving the figure with the legs bending in different directions as is achieved in scenes would have required a particularly high level

  The model sandals of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) are today housed in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.804, 21.805, 21.847, 15-5-305. 112  Staehelin, Ägyptischen Tracht, 98-99; Taylor & Strudwick, Mummies, 88; De Meyer, “Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barshā. Volume II”, 631; Veldmeijer, Stepping through Time, 33. 113   Sandals are only worn by minor figures when they are engaged in an occupation that requires constant walking or running. See, for example, three of the offering-bearers travelling at a running pace displayed on the north wall of room 2 in the tomb of Ankhmahor at Saqqara. Klebs, Reliefs des Alten Reiches, 95; Siebels, “Wearing of sandals”, BACE 7, (1996), 75-78; Kanawati & Hassan, Teti Cemetery. Volume II, pl. 41; Veldmeijer, Stepping through Time, 31. 114   Although the model soles are fashioned of wood, this is presumably due to the fact that the whole sculpture is constructed of wood rather than an indication of the production of wooden sandals. It is more probable that the model portrays the manufacture of leather sandals as it exhibits many similarities with the motif of cutting leather soles in wall scenes. 115   The details of this motif are not particularly clear in two of the scenes examined. Four men are engaged in leatherwork in the second register of the south wall of room 1 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir, with the man on the right in the process of shaping the sandals, but there is no clear evidence of a knife [S29; fig. 5.14]. In the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) at Meir, a very fragmentary scene on the east wall apparently depicts two leatherworkers, one of whom is cutting the soles of sandals [S177]. However, due to severe damage incurred to the scene, the motif is barely visible. Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, 14. 116  In scenes, the material is placed on a low workbench which is represented as a narrow rectangle on the baseline, as is found towards the left of the lowest register of the east wall of the tomb of Ukh-hotep II (B4) [S177]. Conversely, the model craftsman cuts his material directly on the baseboard [M50; fig. 5.11]. The absence of a workbench in the model may indicate that it was not considered essential to the representation or that the baseboard itself could function as the worksurface. In the New 111

Kingdom, leatherworkers were elevated on stools and worked at angled tables. Drenkhahn, Handwerker, 13; Strouhal, Life, 148. 117   This is the typical blade used prior to the New Kingdom. Drenkhahn, Handwerker, 12; Veldmeijer & Laidler, in History of Science, Technology, and Medicine, 1216. 118   Although carpentry models indicate that multiple real-life materials could be used in the construction of model tools, the absence of these materials in this example may reflect a more cost-effective method of representing the knife. 119   Robins, in Egyptian World, 360; Kanawati & Woods, Artists in the Old Kingdom, 33.

153

Preparing for Eternity LC), the sandals lie flat on the baseboard in front of the leatherworker and are even positioned at a slight angle to facilitate cutting [M50; fig. 5.11]. With the advantage of a holistic perspective, model-artists could accurately convey the precise arrangement of each component in the motif. Other differences between the media in their portrayal of the sandal cutting motif may convey that a slightly different stage of the operation is performed. In the wall scenes examined, the leatherworker consistently cuts a single sole to shape, as is exemplified in the scene of Baqet III (15 UC): a single sole, which has been given some definition to indicate it is intended for the right foot, resides on the workbench while its pair has already been shaped and is situated in the space above [S74; fig. 5.12].122 In contrast, the leatherworker in the model of Djay (275 LC) is in the process of cutting a pair of sandals [M50; fig. 5.11]. His work is not yet complete as the two soles have not been fully formed: the top end has been shaped into two distinct curves with an incised line extending down the middle, while the bottom still forms one continuous edge. Perhaps this representation portrays a slightly earlier stage in the cutting process than is illustrated in wall scenes. This is further highlighted by the presence of completed sandals in some two-dimensional representations. All of the sandals in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) appear complete, even the one in the process of being cut: the soles are coloured yellow and are bordered by a defined line, and the black/ white straps extend from a point at the toe end to a loop at the heel [S169; fig. 5.13]. This is in contrast to the sandals constructed by the model leatherworker which are simply painted a buff colour and have no straps attached [M50; fig. 5.11]. These differences in detail indicate that the model-artist presented a slightly earlier stage of cutting and ensured that all of the elements in his design reflected this rather than simply duplicating the work of sceneartists.

Figure 5.11. Leatherwork model of Djay (275 LC), with a man cutting a pair of sandal soles [M50]. Image © National Museums Scotland: A.1914.76.

of skill in three-dimensions. Instead, the model-artist had the advantage of a holistic perspective that enabled him to position the legs side-by-side without any component being obscured from view. Therefore, each artist selected a seated posture that was most suitable for his medium. Secondly, differences are observed in their representation of the sandals.120 With the limited perspective of the two-dimensional medium, scene-artists typically portray each object from a single viewpoint.121 For sandals, this comprises the top-down perspective as it forms the most recognisable aspect. This creates a composite image with the leatherworker who is largely portrayed in profile. On the west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC), the sandal being cut by the craftsman appears to stand upright on its side although in reality it would lie flat on the workbench [S169; fig. 5.13]. Moreover, the completed sandals reside in the empty space of the register above the man but should be understood as lying on the ground beside him. The three-dimensional medium, in contrast, could present a more realistic arrangement. In the model of Djay (275

While the model of Djay (275 LC) solely depicts the cutting of sandals, wall scenes illustrate a number of other leatherwork tasks. However, these representations are quite selective with several of the essential manufacturing stages excluded from the repertoire. Van Driel-Murray has attributed this to the unclean nature of some practices, such as skinning the animals and cleaning the hides, as this may have made them unsuitable for display in the cult area.123 However, the particularly unclean task of slaughtering is a very common theme in chapel scenes, making this interpretation unlikely. Alternatively, Veldmeijer has suggested that some of these tasks would have been difficult to convey pictorially, such as the choice of animal hides and manufacturing the sandal straps.124 Explanatory labels regularly accompany leatherwork scenes of the Old

  Sandals can always be easily recognised in representations of their manufacture as they conform to a standard shape and design. However, both the archaeological record and their appearance in different scenes indicate that a variety of types were known. The similarities across the leatherwork representations may therefore indicate that the illustrations were standardised in order to ensure that the theme was easily recognised. Veldmeijer, Tutankhamun’s Footwear, 206. 121  Robins, Egyptian Painting, 11; Kanawati & Woods, Artists in the Old Kingdom, 29. 120

  The standard cutting pattern of soles was already known in the Old Kingdom, with the left and right feet distinguished from the earliest times. van Driel-Murray, in Materials and Technology, 314. 123  van Driel-Murray, in Materials and Technology, 302; Skinner, in Chariots in Ancient Egypt, 80. 124  Veldmeijer, Tutankhamun’s Footwear, 206. 122

154

Craft Production

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

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

155

Preparing for Eternity Kingdom, but they disappear from those of the Middle Kingdom, with the exception of the scene of Baqet III (15 UC) [S74; fig. 5.12].125 Without such captions, Veldmeijer proposes that these processes may have been difficult to identify. However, text would not have been understood by all visitors to the tomb and so conveying a theme successfully could not solely rely on inscriptions. Rather, it should be remembered that the Egyptians never depicted every stage in a process, but only those considered most characteristic, with particular emphasis on the final product.126 As small sections of wall space were dedicated to leatherwork, only a select number of processes could be included. Therefore, the tasks excluded from leatherwork scenes should be understood as not considered vital to conveying the industry.

of craft production are regularly depicted on the same wall of the tomb, reflecting the practice of closely associating scenes of a similar nature.132 It is probable that many of these industries shared similar tools and materials, and so the craftsmen may have operated in the same workshops or industrial areas and possibly even on the same objects.133 The west wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) provides a clear example of the close arrangement of various crafts: immediately below the scene of leatherwork in the first register are illustrations of carpentry and stone vessel production in the second register, metalwork in the third, and pottery manufacture in the fourth [S169].134 With the dedication of a large section of wall to craft production, multiple industries could be portrayed. Additionally, the task of manufacturing flint knives is regularly associated with leatherwork. In the scenes of Baqet III (15 UC) and Amenemhat (2 UC), the two themes are portrayed immediately side-by-side [S74, S169]. Flint tools were used by craftsmen from the earliest times, particularly for cutting animal products such as meat and hide,135 and therefore the close association of these themes may reflect a shared use of tools. The advantage of a large surface area for artistic representation is unique to the two-dimensional medium, allowing connections between themes to be easily conveyed.

The leatherwork scene displayed on the south wall of room 1 in the tomb of Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir is one of the most expansive Old Kingdom examples of the theme and includes some of the preparatory activities only occasionally represented [S29; fig. 5.14].127 Four men are at work in the second register, with the action progressing from left to right: the first man has one hand resting inside a container, a sign of softening or curing the hide in liquid;128 the second man holds a rectangular piece of leather in one hand and a small rubbing stone in the other that will be used to smooth the material;129 the precise tasks of the final two men are unclear from the surviving details, but one seems to work a sheet of leather while the other manufactures sandals. An additional process regularly depicted in scenes that is absent from Pepyankh the Black’s representation is staking which involves pulling a piece of leather back-and-forth over a trestle to make it pliable.130 All three Middle Kingdom scenes examined include this task, as exemplified by the man on the right of the scene of Baqet III (15 UC) [S74; fig. 5.12].131 Although still restricted in the quantity of processes, the illustration of these subsidiary tasks results in a more expansive representation of the industry in the two-dimensional medium than is witnessed in the model.

The model of Djay (275 LC), in contrast, does not portray any association with other activities as the leatherworker is situated alone on a small baseboard [M50; fig. 5.11]. In fact, none of the models examined that depict craft production portray more than one industry. Only rarely are multiple themes grouped in a single model,136 with the small size of the baseboard typically restricting each representation to a single theme. However, in a few rare exceptions, a group model may illustrate more than one craft production. In a model from the tomb of Gemniemhat at Saqqara, for example, the activities of carpentry, metalwork and pottery manufacture are all represented on a single baseboard.137 Alternatively, tomb owners could include multiple industries in their three-dimensional assemblages by interring more than one model. Of the nine models portraying craft production identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, seven originate from two tombs: the burial of Djay (275 LC) housed one model of leatherwork and one of brick-making [M50M51], while the assemblage of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) included two spinning and weaving, one carpentry and

Wall scenes also have the advantage of associating leatherwork with other manufacturing processes. Vignettes  The late 6th Dynasty scene of Pepyankh the Black (A2) contains captions that identify the titles of the craftsmen and their actions [S29; fig. 5.14], while the Middle Kingdom scenes of Amenemhat (2 UC) and Ukh-hotep II (B4) do not incorporate text [S169, S177; see fig. 5.13]. Although, it should be noted that the scene of Ukh-hotep II is particularly fragmentary and so the exclusion of text cannot be confirmed with certainty. Hasanien, “Leather manufacture”, GM 161, (1997), 75. 126  Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 88. 127   Hampson, “Men at Work”, 174-75. 128  Reed, Ancient Skins, 48-51; Veldmeijer, “Leatherworking”, UEE 1.1, (2008), ; Hampson, “Men at Work”, 175. 129  Veldmeijer & Laidler, in History of Science, Technology, and Medicine, 1216-217; Hampson, “Men at Work”, 175. 130  Forbes, Ancient Technology. Volume V, 24-25; Lucas & Harris, Materials and Industries, 35. 131   Of this motif, only the base of a three-legged trestle with the feet of a standing man beside it is preserved in the scene of Ukh-hotep II (B4), but it is probable that this is the task being performed [S177]. Drenkhahn, Handwerker, 7; Schwarz, Altägyptisches Lederhandwerk, cat. A.10. 125

 Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 72-73.  Stevens & Eccleston, in Egyptian World, 158; Brewer & Teeter, Egypt and the Egyptians, 93. 134  Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 73; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 91. 135   Griffith, Beni Hasan. Part III, 34-38; Forbes, Ancient Technology. Volume V, 22; Stocks, in Oxford Encyclopedia, . 136   Group models portraying multiple processes are largely confined to food preparation, with bread-making, brewing and slaughtering regularly combined, as was discussed in chapters 2.4 and 2.6. 137   The figures are arranged within an architectural structure, with each craft confined to its own section. Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen: AEIN 1633. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, pl. 46b; Jørgensen, Catalogue: Egypt I, cat. 54. 132 133

156

Craft Production

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

two brick-making models [M151-M155]. These corpora enabled model owners to be supplied with more than one type of manufactured good but did not portray the same connections between the different processes that could be achieved in wall scenes. Although rarely attested in the two- and three-dimensional repertoires, leatherwork representations in both scenes and models focus on the manufacture of sandals. This item was clearly the most desired commodity of the industry for the funerary sphere and therefore forms the focus of the representations. Both media depict the task of cutting the soles, and while they exhibit a number of similarities, differences also occur which result from their individual technical capabilities. The three-dimensional medium is solely confined to this task, presenting a particularly condensed representation, whereas scenes illustrate a greater number of activities. It seems that models of sandals were preferred for the substructure, with representations of their manufacture, like other craft production processes, considered a supplementary theme only included among some extensive model assemblages.

157

6 Miscellaneous 6.1 Military

and all are found in the cemetery of Beni Hassan, suggesting a regional preference for the theme. These scenes are located on the east walls of the tombs of Baqet III (15 UC), Khety (17 UC), Khnumhotep I (14 UC) and Amenemhat (2 UC) [S76, S96, S122, S158-S159], and in each example, the siege of a fortress is displayed with a battle between two opposing Egyptian forces.11 It has also been suggested that two tombs at Deir el-Bersha originally contained similar scenes that have not been preserved. This conclusion, postulated by Newberry and adopted by Schulman, is based on the appearance of wrestling scenes in the tombs of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) and Neheri (N-4).12 While wrestling is displayed immediately above all four Beni Hassan battle scenes, other examples show pairs of wrestlers without any associated military combat.13 It should therefore not be assumed that these two tombs likewise contained military scenes, although this remains a possibility.

The military was an important force in ancient Egypt that was utilised not only in warfare, but also in trading and quarrying expeditions as well as other civil tasks.1 During the Old Kingdom, there was apparently no need for a permanent standing army as troops of young men were temporarily conscripted to serve specific tasks when required.2 Once assembled, these men served under the authority of high administrative officials rather than trained military commanders.3 A similar situation continued in the First Intermediate Period, although provincial governors had command of their own local forces at this time.4 These regional troops could be called upon by the king, but also gave the nomarchs increasing independent power, especially significant during a period of civil strife.5 In the Middle Kingdom, the provincial armies continued until the second half of the 12th Dynasty, but were augmented by a professional military force under the direct command of the king.6 It was not until the New Kingdom, however, that the military became a more influential force with the development of a large permanent standing army.7

Among the three-dimensional medium, military representations are likewise particularly uncommon. The earliest extant example which dates to the Predynastic Period, is fashioned of earthenware and depicts two warriors defending an enclosure wall.14 Only a single Old Kingdom example has been identified and this comprises a single male figure carrying a spear from Naga ed-Deir.15 More examples are known from the Middle Kingdom, but they are still restricted in number and solely display processions of marching soldiers.16 From the sites investigated in this study, three examples were found in the

Although the military served an important role in ancient Egyptian society, very few military representations are known. Battle scenes appear quite frequently in royal contexts, particularly in New Kingdom temples, but are rarely found in private tombs.8 In fact, only two examples are known from the Old Kingdom, namely those in the late 5th Dynasty tombs of Kayemheset at Saqqara and Inti at Deshasha.9 During the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom, this number only slightly increases, with a total of eight provincial examples known.10 Four of these originate from the three sites under investigation,

 Gaballa, Narrative, 39-40; Schulman, “Battle scenes”, JSSEA 12, (1982), 176-78; Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 9. 12   On the west wall on the outer room of Djehuty-hotep’s tomb, a scene of wrestling is displayed in the upper registers; the lower part of the wall has been significantly damaged with the scenes largely lost. Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, 14. Similarly, only a single piece of the right half of the north wall of the tomb of Neheri has survived, and this includes a wrestling scene. Newberry & Griffith, El Bersheh. Part II, 29, pl. 11.7; Schulman, “Battle scenes”, JSSEA 12, (1982), 166, 168. 13   The tomb of Baqet I (29 UC) at Beni Hassan, for example, displays a scene of wrestlers in the upper register of the west panel of the south wall with the space below occupied by scenes related to agriculture and animal husbandry. Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 32. Similarly, on the north wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir, three pairs of wrestlers appear in the second register and are surrounded by vignettes of offeringbearers, singing and dancing, agriculture and marshland activities. Although, a series of weapons is arranged in the register immediately above. Furthermore, the tomb of Ukh-hotep I (B2) at Meir depicts four pairs of wrestlers above two registers of offering-bearers on the north wall. Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pls. 78-79, 89. 14  Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908 E.3202. Crowfoot Payne, Predynastic Egyptian Collection, cat. 27; McDermott, Warfare, 18. 15   Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 275-77, fig. 214. 16   Kroenke has identified a total of six provenanced examples from the Middle Kingdom: two from the tomb of Mesehti at Asyut, one from Deir el-Bahri, and three from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) at Deir elBersha. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 276. 11

 Hayes, Sceptre of Egypt. Part I, 277; Shaw, Egyptian Warfare, 25; Partridge, Fighting Pharaohs, 3. 2  Faulkner, “Egyptian military organization”, JEA 39, (1953), 32-33; Shaw, Egyptian Warfare, 25; Gutgesell, in Egypt, 365. 3   Schulman, in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Volume I, 28990; Gnirs, in Oxford Encyclopedia, ; Lloyd, Ancient Egypt, 115-16; Shaw, War & Trade, 14. 4  Partridge, Fighting Pharaohs, 83; Spalinger, in Pharaoh’s Land and Beyond, 95. 5   Moreno Garcia, in Studies on War, 33; Spalinger, in Pharaoh’s Land and Beyond, 109-10. 6  Faulkner, “Egyptian military organization”, JEA 39, (1953), 37; Spalinger, in Ancient Egyptian Administration, 423. 7  Shaw, Egyptian Warfare, 26; Partridge, Fighting Pharaohs, 88. 8  Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 100; O’Connor, in Never had the Like Occurred, 169. 9  Kanawati & McFarlane, Deshasha, pl. 27; McFarlane, Mastabas at Saqqara, pl. 48; Mourad, “Siege scenes”, BACE 22, (2011), 135-44. 10   Schulman has identified two scenes from Assasif, one from Mo’alla, another from Aswan and four from Beni Hassan. Schulman, “Battle scenes”, JSSEA 12, (1982), 165-66. 1

159

Preparing for Eternity tomb of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) at Deir el-Bersha [M156M157] and a tentative fourth example said to be from Meir [M257].17 The latter, however, should be examined with caution as it is probable that it is a forgery and will consequently not be further analysed in this study.18 The military theme is certainly restricted in number in both the two- and three-dimensional repertoires, and this may be associated with the status of the artworks’ owners.

walk in single or double file with the same leg advanced, displaying strict order and discipline in their arrangement and movement [M156-M157; see fig. 6.1]. This may be paralleled in wall scenes where soldiers advance towards a battle or process bringing supplies. On the east wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC), for example, a file of soldiers apparently running towards the combat on the right of the sixth register, followed by men walking while carrying supplies, display similar motion [S122]. All of the men advance with the same leg and progress in single file, although the first group closely overlap each other in their faster movement. However, a point of difference between the representations is found in the positioning of the arms. In one of the models of Djehuty-nakht (R10A), each figure advances with the left leg and swings the opposite arm forward [M156; fig. 6.1]. Conversely, in the scene of Khnumhotep I (14 UC), the same leg and arm of each soldier carrying supplies are advanced. This should most likely be attributed to the limited perspective of the two-dimensional medium that required the limbs furthest from view to be positioned in front for both to be seen. The scene-artist had to adapt his design to overcome this limitation, whereas the model-artist could present a more realistic portrayal of the soldiers’ movement.

All five tomb owners identified from Meir, Deir elBersha and Beni Hassan who included either two- or three-dimensional military representations in their burials served as governor of their respective nome.19 By the First Intermediate Period, provincial rulers had command over their own forces which they could use for their own benefit and/or dispatch for the king’s service.20 Beni Hassan and Deir el-Bersha, in particular, were major centres of military activity during the Middle Kingdom, so it is not surprising that many of the known military representations are identified in these provinces.21 Given the importance of military victory in the First Intermediate Period, authorities of the Middle Kingdom adopted new values that celebrated heroic behaviour.22 This is reflected in autobiographies of the period that highlight military success, such as that of Amenemhat (2 UC) which records three successful expeditions to the south, two of which were accompanied by royalty.23 The depiction of military activities also probably reflects the role of the governor during his lifetime. This theme may have therefore not been accessible to individuals of lower status and should be considered a supplementary addition for ruling elite who desired to highlight their military success.

Differences are also found in the media’s portrayal of the soldiers’ attire. The three-dimensional medium presents a more simplified representation, with the men in Djehutynakht’s (R-10A) models all wearing simple, white-painted knee-length kilts without any additional features [M156M157; see fig. 6.1].24 Wall scenes, in contrast, exhibit much greater detail and variety in the soldiers’ attire, with some garments specifically designated to certain roles. In the scene of Khety (17 UC), for example, the soldiers equipped with close-combat weaponry wear short kilts, some of which have sashes tied around the waist and/or hanging pendant pieces [S96; fig. 6.4]. The archers, on the other hand, are identified by their crossed chest-bands and some also by the pouches worn at their waist and/or the feathers in their hair.25 Such diversity in design could be easily achieved in two-dimensions as minute elements could be easily drawn on the wall surface, whereas such intricacies were more difficult to accomplish in threedimensions.

While the two-dimensional military illustrations display soldiers engaged in battle, the three-dimensional representations solely exhibit files of marching soldiers. In the models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), the soldiers  Only two of the three models of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) were available for examination through images. This assemblage of three military models comprises the greatest known quantity of armed model groups from a single burial. However, the corpus of Mesehti from Asyut contains a greater number of model soldiers, with 80 figures across two models. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 257, CG 258. Pirelli, in Egyptian Treasures, 108-11; Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 158. 18  Personal correspondence with collection technician Cheryl Copson from the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto has indicated that the model is most likely a forgery. The features that give weight to this conclusion include the non-standard shaping of the figures’ bodies, the unusual colouring and design of the kilts, the feet are carved yet still sink into the baseboard, the figures step forward with different legs, the non-standard shape of the shield and the way in which the defensive weapon is carried, and the too well-preserved paint on the baseboard. 19  Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), Baqet III (15 UC), Khety (17 UC), Khnumhotep I (14 UC) and Amenemhat (2 UC) all held the title of nomarch, while Amenemhat also served as ‘overseer of the great army of the Oryx nome’. Schulman, “Battle scenes”, JSSEA 12, (1982), 180. 20  Faulkner, “Egyptian military organization”, JEA 39, (1953) 37; Spalinger, in Pharaoh’s Land and Beyond, 109-10. 21  Faulkner, “Egyptian military organization”, JEA 39, (1953) 36; McDermott, Warfare, 42. 22   Moreno Garcia, in Studies on War, 29. 23  Amenemhat speaks of his own army rather than that of the king, demonstrating his power and independence as a nomarch. Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 22; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, 26-27; Spalinger, in Pharaoh’s Land and Beyond, 97. 17

While the soldiers portrayed in the models of Djehutynakht (R-10A) are exclusively Egyptian, wall scenes highlight the diversity of ethnicities that were recruited. Foreign mercenaries were employed in the Egyptian army from as early as the Old Kingdom,26 and scenes distinguish   The Egyptian spearmen in the model of Mesehti from Asyut, however, wear short, white-painted kilts with the added detail of a pendant piece at the front. This model is particularly finely carved which may account for the greater detail displayed in attire. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 257, CG 258. Pirelli, in Egyptian Treasures, 108-11. 25   Some of these details are specific to Nubian mercenaries employed as archers. Schulman, “Battle scenes”, JSSEA 12, (1982), 177; Brovarski, in Egyptian Culture and Society. Volume I, 65; Mourad, “Foreigners at Beni Hassan”, BASOR 384, (2020), 111. 26  Redford, Slave to Pharaoh, 20; Gnirs, in Oxford Encyclopedia, ; Spalinger, in Ancient Egyptian 24

160

Miscellaneous Asyut displays a company of 40 Nubian archers marching in 10 rows.30 The model is very finely carved, allowing distinguishing Nubian features to be clearly conveyed, including their black skin, a decorated yellow or red loincloth with pendant piece, and a painted necklace and anklets.31 Interestingly, these Nubians are separated from the Egyptian soldiers who are represented on their own baseboard rather than integrated into the same artwork.32 In wall scenes, Nubian archers are often scattered among the Egyptian troops, already engaged in battle,33 whereas in the models, the soldiers process as distinct groups. As the three-dimensional figures are not yet engaged in combat, the figures required a different arrangement than is exhibited in scenes. This representation of foreigners is rare among military models,34 and demonstrates the unusually expansive size dedicated to this theme by Mesehti. The three-dimensional medium is also more condensed in the range of weapons portrayed. In the better preserved model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), the soldiers alternate in holding shields and quivers [M156; fig. 6.1], while the remains of the other two military models from the burial suggest the presence of quivers, bows and shields [M157].35 Wall scenes, conversely, display a wide variety of equipment, some of which is held at rest while others are in use, including bows and arrows, stones, slingshots, battle-axes, daggers, spears, sticks and shields. Not only did the greater amount of space dedicated to the theme accommodate this, but the display of actual combat presumably contributed to the representation of more weapons. The siege on the fortress required the use of long-range weaponry while the

Figure 6.1. Military model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), with four soldiers alternately equipped with shields and quivers [M156]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.803.

these individuals by their skin colour, hairstyles, clothing and equipment. In the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC), for example, Nubian archers are employed in the attack on the fortress: in the fourth register of the north panel, the archer stringing his bow has the characteristic short curly hair with protruding feather of the Nubian [S158; fig. 6.2].27 Nubians were particularly valued as bowmen and are typically portrayed in this role in representations of the Egyptian army.28 Additionally, the scene of Amenemhat incorporates Asiatic mercenaries: in the hand-to-hand combat displayed on the south panel, three Asiatic soldiers advance on the right of the fifth register [S159; fig. 6.3]. The men are identified as Asiatics by their yellow skin, coiffed hair, short pointed beards, decorated kilts, and the throwsticks and fenestrated eye-axe that they carry.29

 Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 257. Pirelli, in Egyptian Treasures, 108-09. 31   The figures also share a number of features with the Egyptians displayed in the other military model from the tomb, including short hair, white fillets tied around the heads, cosmetic lines around the eyes and similar facial features, which may reflect an acceptance of Nubians into Egyptian society. Roth, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 165-66. 32  Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 258. Pirelli, in Egyptian Treasures, 108-11. 33  While Nubian archers are scattered throughout the Egyptian army, Asiatic mercenaries usually remain in their own groups. In the scene of Khnumhotep I (14 UC), for example, a row of five Asiatics appears to the right of the fortress in the fourth register, while a second group of four stands at the extreme right of the sixth register [S122]. Similarly, in the scene of Khety (17 UC), a file of at least 10 Asiatic men stand to the right of the fortress behind two archers in the sixth register [S96; fig. 6.4]. While Newberry’s record suggests that the skin of one of the men in the middle of the group is dark, more recent documentation by the Australian Centre for Egyptology has indicated that the man actually has yellow skin, suggesting that he too is Asiatic. Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 15. 34  The Middle Kingdom military model from Deir el-Bahri similarly includes two Nubian archers, but the size of the original model is unknown as only these two figures and some equipment have survived. Naville, Deir el-Bahari. Part I, 46; Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 102; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 276. 35   Freed and Doxey have postulated that the figures holding shields in the better preserved model may have originally held a second weapon in their pendant hands as the lowered right hand is carved while the parallel arms of the other two figures terminate as pegs [M156; fig. 6.1]. This seems probable as the hands are clenched and appear to have a hole piercing their grip which would have originally helped to secure an object. While Freed and Doxey have suggested that this item was originally a bow, this identification cannot be determined with certainty from the surviving evidence. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 158. 30

Although the military models examined in this study do not include foreigners, an example from the tomb of Mesehti at

Administration, 448; Moreno Garcia, “Trade and power”, JArchRes 25.2, (2017), 117. 27  Booth, Role of Foreigners, 9; Roth, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 163-65. 28  Partridge, Fighting Pharaohs, 45; Spalinger, in Ancient Egyptian Administration, 451-52. 29  While the throwstick had been utilised in the hunt for birds in the marshes by the Egyptians from as early as the Predynastic Period, the tool was regularly used as a weapon in battle by Asiatics. Shaw, Egyptian Warfare, 31; Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”, 138, 351.

161

Preparing for Eternity

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

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

162

Miscellaneous hand-to-hand battles exploit close-combat equipment. As is witnessed in the scene of Khety (17 UC), the archers stand closest to the fortress as they begin their attack while the soldiers equipped with close-range weapons stand behind, awaiting the siege [S96; fig. 6.4]. This creates an expansive representation that highlights the different weapons employed in a single battle.

included in some wall scenes, such as on all shields carried by soldiers in the representation of Amenemhat (2 UC) [S158-S159; figs. 6.2, 6.3]. However, some differences may be noticed in the way the shields are carried. As the two-dimensional medium is restricted in the range of viewpoints it can portray, the shields in scenes are solely portrayed in full view, conveying their most characteristic aspect. The defensive weapon is held in front of the body and consequently conceals the bearer’s arm and the rear side of the shield. Conversely, the funerary model has the advantage of working in three-dimensions, allowing both sides of the shield to be conveyed. When viewed from one angle, the defensive weapon is held against the soldier’s side, hiding most of his body, but when viewed from the opposite side, the back of the shield with the hand grasping the handle is on display. Consequently, both media encapsulate the same shield but achieve this according to their specific capabilities.

Although there is a vast difference in quantity, the weapons that are represented by both media exhibit many similarities in design. The quivers carried by the soldiers in the model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) and in the scene of Baqet III (15 UC) are long and rectangular in shape and are decorated with patches indicating they are fashioned of animal hide [M156, S76; see fig. 6.1].36 However, one note of difference may be seen in the portrayal of the contents. Quivers could be used to carry a range of weapons, including arrows, staffs, spears and javelins.37 While the scene of Baqet III displays several pointed tips extending out the top of each quiver, the model quivers of Djehutynakht are enclosed. This minute detail would have been more difficult to craft in three-dimensions, and this may perhaps explain the difference in design.

While there is some similarity in the depiction of the soldier and his equipment between wall scenes and models, the media differ vastly in the content of their representations. Two major aspects of scenes that dominate the compositions are entirely absent from models: fortresses and combat. In the four Beni Hassan scenes, the attack is directed against a large fortress which fills the height of two registers [S76, S96, S122, S158; see figs. 6.2, 6.4]. Each fortress is shown in elevation, with one or two gateways, sloping banks attached to the sides and a series of turrets lining the top of the wall.42 The Egyptian landscape was familiar with fortresses, particularly during the 12th Dynasty with the construction of the Second Cataract Forts. These landmarks, positioned at strategic points along the river, served to secure trade routes, facilitate the exploitation of natural resources, and monitor local populations.43 The three-dimensional medium, on the other hand, does not encapsulate such structures, and architectural features are indeed rare among models outside of representations of granaries.44 Instead, the sole focus of military models is on the soldiers and their equipment.

Further similarities may be identified in the manner in which the quivers are carried. The model soldiers each hold the left arm out straight and lean the quiver back against the arm and shoulder [M156; fig. 6.1]. Likewise, the three men transporting supplies in the middle of the eighth register of the scene of Baqet III (15 UC) lean quivers against their outstretched arms [S76]. However, the scene is more detailed in its representation, with each man curving his hand to support the quiver from underneath and one soldier bending his elbow. The model soldiers carrying quivers, conversely, exhibit straight stick-like arms without hands. Not only was a straight arm with limited definition much easier to craft in threedimensions, but as the quivers were pegged to the arms,38 no additional support from underneath was required. Moreover, similarities may be identified in the representation of the shield. Prior to the New Kingdom, shields formed the principal mode of protection for soldiers.39 The typical round-topped shape of the Egyptian shield is portrayed in both media and the patch decoration indicates a leather construction which would have been firm enough to protect its bearer from attack while remaining light for manoeuvrability.40 The two shields in the model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) have a defined border with small black-painted dots, quite likely indicative of the stitching used to secure the leather to the wooden frame [M156; fig. 6.1].41 This minute detail of stitching is also

The second dominant feature of wall scenes is the battle itself, which in the Beni Hassan illustrations takes place between two opposing Egyptian forces [S76, S96, S122, S158-S159].45 All four scenes present a similar battle, with the siege against the fortress opened by a barrage of arrow fire and followed by men carrying close-combat   A fortress likewise appears in the two Old Kingdom military scenes of Kayemheset and Inti, but the structure is shown in ground plan rather than elevation. Schulman, “Battle scenes”, JSSEA 12, (1982), 179; Kanawati & McFarlane, Deshasha, pl. 27; McFarlane, Mastabas at Saqqara, pl. 48; Monnier, “Iconographie égyptienne”, ENiM 7, (2014), 175-76. 43  Trigger, Nubia, 64-74; Adams, Nubia, 183-87; Taylor, Egypt and Nubia, 17-19; Smith, Wretched Kush, 76. 44   An exception is found in the Predynastic military model that depicts a curved enclosure wall, the top of which is wavy and has one external buttress. This model, however, does not depict a complete structure, but rather a single defensive wall. Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908 E.3202. Crowfoot Payne, Predynastic Egyptian Collection, cat. 27. 45   Schulman, “Siege warfare”, NH 73.3, (1964), 15; Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 9. 42

 Partridge, Fighting Pharaohs, 28; McDermott, Warfare, 71.  McDermott, Warfare, 69. 38  McDermott, Warfare, 72. 39  Partridge, Fighting Pharaohs, 52; Shaw, Egyptian Warfare, 32-34. 40  Gonen, Weapons, 65-67; Hoffmeier, in Oxford Encyclopedia, ; Brier & Hobbs, Daily Life, 251-53. 41  Gonen, Weapons, 67; Hayes, Sceptre of Egypt. Part I, 278; Peck, Material World, 197. 36 37

163

Preparing for Eternity weapons who await the next stage of attack. A series of hand-to-hand combats is also displayed, somewhat separated from the attack on the fortress. In three of the scenes, these vignettes are largely confined to the register below the fortress [S76, S96, S122], while in the scene of Amenemhat (2 UC) they are positioned on a different panel of the same wall, divided by the entrance to the shrine [S158-S159; figs. 6.2, 6.3]. Such separation may indicate that the hand-to-hand combat took place away from the fortress, somewhere in the plains.46 On the contrary, no combat is portrayed in funerary models. Instead, the soldiers simply march in procession with their weapons at rest, suggesting that they are providing supplies rather than engaging in attack [M156-M157; see fig. 6.1].47 There is no presence of an enemy, with only those soldiers serving the tomb owner displayed.

than impress visitors, so depicting a specific location and battle would not have been required. Instead, the focus is on the strict discipline of the soldiers who march in an orderly procession and the weapons they have at their disposal. Perhaps a more appropriate comparison may be conducted with scenes of armed attendants. On the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir elBersha, for example, a procession of attendants appears in the lowest register [S209; fig. 6.5]. The figures all advance with their left leg and have their feet flat on the ground. They carry a range of equipment and weaponry, including bows and arrows, staffs, spears, battle-axes and a large round-topped shield. The scene is not connected with any military battle, but rather appears among vignettes of agriculture, food preparation and craft production as well as a procession of Djehuty-hotep’s family.49 The role of the attendants may be to protect the governor during the inspection of his territories or function as a form of honour guard.50 In either case, the focus is on the protection that the men provide for the tomb owner without any need for military engagement. This seems to align more closely with the military models which likewise display armed men walking in procession while carrying weapons at rest. Housed in the burial chamber, the model soldiers were most likely designed to provide protection for the deceased in the afterlife.

This vast difference in content may perhaps be explained by the location of the two media. The Beni Hassan military scenes are displayed in the chapel and are located on the wall opposite the entrance, causing all visitors to see them immediately upon entering the tomb. Therefore, the two-dimensional representations serve as a public expression of the power, influence and achievements of the tomb owner. The scenes may even record specific events that would be remembered and commemorated by the living.48 Conversely, military models are housed in the burial chamber where they are only viewed by the deceased. Accordingly, the three-dimensional soldiers were designed to serve their master in the afterlife rather

Not only were battles more appropriate for display in the public part of the tomb, but representations of combat and violence would not have been acceptable in the substructure where every effort was made to protect the body of the deceased from harm. As will be further explored in chapter 7, animate beings were largely excluded from the walls of substructures in order to protect the deceased from any threat they might pose. It is therefore surprising that model figures equipped with weapons could even be included in burial chambers as they had the potential to cause harm. For tomb owners such as Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) who interred three-dimensional military representations in their burials, the desire for eternal protection must have outweighed the danger posed by the soldiers and their weapons. As the military models depict disciplined soldiers, they were presumably well-trained and may have represented individuals personally known and trusted by the tomb owner. While this theme was not often included among model assemblages, the practice of interring weapons was relatively common: shields are regularly found on model boats, either attached to canopies or held by individuals on board, and both real and replica weapons were deposited in tombs. These items appear in the burials of individuals of differing social status, age and gender.51 In the burial of Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) at Beni Hassan, for

  Although Schulman has classified the hand-to-hand combat on the south panel of Amenemhat’s (2 UC) east wall as being a separate affair to the siege on the north panel, it seems more likely that the two scenes should be understood as the one event, as is found in the other Beni Hassan examples. The separation instead may be a means to differentiate between the attack on the fortress and the hand-to-hand combat taking place nearby and also result from the cutting of the entry to the shrine into the centre of the wall. Schulman, “Battle scenes”, JSSEA 12, (1982), 178. 47   Additionally, the type of weaponry carried by the model soldiers does not indicate that they are about to engage in attack. In the better preserved model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A), only shields and quivers are carried, with no offensive equipment prepared, although it is possible that two of the men originally carried an additional weapon in their hanging right hands [M156; fig. 6.1]. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 158. 48  The Beni Hassan battle scenes are regularly aligned in scholarship with the civil strife that occurred during the First Intermediate Period as it is clear that all four battles take place between two Egyptian camps. It is also possible, however, that they record factions between the nomes during the Middle Kingdom. The tombs of Baqet III (15 UC) and Khety (17 UC), dating to the 11th Dynasty, may indeed record battles of the First Intermediate Period, but the tombs of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) and Amenemhat (2 UC), dating to the 12th Dynasty, seem too distanced from this tumultuous period. The fact that there is great similarity between all four scenes may suggest that the theme became part of the genre of the region and was adopted by each of the owners, regardless if they themselves were engaged in the original battle. This may perhaps be further supported by the fact that the scenes become smaller and less complex over time. Alternatively, the close association between wrestling and military activity on each of the tomb walls has led to the suggestion that the battles are training for the soldiers rather than historic events. The scenes do not include any accompanying inscriptions that would make certain the nature of the combat depicted, but it seems most likely that they record actual combat that occurred under the authority of the tomb owner. Gaballa, Narrative, 40; Schulman, “Battle scenes”, JSSEA 12, (1982), 180-83; Shaw, in Battle in Antiquity, 244-46; Brovarski, in Egyptian Culture and Society. Volume I, 66; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, 26-27; Bestock, Violence and Power, 256-58; Kanawati, in Death is Only the Beginning, 62. 46

  It should be noted that the wall has incurred significant damage, with a number of scenes missing, but there are no surviving traces that indicate any military combat was originally represented. Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pl. 24. 50   Kamrin, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 224. 51  McDermott, Warfare, 72; Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 144-46. 49

164

Miscellaneous

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

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

165

Preparing for Eternity example, seven actual arrows were identified, all equipped with sharp flint points and fletching.52 Djehuty-nakht (R10A), alternatively, interred alongside his model soldiers a large collection of model weapons, including sticks, arrows and shields.53 The placement of weapons, both model and actual, in the tomb without soldiers may have been considered a comparatively safe option for protection that was preferred over military models by many tomb owners.

royal visual culture express the notion of the foreigner as an enemy of maat, other types of texts and artworks as well as archaeological data present a much more complex relationship.59 Foreigners could be enemies, subjects, allies, trading partners or even fully assimilated into Egyptian culture.60 Such a distinction between ideology and reality is expressed clearly by Loprieno’s concepts of topos and mimesis: topos signifies an idealised view of the world while mimesis reflects the reality of everyday experience.61 Egyptian relations with foreigners were certainly complex and varied according to each situation.

Unlike a number of themes in the two- and threedimensional repertoires, the differences dominate in the military representations, with great contrast in the content displayed between the two media. Wall scenes present large illustrations of battle, whereas models simply depict processions of soldiers without any combat. In fact, the models seem to align more closely with the auxiliaries bringing supplies in battle scenes and with illustrations of armed attendants in non-combat contexts. These differences should most likely be attributed to the contrasting location of the two media, with scenes functioning as a public proclamation of the tomb owner’s authority and earthly achievements, and models providing protection for the deceased in the afterlife. Therefore, the design of each artwork was carefully selected according to the medium’s specific role and location in the tomb.

A study of Egyptian artistic representations reveals a range of interactivity between the local population and foreigners. In royal scenes of the Old Kingdom, foreigners are typically displayed in attitudes of supplication or captivity before the Egyptian king.62 Conversely, private tomb scenes of the same period occasionally include foreigners in the role of servants, officials and soldiers.63 During the First Intermediate Period, when Egypt was divided internally, foreigners largely appear in the capacity of mercenaries fighting alongside Egyptian troops.64 After the re-unification of the country at the beginning of the Middle Kingdom, interaction with foreigners significantly increased, particularly during the 12th Dynasty with an intensification of trading activity, military expeditions and a consolidation of Egypt’s borders.65 Many of the provincial elite convey the regular contact with foreigners

6.2 Foreigners The ancient Egyptians viewed the land of the Nile Valley as the centre of the ordered universe which required protection from the surrounding chaotic foreign realms. The foreigner was accordingly classified as the Other, made distinct from the Egyptian identity.54 As Egypt was protected by natural boundaries, it was able to maintain a relatively stable and secure position in its region of the world.55 However, engagement with other nations was still required for securing trade routes, importing desirable commodities, and eventually for gaining territory.56 Three main groups of foreign neighbours were identified in Egyptian ideology by the Old Kingdom: Libyans to the north and west, Asiatics to the north and east, and Nubians to the south.57 In Egyptian artistic representations, these foreigners were sharply distinguished from Egyptians, with each group characterised by individual stereotyped and exaggerated features.58 While ancient literature and

and Beyond, 67; Saretta, Asiatics, 48; Smith, “Ethnicity”, JEgH 11.1-2, (2018), 114-16. 59  O’Connor, in Never had the Like Occurred, 155-57; Smith, in Egyptian World, 239; Roth, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 156; Moreno Garcia, State in Ancient Egypt, 101. 60  Once foreigners lived in Egypt and adopted Egyptian ideology, they were no longer considered part of the chaotic realm beyond Egypt’s borders and could be accepted as part of the local population. Additionally, Egyptians are known to have lived outside their homeland. O’Connor, in Never had the Like Occurred, 159; Schneider, in Egyptian Archaeology, 144; Shaw, War & Trade, xv; Mourad, “Foreigners at Beni Hassan”, BASOR 384, (2020), 108. 61  Loprieno, Topos und Mimesis, 10-13. 62   A subtle change occurred in the 5th Dynasty with the first representation of a possible trading expedition in the mortuary temple of Sahure at Abusir. This presented a more peaceful relation with Egypt’s neighbours than had previously been portrayed. Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 70; Saretta, Asiatics, 46, 58-59. 63   While Roth has suggested that foreigners exclusively appear in royal artworks during the Old Kingdom, a number of elite tombs of the period do include foreigners among their representations: on the outer jamb of the northern false door on the west wall of the early 5th Dynasty tomb of Seshathetep at Giza, a male offering-bearer labelled NHs(j) ‘Nubian’ presents a linen bag and sandals to the tomb owner; in the early 5th Dynasty tomb of Nesutnefer at Giza, two offering-bearers displayed in the top two registers are labelled ‘Nubians’ and wear headdresses and beards on the outer jamb of the northern false door on the west wall; two siege scenes displayed in the late 5th Dynasty tombs of Kayemheset at Saqqara and Inti at Deshasha involve Asiatics. Kanawati & McFarlane, Deshasha, pl. 27; Kanawati, Tombs at Giza. Volume II, pls. 45, 53; McFarlane, Mastabas at Saqqara, pl. 48; Mourad, “Siege scenes”, BACE 22, (2011), 135-44; Roth, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 162. 64   Roth, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 162; Moreno Garcia, “Trade and power”, JArchRes 25.2, (2017), 117. 65   However, there is a limited number of surviving royal representations of foreigners from the Middle Kingdom, most likely due to the poor preservation of royal pyramid complexes and temples. Grajetzki, Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, 133; Lloyd, Ancient Egypt, 12; O’Connor, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 162.

 Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 160-61, fig. 161.   While some of these weapons may derive from the model soldiers or from the fleet of boats, at least those larger in size were fashioned as their own individual models. Today these are housed in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and include: 21.427, 21.435, 21.438, 15-5-91, 15-5-365, 15-5-366, 15-5-474. Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 146. 54   Roth, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 155; Moreno Garcia, “Ethnicity in ancient Egypt”, JEgH 11.1-2, (2018), 3. 55   The land of Egypt was protected by seas to the north and east, deserts to the east and west, and the cataracts of the Nile to the south. Redford, Slave to Pharaoh, 11; Roth, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 155; Saretta, Asiatics, 45. 56  Smith, Wretched Kush, 56; Kessler, in Egypt, 43. 57  Smith, Wretched Kush, 21; Shaw, War & Trade, xiii-xiv. 58   However, the artistic distinction between each of these peoples was not fully realised until at least the 11th Dynasty. Bader, in Pharaoh’s Land 52 53

166

Miscellaneous they experienced during their lifetimes in their tombs.66 Unlike royal representations which conformed to a strict ideology, scenes in private contexts could convey a more realistic view of these relations. Three-dimensional representations of foreigners in the Middle Kingdom are particularly rare, with only one example identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan. This model, found in the early 12th Dynasty tomb of Useri and Aryt-hotep (181 LC) at Beni Hassan, depicts an Asiatic woman carrying a child on her back [M185; fig. 6.6].67 While a number of provincial tombs from the period display foreign males in their wall scenes participating in a variety of tasks, female foreigners are less common. From the sites of Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, only three tombs were found to contain two-dimensional representations of foreign women, all of which date to the 12th Dynasty: those of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) and Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan, and Ukh-hotep III (C1) at Meir. In these scenes, the women appear among groups of foreigners arriving in Egypt [S122, S188; figs. 6.9, 6.10] or functioning as offering-bearers presenting goods to the Egyptian tomb owner [S193, S217; see fig. 6.7]. Each representation conveys peaceful interactions between foreigners and Egyptian culture, demonstrating the acceptance of the Other by the provincial elite. Asiatics are depicted with several stereotyped features in the 12th Dynasty, including hooked noses, pointed beards, large almond-shaped eyes and yellow skin.68 The female statuette displays some of these characteristics, with particular detail displayed in the carving of her face [M185; fig. 6.6]. In fact, the model exhibits much greater care in the fashioning of her features than is typical for model figures, which was essential for distinguishing her as a foreigner.69 She has thick curved black eyebrows residing above large almond-shaped painted eyes, a long hooked nose with broad nostrils, full lips that are slightly pursed, a square chin, large detailed ears that are pushed forward, crease lines extending from the nose to the corners of the mouth, and yellow skin. Similar facial characteristics are identified in the two-dimensional representations. The Asiatic women portrayed in the third register of the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) display aquiline noses, almond-shaped eyes, full lips and yellow skin [S188; fig. 6.8]. Although both media could encapsulate these defining facial features, the holistic perspective of the three-dimensional medium enabled a comprehensive

Figure 6.6. Model foreign woman of Useri and Aryt-hotep (181 LC), carrying a child on her back [M185]. Image © National Museums Scotland: A.1911.260.

representation of the face, whereas scene-artists were restricted to a profile viewpoint. The hairstyle was another means for scene- and modelartists to convey foreignness in their designs. During the Middle Kingdom, female Asiatics could be displayed with one of two hairstyles: long hair reaching below the shoulders or a style piled on top of the head and held in place by a fillet and/or wedge-shaped protrusion.70 The former is worn by the women in the scene on the north wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC): long black hair hangs down their backs and over their shoulders while a white fillet is secured around the top of their heads [S188; fig. 6.8]. The three-dimensional female figure, in contrast, displays the latter alternative: her black hair is piled on top with bands fastening it in place [M185; fig. 6.6]. Additionally, the top of her head has been flattened and has a small hole drilled slightly off-centre.71 The suggestion that this would have supported a load of offerings seems highly unlikely due to the fact that the flattened area angles down towards the back, the woman’s arm is not upraised to support the load

  During the New Kingdom, the quantity and diversity of private scenes depicting foreigners dramatically increased. O’Connor, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 162; Moreno Garcia, “Trade and power”, JArchRes 25.2, (2017), 109-12. 67   Only one other model of a foreign woman carrying a child on her back is known in all of Egypt. This is an ivory statuette with unknown provenance which is today housed in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 54.994. Smith, “Five small Egyptian works of art”, BMFA 52.290, (1954), figs. 6-7. 68  As Egyptian women are also typically portrayed with yellow skin, additional features were required to distinguish foreign Asiatic women. Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”, 350-53; Saretta, Asiatics, 61-63. 69  Aldred, Middle Kingdom Art, 42; Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, 108; Arnold, in Offerings to the Discerning Eye, 17. 66

  Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”, 350.   Arnold, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 177-78.

70 71

167

Preparing for Eternity as is typical for offering-bearers, and she carries a child.72 Instead, Arnold’s argument that it originally secured a comb is preferred: Arnold draws a comparison with the women displayed on the north wall of the tomb of Ukhhotep III (C1) [S217; fig. 6.7].73 The upper two registers display the tomb owner engaged in the worship of Hathor while the lower three depict him receiving offerings from lines of female offering-bearers.74 Scattered among the rows are women who display the same hairstyle as the statuette: the hair is swept up and kept in place by fillets. Some exhibit the additional feature of an angular wedgeshaped protrusion that appears alone or in combination with a ponytail.75 For example, the fifth woman from the right in the lowest register has a coiffed hairstyle with the protrusion positioned on top of her head. Arnold identifies this feature as a comb and observes parallels with the hairstyles worn by Mesopotamian women as displayed in their representations from the 3rd millennium BC.76 The style also bears a striking resemblance to the statuette, and so it is probable that a comb was originally inserted into the drill hole on top of her head. Scene- and model-artists were clearly aware of such foreign features and both were able to incorporate them into their designs.

the front with a V-shaped neckline; traces of a geometric pattern were identified upon discovery, but these are no longer preserved [M185; fig. 6.6].78 This attire, however, contrasts with the women displayed in the scene of Ukh-hotep III (C2) [S217; fig. 6.7]. While these women apparently share the same hairstyle as the statuette, their clothing comprises more typical Egyptian dress: some wear the male white kilt and others a long tight-fitting dress with shoulder straps and a V-shaped neckline.79 The absence of foreign attire gives these women a more Egyptian appearance and may reflect their mixed origins or a desire to integrate specific foreign features into an Egyptian scene. Footwear forms another element of foreign attire that is displayed in the artworks. While Egyptians, particularly servants, are typically displayed barefoot,80 foreigners may be shown in various types of shoes and sandals. Only the feet and ankles are visible at the bottom of the statuette’s robe, and they are coloured yellow like her skin, but the lack of definition of toes has led to the suggestion that she is wearing boots [M185; fig. 6.6].81 This seems probable as the fingers on her right hand have been individually carved, suggesting that the model-artist would have also detailed the toes if she was barefoot. Furthermore, this representation finds close similarity with the Asiatic women in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC): all four women and the child walking in front wear red ankle boots with a white band around the top [S188; fig. 6.8]. Although the colouring is different, the shoes are of the same style as those of the statuette. Such footwear served as a distinguishing foreign feature that could be encapsulated in both the two- and three-dimensional designs.

Additionally, both media convey the distinctive clothing worn by foreigners. Unlike the plain white of Egyptian linen, foreign garments were fashioned of brightly patterned woollen textiles.77 The Asiatic women in the scene of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) wear long dresses decorated with zigzags, vertical lines and dots coloured red, white and blue [S188; fig. 6.8]. The patterns and colours of the garments alternate so that the closely overlapping figures may be individually distinguished in the two-dimensional perspective. The statuette similarly wears a long red garment which appears to be made of heavy material: it envelops her body and is held closed at

In addition to her facial features, hairstyle and attire, the statuette’s foreignness is conveyed through the method in which she carries her child. Egyptian women typically carried children on their shoulder or astride their hip while foreign women were regularly portrayed with children on their back, sometimes in a basket.82 The child in the model is held against the woman’s back and is enveloped within

  The explanation of a load of offerings was first postulated by the excavator Garstang and adopted by many scholars, including Breasted, Aldred, Bourriau, Tooley and Booth. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 140; Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 97; Aldred, Middle Kingdom Art, 42; Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, 108; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 351-52; Booth, Role of Foreigners, 21. 73   Arnold, in Offerings to the Discerning Eye, 17-31. 74  Arnold, in Offerings to the Discerning Eye, 23; Hudáková, Representations of Women, 496-98. 75   Arnold, in Offerings to the Discerning Eye, 23-24. 76   Arnold believes that as there is no known evidence for direct contact between Egypt and Mesopotamia prior to the early 18th Dynasty, artists must have taken inspiration from Mesopotamian objects that may have reached Egypt through trade and were stored in the temples of Hathor. Conversely, Saretta argues that there is no reason to assume that Mesopotamian musicians and singers who are known to have entered Syria did not continue into Egypt during the 2nd millennium and therefore Egyptian artists may have been acquainted with a certain class of SyroMesopotamian women residing in the country. Mourad also notes the lack of contemporaneous dating between the sources and postulates that the origins of the women should instead be sought in the Delta where there was a Levantine population during this period. What is certain is that the hairstyle demonstrates a foreign influence that artists were familiar with and chose to integrate into their designs. Arnold, in Offerings to the Discerning Eye, 28; Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”, 162-63; Saretta, Asiatics, 164-66. 77  Forbes, Ancient Technology. Volume IV, 229-30; Moreno Garcia, “Trade and power”, JArchRes 25.2, (2017), 119. 72

 Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 140; Arnold, in Offerings to the Discerning Eye, 19. 79   Similarly, the Nubian women at the end of the procession of offeringbearers in the third register of the south wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) are characterised by their foreign hairstyle, but they wear the plain white linen of Egyptian garments [S193]. The tomb of Ukhhotep III (C1) is unique in portraying women conducting tasks typically performed by men. This may explain the male attire worn by some of the women in this scene. For further discussion on the prominence of women in this tomb, see chapter 3.2. Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part VI, 15. 80   Sandals are occasionally worn by the Egyptian elite and priests as well as servants engaged in tasks requiring constant walking or running, as was discussed in chapter 5.3. Siebels, “Wearing of sandals”, BACE 7, (1996), 77-78. 81  Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, 108; Booth, Role of Foreigners, 21. 82  A few examples are known in tomb scenes of the New Kingdom where Egyptian women are portrayed with children carried in slings or robes with only their heads showing, such as on the east wall of the tomb of Neferhotep at Thebes. Malek and Miles postulate that this depiction may reflect the imitation of a custom observed in foreign nurses. Davies, Nefer-ḥotep. Volume I, pl. 23; Malek & Miles, “Early squeezes”, JEA 75, (1989), 227-28. 78

168

Miscellaneous

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

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

169

Preparing for Eternity the robe with only the head visible [M185; fig. 6.6].83 This may be compared with the four Libyan women portrayed in the fourth register of the east wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) who likewise carry children on their backs [S122; fig. 6.9]. The first two on the right each carry a child without any support while the latter two utilise a basket. Like the child in the model, only the heads of the children in the basket are visible. The three-dimensional perspective of the model enabled the precise positioning of the child to be accurately conveyed, whereas the wall scene was hindered in its arrangement by an absence of depth. The human figure was formed of a combination of viewpoints in the two-dimensional medium so that each element could be easily recognised. The shoulders of the women are accordingly presented in full view, so the children appear to be held against the right side of the body rather than in their actual position on the back. Although the scene-artist was required to adapt his design to overcome the limitations of his medium, he was still able to convey this foreign method of carrying children.

in the battle and fight alongside Egyptian soldiers. The close association between the group of foreigners and the siege has led to the suggestion that the group are prisoners of war, but it seems more likely that they are peacefully coming to settle in Egypt, perhaps being escorted by the local army, and are welcomed by the tomb owner.85 Khnumhotep I served as ‘overseer of the eastern desert’ in the Oryx nome and while the exact nature of this role is uncertain, the position would have involved contact with foreigners entering Egypt through the desert.86 Therefore, this scene provides a public proclamation of Khnumhotep’s status and influence over the population of the region. Khnumhotep II (3 UC) likewise served as ‘overseer of the eastern desert’ and he similarly displays the arrival of a group of foreigners on the north wall of his tomb [S188; fig. 6.10].87 There has been much scholarly discussion regarding the purpose of this scene, with a range of suggestions being offered, including the functions of a trading caravan, workers brought for involvement in procuring and/or processing galena, itinerant metalworkers, a commercial project issued by the king, part of the wptrnpt festival of Horus, and as an artistic symbol of the tomb owner’s maintenance of order over chaos.88 The Egyptian official who leads the group offers a document to the tomb owner which dates the event to a specific regnal year of the king.89 This inscription historicises the event, indicating it refers to a specific moment in Khnumhotep’s lifetime.90 The representation makes clear that the group is allowed to enter the noble’s presence and he is the beneficiary of their offerings and services.91 The fact that the group

An alternate transport method is illustrated on the north wall of Khnumhotep II’s (3 UC) tomb where two children are loaded in a sack on the back of a donkey with only their heads visible [S188; fig. 6.10]. As was observed in chapter 3.3, donkeys regularly appear in wall scenes as beasts of burden, transporting harvested grain, but apart from a few rare exceptions, are not ridden by Egyptians.84 Instead, this mode of transport, in addition to the method of carrying children on the back, clearly indicates foreignness, demonstrating that both scene- and model-artists were aware of the distinguishing elements of foreign culture and desired to incorporate them into their designs.

  The fact that the group are led forward by an Egyptian who does not appear to be a soldier, the foreign men are allowed to carry weapons, the group includes children, and foreigners fight alongside Egyptians in the battle all suggest that the foreigners are at least temporarily settling in Egypt and are accepted by Khnumhotep I who desired to record their arrival in his tomb. Schulman, “Battle scenes”, JSSEA 12, (1982), 178; Brovarski, in Egyptian Culture and Society. Volume I, 65; Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”, 137; Shaw, War & Trade, 41; Mourad, “Foreigners at Beni Hassan”, BASOR 384, (2020), 115-17. 86   Aufrère, in Egypt and Nubia, 207; Kamrin, “Aamu of Shu”, JAEI 1.3, (2009), 22; Moreno Garcia, “Trade and power”, JArchRes 25.2, (2017), 114-15. 87   In the two registers above this scene is a representation of the desert hunt, and in the three below are vignettes associated with the land of the Nile Valley. Kamrin, “Aamu of Shu”, JAEI 1.3, (2009), 22-23. 88  Shea, “Artistic balance”, BA 44.4, (1981), 219-28; Goedicke, “Abi-Sha(i)’s representation”, JARCE 21, (1984), 203-10; Kessler, “Asiatenkarawane”, SAK 14, (1987), 147-65; Vernus, “Deux inscriptions du Moyen Empire”, BSEG 13, (1989), 173-81; Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 83; Kamrin, “Aamu of Shu”, JAEI 1.3, (2009), 22-36; Bárta, in Understanding Life in the Borderlands, 34; Kamrin, in Cultures in Contact, 156-69; Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”, 141-50; Cohen, “Interpretative uses and abuses”, JNES 74.1, (2015), 19-38; Saretta, Asiatics, 87-108. 89  The inscription reads, ‘regnal year 6 under the Majesty of Horus, Leader of the Two Lands, King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khakheperre (Senusret II); the number of Asiatics whom the son of the count, Khnumhotep, brought on account of the black eye-paint, namely Asiatics of Shu, number amounting to 37’. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 48. 90   Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”, 142-143; Cohen, “Interpretative uses and abuses”, JNES 74.1, (2015), 33-34. 91   A large-scale figure of the tomb owner appears on the right of the wall and the scene in question is positioned directly at his eye-level indicating that Khnumhotep II directly engages with the group and welcomes their arrival. 85

All of these distinguishing details clearly express the foreign nature of the figures represented, but the purpose of the foreigners’ appearance in each artwork should also be considered. The Libyan women and children displayed on the east wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) are part of a group of foreigners that also includes armed men and animals [S122; fig. 6.9]. The group is led by an Egyptian official who apparently calls them forward with his raised arm and is followed by a soldier who may provide protection. In the three registers above this vignette is a series of wrestling figures while to the left and below is the siege of a fortress. Several foreign mercenaries are included  The child’s body has not been modelled, but a slight bulge on the woman’s back has been identified as either the woman’s back-turned left arm supporting the child or a harness. The former seems more likely as there is a noticeable bend of her left elbow and there is no indication that the arm is held in front. This is further supported by the fact that the women carrying children in the scene of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) each use at least one hand to support the child from underneath [S122; fig. 6.9]. Aldred, Middle Kingdom Art, 42; Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, 108; Arnold, in Offerings to the Discerning Eye, 17. 84  One of the rare examples of an Egyptian riding donkey-back is found on the north and south walls of the tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep at Saqqara where each owner is seated on an elaborate chair suspended over the backs of two donkeys. Moussa & Altenmüller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep, pls. 42-43; Houlihan, Animal World, 2930; Brewer, in History of the Animal World, 446; Houlihan, in History of the Animal World, 106; Kamrin, “Aamu of Shu”, JAEI 1.3, (2009), 26. 83

170

Miscellaneous

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

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

171

Preparing for Eternity includes women and children suggests that they came to settle in Egypt, at least temporarily, and the inscription specifies that their arrival is associated with galena which was a principal ingredient in black eye-paint, so it seems most likely that they were brought into the province to procure and/or process the material.92 The foreigners are certainly portrayed as valued providers of expertise and/ or commodities that benefited the Egyptian elite and their afterlife.93 Portraying their arrival in the public part of the tomb demonstrates Khnumhotep’s desire to commemorate this event for eternity.

women are known to have been involved in the cult.98 The integration of both foreign women and foreign goods into the traditional offering scene highlights the tomb owner’s acceptance of these elements and a desire for continued access to them in the afterlife. While the representation of foreign women in wall scenes can be aligned with the roles of the tomb owners during their lifetimes, the purpose of the funerary model is more difficult to determine. It consists of a single figure and so is not associated with any other themes and is entirely lacking inscriptions.99 The similarities displayed between the figure’s hairstyle and those of the women in Ukh-hotep III’s (C1) scene may associate her with foreign influences adopted by servants of the cult of Hathor, although it seems certain she was not an offering-bearer.100 Alternatively, her dress and the fact that she is carrying a child aligns her with the women displayed in the scenes of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) and Khnumhotep II (3 UC), which may indicate that she was at least a temporary resident of Egypt. Unfortunately, little is known about the status and roles of the model owner. Tomb 181 LC at Beni Hassan belonged to a husband and wife named Useri and Aryt-hotep, but the excavation record does not indicate to whom the model belonged.101 Arnold has observed that the name Arythotep appears in the tomb of Netjer-nakht (23 UC) at Beni Hassan as the mother of the tomb owner and a priestess of Hathor, and suggests the possibility that the two Arythoteps were the same woman.102 Although identification based solely on a name is hazardous, the rarity of this name makes this interpretation a possibility. If correct, then the female tomb owner was involved in the cult of Hathor where she would have presumably interacted with foreign women like Ukh-hotep III (C1). Subsequently, representing foreigners in three-dimensional form may also reflect the daily life experiences of the tomb owners. However, this representation was concealed from view in the burial chamber and so could not proclaim the owner’s status to the living. It may therefore be suggested that the statuette provided a desirable service for the afterlife, possibly related to the tasks performed by foreigners as servants in the home or in the cult of Hathor.

Further engagement with foreigners is displayed on the walls of Khnumhotep II’s (3 UC) tomb with two Nubian women appearing at the end of a line of Egyptian offeringbearers in the third register of the south wall [S193]. While their foreignness is highlighted through their distinct features and hairstyles, their portrayal incorporates several Egyptian features, demonstrating their integration into Egyptian society. They are engaged in a traditional Egyptian role, carry typical Egyptian offerings including jars of drink, a chest for storage and a mirror, and are labelled with Egyptian titles.94 The women probably served in Khnumhotep’s household during life and their portrayal in his tomb indicates he desired their service continually and wanted to display this publicly. The scene of Ukh-hotep III (C1) likewise presents foreigners who are thoroughly integrated into Egyptian society. Foreign women often served in elite households or as musicians and attendants in temples, both functions that may be alluded to in this scene.95 The women are scattered among rows of offering-bearers on the north wall and present a range of both foreign and Egyptian goods to the tomb owner [S217; fig. 6.7].96 Ukh-hotep III served as ‘priest of the Mistress of Heaven’, an epithet of the goddess Hathor whose cult centre was located at Cusae, and it is highly likely this association with the temple influenced the scene’s design.97 Hathor was considered the goddess of distant places and their commodities, creating a connection between her cult and foreigners, and

While the model solely focuses on female foreigners, wall scenes also illustrate male foreigners and integrate them into a variety of scene-types. In the scenes investigated from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, male foreigners appear as members of groups peacefully

 Lucas & Harris, Materials and Industries, 80; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 48; Mourad in Beni Hassan. Volume I, 73, 77-78; Cohen, “Interpretative uses and abuses”, JNES 74.1, (2015), 28. 93   Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 13; Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”, 150. 94   The woman on the left is labelled xtt-pr ‘the household servant’, and the woman on the right, xtt-pr nt at Hnkt ‘the household servant of the kitchen’. Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 66. 95  Arnold, in Offerings to the Discerning Eye, 24-28; Shaw, War & Trade, 49-50. 96   Some of the objects associated with the women are clearly foreign in production: between the second and third figures from the right of the third register is a table on top of which stand two bi-handled vessels. The handles are known from the Levantine ceramic repertoire of the Early to Middle Bronze Age. The vessels also have globular bodies and sharply emphasised rims which Arnold suggests indicates that they are made of metal. Additionally, a wide range of traditional Egyptian offerings are presented, including lotus stems, birds and trays laden with food. Arnold, in Offerings to the Discerning Eye, 24; Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”, 163. 97   Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part VI, 8; Grajetzki, Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, 107. 92

 Bleeker, Hathor and Thoth, 79; Pinch, “Offerings to Hathor”, Folklore 93.2, (1982), 139; Robins, Women, 142-44. 99   The original baseboard has been lost, but as no other similar model figures were found in the tomb, it is probable that the figure was always a single statuette. Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 218; Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, 108. 100   As discussed above, the identification of a comb rather than a load of offerings originally connected to her head in conjunction with the fact that she carries a child indicates she did not serve as an offering-bearer. 101  Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 218. 102  Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, 27; Arnold, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 177-78. 98

172

Miscellaneous entering Egypt, soldiers engaged in military battles,103 pastoralists leading cattle before the tomb owner,104 and accompanying processions of animals.105 Due to the large wall space dedicated to each of these themes, foreigners could be easily integrated into the designs. The threedimensional medium, in contrast, did not have the same advantage of space. A restricted quantity of figures was included in each model and often a single figure was representative of an entire theme. However, an exception is found in two military models of Mesehti from Asyut, one of which displays a company of 40 Nubian archers and the other 40 Egyptian spearmen.106 The large size of both models and the fact that two were commissioned enabled an elaborate representation that incorporated both Egyptian and foreign figures. More commonly, threedimensional representations were condensed to their essential components, causing the integration of foreigners to be a rarely attested addition. The distinguishing characteristics of foreigners were captured in both the two- and three-dimensional media through the careful rendering of the figures’ facial features, hairstyles and attire as well as by the mode in which the women carry their children. Although depictions of foreigners are not particularly common in the Middle Kingdom, the examples identified from Meir, Deir elBersha and Beni Hassan clearly demonstrate that residents of Middle Egypt were engaged with foreigners in their local areas. Wall scenes were able to incorporate foreigners into a wider variety of themes, demonstrating the range of activities in which foreigners were involved in everyday life. It may have been desirable to highlight the tomb owner’s access to foreigners and their commodities in the public part of the tomb, which would explain the greater quantity of representations in the two-dimensional medium. Conversely, with the three-dimensional medium’s focus on provisioning the deceased in the afterlife, the theme of foreigners would not have been considered as necessary and consequently should be understood as supplementary.   The military scenes of Beni Hassan, found in the tombs of Baqet III (15 UC), Khety (17 UC), Khnumhotep I (14 UC) and Amenemhat (2 UC) [S76, S96, S122, S158-S159; see figs. 6.2-6.4], display a battle between two opposing Egyptian forces with the aid of foreign mercenaries, as was discussed in chapter 6.1. 104  Cattle were an important element of the economy of pastoral populations that regularly entered Egypt. As was observed in chapter 4.3, several scenes identified in this study display foreigners leading cattle forward in procession. See, for example, the emaciated herdsmen displayed on the south wall of the tomb of Senbi I (B1) at Meir and on the north, south and west walls of the chapel of Ukh-hotep I (B2) at Meir [S138-S140, S142, S146; see fig. 4.11], and the herdsmen wearing long, highly decorated robes on the south walls of the tombs of Baqet III (15 UC) and Khnumhotep I (14 UC) at Beni Hassan [S80, S126]. Moreno Garcia, “Invaders or just herders?”, WorldArch 46.4, (2014), 613; Moreno Garcia, “Ethnicity in ancient Egypt”, JEgH 11.1-2, (2018), 9-10; Mourad, “Foreigners at Beni Hassan”, BASOR 384, (2020), 121-22. 105   On the north wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan, for example, four male foreigners, presumably Libyans due to the feathers on the head of the first man, appear at the end of a procession of animals in the sixth register [S156]. Mourad, “Rise of the Hyksos”, 13940; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, 39. 106   See chapter 6.1 for further discussion on three-dimensional military representations. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 257, CG 258. Pirelli, in Egyptian Treasures, 108-11. 103

173

7 Survey of Differences between Funerary Models and Wall Scenes The comparative analysis conducted in this study has demonstrated that although wall scenes and funerary models exhibit a number of similarities, there are also several notable differences. As these differences have been discussed throughout the text in relation to each theme, a survey is presented here in order to bring together all of the points identified. The differences between the media may be summarised as follows: their period of use, location in the tomb, artistic repertoire, technical properties, modes of construction, and accessibility to tomb owners. Each of these points will be addressed in turn, followed by a discussion on the potential risks that the tomb owner had to consider in his choice of medium.

from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods.5 The 4th and 5th Dynasty examples are confined to Memphite tombs and consist of single figures who are engaged in a variety of tasks, most commonly those related to food preparation.6 These figures were initially termed ‘servant statues’ by Breasted, but Roth has more recently proposed the designation ‘serving statues’ to prevent their identity and purpose from being assumed.7 This is indeed a more appropriate designation, but the term ‘statuette’ is preferred here to reflect the sculpture’s typically smaller size. Roth has convincingly argued that the serving statuettes served two principal functions in the tomb: to provision the deceased with the sustenance he needed in the afterlife and as cult statues representing known individuals who increased their own chances of a successful afterlife by beneficially serving someone presumably of influence in the Hereafter.8

7.1 Period of use Artistic representations form a central part of tomb design and both funerary models and wall scenes hold an important place in this process. However, there is a clear difference between the media in their period of use. Although isolated examples of scenes painted on tomb walls are known from the Naqada Period and offeringtable scenes existed on tomb-stelae in the Early Dynastic Period, the practice of decorating tomb-chapel walls with scenes only became established in the 3rd Dynasty.1 At first, the repertoire concentrated on the tomb owner before the offering-table, but the range of scenes quickly expanded in the 4th Dynasty with the appearance of so-called ‘scenes of daily life’. These representations remained common throughout the Old Kingdom and even became more extensive as they occupied entire walls of multi-roomed superstructures in the 5th and 6th Dynasties.2 Chapels of the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom maintained the everyday life repertoire, but incorporated new motifs and artistic styles into their designs.3 It was not until the late New Kingdom that daily life scenes gradually began to be replaced by scenes of the afterlife,4 but the two-dimensional medium certainly retained its dominant position in funerary decoration throughout the Pharaonic Period.

However, significant developments in model production occurred in the late 6th Dynasty: the sculptures began to be interred in burial assemblages across Egypt, they were transferred to the burial chamber, they began to be constructed of wood, and they were fashioned as groups of figures arranged on a single baseboard.9 This has led Roth to suggest that the three-dimensional medium no longer functioned as cult statues, but solely as servants working for the benefit of the tomb owner.10 Indeed, this study has identified the primary focus of the models to be provisioning the deceased, although it will be outlined below in chapter 7.4 why the figures should not necessarily be understood as representations of generic servants. Food preparation remained central to the three-dimensional repertoire in the late 6th Dynasty, but new themes were also introduced to the model corpus, with boats and offeringbearers particularly popular.11 Model production continued in the First Intermediate Period and reached its peak in the early Middle Kingdom in terms of quantity, distribution and range of themes

Funerary models likewise originated in the Old Kingdom, with the first examples comprising limestone statuettes housed in serdabs of the 4th and 5th Dynasties, although some precursors fashioned of pottery and ivory are known

 Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 2; Tooley, in Oxford Encyclopedia, . 6   The most common motif comprises a female miller grinding grain on a quern stone. Also frequently found are figures shaping bread loaves and brewers straining beer-mash. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 3-6; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 226. 7  Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 1; Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 103. 8   Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 116-18. 9  Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 7, 16; Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 116-18. 10   Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 118. 11  Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 16-17; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 137-38. 5

 Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 79; Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 97-98, 149; Altenmüller, in Egypt, 81. 2  Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 175; Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 67. 3  Smith, Ancient Egypt, 75; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 186, 200; Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 17. 4  Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 1. 1

175

Preparing for Eternity represented.12 However, manufacture rapidly declined in the late Middle Kingdom, apparently during the reign of Senusret II or Senusret III, when the quantity and variety of models significantly diminished.13 Profound changes in funerary beliefs and practices seem to have occurred at this time, with the concern for a safe journey to the Hereafter becoming paramount, a purpose to which funerary models did not contribute.14 By the New Kingdom, the threedimensional medium had disappeared from elite funerary assemblages.15 This is certainly a much shorter period of use than is witnessed for wall scenes.

from the funerary model where the figures performed activities of daily life that would benefit the deceased by continually provisioning him with any desired goods. It therefore seems that a transformation in funerary beliefs required adaptations to the types of artistic representations employed and so the funerary model was replaced by another three-dimensional artwork that was better suited to freeing the deceased from the demands of physical labour. 7.2 Location in tomb Ideally, a single tomb comprised both a superstructure and substructure, with each section created for a specific purpose. The superstructure consisted of a single room or multi-room chapel that remained accessible to the living as it formed the primary location of the tomb owner’s mortuary cult.23 Priests, family members and passers-by would continue to visit the tomb to present offerings, perform rituals and celebrate festivals for the deceased.24 A vertical or sloping passage led to the substructure which principally comprised the burial chamber where the body was housed. The subterranean part of the tomb was intended to be secure to provide protection for the body and funerary equipment, so was sealed after interment.25 Although wall scenes and models appear in both the superstructure and substructure, for the majority of their use each type of artwork was confined to a single section. The decoration contributed to the function of the chapel and the burial chamber, so an accurate understanding of the role of each medium must consider their individual locations.

The disappearance of funerary models seems to have some correlation with the rise of the shabti and may even be replaced by it. The earliest examples of shabtis have been dated to the 12th Dynasty, although some possible precursors are known from the First Intermediate Period.16 Shabtis increased in number during the late 12th Dynasty, aligning with the time that funerary model manufacture diminished.17 Although shabtis were initially interred in small numbers per burial, this soon increased to large assemblages which remained popular until the end of the Ptolemaic Period.18 Like funerary models, shabtis functioned to benefit the afterlife of the tomb owner, but they were created to address one of the transformations in funerary beliefs, namely that the deceased was required to participate in corvée labour.19 It is commonly accepted in scholarship that the shabti would undertake this obligatory labour so that its master would be free from any physical burden,20 but it has also been suggested that the figure could function as a substitute body for the tomb owner and enable him to participate in the mandatory tasks rather than avoid them.21 Those inscribed with the shabti spell certainly had a servile function that caused them to perform any work for the deceased’s benefit and the figure responds with its willing acceptance of the task.22 This forms a distinct role

The serving statuettes of the 4th and 5th Dynasties were housed in the serdab which was positioned within the superstructure of the tomb. This small sealed chamber contained the statues of the tomb owner and was usually positioned beyond the false door so that the rituals performed and offerings presented could benefit the sculptures.26 A narrow slot was often carved into one wall of the serdab at the statue’s eye-level, enabling the figure to observe the activities of the chapel.27 Apart from the face of the principal statue, the contents of the serdab would not have been visible and so the serving statuettes were not intended for public display. Instead, they were closely associated with the mortuary cult.28

  Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 59; Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 50. 13  Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 67; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 166-67. 14  Grajetzki, Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, 57; Willems, in Ancient Egyptian Administration, 392; Morfoisse, in Sésostris III, 214-15; Oppenheim, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 5; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 181; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Middle Kingdom Palace Culture, 138. 15   Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 67; Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 56; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 168. 16   Some crudely formed wax and mud figures inscribed with personal names that are known from burials of the 9th and 10th Dynasties may form the origin of the shabti. Schneider, Shabtis, 21; Stewart, Egyptian Shabtis, 14-15. 17   Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 84; Bourriau, in Middle Kingdom Studies, 11. 18   Spanel, in Oxford Encyclopedia, ; Howley, “Materiality of shabtis”, CAJ 30.1, (2020), 125. 19  Stewart, Egyptian Shabtis, 8; Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 114. 20  Stewart, Egyptian Shabtis, 8-9; Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 114. 21   Poole, in Proceedings of the Seventh ICE, 896; Assmann, Death and Salvation, 110-11; Shedid, in Egypt, 130; Nyord, “Ancient Egyptian mortuary religion”, JAEI 17, (2018), 75; Nyord, Seeing Perfection, 70. 22  Spencer, Death, 69; Pinch, Magic, 98; Howley, “Materiality of shabtis”, CAJ 30.1, (2020), 124-25. The shabti came to have an 12

agricultural focus during the reign of Thutmose IV in the 18th Dynasty, as evidenced by the specification of agricultural tasks in the shabti spell and the representation of agricultural implements. Spanel, in Oxford Encyclopedia, . 23   D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 54; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 14. 24  Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 95; Richards, Society and Death, 62; Lloyd, Ancient Egypt, 222-24. 25   D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 54; Kanawati, Decorated Burial Chambers, 10. 26  Bolshakov, Man and his Double, 108; Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 103, 106-07; Nyord, Seeing Perfection, 48. 27  Bolshakov, Man and his Double, 107-08; Nyord, Seeing Perfection, 48-49. 28   As the figures probably represented specific individuals who were close to the tomb owner during life, their location in the serdab may have enabled the individuals portrayed to partake in the offerings presented to

176

Survey of Differences between Funerary Models and Wall Scenes Towards the end of the Old Kingdom, when serdabs were no longer architectural features of the tomb, the sculptures of the tomb owner and serving figures were moved to the burial chamber. This became the most popular location for funerary models of the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom.29 Within the substructure, models were positioned in close proximity to the coffin and while the precise placement seems to have been impacted by the space available in the chamber and the size of each model, Tooley has suggested that the eastern side of the coffin was the ideal position as it was here that the eye-panel and false door were depicted.30 It was believed that through these decorative elements the deceased could view the activities performed by the figures and leave the coffin to receive sustenance.31 Consequently, models, like serving statuettes, were concealed from the view of any visitors to the tomb, but their close association with the body and statue of the deceased presents a direct connection between their services and the tomb owner’s afterlife.

tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan, the tomb owner and his wife are each shown at a large scale seated before an offering-table on the south wall [S160-S163]. They face right and are therefore oriented towards the entrance of the chapel in the west wall where visitors would enter the tomb and follow the path of the offeringbearers who process in several registers towards the offering-tables. The interaction between the living and the scenes displayed in the chapel is therefore integral to the two-dimensional medium’s function. For a limited period of time, wall scenes are also known from a select number of burial chambers. The earliest examples of substructures decorated with scenes may be dated to the late 5th Dynasty, perhaps to the reign of Djedkare or Unis.34 Prior to this, walls of substructures were completely void of decoration, although some coffin and sarcophagi bore inscriptions or geometric designs.35 The earliest examples of scenes in burial chambers closely resemble the two-dimensional representations in tomb-chapels, with people and animals from everyday life prominently displayed.36 However, a significant change in decoration soon took place, perhaps at the end of the reign of Unis, when human and animal figures were deliberately removed from the designs.37 Instead, the subterranean scenes concentrated on offering-lists and piles of food and drink. Not only were such designs more appropriate for the burial chamber as they emphasised the provision of nourishment, but they also protected the body from any potential threat posed by the depiction of living creatures.38 Further precaution against harm was also taken in the rendering of hieroglyphic signs, with those representing humans and animals initially avoided or truncated, but in the reign of Pepy II, those of dangerous reptiles were also mutilated.39 The burial chambers of Pepyankh the Middle and his wife Hewetiaah (D2) at Meir,

Wall scenes formed the principal type of representation for the superstructure. As the public part of the tomb, the chapel provided a significant place for self-presentation, enabling the scenes to attract passers-by and impress visitors by conveying the status and wealth of the tomb owner and commemorating his achievements.32 The two-dimensional medium therefore had a living audience who engaged with it. It appears that the scenes could even direct their involvement in the mortuary cult through the type of images represented and their orientation: grand figures of the tomb owner in a passive stance generally face outwards as if waiting to receive the visitors and their offerings, while workmen and offering-bearers are oriented into the tomb, paralleling the direction of the visitors participating in the cult.33 For example, in the the tomb owner in the chapel. Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 116. 29  Models, however, occasionally appear in locations other than the burial chamber: in pits located outside the tomb, within the burial shaft, or in niches cut into the floor of the superstructure. In one unique example, namely the burial of Nakhti from Asyut, the most finely crafted models of the assemblage were placed in the chapel. Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 107; Tooley, in Oxford Encyclopedia, ; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 176-79. 30   A comprehensive understanding of the precise placement of models in burial chambers is hindered by the plundered state of many burials and the poor documentation of many tombs at the time of discovery. Intact burials, however, regularly show models placed on top of the coffin and/ or to one side of it. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 83; Podvin, “Position du mobilier funéraire”, MDAIK 56, (2000), 287. 31  Willems, Chests of Life, 47; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 83. 32   The images could be augmented by textual inscriptions that listed the names, titles and familial relations of the tomb owner and occasionally an autobiographical account that further highlighted his superior status and accomplishments. Kanawati, Tomb and its Significance, 54-55; Hartwig, Tomb Painting and Identity, 52; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 115; Staring, in Old Kingdom, New Perspectives, 258. 33  Fitzenreiter, in Social Aspects of Funerary Culture, 76-77, 95-98; Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 74; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 83. Kamrin, in her discussion on the tomb of Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan, identifies the different orientation of figures as a means to reinforce the overall function of the chapel as a reflection of the cosmos. In particular, images of the tomb owner facing outwards enable him to be a passive figure who receives offerings and homage, while

images of the tomb owner facing inwards portray him as an active figure who ensures order. In this interpretation, the decoration is not dependent on the audience, but it contributes on its own to the eternal survival of the tomb owner and the proper functioning of the cosmos. Kamrin, Cosmos of Khnumhotep II, 148-51. 34   Dawood has identified the earliest example of a decorated burial chamber with secure dating as that of Senedjemib-inti from Giza who served as the vizier under Djedkare. However, it is quite likely that his tomb was created by his son during the reign of Unis. More recently, the decorated burial chamber of Rashepses at Saqqara has been discovered which may be dated slightly earlier to the reign of Djedkare. Brovarski, Senedjemib Complex. Volume I, 79-81; Dawood, in Néferkarê aux Montouhotep, 109-10; El-Tayeb, “Burial chamber of Rashepses”, EA 44, (2013), 8-9; Jánosi & Vymazalová, in Art of Describing, 218. 35  Kanawati, Decorated Burial Chambers, 21. Bolshakov, alternatively, sees the ‘ceiling stelae’ of some 2nd Dynasty tombs as the formative stage of development in the decoration of the burial chamber. Bolshakov, Man and his Double, 112-13. 36  The most extensive example is found in the burial chamber of Kayemankh at Giza where all four walls are decorated with scenes that are characteristic of Old Kingdom chapels. Junker, Giza. Band IV, pls. 2-17. However, there is much debate in scholarship regarding the precise date of this tomb. For a discussion on the proposed dates, see Woods, “Contribution to a controversy”, JEA 95, (2009), 161-74; Lashien, “Ultimate destination”, ET 26.1, (2013), 403-15. 37  Kanawati, Decorated Burial Chambers, 60. 38  Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 113; Dawood, in Néferkarê aux Montouhotep, 111; Barker, “Animate decoration”, JARCE 56, (2020), 72-73. 39  Kanawati, Decorated Burial Chambers, 60, 70.

177

Preparing for Eternity dated to the reign of Pepy II, reflect this development in subterranean scene design: all living beings are excluded from the scenes, with the representations instead focused on granaries, piles of food and drink and other items, and the dangerous reptiles in Hewetiaah’s offering-list are mutilated.40

themes in order of popularity comprise boats, offeringbearers, bread-making, brewing beer and storing grain in granaries [see table 1.1]. These themes may be considered essential in the model repertoire and a single model assemblage regularly only includes themes from this group. Moreover, some of these representations have a prolonged appearance in the period of model production, with motifs of food preparation and boats among the earliest and latest examples of extant models. The products and services offered by these essential themes consist of transport and nourishment which must have been considered imperative for the afterlife and therefore held a prime position in the three-dimensional medium.

After the Old Kingdom, burial chambers decorated with animate wall scenes do appear but only sporadically. Dawood has identified 17 examples of the First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom,41 although another two tombs may be added to this list with the recent discovery of the decorated burial chambers of Baqet I (29 UC) and Baqet II (33 UC) at Beni Hassan by the Australian Centre for Egyptology.42 Similar to the earliest subterranean scenes in the 5th Dynasty, these burial chambers exhibit no attempt to mutilate or remove the living creatures from their designs but rather feature them as the main part of the representations. In the burial chamber of the 11th Dynasty female tomb owner Kemsit at Thebes, for example, the walls are decorated with scenes featuring animate beings, including the tomb owner and attendants, offering-bearers, butchers slaughtering an ox, a procession of cattle, and a man milking a cow.43 Like models, scenes in burial chambers were concealed from view and so solely functioned for the benefit of the deceased in the afterlife. However, the rarity of their appearance in the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom combined with the increasing popularity of models during this time demonstrates that the three-dimensional medium was the preferred mode of representation for the burial chamber.

The importance of these themes in models is further witnessed in the amount of space dedicated to them. Whereas most themes in the three-dimensional repertoire are particularly condensed, with often a single vignette symbolising the entire process, certain themes incorporate a greater quantity of motifs. This is particularly noticeable in the theme of bread-making where almost the full range of manufacturing tasks illustrated in wall scenes is depicted in models, including many preliminary activities that would typically be excluded from condensed three-dimensional designs. Such a comprehensive representation conveys the significance of the theme in the model repertoire. Moreover, the centrality of nourishment to the deceased’s well-being is conveyed by the regular combination of bread-making, brewing beer and slaughtering cattle on a single baseboard. Aside from food preparation, group models portraying more than one theme are rare in the three-dimensional repertoire. The combination of these three processes conveys the desire for a complete diet to be accessible to the deceased in the afterlife.

7.3 Repertoire The two- and three-dimensional artistic repertoires certainly feature several of the same themes, but numerous differences have been observed throughout this book which indicate that funerary models did not simply duplicate the repertoire of wall scenes. The most commonly attested themes in the model corpus also appear in scenes, but they do not occupy as prominent a position in the twodimensional repertoire. Among the models examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, the most common

The three-dimensional medium also regularly presents a different emphasis in its representation of certain themes compared with the two-dimensional medium. Model boats, for example, prioritise their ability to function for any riverine journey that the deceased may require in the afterlife unlike wall scenes where a specific moment of a voyage that possibly occurred during the tomb owner’s life is often portrayed. Similarly, in representations of carpentry, wall scenes specify the types of items being produced, whereas models do not display the final product, presumably to enable the model carpenters to fashion any wooden item that the deceased may desire rather than only a select number of products. In the same manner, the military theme in the three-dimensional medium excludes the vignettes of combat that are central to wall scenes and instead presents files of disciplined soldiers equipped for providing protection for the deceased in the afterlife. Ritual elements that are prevalent in the two-dimensional medium are also largely excluded from models, with scenes of slaughtering cattle, for example, focused on the ritual act of removing the foreleg while models do not depict this task and instead emphasise the provision of beef by associating the theme with motifs of food preparation. Similarly, model offering-bearers usually do

 Both burial chambers follow the same overarching design, but the wife’s scenes are unusually of superior quality. In the offering-list displayed on the east wall of her chamber, harmful snakes and vipers were initially transcribed, but their heads were later systematically cut off by scratching the paint near the head. Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part IV, pls. 18-21; Kanawati, Decorated Burial Chambers, 70-71; Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pls. 90-97. 41   Dawood, in Néferkarê aux Montouhotep, 111. 42   The two tombs, dated variously between the 9th and 11th Dynasties, feature animate beings on the walls of their burial chambers. Baqet I’s substructure is unfortunately poorly preserved due to significant water damage, but traces of a figure of the tomb owner holding a staff can still be seen. In contrast, the burial chamber of Baqet II is very wellpreserved, with painted decoration appearing on all four walls. The living creatures displayed include offering-bearers, officiants performing ceremony, animals led forward in procession and three representations of the tomb owner himself. Information about this discovery was provided courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology. 43   Naville & Hall, Deir el-Bahari. Part III, pls. 2-3. 40

178

Survey of Differences between Funerary Models and Wall Scenes not carry ritual items or participate in ceremonial activities as is illustrated in wall scenes, but rather transport essential foodstuffs or closed containers that may be symbolic of all desired offerings. Consequently, each theme in the model repertoire was specifically designed to serve the tomb owner most effectively in the afterlife rather than simply imitate the details of the two-dimensional representations.

Scene-artists chiefly portray him in one of two roles: as a passive figure simply watching the work of the estate or as an active figure directly engaged in certain tasks. In both types of scenes, he is typically distinguished from the other figures by his grand scale, dignified pose and attire, and youthfulness.45 As a passive figure, the tomb owner is positioned at one end of a series of registers that depict minor figures engaged in daily life activities.46 He faces towards them, although is regularly separated by a vertical inscription that states he is mAA ‘viewing’ their work.47 This arrangement highlights the tomb owner’s access to wealth and resources during his lifetime and conveys that he is the intended recipient of the minor figures’ service.48

Themes that are not as commonly attested in the model repertoire may instead be understood as supplementary. These representations are typically only included among more expansive model assemblages, providing wealthy tomb owners with desirable commodities in addition to the more essential provisions. Among the model corpus examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, these supplementary themes include land preparation, hand-feeding cattle, cooking meat, fishing and fowling, beasts of burden, animal husbandry, craft production, the military and foreigners. While some of these themes are likewise rare among wall scenes, others are particularly prominent in the two-dimensional repertoire. Processions of cattle, for example, are dominant among the twodimensional corpus, publicly conveying the superior wealth of the tomb owner to any visitors to the tomb. In the three-dimensional medium, conversely, this theme is rarely attested and is usually confined to one or two animals as the grand herd sizes exhibited in scenes were not necessary for display in the sealed burial chamber.

On the other hand, as an active figure, the tomb owner participates in fishing and fowling in the marshes and hunting in the desert, activities that form some of the most dominant themes of the two-dimensional repertoire. The ability to engage in such activities during life would have been a luxury of the nobility and consequently these scenes highlight the tomb owner’s superior status.49 They may have also functioned as symbols of rebirth, fertility and the triumph of order, thus contributing to the deceased’s eternal rejuvenation and the proper functioning of the cosmos.50 Additionally, the tomb owner seated before an offering-table is the most commonly attested theme in the two-dimensional medium, apparently considered essential for the tomb-chapel’s decorative scheme.51 This scene highlights the centrality of the mortuary cult to the chapel’s function and conveys the tomb owner as its primary recipient. As scenes were positioned in the superstructure, they not only contributed to the tomb owner’s eternal survival, but also functioned as a proclamation of his earthly life.52 The pre-eminence of his figure was probably designed to impress visitors to the tomb and encourage them to present offerings.

This condensed nature of the three-dimensional representation is typical of supplementary themes, with a single motif often symbolising an entire process. For the theme of leatherwork, for example, the task of cutting sandal soles is the only motif represented by models, with the preliminary tasks involved in transforming the animal hide into workable leather not portrayed. The threedimensional representations are also further restricted by their exclusion of everyday life moments. Such elements are regularly incorporated into wall scenes, such as disobedient draught cattle, human children suckling from cows, individual cattle members straying from the unified motion of the herd, and crewmen consuming food and drink on riverine voyages. These elements would not have held the same value in the burial chamber where the three-dimensional artworks were concealed from view and solely concerned with the afterlife of the deceased. Therefore, it may be proposed that each theme was selected and designed according to its specific value in the three-dimensional repertoire.

Not only is the tomb owner rarely encountered in models, but all themes that involve his active participation are excluded from the three-dimensional repertoire. Instead, models are concerned with portraying the activities of minor figures. The few models identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan that do depict the tomb owner

 Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 79-80; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 77, 82. 46  Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 68; Tiradritti, Egyptian Wall Painting, 111. 47   Siebels, “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration. Part I”, 3031; Swinton, Management of Estates, 77-78. 48  Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 68; Kamrin, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 31; Hudáková, in (Re)productive Traditions, 372. 49  Decker, Sports and Games, 158-60; Lloyd, Ancient Egypt, 181; Kanawati, in Cultural Manifestations, 119. 50  De Keyser, “Chasse et pêche”, CdE 22.43, (1947), 42-49; GamerWallert, Fische und Fischkulte, 128-31; Feucht, in Intellectual Heritage of Egypt, 157-69; Kamrin, Cosmos of Khnumhotep II, 83-89, 105-15; Binder, in Egyptian Art, 111-28; Hartwig, Tomb Painting and Identity, 104-06; Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 69. 51   Altenmüller, in Egypt, 81; Staring, in Old Kingdom, New Perspectives, 259-60. 52  Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 44. 45

Additionally, there are several themes displayed in wall scenes that are entirely absent from the three-dimensional record. Perhaps the most vital part of the two-dimensional repertoire is the representation of the tomb owner himself, yet his figure is almost completely excluded from models. In scenes, he holds the principal position, with all activities primarily organised around his figure.44  Smith, Sculpture and Painting, 333; Kamrin, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 30-31. 44

179

Preparing for Eternity are restricted to representations of boats.53 As proposed in chapter 3.1, the tomb owner’s occurrence on model boats may emphasise him as the recipient of its transport service and the models may have been commissioned by family members after his death. Although his figure is not rendered in any other themes of the model repertoire examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan,54 all activities conducted still occur under his watchful gaze: models housed in the serdab accompanied statues of the tomb owner while those in the burial chamber were interred alongside the body.55 Accordingly, the tomb owner was physically present with them so neither his figure nor the ‘viewing’ inscription were required to be represented as he could directly watch them himself. Moreover, as these locations were concealed from view, the model did not share the wall scene’s purpose in attracting and impressing visitors. Consequently, the rarity of the tomb owner in the model repertoire demonstrates that the themes were specifically selected for the three-dimensional medium according to its unique role in the tomb.

theme among models, and as it forms the culmination of the cycle, it implies a successful harvest has been attained. The absence of preliminary processes is also witnessed in other themes. The harvest of flax, for example, is entirely unrepresented by models as the depiction of spinning and weaving indicates that the raw material has already been acquired. Similarly, vignettes of boat-building were most likely not considered necessary in the three-dimensional medium as the provision of model boats demonstrates that construction has already been completed. Alternatively, some motifs are presumably absent from the three-dimensional medium in order to focus a particular theme on the provisions considered more important for the afterlife. In representations of animal husbandry, for example, the three-dimensional medium is solely focused on the lifecycle of cattle,57 whereas wall scenes feature the wide array of species that were involved in everyday life, including sheep, goats, donkeys, fowl, dogs and monkeys, as well as several desert animals. As observed in chapters 4.1-4.3, cattle were the most highly valued domestic animal in ancient Egypt, and if only one species was to be represented in the condensed three-dimensional medium, it is not surprising that cattle were selected. Similarly, in the theme of food preparation, both models and wall scenes depict the production of the staple diet, but scenes also portray activities of viticulture. Some of the tasks involved in wine production would have been especially difficult to fashion in three-dimensions,58 and it was presumably considered more imperative to be provided with bread and beer for the afterlife as these commodities offered essential sources of nutrition. Scene-artists, on the other hand, could incorporate these additional themes and motifs as they not only had a greater amount of space available for their designs, but also sought to highlight the grandeur of the tomb owner’s estate to any visitors to the tomb.

In relation to the activities conducted by minor figures, there are several themes that are likewise entirely excluded from the model repertoire. It is beyond the scope of this study to examine every motif of the two-dimensional medium, but some examples are presented here that may be considered representative of the differences in corpus. Some themes are presumably excluded from the threedimensional medium as portraying a later process implies that the preliminary tasks have already been achieved. For example, the agricultural cycle is commonly represented on chapel walls and although not every process is displayed, scenes feature several of the principal tasks: ploughing and sowing, the harvest and its transport, threshing, winnowing and sieving, and storage in granaries. The model repertoire, conversely, entirely excludes the activities of harvesting, threshing, winnowing and sieving. While this may be partially explained by the technical difficulty of crafting some of the essential components of each motif in three-dimensions,56 it also shows an emphasis on the final product. The granary is by far the most popular agricultural

There are, however, a number of themes not examined in this study that are still known from the model corpus. These examples originate from other sites in Egypt, being unrepresented at Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, but are only rarely attested. This is particularly evident for the theme of craft production. In addition to textile manufacture, carpentry and leatherwork which have been analysed in this study, Breasted has identified models of pottery-making, metal-working and stone-working, the majority of which originate from Saqqara.59 Interestingly, these craft activities

  It is possible that the tomb owner is portrayed in some models of other themes but without any clear identifying features to confirm his identity, as was discussed in relation to food preparation models in chapter 2.3. 54   The tomb owner does, however, appear in different themes in a small number of models from other sites. One of the models of Meketre from Thebes depicts the tomb owner seated in a raised pavilion, overseeing the procession of cattle and their herdsmen, while in a model of Karenen from Saqqara, two harpists and three singers clapping their hands perform music before seated figures of the tomb owner and presumably his wife. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 46724, JE 39130. Alternatively, a unique model from tomb 1525 at Sedment depicts two figures carrying a sedan chair while a third figure holds a fan, presumably for the comfortable transport of the tomb owner. Grajetzki, Sedment, 23; EschenbrennerDiemer, “Petrie Museum’s collection of funerary wooden models”, AI 21, (2018), 103. 55   Statues of the tomb owner were likewise housed in burial chambers of the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom which enabled wooden models to accompany the deceased himself as well as a threedimensional representation of his figure. D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 88; Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 107. 56  The stems of the crops essential for representations of the harvest are particularly fine and would have been difficult to carve out of wood. 53

Similarly, the act of tossing grain into the air during winnowing could not have been captured in three-dimensions. 57  Donkeys and dogs also appear in the three-dimensional medium, but they are displayed in specific roles rather than across different stages of their lifecycles. See chapters 3.3 and 4.4 for further discussion on these animals. 58   The streaming liquid required for the representation of squeezing juice from the sack and pouring wine into jars could not be captured in threedimensional sculptures. 59   In a model from the tomb of Gemniemhat at Saqqara, for example, the various craft professions are combined into a single workshop: in the courtyard outside the architectural structure are two potters, one of whom kneads clay with his hands while the other turns a vessel on a wheel; inside one room are two blacksmiths who blow through pipes to melt metal; and in the adjacent room are three carpenters who prepare different pieces of wood. Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen: AEIN 1633. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 49-52.

180

Survey of Differences between Funerary Models and Wall Scenes are found among the earliest Old Kingdom single stone statuettes and continue to be produced in the group wooden models of the Middle Kingdom.60 With the presence of model tools as well as manufactured funerary goods in the burial such as furniture, vessels and jewellery, the processes involved in their production were probably not considered essential for representation in the three-dimensional medium.

not typically form their own statuettes. Instead, the threedimensional vignettes are integrated into larger group models, such as on a model boat of Nefwa (186 LC) from Beni Hassan where two figures are playing the board game senet [M191; see fig. 3.8]. While entertainment may have been desired for the afterlife and therefore suitable for the model repertoire, its rare attestation is probably due to the fact that other provisions, most notably nourishment and transport, were considered more important. Consequently, themes such as craft production and entertainment should be understood as supplementary, being represented only when the essential provisions were already attained.

Additionally, several of the activities displayed on chapel walls that have been classified as sport and recreation by Kanawati have been identified in a select number of models from other sites, including musicians, singers, dancers, wrestlers and games.61 Although only a small number of examples are known, an additional theme classification of entertainment should be made for these models as their purpose in the burial was most likely to provide pleasure for the deceased. Three-dimensional musicians are restricted to harpists which are known as early as the 5th Dynasty and continue to appear throughout the Middle Kingdom. Most comprise single statuettes fashioned of limestone, although some wooden examples are known.62 In a group model from the tomb of Karenen at Saqqara, a male and female harpist sit either side of the tomb owner and his wife.63 Also in this model are three seated singers who clap their hands for rhythmical accompaniment. Dancing figures, although quite rare, are typically shown in acrobatic postures, either in a flat bridge or arched back pose, such as a female figure from Abydos who arches backwards with her feet, hands and hair touching the baseboard.64 Such attitudes may allude to the dances performed in honour of the goddess Hathor, enabling the figures to be associated with symbols of fertility and to promote the deceased’s continual rebirth.65

Unusually, there is one theme identified at Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan that is represented by the three-dimensional medium but is not attested in any wall scenes from the period under examination. Five models representing the manufacture of mudbricks are known throughout Egypt, four of which originate from the sites under investigation: one from the tomb of Henu (L-16H50/1C) at Deir el-Bersha [M35], one from the tomb of Djay (275 LC) at Beni Hassan [M51] and two from the burial of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) at Deir el-Bersha [M154, M155; see fig. 7.1].68 Each of the models includes a standing man using a hoe to break up clods of earth and a seated figure forming bricks with a mould, while the more expansive examples also incorporate a seated figure hand-mixing mud and/or two standing figures who presumably transport the mud in vessels either suspended from a yoke or balanced on the head. As mudbrick was the principal building material for everyday life structures,69 the inclusion of brick-making models in the burial may have been intended to provision the tomb owner with the materials needed for any architectural construction desired in the afterlife. The earliest of the burials housing brick-making models examined in this study is that of Henu which has been dated to the late First Intermediate Period,70 but no scenes of brick-making are attested in Egypt prior to the New Kingdom and in fact remain rare during this period.71 The brick-making theme, therefore,

Although wrestling became popular in the Middle Kingdom and is particularly prominent in the wall scenes of the nobles’ tombs at Beni Hassan, surprisingly none of the extant wrestling models originate from the site.66 Only a very small number of examples are known, and each depicts two figures engaged in the sport, including a limestone statuette from Abydos.67 Both active and passive games are displayed on the walls of tomb-chapels, but do

  The fifth example was found in the cemetery of Naga ed-Deir. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, fig. 213. 69   Clarke & Engelbach, Ancient Egyptian Masonry, 207; Donatelli, in Egyptian Civilization, 181. 70   De Meyer, “Tomb of Henu”, EA 31, (2007), 24. The brick-making model from Naga ed-Deir has also been dated to the First Intermediate Period. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 274-75. 71   The most famous example of a brick-making scene is from the 18th Dynasty tomb of Rekhmire at Thebes. Davies, Rekh-mi-Re, pl. 58. Kemp has suggested the possibility that a scene displayed on the east wall of the inner room of the tomb of Djehuty-hotep (N-2) at Deir el-Bersha may likewise depict brick-making. Verhoeven has more specifically identified the vignette in the second register of this wall as the unique motif of firing bricks in an oven instead of the more common interpretation of a pottery kiln. She notes that the use of fired bricks is not typically accepted before the Roman Period but observes some examples of such bricks from earlier archaeological contexts. If this interpretation is correct, the scene may present the earliest known two-dimensional brick-making motif, but it clearly depicts a different manufacturing process than is represented by the models. Moreover, the extant models all date prior to the tomb of Djehuty-hotep in the 12th Dynasty, making them still the earlier form of representation for this theme. Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pls. 24, 27.2; Klebs, Reliefs und Malereien, 118; Verhoeven, “Technologische Rarität”, MDAIK 43, (1987), 261-63; Kemp, in Materials and Technology, 83. 68

 Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 49; Tooley, in Oxford Encyclopedia, . 61  Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 86-92; Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 102-04. 62   Kroenke has identified a total of nine provenanced examples of model harpists. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 270-71. 63  Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 39130. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 87-88. 64  Brooklyn Museum: 13.1024. Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, pl. 248; Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 89; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 267; Alba Gómez & Tooley, in Art-facts and Artefacts, 7-8. One of the statuettes from the tomb of Niankh-pepykem (A1) at Meir has been classified as a dancer, but the designation of fertility figurine is preferred here. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 248 / JE 30809. The figure is positioned in a static pose rather than in the fluid movement of a dancer and is depicted naked and with long braided hair as is more common for fertility figurines and paddle dolls. 65  Nord, in Studies in Ancient Egypt, 141-42; Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 268-69; Alba Gómez & Tooley, in Artfacts and Artefacts, 9-11. 66   Kanawati & Woods, Beni Hassan, 68-69. 67  Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 90-92; Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, cat. 113. 60

181

Preparing for Eternity

Figure 7.1. Brick-making model of Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) [M154]. Photograph © 2022 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.411.

was not appropriated from the two-dimensional repertoire, but was apparently conceived for the three-dimensional medium.

Interestingly, there is a clear distinction in the themes represented by each medium. Almost all of the themes portrayed by the models are entirely unrepresented on the walls of the tomb, with the repetition of only two themes: roasting fowl and offering-bearers. It is perhaps not surprising that offering-bearers are represented in both the chapel and burial chamber as they were a key part of the mortuary cult that occurred in the superstructure and provided transport of the desired goods in the substructure. However, the repetition of roasting fowl is somewhat surprising considering the theme’s infrequent appearance in the three-dimensional medium. In Niankh-pepykem’s chapel, the preparation of fowl for consumption is associated with scenes of fishing and fowling, forming the culmination of this daily life activity, whereas in the burial chamber, the roasting of fowl forms a single statuette that solely functioned to nourish the deceased. The rest of Niankh-pepy-kem’s model corpus is entirely concerned with the provision of grain, bread, beer and transport, suggesting that the repertoire was designed specifically according to the medium’s role in the tomb rather than seeking to reflect the same themes as the chapel.74

It is difficult to identify the exact factors that impacted the selection process of themes for each tomb’s decoration, but it seems probable that each scheme was determined by a combination of the tomb owner’s personal preference, wealth and profession, the artist’s training and taste, the location and type of tomb, the amount of space available for decoration, and the customs of the period.72 However, the choice of medium would have also been a major contributing factor to the selection of themes. Only one tomb examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan preserves both its two- and three-dimensional representations: the walls of both the chapel and burial chamber of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) at Meir are decorated with scenes [S22-S26] while a corpus of at least 25 models was interred in a niche in the substructure [M1-M25].73  Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 83-84; Staring, in Old Kingdom, New Perspectives, 269. Vernus, in his discussion on textual autobiographies in the tomb, identifies three or four types of involvement in the selection process, which may not necessarily be undertaken by four distinct persons: the supervisor, whether this be the owner, his relatives or subordinates; the experts in sacerdotal science who adapted the design to align with the religious customs of the period; and the painters and sculptors who were commissioned to produce the work. Such combined efforts can also be considered for the selection of artistic representations. Vernus, in Ancient Egyptian Biographies, 170-72. 73  Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 11-12; Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, 29. 72

  The themes of provision represented by the models are supplemented by the portrayal of granaries on the south wall of the burial chamber [S26]. Granaries were not yet a consistent part of the three-dimensional repertoire in the late 6th Dynasty, with their appearance in the First Intermediate Period. This may possibly explain why Niankh-pepy-kem chose to depict the storage facilities on the walls of his burial chamber rather than among the model corpus. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 29. 74

182

Survey of Differences between Funerary Models and Wall Scenes 7.4 Technical properties

manufacture, for example, the profile aspect was selected, causing the interior handle that secured the thread to be omitted.

It has been demonstrated throughout this book that each medium had its own specific technical capabilities that impacted artistic design. Consequently, a number of differences between wall scenes and funerary models may be attributed to their distinct technical properties. One of the major advantages of the two-dimensional medium is the ease with which scene-artists could draw intricate details on the wall surface. This regularly resulted in quite detailed two-dimensional representations. In scenes of animals, for example, specific breeds can be identified through the incorporation of minute distinguishing details, as was observed in illustrations of beasts of burden, cattle in procession and dogs. Similarly, in two-dimensional representations of calving, the discomfort of the cow is clearly conveyed through a precise rendering of the cow’s expression and posture. Human figures of different ages can also be distinguished in scenes, with overseers of mature age in granaries, for example, clearly identified by their enlarged breasts and rolls of fat across their stomachs. This ease of drawing intricate details also enabled the illustration of the wide array of active postures required during everyday life tasks. The strenuous nature of ploughing, for example, is conveyed in scenes through the detailed rendering of the ploughman’s strained movement. The sailor was responsible for a number of tasks on riverine journeys which scene-artists could specify through modifications to the crewman’s posture.

Scene-artists regularly adapted their designs in order to overcome this restriction, but this often limited the realism of the composition. On rowing boats, for example, the crew are positioned in single file with all oars usually passing over the near side of the hull, but in reality, the rowers would be aligned in pairs and half of the oars would disappear from view. Alternatively, scene-artists could combine multiple perspectives for a single component. The human figure, for example, formed a composite image which occasionally created difficulties in representation, particularly regarding the movement of the shoulders. As the torso is presented in profile and the shoulders in frontal view, activities that require forward arm movement, such as straining beer-mash through a sieve, often cause the shoulders to be depicted in a position that does not correspond with reality. The overall scene could also present a combined image, with each component depicted from a different perspective. This is exemplified in representations of weaving where the horizontal loom is shown from a top-down viewpoint while the weavers are largely presented in profile. The two-dimensional perspective also resulted in an absence of depth which created difficulties in conveying the arrangement of large groups of figures. Scene-artists could not depict their actual side-by-side positioning while keeping all figures in view, although they utilised different methods to imply this arrangement. In processions of cattle, the individual herd members could be spaced across the register line in single file, placed above one another in subregisters, or in closely overlapping groups with alternating colours and patterns to individually distinguish each animal. Although scene-artists utilised different methods to overcome these limitations of perspective, they were unable to present a holistic and realistic representation.

Additionally, the scene-artist usually created his design on a large surface of wall which provided an expansive space for artistic representation. This regularly resulted in multiple registers and occasionally whole walls being dedicated to each theme. Offering-bearers, for example, are typically portrayed in multiple lines of processions, highlighting the great quantities of commodities presented to the tomb owner. Similarly, several registers are devoted to military battles, conveying multiple vignettes of combat and files of soldiers processing towards the action. This advantage of available space also enables multiple themes to be grouped on the same wall, thus conveying associations between certain activities. For beasts of burden, the pack animals are positioned alongside agricultural vignettes where it is certain at what stage in the cycle they are employed. Similarly, dogs are integrated into a range of contexts in scenes, highlighting the variety of activities in which they were involved in daily life. With these technical abilities, the two-dimensional medium could present expansive, detailed representations.

The designs of model-artists were likewise impacted by their medium’s technical capabilities, but these properties are distinct from those of wall scenes. In contrast to the restricted perspective of the two-dimensional medium, funerary models enjoy a holistic perspective that enables a more realistic composition. As the sculptures can be viewed from every angle, all aspects of each component are on display. The two sacks carried by the beast of burden, for example, realistically hang over the donkey’s back without being hidden from view. A comprehensive representation of architectural features is also achieved in models, portraying both the exterior and interior of a single structure. For grain silos, this allowed the openings in both the roof and side wall for depositing and withdrawing the grain to appear in the designs. This holistic perspective also enabled a realistic arrangement of groups of figures. In the ploughing team, the two oxen are positioned in their actual locations side-by-side while the ploughman and driver stand behind the animals without any part of the human and animal figures being obscured from view.

On the other hand, scene-artists were hindered in their designs by some technical restrictions specific to their medium. Of particular significance is that the limitations of the two-dimensional perspective required each component to be depicted from a single viewpoint, thus preventing a holistic portrayal. The most characteristic aspect was selected so that each element would be easily recognised, but this regularly resulted in the exclusion of certain features. For spinning-bowls utilised during textile 183

Preparing for Eternity Table 7.1. Materials utilised in the manufacture of funerary models and their function in the themes in which they appear.

The realism of the three-dimensional representations was further enhanced by the medium’s ability to incorporate real-life materials into its designs. These include actual grain stored in granaries, lines of thread to suspend water jars from yokes, to bind oxen’s legs for slaughter, to function as rigging for boats and as the material used during spinning and weaving, linen for the kilts of human figures and the sails attached to masts, and metal for the construction of carpenter’s tools [table 7.1]. Consequently, the three-dimensional medium could present a more realistic and holistic representation of each theme than wall scenes.

Material

Theme

Function in Representation

Linen

All themes

Garments for human figures

Boats

Sails

Bread-making

Suspend water jars from yokes

Brewing beer

Suspend water jars from yokes

Slaughtering cattle

Bind oxen’s legs

Fishing and fowling

Fishing nets

Boats

Rigging

Thread

Yet simultaneously, model-artists were limited by certain technical restrictions. Incorporating the minute details regularly encountered in wall scenes would have required a superior level of craftsmanship to achieve in threedimensional sculptures. While some models exhibit such exceptional skill, most are quite basic in their rendering. The herdsman who leads cattle in procession, for example, is typically depicted as a standard three-dimensional figure without any of his identifying characteristics that feature in wall scenes. This limited incorporation of minute details also resulted in less variety in the models’ presentation of each component. For example, a more uniform style of shaped bread loaf is represented in models of breadmaking in contrast to wall scenes where a wide range of shapes are displayed. Additionally, models typically do not capture the strained and active movements required during everyday life tasks. The three-dimensional butcher, for example, simply stands or sits beside the ox’s neck while holding a knife, whereas butchers in scenes adopt a wide range of active stances as they perform their duties. Direct contact was also difficult to achieve in wooden models as each component had to be carved separately and attached individually to the baseboard. This hindered the model-artist’s representation of certain themes that required specific types of contact, such as hand-feeding cattle, the assistance of the herdsman during calving, and the calf’s muzzle suckling from the cow’s teats during nursing.

Secure oars Cattle

Tails of animals Leashes for animals

Spinning and weaving

Tools of textile manufacture

Brick-making

Suspend vessels from yokes

Grain

Storing grain in granaries

Actual grain for storage

Metal

Carpentry

Construction of tools

roof predominates as this was an easier surface on which to attach the necessary human figures. Moreover, the threedimensional medium could not capture falling motion which resulted in certain motifs being excluded or merely implied in the model repertoire, such as sowing seed and pouring beer into jars. These technical capabilities specific to the three-dimensional representation caused the model-artist to create an individual design that was suitable for his medium rather than simply duplicate the work of scene-artists.

Moreover, the model-artist had to consider the stability of his structure, resulting in further differences from the twodimensional design. Sailors on model boats, for example, could not be positioned on top of the boom to perform certain tasks as the wooden figures were too heavy for the thin twigs used to support the unfurled sail. Similarly, model offering-bearers typically carry a smaller, although more realistic, quantity of offerings as the three-dimensional figures could not support the weight of the immense loads regularly transported in wall scenes. Furthermore, each component had to be secured to the baseboard which in many cases impacted the design. Human figures were attached with pegs and while feet were sometimes added in plaster or paint, they were often excluded from the representations. When the figures were positioned on top of the silos in granaries, the design of the structure itself was adapted to accommodate this: in wall scenes, silos exhibit both domed and flat roofs, but in models, the flat

A further distinguishing property between the two media is their utilisation of inscriptions. As has been observed throughout this book, text formed an important part of wall scenes, with captions integrated into the images to identify specific individuals, record the dialogue of the workers and describe the activities taking place. Inscriptions could be easily carved or painted on the tomb wall in any desired position or direction, enabling them to be perfectly adapted to the composition.75 The pictorial nature of the language also enabled inscriptions to contribute to the aesthetic nature of the scene.76 Conversely, funerary models very rarely include any type of text. It was not possible to integrate inscriptions into  Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 256-57; Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, 21-24. 76  Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 83; Baines, Visual and Written Culture, 12. 75

184

Survey of Differences between Funerary Models and Wall Scenes a three-dimensional sculpture in the same way that could be achieved so easily in wall scenes. Enclosure walls are only occasionally incorporated into models and are largely confined to representations of granaries, causing most three-dimensional artworks to not have a background on which text could be transcribed. While it was technically possible for captions to be inscribed on the baseboards, this was not a technique typically utilised for wooden models. The three-dimensional medium, therefore, did not convey the additional information that was provided through inscriptions in wall scenes,77 with all figures and activities solely conveyed pictorially.

models of the Middle Kingdom were anonymous, generic servants.82 However, the absence of inscriptions should not necessarily indicate that the three-dimensional figures were not considered representations of specific individuals. Rather, it is possible that we are simply unable to detect the subtle distinguishing details.83 Wall scenes are regularly understood as displaying typical activities that could have occurred at any time and in any place, with many human and animal figures likewise unlabelled.84 However, elements of specificity are clearly identifiable in many scenes, indicating the depiction of particular individuals engaged in specific events. For example, the motif of the presentation of animals before the tomb owner is especially common and is regularly standardised, but the depiction of certain animals and people can individualise the event. On the north wall of the tomb of Amenemhat (2 UC) at Beni Hassan, for example, a herdsman in the fourth register walks with unnaturally bent legs and leads forward an ox with a distorted horn [S155]. Neither the herdsman nor the ox is named, but their distinct appearance distinguishes them from the rest of the procession and perhaps causes them to be recognised as specific individuals by their contemporaneous audience.85 Consequently, a recurring scene does not necessarily depict an unspecific event involving generic figures.86 The use of identifying captions may have instead been reserved for the individuals considered most important in each composition, with the other figures remaining known, but unnamed. The same situation may be true for models.

There are, however, some exceptions in the threedimensional medium where short captions are inscribed to identify the figures represented. The serving statuettes housed in serdabs of the 4th and 5th Dynasties occasionally include labels inscribed on their bases which identify the figures as specific individuals, usually family members or dependents of the tomb owner.78 These people were close to the tomb owner during life and their acts of service perhaps demonstrated their dependence on him for their afterlives.79 The practice of labelling statuettes with names of family members disappeared once funerary models moved to the burial chamber in the late 6th Dynasty, with text appearing even more rarely.80 Of the limited number of Middle Kingdom models known that do include inscriptions, most are representations of granaries where it is the type of grain being stored that is identified. Occasionally, offering-bearers or boats may include a short caption that identifies the tomb owner or more rarely the workers themselves, but the vast majority of models remain uninscribed.

Although rare, the fact that there are examples of models where the figures are individually labelled indicates that the three-dimensional artworks could be understood as representations of specific individuals. In the corpus from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan, the only model examined that specifies the names of the individuals depicted is a model funerary boat of Ukh-hotep from Meir [M224; see fig. 3.10]. The two female mourners who accompany the coffin are labelled with their own names as well as the divine names of Isis and Nephthys to indicate their role as mourners: nbt-Hw.t Htp-Hw.t-Hr mAa.t xrw ‘Nephthys Hetephathor true of voice’ and As.t Htp.t mAa.t xrw ‘Isis Hetepet true of voice’.87 As the role of Isis in the funerary procession was often fulfilled by the wife of the deceased,88 it is reasonable to propose

Consequently, many scholars refer to model figures as ‘anonymous’, implying not only an absence of an identifying caption, but also a generic nature.81 Even Roth who acknowledges that both inscribed and uninscribed serving statuettes of the Old Kingdom were most likely representations of specific individuals maintains that   The inscriptions on chapel walls were viewed by visitors to the tomb, but each person’s level of comprehension was dependent upon their own literacy skills. The vast majority of the population was illiterate, so most visitors would not have been able to attain the additional information provided through text unless it was recited. Robins, however, notes that even if the viewers could not decipher the inscriptions, the presence of text would have impressed them as it highlighted the literacy and therefore elevated status of the tomb owner. Davis, Canonical Tradition, 62; Baines, “Restricted knowledge”, JARCE 27, (1990), 5-7; Robins, in Egyptian World, 360; Woods & Leary, in Death is Only the Beginning, 81-82; Nyord, Seeing Perfection, 47. 78  The largest surviving group of inscribed serving statuettes belongs to Nikau-inpu from Giza, today housed in the Museum of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: E10622-E10624, E10629, E10634, E10635. Among the group of sculptures are named sons, daughters and a dependent who are engaged in tasks related to food preparation. Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 109-11. 79   Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 110. 80  Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 85; Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 118; Jurman, in Arts of Making, 104-05. 81  For the designation ‘anonymous’, see, for example, Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 85; Tefnin, in Oxford Encyclopedia, ; Shedid, in Egypt, 131; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 172. 77

  Roth, “Meaning of menial labor”, JARCE 39, (2002), 118-20.   Lashien, “Narrative in Old Kingdom wall scenes”, BACE 22, (2011), 102. 84  Kantor, “Narration”, AJA 61.1, (1957), 44; Gaballa, Narrative, 5, 27-28; Weeks, in Egyptology, 61; Groenewegen-Frankfort, Arrest and Movement, 33-34; Davis, Canonical Tradition, 192-94. 85   Kanawati, “Specificity”, ASAE 83, (2009), 264; Barker, “Animate decoration”, JARCE 56, (2020), 75-77. 86   Kanawati attributes the similarities of ‘typical’ scenes to the common background setting of daily life activities, the strict conventions of the artistic canon and the training received by artists. Kanawati, “Specificity”, ASAE 83, (2009), 271-72. 87   Translation: N. Allon (2016), The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, “Model boat of Ukhhotep”, viewed 25 October 2019, . 88   D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 56-57; Roth, in Oxford Encyclopedia, . 82 83

185

Preparing for Eternity that the figures represented were close female relatives. Although confirmation of the precise relationship is impossible due to the absence of documentation on the model’s exact provenance,89 the transcription of the names indicates that these were individuals who were known by and presumably close to the tomb owner during life. Additionally, one of the male figures on board is labelled with a name and title: wdp.w Nfr-jw ‘the attendant Neferiu’.90 With the status of attendant, it is probable that this man was not a family member of the deceased, but someone who worked for the tomb owner during life. Therefore, it was not only close relatives who were represented but also specific subservient workers.91 Considering the rarity of this practice, it is difficult to ascertain why any models are inscribed, but some possible reasons may be considered: the labelled individuals are particularly important to the composition and so the captions ensure their identification; the names and titles are markers of status and highlight the importance of their contribution to the deceased’s well-being; inscribed models were commissioned by the individuals represented and interred alongside the deceased in an attempt to share in the tomb owner’s afterlife; the captions that alternatively identify the tomb owner himself further guarantee him as the recipient of the services offered; and those that state the contents of granaries emphasise the nature of the stored goods.

Only the deceased tomb owner could view the inscriptions and as he would have known the individuals represented, there was no need for identifying captions. Jurman has also proposed the possibility that model production did not typically employ scribes and so most of the sculptures were fashioned by individuals who did not have the training to incorporate inscriptions.93 In conjunction with the technical difficulty of integrating textual captions into a small three-dimensional artwork, the rarity of inscriptions in the model corpus should be understood as a means to equip the deceased with known and trusted individuals who could safely provide effective service. 7.5 Construction The mode of construction forms another point of difference between the two- and three-dimensional media. Scenes were fashioned directly on the wall of the tomb and so artistic creation was required to take place within the tomb itself. Consequently, the representations were executed during the tomb owner’s lifetime or were completed by his son after his death, but many scenes were in fact left unfinished.94 While this may in some cases be attributed to the tomb owner’s premature death, the regularity of this practice suggests it was sometimes deliberately achieved, perhaps as a means to prevent the tomb from being ready to receive the body and therefore symbolically delaying death.95 In the chapel, natural light flooded in which enabled the scenes to be finely executed. Relief and painting were the two techniques employed in the creation of wall scenes, but the choice of style seems to have been impacted by the type of tomb and its building materials.96 Working conditions in the burial chamber, on the other hand, would have in most cases been particularly poor, with scene-artists operating in limited lighting. Scenes of substructures were therefore often not as finely or precisely executed as those of the chapel, with all known examples merely executed in painting.97 In the tombs of Pepyankh the Middle (D2) and Pepyankh the Black (A2) at Meir, for example, the scenes of the chapel are crafted in fine, painted relief, whereas those of the burial chamber are simply painted.98

Consequently, uninscribed three-dimensional figures may likewise not represent generic servants, but rather specific individuals who were known and trusted by the tomb owner. This would have been especially important in the burial chamber where the figures were positioned alongside the body and had the potential of causing harm. Without inscriptions, the model figures were free from any threat posed by dangerous hieroglyphic signs, thus providing a precautionary measure for the deceased’s safety, as will be further discussed in chapter 7.7.92 Additionally, as the models were hidden from view, there was no living audience who could engage with the text.  As the model was apparently discovered during the excavations of Kamal, it is quite possible that it originated from the tomb of one of the governors named Ukh-hotep. None of the preserved names in the governors’ chapels can be clearly aligned with the names of the model figures, but this provenance remains a possibility. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, “Model boat of Ukhhotep”, viewed 25 October 2019, ; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 549. 90   Translation: N. Allon (2016), The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, “Model boat of Ukhhotep”, viewed 25 October 2019, . 91   Additional examples of inscribed model figures are known from other sites. Two female offering-bearers from the tomb of the Two Brothers at Rifeh are individually labelled with their role in the household and their personal names and filiations. Murray, Two Brothers, pls. 17.3-4, 21.56; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 245; David, Two Brothers, 83. Alternatively, in a model rowing boat from the tomb of the official Montuhotep at Thebes, all 21 human figures on board are inscribed with their own names and those of their mothers. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin: ÄM 12. Kroenke, “Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir”, 3. 92   This may also potentially explain why labels are more common in the 4th and 5th Dynasty serving statuettes as these sculptures were housed in the serdab and consequently separated from the body. Barker, “Animate decoration”, JARCE 56, (2020), 76-77. 89

Although funerary models were also housed in burial chambers, they were not required to be fashioned in the tomb, but rather were created in workshops and only transported to the tomb upon completion. Consequently, models were not left unfinished like many wall scenes, but were interred   Jurman, in Arts of Making, 105.  Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 122; Teeter, Religion and Ritual, 123. 95  Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 122; Tiradritti, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 253-54. 96  It is commonly observed in scholarship that painted relief was the preferred technique for wall scenes, but at some First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom sites such as Beni Hassan, painting was apparently favoured. Robins, Egyptian Painting, 20; Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 76; Bussman, in Egyptian Art, 24; Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 76; Tiradritti, Egyptian Wall Painting, 177; Shedid, in Egypt, 123. 97  Bolshakov, Man and his Double, 117. 98   The only scenes in Pepyankh the Black’s chapel that are not executed in painted relief are those that remain unfinished. Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pls. 9-71; Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pls. 2-67. 93 94

186

Survey of Differences between Funerary Models and Wall Scenes as complete sculptures.99 Centres of model production are known throughout Egypt, with Eschenbrenner-Diemer identifying individual styles, materials and techniques that are attributable to each workshop.100 With construction occurring away from the tomb, models could be fashioned in more favourable conditions, with the potential of creating a higher quality and quantity of artworks specifically designed for the burial chamber. This was quite likely a major contributing factor to the preference for the threedimensional medium in the substructure.

differences in design between the representations reflect the skill and ability of each individual artist as well as the capabilities of his chosen material. 7.6 Accessibility Another significant distinction between models and wall scenes is their accessibility to individuals from different levels of society. While all Egyptians desired to construct and decorate a tomb that would protect and provision them for eternity, individuals could only achieve this according to their own means.110 The ideal funerary monument comprised both a superstructure and substructure, and only the highest elite could afford extensive decoration. Many tombs in fact did not have a chapel, and among those that did, only a small number were decorated with scenes.111 Consequently, the two-dimensional medium was restricted to the highest officials, and at Meir, Deir elBersha and Beni Hassan, it was the rulers of the provinces who included elaborate decoration in their grand tombs excavated into the high cliffs of the cemeteries.112

The artists who created models and scenes also seem to have had different levels of training and abilities. Painters appear to have held relatively high status in society and may have been associated with the scribal profession and accordingly would have been highly trained.101 Sculptors seem to have been of lesser status than painters but were more distinguished than other craftsmen.102 The creation of reliefs and sculptures required the work of both painters and sculptors who operated as a team under the direction of a master artist.103 However, tombs often reveal different levels of ability in their decoration, indicating that either a single team could comprise artists of different levels of training or multiple teams were employed.104

Conversely, all tombs had a burial chamber where the body of the deceased was housed. Funerary models were not as costly to produce as wall scenes, which required the smoothing, plastering, painting and/or carving of tomb walls, and so could be stored in substructures of individuals of lesser means. A multitude of models was discovered in the Lower Cemetery at Beni Hassan where almost 900 burials belonging to the lower administrative elite and the family of the provincial governors were found. The vast majority of these burials comprise shaft tombs without superstructures and so are completely void of wall scenes.113 It must be remembered, however, that the tomb owners of the Lower Cemetery were still individuals of some status, with knowledge concerning the accessibility of funerary decoration for the rest of the population remaining largely unknown.114

The ability of the artist was further impacted by the choice of material for the design, a factor particularly significant for the three-dimensional medium. Limestone was the most common material of model manufacture in the Old Kingdom and while these statuettes could be finely crafted, the transition to wood in the late 6th Dynasty enabled the execution of a greater range of details.105 In particular, more variety in body posture could be captured and additional components could be easily attached with pegs.106 Sculptures could also be fashioned of pottery and so were created by potters who were not as highly trained as artists nor held in the same esteem.107 Production of pottery forms was further limited by the constraints of the material as all elements had to be moulded prior to firing.108 Indeed, all pottery models examined from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan are limited in their incorporation of minute details.109 Consequently,

Funerary models, however, are not only known from burials of lower officials but also from some high-status tombs. As the majority of nomarchal tombs have been extensively plundered, the extent to which they incorporated models among their funerary equipment is unfortunately unknown. However, the evidence indicates that it was desirable to include both two- and three-dimensional representations

  Incomplete models should therefore be attributed to damage suffered after discovery or during plundering. 100   Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 159-61. 101   Eaton-Krauss, in Oxford Encyclopedia, ; Kanawati & Woods, Artists in the Old Kingdom, 9-17. 102   Kanawati & Woods, Artists in the Old Kingdom, 23. 103  Strouhal, Life, 155-57; Robins, Proportion and Style, 26; EatonKrauss in Oxford Encyclopedia, . 104   This variation in skill is evident in both scenes and models: a single model assemblage could display significant variety in quality while different scenes within a single chapel could exhibit diversity in the level of detail incorporated. Kanawati, Tomb and its Significance, 95. 105  Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 3; Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 16-17. 106  Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, 63-64; Amoros, et al., “Study and identification”, Hathor 1, (2012), 14. 107  Hope, Egyptian Pottery, 6-7. 108  Dorman, Faces in Clay, 8. 109   A total of six pottery models were examined in this study, depicting the themes of granaries [M57, M291, M292], bread-making [M289], brewing beer [M263] and dogs [M264; see fig. 4.15]. 99

 Baines & Lacovara, “Burial and the dead”, JSA 2.1, (2002), 10; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 48. 111  The cemetery of El-Hawawish provides a clear example of the exclusivity of two-dimensional decoration in superstructures: more than 880 rock-cut tombs have been identified at the site, but only about 60 of these have chapels decorated with wall scenes. Kanawati, Decorated Burial Chambers, 10. 112  Badawy, History of Egyptian Architecture, 128, 136, 143; Richards, Society and Death, 80. 113  Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 16, 45. 114   The relatively high status of model owners is further conveyed by the fact that some themes of the three-dimensional repertoire reflect activities and commodities that would have been exclusively available to the elite, such as the lifecycle of cattle and the military. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 373-74; Baines, “Status and purpose”, CAJ 4.1, (1994), 71-72. 110

187

Preparing for Eternity where financially possible. As noted above, the burial of Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) at Meir is the only tomb identified from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan to preserve both its two- and three-dimensional artworks.115 This tomb owner functioned as ruler of his province, serving as ‘overseer of priests’ and ‘overseer of Upper Egypt’.116 The rulers of Deir el-Bersha seem to have likewise included both models and wall scenes in their tombs, but their monuments have suffered greater damage. The governor Djehuty-nakht (R10A) housed an extensive corpus of models in his burial chamber,117 but the superstructure was entirely destroyed by an earthquake except for one small section of wall from the inner room. This remaining section shows no sign of decoration, but considering the status of the noble, the elaborate furnishing of his tomb and the exquisite painting on his coffin, it seems probable that his chapel was intended to be decorated with scenes if not actually achieved.118 The tomb-chapel of the governor Djehutyhotep (N-2), alternatively, is comparatively well-preserved with exquisite scenes covering the walls, including some unique themes and motifs.119 The burial chamber, on the other hand, was found completely plundered, so the range and type of funerary furnishings remains unknown, but a dump of material originating from the governor’s shaft has recently been examined, revealing 14 human figures originally from wooden models.120 At Beni Hassan, the burials of the Upper Cemetery were heavily plundered causing no complete models to be found, but Fraser’s 18901891 excavation revealed a number of fragments of wooden models, most notably some from the tomb of the governor Baqet III (15 UC) whose chapel is extensively decorated with wall scenes.121

owner and in these instances, the models presumably functioned as an additional safeguard for the tomb owner’s supply of provisions for the afterlife. Moreover, examples of models are known from the royal sphere, with an assemblage found in the burial of King Montuhotep II of the 11th Dynasty at Deir el-Bahri, indicating the medium’s esteemed role in funerary decoration.122 Models were therefore not merely the substitutes of wall scenes for those who could not afford decorated superstructures, but rather were a significant form of representation that was desired by the highest elite. As the three-dimensional medium was accessible to more of the population, variations in quantity and quality are noticeable, reflecting the contrasting wealth of model owners. In poorer burials, models were regularly fashioned of pottery due to the material’s availability and cheapness. These sculptures could be quite crudely formed and interred in particularly small assemblages.123 At Beni Hassan, there seems to have been a preference for representing granaries and domed silos in pottery,124 and in the tomb of Nebet-het-hotep (774/775 LC) the pottery granary forms the only model of the funerary equipment [M291].125 Wealthy tomb owners, on the other hand, could afford models in large quantities and could commission statuettes of superior craftsmanship. The largest known assemblage in Egypt belongs to the governor Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) which comprises at least 100 models [M66-M157].126 Some of these sculptures are exceptionally carved, most notably the Bersha Procession which exhibits the hand of a master artist who seems to have been influenced by the sculptural works of the Old Kingdom Memphite cemeteries [M144; see fig. 3.16].127 However, Djehutynakht’s corpus also includes models that were executed with minimum detail and care.128 The fact that crudely

The use of both two- and three-dimensional representations in a single tomb reflects the immense wealth of the tomb   It seems quite likely that some of the models uncovered by Kamal in his 1910-1914 excavation of Meir belonged to the governors of the province, but unfortunately the precise provenance and current location of many of these models has not been satisfactorily documented. Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Volume I, 16. Willems, Historical and Archaeological Aspects, 61. 116   Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, 9. 117  The burial chamber was, however, ransacked by thieves, with the contents thrown across the chamber. D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 112; Freed, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 11. 118  Terrace, Egyptian Paintings, 22-23; Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 149. A comparable example is found in the tomb of the chancellor Meketre from Thebes. The chapel has unfortunately been destroyed through plundering and quarrying, but fragmentary remains indicate that the walls were originally covered with scenes. The model assemblage, alternatively, escaped plunder as it was housed in a small concealed room. Winlock, Models of Daily Life, 9-13. 119   The scenes have unfortunately suffered some damage as a result of an earthquake. Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, 1-2. 120   Two of these figures may be certainly identified as originating from a model granary and eight may be attributed to a model rowing boat. Willems, et al., “Preliminary report of the 2003 campaign”, MDAIK 62, (2006), 309-13; Sykora, in Djehoutihotep, 23, 27. 121   Model fragments were also identified in the shafts of tombs 7 and 8 of the Upper Cemetery, but these chapels were not decorated with scenes. It should also be considered that some of the archaeological remains could originate from subsidiary shafts rather than the original burials of the ruling elite. Fraser, “Mr G. Willoughby Fraser’s report on the tombs at Beni Hasan”, in Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, 79-80; Orel, “Chronology and Social Stratification”, 468-69; Seidlmayer, in Archaeology and Art. Volume II, 366. 115

 Arnold, Tempel des Königs Mentuhotep. Band III, 11-51; Arnold, “Amenemhat I and the early Twelfth Dynasty”, MMJ 26, (1991), 25. The extent to which other Middle Kingdom monarchs utilised models is unknown due to the plundered state of their burials, but several New Kingdom kings placed model boats in their tombs. These models, however, quite likely functioned in a different role, namely to transport the deceased king with the divine across the sky rather than to provide ordinary riverine transport. Jones, Model Boats, 3; Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 151. 123   Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 86, 376-77. 124   See chapter 2.2 for further discussion on model grain storage facilities constructed of pottery. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 116-22. 125  Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, 239. 126  There were in fact two occupants of this burial: the governor and his wife, also named Djehuty-nakht. It is thought that the model corpus was originally divided into two groups, but determining which models belonged to whom is an impossible task due to the plundered state of the burial. Even if divided, each group is still an exceptionally large corpus. Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 151-52. 127   Freed suggests the possibility that the model-artist was either based at the royal residence and sent by the king to Deir el-Bersha to create the model as a show of gratitude for the governor’s support, or was a local of the province and travelled throughout Egypt, absorbing a range of styles and ideas. Freed, “‘Bersha Procession’ in context. Part I”, BES 19, (2015), 305. 128   D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 113; Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 152. 122

188

Survey of Differences between Funerary Models and Wall Scenes formed sculptures could be interred in the burial of a governor suggests that there was a preference for quantity over quality and that a low level of craftsmanship did not impede the effectiveness of the model.129 However, this variation also raises the possibility that some models were commissioned by family members, perhaps after the tomb owner’s death. During life, the governor could have ensured the quality of each sculpture created for his tomb, but after death, family members may have sought to quickly obtain models before interment which did not exhibit the same level of craftsmanship.130 Although this is merely conjecture, it is clear that lower quality models appeared in burials of a wide range of status, but sculptures of superior craftsmanship were only available to individuals with access to significant wealth.

differences between the two- and three-dimensional media outlined above demonstrate why funerary models were the preferred mode of representation and therefore appear more consistently in burial chambers than wall scenes. Firstly, the themes represented by the three-dimensional medium are almost entirely concerned with provisions. These were of prime importance for the afterlife and so there was a desire to protect them within a sealed section of the tomb. Secondly, with the almost complete absence of inscriptions, there was no threat posed by dangerous hieroglyphic signs. Even though the figures are mostly unlabelled, they may have still represented known and trusted individuals who did not pose significant threat to the tomb owner’s safety. Thirdly, as models were fashioned in workshops away from the tomb where conditions were more favourable for artistic creation, a potentially higher quality and quantity of artworks destined for the substructure could be produced. Fourthly, the medium was accessible to more of the population and could be incorporated more easily into burials of a wider range of status than wall scenes. This was particularly significant for those who could not afford superstructures and so confined all decoration to the substructure. However, the occurrence of animate wall scenes in some First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom burial chambers, as outlined in chapter 7.2, indicates that the type of representation was a personal choice of each tomb owner, although there was a clear preference for the three-dimensional medium.

7.7 Potential risks in choice of representation Security was a major concern for the ancient Egyptians in the construction and decoration of their tombs as they desired to protect their bodies and supplies of provisions for eternity. There were two principal risks that each tomb owner had to consider: the threat posed by representing animate beings in the burial chamber and that caused by turmoil in the country. As outlined above, there was a clear move away from depicting living creatures on the walls of substructures in the late Old Kingdom. The beings were quickly excluded from scenes and hieroglyphic signs of humans and dangerous animals were also affected. As it was believed that what was represented would magically come into existence, scholars regularly argue that this removal of living creatures was a means to protect the tomb owner’s body from any threat they might pose.131 Yet, despite this concern of animate figures, it was during the late Old Kingdom that funerary models were first interred in substructures, and this practice continued consistently throughout the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom. In an apparent contradiction, these three-dimensional representations of humans and animals could be included alongside the body in the substructure for a longer period than animate wall scenes.

Alongside the threat posed by representing animate figures, tomb owners had to simultaneously consider the risks resulting from turmoil in the country. During the late Old Kingdom, Egypt experienced a period of significant instability. Increasing evidence has demonstrated that turmoil began as early as the 5th Dynasty, perhaps with the reign of Nyuserre.133 As high-ranking officials attained more power, there was a growing tendency for enrichment. Elite tombs became larger and more lavishly constructed and decorated, with some even adopting royal architectural elements.134 Not only was it during this period that artistic representations were introduced to private burial chambers, but royal substructures also began to be decorated. King Unis from the end of the 5th Dynasty was the first to adopt this practice, inscribing the walls of his pyramid with spells from the Pyramid Texts.135

Despite the risk of animate figures, many tomb owners desired to include artistic representations in their substructures as a further precautionary measure due to the fear that the mortuary cult would not continue perpetually.132 The

  Bárta has convincingly argued that the increasing strength of high officials was already witnessed during the reign of Nyuserre. These elite men accumulated more wealth and official duties, and many significant offices had already become hereditary. As a result, each king from Djedkare onwards introduced administrative reforms that aimed to preserve centralised kingship and curb the power of officials. Kanawati, Governmental Reforms, 128-30; Bárta, Journey to the West, 173; Bárta, in Experiencing Power, 271-72. 134  The tomb of the vizier Ptahshepses at Abusir, dated to the reign of Nyuserre, has been observed by Bárta to incorporate several royal architectural elements, including a monumental columned portico, a statue room with three niches, an east-west oriented cult-chapel, a boat room, and an angular vaulted ceiling over the burial chamber. He was the first private individual to utilise these features, but other viziers and high-ranking officials of the 5th and 6th Dynasties continued this tradition. Bárta, Journey to the West, 175-78; Bárta, in Experiencing Power, 26869; Bárta, Analyzing Collapse, 134-37. 135  Ikram, Death and Burial, 38-39; Dawood, in Néferkarê aux Montouhotep, 109. 133

  Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 381; Freed & Doxey, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 152; Eschenbrenner-Diemer, in Company of Images, 174-75. 130  Tooley presents an interesting comparison with the models of Meketre from Thebes which all display superior levels of craftsmanship. These models suffered damage from insects and rodents which could only have occurred before deposition in the sealed chamber of the tomb, indicating that they were produced prior to Meketre’s death and so were all presumably commissioned by the tomb owner himself. Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 380-81. 131  Spencer, Death, 63; Bolshakov, Man and his Double, 118; Kanawati, Tomb and Beyond, 113; Dawood, in Néferkarê aux Montouhotep, 111; Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 15; Verma, Cultural Expression, 37. 132  Spencer, Death, 63; Baines and Lacovara, “Burial and the dead”, JSA 2.1, (2002), 11-12; Ikram, Ancient Egypt, 297. 129

189

Preparing for Eternity Although this decoration is textual while that of private tombs is largely figurative, there is some correlation in their origins. The earliest securely dated examples of private burial chambers decorated with scenes belong to Senedjemib-inti and Rashepses who both served as viziers under Djedkare.136 The precise relationship between the royal and private decorative schemes and the reasons for initiating these practices are not fully understood,137 but should perhaps be considered alongside the need for greater security. There were a number of factors that contributed to both political and economic instability in the late Old Kingdom, including the weakening of divine kingship, changes in the balance of power across the ruling elite, a decline in resources of the central government, and climatic changes.138 As a result, the guarantee that the living would continually deposit offerings in the tomb became less secure, causing tomb owners to look for alternate means to ensure a perpetual supply. With their ability to provide for the tomb owner in the afterlife, both two- and three-dimensional representations became important safeguards.

Egypt under Montuhotep II in the 11th Dynasty, tension and hostilities continued. The autobiography of Ankhtifi of Mo’alla evokes the atmosphere of the period, describing how “Upper Egypt was dying of hunger and people were eating their children” and that in response to the violence Ankhtifi “caused a man to embrace (even) those who had killed his father or brother.”143 The autobiographies of Khnumhotep I (14 UC) and Khnumhotep II (3 UC) at Beni Hassan, which describe the steps taken by kings to reestablish order in the 12th Dynasty, as well as an increasing prominence of military representations attest to the fragile conditions of the period.144 With this instability, the fear that provisions would not continue for the deceased was paramount in addition to an expectation of increasing tomb robbery.145 The burial chamber, positioned below ground and sealed after interment, maintained an important role in providing protection for the tomb owner’s supply of goods for the afterlife, and indeed, both models and wall scenes are known from substructures throughout this period. However, the protection of the burial chamber was not ensured. Housing objects of value, it was regularly targeted by thieves and so several architectural measures were taken to make the substructure more secure, including extending the depth of the shaft, using a portcullis to block the entrance and placing the mouth of the shaft outside the chapel.146 For further protection of the funerary model assemblage, some tomb owners created sealed rooms that offered an additional safeguard in case the substructure was interfered with.147 Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) from Meir, for example, stored his assemblage of models in a one metre deep niche cut into the floor of the burial chamber which was sealed with a stone slab before the shaft was filled with rubble, and in fact it successfully avoided theft.148 Such sealed rooms also created separation between the threedimensional figures and the body and so may have had the supplementary function of protecting the deceased from any threat posed by the representation of animate beings. A heightened threat of turmoil in the country seems to have outweighed the danger of representing living creatures in the burial chamber for many tomb owners.149 While the choice of decoration seems to have been determined by the individual, funerary models apparently offered a more practical safeguard, becoming the preferred mode of representation for the burial chamber.

The need for security continued in the First Intermediate Period when, alongside a collapse of central authority, there was a rise in the influence of the provincial nobilities. Egypt was divided into several units with provincial rulers acting more or less independently of the central government and who had the ability to raise their own armies.139 Centres of power emerged around Herakleopolis in the North and Thebes in the South, with each region operating under different administrative systems.140 The traditional understanding of the First Intermediate Period as a ‘dark age’ is currently being reassessed in scholarship,141 but changes in funerary practices are certainly evident which resulted from political fragmentation and a decreasing reliance upon the king.142 Even after the re-unification of  Although Senedjemib-inti served under Djedkare, his tomb was apparently created by his son during the reign of Unis, causing the tomb of Rashepses to form the earliest known example. It should be noted that dating tombs with decorated burial chambers is regularly a difficult task as the decoration itself often forms the only datable criteria. Consequently, revised dates may alter our understanding of the precise origin of decorating burial chambers with wall scenes. Brovarski, Senedjemib Complex. Volume I, 79-81; Dawood, in Néferkarê aux Montouhotep, 109-10; El-Tayeb, “Burial chamber of Rashepses”, EA 44, (2013), 8-9; Jánosi & Vymazalová, in Art of Describing, 216-18. 137   Vischak, “Pyramid Texts and Old Kingdom tomb design”, JARCE 40, (2003), 135; Dawood, in Néferkarê aux Montouhotep, 109; Kanawati, in Ali Radwan. Volume II, 57; Kanawati, Decorated Burial Chambers, 4344; Jánosi & Vymazalová, in Art of Describing, 217-18. 138   Bárta & Bezděk, in Chronology and Archaeology, 222; Moreno Garcia, in 2200 BC, 86; Kanawati & Swinton, Egypt in the Sixth Dynasty, 221-23; Bárta, Analyzing Collapse, 179-92; Sabbahy, Kingship, Power, and Legitimacy, 119-20. 139  Grajetzki, Burial Customs in Ancient Egypt, 36; Moreno Garcia, in Ancient Egyptian Administration, 148. 140  Willems, Historical and Archaeological Aspects, 35; Moreno Garcia, in 2200 BC, 84; Shaw, War & Trade, 33. 141  Seidlmayer, in Oxford History, 108-36; Franke, in Oxford Encyclopedia, ; Moeller, “First Intermediate Period”, EL 15, (2005), 153-67; Willems, in Companion to Ancient Egypt, 81-100; Moreno Garcia, in 2200 BC, 85-86. 142   D’Auria, Lacovara & Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, 48; Baines & Lacovara, “Burial and the dead”, JSA 2.1, (2002), 10; Grajetzki, Burial Customs in Ancient Egypt, 36; Morfoisse, in Sésostris III, 211-12; Willems, Historical and Archaeological Aspects, 135-40. 136

  The information provided by Ankhtifi’s autobiography should, however, be used with caution as the events he describes are specific to a particular region of Egypt and are most likely exaggerated to emphasise his role in re-establishing order. Seidlmayer, in Oxford History, 118-23; Moreno Garcia, in 2200 BC, 83, 86; Kanawati & Swinton, Egypt in the Sixth Dynasty, 209-11. 144  Smith, Art and Architecture, 82; Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, 9; Moreno Garcia, “Trade and power”, JArchRes 25.2, (2017), 106; Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, 16-17. 145  Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 178; Brewer & Teeter, Egypt and the Egyptians, 42-44. 146   Dodson & Ikram, Tomb in Ancient Egypt, 46; Kanawati, Decorated Burial Chambers, 13-19. 147   Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 77. 148  Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 3; Tooley, “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. Volume I”, 11. 149   Barker, “Animate decoration”, JARCE 56, (2020), 79-81. 143

190

8 Conclusion The comparative analysis undertaken in this study has highlighted the distinguishing characteristics of funerary models and wall scenes, thereby demonstrating the value in reassessing the relationship between the two- and threedimensional forms of funerary art. Close examination of the repertoires of the two media has revealed that the themes represented by models were specifically selected and designed according to the three-dimensional medium’s role in the tomb. The themes and motifs most commonly attested in the model corpus are those that provide the supplies and services of greatest benefit to the deceased’s eternal well-being. Representations of food preparation and transport are particularly prevalent and can therefore be considered essential to the model repertoire. While these themes likewise appear in wall scenes, they do not hold the same prominent position in the two-dimensional medium. Models also present different emphases in their representation of these themes so that the designs would be more suitable for the three-dimensional medium’s function. Model boats, for example, were equipped for any riverine journey that the deceased may encounter rather than portraying a specific moment of a voyage, and models of slaughtering cattle highlight the provision of beef instead of the ritual nature of the activity.

themes are dominant among wall scenes as they were crucial for the tomb owner’s self-presentation in the public chapel but were not beneficial in the concealed burial chamber and consequently were not required to be portrayed by the three-dimensional medium. Further differences between the media in their representation of each theme and motif have been demonstrated in this study to be a result of their contrasting technical properties. Scene- and model-artists were hindered by specific technical restrictions that impacted their execution of each theme. As a result of the difficulty of fashioning intricate details on small three-dimensional sculptures, models are usually quite basic in the way they are rendered and often present less detail and variety than wall scenes. The stability of the three-dimensional structure also had to be considered which resulted in further variations from the two-dimensional designs. Model offering-bearers, for example, typically carry a smaller quantity of supplies as they could not support the weight of the immense loads transported in wall scenes. Moreover, model-artists could not capture falling motion in their sculptures which prevented some motifs from being represented, such as sowing seed during land preparation. In addition, the three-dimensional medium could not integrate inscriptions into its designs in the same way that was so easily achieved in wall scenes. Textual captions therefore appear rarely in models, causing each theme to only be conveyed graphically.

The three-dimensional repertoire is considerably more condensed than that of the two-dimensional medium, with many themes and motifs rarely attested or entirely excluded from the model corpus. Themes that convey products and services considered desirable rather than essential appear infrequently and are usually confined to more expansive model assemblages, such as representations of craft production. Alternatively, some themes are condensed in order to focus on aspects of greater importance for the deceased’s well-being. Animal husbandry, for example, is solely concerned with the lifecycle of cattle in the threedimensional medium as this species was the most highly valued domestic animal in society and therefore would continually provide its wide range of esteemed products and services for the deceased in the afterlife.

On the other hand, model-artists were not restricted in their use of perspective like scene-artists but had the advantage of creating holistic compositions that allowed viewing from multiple angles. As a result, models present a more realistic arrangement of groups of figures and depict each component in its entirety without any aspect being hidden from view. The realism of the three-dimensional representations was further enhanced by the integration of real-life materials, such as grain stored in granaries and linen for garments. Model-artists therefore created individual representations that were appropriate for their medium rather than simply replicating the work of sceneartists.

Themes that are entirely absent, on the other hand, must not have contributed to the three-dimensional medium’s purpose. Of particular note is the almost complete absence of the tomb owner who in wall scenes forms the principal figure of the representations. With the models’ location in the burial chamber, representations of his figure were unnecessary as he was physically present with the sculptures. He could continually view the activities represented and receive the products of their service. Moreover, the repertoire of models excludes all activities in which the tomb owner takes part, such as hunting in the desert and fishing and fowling in the marshes. These

The conclusions drawn from the two- and threedimensional representations preserved from Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan can be applied to examples from other sites of the same period, but it would be valuable for further research to be conducted on some of the other extant representations, particularly any models that depict themes and motifs unrepresented at the three sites. Some of these themes were briefly discussed in chapter 7.3, including musicians, singers, dancers, 191

Preparing for Eternity wrestlers and games, but further analysis is needed to determine what each theme’s precise purpose was in the three-dimensional repertoire and how it contributed to the tomb owner’s afterlife.

measure of protection. This was particularly significant during a period of instability when there was a heightened fear that offerings would not be continually presented by the living and an increasing expectation of tomb robbery. Tomb owners looked for additional methods to protect their supply of provisions, and housing models in the substructure became a favoured safeguard.

One of the major distinguishing features of the threedimensional medium identified in this study is its use of multiple materials. While the range of materials and their purpose in the themes in which they appear were discussed in this book, it would be interesting to examine this further. What were the deciding factors that caused different materials to be used? Why were some elements only represented in wood? Which model owners and/or modelartists had access to these materials? Were some materials imported from other countries? Answering these questions would provide further insight into model construction, the purpose of using different materials, the accessibility of these resources, and possible trade networks for material importation. Similarly, greater understanding is required for the small number of inscriptions that are attested in the model corpus. A systematic analysis of these texts has not yet been undertaken but is an important area for future research to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the types of captions and their function in the threedimensional medium.

Wall scenes not only contributed to the deceased’s eternal survival through depicting themes and motifs that would promote his rebirth, sustenance and the maintenance of order, but with their location in the superstructure, had the additional function of publicly proclaiming his superior status, wealth and achievements to any visitors to the tomb. This interaction with the living was integral in the chapel where the mortuary cult was conducted, causing the two-dimensional illustrations to be specifically designed and selected to impress visitors and presumably encourage them to present offerings. Funerary models did not share this purpose as they were concealed from view in the subterranean burial chamber where they were exclusively accessible to the deceased. This close association with the body presents a direct connection between the services offered by models and the tomb owner’s afterlife. Therefore, the emphasis on providing essential commodities and services witnessed in the three-dimensional repertoire is understandable as it was integral for the medium to fulfill its function in the tomb successfully. Consequently, it is here concluded that the funerary model was not simply a duplicate or substitute of the wall scene but formed a distinct type of artistic representation that was specifically conceived to provision the deceased for eternity.

As has been observed in this book, many models have been impacted by modern intervention. While some examples where this has noticeably influenced the composition have been identified in this study based on the unusual combination and positioning of elements, further research is needed to determine the extent to which the model corpus has been affected. Such research would benefit from conservator-assisted analysis of the models themselves to determine which elements are not from the original compositions, as well as a detailed examination of unpublished archives which document the state of the models upon discovery and any changes that occurred to the sculptures during the acquisition process. This research would be especially valuable for distinguishing which unique themes and motifs in the model repertoire are original to the ancient corpus and which are modern additions. Artistic representations formed an important safeguard for the tomb owner’s supply of provisions in the afterlife, and this study has demonstrated that funerary models were particularly desirable for this purpose. While only the highest elite could afford decorated chapels, funerary models were accessible to more of the population and could be interred in burials both with and without superstructures. Models were less costly to produce and could be modified in both quantity and quality according to the individual’s level of wealth. Although only a limited number of tombs preserve both their two- and threedimensional representations, the evidence suggests that for those who were financially able, it was preferable to include both media in the tomb. Therefore, housing models in the burial chamber as well as decorating the tomb’s walls with scenes functioned as an additional 192

Bibliography Arnold, Do., “Foreign and female”, in Offerings to the Discerning Eye, 17-31.

Adams, M. D., “Household silos, granary models, and domestic economy in ancient Egypt”, in Archaeology and Art. Volume I, 1-23.

Arnold, Do., “An expanding worldview: Conquest, colonization, and coexistence. Catalogue 113”, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 177-78.

Adams, W. Y., Nubia: Corridor to Africa (Princeton, 1977).

Art Institute of Chicago (2017), Collections, viewed 19 October 2017, .

Alba Gómez, J. M., & Tooley, A. M. J., “Finds from the tomb of Sarenput II (QH31) in 2015: An unusual limestone head”, in Art-facts and Artefacts, 1-13.

Assmann, J., Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt (Ithaca, 2005).

Alcock, J. P., Food in the Ancient World (Connecticut, 2006).

Auenmüller, J., “Society and iconography. On the sociological analysis of iconographic programs of Old Kingdom elite tombs”, in Perfection that Endures, 15-41.

Aldred, C., “Fine wood-work”, in History of Technology. Volume I, 684-703.

Aufrère, S. H., “The deserts and the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Upper Egyptian Nomes during the Middle Kingdom”, in Egypt and Nubia, 207-14.

Aldred, C., Middle Kingdom Art in Ancient Egypt 23001590 B.C. (London, 1969). Allen, J. P., “The historical inscription of Khnumhotep at Dahshur: Preliminary report”, BASOR 352 (2008), 2939.

Badawy, A., A History of Egyptian Architecture: The First Intermediate Period, the Middle Kingdom, and the Second Intermediate Period (Berkley, Los Angeles, 1966).

Allen, S., “Spinning bowls: Representation and reality”, in Ancient Egypt, Aegean, Near East. Volume I, 17-38. Allgrove McDowell, J., “Kahun: The textile evidence”, in Pyramid Builders, 226-47.

Badawy, A., The Tombs of Iteti, Sekhem’ankh-Ptah, and Kaemnofert at Giza (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1976).

Altenmüller, H., “Daily life in eternity: The mastabas and rock-cut tombs of officials”, in Egypt, 78-93.

Bader, B., “Children of other gods: Social interactions”, in Pharaoh’s Land and Beyond, 61-77.

Amoros, V. A., Eschenbrenner-Diemer, G., Lavier, C., & Pages-Camagna, S., “Study and identification of ancient Egyptian polychrome woods: The funerary models of the Museum of Fine Arts of Lyon (France)”, Hathor 1 (2012), 11-29.

Baines, J., “Restricted knowledge, hierarchy, and decorum: Modern perceptions and ancient institutions”, JARCE 27 (1990), 1-23. Baines, J., “On the status and purpose of ancient Egyptian art”, CAJ 4.1 (1994), 67-94.

Anderson, J. B., “Spatial distribution”, in Egyptian Art, 37-44.

Baines, J., Visual and Written Culture in Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 2007).

Arnold, Di., Der Tempel des Königs Mentuhotep von Deir el Bahri. Band III: Die königlichen Beigaben (Mainz, 1981).

Baines, J., & Lacovara, P., “Burial and the dead in ancient Egyptian society: Respect, formalism, neglect”, JSA 2.1 (2002), 5-36.

Arnold, Di., The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret I (New York, 1992).

Baines, P., Linen, Hand Spinning and Weaving (London, 1989).

Arnold, Do., “Amenemhat I and the early Twelfth Dynasty at Thebes”, MMJ 26 (1991), 5-48.

Barber, E. J. W., Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages (Princeton, 1991).

Arnold, Do., “An Egyptian bestiary”, MMAB 52.4 (1995), 3-64.

Bardoňová, M., “Grain storage in the Old Kingdom. Relation between an object and its image”, in Perfection that Endures, 43-60.

Arnold, Do., “The architecture of Meketre’s slaughterhouse and other early Twelfth Dynasty wooden models”, in Structure and Significance, 1-76.

Bardoňová, M., “Grain Storage in Ancient Egypt (2600-1650 BC): Typology and Socio-Economic Implications”, PhD thesis, Charles University (Prague, 2019).

Arnold, Do., “Egyptian art: A performing art?”, in Servant of Mut, 1-18. 193

Preparing for Eternity Blackman, A. M., & Apted, M. R., The Rock Tombs of Meir. Part VI: The Tomb-Chapels of Ukhhotpe Son of Iam (A, No. 3), Senbi Son of Ukhhotpe Son of Senbi (B, No. 3), and Ukhhotpe Son of Ukhhotpe and Heny-heryib (C, No. 1) (London, 1953).

Barker, G., “Funerary models and wall scenes: The case of the granary,” GM 254 (2018), 7-14. Barker, G., “Classification of a funerary model: The rendering of accounts theme”, JARCE 55 (2019), 5-13. Barker, G., “Animate decoration in the burial chamber: A comparison of funerary models and wall scenes”, JARCE 56 (2020), 71-81.

Bleeker, C. J., Hathor and Thoth: Two Key Figures of the Ancient Egyptian Religion (Leiden, 1973).

Bárta, M., “Borderland dynamics in the era of the pyramid builders in Egypt”, in Understanding Life in the Borderlands, 21-39.

Boessneck, J., Die Tierwelt des Alten Ägypten (Munich, 1988).

Boessneck, J., Die Haustiere in Altägypten (Munich, 1953).

Bárta, M., Journey to the West: The World of the Old Kingdom Tombs in Ancient Egypt (Prague, 2011).

Bolshakov, A. O., “The Old Kingdom representations of funeral procession”, GM 121 (1991), 31-54.

Bárta, M., “Egyptian kingship during the Old Kingdom”, in Experiencing Power, 257-83.

Bolshakov, A. O., Man and his Double in Egyptian Ideology of the Old Kingdom (Wiesbaden, 1997). Bommas, M., “Travels to the beyond in ancient Egypt”, in Sacred and Profane, 35-62.

Bárta, M., “Kings, viziers, and courtiers: Executive power in the third millennium B.C.”, in Ancient Egyptian Administration, 153-75.

Bommas, M., “First Intermediate Period tombs at Beni Hassan: Problems and priorities (including BH no. 420 and the unpublished box coffin fragment BH3Liv)”, SAK 41 (2012), 43-65.

Bárta, M., Analyzing Collapse: The Rise and Fall of the Old Kingdom (Cairo, 2019). Bárta, M., & Bezděk, A., “Beetles and the decline of the Old Kingdom: Climate change in ancient Egypt”, in Chronology and Archaeology, 214-22.

Booth, C., The Role of Foreigners in Ancient Egypt: A Study of Stereotypical Artistic Representations (Oxford, 2005).

Bass, G. F., “Sea and river craft in the ancient Near East”, in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Volume III, 1421-431.

Booth, C., In Bed with the Ancient Egyptians (Stroud, 2015).

Bestock, L., Violence and Power in Ancient Egypt: Image and Ideology before the New Kingdom (London, 2017).

Borchardt, L., Statuen und Statuetten von Konigen und Privatleuten im Museum von Kairo, Nr. 1-1294 (Berlin, 1911).

Bienkowski, P., & Tooley, A. M. J., Gifts of the Nile: Ancient Egyptian Arts and Crafts in Liverpool Museum (London, 1995).

Bourriau, J., Umm El-Ga’ab: Pottery from the Nile Valley before the Arab Conquest (Cambridge, 1981). Bourriau, J., Pharaohs and Mortals: Egyptian Art in the Middle Kingdom (Cambridge, 1988).

Binder, S., “The tomb owner fishing and fowling”, in Egyptian Art, 111-28.

Bourriau, J., “Patterns of change in burial customs during the Middle Kingdom”, in Middle Kingdom Studies, 3-20.

Blackman, A. M., The Rock Tombs of Meir. Volume I: The Tomb-Chapel of Ukh-hotp’s Son Senbi (London, 1914).

Braulińska, K., “Middle Kingdom dog figurines: General remarks”, in Company of Images, 35-70.

Blackman, A. M., The Rock Tombs of Meir. Part II: The Tomb-Chapel of Senbi’s Son Ukh-hotp (B, No. 2) (London, 1915).

Breasted, J. H., Egyptian Servant Statues (Washington, 1948).

Blackman, A. M., The Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III: The Tomb-Chapel of Ukh-hotp Son of Ukh-hotp and Mersi (B, No. 4) (London, 1915).

Brewer, D. J., “Hunting, animal husbandry and diet in ancient Egypt”, in History of the Animal World, 427-56.

Blackman, A. M., The Rock Tombs of Meir. Part IV: The Tomb-Chapel of Pepi’onkh the Middle Son of Sebkhotpe and Pekhernefert (D, No. 2) (London, 1924).

Brewer, D. J., “Agriculture and animal husbandry”, in Egyptian World, 131-45. Brewer, D. J., & Friedman, R. F., Fish and Fishing in Ancient Egypt (Warminster, 1989).

Blackman, A. M., & Apted, M. R., The Rock Tombs of Meir. Part V: The Tomb-Chapels of A, No. 1 (That of Ni-’ankh-Pepi the Black), A, No. 2 (That of Pepi’onkh with the ‘Good Name’ of Heny the Black), A, No. 4 (That of Hepi the Black), D, No. 1 (That of Pepi), and E, Nos. 1-4 (Those of Meniu, Nenki, Pepi’onkh and Tjetu) (London, 1953).

Brewer, D. J., & Teeter, E., Egypt and the Egyptians, 2nd edition (Cambridge, 2007). Brewer, D. J., Clark, T., & Phillips, A., Dogs in Antiquity: Anubis to Cerberus. The Origins of the Domestic Dog (Warminster, 2001). 194

Bibliography Brewer, D. J., Redford, D. B., & Redford, S., Domestic Plants and Animals: The Egyptian Origins (Warminster, 1994).

Cortes, E., “From ‘weft fringes’ to ‘supplementary weft fringes’: Thoughts and discussion on weaving evolution in Egyptian textiles”, BES. The Art and Culture of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of Dorothea Arnold 19 (2015), 199-218.

Brier, B., & Hobbs, H., Daily Life of the Ancient Egyptians, 2nd edition (Connecticut, London, 2008).

Crowfoot, G. M., “Textiles, basketry, and mats”, in History of Technology. Volume I, 413-47.

Bristol Museum & Art Gallery (2017), Search our Collection, viewed 6 October 2017, .

Crowfoot, G. M., Methods of Hand Spinning in Egypt and the Sudan (Bedford, 1974).

British Museum, London (2017), Collection Online, viewed 25 September 2017, .

Crowfoot Payne, J., Catalogue of the Predynastic Egyptian Collection in the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford, 1993).

Brooklyn Museum (2019), Collection, viewed 18 August 2019, .

D’Auria, S., Lacovara, P., & Roehrig, C. H., Mummies and Magic: The Funerary Arts of Ancient Egypt (Boston, 1988).

Broudy, E., The Book of Looms: A History of the Handloom from Ancient Times to the Present (New York, 1979).

Darby, W. J., Ghalioungui, P., & Grivetti, L., Food: The Gift of Osiris. Volumes 1-2 (London, New York, 1977).

Brovarski, E., “Ahanakht of Bersheh and the Hare Nome in the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom”, in Studies in Ancient Egypt, 14-30.

Daressy, G., “Fouilles de Deir el Bircheh”, ASAE 1 (1900), 17-43. Dasen, V., Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece (Oxford, 1993).

Brovarski, E., The Senedjemib Complex. Volume I: The Mastabas of Senedjemib Inti (G 2370), Khnumenti (G 2374), and Senedjemib Mehi (G 2378) (Boston, 2000).

David, A. R., The Ancient Egyptians: Religious Beliefs and Practices (London, 1982).

Brovarski, E., “The Hare and Oryx Nomes in the First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom”, in Egyptian Culture and Society. Volume I, 31-85.

David, A. R., The Two Brothers: Death and Afterlife in Middle Kingdom Egypt (Bolton, 2007). Davies, N. de G., The Mastaba of Ptahhetep and Akhethetep at Saqqareh. Part II: The Mastaba. The Sculptures of Akhethetep (London, 1901).

Burnham, D. K., Warp and Weft: A Textile Terminology (Toronto, 1980). Bussman, D., “Materials and techniques”, in Egyptian Art, 23-28.

Davies, N. de G., The Rock Tombs of Sheikh Saïd (London, 1901).

Bussman, D., “Sacrificial slaughter”, in Egyptian Art, 10110.

Davies, N. de G., The Rock Tombs of Deir el Gebrâwi. Part II: The Tomb of Zau and Tombs of the Northern Group (London, 1902).

Carter, H., Blackden, M. W., Brown, P., & Buckman, P., Beni Hasan. Part IV: Zoological and Other Details (London, 1900). Casson, L., Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World (Princeton, 1971).

Davies, N. de G., Five Theban Tombs (being those of Mentuherkhepeshef, User, Daga, Nehemawäy and Tati) (London, 1913).

Casson, L., Ships and Seafaring in Ancient Times (London, 1994).

Davies, N. de G., Two Ramesside Tombs at Thebes (New York, 1927).

Clarke, S., & Engelbach, R., Ancient Egyptian Masonry: The Building Craft (London, 1930).

Davies, N. de G., The Tomb of Nefer-ḥotep at Thebes (New York, 1933).

Cleveland Museum of Art (2016), Collection Online, viewed 9 October 2017, .

Davies, N. de G., The Tomb of Rekh-mi-Re at Thebes (North Stratford, 1944). Davis, W., The Canonical Tradition in Ancient Egyptian Art (Cambridge, 1989).

Cohen, S., “Interpretative uses and abuses of the Beni Hasan tomb painting”, JNES 74.1 (2015), 19-38. Comité international pour l’égyptologie (2006), Global Egyptian Museum, viewed 10 December 2018, .

Dawood, K., “Animate decoration and burial chambers of private tombs during the Old Kingdom: New evidence from the tomb of Kairer at Saqqara”, in Néferkarê aux Montouhotep, 107-27.

Cordin, A., “Fashion and clothing”, in Egyptian Art, 17180.

De Keyser, E., “Scènes de chasse et pêche”, CdE 22.43 (1947), 42-49. 195

Preparing for Eternity De Meyer, M., “The tomb of Henu at Deir el-Barsha”, EA 31 (2007), 20-24.

Dunnicliff, S., “Marsh activities”, in Behind the Scenes, 109-24.

De Meyer, M., “Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr alBarshā. Volume I: Texts and Excavations in Zone 4”; “Volume II: Excavations in Zone 7 and Plates”, PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Leuven, 2008).

Eaton-Krauss, M., The Representations of Statuary in Private Tombs of the Old Kingdom (Wiesbaden, 1984). Eaton-Krauss, M., “Artists and artisans”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, .

De Meyer, M., “Two cemeteries for one provincial capital? Deir el-Bersha and el-Sheikh Said in the Fifteenth Upper Egyptian Nome during the Old Kingdom”, in Old Kingdom, New Perspectives, 42-49.

Eggebrecht, A., Schlachtungsbräuche im Alten Ägypten und ihre Wiedergabe im Flachbild bis zum Ende des Mittleren Reiches (Munich, 1973). El-Kilany, E., & Mahran, H., “What lies under the chair! A study in ancient Egyptian private tomb scenes, part I: Animals”, JARCE 51 (2015), 243-64.

De Meyer, M., “An isolated Middle Kingdom tomb at Dayr al-Barsha”, in World of Middle Kingdom Egypt. Volume II, 85-115. De Meyer, M., Linseele, V., Vereecken, S., & Williams, L. J., “Fowl for the governor. The tomb of governor Djehutinakht IV or V at Dayr al-Barshā reinvestigated. Part 2: Pottery, human remains, and faunal remains”, JEA 100 (2014), 67-87.

El-Tayeb, H., “The burial chamber of Rashepses at Saqqara”, EA 44 (2013), 8-9.

De Meyer, M., Van Neer, W., Peeters, C., & Willems, H., “The role of animals in the funerary rites at Dayr alBarshā”, JARCE 42 (2005), 45-71.

Eschenbrenner-Diemer, G., “The Petrie Museum’s collection of funerary wooden models: Investigating chronology and provenance”, AI 21 (2018), 101-08.

Decker, W., Sports and Games of Ancient Egypt (New Haven, 1992).

Eschenbrenner-Diemer, G., “A wood workshop at Meir at the beginning of the Middle Kingdom: The case of the wooden models”, in Middle Kingdom Palace Culture, 119-44.

Eschenbrenner-Diemer, G., “From the workshop to the grave: The case of wooden funerary models”, in Company of Images, 133-91.

Der Manuelian, P., “Furniture in ancient Egypt”, in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Volume III, 1623-646.

Evans, L., “Animals in the domestic environment”, in Egyptian Art, 73-82.

Desroches-Noblecourt, C., “‘Concubines du mort’ et mères de famille au Moyen Empire. À propos d’une supplique pour une naissance”, BIFAO 53 (1953), 7-47.

Evans, L., Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art: Representations of the Natural World in Memphite Tomb Scenes (Oxford, 2010).

Desserle, E., “L’artisanat du cuir de l’Ancien au Nouvel Empire”, EAO 57 (2010), 25-36.

Evans, L., “Beasts and beliefs at Beni Hassan: A preliminary report”, JARCE 52 (2016), 219-29.

Digby, A., “Boats and ships”, in History of Technology. Volume I, 730-43.

Eyre, C. J., The Cannibal Hymn: A Cultural and Literary Study (Liverpool, 2002).

Dodson, A., & Ikram, S., The Tomb in Ancient Egypt: Royal and Private Sepulchres from the Early Dynastic Period to the Romans (London, 2008).

Fabre, D., Seafaring in Ancient Egypt (London, 2004). Faltings, D., “Die Bierbrauerei im AR”, ZAeS 118 (1991), 104-16.

Donadoni Roveri, A. M., “The art of weaving: Fashion and furnishings”, in Egyptian Civilization, 188-217.

Faulkner, R. O., “Egyptian military organization”, JEA 39 (1953), 32-47.

Donatelli, L., “Measuring instruments, tools and weapons”, in Egyptian Civilization, 160-87.

Feucht, E., “Fishing and fowling with the spear and the throw-stick reconsidered”, in Intellectual Heritage of Egypt, 157-69.

Dorman, P. F., Faces in Clay: Technique, Imagery, and Allusion in a Corpus of Ceramic Sculpture from Ancient Egypt (Mainz am Rhein, 2002).

Firth, C. M., & Gunn, B., Excavations at Saqqara: Teti Pyramid Cemeteries. Volume I: Text; Volume II: Plates (Cairo, 1926).

Dothan, T., “Spinning-bowls”, IEJ 13.2 (1963), 97-112. Doxey, D. M., “Funerary beliefs and practices in the Middle Kingdom”, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 39-63.

Fischer, H. G., “Varia Aegyptiaca”, JARCE 2 (1963), 1551.

Doxey, D. M., “The Djehutynakhts’ burial goods”, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 137-49.

Fischer, H. G., Egyptian Women of the Old Kingdom and of the Heracleopolitan Period, 2nd edition (New York, 2000).

Drenkhahn, R., Die Handwerker und ihre Tätigkeiten im Alten Ägypten (Wiesbaden, 1976). 196

Bibliography Fisher, W. B., The Middle East: A Physical, Social and Regional Geography, 7th edition (London, 1978).

Ghoneim, W., Die Ökonomische bedeutung des Rindes im Alten Ägypten (Bonn, 1977).

Fitzenreiter, M., “Grabdekoration und die Interpretation funerärer Rituale im Alten Reich”, in Social Aspects of Funerary Culture, 67-140.

Gilbert, A. S., “Zooarchaeological observations on the slaughterhouse of Meketre”, JEA 74 (1988), 69-89. Glanville, S. R. K., Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum II: Wooden Model Boats, revised edition (Oxford, 1972).

Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (2016), Collections Explorer, viewed 18 October 2017, .

Gnirs, A. M., “Military: An overview”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, .

Forbes, R. J., Studies in Ancient Technology. Volume III, 2nd edition (Leiden, 1965).

Goedicke, H., “Abi-Sha(i)’s representation in Beni Hasan”, JARCE 21 (1984), 203-10.

Forbes, R. J., Studies in Ancient Technology. Volume IV, 2nd revised edition (Leiden, 1964).

Gonen, R., Weapons of the Ancient World (London, 1975).

Forbes, R. J., Studies in Ancient Technology. Volume V, 2nd edition (Leiden, 1966).

Gordon, A. H., & Schwabe, C. W., “‘Live Flesh’ and ‘Opening-of-the-Mouth’: Biomedical, ethnological, and Egyptological aspects”, in Proceedings of the Seventh ICE, 461-69.

Forshaw, R., “The Role of the Lector (Xry-Hbt) in Ancient Egyptian Society”, PhD thesis, University of Manchester (Manchester, 2013). Frandsen, P., “Taboo – bwt?”, TdE 8 (2017), 165-92.

Grajetzki, W., Burial Customs in Ancient Egypt: Life in Death for Rich and Poor (London, 2003).

Franke, D., “The career of Khnumhotep III of Beni Hasan and the so-called ‘decline of the nomarchs’”, in Middle Kingdom Studies, 51-67.

Grajetzki, W., Sedment: Burials of Egyptian Farmers and Noblemen over the Centuries (London, 2005). Grajetzki, W., The Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt: History, Archaeology and Society (London, 2006).

Franke, D., “First Intermediate Period (c.2220-2040 BCE)”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, .

Grajetzki, W., Court Officials of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom (London, 2009).

Freed, R. E., “Art historical overview”, in Bersheh Reports I, 51-63.

Grajetzki, W., “The pharaoh’s subjects: Court and provinces”, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 120-23.

Freed, R. E., “Introduction”, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 1113.

Graves-Brown, C., “Beyond the technological: A novice knapper’s experience”, in Egyptology in the Present, 39-51.

Freed, R. E., “The ‘Bersha Procession’ in context. Part I: An art historical examination”, BES. The Art and Culture of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of Dorothea Arnold 19 (2015), 293-310.

Greco, C., (ed.), Mòmies Egípcies: El Secret de la Vida Eterna (Barcelona, 2012).

Freed, R. E., & Doxey, D. M., “The Djehutynakhts’ models”, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 151-77.

Griffith, F. L., Beni Hasan. Part III (London, 1896). Griffith Institute, University of Oxford (2017), The Middle Kingdom Tombs at Deir el-Bersha: Reconstruction of Tomb Wall-Scenes using Watercolours from the Griffith Institute Archive, viewed 4 April 2018, .

Gaballa, G. A., Narrative in Egyptian Art (Mainz am Rhein, 1976). Galliano, G., “Antiquités”, in Musée des Beaux-Arts, 1153. Gamer-Wallert, I., Fische und Fischkulte im Alten Ägypten (Wiesbaden, 1970).

Groenewegen-Frankfort, H. A., Arrest and Movement: An Essay on Space and Time in the Representational Art of the Ancient Near East (New York, 1987).

Garstang, J., “Excavations at Beni Hasan (1902-19031904)”, ASAE 5 (1904), 215-28.

Guichard, H., “Formes et figures animales dans le mobilier égyptien”, in Creatures of Earth, Water, and Sky, 17177.

Garstang, J., The Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt as Illustrated by the Tombs of the Middle Kingdom (London, 1907).

Gutgesell, M., “The military”, in Egypt, 364-69.

Geller, J., “From prehistory to history: Beer in Egypt”, in Followers of Horus, 19-26.

Hagen, F., & Ryholt, K., The Antiquities Trade in Egypt 1880-1930: The H. O. Lange Papers (Copenhagen, 2016).

Germond, P., & Livet, J., An Egyptian Bestiary: Animals in Life and Religion in the Land of the Pharaohs (London, 2001).

Hall, R., Egyptian Textiles (Princes Risborough, 1986). 197

Preparing for Eternity Hampson, M., “‘Experimenting with the new’: Innovative figure types and minor features in Old Kingdom workshop scenes”, in Egyptian Culture and Society. Volume I, 165-79.

Houlihan, P. F., “Animals in Egyptian art and hieroglyphs”, in History of the Animal World, 97-143. Houlihan, P. F., “Birds”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, .

Hampson, M., “Men at Work. A Comparative Study of Workshop Scenes in Tombs of the Old Kingdom: Applying an Anatomisation Approach”, PhD thesis, Macquarie University (Sydney, 2012).

Houlihan, P. F., “Poultry”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, . Howley, K. E., “The materiality of shabtis: Figurines over four millennia”, CAJ 30.1 (2020), 123-40.

Handoussa, T., “Fish offering in the Old Kingdom”, MDAIK 44 (1988), 104-09.

Hudáková, L., “Innovative power of Middle Kingdom tomb decoration as reflected in the scenes of grain processing, bread-making and brewing”, in Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 159-88.

Harpur, Y., Decoration in Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom: Studies in Orientation and Scene Content (London, New York, 1987).

Hudáková, L., “Middle Kingdom transformations of an Old Kingdom artistic tradition: The mAA-scene”, in (Re) productive Traditions, 371-94.

Harpur, Y., & Scremin, P., The Chapel of Kagemni: Scene Details (Oxford, 2006). Hartwig, M. K., Tomb Painting and Identity in Ancient Thebes, 1419-1372 BCE (Turnhout, 2004).

Hudáková, L., “Some aspects of Middle Kingdom agriculture: Basketry products and their utilisation as represented in art”, in Art of Describing, 181-214.

Hartwig, M. K., “Method in ancient Egyptian painting”, in Artists and Painting, 28-56. Harvey, J., Wooden Statues of the Old Kingdom: A Typological Study (Leiden, 2001).

Hudáková, L., The Representations of Women in the Middle Kingdom Tombs of the Officials: Studies in Iconography (Leiden, 2019).

Harvey, J., “Continuity or collapse: Wooden statues from the end of the Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period”, in Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology, 157-66.

Hull Museums (2017), Hull Museums Collections, viewed 12 October 2017, .

Hasanien, A. F., “Leather manufacture in ancient Egypt”, GM 161 (1997), 75-85.

Ikram, S., “Food for eternity: What the ancient Egyptians ate and drank, part 1: Meat, fish, fowl”, KMT 5.1 (1994), 24-33.

Hatchfield, P., “The ‘Bersha Procession’ in context. Part II: Conservation history and technical study”, BES. The Art and Culture of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of Dorothea Arnold 19 (2015), 311-30.

Ikram, S., Choice Cuts: Meat Production in Ancient Egypt (Leuven, 1995). Ikram, S., “Meat processing”, in Materials and Technology, 656-71.

Hayes, W. C., The Sceptre of Egypt: A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Part I: From the Earliest Times to the End of the Middle Kingdom, revised edition (New York, 1990).

Ikram, S., Death and Burial in Ancient Egypt (London, 2003). Ikram, S., “Afterlife beliefs and burial customs”, in Egyptian World, 340-51.

Hays, H. M., “The death of the democratisation of the afterlife”, in Old Kingdom, New Perspectives, 115-30.

Ikram, S., Ancient Egypt: An Introduction (New York, 2010).

Helck, W., Das Bier im Alten Ägypten (Berlin, 1971).

Ikram, S., “Sacrifice, pharaonic Egypt”, in Encyclopedia of Ancient History, .

Hoffmeier, J. K., “Military: Material”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, .

Institute of Egyptology, University of Vienna (2017), MeKeTRE, viewed 20 November 2017, .

Hölzl, C., “The rock-tombs of Beni Hasan: Architecture and sequence”, in Sesto Congresso Internazionale. Volume I, 279-83.

Jacquet-Gordon, H. K., Les noms des domaines funéraires sous l’Ancien Empire égyptien (Cairo, 1962).

Hope, C. A., Egyptian Pottery (Princes Risborough, 2001).

James, T. G. H., The Mastaba of Khentika called Ikhekhi (London, 1953).

Hornblower, G. D., “Predynastic figures of women and their successors”, JEA 15.1/2 (1929), 29-47.

James, T. G. H., Pharaoh’s People: Scenes from Life in Imperial Egypt (London, 1984).

Houlihan, P. F., The Birds of Ancient Egypt (Warminster, 1986).

Jánosi, P., & Vymazalová, H., “The decorated burial chamber of Ppy-Anx 4Tw at South Saqqara: Some preliminary observations”, in Art of Describing, 215-34.

Houlihan, P. F., The Animal World of the Pharaohs (London, 1996). 198

Bibliography Janssen, R., & Janssen, J., Egyptian Household Animals (Princes Risborough, 1989).

Kamrin, J., “The Aamu of Shu in the tomb of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hassan”, JAEI 1.3 (2009), 22-36.

Janssen, R., & Janssen, J., Growing Up and Getting Old in Ancient Egypt, 2nd edition (London, 2007).

Kamrin, J., “The procession of ‘Asiatics’ at Beni Hasan”, in Cultures in Contact, 156-69.

Jones, D., Model Boats from the Tomb of Tut’ankhamūn (Oxford, 1990).

Kamrin, J., “The decoration of elite tombs: Connecting the living and the dead”, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 28-32.

Jones, D., Boats (London, 1995).

Kamrin, J., “Understanding death: A journey between worlds. Catalogue 161”, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 223-25.

Jones, J., “Textiles, pharaonic Egypt”, in Encyclopedia of Ancient History, . Jones, P., “Animal husbandry”, in Behind the Scenes, 97107.

Kanawati, N., Governmental Reforms in Old Kingdom Egypt (Warminster, 1980).

Jørgensen, M., Catalogue: Egypt I (3000-1550 B.C.) Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (Copenhagen, 1996).

Kanawati, N., The Tomb and its Significance in Ancient Egypt (Guizeh, 1987).

Junker, H., Giza. Band III: Die Mastabas der vorgeschrittenen V. Dynastie auf dem Westfriedhof (Wien, Leipzig, 1938).

Kanawati, N., The Tombs of El-Hagarsa. Volume III (Sydney, 1995). Kanawati, N., The Tomb and Beyond: Burial Customs of Ancient Egyptian Officials (Warminster, 2001).

Junker, H., Giza. Band IV: Die Mastaba des KAjmanx (Kaiem-anch) (Wien, Leipzig, 1940).

Kanawati, N., Tombs at Giza. Volume II: Seshathetep/ Heti (G5150), Nesutnefer (G4970) and Seshemnefer II (G5080) (Warminster, 2002).

Jurman, C., “To show and to designate: Attitudes towards representing craftsmanship and material culture in Middle Kingdom elite tombs”, in Arts of Making, 10116.

Kanawati, N., Deir el-Gebrawi. Volume I: The Northern Cliff (Oxford, 2005).

Kahlbacher, A., “The menu please! Individualism vs. standardization in funerary repast scenes from the Early Dynastic Period to the Middle Kingdom”, in Change and Innovation, 65-81.

Kanawati, N., “Decoration of burial chambers, sarcophagi and coffins in the Old Kingdom”, in Ali Radwan. Volume II, 55-71.

Kamal, A. B., “Fouilles à Déir-el-Barsheh”, ASAE 2 (1901), 14-43.

Kanawati, N., “Specificity in Old Kingdom tomb scenes”, ASAE 83 (2009), 261-78.

Kamal, A. B., “Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées à Deirel-Barshé”, ASAE 2 (1901), 206-22.

Kanawati, N., “Chronology of the Old Kingdom nobles of El-Qusiya revisited”, in Perspectives on Ancient Egypt, 207-20.

Kamal, A. B., “Fouilles à Deir-el-Barché. Exécutées dans les six premiers mois de l’année”, ASAE 3 (1902), 27682.

Kanawati, N., Decorated Burial Chambers of the Old Kingdom (Cairo, 2010). Kanawati, N., The Cemetery of Meir. Volume I: The Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle (Oxford, 2012).

Kamal, A. B., “Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées dans la zone comprise entre Deirout au nord et Deir-elGanadlah au sud”, ASAE 11 (1911), 3-39.

Kanawati, N., “Wekhhotep III of Meir: The first advocate of gender equality?”, BACE 26 (2016-2018), 37-46.

Kamal, A. B., “Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées dans la zone comprise entre Deirout au nord et Deir-elGanadlah au sud”, ASAE 12 (1912), 97-127.

Kanawati, N., “Mortuary culture in the provinces: The example of Beni Hassan”, in Death is Only the Beginning, 56-65.

Kamal, A. B., “Rapport sur les fouilles de Said Bey Khachaba au Deir-el-Gabraoui”, ASAE 13 (1914), 16178.

Kanawati, N., “Papyrus thickets in the Old and Middle Kingdoms, with reference to the scenes in the tombs of Baqet III and Khety at Beni Hassan”, in Cultural Manifestations, 119-32.

Kamal, A. B., “Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées dans la zone comprise entre Deirout au nord et Deir-elGanadlah au sud”, ASAE 14 (1914), 45-87.

Kanawati, N., “A unique burial of a father and a son: Niankhpepy the Black and Pepyankh the Black, at Meir”, in Perfection that Endures, 225-30.

Kamal, A. B., “Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées dans la zone comprise entre Deirout au nord et Deir-elGanadlah au sud”, ASAE 15 (1915), 198-206.

Kanawati, N., & Abder-Raziq, M., The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara. Volume VI: The Tomb of Nikauisesi (Warminster, 2000).

Kamrin, J., The Cosmos of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan (London, New York, 1999). 199

Preparing for Eternity Kanawati, N., & Abder-Raziq, M., Mereruka and his Family. Part I: The Tomb of Meryteti (Oxford, 2004).

Kessler, D., “Die Asiatenkarawane von Beni Hassan”, SAK 14 (1987), 147-65.

Kanawati, N., & Evans, L., Beni Hassan. Volume I: The Tomb of Khnumhotep II (Oxford, 2014).

Kessler, D., “Zur Bedeutung der Szenen des täglichen Lebens in den Privatgräbern (I): Die Szenen des Schiffsbaues und der Schiffahrt”, ZAeS 114.1 (1987), 59-88.

Kanawati, N., & Evans, L., The Cemetery of Meir. Volume II: The Tomb of Pepyankh the Black (Oxford, 2014).

Kessler, D., “The political history of the Third to Eighth Dynasties”, in Egypt, 40-45.

Kanawati, N., & Evans, L., Beni Hassan. Volume III: The Tomb of Amenemhat (Oxford, 2016).

Killen, G., Egyptian Woodworking and Furniture (Princes Risborough, 1994).

Kanawati, N., & Evans, L., The Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV: The Tombs of Senbi I and Wekhhotep I (Oxford, 2017).

Killen, G., “Wood: Technology”, in Materials and Technology, 353-71.

Kanawati, N., & Evans, L., Beni Hassan. Volume IV: The Tomb of Baqet III (Oxford, 2018).

Killen, G., “John Garstang’s discovery of wooden furniture at the Middle Kingdom necropolis of Beni Hasan”, in Egyptian Museum Collections. Volume I, 645-56.

Kanawati, N., & Evans, L., Beni Hassan. Volume VI: The Tomb of Khety (Wallasey, 2020).

Killen, G., Ancient Egyptian Furniture. Volume I: 40001300 B.C.; Volume II: Boxes, Chests and Footstools, 2nd edition (Oxford, Philadelphia, 2017).

Kanawati, N., & Hassan, A., The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara. Volume II: The Tomb of Ankhmahor (Warminster, 1997). Kanawati, N., & McFarlane, A., Deshasha: The Tombs of Inti, Shedu and Others (Sydney, 1993).

Klebs, L., Die Reliefs des Alten Reiches (Heidelberg, 1915). Klebs, L., Die Reliefs und Malereien des Mittleren Reiches (Heidelberg, 1922).

Kanawati, N., & Swinton, J., Egypt in the Sixth Dynasty: Challenges and Responses (Wallasey, 2018).

Köpp, H., “Desert travel and transport in ancient Egypt: An overview based on epigraphic, pictorial and archaeological evidence”, in Desert Road, 107-32.

Kanawati, N., & Woods, A., Artists in the Old Kingdom: Techniques and Achievements (Cairo, 2009). Kanawati, N., & Woods, A., Beni Hassan: Art and Daily Life in an Egyptian Province (Cairo, 2010).

Kroenke, K. R., “The Provincial Cemeteries of Naga ed-Deir: A Comprehensive Study of Tomb Models Dating from the Late Old Kingdom to the Late Middle Kingdom”, PhD thesis, University of California (Berkley, 2010).

Kanawati, N., Woods, A., Shafik, S., & Alexakis, E., Mereruka and his Family. Part III:1, The Tomb of Mereruka (Oxford, 2010). Kanawati, N., Woods, A., Shafik, S., & Alexakis, E., Mereruka and his Family. Part III:2, The Tomb of Mereruka (Oxford, 2011).

Kucharek, A., “Mourning and lamentation on coffins”, in Ancient Egyptian Coffins, 77-115. Landström, B., Ships of the Pharaohs: 4000 Years of Egyptian Shipbuilding (New York, 1970).

Kanawati, N., Evans, L., Lashien, M., Mourad, A.-L., & Senussi, A., The Cemetery of Meir. Volume III: The Tomb of Niankhpepy the Black (Oxford, 2015).

Lane, M., “The pull-saw in Egypt”, AEE (1935), 55-58. Lashien, M., “The so-called pilgrimage in the Old Kingdom: Its destination and significance”, BACE 20 (2009), 87-106.

Kantor, H. J., “Narration in Egyptian art”, AJA 61.1 (1957), 44-54. Kaper, O., van Walsem, R., & Willems, H., “Tombs in the middle of the terrace”, in Bersheh Reports I, 39-50.

Lashien, M., “The transportation of funerary furniture in Old Kingdom tomb scenes”, in Egyptian Culture and Society. Volume II, 1-12.

Katary, S. L. D., “Land tenure and taxation”, in Egyptian World, 185-201.

Lashien, M., “Narrative in Old Kingdom wall scenes: The progress through time and space”, BACE 22 (2011), 101-14.

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (2018), Dayr alBarshā Project, viewed 2 August 2018, . Kemp, B. J., “Soil (including mud-brick architecture)”, in Materials and Technology, 78-103.

Lashien, M., “The ultimate destination: Decoration of Kaiemankh’s burial chamber reconsidered”, ET 26.1 (2013), 403-15.

Kemp, B. J., Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, 2nd edition (Oxon, New York, 2006).

Lashien, M., Beni Hassan. Volume II: Two Old Kingdom Tombs (Oxford, 2016).

Kemp, B. J., & Vogelsang-Eastwood, G., The Ancient Textile Industry at Amarna (London, 2001).

Lashien, M., The Nobles of El-Qusiya in the Sixth Dynasty: A Historical Study (Wallasey, 2017). 200

Bibliography Lashien, M., “The art in the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle. Innovation or copying?”, in Perfection that Endures, 253-66.

Miles, B., “Enigmatic scenes of intimate contact with dogs in the Old Kingdom”, BACE 21 (2010), 71-88.

Lashien, M., & Mourad, A.-L., Beni Hassan. Volume V: The Tomb of Khnumhotep I (Oxford, 2019).

Miniaci, G., “Populating Middle Kingdom fauna: Inclusion and exclusion of zoological iconographic motifs in its material culture”, in Art-acts and Artefacts, 63-84.

Leospo, E., “Woodworking: Furniture and cabinetry”, in Egyptian Civilization, 120-59.

Minneapolis Institute of Art (2017), Collection, viewed 19 October 2017, .

Lepsius, K. R., Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien. Ergänzungsband (Berlin, 1913).

Moeller, N., “The First Intermediate Period: A time of famine and climate change?”, EL 15 (2005), 153-67.

Lilyquist, C., Ancient Egyptian Mirrors: From the Earliest Times through the Middle Kingdom (Munich, 1979).

Moeller, N., “The archaeological evidence for town administration: New evidence from Tell Edfu”, in Beyond the Horizon, 263-74.

Lloyd, A. B., Ancient Egypt: State and Society (Oxford, 2014).

Monnier, F., “Une iconographie égyptienne de l’architecture defensive”, ENiM 7 (2014), 173-219.

Loprieno, A., Topos und Mimesis: zum Ausländer in der Ägyptischen Literatur (Wiesbaden, 1988).

Montet, P., “Les scènes de boucherie dans les tombes de l’Ancien Empire”, BIFAO 7 (1907), 41-65.

Lucas, A., & Harris, J. R., Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 4th edition (Mineola, 1999).

Montet, P., Les scènes de la vie privée dans les tombeaux égyptiens de l’Ancien Empire (Oxford, 1925).

Lund, M., “Egyptian depictions of flintknapping from the Old and Middle Kingdom, in the light of experiments and experience”, in Egyptology in the Present, 113-37.

Moreno Garcia, J. C., “Quelques observations sur l’emploi de l’araire en Égypte ancienne”, GRAFMA 9-10 (2008), 53-60.

Lustig, J., “Kinship, gender and age in Middle Kingdom tomb scenes and texts”, in Anthropology and Egyptology, 43-65.

Moreno Garcia, J. C., “War in Old Kingdom Egypt (26862125 BCE)”, in Studies on War, 5-41.

Malek, J., In the Shadow of the Pyramids: Egypt during the Old Kingdom (London, 1986).

Moreno Garcia, J. C., “The territorial administration of the kingdom in the 3rd millennium”, in Ancient Egyptian Administration, 85-151.

Malek, J., Egyptian Art (London, 1999).

Moreno Garcia, J. C., “Invaders or just herders? Libyans in Egypt in the third and second millennia BCE”, WorldArch 46.4 (2014), 610-23.

Malek, J., & Miles, E., “Early squeezes made in the tomb of Khaemhet (TT 57)”, JEA 75 (1989), 227-29. Marshall, N., “The desert and the hunt”, in Behind the Scenes, 125-46.

Moreno Garcia, J. C., “Climate change or sociopolitical transformation? Reassessing late 3rd millennium BC in Egypt”, in 2200 BC, 79-94.

McDermott, B., Warfare in Ancient Egypt (Gloucestershire, 2004).

Moreno Garcia, J. C., “Trade and power in ancient Egypt: Middle Egypt in the late third/early second millennium BC”, JArchRes 25.2 (2017), 87-132.

McFarlane, A., Mastabas at Saqqara: Kaiemheset, Kaipunesut, Kaiemsenu, Sehetepu and Others (Oxford, 2003).

Moreno Garcia, J. C., “Leather processing, castor oil, and desert/Nubian trade at the turn of the 3rd/2nd millennium BC: Some speculative thoughts on Egyptian craftsmanship”, in Arts of Making, 159-73.

McFarlane, A., “Transportation”, in Behind the Scenes, 147-65. McKergow, G., “Water transport”, in Egyptian Art, 22540.

Moreno Garcia, J. C., “Ethnicity in ancient Egypt: An introduction to key issues”, JEgH 11.1-2 (2018), 1-17.

Mee, J. F., “Managing the cow at calving time”, in Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Conference, AABP, 35-43.

Moreno Garcia, J. C., The State in Ancient Egypt: Power, Challenges and Dynamics (London, 2020).

Mendoza, B., Artifacts from Ancient Egypt (Santa Barbara, 2017).

Moreno Garcia, J. C., “Egyptian agriculture in the Bronze Age: Peasants, landlords, and institutions”, in Companion to Ancient Agriculture, 173-92.

Merriman, A., Egyptian Watercraft Models from the Predynastic to Third Intermediate Periods (Oxford, 2011).

Morfoisse, F., “Le mobilier funéraire des particuliers”, in Sésostris III, 210-16.

Milde, H., “Shabtis”, UEE 1.1 (2012), .

Mourad, A.-L., “Siege scenes of the Old Kingdom”, BACE 22 (2011), 135-58. 201

Preparing for Eternity Norwich Castle Museum & Art Gallery (2017), Norfolk Museums Collections, viewed 12 October 2017, .

Mourad, A.-L., “Rise of the Hyksos: Egypt and the Levant from the Middle Kingdom to the Early Second Intermediate Period”, PhD thesis, Macquarie University (Sydney, 2014).

Nyord, R., “‘Taking ancient Egyptian mortuary religion seriously’: Why would we, and how could we?”, JAEI 17 (2018), 73-87.

Mourad, A.-L., “Foreigners at Beni Hassan: Evidence from the tomb of Khnumhotep I (no. 14)”, BASOR 384 (2020), 105-32.

Nyord, R., Seeing Perfection: Ancient Egyptian Images beyond Representation (Cambridge, 2020).

Moussa, A. M., & Altenmüller, H., Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep (Mainz am Rhein, 1977).

O’Connor, D., “Egypt’s views of ‘others’”, in Never had the Like Occurred, 155-85.

Murray, M. A., The Tomb of Two Brothers (Manchester, 1910).

O’Connor, D., Abydos: Egypt’s First Pharaohs and the Cult of Osiris (London, 2009).

Murray, M. A., The Splendour that was Egypt: A General Survey of Egyptian Culture and Civilisation (London, 1949).

O’Connor, D., “An expanding worldview: Conquest, colonization, and coexistence”, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 160-63.

Murray, M. A., “Cereal production and processing”, in Materials and Technology, 505-36.

Oppenheim, A., “Introduction: What was the Middle Kingdom?”, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 1-8.

Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon (2018), Collections en ligne du musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon, viewed 9 January 2018, .

Orel, S. E., “Chronology and Social Stratification in a Middle Egyptian Cemetery”, PhD thesis, University of Toronto (Toronto, 1993).

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (2017), Collections, viewed 6 September 2017, .

Orel, S. E., “John Garstang at Beni Hasan”, KMT 8.1 (1997), 54-63. Orel, S. E., “Models (stone and wood)”, in Encyclopedia of Ancient History, .

Museum of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (2019), Search our Collections, viewed 10 February 2019, .

Osborn, D. J., & Osbornová, J., The Mammals of Ancient Egypt (Warminster, 1998). Otto, E., Ancient Egyptian Art: The Cults of Osiris and Amon (New York, 1968).

National Museums Liverpool (2017), Collections, viewed 23 October 2017, .

Papazian, H., “The central administration of the resources in the Old Kingdom: Departments, treasuries, granaries and work centers”, in Ancient Egyptian Administration, 41-83.

National Museums Scotland (2017), Search our Collections, viewed 27 September 2017, .

Partridge, R. B., Transport in Ancient Egypt (London, 1996).

Naville, E, The 11th Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari. Part I (London, 1907).

Partridge, R. B., Fighting Pharaohs: Weapons and Warfare in Ancient Egypt (Manchester, 2002).

Naville, E., & Hall, H., The 11th Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari. Part III (London, 1913).

Partridge, R. B., “Transport in ancient Egypt”, in Companion to Ancient Egypt, 370-89.

Nelson-Hurst, M. G., “The (social) house of Khnumhotep”, in World of Middle Kingdom Egypt. Volume I, 257-72. Newberry, P. E., Beni Hasan. Parts I-II (London, 1893).

Partridge, R. B., “Transport, pharaonic Egypt”, in Encyclopedia of Ancient History, .

Newberry, P. E., El Bersheh. Part I: The Tomb of Tehutihetep (London, 1894).

Peck, W. H., The Material World of Ancient Egypt (New York, 2013).

Newberry, P. E., & Griffith, F. L., El Bersheh. Part II (London, 1894).

Peck, W. H., “The ordering of the figure”, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 360-74.

Nibbi, A., “Some remarks on ass and horse in ancient Egypt and the absence of the mule”, ZAeS 106 (1979), 148-68.

Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London (2005), Petrie Online Catalogue, viewed 19 March 2020, .

Nord, D., “The term xnr: ‘Harem’ or ‘musical performers’?”, in Studies in Ancient Egypt, 137-45.

Petrie, W. M. F., & Brunton, G., Sedment I (London, 1924). 202

Bibliography Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden (2017), Collection, viewed 29 September 2017, .

Petzel, F. E., Textiles of Ancient Mesopotamia, Persia, and Egypt (Oregon, 1987). Phillips, C. J. C., Cattle Behaviour (Ipswich, 1993).

Ritner, R. K., The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice (Chicago, 1993).

Piacentini, P., “Scribes”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, .

Robins, G., Egyptian Painting and Relief (Aylesbury, 1986).

Picardo, N. S., “Middle Kingdom history, politics, and social organization”, in Secrets of Tomb 10A, 17-37.

Robins, G., “Problems in interpreting Egyptian art”, DE 17 (1990), 45-58.

Pieke, G., “Playing with traditions. The decoration of Djehutyhotep II’s tomb at Deir el-Bersha reconsidered”, in Change and Innovation, 95-116.

Robins, G., Women in Ancient Egypt (London, 1993).

Pinch, G., “Offerings to Hathor”, Folklore 93.2 (1982), 138-50.

Robins, G., Proportion and Style in Ancient Egyptian Art (Austin, 1994).

Pinch, G., Votive Offerings to Hathor (Oxford, 1993).

Robins, G., “Art”, in Egyptian World, 355-65.

Pinch, G., Magic in Ancient Egypt (London, 1994).

Robins, G., The Art of Ancient Egypt, revised edition (Cambridge, 2008).

Pirelli, R., “Troop of Egyptian soldiers”, in Egyptian Treasures, 108-11.

Robinson, M., “The Bersheh necropolis”, in Bersheh Reports I, 1-9.

Pirelli, R., “Troop of Nubian archers”, in Egyptian Treasures, 108-09.

Robinson, M., Silverman, D. P., & Brovarski, E., “Tombs on the High Terrace”, in Bersheh Reports I, 11-38.

Podvin, J. L., “Position du mobilier funéraire dans les tombes égyptiennes privées du Moyen Empire”, MDAIK 56 (2000), 277-334.

Roehrig, C. H., “Woman’s work: Some occupations of nonroyal women as depicted in ancient Egyptian art”, in Mistress of the House, 13-24.

Poole, F., “Slave or double? A reconsideration of the conception of the shabti in the New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate Period”, in Proceedings of the Seventh ICE, 893-901.

Roehrig, C. H., “Comprehending life: Community, environment, and the supernatural. Catalogue 142”, in Ancient Egypt Transformed, 207. Rooijakkers, T., “Unravelling Beni Hasan: Textile production in the Beni Hasan tomb paintings”, ATN 41 (2005), 2-13.

Quibell, J. E., Excavations at Saqqara (1906-1907) (Cairo, 1908). Quibell, J. E., & Hayter, A. G. K., Excavations at Saqqara: Teti Pyramid, North Side (Cairo, 1927). Quirke, S., Ancient Egyptian Religion (New York, 1997).

Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, San Jose (2018), Artifact Search, viewed 19 June 2018, .

Rabehl, S. M., “Das Grab des Amenemhat (Jmnjj) in Beni Hassan oder der Versuch einer Symbiose”, PhD thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (Munich, 2006).

Roth, A. M., “The meaning of menial labor: ‘Servant statues’ in Old Kingdom serdabs”, JARCE 39 (2002), 103-21.

Redford, D. B., Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, 1992).

Roth, A. M., “Funerary ritual”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, .

Redford, D. B., From Slave to Pharaoh: The Black Experience of Ancient Egypt (Baltimore, London, 2004).

Roth, A. M., “Representing the other: Non-Egyptians in pharaonic iconography”, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 155-74.

Reed, R., Ancient Skins, Parchments and Leathers (London, New York, 1972).

Roth, A. M., & Roehrig, C. H., “The Bersha Procession: A new reconstruction”, JMFA 1 (1989), 31-40.

Reisner, G. A., Models of Ships and Boats (Cairo, 1913).

Roth, H. L., Ancient Egyptian and Greek Looms (Halifax, 1913).

Rhode Island School of Design Museum, Providence (2017), Collection, viewed 20 October 2017, .

Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto (2017), ROM Collections, viewed 12 September 2017, .

Richards, J., Society and Death in Ancient Egypt: Mortuary Landscapes of the Middle Kingdom (Cambridge, 2005).

Sabbahy, L. K., Kingship, Power, and Legitimacy in Ancient Egypt: From the Old Kingdom to the Middle Kingdom (Cambridge, 2020).

Riggs, C., Unwrapping Ancient Egypt (London, 2014). 203

Preparing for Eternity Sahrhage, D., Fischfang und Fischkult im Alten Ägypten (Mainz am Rhein, 1998).

Seidlmayer, S. J., “People at Beni Hassan: Contributions to a model of ancient Egyptian rural society”, in Archaeology and Art. Volume II, 351-68.

Samuel, D., “Ancient Egyptian cereal processing: Beyond the artistic record”, CAJ 3.2 (1993), 276-83.

Serpico, M., “Sedment”, in Unseen Images. Volume I, 99180.

Samuel, D., “Archaeology of ancient Egyptian beer”, JASBC 54.1 (1996), 3-12.

Serpico, M., & White, R., “Oil, fat and wax”, in Materials and Technology, 390-429.

Samuel, D., “Brewing and baking in ancient Egyptian art”, in Food in the Arts, 173-81.

Shafik, S., “Force-feeding animals in Old Kingdom scenes”, GM 227 (2010), 65-75.

Samuel, D., “A new look at old bread: Ancient Egyptian baking”, AI 3 (1999), 28-31.

Shaw, G. J., War & Trade with the Pharaohs: An Archaeological Study of Ancient Egypt’s Foreign Relations (Barnsley, 2017).

Samuel, D., “Brewing and baking”, in Materials and Technology, 537-76.

Shaw, I., Egyptian Warfare and Weapons (Princes Risborough, 1991).

Samuel, D., “Beer”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, .

Shaw, I., “Battle in ancient Egypt: The triumph of Horus or the cutting edge of the temple economy?”, in Battle in Antiquity, 239-69.

Samuel, D., “Experimental grinding and ancient Egyptian flour production”, in Beyond the Horizon, 456-77. Saretta, P., Asiatics in Middle Kingdom Egypt: Perceptions and Reality (London, New York, 2016).

Shea, W. H., “Artistic balance among the Beni Hasan Asiatics”, BA 44.4 (1981), 219-28.

Sauneron, S., The Priests of Ancient Egypt, new edition (Ithaca, 2000).

Shedid, A. G., Die Felsgräber von Beni Hassan in Mittelägypten (Mainz am Rhein, 1994).

Scanlan, B., “Animals: The hunted and the domesticated”, in Egyptian Art, 83-100.

Shedid, A. G., “A house for eternity: The tombs of governors and officials”, in Egypt, 118-31.

Schäfer, H., Principles of Egyptian Art, revised edition (Oxford, 1986).

Shirai, Y., “Ideal and reality in Old Kingdom private funerary cults”, in Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology, 325-33.

Schneider, H. D., Shabtis: An Introduction to the History of Ancient Egyptian Funerary Statuettes with a Catalogue of the Collection of Shabtis in the National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden (Leiden, 1977).

Siebels, R., “The wearing of sandals in Old Kingdom tomb decoration”, BACE 7 (1996), 75-88. Siebels, R., “Agriculture in Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration: An Analysis of Scenes and Inscriptions. Part I: Text”; “Part II: Prosopography”, PhD thesis, Macquarie University (Sydney, 2000).

Schneider, H. D., Spurr, S., Reeves, N., & Quirke, S., (eds.), The Small Masterpieces of Egyptian Art: Selections from the Myers Museum at Eton College, revised edition (Leiden, 2003).

Siebels, R., “Agricultural scenes”, in Egyptian Art, 55-72.

Schneider, T., “Foreigners in Egypt: Archaeological evidence and cultural context”, in Egyptian Archaeology, 143-63.

Siebels, R., “Representations of granaries in Old Kingdom tombs”, BACE 12 (2001), 85-99.

Schulman, A. R., “Siege warfare in pharaonic Egypt”, NH 73.3 (1964), 12-21.

Siebels, R., “Agricultural activities”, in Behind the Scenes, 73-96.

Schulman, A. R., “The battle scenes of the Middle Kingdom”, JSSEA 12 (1982), 165-83.

Silverman, D. P., Simpson, W. K., & Wegner, J., “Introduction. Archaism and innovation: Towards defining the cultural expression of Egypt’s Middle Kingdom”, in Archaism and Innovation, ix-xiii.

Schulman, A. R., “Military organization in pharaonic Egypt”, in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Volume I, 289-301.

Simpson, W. K., The Offering Chapel of Kayemnofret in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Boston, 1992).

Schwarz, S., Altägyptisches Lederhandwerk (Frankfurt, 2000).

Sist, L., “Food production”, in Egyptian Civilization, 4675.

Scott, G. D. III, “The History and Development of the Ancient Egyptian Scribe Statue. Volumes I-IV”, PhD thesis, Yale University (New Haven, 1989).

Skinner, L., “Looking at skin: Analysis of the leather”, in Chariots in Ancient Egypt, 72-96. Śliwa, J., Studies in Ancient Egyptian Handicraft: Woodworking (Warsaw, 1975).

Seidlmayer, S. J., “The First Intermediate Period (c.21602055 BC)”, in Oxford History, 108-36. 204

Bibliography Smith, H. S., “Animal domestication and animal cult in Dynastic Egypt”, in Domestication and Exploitation, 307-14.

Stephens, M. A., A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats from the Rise of the Old to the End of the Middle Kingdoms (Oxford, 2012).

Smith, M., “Democratization of the afterlife”, UEE 1.1 (2009), .

Stevens, A., & Eccleston, M., “Craft production and technology”, in Egyptian World, 146-59.

Smith, S. T., Wretched Kush: Ethnic Identities and Boundaries in Egypt’s Nubian Empire (London, New York, 2003).

Stevenson, A., Scattered Finds: Archaeology, Egyptology and Museums (London, 2019). Stewart, H. M., Egyptian Shabtis (Princes Risborough, 1995).

Smith, S. T., “Ethnicity and culture”, in Egyptian World, 218-41.

Stocks, D. A., “Leather”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, .

Smith, S. T., “Ethnicity: Constructions of self and other in ancient Egypt”, JEgH 11.1-2 (2018), 113-46.

Strauss-Seeber, C., “Gifts of the Nile: The agriculture of a river oasis”, in Egypt, 376-85.

Smith, W. S., A History of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old Kingdom, 2nd edition (London, 1949).

Strouhal, E., Life in Ancient Egypt (Cambridge, 1992).

Smith, W. S., “Paintings of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom at Bersheh”, AJA 55.4 (1951), 321-32.

Swinton, J., “De-coding Old Kingdom wall scenes: Forcefeeding the hyena”, in Egyptian Culture and Society. Volume II, 233-45.

Smith, W. S., Ancient Egypt as Represented in the Museum of Fine Arts, 3rd edition (Boston, 1952). Smith, W. S., “Five small Egyptian works of art”, BMFA 52.290 (1954), 84-87.

Swinton, J., The Management of Estates and their Resources in the Egyptian Old Kingdom (Oxford, 2012).

Smith, W. S., The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, 3rd edition (New Haven, 1998).

Swinton, J., “Food and drink”, in Behind the Scenes, 3152.

Snape, S., Ancient Egyptian Tombs: The Culture of Life and Death (West Sussex, 2011).

Swinton, J., “Workshops”, in Behind the Scenes, 167-83. Swinton, J., & Evans, L., “Force-feeding animals in Old Kingdom scenes: A reply”, GM 232 (2012), 137-42.

Sørensen, J. P., “Divine access: The so-called democratization of Egyptian funerary literature as a socio-cultural process”, in Religion of the Ancient Egyptians, 109-25.

Sykora, T., “Djehoutihotep, le dernier nomarque du nome du lièvre”, in Djehoutihotep, 22-38. Tallet, P., “Le règne de Sésostris III”, in Sésostris III, 2229.

Spalinger, A. J., “The organisation of the pharaonic army (Old to New Kingdom)”, in Ancient Egyptian Administration, 393-478.

Tata, G., “The Development of the Egyptian Textile Industry”, PhD thesis, University of Utah (Salt Lake City, 1986).

Spalinger, A. J., “The armies of Re”, in Pharaoh’s Land and Beyond, 93-111.

Taylor, J. H., Egypt and Nubia (London, 1991).

Spanel, D. B., “Beni Hasan in the Herakleopolitan Period”, PhD thesis, University of Toronto (Toronto, 1985).

Taylor, J. H., Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt (London, 2001).

Spanel, D. B., “Funerary figurines”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, .

Taylor, J. H., & Strudwick, N., Mummies: Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt. Treasures from The British Museum (London, 2005).

Spencer, A. J., Death in Ancient Egypt (Aylesbury, 1982). Spinazzi-Lucchesi, C., The Unwound Yarn: Birth and Development of Textile Tools Between Levant and Egypt (Venice, 2018).

Teeter, E., Religion and Ritual in Ancient Egypt (New York, 2011). Tefnin, R., “Private sculpture”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, .

Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (2019), Online Collections Database, viewed 20 March 2019, .

Terrace, E. L. B., Egyptian Paintings of the Middle Kingdom (London, 1968).

Staehelin, E., Untersuchungen zur ägyptischen Tracht im Alten Reich (Berlin, 1966).

Terrace, E. L. B., “The entourage of an Egyptian governor”, BMB 66.343 (1968), 5-27.

Staring, N., “Fixed rules or personal choice? On the composition and arrangement of daily life scenes in Old Kingdom elite tombs”, in Old Kingdom, New Perspectives, 256-69.

The Louvre, Paris (2020), Search the Collection, viewed 19 March 2020, . 205

Preparing for Eternity The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (2017), Collection, viewed 18 December 2017, .

Vandier, J., Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome VI: Bas-reliefs et peintures. Scènes de la vie agricole à l’Ancien et au Moyen Empire (Paris, 1978).

Tiradritti, F., “Model of three offering-bearers”, in Egyptian Treasures, 101.

Veldmeijer, A. J., “Leatherworking”, UEE 1.1 (2008), .

Tiradritti, F., “Model depicting the preparation of bread and beer”, in Egyptian Treasures, 102.

Veldmeijer, A. J., Tutankhamun’s Footwear: Studies of Ancient Egyptian Footwear (Leiden, 2011).

Tiradritti, F., “Model of a man tilling”, in Egyptian Treasures, 103.

Veldmeijer, A. J., Footwear in Ancient Egypt: The Medelhavsmuseet Collection (Stockholm, 2014).

Tiradritti, F., Egyptian Wall Painting (New York, London, 2008).

Veldmeijer, A. J., Stepping through Time: Footwear in Ancient Egypt (Zandvoort, 2016).

Tiradritti, F., “Painting”, in Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 249-68.

Veldmeijer, A. J., The Ancient Egyptian Footwear Project: Final Archaeological Analysis (Leiden, 2019).

Tooley, A. M. J., “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs: A Study of Wooden Models and Related Material. Volumes I-II”, PhD thesis, University of Liverpool (Liverpool, 1989).

Veldmeijer, A. J., & Laidler, J., “Leather work in ancient Egypt”, in History of Science, Technology, and Medicine, 1215-220.

Tooley, A. M. J., Egyptian Models and Scenes (Princes Risborough, 1995).

Verhoeven, U., “Eine technologische Rarität. Das Brennen von Ziegeln in der Grabdekoration des Mittleren und Neuen Reiches”, MDAIK 43 (1987), 259-66.

Tooley, A. M. J., “Models”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, .

Verhoeven, U., “The mortuary cult”, in Egypt, 480-89. Verma, S., Cultural Expression in the Old Kingdom Elite Tomb (Oxford, 2014).

Trigger, B. G., Nubia under the Pharaohs (London, 1976). Trigger, B. G., Kemp, B. J., O’Connor, D., & Lloyd, A. B., Ancient Egypt: A Social History (Cambridge, New York, 1983).

Vernus, P., “Sur deux inscriptions du Moyen Empire (Urk. VII, 36; Caire JE 51911)”, BSEG 13 (1989), 173-81. Vernus, P., “Autobiography versus biography in the second person and biography in the third person: Textual formats, authorship, and apocryphal/pseudepigraphic works”, in Ancient Egyptian Biographies, 163-204.

Tyldesley, J., Daughters of Isis: Women of Ancient Egypt (London, 1994). Ucko, P. J., “The interpretation of Prehistoric anthropomorphic figurines”, JRAI 92.1 (1962), 38-54.

Vinson, S., Egyptian Boats and Ships (Princes Risborough, 1994).

Ure Museum of Greek Archaeology, University of Reading (2006), Ure Museum Database, viewed 18 October 2017, .

Vischak, D., “Common ground between Pyramid Texts and Old Kingdom tomb design: The case of Ankhmahor”, JARCE 40 (2003), 133-57.

Vachala, B., Abusir VIII: Die Relieffragmente aus der Mastaba des Ptahschepses in Abusir (Prague, 2004).

Vogelsang-Eastwood, G., “A note on the so-called ‘spinning bowls’”, JEOL 30 (1987), 78-88.

van de Walle, B., La chapelle funéraire de Neferirtenef (Brussels, 1978).

Vogelsang-Eastwood, G., The Production of Linen in Pharaonic Egypt (Leiden, 1992).

van Driel-Murray, C., “Leatherwork and skin products”, in Materials and Technology, 299-319.

Vogelsang-Eastwood, G., Pharaonic Egyptian Clothing (Leiden, 1993).

van Driel-Murray, C., “Ancient skin processing and the impact of Rome on tanning technology”, in Travail du cuir, 251-65.

Vogelsang-Eastwood, G., “Textiles”, in Materials and Technology, 268-198.

van Walsem, R., “The interpretation of iconographic programmes in Old Kingdom elite tombs of the Memphite area: Methodological and theoretical (re)considerations”, in Proceedings of the Seventh ICE, 1205-213.

Vogelsang-Eastwood, G., “Weaving, looms, and textiles”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, . Vogelsang-Eastwood, G., & van Haeringen, J., “The socalled boy spinners of Beni Hasan”, GM 126 (1992), 95-96.

Vandier, J., Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome III: Les grandes époques. La statuaire (Paris, 1958). Vandier, J., Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome V: Bas-reliefs et peintures. Scenes de la vie quotidienne (Paris, 1969).

Waki, M., “Storage in ancient Egyptian towns and cities (with a focus on Amarna)”, GM 190 (2002), 103-12. 206

Bibliography Ward, C., Sacred and Secular: Ancient Egyptian Ships and Boats (Philadelphia, 2000). Ward, C., “Ships and shipbuilding”, in Oxford Encyclopedia, .

Willems, H., De Meyer, M., Peeters, C., Vereecken, S., Depraetere, D., Dupras, T., Williams, L., Herbich, T., Verstraeten, G., van Loon, G., & Delattre, A., “Report of the 2004-2005 campaigns of the Belgian mission to Deir al-Barsha”, MDAIK 65 (2009), 377-432.

Watterson, B., Women in Ancient Egypt (Stroud, New York, 1991).

Wilson, H., Egyptian Food and Drink (Princes Risborough, 1988).

Weeks, K. R., “Art, word, and the Egyptian world view”, in Egyptology, 59-81.

Wilson, J. A., “Funeral services of the Egyptian Old Kingdom”, JNES 3.4 (1944), 201-18.

Wegner, J., “Tradition and innovation: The Middle Kingdom”, in Egyptian Archaeology, 119-42.

Winlock, H. E., Models of Daily Life in Ancient Egypt from the Tomb of Meket-Re’ at Thebes (Cambridge, 1955).

Wild, H., Le tombeau de Ti. Fascicule II: La chapelle (première partie) (Cairo, 1953).

Woods, A., “Contribution to a controversy: A date for the tomb of KA(=i)-m-Anx at Giza”, JEA 95 (2009), 161-74.

Wilkinson, J. G., Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. Volume III (London, 1837).

Woods, A., & Leary, N., “‘Art’, aesthetics and the functioning image in ancient Egyptian elite tombs”, in Death is Only the Beginning, 74-83.

Willems, H., Chests of Life: A Study of the Typology and Conceptual Development of Middle Kingdom Standard Class Coffins (Leiden, 1988).

Wreszinski, W., Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte I (Leipzig, 1923).

Willems, H., “Deir el-Bersheh: Preliminary report”, GM 110 (1989), 75-95. Willems, H., Dayr al-Barshā. Volume I: The Rock Tombs of Djehutinakht (No. 17K74/1), Khnumnakht (No. 17K74/2), and Iha (No. 17K74/3) (Leuven, 2007). Willems, H., “Report of the mission of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven to Dayr al-Barshā, 4 March – 26 April 2007”, ASAE 84 (2010), 429-65. Willems, H., “The First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom”, in Companion to Ancient Egypt, 81-100. Willems, H., “Nomarchs and local potentates: The provincial administration in the Middle Kingdom”, in Ancient Egyptian Administration, 341-92. Willems, H., Historical and Archaeological Aspects of Egyptian Funerary Culture: Religious Ideas and Ritual Practice in Middle Kingdom Elite Cemeteries (Leiden, 2014). Willems, H., “Les fouilles récentes de la KU Leuven à Dayr al-Barcha”, in Djehoutihotep, 129-44. Willems, H., Delvaux, L., & De Meyer, M., “La chambre funéraire d’Abou, à al-Chaykh Ibada”, in Djehoutihotep, 173-212. Willems, H., De Meyer, M., Depraetere, D., Peeters, C., Op de Beeck, L., Vereecken, S., Verrept, B., & Depauw, M., “Preliminary report of the 2003 campaign of the Belgian mission to Deir al-Barsha”, MDAIK 62 (2006), 307-39. Willems, H., De Meyer, M., Depraetere, D., Peeters, C., Hendrickx, S., Herbich, T., Klemm, R., Op de Beeck, L., & Depauw, M., “Preliminary report of the 2002 campaign of the Belgian mission to Deir al-Barsha”, MDAIK 60 (2004), 237-83. 207

Appendix 1 Catalogue of Funerary Models This catalogue includes all 292 funerary models examined through images in this study. For each representation, the theme(s) depicted, the owner and tomb number, the site of origin, the date, and a reference are cited. A unique catalogue number is assigned to each model and the figure number is listed for those with images included in the book. The representations are ordered chronologically according to generalised dates, but for all with the same date, the models are arranged according to site, with those from Meir first, then Deir el-Bersha and lastly Beni Hassan. Models with known owners are listed before those with unknown owners in each case. When there is some question regarding provenance, a ? is cited, with explanatory details discussed in the relevant chapter. The current museum location and accession number of each model are listed as the reference where known. For instances where images of the models are not easily accessed online, a bibliographic reference is cited where possible. The catalogue number is preceded by an M to indicate the representation is a model. Catalogue Theme Number

Model Owner Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

M1

Land preparation

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 249 / JE 2.4 30822; Tiradritti, in Egyptian Treasures, 103

M2

Bread-making

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 237; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, pl. 237

M3

Bread-making

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 252 / JE 30813; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, pl. 252

M4

Bread-making

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 240; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, pl. 240

M5

Bread-making

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 243; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, pl. 243

M6

Bread-making

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 238 / JE 30820; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, pl. 238

M7

Bread-making

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 247 / JE 30818; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, pl. 247

M8

Brewing beer

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 239 / JE 30823; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, pl. 239

M9

Brewing beer

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 246 / JE 30816; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, pl. 246

M10

Brewing beer

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 253 / JE 30815; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, pl. 253

M11

Brewing beer

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 244 / JE 2.20 30821; Tiradritti, in Egyptian Treasures, 102

M12

Brewing beer

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 251 / JE 30817; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, pl. 251

M13

Roasting fowl

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 245 / JE 30814; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, pl. 245

209

Figure Number

2.31

Preparing for Eternity Catalogue Theme Number

Model Owner Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

M14

Roasting fowl

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 242 / JE 30824; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, pl. 242

M15

Boat

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4882; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 13

M16

Boat

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4883; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 27

M17

Boat

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4884; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 192

M18

Boat

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4886 / JE 30804; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 14

M19

Boat

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4887; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 14

M20

Boat

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4888; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 15

M21

Boat

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4880; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 12

M22

Boat

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4881; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 13

M23

Male offeringbearer

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 241 / JE 30810; Tiradritti, in Egyptian Treasures, 100

M24

Procession of Niankh-pepyoffering-bearers kem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 250; Tiradritti, in Egyptian Treasures, 101

M25

Beasts of burden

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 254 / JE 30825; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, pl. 254

M26

Female offeringbearer

Hepi-kem (A4)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen: AEIN 670

M27

Female offeringbearer

Hepi-kem (A4)

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Museum of Antiquities, Eton College, Windsor: ECM.1591-2010; Bommas, in Sacred and Profane, fig. 30

M28

Boat

Deir elBersha

OK?

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4974; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 24

M29

Boat

Deir elBersha

OK?

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4975; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 24

M30

Bread-making Brewing beer

(420 LC)

Beni Hassan

FIP

Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2305

M31

Bread-making

Henu (L-16H50/1C)

Deir elBersha

Late FIP

Willems, Delvaux & De Meyer, in Djehoutihotep, fig. 124b

M32

Bread-making

Henu (L-16H50/1C)

Deir elBersha

Late FIP

Willems, Delvaux & De Meyer, in Djehoutihotep, fig. 124a

M33

Brewing beer

Henu (L-16H50/1C)

Deir elBersha

Late FIP

Willems, Delvaux & De Meyer, in Djehoutihotep, fig. 125

M34

Boat

Henu (L-16H50/1C)

Deir elBersha

Late FIP

Willems, Delvaux & De Meyer, in Djehoutihotep, fig. 126

M35

Brick-making

Henu (L-16H50/1C)

Deir elBersha

Late FIP

Willems, Delvaux & De Meyer, in Djehoutihotep, fig. 127

210

Figure Number

3.17

3.19

Appendix 1  |  Catalogue of Funerary Models Catalogue Theme Number

Model Owner Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

M36

Granary

Intef (1 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 11th Dyn.

National Museums Liverpool, World Museum: 55.82.2

M37

Bread-making

Intef (1 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 11th Dyn.

New Walk Museum and Art Gallery, Leicester: L.A86.1929.0.0

M38

Brewing beer

Intef (1 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 11th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 50

M39

Boat

Intef (1 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 11th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 45

M40

Boat

Intef (1 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 11th Dyn.

National Museums Liverpool, World Museum: 55.82.3

M41

Female offeringbearer

Intef (1 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 11th Dyn.

National Museums Liverpool, World Museum: 55.82.1

M42

Cattle in procession

Intef (1 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 11th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 48

M43

Bread-making

Djay (275 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 11th Dyn.

Bristol Museum & Art Gallery: H4596

M44

Brewing beer

Djay (275 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 11th Dyn.

National Museums Scotland: A.1912.295

M45

Hand-feeding cattle

Djay (275 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 11th Dyn.

National Museums Scotland: A.1914.74

M46

Boat

Djay (275 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 11th Dyn.

Hull Museums: KINCM:1989.6 HERM

M47

Boat

Djay (275 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 11th Dyn.

Bristol Museum & Art Gallery: H 4595

M48

Male offeringbearer

Djay (275 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 11th Dyn.

National Museums Scotland: A.1914.73

M49

Male offeringbearer

Djay (275 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 11th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 95ii

M50

Leatherwork

Djay (275 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 11th Dyn.

National Museums Scotland: A.1914.76

M51

Brick-making

Djay (275 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 11th Dyn.

British Museum, London: EA 63837

M52

Boat

Meir

11th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4799; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 1

M53

Boat

Meir

11th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4801; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 2

M54

Boat

Meir

11th Dyn.

Norwich Castle Museum & Art Gallery: NWHCM: 1921.37.2

M55

Boat

Meir

11th Dyn.

Macclesfield Museums: 1869.77

M56

Bread-making

Deir elBersha

11 Dyn.

Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1933.1446

M57

Granary

Netjer-nakht (53 LC)

Beni Hassan

11th Dyn.

Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2002

M58

Boat

(203 LC)

Beni Hassan

11th Dyn.

National Museums Liverpool, World Museum: 55.82.6

M59

Boat

(203 LC)

Beni Hassan

11th Dyn.

National Museums Liverpool, World Museum: 55.82.17

th

211

Figure Number

5.11

Preparing for Eternity Catalogue Theme Number

Model Owner Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

M60

Female offeringbearer

Ha-itef-a (362 LC)

Beni Hassan

11th Dyn.

Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: E.6.1903

M61

Granary

(394 LC)

Beni Hassan

11th Dyn.

Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2311

M62

Boat

Beni Hassan

11th Dyn.

St Mungo Museum of Religious Life and Art, Glasgow: 1923.33bw

M63

Boat

Meir

Late 11th Dyn.

Cleveland Museum of Art: 1914.604

M64

Boat

Meir

Late 11th Dyn.

Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, San Jose: RC-484

M65

Boat

Meir

Late 11th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4859; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 10

M66

Land preparation

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.408

2.2

M67

Granary

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.409

2.7

M68

Granary

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.410

M69

Granary

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.808

M70

Granary

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 15-5-409

M71

Bread-making Brewing beer

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.807

M72

Bread-making Brewing beer

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.886

M73

Hand-feeding cattle

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.413

M74

Hand-feeding cattle

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.819

M75

Hand-feeding cattle

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.823

M76

Hand-feeding cattle

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16697

M77

Hand-feeding cattle

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16699

M78

Hand-feeding cattle

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16700

M79

Hand-feeding cattle

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16702

M80

Hand-feeding cattle

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16703

M81

Hand-feeding cattle

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16706

M82

Fowling Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.802

M83

Fowling Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.890

Senbi?

212

Figure Number

2.24

2.35

Appendix 1  |  Catalogue of Funerary Models Catalogue Theme Number

Model Owner Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

M84

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.407

M85

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.416

M86

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.417

M87

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.483

M88

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.485

M89

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.488

M90

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.492

M91

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.493

M92

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.500

M93

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.820

M94

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.829

M95

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.870

M96

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.873

M97

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.874

M98

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.879

M99

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.889

M100

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.893

M101

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.12492

M102

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16704

M103

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16720

M104

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16721

M105

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.487

M106

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.489

M107

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.495

213

Figure Number

3.3

Preparing for Eternity Catalogue Theme Number

Model Owner Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

M108

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.497

M109

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.801

M110

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.818

M111

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.822

M112

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.824

M113

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.825

M114

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.826

M115

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.827

M116

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.828

M117

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.830

M118

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.871

M119

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.872

M120

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.877

M121

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.878

M122

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.880

M123

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.895

M124

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.12493

M125

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.12497

M126

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.16705

M127

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.406

M128

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.415

M129

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.490

M130

Boat Roasting fowl

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.494

M131

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.800

214

Figure Number

3.11

3.9

Appendix 1  |  Catalogue of Funerary Models Catalogue Theme Number

Model Owner Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

M132

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.12496

M133

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.491

M134

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.496

M135

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.885

M136

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.12491

M137

Boat

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.12495

M138

Female offeringbearer

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.418

M139

Female offeringbearer

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.484

M140

Female offeringbearer

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.881

M141

Female offeringbearer

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.882

M142

Female offeringbearer

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.883

M143

Female offeringbearer

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.884

M144

Procession of offeringbearers: the Bersha Procession

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.326

M145

Pair of offeringbearers

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.875

M146

Procession of Djehuty-nakht offering-bearers (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.887

M147

Procession of Djehuty-nakht offering-bearers (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.888

M148

Procession of Djehuty-nakht offering-bearers (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.12494, 21.11769

M149

Procession of Djehuty-nakht offering-bearers (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 15-5-219

M150

Cattle in procession

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.831

M151

Spinning and weaving

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.414

M152

Spinning and weaving

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.891

5.1

M153

Carpentry

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.412

5.7

M154

Brick-making

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.411

7.1

215

Figure Number

3.14

3.16

4.10

Preparing for Eternity Catalogue Theme Number

Model Owner Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

M155

Brick-making

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.821

M156

Military

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.803

M157

Military

Djehuty-nakht (R-10A)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.806

M158

Boat

Satmeket (R-10B)

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 21.838

M159

Granary

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, San Jose: RC-687

M160

Boat

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, San Jose: RC-1815

M161

Boat

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

New Walk Museum and Art Gallery, Leicester: L.A40.1924.0.0

M162

Boat

Iryt-hotep (188 LC)

Beni Hassan

Late 11th Dyn.

National Museums Liverpool, World Museum: 55.82.115

M163

Granary

Ipi (707 LC)

Beni Hassan

Late 11th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 120

M164

Bread-making Brewing beer

Ipi (707 LC)

Beni Hassan

Late 11th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 125

M165

Boat

Ipi (707 LC)

Beni Hassan

Late 11th Dyn.

Ure Museum of Greek Archaeology, University of Reading: E.23.3

M166

Female offeringbearer

Ipi (707 LC)

Beni Hassan

Late 11th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 98

M167

Boat

Re-hotepi and Kaayt

Meir

Early 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 42911; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 148

M168

Boat

Re-hotepi and Kaayt

Meir

Early 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 42933; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 153

M169

Beasts of burden

Kay-henent

Meir

Early 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 3213 / JE 42854; Wreszinski, Atlas I, pl. 61.2

M170

Land preparation

Meir

Early 12th Dyn.

Musée des Beaux-Arts de Limoges: E.962; Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, pl. 2b

M171

Land preparation

Meir

Early 12th Dyn.

Musée des Beaux-Arts de Limoges: E.967; Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, pl. 2b

M172

Boat

Meir

Early 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4802; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 2

M173

Calving

Meir

Early 12th Dyn.

Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon: 1969-409

M174

Milking

Meir?

Early 12th Dyn.

Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon: 1969-401

M175

Hand-feeding cattle

Amenemhat (K-21)

Deir elBersha

Early 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 34293; Monnier, “Iconographie égyptienne”, ENiM 7, (2014), cat. 18

M176

Boat

Amenemhat (K-21)

Deir elBersha

Early 12th Dyn.

National Museum of Denmark: 5489

216

Figure Number

6.1

4.5

Appendix 1  |  Catalogue of Funerary Models Catalogue Theme Number

Model Owner Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

M177

Granary

Nefery (116 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 37563; Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 60

M178

Bread-making

Nefery (116 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 63

M179

Bread-making Brewing beer

Nefery (116 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 37663; Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 62

M180

Boat

Nefery (116 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 57

M181

Boat

Nefery (116 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 59

M182

Female offeringbearer

Nefery (116 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 37563; Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 64

M183

Male offeringbearer

Nefery (116 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 64

M184

Boat

Khnumhotep (140 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.1992

M185

Foreign woman

Useri and Arythotep (181 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

National Museums Scotland: A.1911.260

M186

Granary

Nefwa (186 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 37564; Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 76

M187

Bread-making Brewing beer Slaughtering

Nefwa (186 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 75

M188

Boat

Nefwa (186 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 74

M189

Boat

Nefwa (186 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 43337; Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 73

M190

Boat

Nefwa (186 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 72

M191

Boat

Nefwa (186 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2301

M192

Female offeringbearer

Nefwa (186 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 43295; Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 77

M193

Female offeringbearer

Nefwa (186 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 77

M194

Granary

Khety (366 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: E.71e.1903

2.11

M195

Bread-making Brewing beer

Khety (366 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: E.71d.1903

2.14

M196

Slaughtering

Khety (366 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: E.71c.1903

2.26

M197

Boat

Khety (366 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: E.71b.1903

217

Figure Number

2.22

6.6

3.8

Preparing for Eternity Catalogue Theme Number

Model Owner Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

M198

Boat

Khety (366 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: E.71a.1903

M199

Boat

Baqta (412 LC)?

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

National Museums Liverpool, World Museum: 22.3.15.1

M200

Granary

Khety-aa (575 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2310

M201

Bread-making Brewing beer Slaughtering

Khety-aa (575 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2312

2.30

M202

Fishing Boat

Khety-aa (575 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2297

2.37

M203

Boat

Khety-aa (575 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2302

M204

Female offeringbearer

Khety-aa (575 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2306

M205

Male offeringbearer

Khety-aa (575 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2308

M206

Spinning and weaving

Khety-aa (575 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

National Museums Liverpool, World Museum: 55.82.4

M207

Granary

Khnum-nekhti Beni and Netjer-nekhti Hassan (585 LC)

Early 12th Dyn.

British Museum, London: EA 63838

M208

Granary

Khnum-nekhti Beni and Netjer-nekhti Hassan (585 LC)

Early 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: number unknown; Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 90

M209

Bread-making Brewing beer Slaughtering Pair of offeringbearers

Khnum-nekhti Beni and Netjer-nekhti Hassan (585 LC)

Early 12th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 84

M210

Bread-making Brewing beer Slaughtering

Khnum-nekhti Beni and Netjer-nekhti Hassan (585 LC)

Early 12th Dyn.

National Museums Liverpool, World Museum: 55.82.7

M211

Boat

Khnum-nekhti Beni and Netjer-nekhti Hassan (585 LC)

Early 12th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 86

M212

Boat

Khnum-nekhti Beni and Netjer-nekhti Hassan (585 LC)

Early 12th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 87

M213

Boat

Khnum-nekhti Beni and Netjer-nekhti Hassan (585 LC)

Early 12th Dyn.

National Museum of Ireland: 1920.270; Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, figs. 158, 163, 164 right

M214

Boat

Khnum-nekhti Beni and Netjer-nekhti Hassan (585 LC)

Early 12th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 89

M215

Boat

Khnum-nekhti Beni and Netjer-nekhti Hassan (585 LC)

Early 12th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 88

M216

Pair of offeringbearers

Khnum-nekhti Beni and Netjer-nekhti Hassan (585 LC)

Early 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 37569; Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 85

218

Figure Number

5.6

Appendix 1  |  Catalogue of Funerary Models Catalogue Theme Number

Model Owner Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

M217

Granary

Sobek-hotepi (723 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

British Museum, London: EA 41573

M218

Bread-making Brewing beer Slaughtering

Sobek-hotepi (723 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

British Museum, London: EA 41576

M219

Boat

Sobek-hotepi (723 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

British Museum, London: EA 41575

M220

Boat

Sobek-hotepi (723 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

British Museum, London: EA 41574

M221

Female offeringbearer

Sobek-hotepi (723 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

National Museums Scotland: A.1953.128

M222

Boat

(868 LC)

Beni Hassan

Early 12th Dyn.

Science Museum, London: 1935-0201

M223

Boat

Ukh-hotep

Meir

12th Dyn.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 12.183.4

M224

Boat

Ukh-hotep

Meir

12th Dyn.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 12.183.3

M225

Boat

Inti

Meir

12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4847; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 9

M226

Land preparation

Meir?

12th Dyn.

Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto: 910.18.15

M227

Bread-making

Meir

12th Dyn.

Musée des Beaux-Arts de Limoges: E.969; Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, pl. 39b

M228

Bread-making Slaughtering

Meir

12th Dyn.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 11.150.12

M229

Bread-making Brewing beer

Meir

12th Dyn.

Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, San Jose: RC-483

M230

Bread-making

Meir?

12th Dyn.

Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon: 1969-408

M231

Boat

Meir

12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4798; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 1

M232

Boat

Meir

12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4805; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 4

M233

Boat

Meir

12th Dyn.

Art Institute of Chicago: 1894.241

M234

Boat

Meir

12th Dyn.

British Museum, London: EA 25361

M235

Boat

Meir

12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4844; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 8

M236

Boat

Meir

12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4845; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 8

M237

Boat

Meir

12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4846; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 9

M238

Boat

Meir

12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4869; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 11

M239

Boat

Meir

12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4872; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 12

M240

Boat

Meir

12th Dyn.

Minneapolis Institute of Art: 16.496

M241

Boat

Meir

12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4803; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 3

M242

Boat

Meir

12th Dyn.

British Museum, London: EA 25360

219

Figure Number

3.1

3.10

2.16

Preparing for Eternity Catalogue Theme Number

Model Owner Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

Figure Number

M243

Boat

Meir

12th Dyn.

Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, San Jose: RC-485

M244

Boat

Meir

12th Dyn.

Institute of Egyptian Art & Archaeology of the University of Memphis: 1981.1.10

M245

Boat

Meir

12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4841; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 7

M246

Boat

Meir

12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4861; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 11

M247

Boat

Meir

12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 42943; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 288

M248

Boat

Meir

12th Dyn.

Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, San Jose: RC-480

M249

Beasts of burden

Meir

12th Dyn.

Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon: 1969-399

M250

Beasts of burden

Meir

12th Dyn.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 11.150.8

3.22

M251

Beasts of burden

Meir?

12th Dyn.

Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto: 910.18.3

3.24

M252

Calving

Meir?

12th Dyn.

Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto: 910.18.16.1-3

4.2

M253

Calving

Meir?

12th Dyn.

Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon: 1969-402

M254

Nursing

Meir

12 Dyn.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: 11.150.5

4.4

M255

Cattle in procession

Meir?

12th Dyn.

Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon: 1969-400

4.13

M256

Cattle in procession

Meir?

12th Dyn.

Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon: 1969-403

M257

Military

Meir?

12th Dyn.

Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto: 910.18.4

M258

Boat

Deir elBersha

12th Dyn.

Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden: F 1939/1.3

M259

Granary

Deir elBersha

12th Dyn.

National Museum of Denmark: 5493

M260

Bread-making Brewing beer Roasting fowl

Deir elBersha?

12th Dyn.

Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden: F 1939/1.4

M261

Boat

Deir elBersha

12th Dyn.

The Louvre, Paris: E 17111

M262

Cattle in procession

Deir elBersha?

12th Dyn.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 03.1649a-d

M263

Brewing beer

Senbu (487 LC)

Beni Hassan

12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 43307; Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 144

4.15

M264

Dog

Senbu (487 LC)

Beni Hassan

12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 43308; Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 144

4.15

M265

Bread-making Brewing beer

Beni Hassan

12th Dyn.

National Museums Scotland: A.1914.71

M266

Bread-making

Beni Hassan

12th Dyn.

National Museums Scotland: A.1914.72

Djehuty-hotep

th

220

Appendix 1  |  Catalogue of Funerary Models Catalogue Theme Number

Model Owner Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

Beni Hassan

12th Dyn.

National Museums Scotland: A.1914.77

M267

Brewing beer

M268

Boat

Wah-hotep?

Meir

Late 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 42937; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models, cat. 142

M269

Boat

Wah-hotep?

Meir

Late 12th Dyn.

Rhode Island School of Design Museum, Providence: 14.491

M270

Boat

Wah-hotep?

Meir

Late 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 42942; Landström, Ships of the Pharaohs, figs. 247-248

M271

Boat

Wah-hotep

Meir

Late 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4851; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 10

M272

Slaughtering

Gua (K-12)

Deir elBersha

Late 12th Dyn.

British Museum, London: EA 30718

M273

Female offeringbearer

Gua (K-12)

Deir elBersha

Late 12th Dyn.

British Museum, London: EA 30716

M274

Boat

Sepi I (K-15)?

Deir elBersha

Late 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4952; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 23

M275

Boat

Sepi I (K-15)?

Deir elBersha

Late 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4955; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 24

M276

Boat

Sepi II (K-14 north)

Deir elBersha

Late 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4951; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 23

M277

Boat

Sepi II (K-14 north)

Deir elBersha

Late 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4953 / JE 32823; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 24

M278

Granary

Sepi III (K-14 south)

Deir elBersha

Late 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 32831; Tooley, Egyptian Models and Scenes, fig. 39

M279

Boat

Sepi III (K-14 south)

Deir elBersha

Late 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4947; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 21

M280

Boat

Sepi III (K-14 south)

Deir elBersha

Late 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4948; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 22

M281

Boat

Sepi III (K-14 south)

Deir elBersha

Late 12th Dyn.

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: CG 4949; Reisner, Models of Ships, pl. 22

M282

Roasting fowl

(L-16L25/1A)

Deir elBersha

Late 12th Dyn.

De Meyer, in World of Middle Kingdom Egypt. Volume II, fig. 12

M283

Boat

Deir elBersha

Late 12th Dyn.

British Museum, London: EA 35293

M284

Granary

Ma (500 LC)

Beni Hassan

Late 12th Dyn.

University of Aberdeen: ABDUA:22166

M285

Boat

Ma (500 LC)

Beni Hassan

Late 12th Dyn.

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 91

M286

Boat

Ma (500 LC)

Beni Hassan

Late 12th Dyn.

Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2296

M287

Granary

Meir

MK

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: JE 42857

M288

Nursing

Meir

MK

Egyptian Museum, Cairo: number unknown

M289

Bread-making

(187 LC)

Beni Hassan

MK

Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: E.35.1903

M290

Slaughtering

Seni (279 LC)

Beni Hassan

MK

Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: AN1896-1908.E.2309

221

Figure Number

2.27

3.12

2.12

Preparing for Eternity Catalogue Theme Number

Model Owner Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

M291

Granary

Nebet-het-hotep (774/775 LC)

Beni Hassan

MK

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 209 right

M292

Granary

Beni Hassan

MK

Garstang, Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, fig. 201

222

Figure Number

Appendix 2 Catalogue of Wall Scenes This catalogue includes all 220 wall scenes examined through images in this study. For each representation, the theme(s) depicted, the owner and tomb number, the location of the scene in the tomb, the site, the date, and a reference are cited. A unique catalogue number is assigned to each scene and the figure number is listed for those with images included in the book. The representations are ordered chronologically, with general dates given. For each tomb, the wall scenes are ordered in a clockwise direction, beginning with the north wall. The catalogue number is preceded by an S to indicate the representation is a scene. Catalogue Theme Number

Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site (Tomb Number)

Date

S1

Bread-making Brewing beer Roasting fowl

Meniu (E1)

West wall, registers 1-3

Meir

6th Dyn. Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part V, pl. 48.1

S2

Cattle in procession

An-ankhy (L-15J67/1)

North wall, registers 1-3

Deir elBersha

6th Dyn. De Meyer, “Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr alBarshā. Volume II”, pl. 11

S3

Offering-bearers

An-ankhy (L-15J67/1)

East wall, register 3

Deir elBersha

6th Dyn. De Meyer, “Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr alBarshā. Volume II”, pl. 10

S4

Offering-bearers

Imi (L-15I55/1)

North thickness of doorway

Deir elBersha

6th Dyn. De Meyer, “Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr alBarshā. Volume II”, pl. 15

S5

Nursing Cattle in procession

Ipi (481 LC)

North wall, registers 1-2

Beni 6th Dyn. Lashien, Beni Hassan. Hassan Volume II, pl. 38

S6

Land preparation Ipi (481 LC) Beasts of burden

North wall, registers 3-4

Beni 6th Dyn. Lashien, Beni Hassan. Hassan Volume II, pl. 38

S7

Slaughtering Roasting fowl Offering-bearers Dogs

Ipi (481 LC)

South wall, registers 1-2

Beni 6th Dyn. Lashien, Beni Hassan. Hassan Volume II, pl. 40

S8

Slaughtering Offering-bearers Cattle in procession Dogs

Pepyankh the Middle (D2)

North wall, registers 1-5

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pls. 88-89

S9

Roasting fowl Fishing and fowling

Pepyankh the Middle (D2)

East wall, north Meir panel, registers 1-4

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pl. 79

S10

Dogs

Pepyankh the Middle (D2)

East wall, south panel, left, register 2

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pl. 81

S11

Cattle in procession

Pepyankh the Middle (D2)

East wall, south panel, right, registers 1-2

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pl. 82

S12

Boats

Pepyankh the Middle (D2)

East wall, south panel, right, register 3

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pl. 82

3.4

S13

Beasts of burden

Pepyankh the Middle (D2)

West wall, south panel, left, registers 3-5

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pl. 84

3.21

223

Reference

Figure Number

2.33

Preparing for Eternity Catalogue Theme Number

Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

Figure Number 2.3

S14

Land preparation Pepyankh the Middle (D2)

West wall, south panel, right, registers 2-5

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pl. 84

S15

Offering-bearers Dogs

Pepyankh the Middle (D2)

West wall, north panel, left, registers 1-2

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pls. 47b, 85; Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part IV, pl. 12

S16

Bread-making Brewing beer

Pepyankh the Middle (D2)

West wall, north panel, right, registers 1-3

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part IV, pl. 13

S17

Granary

Pepyankh the Middle (D2)

South wall of burial chamber

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pl. 92

S18

Granary

Pepyankh the Middle (D2)

South wall of burial chamber of Hewetiaah

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati, Cemetery of Meir. Volume I, pl. 94

S19

Offering-bearers

Pepi (D1)

East wall, north Meir panel, registers 1-3

Late 6th Dyn.

Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part V, pl. 44.1

S20

Bread-making Brewing beer Roasting fowl

Pepi (D1)

East wall, south Meir panel, registers 1-3

Late 6th Dyn.

Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part V, pl. 44.2

S21

Slaughtering

Pepi (D1)

South wall, register 3

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part V, pl. 45

S22

Slaughtering Offering-bearers Cattle in procession

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

North wall, registers 1-4

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, pls. 67-68

S23

Roasting fowl Fishing and fowling

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

East wall, registers Meir 1-4

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, pl. 69

S24

Offering-bearers Cattle in procession

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

West wall, south Meir panel, registers 1-3

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, pl. 64

S25

Offering-bearers

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

West wall, north Meir panel, registers 1-3

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, pl. 65

S26

Granary

Niankh-pepykem (A1)

South wall of burial chamber

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati, et al., Cemetery of Meir. Volume III, pl. 70a

S27

Carpentry

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

North wall of Meir room 1, west panel, registers 2-5

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery 5.10 of Meir. Volume II, pl. 73

S28

Dogs

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

North wall of Meir room 1, east panel, register 1

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery 4.19 of Meir. Volume II, pl. 73

S29

Offering-bearers Leatherwork

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

South wall of room 1, registers 1-4, and west face of projecting wall, registers 1-3

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery 5.14 of Meir. Volume II, pls. 71b-c

S30

Offering-bearers

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

West wall of room 1, right, registers 1-4

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 72b

S31

Boats

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

East wall of room 3, register 3

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pls. 80-81

224

2.18

2.13

2.23

Appendix 2  |  Catalogue of Wall Scenes Catalogue Theme Number

Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

S32

Cattle in procession

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

South wall of room 3, registers 2-4

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery 4.12 of Meir. Volume II, pl. 82

S33

Boats Offering-bearers

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

West wall of room 3, registers 1-3

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 79

S34

Offering-bearers

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

North wall of room 4

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 89

S35

Land preparation Pepyankh the Black (A2)

East wall of room 4, north panel, register 1

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 90

S36

Roasting fowl Fishing and fowling Cattle in procession

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

East wall of room 4, north panel, registers 2-4

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 90

S37

Offering-bearers Dogs

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

East wall of room 4, centre panel, registers 1-4

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery 3.13 of Meir. Volume II, pl. 91

S38

Cattle in procession

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

East wall of room 4, south panel, left, registers 3-4

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 92

S39

Beasts of burden

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

South wall of Meir room 4, east panel, register 1

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 83b

S40

Boats

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

South wall of Meir room 4, east panel, registers 4-5

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 83b

S41

Fishing

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

South wall of Meir room 4, west panel

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 84

S42

Offering-bearers

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

West wall of room 4, south panel, registers 1-4, and south face of projecting wall, registers 1-4

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pls. 87b-c

S43

Fishing

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

West wall of room 4, north panel

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 88

S44

Offering-bearers

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

North wall of room 5

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 95

S45

Slaughtering

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

East wall of room 5, registers 3-4

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery 2.28 of Meir. Volume II, pl. 96

S46

Offering-bearers

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

South wall of room 5, register 3

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 93

S47

Offering-bearers

Pepyankh the Black (A2)

West wall of room 5

Meir

Late 6th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume II, pl. 94

S48

Offering-bearers Cattle in procession Dogs

Baqet I (29 UC)

North wall, west panel, left, registers 1-4

Beni 11th Hassan Dyn.

Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 28

S49

Fishing and fowling

Baqet I (29 UC)

North wall, west panel, right, registers 2-3

Beni 11th Hassan Dyn.

Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 28

225

Figure Number

Preparing for Eternity Catalogue Theme Number

Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site (Tomb Number)

S50

Dogs

Baqet I (29 UC)

North wall, east panel, register 1

Beni 11th Hassan Dyn.

Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 29

S51

Cattle in procession

Baqet I (29 UC)

East wall, north panel registers 1-4

Beni 11th Hassan Dyn.

Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 30

S52

Slaughtering Roasting fowl Offering-bearers Dogs

Baqet I (29 UC)

East wall, centre Beni 11th panel, registers 1-3 Hassan Dyn.

Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 30

S53

Slaughtering Offering-bearers Dogs

Baqet I (29 UC)

East wall, south Beni 11th panel, registers 1-5 Hassan Dyn.

Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 30

S54

Cattle in procession

Baqet I (29 UC)

South wall, east panel, register 3

Beni 11th Hassan Dyn.

Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 31

S55

Calving

Baqet I (29 UC)

South wall, east panel, register 4

Beni 11th Hassan Dyn.

Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 31

S56

Cattle in procession

Baqet I (29 UC)

South wall, west Beni 11th panel, registers 2-3 Hassan Dyn.

Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 32

S57

Land preparation Baqet I (29 UC)

South wall, west panel, register 5

Beni 11th Hassan Dyn.

Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 32

S58

Dogs

Baqet II (33 UC)

North wall, register 1

Beni 11th Hassan Dyn.

Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 35

S59

Fowling

Baqet II (33 UC)

North wall, register 2

Beni 11th Hassan Dyn.

Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 35

S60

Slaughtering Roasting fowl Cooking meat Offering-bearers

Baqet II (33 UC)

East wall, register 1

Beni 11th Hassan Dyn.

Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 36

S61

Offering-bearers

Ramushenti (27 UC)

East wall, north Beni 11th panel, registers 3-5 Hassan Dyn.

Shedid, Felsgräber von Beni Hassan, pl. 130

S62

Slaughtering Offering-bearers Dogs

Ramushenti (27 UC)

East wall, south Beni 11th panel, registers 1-3 Hassan Dyn.

Shedid, Felsgräber von Beni Hassan, pl. 130

S63

Fishing

Ahanakht I (N-5 / R-5)

North wall of outer room, register 4

Deir elBersha

11th Dyn.

Newberry & Griffith, El Bersheh. Part II, pl. 16

S64

Slaughtering Cattle in procession

Ahanakht I (N-5 / R-5)

East wall of outer room, lower registers

Deir elBersha

11th Dyn.

Brovarski, in Studies in Ancient Egypt, fig. 4

S65

Beasts of burden

Ahanakht I (N-5 / R-5)

South wall of outer room, register 1

Deir elBersha

11th Dyn.

Newberry & Griffith, El Bersheh. Part II, pl. 15

S66

Calving Nursing

Ahanakht I (N-5 / R-5)

South wall of inner room, east panel, register 2

Deir elBersha

11th Dyn.

Newberry & Griffith, El Bersheh. Part II, pl. 14

S67

Milking

Ahanakht I (N-5 / R-5)

South wall of inner room, east panel

Deir elBersha

11th Dyn.

Freed, in Bersheh Reports I, fig. 42

S68

Dogs

Ahanakht I (N-5 / R-5)

West wall of inner room, register 3

Deir elBersha

11th Dyn.

Brovarski, in Studies in Ancient Egypt, fig. 9

226

Date

Reference

Figure Number

Appendix 2  |  Catalogue of Wall Scenes Catalogue Theme Number

Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

S69

Cattle in procession Dogs

Djehuty-nakht (N-10 / R-104)

East wall, register 3

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Willems, Dayr al-Barshā. Volume I, pl. 46

S70

Cattle in procession

Iha (N-8 / R-102) East wall, register 3

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Willems, Dayr al-Barshā. Volume I, pl. 52

S71

Land preparation Nehri I (N-4 / R-19)

Fragment found on terrace in front of tomb

Deir elBersha

Late 11th Dyn.

Robinson, Silverman & Brovarski, in Bersheh Reports I, fig. 30

S72

Dogs

Baqet III (15 UC)

North wall, register 1

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pls. 67-68

S73

Spinning and weaving

Baqet III (15 UC)

North wall, registers 2-3

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pls. 20a, 67-69

5.3

S74

Cattle in procession Leatherwork

Baqet III (15 UC)

North wall, registers 4-5

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pls. 67-69

5.12

S75

Fishing

Baqet III (15 UC)

North wall, register 6

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pls. 70-71

S76

Dogs Military

Baqet III (15 UC)

East wall, registers Beni Late 7-9 Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pls. 76-78

S77

Bread-making Brewing beer

Baqet III (15 UC)

South wall, east Beni Late panel, registers 5-6 Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pls. 46, 81

S78

Offering-bearers

Baqet III (15 UC)

South wall, east Beni Late panel, registers 7-8 Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 81

S79

Offering-bearers

Baqet III (15 UC)

South wall, west panel, register 1

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pls. 83-84

S80

Bread-making Hand-feeding cattle Nursing Cattle in procession

Baqet III (15 UC)

South wall, west Beni Late panel, registers 2-4 Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pls. 48b, 49a, 52b, 82-84

S81

Carpentry

Baqet III (15 UC)

South wall, west panel, register 5

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pls. 85-86

S82

Fishing and fowling

Baqet III (15 UC)

South wall, west Beni Late panel, registers 6-7 Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 86

S83

Slaughtering Boats Offering-bearers

Baqet III (15 UC)

West wall, south Beni Late panel, registers 1-2 Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pls. 4a, 63

S84

Granary Beasts of burden

Baqet III (15 UC)

West wall, south panel, register 3

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 63

S85

Land preparation Baqet III (15 UC)

West wall, south Beni Late panel, registers 6-7 Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 63

227

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Figure Number

2.19

4.6

2.34

Preparing for Eternity Catalogue Theme Number

Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

Figure Number

S86

Land preparation Baqet III (15 UC)

West wall, north panel, register 11

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 66

S87

Slaughtering Roasting fowl

Baqet III (15 UC)

East wall of shrine, registers 1-6

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 88a

S88

Slaughtering Roasting fowl

Baqet III (15 UC)

South wall of shrine, registers 1-5

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume IV, pl. 88b

S89

Offering-bearers

Khety (17 UC)

North wall, east Beni Late panel, registers 1-2 Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 98

S90

Dogs

Khety (17 UC)

North wall, centre panel

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 98

S91

Dogs

Khety (17 UC)

North wall, west panel, register 1

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pls. 94-95

S92

Spinning and weaving

Khety (17 UC)

North wall, west Beni Late panel, registers 2-3 Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pls. 27b, 94-95

S93

Offering-bearers

Khety (17 UC)

North wall, west panel, register 4

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 96

S94

Carpentry

Khety (17 UC)

North wall, west panel, register 5

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pls. 96-97

S95

Fishing and fowling

Khety (17 UC)

North wall, west panel, register 6

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pls. 96-97

S96

Slaughtering Dogs Military

Khety (17 UC)

East wall, registers Beni Late 6-8 Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pls. 47b, 102-104

6.4

S97

Dogs

Khety (17 UC)

South wall, east and centre panels

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 110

4.18

S98

Offering-bearers

Khety (17 UC)

South wall, west panel, register 1

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 107

S99

Cattle in procession Dogs

Khety (17 UC)

South wall, west panel, register 2

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pls. 106-107

S100

Slaughtering Offering-bearers Beasts of burden Dogs

Khety (17 UC)

South wall, west panel, lower section, left, registers 1-3

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pls. 108-109

S101

Granary

Khety (17 UC)

South wall, west panel, lower section, right, register 1

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pls. 67b, 109

S102

Land preparation Khety (17 UC)

South wall, west panel, lower section, right, registers 3-4

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 109

228

3.20

5.2

4.9

2.8

Appendix 2  |  Catalogue of Wall Scenes Catalogue Theme Number

Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site (Tomb Number)

S103

Cattle in procession

Khety (17 UC)

West wall, south Beni Late panel, registers 1-3 Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 88

S104

Boats

Khety (17 UC)

West wall, south Beni Late panel, registers 4-5 Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 88

S105

Bread-making

Khety (17 UC)

West wall, south panel, lower section, left, registers 1-3

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 89

S106

Roasting fowl Cooking meat

Khety (17 UC)

West wall, south panel, lower section, left, registers 4-5

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 89

S107

Slaughtering

Khety (17 UC)

West wall, south panel, lower section, right, register 1

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 89

S108

Offering-bearers

Khety (17 UC)

West wall, south panel, lower section, right, registers 2-3

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 89

S109

Cattle in procession

Khety (17 UC)

West wall, north panel, register 4

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 91

S110

Fowling

Khety (17 UC)

West wall, north panel, register 7

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 92

S111

Dogs

Khety (17 UC)

West wall, north panel, lower section, left

Beni Late Hassan 11th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume VI, pl. 92

S112

Cattle in procession

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

West pilaster of Beni 12th north wall, register Hassan Dyn. 2

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 70

S113

Granary

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

West pilaster of north wall, registers 3-4

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 70

S114

Beasts of burden

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

West pilaster of Beni 12th north wall, register Hassan Dyn. 5

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 70

S115

Dogs

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

North wall, west panel, register 1

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 71

S116

Fowling

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

North wall, west panel, register 4

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 71

S117

Beasts of burden

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

North wall, west panel, register 5

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 71

S118

Dogs

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

North wall, east panel, register 1

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 72b

S119

Cattle in procession

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

North wall, east panel, register 2

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 72b

S120

Fishing and fowling

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

North wall, east Beni 12th panel, registers 4-5 Hassan Dyn.

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 72b

229

Date

Reference

Figure Number

4.17

Preparing for Eternity Catalogue Theme Number

Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site (Tomb Number)

S121

Offering-bearers

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

East pilaster of north wall, registers 3-4

S122

Dogs Military Foreigners

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

East wall, registers Beni 12th 4-6 Hassan Dyn.

6.9 Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pls. 73-74

S123

Offering-bearers

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

South wall, east Beni 12th panel, registers 4-5 Hassan Dyn.

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 77a

S124

Cattle in procession

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

South wall, east panel, register 6

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 77a

S125

Calving Dogs

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

South wall, east panel, register 7

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 77a

S126

Offering-bearers

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

Pilaster of south wall, registers 4-5

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 77b

S127

Slaughtering

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

South wall, west panel, register 2

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 78

S128

Cattle in procession

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

South wall, west panel, register 4

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 78

S129

Fishing and fowling

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

South wall, west Beni 12th panel, registers 5-6 Hassan Dyn.

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 78

S130

Dogs

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

South wall, west panel, left

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 78

S131

Boats

Khnumhotep I (14 UC)

West wall, south panel, register 3

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 67

S132

Offering-bearers

Senbi I (B1)

North wall, registers 1-2

Meir

12th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 78

S133

Fishing

Senbi I (B1)

North wall, register 3

Meir

12th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 79

S134

Land preparation Senbi I (B1)

North wall, register 4

Meir

12th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery 2.1 of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 79

S135

Carpentry

Senbi I (B1)

East wall, north panel, lower section

Meir

12th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 74b

S136

Offering-bearers

Senbi I (B1)

East wall, south panel, register 1

Meir

12th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 75

S137

Dogs

Senbi I (B1)

East wall, south panel, lower section

Meir

12th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 75

S138

Slaughtering Offering-bearers Cattle in procession

Senbi I (B1)

South wall, registers 1-2

Meir

12th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pls. 76-77

S139

Slaughtering Offering-bearers Calving Cattle in procession Dogs

Senbi I (B1)

South wall, registers 3-4

Meir

12th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, 4.1, 4.16 Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pls. 76-77

230

Date

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Reference

Figure Number

Lashien & Mourad, Beni Hassan. Volume V, pl. 72a

Appendix 2  |  Catalogue of Wall Scenes Catalogue Theme Number

Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

S140

Fishing and fowling Offering-bearers Cattle in procession Dogs

Ukh-hotep I (B2) North wall, registers 1-3

Meir

12th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pls. 89-92

S141

Beasts of burden

Ukh-hotep I (B2) East wall, south panel

Meir

12th Dyn.

Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part II, pl. 5.1

S142

Slaughtering Offering-bearers Nursing Cattle in procession

Ukh-hotep I (B2) South wall, registers 2-3

Meir

12th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, 4.11 Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pls. 85-86

S143

Dogs

Ukh-hotep I (B2) South wall, left

Meir

12th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 84

S144

Offering-bearers

Ukh-hotep I (B2) West wall, south Meir panel, registers 1-2

12th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 88

S145

Offering-bearers

Ukh-hotep I (B2) West wall, north panel, register 1-2

Meir

12th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 87

S146

Cattle in procession

Ukh-hotep I (B2) West wall, north panel, register 3

Meir

12th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 87

S147

Offering-bearers

Ukh-hotep I (B2) South and north jamb thicknesses of statue-recess, registers 1-3

Meir

12th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pls. 94b, 95b

S148

Slaughtering

Ukh-hotep I (B2) West wall of statue-recess, registers 1-2

Meir

12th Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Cemetery of Meir. Volume IV, pl. 96

S149

Land preparation Djehuty-nakht (N-1 / R-21)

East wall, registers Deir 2-4 elBersha

12th Dyn.

Newberry & Griffith, El Bersheh. Part II, pl. 8; Robins, Art of Ancient Egypt, pl. 108

S150

Cattle in procession

Nekhti (21 UC)

South wall, register 1

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 22a

S151

Fishing and fowling

Nekhti (21 UC)

South wall, registers 3-4

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 22a

S152

Dogs

Nekhti (21 UC)

South wall, left

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Newberry, Beni Hasan. Part II, pl. 22a

S153

Dogs

Amenemhat (2 UC)

North wall, register 1

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pls. 93-94

S154

Offering-bearers

Amenemhat (2 UC)

North wall, register 3

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pls. 93-94

S155

Nursing Cattle in procession

Amenemhat (2 UC)

North wall, registers 4-5

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pls. 95-96

S156

Granary

Amenemhat (2 UC)

North wall, register 6

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pls. 95-96

S157

Dogs

Amenemhat (2 UC)

North wall, lower section, right

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 96

231

Figure Number

2.10

Preparing for Eternity Catalogue Theme Number

Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site (Tomb Number)

S158

Boats Dogs Military

Amenemhat (2 UC)

S159

Boats Military

S160

Reference

Figure Number

East wall, north Beni 12th panel, registers 4-6 Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pls. 43a, 98

3.6, 6.2

Amenemhat (2 UC)

East wall, south Beni 12th panel, registers 4-6 Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pls. 53b, 102

3.7, 6.3

Offering-bearers

Amenemhat (2 UC)

South wall, east Beni 12th panel, registers 1-4 Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pls. 56, 104

3.15

S161

Slaughtering Offering-bearers Cattle in procession

Amenemhat (2 UC)

South wall, east Beni 12th panel, registers 5-6 Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pls. 105-106

3.18

S162

Offering-bearers

Amenemhat (2 UC)

South wall, west Beni 12th panel, registers 1-4 Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 107

S163

Slaughtering Offering-bearers Cattle in procession

Amenemhat (2 UC)

South wall, west Beni 12th panel, registers 5-6 Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pls. 73a, 108

2.29

S164

Fishing and fowling

Amenemhat (2 UC)

West wall, south panel, register 3

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 89

2.36

S165

Bread-making Brewing beer Cooking meat

Amenemhat (2 UC)

West wall, south panel, register 4

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 90

2.21

S166

Offering-bearers

Amenemhat (2 UC)

West wall, south panel, registers 5-7, left

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 90

S167

Bread-making

Amenemhat (2 UC)

West wall, south panel, registers 5-6, right

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 90

2.17

S168

Cattle in procession

Amenemhat (2 UC)

West wall, south panel, register 7, right

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 90

4.14

S169

Leatherwork

Amenemhat (2 UC)

West wall, north panel, register 1

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pls. 21b, 91

5.13

S170

Carpentry

Amenemhat (2 UC)

West wall, north panel, register 2

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 91

5.8

S171

Beasts of burden

Amenemhat (2 UC)

West wall, north panel, register 6

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 92

S172

Land preparation Amenemhat (2 UC)

West wall, north panel, register 7

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 92

S173

Offering-bearers

Amenemhat (2 UC)

North wall of shrine, registers 1-4

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 109c

S174

Offering-bearers

Amenemhat (2 UC)

South wall of shrine, registers 1-4

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pl. 110a

S175

Offering-bearers

Amenemhat (2 UC)

West wall of shrine, south and north panels, registers 1-4

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume III, pls. 109a-b

232

Date

Appendix 2  |  Catalogue of Wall Scenes Catalogue Theme Number

Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

Figure Number

S176

Calving Nursing Cattle in procession

Ukh-hotep II (B4)

North wall of outer room, lower registers

Meir

12th Dyn.

Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, pls. 3-4

4.3

S177

Carpentry Leatherwork

Ukh-hotep II (B4)

East wall of outer room, lowest register

Meir

12th Dyn.

Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, pl. 5.2

S178

Fishing

Ukh-hotep II (B4)

South wall of outer room, east panel, lowest register

Meir

12th Dyn.

Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, pl. 8

S179

Fishing

Ukh-hotep II (B4)

South wall of outer room, west panel

Meir

12th Dyn.

Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, pl. 6

S180

Offering-bearers Cattle in procession

Ukh-hotep II (B4)

North wall of exterior approach to statue-recess

Meir

12th Dyn.

Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, pl. 13

S181

Offering-bearers

Ukh-hotep II (B4)

South jamb of exterior approach to statue-recess, lower registers

Meir

12th Dyn.

Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, pl. 16.1

S182

Offering-bearers

Ukh-hotep II (B4)

North wall of interior approach to statue-recess, registers 1-3

Meir

12th Dyn.

Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, pl. 17

S183

Slaughtering

Ukh-hotep II (B4)

South wall of interior approach to statue-recess, lowest register

Meir

12th Dyn.

Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, pl. 16.2

S184

Slaughtering Offering-bearers

Ukh-hotep II (B4)

North wall of inner room, registers 1-5

Meir

12th Dyn.

Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, pls. 21-22

S185

Roasting fowl Cooking meat Offering-bearers

Ukh-hotep II (B4)

East wall of inner room, north panel, registers 1-5

Meir

12th Dyn.

2.32 Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, pls. 23.1, 24.1, 31

S186

Slaughtering Offering-bearers

Ukh-hotep II (B4)

East wall of inner room, south panel, registers 3-6

Meir

12th Dyn.

Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, pls. 23.2, 24.2

S187

Slaughtering Offering-bearers

Ukh-hotep II (B4)

South wall of inner room, registers 2-4

Meir

12th Dyn.

Blackman, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part III, pls. 25-26

S188

Dogs Foreigners

Khnumhotep II (3 UC)

North wall, registers 1-3

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pls. 123124

6.8, 6.10

S189

Hand-feeding cattle Fowling Cattle in procession

Khnumhotep II (3 UC)

North wall, registers 4-6

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pls. 53, 125-126

2.25

S190

Dogs

Khnumhotep II (3 UC)

North wall, lower section, right

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 127b

S191

Fishing

Khnumhotep II (3 UC)

East wall, north panel, register 2

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 131b

233

Preparing for Eternity Catalogue Theme Number

Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site (Tomb Number)

S192

Fowling

Khnumhotep II (3 UC)

East wall, centre panel

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 133

S193

Offering-bearers Foreigners

Khnumhotep II (3 UC)

South wall, registers 1-3

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pls. 91b, 138-39

S194

Slaughtering Cattle in procession

Khnumhotep II (3 UC)

South wall, registers 4-5

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pls. 140b, 141b

S195

Granary

Khnumhotep II (3 UC)

West wall, north panel, register 1

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 117

2.9

S196

Beasts of burden

Khnumhotep II (3 UC)

West wall, north panel, register 2

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pls. 17a, 117

3.23

S197

Land preparation Khnumhotep II (3 UC)

West wall, north panel, register 3

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 118

2.6

S198

Boats

Khnumhotep II (3 UC)

West wall, north panel, register 4

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 118

3.5

S199

Fishing Cattle in procession

Khnumhotep II (3 UC)

West wall, north panel, register 6

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 118

S200

Carpentry

Khnumhotep II (3 UC)

West wall, south Beni 12th panel, registers 1-2 Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 120

5.9

S201

Boats

Khnumhotep II (3 UC)

West wall, south panel, register 3

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 121

3.2

S202

Bread-making Brewing beer Spinning and weaving

Khnumhotep II (3 UC)

West wall, south panel, register 4

Beni 12th Hassan Dyn.

Kanawati & Evans, Beni Hassan. Volume I, pl. 121

2.15, 5.5

S203

Dogs

Djehuty-hotep (N-2 / R-20)

East wall of outer room

Deir elBersha

12th Dyn.

Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pl. 7

S204

Fishing and fowling

Djehuty-hotep (N-2 / R-20)

North wall of inner room, registers 1-2

Deir elBersha

12th Dyn.

Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pl. 20

S205

Land preparation Djehuty-hotep (N-2 / R-20)

East wall of inner room, register 1

Deir elBersha

12th Dyn.

Smith, “Paintings of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom”, AJA 55.4, (1951), fig. 2

S206

Beasts of burden

Djehuty-hotep (N-2 / R-20)

East wall of inner room, register 2

Deir elBersha

12th Dyn.

Smith, “Paintings of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom”, AJA 55.4, (1951), fig. 1

S207

Bread-making Brewing beer

Djehuty-hotep (N-2 / R-20)

East wall of inner room, register 3

Deir elBersha

12th Dyn.

Smith, “Paintings of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom”, AJA 55.4, (1951), figs. 1-2

S208

Spinning and weaving

Djehuty-hotep (N-2 / R-20)

East wall of inner Deir room, registers 5-6 elBersha

12th Dyn.

Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pl. 26

5.4

S209

Dogs Military procession

Djehuty-hotep (N-2 / R-20)

East wall of inner room, register 7

Deir elBersha

12th Dyn.

Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pl. 29; British Museum, London: EA 1147

6.5

S210

Fishing and fowling

Djehuty-hotep (N-2 / R-20)

West wall of inner room, south panel, registers 5-7

Deir elBersha

12th Dyn.

Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pl. 17

234

Date

Reference

Figure Number

2.5

Appendix 2  |  Catalogue of Wall Scenes Catalogue Theme Number

Tomb Owner Location in Tomb Site (Tomb Number)

Date

Reference

S211

Boats

Djehuty-hotep (N-2 / R-20)

West wall of inner room, centre panel, register 6

Deir elBersha

12th Dyn.

Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pl. 18

S212

Cattle in procession

Djehuty-hotep (N-2 / R-20)

West wall of inner Deir room, centre elpanel, registers 7-9 Bersha

12th Dyn.

Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pls. 17-18

S213

Slaughtering Offering-bearers

Djehuty-hotep (N-2 / R-20)

West wall of inner room, north panel, registers 1-5

Deir elBersha

12th Dyn.

Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pl. 12

S214

Dogs

Djehuty-hotep (N-2 / R-20)

West wall of inner room, north panel, lower section

Deir elBersha

12th Dyn.

Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pls. 12, 19

S215

Slaughtering Offering-bearers

Djehuty-hotep (N-2 / R-20)

East wall of shrine, registers 1-5

Deir elBersha

12th Dyn.

Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pl. 34

S216

Slaughtering Offering-bearers

Djehuty-hotep (N-2 / R-20)

West wall of shrine, registers 1-5

Deir elBersha

12th Dyn.

Newberry, El Bersheh. Part I, pl. 32

S217

Offering-bearers Cattle in procession Foreigners

Ukh-hotep III (C1)

North wall, registers 3-5

Meir

12th Dyn.

Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part VI, pl. 18

S218

Fishing Offering-bearers

Ukh-hotep III (C1)

South wall, registers 3-5

Meir

12th Dyn.

Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part VI, pl. 11

S219

Offering-bearers

Ukh-hotep III (C1)

North wall of statue-recess, registers 1-4

Meir

12th Dyn.

Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part VI, pl. 17

S220

Offering-bearers

Ukh-hotep III (C1)

South wall of statue-recess, registers 1-4

Meir

12th Dyn.

Blackman & Apted, Rock Tombs of Meir. Part VI, pl. 15

235

Figure Number

4.7, 4.8

6.7

Index Ahanakht I (N-5) 54, 67, 110–11, 113–16, 118–19, 133, 226 Akhet-hotep (Saqqara) 116, 119 Amenemhat (2 UC) 14, 18–19, 25–27, 31, 33–36, 38, 41–42, 44, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 63, 67–68, 72–73, 76, 79–82, 84–86, 88, 91, 94, 96–98, 100–01, 103–06, 108, 110, 116, 118, 122, 127–31, 134, 138, 146–50, 153–56, 159–64, 173, 177, 185, 231–32 Amenemhat (K-21) 46–47, 49–50, 74, 80, 216 Amenemhat II 4 Amenemhat III 4 Amenhotep II 72 An-ankhy (L-15J67/1) 95, 125, 223 Ankhmahor (Saqqara) 21, 153 Ankhtifi (Mo’alla) 190 Asiatic 124, 161–62, 166–70

Djehuty-nakht (N-1) 16, 18, 231 Djehuty-nakht (N-10) 122, 129, 134, 227 Djehuty-nakht (R-10A) 3, 15, 18, 22–24, 26, 36, 39, 44–47, 49, 62, 65–67, 72–73, 76–77, 79–80, 83, 86– 90, 93–94, 96–99, 101, 105, 123–25, 137–41, 143, 146–50, 153, 157, 159–61, 163–64, 166, 181–82, 188, 212–16 Djetinpet (800 LC) 152 dog 68, 90, 129–36, 180, 183 donkey 105–10, 115, 170, 180, 183 fish 65, 67–70, 91–92 fowl 1, 59–64, 66–67, 69–70, 92, 94, 97, 100–03, 180, 182 Gemni (Saqqara) 64 Gemniemhat (Saqqara) 64, 137, 156, 180 governor 4, 7, 21, 72, 76, 93, 105, 137–38, 146, 159–60, 164, 186–89 grain 7, 9–10, 13, 18, 21–22, 24–35, 37–40, 42, 44, 50, 57–58, 64, 89, 107, 109–10, 115, 170, 175, 178, 180, 182–85, 188, 191 Gua (K-12) 51, 53–55, 58, 98, 100–01, 221

Baqet I (29 UC) 19, 55, 59, 62, 67, 103–04, 111–12, 114, 128–31, 133, 159, 178, 225–26 Baqet II (33 UC) 57, 60, 62–63, 66, 102, 131, 178, 226 Baqet III (15 UC) 13, 15, 18–19, 22, 27, 32, 36–37, 39, 41, 45, 52, 57, 60, 62, 64–67, 83, 91, 97, 100, 103–04, 110, 116, 118–19, 122–23, 125, 127, 130–31, 133, 137, 139–42, 144, 146, 149, 153–56, 159–60, 163–64, 173, 188, 227–28 Baqta (412 LC) 76, 218 basket 8, 18, 33, 65, 70, 94, 98, 100–01, 103, 105, 108–09, 123, 168, 170 beer 1, 10, 13, 32, 34, 37, 39–46, 57–58, 64–65, 89, 100, 103, 175, 180, 182–84 bread 1, 13, 30–42, 44–46, 57–58, 64–65, 100, 103, 175, 180, 182, 184 burial chamber 2, 21, 24, 30, 39, 53, 59, 65, 70, 73, 76, 80, 83–84, 88, 91–93, 95, 97–98, 101–03, 105, 110, 112, 115, 118, 120, 125, 127–29, 136, 152–53, 164, 172, 175–80, 182, 185–92

Ha-itef-a (362 LC) 95, 212 Hathor 3, 102, 146, 168, 172, 181 Hemre/Isi I (Deir el-Gebrawi) 42 Henu (L-16H50/1C) 33, 38, 41, 80, 181, 210 Hepi-kem (A4) 97–98, 100, 102, 210 herdsman 39, 45–50, 93, 106, 108, 112–16, 118–20, 122–27, 129, 131–33, 135, 173, 180, 184–85 Hewetiaah (D2) 24, 30, 105, 178, 224 Iha (N-8) 129, 227 Imi (L-15I55/1) 93, 223 inscription 2, 4–5, 19, 25, 27–28, 34, 39, 43, 49–50, 53, 58–59, 76, 85, 91–93, 96–97, 100, 102–03, 105, 120, 124, 128, 133, 144–45, 150, 156, 164, 170, 172, 177, 179–80, 184–86, 189, 191–92 Intef (1 LC) 22, 24, 27, 32, 44, 72–73, 86, 94, 100, 125, 152, 211 Inti 86, 219 Inti (Deshasha) 159, 163, 166 Inumin (Saqqara) 30 Ipi (481 LC) 13, 18–19, 64, 94, 108, 116, 118, 120, 135, 223 Ipi (707 LC) 27–28, 31, 38, 42, 77, 100, 216 Ipi (Thebes) 69 Iryt-hotep (188 LC) 73, 216

calf 14, 102, 111–19, 122, 127, 184 caption see inscription cattle 1, 13–16, 18, 39, 45–55, 57–59, 61, 63–64, 90, 92, 101, 106, 111–12, 115–16, 118–29, 131, 173, 178–80, 183–85, 187, 191 coffin 7, 21–22, 46, 51, 71, 74, 76, 81, 83, 85–88, 90, 92, 104–05, 145, 150, 152, 177, 185, 188 Daga (Thebes) 137 desert 1, 4, 71, 105, 130–35, 146, 166, 170, 179–80, 191 Djay (275 LC) 36, 40, 45–46, 48, 80, 97, 101, 153–54, 156, 181, 211 Djedkare 177, 189–90 Djehuty-hotep 86, 220 Djehuty-hotep (N-2) 4, 18, 20–21, 34, 38, 43, 52–53, 55, 66, 83, 91, 104–05, 110, 120–22, 130–31, 138–39, 142, 144, 159, 164–65, 181, 234–35

Kagemni (Saqqara) 119, 135 Karenen (Saqqara) 180–81 Kayemankh (Giza) 177 237

Preparing for Eternity Kayemheset (Saqqara) 159, 163, 166 Kayemnofret (Giza) 108 Kayemnofret (Saqqara) 46–47 Kay-henent 108, 216 Kemsit (Thebes) 178 Khentika (Saqqara) 21 Khety (17 UC) 15, 22–23, 31, 33, 51, 57, 60, 62–63, 66, 68, 72, 76–77, 89–91, 98, 103–04, 108, 122–23, 125, 127, 130–31, 133–34, 137–41, 144–46, 149, 159–61, 163–65, 173, 228–29 Khety (366 LC) 24, 26–27, 31–33, 36, 38, 41, 44, 51–52, 63, 79–80, 217–18 Khety-aa (575 LC) 24, 36, 42, 45, 54–55, 57–58, 65, 68–70, 80, 95, 137, 141, 143–44, 218 Khnumhotep (140 LC) 85, 217 Khnumhotep I (14 UC) 22, 27–28, 54, 66–67, 70, 83, 85, 100, 103, 106, 108, 111–14, 127, 130–33, 135, 159–61, 164, 167, 170–73, 190, 229–30 Khnumhotep II (3 UC) 1, 4, 13, 16, 18–20, 22, 24–25, 28, 32–34, 38–40, 44–50, 55, 59, 65–68, 73–76, 79, 81, 85–86, 92, 96, 105–06, 108–10, 123, 127–29, 131, 135, 139–41, 143–46, 148–50, 167–72, 177, 190, 233–34 Khnum-nekhti and Netjer-nekhti (585 LC) 22, 24, 36, 42, 45, 51, 54, 76, 80, 84, 89, 95, 100–01, 103, 105, 218 Khufu 90 king 3, 66, 72, 90–91, 93, 97, 137, 145, 159–60, 166–67, 170, 188–90

Netjer-nakht (53 LC) 28, 211 Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep (Saqqara) 119, 170 Niankh-pepy-kem (A1) 13, 16–17, 30, 32–34, 36, 40–41, 43–44, 53, 58, 60–62, 64, 66, 73, 77, 79, 94, 96, 98–99, 101, 104, 106, 129, 182, 188, 190, 209–10 Nikau-inpu (Giza) 51, 185 Nikauisesi (Saqqara) 25, 49 Nubian 89, 160–62, 166, 168, 172–73 Nyuserre 189 offering-table 50–51, 57–59, 64, 70, 92, 96–97, 100–05, 130–31, 135, 175, 177, 179 official 3–4, 7, 19, 21, 25, 27–30, 38–39, 47, 50, 55, 90, 93, 96–98, 114, 122, 128–29, 144–45, 159, 166, 170–71, 186–87, 189 overseer 3–4, 19, 28, 33, 38–39, 59, 67, 91, 95–97, 112, 114–15, 129, 143–46, 160, 170, 183, 188 ox see cattle Penu (Saqqara) 30 Pepi (D1) 36, 40, 44, 52, 55, 64, 104, 224 Pepy II 3, 64, 178 Pepyankh the Black (A2) 16, 18, 21, 50–53, 55–56, 59– 60, 64–67, 70–73, 76, 79–80, 83–85, 88, 91, 94–96, 100, 103–05, 108, 110, 120, 125–26, 128, 131, 133, 135–36, 146, 148–51, 153, 156–57, 186, 224–25 Pepyankh the Middle (D2) 3, 13–14, 16–18, 21, 24, 30–31, 36–37, 43, 53, 55, 60, 62–66, 72, 77–80, 90, 93, 101, 105–08, 122, 127–28, 131, 133, 135, 186, 223–24 pottery 21, 24, 28–31, 40, 71–72, 133, 156, 175, 180–81, 187–88 priest 3, 28, 51, 85–87, 91–93, 96–99, 101–02, 104, 123, 129, 146, 153, 168, 172, 176, 188 Ptahshepses (Abusir) 135, 189

linen 7, 28, 30, 38, 68, 79, 83, 85, 95, 112, 114, 137–41, 143, 145, 152, 166, 168, 184, 191 Ma (500 LC) 25, 28–29, 76, 79, 90, 221 marsh 65–67, 70–71, 91–92, 125, 127, 135, 149, 159, 161, 179, 191 meat 10, 45–46, 50, 52–53, 55, 57–59, 62–64, 100, 103, 111, 128, 152, 156, 179 Mehu (Saqqara) 30 Meketre (Thebes) 3, 44, 53, 55, 62–63, 65–66, 68–71, 91, 120, 128, 137, 141, 148–50, 152, 180, 188–89 Meniu (E1) 32, 38, 43, 62, 223 Mereruka (Saqqara) 30, 49, 94–95, 134 Mery-ra-ha-shetef (Sedment) 98 Mesehti (Asyut) 159–61, 173 metal 55, 147, 149, 156, 170, 172, 180, 184 Montuhotep (Thebes) 186 Montuhotep II 93, 188, 190 mortuary cult 1, 9, 45, 53, 59, 69, 92, 96–97, 100–01, 104–05, 129, 176–77, 179, 182, 189, 192

Ramushenti (27 UC) 57, 104, 131, 226 Rashepses (Saqqara) 177, 190 Re 90–91 Re-hotepi and Kaayt 80, 89, 216 Rekhmire (Thebes) 181 rope 16, 48, 54–55, 65–67, 108, 114, 116, 119, 125, 127 royal see king Sahure 66, 166 sandal 103, 152–57, 166, 168, 179 Satmeket (R-10B) 72, 146, 216 scribe 24, 27–29, 38–39, 83, 95–97, 128, 145, 186 Senbi 90, 212 Senbi I (B1) 13–14, 16, 51, 53–55, 57, 68, 101–02, 104, 111–12, 114, 122–23, 128, 130–33, 135, 146, 149, 159, 173, 230 Senbu (487 LC) 40, 129–31, 133, 135, 220 Senedjemib (Giza) 49 Senedjemib-inti (Giza) 177, 190 Seni (279 LC) 55, 221 Seni (Saqqara) 30 Senusret I 91, 93, 133 Senusret II 4, 90, 170, 176 Senusret III 4, 90, 93, 176

Nakhti (Asyut) 2, 177 Nebet-het-hotep (774/775 LC) 29, 188, 222 Neferhotep (Thebes) 168 Neferirtenef (Saqqara) 50 Nefery (116 LC) 22, 24–25, 31, 42–43, 100, 146, 217 Nefwa (186 LC) 22, 32, 45, 51, 55, 76, 83–84, 88–89, 100, 181, 217 Nehri I (N-4) 13, 227 Nekhti (21 UC) 65, 127, 133, 231 Nesutnefer (Giza) 166 238

Index Sepi I (K-15) 90, 221 Sepi II (K-14 north) 83, 90–91, 221 Sepi III (K-14 south) 22, 25–28, 73, 88, 90, 221 serdab 2, 175–77, 180, 185–86 serving statuette 30, 175–77, 185–86 Seshathetep (Giza) 166 shabti 176 Shy (Saqqara) 30 Sobek-hotepi (723 LC) 18, 25, 27–28, 36, 40, 57, 73–74, 98, 164, 219 sun-god see Re text see inscription textile see linen thread 7, 42, 54, 79–80, 102, 119, 125, 138–41, 143, 145, 148, 183–84 Thutmose III 72 Thutmose IV 176 Ti (Saqqara) 49 tomb 187 LC 30, 221 tomb 203 LC 18, 83, 211 tomb 394 LC 22, 212 tomb 420 LC 38, 41, 210 tomb 868 LC 71, 79, 83, 219 tomb L-16L25/1A 60, 90, 221 tomb-chapel 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 19, 21, 30, 40, 50, 52–53, 59, 65, 70, 76, 80, 84, 88, 90, 92–95, 97, 100–01, 104–05, 110, 118, 120, 124, 129–31, 134, 136, 146, 150, 152, 154, 164, 173, 175–77, 179–82, 185–88, 190–92 Tutankhamun 72 Ukh-hotep 72–73, 85–87, 185, 219 Ukh-hotep I (B2) 51–53, 65, 68, 94, 100, 102–04, 108, 116, 118, 122–25, 127–28, 131, 134, 149, 159, 173, 231 Ukh-hotep II (B4) 50, 58, 60–63, 67–68, 98, 101–04, 111–12, 114–16, 123–25, 146, 149, 153, 156, 233 Ukh-hotep III (C1) 4, 65, 90, 93, 102, 167, 169, 172, 235 Unis 177, 189–90 Useri and Aryt-hotep (181 LC) 167, 217 Wah-hotep 74, 80, 221 Wahi (El-Hagarsa) 103 Werirni (El-Sheikh Said) 108

239

BAR IN TERNAT IONA L SE RIE S 3070

‘I would consider this book a major contribution to the field of Egyptology as it presents new research, new material and a unique and comprehensive analysis of material rarely studied, providing new interpretations of the topic. There is no doubt that this research would be of immense value to Egyptologists worldwide. But it could also be of interest to scholars of other early cultures, many of which also include ritual or funerary models in their source material.’ Dr Ann McFarlane, Macquarie University ‘A thoroughly worthwhile piece of research. Interest in Middle Kingdom wooden models has increased tremendously in recent years. I would envisage this work to be in demand worldwide.’ Dr Angela Tooley, Independent Researcher

During the late Old Kingdom to the end of the Middle Kingdom, there were two principal types of artistic representation in the ancient Egyptian elite tomb: funerary models and wall scenes. The two media exhibit several similarities in design, with both depicting people and animals engaged in activities of everyday life. This has caused scholars to regularly label funerary models duplicates or substitutes of wall scenes, implying that they served the same purpose in the tomb. However, there are several notable differences yet to be acknowledged. This book conducts a detailed comparative analysis of the two artistic media, focusing on representations from the sites of Meir, Deir el-Bersha and Beni Hassan in Middle Egypt. The analysis highlights the distinguishing characteristics of each medium and establishes a more precise understanding of the role of funerary models in the tomb and their relationship to wall scenes. Georgia Barker is a researcher at Macquarie University, specialising in funerary art of the ancient Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms. She obtained her PhD from the same institution and has worked extensively with museum collections. She has published several articles in peer-reviewed Egyptological journals and presented papers at international conferences.

Printed in England