Naguib Kanawati

Saqqâra Tombs, III: The Mastaba of NeferseshemptahSaqqâra Tombs, III: The Mastaba of Neferseshemptah. By LLOYDA. B., SPENCERA. J., and EL-KHOULIA.. Egypt Exploration Society, Archaeological Survey Memoir 41. Pp. xv + 38, pls 44. London, Egypt Exploration Society, 2008. ISBN 978 0 85698 168 5. Price £65.

The present publication is the third in the series Saqqâra Tombs, reporting on some important and interesting tombs in the Teti Cemetery. The mastaba of Neferseshemptah was originally excavated by v. Loret in 1897–9, and published in 1907 by J. Capart with two other mastabas, those of Neferseshemre and Ankhmahor, which formed what became known as the ‘Rue de tombeaux’. A fourth mastaba, belonging to an important official named Kaaper, has since been cleared in the same street of tombs, which lies immediately to the west of the pyramids of Teti’s queens. Although black and white, Capart’s photographs were excellent, and particularly suitable for the scenes and inscriptions of Neferseshemptah’s chapel which were mostly unpainted, with even the painted sections having largely lost their colours. However, despite its importance, the mastaba of Neferseshemptah remained incompletely excavated and published. The external walls of the mastaba have never been identified, nor had the main shaft been cleared, and even when Firth and Gunn later excavated many shafts in this cemetery, including those of the neighbouring mastabas of Neferseshemre and Ankhmahor, Neferseshemptah’s shaft was neglected. Capart’s publication also did not include an epigraphic record of the scenes and inscriptions and completely omitted the decorated, but damaged, westernmost room of the chapel, Room 7. The present publication addresses some, but not all, of these shortcomings. Under ‘Architecture and excavation’ (pp. 3–5), a description of the architectural features of each room of the chapel is given, but no attempt is made to establish the external limits of the superstructure, i.e. the mastaba itself. Moreover, the main shaft and burial chamber were excavated by Dr. Ali el-Khouli, but, as stated in the report (p. 5), the information was not available to the authors. The location of this shaft, which is readily visible immediately to the west of the tomb owner’s false door in Room 3, is not marked on the plan, although four other pits are identified (pl. ii). On the other hand, the expedition recleared the western section of the chapel, which proved that Room 7 was actually decorated but omitted in Capart’s publication. The decoration of this room, as rightly pointed out by the authors, is in poor condition and it would have been impossible for Capart to produce a satisfactory photographic record of its scenes and inscriptions. This is precisely why reliable facsimile drawings are absolutely necessary in excavation reports, and the expedition has certainly done that. with an experienced epigraphic team, all scenes and inscriptions, including those of Room 7, were recorded. It is regrettable however that the great effort and time invested in the production of the intricate details in these drawings is partly wasted in the reduction and printing processes. The fine lines representing the internal details of wigs, some objects, food items and hieroglyphic signs have frequently joined together forming a black spot. The blame for this is placed on the publisher/printer and not on the authors, and the present reviewer, among others, has suffered from the same problem in earlier years, before better scanning techniques were used. The identities of Neferseshemptah and his family are of particular interest. On pp. 6–9 the authors give a list of his names and titles as well as those of his wife and other individuals mentioned in the tomb. Neferseshemptah was married to a woman named Zeshzeshet, designated as ‘eldest king’s daughter of his body’, presumably referring to her kinship to King Teti in whose cemetery she was buried. As waatetkhethor, the wife of the vizier Mereruka, was similarly described, the authors suggest that the title ‘eldest daughter of the king’ was sometimes used in an honorific fashion, or it was a designation for the eldest surviving daughter, or even that it meant that the second daughter simply functioned as the eldest one. The possibility that the two women were two eldest daughters by two different wives should at least be considered, and we know that King Teti had at least two queens, Iput and Khuit. More serious, however, is the identity of the tomb owner himself. The authors reject the reviewer’s

Book Review: The Administration of Egypt in the Old Kingdom: The Highest Titles and their HoldersThe Administration of Egypt in the Old Kingdom: The Highest Titles and their Holders. By StrudwickNigel. Studies in Egyptology. 240×158 mm. Pp. xv + 366. London, Kegan Paul International, 1985. ISBN 0 7103 0107 3. Price £55.

assume that no official used in his name the cartouche of any previous king, that no priesthood of any king was held after his reign, and that no estates name commemorates an earlier king? These questions have serious implications for the upper and lower dates for each criterion. Cherpions study has some other limitations. Most of the features she examines are not sufficient for precise dating since they remained unchanged for a considerable time. Thus, unless a cartouche is inscribed (and the value of that is frequently uncertain), a tomb can only be placed within a broad time limit when these features were in use. Also, certain reigns, for example that of Pepy II, are too long to be considered as one undivided time unit. Other methods of dating, although by no means always accurate, are useful tools in trying to reach a more precise dating for tombs and Cherpion has very much restricted the value of her research by not incorporating, whether accepting or rejecting, such previous studies. As an example of tombs with disputed dating, we may return to the tomb of Kaemheset. Applying her own dating criteria, Cherpion places the tomb in the Fourth Dyasty (pp. 1 12-15). Not only is the presence of such a large Fourth Dynasty mastaba in this part of the Saqqara cemetery totally unexpected, but its date should certainly be considered in conjunction with its immediate neighbour, the mastaba of Kaemsenu (pp. 1 g6-7 ). Constructed with exactly the same type of mud brick (personal examination), the architectural features of both tombs are those of the Fifth Dynasty (see Qui bell and Hayter, Teti Pyramid, North Side, pl. 1; Firth and Gunn, Teti Pyramid Cemeteries, II, pl. 51; Strudwick, The Administration of Egypt in the Old Kingdom, go, 140-51). Kaemsenu held priesthoods of Sahure, Neferirkare and Niuserre, and a mud sealing of lsesi was found in an undisturbed shaft in his tomb (Firth and Gunn, Teti Pyramid Cemeteries, 1, g6, 157-8, 16g). In fact, none of the mastabas in this section of Saqqara to the north of the pyramid of Userkaf and to the west of that of Teti is earlier than the Fifth Dynasty. It represents an extension of a cemetery probably first used under Userkaf which grew northward until Teti built his pyramid to the west. The mastabas of Kaemheset and Kaemsenu are most probably contemporary, even if no cartouche survives in the former. The problem of dating Old Kingdom tombs is an involved and complicated one. Advance is made constantly in that respect, but much more work is still needed. Nadine Cherpions thesis will remain, with others, an important dating tool for years to come.

Book Review: Materialen zur Archäologie und Geschichte des Raumes von AchmimMaterialen zur Archäologie und Geschichte des Raumes von Achmim. By KuhlmannKlaus P.. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Abteilung Kairo, Sonderschrift11. 300 mm × 215 mm. Pp. xi + 91, pls. 44. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein, 1983. ISBN 3 8053 0590 7. Price DM 98.

Eine abschlieBende Randbemerkung betrifft ein kleines Kalksteinbecken, das bei den Ausfiihrungen zu dem zum MR-Satettempel von Elephantine (pp, 151 f.) gehorenden Reinigungsbecken vermutlich der Vollstandigkeit halber (Anm, 536) erwiihnt wird. Es handelt sich hierbeijedoch nicht urn ein Tempelgewasser, sondern urn einen technisch erforderlichen Wasserbehalter mit Deckel, in dem das fiir das erwiihnte Reinigungsbecken bestimmte Wasser gespeichert werden konnte. 1m iibrigen ergab sich dank einer neuerlichen Lesung der zwischen den Fundamentquadern des ptolemaischen Satettempels gefundenen demotischen Bauinschrift (Lilddeckens, MDAIK 27,1971, 203-6 Taf. 51) eine Umdatierung des bisher angenommenen friihptolemaischen Baubeginns des Tempels in eine spatere Zeit (dazu demniichst U. Kaplony-Heckel in MDAIK). Trotz der vorgebrachten kritischen Anmerkungen kommt dieser sehr ausfiihrlichen und umsichtigen Untersuchung die Bedeutung zu, eine weitere Lucke in unserem Verstandnis der sakralen Nebenanlagen iigyptischer Tempel zu schlieBen. Fur die Auswertung des umfangreichen, bereits in Primarund Sekundiirliteratur veroffentlichten Materials werden samtliche erreichbaren Textquellen und archaologischen Befunde zusammengestellt, kritisch bewertet und verglichen. Dank des klaren Aufbaus ist das in die Untersuchung aufgenommene und durchgearbeitete Materialleicht auffindbar und macht die Arbeit auf diese Weise iiberdies zu einem praktischen Handbuch. H. JARITZ