Archaeological excavation of the mastaba of Queen Khentkaus III (tomb AC 30) in Abusir

PRAGUE E GYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES Contents REPORTS Burial shafts and chambers of Nefer and Neferhathor in tomb AS 68d. A comparative evaluation of the ceramic fi nds (Katarína Arias Kytnarová) . . . . . . . . .3 Tomb of the chief physician Shepseskafankh (Miroslav Bárta) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Archaeological excavation of the mastaba of Queen Khentkaus III (tomb AC 30) in Abusir (Jaromír Krejčí – Katarína Arias Kytnarová – Martin Odler) . . . . . . . . . . .28 Exploration of the burial apartments in tomb complex AS 68. Preliminary report of the 2013 fall season (Hana Vymazalová) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 STUDIES Ritual tradition and transfer between shape and meaning – model beer jars in stone and pottery (Katarína Arias Kytnarová – Lucie Jirásková) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 A burial with a stamp seal depicting a Bes-like fi gure from Abusir (Veronika Dulíková – Martin Odler – Helena Březinová – Petra Havelková). . . . . . .69 Damage and repair of the Old Kingdom canopic jars – the case at Abusir (Lucie Jirásková) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 The miraculous rise of the Fifth Dynasty – the story of Papyrus Westcar and historical evidence (Miroslav Verner) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 Dear readers, It has been thirteen years since the fi rst issue of Prague Egyptological Studies was published in 2002. Since then it has become an important and wide-selling journal, providing both the scientifi c and laymen audience with the latest results of our fi eldwork and various studies in the fi eld of Czech Egyptology dealing with the civilisations of ancient Egypt and Sudan. After more than a decade of its existence, we are pleased to launch the fi rst issue of the English edition of Prague Egyptological Studies. The English edition is dedicated exclusively to the history, archaeology and language of third millennium BC Egypt. Yet it also aims to include studies dealing with foreign relations during the period. At the same time, we also welcome publications on the latest advances in the study of the environment and studies evaluating the signifi cance of applied sciences. Our principal aim is to accommodate studies concerning either primary research in the fi eld or those that bring up theoretical inquiries of essential importance to the indicated scope and time frame of the journal. The present issue is devoted to the excavations at Abusir, the principal fi eld of research of the Czech Institute of Egyptology. The individual reports are dedicated to the excavation projects carried out in the pyramid fi eld (Khentkaus III), as well as in the Abusir South area (tomb complex AS 68, the tomb of Shepseskafankh). In addition to these, you will also fi nd more theoretical studies focusing on the “Khentkaus problem”, which analyses the signifi cance and importance of three women bearing the same name during the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties, a study dealing with model beer jars and their typological evolution, an interesting seal with a fi gure of Bes, and an interpretation of canopic jars bearing signifi cant tokens of past treatment on their bodies. We trust that the English edition of Prague Egyptological Studies, which will be produced once a year, will fi nd a fi rm place among other Egyptological scholarly journals. We are convinced that a clearly defi ned profi le of this scientifi c journal will attract not only the attention of many readers but also submissions of signifi cant contributions from the scientifi c community and thus streamline major advances in the fi elds of third millennium BC Egypt history, archaeology and the like. Miroslav Bárta and Lucie Jirásková PRAŽSKÉ EGYPTOLOGICKÉ STUDIE (Prague Egyptological Studies) Editorial board Prof. Mgr. Miroslav Bárta, Dr. Ao. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Peter Jánosi Prof. Peter Der Manuelian Juniorprof. Dr. Joanne Rowland Mgr. Renata Landgráfová, Ph.D. Dr. Gabriele Pieke Dr. Teodozja Rzeuska Executive editors Mgr. Veronika Dulíková Mgr. Lucie Jirásková Mgr. Marie Hlouchová Publisher Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, Czech Institute of Egyptology, Celetná 20, 110 00 Praha 1, http://egyptologie.ff.cuni.cz The publication was prepared within the Programme for the Development of Fields of Study at Charles University, No. P14 “Archaeology of non-European Regions”, subprogramme “Research of ancient Egyptian civilization. Cultural and political adaptation of the North African civilisations in ancient history (5000 B.C. – 1000 A.D.)” Photographs and illustrations Archive of the Czech Institute of Egyptology FA CU, Jiří Vaněk (National museum) Language review Anthony Patrick Arias, B.A. Typography PhDr. Oleg Man Typesetting and print SERIFA, s. r. o., Jinonická 80, 150 00 Praha 5 ISSN 1214-3189 Copyright Charles University in Prague Photograph on the front page A reconstruction of the offering place in front of the false door of Nefer in tomb AS 68d (photo M. Frouz) XV/ 2015 CZECH INSTITUTE OF EGYPTOLOGY Last autumn, the Czech expedition came back to Nakhtsare’s necropolis and explored the monument marked as tomb AC 30. Before the beginning of its unearthing, three main goals were established: to identify the name of the tomb owner, his/her social status and to explore its immediate surroundings, especially the space between 28 PES XV/2015 THE MASTABA OF QUEEN KHENTKAUS III (AC 30) Archaeological excavation of the mastaba of Queen Khentkaus III (tomb AC 30) in Abusir Jaromír Krejčí – Katarína Arias Kytnarová – Martin Odler For years, the Czech Institute of Egyptology (CIE) has been working in the southern part of the pyramid field, unearthing the monuments connected with the members of the royal family of the middle of the Fifth Dynasty. Since 1976, the archaeological expedition of the CIE has discovered, besides Raneferef’s pyramid complex (Verner et al. 2006), pyramids of queens and tombs of other members of the royal family. During the first ten years of the new millennium, the tomb complex Lepsius no. 25 (Krejčí – Callender – Verner et al. 2008), and the mastaba of the “eldest son of the king” Werkaure (Krejčí – Arias Kytnarová – Vymazalová et al. 2014), were unearthed. These excavations clearly showed that our knowledge of the Abusir royal pyramid necropolis was still insufficient. It is one of the reasons why the CIE expedition to Abusir has continued – since 2013 – its work in the comprehensive research of Nakhtsare’s cemetery. Its archaeological excavation started with the unearthing of tomb AC 25, belonging to “son of the king” Nakhtsare, already in 1994 (Krejčí 2008: 37–64), and continued within the framework of this project with the excavation of tomb AC 29 ascribed to “count” Kakaibaef in 2013 (Krejčí 2013). Fig. 1 View of the archaeological excavation in the area of tomb AC 30 (photo V. Brůna) tombs AC 30 and AC 29. The exploration of the tomb brought forth answers to the first two questions, as well as conducted the clearing of a sondage between the tombs. Archaeological excavation of tomb AC 30 Prior to the archaeological excavation, tomb AC 30 had the appearance of an elongated, north-south oriented, and approximately 18.00 × 23.00 m large mound, the maximal height of which was 1.50 m above the present ground. The mound was covered with limestone debris and blocks as well as pottery sherds, which – already before the start of the archaeological research – indicated that the tomb was extensively damaged through the extraction of building blocks by stone robbers. The state of preservation of tomb AC 30 was therefore rather bad, and the tomb in this way did not differ from the situation of the neighbouring monuments in this part of the Abusir royal necropolis. Due to safety reasons, the archaeological work was rather hazardous and the excavation had to be done with maximal care. As was the case with both tombs AC 25 and AC 29, the shape of the mound of tomb AC 30 clearly showed, already before the archaeological work, that it represented a mastaba oriented along its north-south axis. Besides tomb AC 30 itself, during the autumn of 2014 the CIE expedition also explored the area around it. The archaeological work began with the digging of a sondage between tombs AC 29 and AC 30 (fig. 1) in order to clarify the situation in this area and to document the existence of an enclosure wall which was conjectured before the excavation of tomb AC 30. The area of the sondage was covered with 3.00 m high layers of clean, wind-blown sand partially deposited on rather thin contact layers of brown sand mixed with broken mud bricks and ash.1These contact layers also contained, besides ceramic contexts with Old Kingdom miniature vessels and sherds, a small model of a head with the features of a (female?) face indicated (17/AC30/2014). The function of this object remains unclear. The closest analogies – items found in the neighbouring mortuary temple of Raneferef (Benešovská 2006: 429, Fig. 2.7.67, 7) – unfortunately do not bring much help in describing its function. It is probable that the accumulation of the layers of wind-blown sand developed in a very short period of time, as there was only a rather low number of pottery sherds found during the work in this sondage. The floor of the open courtyard was covered with a layer of mud mixed with a smaller admixture of gravel. Contrary to the situation in the space to the north of tomb AC 29 (Krejčí 2013: 33), the existence of a lower level of the courtyard’s mud floor was not documented. As well, the repetitive cleaning of the floor connected with the standard re-coating with mud was not detected. The areas along the eastern and southern façade of tomb AC 30 were filled with wind-blown sand, and only a 5–10 cm high contact layer above the mud floor of the open courtyard was revealed. This layer, consisting of sand mixed with ash, was deposited during the functioning of the chapel in this area. It also included pottery sherds of Old Kingdom date, miniature vessels and organic material. Contrary to the situation outside the mastaba, its internal spaces were filled with debris consisting of layers of limestone blocks and fragments, mud bricks and rather voluminous strata of pottery (see below) that came mainly from the fill of the mastaba’s core intermingled with sand layers. It is apparent that only a few of the pottery contexts unearthed inside tomb AC 30 are of primary character – the most important were those excavated at the bottom of the vertical shaft and, partially, in the lowermost levels of the fill of the burial chamber, and methodologically, the contexts included in the fill of the tomb’s core. Description of the tomb Superstructure When the layers covering tomb AC 30 were removed, it became clear that tomb AC 30 represented a mastaba measuring 16.12 × 10.70 m and that its masonry had been preserved to a height of 3.30 m. It represented a building very similar to other tombs in the Nakhtsare’s cemetery; in its superstructure, there was an offering chapel, while the substructure was accessible through a vertical shaft connected to a burial chamber. Not only were the dimensions and architecture of tomb AC 30 analogous to those of Kakaibaef’s mastaba, but also construction methods similar to AC 29 were utilized. The outer faces of the tomb’s core masonry were constructed of smallish, regularly worked blocks of grey and yellow, i.e. local limestone, joined with mud and lime mortar. Its fill consisted of masonry of mediocre quality – small fragments of limestone and grit – mixed with broken mud bricks and large amounts of weathered pottery sherds as well as whole vessels (see below). These pottery contexts consisted mainly of rough pottery (especially beer jars, bDA moulds, etc.). The casing of tomb AC 30 was constructed of large blocks of white limestone (of the same, rather mediocre, quality as with Kakaibaef’s tomb). The stone robbers destroyed it to a larger extent than is the case of AC 29.2 As was the case of Kakaibaef’s tomb, and unlike the mastaba of Nakhtsare, the casing was not smoothed (see fig. 2). It thus also demonstrates the supposition that tomb AC 30 was abandoned during the process of construction and not fully finished or fully completed after the tomb owner’s death. This fact is a rather important distinction in comparison with tomb AC 25, whose casing was fully finished (Krejčí 2008: Fig. 3.4). The entrance (0.85 m wide) to the superstructure of the tomb is located in its eastern façade. As is also the case of the offering chapel, the side walls (a part of the northern wall is missing) of the entrance were constructed with smoothed blocks of fine quality white limestone. The entrance gave access to the small (3.87 × 1.24 m) L-shaped chapel (see fig. 2), which originally had two false doors in its western wall. The stone robbers destroyed the masonry of the chapel to such an extent that only the undercorated lower part of the northern false door was preserved. The existence, position and size of the southern false door were documented using the construction lines which survived on the upper face of the THE MASTABA OF QUEEN KHENTKAUS III (AC 30) PES XV/2015 29 largely destroyed western wall of the chapel. Unfortunately, no part of an inscription or a decoration was unearthed in the chapel, which was also the case with the whole of tomb AC 30 as well as that of other mastabas in the Nakhtsare cemetery. It also meant that information on the name of the tomb owner and his/her social status had to be found in the collection of the Baugraffiti found on the walls of the mastaba. On the core masonry of the chapel, vertical and horizontal construction lines indicating the width and length of the chapel were documented, as well as horizontal lines specifying levels above the chapel’s pavement. As a matter of course, masons’ inscriptions including instructions for the tomb’s construction accompanied them. The L-shaped chapel – as is also the case of the chapels in tombs AC 25 and AC 29 – represents type 3 of Reisner’s typology (Reisner 1942: 203) and can be, on the basis of analogy, dated to the second half of the Fifth Dynasty (Bárta 2002: 88, 92–93). As far as the architecture of the tomb is concerned, it is not clear if a serdab existed in it. Having in mind the close similarity of the architecture of tomb AC 30 to the neighbouring mastaba of Kakaibaef, its existence can be estimated – only plausibly – in a similar position: namely, in the space between the western wall of the offering chapel and the burial chamber. The discovery to the west of the chapel, approximately at the level of the chapel’s floor, of a fragment of a quartzite statue, which was a small part of an armpit and an arm (122/AC30/2014), does not by itself support this proposition. The building area which was covered by this mastaba (172.48 m2) and also by two other already unearthed tombs in Nakhtsare’s cemetery – Nakhtsare (AC 25): 15.10 × 10.10 m, 152.51 m2 (Krejčí 2008: 40), Kakaibaef (AC 29): 16.20 × 10.80 m, 174.96 m2(Krejčí 2013: 28) – is rather similar to the mastaba of another possible minor member of the royal family, Nebtyemneferes (AC 23): 15.90 × 11.50 m, 182.85 m2(Krejčí – Callender – Verner et al. 2008: 22), but quite different from the tomb of Werkaure with estimated dimensions of an interval between 20.45 × 15.01 m and 21.00 × 15.85 m (307.16 m2 and 332.96 m2). Also, another minor tomb complex unearthed at the southern edge of the Abusir pyramid field was far larger than AC 30. It was architectonically an extraordinary tomb complex with its two mastabas: Lepsius no. 25/1 (Daughter of the King, Hanebu?: 27.70 × 21.53 m, 596.38 m2, Krejčí 2008: 184) and Lepsius no. 25/2 (Hanebu’s female relative?: 21.68 × 15.65 m, 339.29 m2, Krejčí 2008: 184). It is also important to mention here that the other tombs built to the east of Nyuserre’s pyramid were larger: the tomb of Userkafankh (18.48 × 12.87 m, 237.84 m2, with a mud brick extension built to the east measuring 293.49 m2, Borchardt 1907: Bl. 20); Anonymous tomb (16.90 × 11.81–12.27 m, 199.59–207.36 m2, Borchardt 1907: Bl. 21); the tomb of Djadjaemankh (26.81 × 16.67 m, 446.92 m2, Borchardt 1907: Bl. 22); the Mastaba of the Princesses (32.04 × 16.44 m, 526.75 m2, Borchardt 1907: Bl. 25) and the tomb of Ptahshepses (initial mastaba: 29.35–30.25 × 19.85 m, 582.60–600.46 m2which grew to be an enormous 30 PES XV/2015 THE MASTABA OF QUEEN KHENTKAUS III (AC 30) Fig. 2 General view of tomb AC 30 (photo J. Krejčí) monument during its third building stage: 56.24 × 42.24 m, 2375.58 m2, Krejčí 2009: 40, 108). From this short list it is evident that tomb AC 30 can be classified among smaller Abusir tombs belonging to the members of the then social elite and of the royal family. Its size was a sign of the social THE MASTABA OF QUEEN KHENTKAUS III (AC 30) PES XV/2015 31 Fig. 3 Burial chamber in tomb AC 30 from the west (photo M. Frouz) Fig. 4 Burial chamber in tomb AC 30 from the southeast with a large roofing block still in situ (photo M. Frouz) status of the tomb owner (see also Kanawati 1974; Alexanian 1999: 33; Krejčí 2009: 186–188). Substructure The vertical burial shaft is located in the area behind the northern false door in the chapel. The maximum preserved depth of the shaft is 5.45 m. In comparison with tombs AC 25 and AC 29, its side walls are in a better state of preservation; only the upper part of the southern wall was destroyed by stone robbers. As has already been mentioned, some of the most important archaeological contexts unearthed in the whole mastaba were located at its bottom. Besides a whole, rather small, bDA-mould, parts of a calf (head, lower parts of its legs), pottery sherds, charcoals, wooden fragments and parts of ropes were also discovered. These finds represent important evidence for rituals made during the burial of the tomb owner. A fragmentarily preserved bovine skull was found at the bottom of a vertical shaft in the mastaba of Nakhtsare and is thus analogous to the find from tomb AC 30 (Krejčí 2008: 43, fig. 3.9; cf. offering of a gazelle in the mastaba of Khekeretnebty, Verner – Callender 2002: 19, Pl. II/Bf3). Below these remains, there is a layer consisting of construction waste mixed with pottery sherds, wooden fragments, parts of ropes and even of bark and bast fiber. This 35–40 cm high layer was used to fill the lowermost part of the shaft above its pavement.3 At the level where the bovine bones were placed, there is an opening in the southern wall of the shaft which gives access to a narrow passage connecting the shaft with the burial chamber. The passage is 0.93 m long, 0.82 cm broad and 1.11 m high. On the pavement of the passage was a kind of “ramp” made of rather coarse limestone fragments. The purpose of this ramp, sloping towards the floor of the burial chamber, was to facilitate the transportation of the tomb owner’s mummy into the chamber. The burial chamber itself (fig. 3) represented an east-west oriented space which measured 3.73 × 2.32 m and was 2.14 m high. The chamber was roofed with a flat ceiling which is almost completely destroyed. Only its westernmost part, consisting of a large block of white limestone, still survives in situ (fig. 4). The extraordinary massiveness of this block confirms that the tomb was built for a member of the social elite, in this case of the royal family. Also in the architecture of the substructure, the uniformity of the mastabas in Nakhtsare’s cemetery is well documentable. It can be, as is the case of tombs AC 25 and AC 29, assigned to types 3 or 4 of Reisner’s typology (Reisner 1942: 87, fig. 21–22). A sarcophagus made of white limestone, which originally stood in the western half of the chamber, was completely destroyed by stone robbers. Its position is documented only by the construction lines surviving on the pavement of the chamber and on its side walls and the clusters of the masons’ inscriptions with the name of the tomb owner. The stone robbers’ “intervention”, through which the sarcophagus was destroyed, entailed the existence of a layer of raksha, which was unearthed by the CIE expedition in the western half of the chamber. Despite this fact, we succeeded in discovering parts of the funerary equipment in the lowermost part of the chamber’s fill – especially in its southern and southeastern parts. This collection consists of 23 travertine model vessels (fig. 5), 2 lids of canopic jars (?) made of fine white limestone, 4 copper models of tools (for the results of the analysis of the copper implements, see further below), animal bones and small fragments of wooden items. The quality of the material and of the workmanship – especially in the case of the travertine models – is high and shows that the tomb owner belonged to the then elite (compare with sets found in the tomb of Nakhtsare (Krejčí 2008: 51–59) and in pyramid Lepsius no. 24 (Callender 2008: 102–110)). In the fill of the burial chamber, pottery sherds were also discovered. However, following the preliminary analysis of relevant ceramics from the burial chamber contexts, the pottery types which would be attributable to the burial equipment were not discovered among them (Katarína Arias Kytnarová, personal communication). The other ceramic finds, in some cases extremely rich in the sense of the number of individual sherds or vessels, show two types of pottery usage: firstly, in the mortuary cult of the deceased and, secondly, in the utilization of large amounts of pottery as the fill of the tomb’s core masonry. This particular usage accelerated the construction of the masonry and was less demanding in respect to time and expenses. The pottery which was used in this way is very important for the dating of the tomb’s construction as post quem criterion (see excursus on the pottery analysis and conclusions below). In the burial chamber and in the fill of the vertical shaft, a large number of fragments of cloth and bandages were also unearthed. The bandages were used during the embalming process of the body of the deceased. The textile fragments clearly show that the tomb robbers pulled the body of the tomb owner through the passage connecting the burial chamber and the shaft. This movement was probably done during the time the chamber’s roof was still in situ. It is therefore very probable that fragments of a mummified body discovered in the shaft’s different levels may have belonged to the tomb 32 PES XV/2015 THE MASTABA OF QUEEN KHENTKAUS III (AC 30) Fig. 5 Travertine model vessels found in the burial chamber (photo M. Frouz) owner. The anthropological analysis of the skeleton fragments showed that they belonged to a female who died at the age of ca. 20 years (see also below).4 In addition to other types of finds, the Czech mission also unearthed a large number of organic material and ecofacts – especially seeds, fruits, parts of plants, wood, ropes, remains of different species of beetles, etc. In contrast to the situation in the substructure of tomb AC 29, the amount of organic material is smaller, indicating that the destroyed subterranean spaces were not as accessible and were not, e.g., inhabited by birds (owls), as was the case with the mastaba of Kakaibaef (Krejčí 2013). Even though a large number of rodent skeletons have been found, this circumstance has also been attested in other tombs in the southern part of the Abusir necropolis, e.g. in the mastaba of Werkaure (this material shall be published in the near future). Tomb AC 30 and Nakhtsare’s cemetery As has already been mentioned, Nakhtsare’s cemetery, in which the tomb of Khentkaus III is located, contains a north-south oriented line of four, regularly placed mastabas. It is the only place in Central Abusir (Krejčí 2009: 30–36), contrary to Giza (Jánosi 2005) or Dahshur (“Dahschur Mitte”, Alexanian 1999: Abb. 1), where the tombs are distributed in such a regular pattern. The detected technological techniques, an almost total similarity in the architecture of the individual mastabas, and their relative position to already existing royal monuments enables us to suppose that the tombs were built in a short period of time and that their construction was directed by royal architects. Also, this shows that the owners of the tombs in this part of the Abusir cemetery were members of the royal family and of the then elite. On the other hand, the small size of all the tombs in this part of the royal necropolis seems to demonstrate that their owners were of lesser importance than, e.g., the owners of tomb complexes Lepsius no. 23 and Lepsius no. 25/1–2. This might have been, hypothetically, influenced by their putative relationship with King Raneferef, who died after ca. three years of his reign (Verner 2006: 23). Thus, members of his family and other persons that were connected with him might not have been in a similarly beneficial situation as those connected with Nyuserre (as is the case of Werkaure, for instance). Masons’ inscriptions and the tomb owner’s name and social position Having in mind the large extent to which tomb AC 30 was destroyed by tomband stone robbers, the numerous masons’ inscriptions and marks are the only available epigraphic material from the tomb which can provide answers to the questions concerning the name of the tomb owner and her/his social position. The Baugraffiti along with the construction lines (fig. 6) were documented not only on the side walls of the chapel, but also on the side walls and pavement of the shaft, the burial chamber and of the connecting corridor between the shaft and the burial chamber. This collection includes, besides dates related to the building itself (without the entries concerning THE MASTABA OF QUEEN KHENTKAUS III (AC 30) PES XV/2015 33 Fig. 6 Masons’ inscriptions (including the title and name of the tomb owner) and construction lines on the western wall of the burial chamber (photo J. Krejčí) the cattle counting), also the tomb owner’s name and titles along with the construction instructions. The collection of graffiti from tomb AC 30 is thus analogous to that found in Kakaibaef’s tomb. Already during the excavation of the fill of the space above the burial chamber, loose blocks and blocks in situ with the abbreviation of the tomb owner’s name Khentkaus (#nt) were found. It is important to mention that these inscriptions with the tomb owner’s name were detected only at the level of the ceiling of the burial chamber or below this level. None of them were found in the superstructure of the tomb. Through the clearing of the burial chamber, numerous attestations of the name and titles were discovered. Almost all of them were placed in the correct position – i.e. with these inscriptions “head up” – and because of this placement one can presume that they contain the name of the tomb owner.5There was only one instance when the masons’ inscription with the name and title was set in its place with its “head down”. Besides this fact, the high occurrence of inscriptions including the name were found only in the area of the burial chamber makes it very probable that the owner of the tomb was the Hmt nswt and mwt nswt #nt-kAw.s (fig. 7). Given that in Egyptian history two other royal ladies bearing the name Khentkaus are documented, the ordinal number “III” was added to the queen’s name. It is not probable that the blocks with Baugraffiti from (or better to say intended to be utilized in) the closely located pyramid of Queen Khentkaus II, which include the same name and titles, were used or reused in tomb AC 30. The main reason for this supposition, besides the already mentioned fact that, with one exception, all the blocks with the relevant masons’ inscriptions were built in the side walls of the chamber with “their heads up”, is the situation in the pyramid of Khentkaus II. The Baugraffiti which were documented on the blocks placed in its masonry show the rise of the queen’s importance. At the beginning of the pyramid’s construction, the limestone blocks with the masons’ inscription including the queen’s name and her title Hmt-nswt were set into the pyramid’s masonry. In the later period (very probably after resuming the pyramid’s construction, i.e., during Nyuserre’s reign), the title mwt-nswt was added to an already existing masons’ inscription mentioning Hmt-nswt #nt-kAw.s (Verner 2014: 50–51, fig. 7a-b).6In tomb AC 30, only the Baugraffiti including the name of Khentkaus in combination with one or another title were detected, not the combination of both titles as found in the pyramid of Khentkaus II. Moreover, there are three attestations of the inscription Hmt-nswt @nt-kAw.s with a determinative of a sitting queen on the throne. Among the Baugraffiti documented in the pyramid of Khentkaus II, this determinative was documented only in combination with the title mwt-nswt (Verner 1995: 52). It thus seems that the set of masons’ marks mentioning the name of Khentkaus from tomb AC 30 is different from that of the pyramid of Khentkaus II and that Khentkaus III was thus a real historical figure. If the masons’ marks mentioning the name Khentkaus were really secondarily used in tomb AC 30, one would expect that the blocks with such masons’ marks would have also been built into the masonry of the two other unearthed tombs in Nakhtsare’s cemetery.7However, no such inscription was documented either in tomb AC 25 or in AC 29. It is worth remarking here that in the pyramid of Khentkaus II, the supposed abbreviated form of the queen’s name was also attested (Verner 1995: 43, 45–49, 52). Additionally, the quantity of the Khentkaus-Baugraffiti in the burial chamber of AC 30, especially in the eastern part of the chamber’s pavement, seems to support the ascription of tomb AC 30 to Khentkaus III. It appears that the purpose of using such a high number of these graffiti was to in this way underline the fact that the queen was going to be buried in the sarcophagus located to the west from them. Nevertheless, this consideration is merely speculative and should be put aside in deference to the main problem of the ascription of tomb AC 30 to a certain person. The discovery of the name and titles of Khentkaus III is very important as it perhaps provides (basic) information on an unknown historical figure that lived approximately at the beginning of the second half of the Fifth Dynasty. Due to the close position of her tomb to Raneferef’s unfinished pyramid, Khentkaus III was very likely the wife of King Raneferef, whose tomb complex was unearthed by the Czechoslovak expedition led by Miroslav Verner in the 1980s and 1990s (Verner et al. 2006). Khentkaus III’s title “mother of the king” (Baud 1999) represents the more important of the two titles documented 34 PES XV/2015 THE MASTABA OF QUEEN KHENTKAUS III (AC 30) Fig. 7. Burial chamber, southern wall, masons’ inscription with title and name: mwt-nswt #nt-kAw.s (photo M. Frouz) Centennial of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo: American University Cairo, pp. 87–98. Bárta, Miroslav et al. 2014 The tomb of the sun priest Neferinpu (AS 37), Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts [Abusir XXIII]. Bárta, Miroslav – Vymazalová, Hana – Dulíková, Veronika – Arias, Katarína – Megahed, Mohamed – Varadzin, Ladislav 2014 “Exploration at the necropolis at Abusir South in the season of 2012. Preliminary Report”, Ägypten und Levante 24, pp. 15–38. Baud, Michel 1996 “Les formes du titre de “mère royale” àl’Ancien Empire”, Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 96, pp. 51–71. 1999 Famille royale et pouvoir sous l’Ancien Empire égyptien, Le Caire: Institut français d’archaéologie orientale. Benešovská, Hana 2006 “Statues from the Pyramid Complex of the King Raneferef”, in: Verner, Miroslav et al. The Pyramid Complex of Raneferef. The Archaeology, Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts – Academia [Abusir IX], pp. 360–437. Borchardt, Ludwig 1907 Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Ne-user-rec, Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. Callender, Vivienne Gae 2008 “Finds”, in: Krejčí, Jaromír – Callender, Vivienne G. – Verner, Miroslav et al. Minor Tombs in the Royal Necropolis I (The Mastabas of Nebtyemneferes and Nakhtsare, Pyramid Complex Lepsius no. 24 and Tomb Complex Lepsius no. 25), Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague [Abusir XII], pp. 97–134. 2011 In Hathor’s Image. The Wives and Mothers of Egyptian Kings from Dynasties I–VI, Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts. Hassan, Selim 1943 Excavations at Giza. Vol. IV. 1933–1934, Cairo: Government Press. Jánosi, Peter 2005 Giza in der 4. Dynastie: die Baugeschichte und Belegung einer Nekropole des Alten Reiches, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Kaiser, Werner 1969 “Die Tongefässe”, in: Ricke, Herbert. Das Sonnenheiligtum des Königs Userkaf, Vol. II: Die Funde, Cairo: Schweizerisches Institut für Ägyptische Bauforschung und Altertumskunde [Beiträge zur ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde 11], pp. 49–82. Kanawati, Naguib 1974 “The Financial Resources of the Viziers of the Old Kingdom and the Historical Implications”, Archaeological and Historical Studies. The Archaeological Society of Alexandria 5, pp. 1–20. Krejčí, Jaromír 2009 The Architecture of the Mastaba of Ptahshepses, Prague Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague – Academia [Abusir XI]. 2010 The Royal Necropolis in Abusir, Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague [Abusir XVIII]. 2013 “Das Grab des Kakaibaef in Abusir”, Sokar 27/2, pp. 26–37. Krejčí, Jaromír – Arias Kytnarová, Katarína – Vymazalová, Hana – Pokorná, Adéla – Beneš, Jaromír 2014 Mastaba of Werkaure, Volume I.Tombs AC 26 and AC 32 – Old Kingdom strata, Prague: Czech Institute of Egypthology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague [Abusir XXIV]. Krejčí, Jaromír – Callender, Vivienne G. – Verner, Miroslav et al. 2008 Minor Tombs in the Royal Necropolis I (The Mastabas of Nebtyemneferes and Nakhtsare, Pyramid Complex Lepsius no. 24 and Tomb Complex Lepsius no. 25), Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague [Abusir XII]. Odler, Martin 2015 “Copper Model Tools in Old Kingdom Female Burials”, in: Pinarello, Massimiliano S.– Yoo, Justin – Lundock, Jason – Walsh, Carl (eds.). Current Research in Egyptology 2014: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium, Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 39–58. Odler, Martin – Dulíková, Veronika 2015 “Social Context of the Old Kingdom copper model tools”, World Archaeology 47/1, pp. 94–116, DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2014.991805. Píšová, Hana – Bejdová, Šárka 2015 “Anthropological Report – Spring 2015”, Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague (unpublished report). Reisner, George Andrew 1931 Mycerinus. The Temples of the Third Pyramid at Giza, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univeristy Press. 1942 A History of the Gîza Necropolis. Vol. I, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Verner, Miroslav 1982 “Eine zweite Unvollendete Pyramide in Abusir”, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 109, pp. 75–77. 1995 The Pyramid Complex of Khentkaus, Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts [Abusir III]. 2000 “Who was Shepseskare and when did he reign?”, in: Bárta, Miroslav – Krejčí, Jaromír (eds.). Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000, Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute [Archiv orientální, Supplementa IX], pp. 581–602. 2001 Pyramids. The Mystery, Culture, and Science of Egypt’s Great Monuments, New York: Grove Press. 2014 Sons of the Sun. Rise and Decline of the Fifth Dynasty. Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts. Verner, Miroslav – Callender, Vivienne G. 2002 Djedkare’s Family Cemetery, Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University – Set Out [Abusir VI]. Verner, Miroslav et al. 2006 The Pyramid Complex of Raneferef. The Archaeology, Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts – Academia [Abusir IX]. Vymazalová, Hana – Coppens, Filip 2008 “König Menkauhor. Ein kaum bekannter Herrscher der 5. Dynastie”, Sokar 17, pp. 32–39. Vymazalová, Hana et al. 2011 The Tomb of Kaiemtjenenet (AS 38) and the Surrounding Structures (AS 57–60), Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts [Abusir XXII]. Abstract: During the autumn of 2014, the Czech Institute of Egyptology continued its archaeological research of the southern part of the Abusir royal pyramid necropolis. In Nakhtsare’s cemetery, tomb AC 30 was unearthed, which appeared to belong to a hitherto unknown queen, Khentkaus III. Much damaged by stone robbers, the tomb consists of a north-south mastaba, 16.12 × 10.70 m large THE MASTABA OF QUEEN KHENTKAUS III (AC 30) PES XV/2015 41 with a rather simple layout, including an L-shaped chapel in the superstructure and a vertical shaft and a burial chamber in the substructure. In the tomb’s substructure part of the burial equipment was found (travertine model vessels, copper models of tools or fragments of wooden objects) as well as fragments of a mummified female skeleton, which might have belonged to the tomb owner. The identification of the previously unknown “wife of the king” and “mother of the king”, Khentkaus III, as the tomb owner was made thanks to the numerous masons’ inscriptions documented on the tomb masonry in the subterranean part of the tomb. This discovery opens new avenues into the investigation of the situation in the royal family at the beginning of the second half of the Fifth Dynasty. The analysis of the pottery used in the fill of the mastaba’s core masonry is methodologically very important as it has been used as the major dating criterion post quem. Abusir – queen – Khentkaus III – royal family – Raneferef – Nyuserre – Menkauhor – Djedkare – tomb – architecture – pottery – copper Jaromír Krejčí ([email protected]) Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague Katarína Arias Kytnarová (katar[email protected]) Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague Martin Odler ([email protected]) Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague 42 PES XV/2015 THE MASTABA OF QUEEN KHENTKAUS III (AC 30)