A rediscovered wooden statue of the overseer of the two granaries Ihy – Cairo, Egyptian Museum, JE 100373: An archaeological and conservation study

Arediscovered wooden statue of the overseer of the two granaries Ihy– Cairo, Egyptian Museum, JE 100373: An archaeological and conservation study Philipp Seyr– Abd El Rahman Medhat ABSTRACT This paper discusses the wooden statue JE 100373, which was recently re ‑discovered in the basement of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo. Based on the statue’sstylistic analysis and its identification in the unpublished excavation report MSS Gunn XXII, we re ‑identify it as part of the statue ensemble of the overseer of the two granaries Ihy, found in acache within aPtolemaic tomb at Saqqara. As aresult, the investigation proves the provenience of the statue from CyrilM. Firth’sexcavations south of the Step Pyramid complex in 1926. Com‑ bining conservation science and traditional Egyptological approaches, the paper finally provides evidence for the continuity of the manufacture of large ‑sized high ‑quality wooden statuary by residential workshops until the final years of Pepy II or slightly later. KEYWORDS wooden statuary– second style– Saqqara– late Sixth Dynasty– archaeometry ،ةرهاقلاب ىرصملا فحتملا – ىحيإ للاغلا ىتنوش ىلع فرشملل ىبشخ لاثمت فاشتكا ةداعإ هميمرتو ةيرثأ ةسارد :JE 100373 تحدم نمحرلا دبع – ريس بيليف صخلم ىرصملا فحتملا موردبب ًارخؤم هنع فشكلا ديعأ ىذلاو ،JE 100373 مقر لمحي ىذلا ىبشخلا لاثمتلا ةقرولا هذه شقانت صاخلا رئافحلا ريرقت للاخ نم هبحاص ةيوه ديدحت كلذكو ،لاثمتلل ىنفلا بولسلأل ةيليلحتلا ةساردلا ىلإ ًادانتساو .ةرهاقلاب رثع ىذلاو ،ىحيإ وعدملا للاغلا ىتنوش ىلع فرشملا لاثمت نم ءزجك هديدحت اندعأ ،MSS Gunn XXII روشنملا ريغ هب للاخ نم لاثمتلا ىلع روثعلا ناكم اذه انثحب تبثي ،كلذل ةجيتن .ةراقس ةقطنمب ىملطبلا رصعلل دوعت ةربقم لخاد ةئيبخب هيلع نم ةقرولا مدقت امك .1926 ماع ىف جردملا مرهلل ةيمرهلا ةعومجملا نم بونجلا ىلإ اهارجأ ىتلا ثريف ىبلاام ليسيس رئافح ةدوجلا تاذ مجحلا ةريبك ةيبشخلا ليثامتلا عينصت ةيرارمتسا ىلع ًلايلد ىديلقتلا ىرثلأا لوانتلاو ميمرتلا ملع نيب عمجلا للاخ .ليلقب كلذ دعب وأ ىناثلا ىبيب كلملا رصع نم ةريخلأا تاونسلا ىتح شرولاب ةيلاعلا ةينفلا ةلادلا تاملكلا ةيرتمويكرلأا تاساردلا – ةسداسلا ةرسلأا رخاوأ – ةراقس – ىناثلا طمنلا – ةيبشخ ليثامت PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021, 79–106 80 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 The non ‑royal funerary practices of the Old Kingdom are characterised by the extensive use of statuary, which represents the deceased and his family (Vandier 1958: 3–143; Smith 1946; Shoukry 1951; Fitzenreiter 2001).1 Ranging from standing, seated, kneeling and squatting figures, the sculpture of this period comprises statues, which depict single persons and, to alesser degree, different variants of group statues, for example pair statues, family groups or so ‑called “pseudo ‑groups”. 2 From adiachronic perspective, there exist significant differences in the distribution of the materials employed in the production of sculpture during the vari‑ ous sub ‑phases of the Old Kingdom. While in the Third and early Fourth Dynasty hard stone sculpture seems to be predominant (Eaton ‑Krauss 1998), the Fifth Dynasty is marked by the preponderance of limestone. Finally, in the Sixth Dynasty wooden sculpture covers ca. 56% of the preserved corpus, with limestone statuary amounting to only ca. 40%.3 Within the history of ancient Egyptian non ‑royal sculpture in general, the late Old King‑ dom stands out, because some funerary complexes of this period contain ensembles of nu‑ merous wooden statues, which count among the largest groups of sculptures belonging to one single official known.4 The following study aims to present the statue JE 100373 formerly 1 According to their various functions as “recipients of offerings” (Eaton ‑Krauss 1984: 76) or sub‑ stitutes for the body of the deceased (Bolshakov 1997), the statues were placed at visible spots and visitable spaces within the tomb, for example in front of the tomb façade and within different parts of the offering chapel, most prominently rock ‑cut statuary (Rzepka 1996; Bernhauer 2018). Most Old Kingdom non ‑royal statues were found in non ‑accessible rooms within tombs. From the Fourth Dynasty onwards, they were predominantly placed in the so ‑called serdab, awalled up chamber within the tomb complexes (Dreyer 1990: 77–78, fig. 8; Lehmann 2000), and since the Fifth Dynasty in the tomb substructures (e.g. Bárta– Vymazalová 2018: 64, 71, 75; Bárta 2019; Bárta– Jirásková– Krejčíetal. 2020). However, the latter is only widely attested in the Sixth Dynasty (cf. Barta 1998; Arnold 1999; Fitzenreiter 2001; Jánosi 2006: 86–92; Bernhauer 2017: 23–26, 32–35; Bárta– Vymazalová 2018, for general discussions). 2 For in ‑depth surveys on the typological development of Old Kingdom statuary see Fitzenreiter (2001) and Bernhauer (2017); for the typology of attitudes depicted in ancient Egyptian statuary in general, see Bernhauer (2006a). Concerning Old Kingdom sculptures, special studies were conduct‑ ed for standing (Loeben– Eaton ‑Krauss 1997) and squatting single statues (Scott 1989; Fitzenreiter 2001: 100–123; Bernhauer 2006b), different types of group statuary (Rzepka 1995; Fitzenreiter 2001: 148–194; Seco Álvarez 2002; Simpson 2002; McCorquodale 2013) and “pseudo ‑groups” (Eaton ‑Krauss 1995; Rzepka 1996; Fitzenreiter 2001: 195–210). 3 These numbers are the result of an extensive survey of Old Kingdom sculpture, which was conducted by Philipp Seyr. It is based on all statues mentioned in Porter– Moss (1974 and 1981), Málek (1999), Harvey (2001) and several more recent publications, e.g. Vymazalová– Dulíková (2014). However, the numbers given must be used with caution, as the corpus of Old Kingdom statues which is avail‑ able today might be highly biased by the different degrees of fragility of the materials employed. Nevertheless, the percentage of wooden sculpture observed for the Sixth Dynasty seems to agree with the Eaton ‑Krauss’ remark that “over half of the undamaged representations depict wooden statues” (Eaton ‑Krauss 1984: 58). 119 of her 157 catalogued depictions of statues are found in tombs dating to this dynasty. The quantitative comparisons above leave out so ‑called reserve heads (cf. Eberle 2008) and serving statues (cf. Roth 2002; Eschenbrenner ‑Diemer 2017b). 4 E.g. the 19 statues from the tomb Saqqara 6001 belonging to acertain Tjeteti (Harvey 2001: 74–78; Harvey 2011; Eschenbrenner ‑Diemer 2017a: 241–244) or the ca. 40 still largely unpublished statues from the tomb of Ipy found by the Berlin ‑Hannover mission near the Unas causeway (Munro 1984 and 1994; the documentation to the statues is available online: http://www.munro ‑archive.org/the‑ ‑archive/?d=&k=&l=ipj ‑statues ‑documentation & c=. Accessed on 9 th December 2020.). However, they are outnumbered by the large statue ensemble found in some earlier Old Kingdom tombs, 81PHILIPP SEYR– ABD EL RAHMAN MEDHAT housed in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo (now in the New Capital Museum), and to identify it as part of such astatue ensemble from this period. According to the museum’sregister, it came to it in the mid‑1920’sfrom Saqqara, however, it arrived without any certainty as to its exact provenience. Since then, the statue has remained in the museum’sbasement, unpublished, despite its high significance for the history of Old Kingdom wooden sculpture. Since the early 2000’s, the profile of wooden non ‑royal statuary, the first attestations of which date back to the First Dynasty,5 has been raised as aresult of significant scholarly attention. The first comprehensive study of Old Kingdom wooden sculpture was conducted by JuliaC. Harvey (2001) in her dissertation published under the title Wooden Statues of the Old Kingdom. ATypological Study. Her analysis was based on asample of 240 figures, which she studied from amainly typological perspective (Harvey 2001).6 Recently, this tendency towards typology and style when approaching such material has shifted towards afocus on studying the technical aspects of Old Kingdom woodcraft (Eschenbrenner ‑Diemer 2017a and 2017b). Moreover, due to the publication of formerly unknown sculptures in private or museum collections (e.g. Ziegler 2010; Harvey 2011), and new excavations in the Memphite necropoleis (e.g. Hawass 2002; Verner– Callender 2002; Myśliwiec 2008; Bárta– Vymazalová 2018; Dulíkováetal. 2018), the corpus of Old Kingdom non ‑royal wooden statuary has been quickly expanding over the last 20 years (Harvey 2018). Today, around 350 wooden statues dating from the First to the end of the Sixth Dynasty are known to the authors. That being said, most of the less recent publications lack proper archaeometric investigations. In view of this, in herewith presenting the statue JE 100373, we pursue the path of com‑ bining non ‑destructive archaeometric examination of wooden sculpture with typological and stylistic analysis, in order to gain new insights into the technology used for the manufacture of wooden sculpture and its connection to the social status of the statue owners within Old Kingdom society. Additionally, we aim to provide acase study for the application of an appro‑ priate conservation method of similarly preserved wooden statues. CONSERVATION STRATEGY Although the statue was restored in the late 1990’sor early 2000’s, its poor state of preservation made anew restoration in 2020 necessary, as the former assemblage of the arms by two short tenons of beech wood and animal glue led to many structural problems. The conservation process, conducted by Abd El Rahman Medhat, included four steps. At first, the pre ‑consolidation of the wood was undertaken using Klucel G (hydroxypropyl cellulose) dissolved in ethyl alcohol of aconcentration of 0.5%. The modern tenons, added in for example the 30 to 50 statues of Khnumbaef buried in tomb G 5230 (Smith 1946: 50; http://giza. fas.harvard.edu/sites/554/full/. Accessed on 9th December 2020.). Asimilar number of statues was produced for some officials of later periods, e.g. the over 25 statues of Senenmut (cf. Price 2018: footnote 5 with further literature), but they were not exclusively used for the funerary cult. See Bernhauer (2010: 25) for asurvey on statue ensembles in ancient Egyptian sculpture. 5 The first attestation of wooden statuary in non ‑royal tombs known so far are the fragments of two standing 2/3 life ‑size statues, which were found in Tomb S3505 in the Old Kingdom cemetery of North Saqqara, dated to the late First Dynasty (Emery 1958: 10, 13, Pl. 13; Fitzenreiter 2001: 33–34). 6 For ageneral survey of wooden statuary in ancient Egypt see Harvey (2009) and Wildung (2015). 82 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 the previous conservation process were gently removed by mechanical tools and the animal glue was dissolved by the injection of amix of ethyl alcohol and acetone (1:1) as it destabilized the joint. After determining the position of the individual fragments (which were detached during the extraction of the joints), and the missing parts of the object, Paraloid B‑82 (methyl methacrylate) dissolved in ethyl alcohol of aconcentration of 15% was used as an adhesive to assemble the separate parts (cf. Medhat– Zidan– El Hadidi 2009). Finally, the left arm of the statue was reinforced through strips of plexiglass, which were fixed to the wooden beam supporting the statue’sback. After the conservation process, the statue was considered as amasterpiece of Old Kingdom sculpture, assigned its JE number (formerly TR 11/12/6/2) and transferred to the New Capital Museum, where it will be displayed to the public. GENERAL DESCRIPTION The statue numbered JE 100373 depicts aman in astriding posture, which is the most common type of Old Kingdom wooden statuary (Harvey 2001: 2; Eschenbrenner ‑Diemer 2017a: 243). During the conservation and consolidation process, it was mounted onto awooden box, its left foot being held in its position by ametal right ‑angle hook wrapped in aplastic cylinder. Without measuring the modern base (h.: 11 cm), the statue is 127 cm high and 31 cm deep, its shoulders being 27.5 cm broad. Fig. 1 The main steps of conservation of the statue JE 100373: (a.1) Pre‑consolidation process; the small pieces of wood in the Petri dish were detached from the statue while removing the modern tenon and afterwards reintegrated into the statue; (a.2) Left arm with modern shoulder tenon; (b) Final reinforce‑ ment of the statue’s left arm; (c) Statue after conservation and fixed upon a new base (photos A. Medhat) (a.1) (a.2) a b c 83PHILIPP SEYR– ABD EL RAHMAN MEDHAT Fig. 2 General views of the wooden statue JE 100373 after its conservation by Abd El Rahman Medhat and its re‑positioning on a modern base (photos A. Medhat) 84 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 The statue is made from several differently sized chunks of wood, which were joined together by means of various tenons, dowels and by the use, most probably, of animal glues.7 The torso, consisting of several skilfully joined and smoothened pieces of wood, is fractured today by large vertical fissures. Its arms were originally fixed to the shoulders by big rectan‑ gular tenons, which were in turn fixed by asmall dowel. These were inserted into ahole in the back of the statue.8 The original fixtures of the shoulders had completely degraded and were therefore replaced in aformer conservation process by modern ones. The left arm is bent forward at the elbow and its hand once probably held awooden staff, as demonstrated by the large circular vertical hole in its palm. The arm consists of two main parts: 1) the pend‑ ing upper arm with the elbow, and 2) the forward ‑bent forearm (made out of two pieces of wood), whose rear end was fashioned as arectangular tenon and inserted into amortise in front of the elbow. Subsequently, the latter was fastened by arectangular dowel piercing the tenon, which was introduced through aperforation on the side of the elbow.9 Apart from the upper part of the shoulder, the right arm is now largely lost. However, the presence of one large circular dowel ‑hole on the right side of the man’storso, positioned at middle height of his skirt, coupled with the general typology established by Harvey, makes it probable that the arm was pendant (Harvey 2001: 32, A.3). At the height of the knee, the statue’sleft lower leg was attached to the upper leg, which was sculpted from the same piece of wood as the lower torso. To do this, abig cylindrical dowel was used, and asmaller piece of wood (missing today) was then glued over the junction. Its highly degraded left foot is “advanced, well in front of the right foot” (Harvey 2001: 53, type S.3) and was made out of asmaller piece of wood fixed to the leg through dowels underneath the ankles. The right leg was sculpted out of the same piece as parts of the torso, while its foot, consisting of afront and arear piece of wood, was joined to it ca. 5 cm above the ankle. Both feet were originally inserted into awooden base by means of large tenons sculpted underneath their soles, and which were eventually fastened to the base through additional dowels. 10 After composing and smoothing the sculpture, alayer of gesso was applied to its surface covering the wooden patchwork, before it was finally painted in different colours and its skirt’scross‑ ‑flap was overlaid by gold foil, as it will be shown below.11 DOCUMENTATION AND TECHNOLOGICAL ANALYSIS The examinations and analyses presented in the following section were conducted by Abd El Rahman Medhat and are mainly based on non ‑destructive methods. Mr. Ahmed Adel assisted in the documentation of the statue with the USB microscope and under UV light. These meth‑ 7 For the composition of Old Kingdom wooden sculpture see the case study Luqma (2002) on the statue CG 34 in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo. 8 This technique is described by Luqma (2002: ٧٩). 9 Cf. the illustration in Luqma (2002: ٨٠). 10 As illustrated by Luqma (2002: ٨٠) and– referring to the technique employed for the construction of wooden models– Eschenbrenner ‑Diemer (2014: 171, fig. 1). The statue JE 100373 corresponds to Eschenbrenner ‑Diemer’s“technique 1 (a)”, but the foot consists of two pieces of wood illustrated by her “technique 2 (b)”. 11 For other attestations of gold foil applied on agesso layer see Galeetal. (2000: 367). 85PHILIPP SEYR– ABD EL RAHMAN MEDHAT ods allow for the characterisation of the materials used and the description of the sculptor’s/ painter’stechnique and their exact work procedure. Thus, the next paragraphs aim to provide technical data which are fundamental for the interpretation of the work of art as well as for choosing the proper conservation treatment, which could be applied to comparably preserved statues. PHOTOGRAPHIC AND USB MICROSCOPE DOCUMENTATION The microscopic examination and photographic documentation of the statue were conducted using aDino ‑lite portable 85 USB digital microscope, and it was photographically documented by aNikon C80 camera equipped with abuilt ‑in zoom lens. Fig. 3 USB microscope investigation:(a–b) Transverse and longitudinal section of the wood as visible on its surface; (c) Chisel marks on the wooden surface; (d–e) Calcium carbonate layer covering the wood; (f) A small piece of the gold foil on the statue’s skirt; (g–h) Glossy layer of Paraloid B‑72 as filler from the previous conservation process; (i) The beginning phases of the decomposition of Paraloid B‑72 within the fissures and splits (photos A. Medhat) a b c d e f g h i 86 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 Due to the advanced decay of the material and its surface, non ‑destructive examination meant that the precise type of wood could not be determined with full certainty.12 However, the anatomic structure of the wood shown in figs. 3a–b and the fact that different types of acacia were frequently used for producing wooden sculpture in the Old Kingdom (cf. Harvey 2001: 617–618), 13 might suggest an identification as acacia nilotica (Neumannetal. 2000: 300). 14 The study of the statue with the USB digital microscope allowed for tracing the chisel marks, which emerges clearly on the surface of the wood (fig. 3c). Moreover, it showed, that the sur‑ face was covered with apreparation layer consisting of calcium carbonate (gesso), remains of which are still clearly visible on parts of the statue’skilt (figs. 3d–e). On the cross ‑flap of the skirt, acover of gold foil was applied upon this layer (fig. 3f). The examination clarified that the previous conservation treatment in the late 1990’swas conducted by covering the statue with afilm of Paraloid B‑72 (figs. 3g–h). Since then, it had begun to disintegrate, becoming brittle, and the natural movement of the wood caused the splits to open once again (fig. 3i). It was during that former restoration that the shoulder tenons were reinforced by modern ones made of beech ‑wood. UV ‑FLUORESCENCE EXAMINATION The UV ‑fluorescence examination was carried out using aportable UV ‑torch (Sylvania, Black‑ light– blue, F4W/BLB ‑T5, CH‑, MOD 808‑M, Vac, 230 [+/‑ 10%], Hz 50/60, VA40, lamp T52*4w, G5, UV ‑ABLB), while the digital camera used for recording images was aSony Alpha 500, E 3.5./30 macro. As anon ‑destructive superficial examination, UV ‑fluorescence analysis facilitates the identification of previous intervention by optically enhancing them, for example acrylic films. Furthermore, this technique can provide information on the constituents of the object, which are fluorescent under UV ‑light, for example the consolidants. It thus allows the assessment of the condition of the original paint (cf. Medhat– Ali– Abdel Ghali 2015; Medhat 2016). The examination under UV ‑light clarified further details of the previous conservation, the shoulder fixture by modern tenons was, for example, achieved by the use of polyvinyl acetate (PVA), which appears whitish ‑blue under UV ‑light (fig. 4a). The animal glue, spatters of which were detected all over the chest, was identified as glue used during the production of the statue, with the help of which the wooden pieces were attached to each other, for ex‑ ample the chunk covering the left knee (fig. 4c). The finishing layer of calcium carbonate on 12 Although the non ‑destructive methods allowed for examining transversal and longitudinal sections of the wood, it was not possible to obtain any radial section because of the highly decayed state of the wood (cf. Galeetal. 2000: 334–335). 13 For statues from acacia wood in later periods see e.g. Delange (1987: 151, 156, 200, 206); Perdu (2012: 338). 14 For asurvey of the different types of acacia attested in ancient Egypt see de Vartavanetal. (2010: 29–37) and Galeetal. (2000: 335–336). The other types of wood, which would fit to the examined sections, ebony and date palm wood, are not attested in large ‑sized wooden sculpture from the Old Kingdom (Harvey 2001: 618). Furthermore, the statue fragment Berkeley, Phoebe A. Hearst Mu‑ seum of Anthropology, 6‑12840 which was, based on its rare stylistic features, probably produced in the same workshop, was identified as acacia (https://portal.hearstmuseum.berkeley.edu/cata‑ log/95344cf1‑e442‑42ca‑9be1‑475bd080eb98. Accessed on 9th December 2020.); see also footnote 17. 87PHILIPP SEYR– ABD EL RAHMAN MEDHAT the skirt is indicated under UV ‑light by ashiny whitish ‑blue colour, and the remains of the gold foil appear as yellowish reflections (fig. 4b). RAKING LIGHT DOCUMENTATION For recording the raking ‑light images aSony Alpha 500 camera (macro E3.5./30) and halogen light were used. This documentation technique is based on the movement of the light source and enhances the microstructure of the statue surface, thus revealing, among others, the tools used in producing the work of art. The raking ‑light examination confirmed different aspects of the technology used, the state of deterioration, and the previous conservation described in the preceding sections. It revealed that different types of fine chisels were used for sculpting the wood, as is apparent, for example, in the cutting of the eyes and the details of the wig (fig. 5a). Furthermore, strokes visible on the surface of the statue’skilt and torso indicated, providing they are not due to the former restoration, that awhitewash was applied by abrush (fig. 5b). TYPOLOGICAL AND STYLISTIC ANALYSIS The statue JE 100373 depicts astriding man wearing an echelon ‑curl wig and ahalf ‑goffered kilt, which is agarment commonly used throughout the whole Old Kingdom. Probably due to the natural distortion of drying wood, its whole body is inclined to the right, much like alarge portion of Sixth Dynasty wooden sculpture (Myśliwiec 2008: 174). The man’shead is covered by avertically layered echelon ‑curl wig of middle volume which covers all but the lower part of his nearly detached earlobes. Its bottom appears flat and Fig. 4 UV‑fluorescence documentation: (a) Polyvinyl acetate used for the modern fixature of the left shoulder joint; (b) Remains of white calcium carbonate on the kilt appearing whitish‑blue; (c) The orange hue of animal glues on the joint of the left knee (photos A. Medhat, A. Adel). a b c 94 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 of the official and his titles xtmw ‑biti, smHr wati, Xri ‑Hb.t and imi ‑rA Snw.ti (MSS Gunn XXII: 18), perhaps also with some supplementary titles. For example, the three horizontal lines on the base of Neuchatel Eg. 425 read: |1 xtmw ‑biti smHr wati Xri ‑Hb.t |2 imi ‑rA Snw.ti imi ‑rA [zS.w]32 Snw.ti |3 imAx xr ptH ‑zkr JHy “|1 The sealer of the king, sole friend, lector priest, |2 overseer of the two granaries, overseer of scribes of the two granaries, |3 the revered by Ptah ‑Sokar, Ihy.” 32 We suspect that the title was not correctly identified by Harvey (2001: 487), who read it as […] xrp Snw.ti, “[…] director of the double granary”. Based on the traces visible on the photo in Harvey’spub‑ lication, we suggest reading the full second title as imi ‑rA [zS.w] Snw.ti (Jones 2000: 218, no. 813). Fig. 8 In situ photo with parts of the Old Kingdom statues secondarily stored in a Ptolemaic tomb (MSS Gunn XXII: 35). (1) New York, MMA 27.9.3, (2) JE 100373, (3) New York, MMA 27.9.4, (4) Neuchatel Eg. 424 and (5) a currently not localized statue (© Griffith Institute, University of Oxford; arrows inserted by P. Seyr) 95PHILIPP SEYR– ABD EL RAHMAN MEDHAT As confirmed by the texts on their bases, at the very least these three inscribed statues belonged to one single individual. Additionally, the stylistic considerations above make it probable that also the other large ‑sized sculptures found within the cache were originally part of this same statue ensemble, or at aminimum originated from the same workshop. It is not clear whether the gold foil, traces of which can still be found on JE 100373, was peeled off from the skirt’scross ‑flap during its transfer in later times or whether his damage had already occurred at an earlier stage in history. Fig. 9 Statue Cairo JE 100373 after its discovery (MSS Gunn XXII: 92) (© Griffith Institute, University of Oxford) 96 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 THE DATING AND THE SOCIAL STATUS OF IHY In her seminal work on Old Kingdom wooden sculpture, Harvey proposed that “[t]he last years of Pepy II is […] the earliest date possible” (Harvey 2001: 98) for the sculptures of the overseer of the two granaries Ihy. Due to the lack of close and similarly sized parallels from this very period, which have been dated with certainty, it has not been possible to substantially refine this estimate. Based on the rare type of wig (see above), the latest possible date might be set just before the beginning of the Heracleopolitan Period.33 According to their dimensions (h. > 100 cm), the statues of Ihy represent some of the largest wooden sculptures known to date which were produced in the period from the very late reign of Pepy II to the following two dynasties.34 This indicates that their owner was probably an especially high ‑ranking personality. This notion is, moreover, emphasized by the rare usage of gold foil for the embellishment of the cross ‑flap of the kilt.35 Additionally, this postulation is confirmed by Ihy’sso‑called “rank titles” xtmw ‑biti smHr wati Xri ‑Hb.t, “sealer of the king, sole friend, lector priest” (cf. Helck 1954: 111–119; Baer 1960: passim; Bárta 2013: 156–157) and his administrative responsibilities as imi ‑rA Snw.ti imi ‑rA [zS.w] Snw.ti, “overseer of the two granaries, overseer of scribes of the two granaries”. These positions were some of the highest within the administrative hierarchy of his time (Strudwick 1985: 251–275; Papazian 2013: 59–70; Florès 2015: 36–43).36 To date, no other monument of Ihy, beside these stat‑ ues, is known. This may be as aresult of the destruction or reuse of his tomb within antiquity.37 It might seem conspicuous, that another high official and nomarch named Ihy, whose tomb was found at Thebes (TT 186), also bears the title imi ‑rA Snw.ti (Saleh 1977: 23, 25, fig. 60–62, Pl. 18). However, although they could have lived contemporaneously,38 it is not clear whether there exist any relations between the two officials or if they could even be one and the same. On the one hand, during the Sixth Dynasty, there is evidence for officials having two tombs, one in the provinces and another in the Memphite court cemeteries;39 on the other hand, from the end 33 Thus, the proposed dating range corresponds to “phase 1” according to Eschenbrenner ‑Diemer (2017b: 138–147). 34 Cf. e.g. Harvey (2009: 3) and Harvey (2006a: 157), who noted that the size of wooden sculpture seems to progressively decrease during the Sixth Dynasty in general. Similarly sized statues from the early reign of Pepy II are Cairo, Egyptian Museum, CG 60 (Harvey 2001: 69, 222 –223, A55) and CG 220 (Harvey 2001: 90, 418–419, B 24; Marcelloetal. 2014: 176–178). However, the currently avail‑ able corpus of sculpture from this period might be biased by the scarcity of high official’sstatues, which could also simply not have been preserved. 35 According to the inscription on the base of the statue Cairo, JE 63110, whose skirt is also covered by agold foil (cf. above), its owner Anu held the title HAti ‑a. 36 Another Ihy with, among others, the title imi ‑rA Snw.ti, and whose tomb in the Unas cemetery was reused by acertain Idut, is generally dated to the reign of Unas (Macramallah 1935: 36–37; Strudwick 1985: 63; Kanawati– Abdel Raziq 2013: 33–73, pl. 49–74). As his other titles do not correspond with the titles of the owner of JE 100373– Ihy from the Unas cemetery even held the vizier’stitle– and they date to different periods of the Old Kingdom, they are generally considered not to be identical. 37 In this context, it must be considered that Ihy could himself have usurped an older tomb, as is often attested in the late Sixth Dynasty. 38 For the date of the tomb during the reign of Pepy II at earliest see Fábián (2011). Cf. also Florès (2015: 473); Martinet (2019: 775–776). 39 Cf. the cases of Weni (Collombert 2015) and Gegi (see footnote 17). 97PHILIPP SEYR– ABD EL RAHMAN MEDHAT of the Fifth Dynasty and throughout the whole First Intermediate Period alarge number of officials bore the name Ihy (Scheele ‑Schweitzer 2014: 260–261 [454]; Mougenot 2012: 286–288). 40 Among the other overseers of the two granaries from the late Sixth to Eighth Dynasty, only Tjeteti from tomb Saqqara 6001 is attested by wooden sculpture inscribed by his name.41 In comparison to the statues of Ihy, they are considerably smaller in size (> 60 cm), of inferior artistic quality and sculpted with less attention to detail. However, as demonstrated in the analysis above, they share some stylistic traits with those of Ihy and might therefore come from arelated workshop. Most of the tombs of other overseers of the two granaries from the Sixth Dynasty lie near the contemporaneous royal pyramid complexes at South Saqqara and have not yet yielded any statuary with which the sculptures of Ihy could be compared (Roth 1988: 204).42 CONCLUSION AND FURTHER PERSPECTIVES Throughout the preceding discussion, the statue JE 100373 was approached from different archaeometrical and Egyptological perspectives. Its typological and stylistic study resulted in its re ‑identification as part of agroup of statues found in 1926 south of the Djoser complex at Saqqara. This was confirmed by the unpublished field photographs of the excavators, which show JE 100373 on its original wooden base and, consequently, allow its re ‑attribution to the statue ensemble of the overseer of the two granaries Ihy. As indicated by the inscriptions on their bases, their style and their composition, all six statues from the cache located so far seem to belong to this official, and there exists at least one more similar statue which has not yet been re ‑located. The present locations of six additional wooden statues, which come purportedly from the same Ptolemaic tomb, remain currently unknown. Dated on the grounds of stylistic considerations to the period from the late reign of Pepy II or slightly later, 43 the statue JE 100373 ranks among the largest non ‑royal sculptures from this period, which are currently known. Its examination by means of USB microscopy, UV‑ ‑fluorescence and under raking light has provided rare insights into the manufacturing pro‑ cess of high ‑quality wooden statuary, in particular regarding the use of gold foil for covering the cross ‑flap of the skirt. The ensemble of the sculptures of the high official Ihy, among them JE 100373, represents amajor find complex and renders important information about statuary used within funerary monuments at the very end of the Sixth Dynasty or slightly later. It demonstrates that the Old Kingdom production of large ‑sized high ‑quality statuary persisted until this period (cf. Eschenbrenner ‑Diemer 2017a: 245). 40 Among the highest officials of their time called Ihy, there might be cited an overseer of the two granaries from the time of Unas (see footnote 36) and the famous Ihy from the Eleventh Dynasty (Freed 2000). 41 He bears this title on two of his statues, 1) Boston, MFA 24.606, h.: 40 cm (Harvey 2001: 282–283, A85) and 2) astatue formerly in the collection W. Arnold Meijer, h.: 38.8 cm (Harvey 2001: 304–305, A96; Harvey 2006b; Harvey 2011). For further literature on this official see footnote 4. 42 Cf. Nuzzolo (2017: 280) for the distribution of the tombs, which belong to these officials, during the Fifth Dynasty. 43 Evidence for the continuity of the royal line of the Sixth Dynasty into the Eighth Dynasty was recently put forward by Papazian (2015). 98 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are highly indebted to Gabriele Pieke who kindly initiated the authors’ collaboration and whose sharp eye substantially improved this paper. We kindly thank the Permanent Commit‑ tee of the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities for the permission to publish the object and Francisco Bosch ‑Puche of the Griffith Institute in Oxford for sending us scans of the pages of MSS Gunn XXII and the permission to include them in this paper. Moreover, we would like to thank to Mr. Mohamed Taha, head of conservation department of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, Mr. Ahmed Orabi who designed and executed the plexiglass strips used in the statue’scon‑ solidation, and Mr. Ahmed Adel for his help in the process of the UV and USB microscope photography. We had fruitful discussions with Edith Bernhauer during the preparation of this paper and would like to thank her for reading its final version. Finally, we would like to extend our thanks to Mary Curwen for her diligent English proofreading of this article. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anonymous (ed.) 1989 La collection égyptienne: guide du visiteur, Marseille: Musée de la Vieille Charité [Cahier du Musée d’archéologie méditerranéenne]. Arnold, Dieter 1999 “Old Kingdom Statues in their Architectural Setting”, in: Anonymous (ed.). Egyptian Art at the Age of the Pyramids, New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, pp. 40–49. Baer, Klaus 1960 Rank and Title in the Old Kingdom. The Structure of the Egyptian Administration in the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Bárta, Miroslav 1998 “Serdab and Statue Placement in Private Tombs down to the Fourth Dynasty”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 54, pp. 65–75. 2013 “Kings, Viziers and Courtiers. Executive Power in the Third Millennium B.C.”, in: Moreno García, JuanC. (ed.). Ancient Egyptian Administration, Leiden: Brill [Handbuch der Orientalistik 104], pp. 153–175. 2019 “Statue of the Royal Advisor Kaires”, in: Bárta, Miroslav– Bareš, Ladislav– Krejčí, Jaromír– Mega‑ hed, Mohammed– Varadzinová, Lenka (eds.). Created for eternity: the greatest discoveries of Czech Egyptology, Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Arts, pp. 78–79. Bárta, Miroslav– Jirásková, Lucie– Krejčí, Jaromír– Odler, Martin– Brůna, Vladimir– Brukner Havelková, Petra– Sůvová, Zdeňka 2020 “Tomb of the sage Kairsu discovered in Abusir (AC 33)”, Prague Egyptological Studies XXV, pp. 35–58. Bárta, Miroslav– Vymazalová, Hana 2018 “Created for Eternity: Statues and Serdabs in the Late Fifth Dynasty Tombs at Abusir South”, in: Kuraszkiewicz, Kamil O.– Kopp, Edyta– Takács, Dániel (eds.). ‘The Perfection that Endures…’ Studies 99PHILIPP SEYR– ABD EL RAHMAN MEDHAT on Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology, Warsaw: Department of Egyptology, Faculty of Oriental Stu‑ dies, University of Warsaw, pp. 61–76. Bernhauer, Edith 2006a “Zur Typologie rundplastischer Menschendarstellungen am Beispiel altägyptischer Privatplastik”, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 34, pp. 33–49. 2006b “Die Statuen mit Papyrusrolle im Alten Reich”, in: Bárta, Miroslav (ed.). The Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology. Proceedings of the Conference Held in Prague, May 31–June 4, 2004, Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, pp. 63–70. 2010 Innovationen in der Privatplastik. Die 18. Dynastie und ihre Entwicklung, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz [Philippika. Marburger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen 27]. 2017 “Erscheinungen und Wandel in der Privatplastik des Alten Reiches”, in: Bárta, Miroslav– Coppens, Filip– Krejčí, Jaromír (eds.). Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2015, Prague: Faculty of Arts, Charles University, pp. 23–38. 2018 “Nicht ‑königliche Felsstatuen des Alten Reiches in Giza”, in: Jánosi, Peter– Vymazalová, Hana (eds.). The Art of Describing. The World of Tomb Decoration as Visual Culture of the Old Kingdom. Studies in Honour of Yvonne Harpur, Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Arts, pp. 85–96. Bolshakov, Andrey O. 1997 Man and his Double in Egyptian Ideology of the Old Kingdom, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz [Ägypten und Altes Testament 37]. Brovarski, Edward 2005 “The late Old Kingdom at South Saqqara”, in: Pantalacci, Laure– Berger ‑El ‑Naggar, Catherine (eds.). Des Néferkarê aux Montouhotep. Travaux archéologiques en cours sur la fin de la VIe dynastie et la première période intermédiaire. Actes du colloque CNRS ‑Université Lumière ‑Lyon 2, tenu le 5–7 juillet 2001, Lyon– Paris: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, de Boccard [Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 40], pp. 31–71. 2006 “False Doors & History. The Sixth Dynasty”, in: Bárta, Miroslav (ed.). The Old Kingdom Art and Ar‑ chaeology. Proceedings of the Conference Held in Prague, May 31–June 4, 2004, Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, pp. 71–118. 2008 “ASecond Style in Egyptian Relief from the Old Kingdom”, in: Thompson, Stephen E.– Manuelian, Peter Der (eds.). Egypt and Beyond. Essays Presented to Leonard H. Lesko upon his Retirement from the Wilbour Chair of Egyptology at Brown University, June 2005, Providence, RI: Brown University, Depart‑ ment of Egyptology and Ancient Western Asian Studies, pp. 49–90. 2010 “The Date of Metjetji”, in: Hawass, Zahi– House Wegner, Jennifer (eds.). Millions of Jubilees. Studies in Honor of David P.Silverman. Vol. I, Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities [Supplément aux Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte 39/1], pp. 85–139. 2018 Naga ed ‑Dêr in the First Intermediate Period, Atlanta, GA: Lockwood Press. Cavezzali, Donatella (ed.) 2014 La conservazione dell’arte egiziana: percorsi di formazione per il restauro delle collezioni del Museo Egizio del Cairo, Rome: Gangemi Editore spa. Collombert, Philippe 2015 “Une nouvelle version de l’autobiographie d’Ouni”, in: Legros, Remi (ed.). 50 ans d’éternité. Jubilé de la mission archéologique française de Saqqâra, Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale [Biblio‑ thèque d’étude 165], pp. 145–157. 100 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 Delange, Elisabeth 1987 Catalogue des statues égyptiennes du Moyen Empire: 2060–1560 avant J.‑C., Paris: Édition de la Réunion des musées nationaux. Dreyer, Günter 1990 “Umm el ‑Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof. 3./4. Vorbericht”, Mittei‑ lungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 46, pp. 53–90. Dulíková, Veronika– Bárta, Miroslav– Odler, Martin– Peterková Hlouchová, Marie – Sůvová, Zdeňka 2018 “Tomb at Abusir South from atime of change belonging to Ankhires, inspector of hairdressers of the Great House (AS 98)”, Prague Egyptological Studies XXI, pp. 3–33. Eaton ‑Krauss, Marianne 1984 Representations of Statuary in Private Tombs of the Old Kingdom, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz [Ägyptolo‑ gische Abhandlungen 39]. 1995 “Pseudo ‑Groups”, in: Anonymous (ed.). Kunst des Alten Reiches. Symposium im Deutschen Archäologi‑ schen Institut Kairo am 29. und 30. Oktober 1991, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern [Sonderschrift, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo 28], pp. 57–74. 1998 “Non ‑Royal Pre ‑Canonical Statuary”, in: Grimal, Nicolas (ed.). Les critères de datation stylistiques à l’ Ancien Empire, Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale [Bibliothèque d’étude 120], pp. 209–225. Eberle, Andrea 2008 “Die “Ersatzköpfe” des Alten Reiches. Ein Überblick über Fakten und Vermutungen”, Imago Aegypti2, pp. 18–32. Emery, Walter B. 1958 Great Tombs of the First Dynasty III, London: Egypt Exploration Society [Memoir of the Egypt Explo‑ ration Society 47]. Eschenbrenner ‑Diemer, Gersande 2013 Egyptian Wooden Models. Materials, manufacturing, spread, from the End of the Old Kingdom to the End of the Middle Kingdom (circ. 2350‑1630 BC), Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon 2 (unpublished,Ph.D. thesis). 2014 “Quelques particuliers inhumés à Saqqâra Nord au début du Moyen Empire”, Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 114, pp. 155–186. 2017a “Un nouvel éclairage sur l’artisanat du bois dans la région Memphis/Fayoum. La collection statuaire du musée d’Ethnographie de Neuchatel”, Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 117, pp. 239–260. 2017b “From the Workshop to the Grave. The Case of Wooden Funerary Models”, in: Miniaci, Gianluca– Betrò, Marilina– Quirke, Stephen (eds.). Company of Images. Modelling the Imaginary World of Mid‑ dle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1500 BC). Proceedings of the International Conference of the EPOCHS Project held 18th–20th September 2014 at UCL, London, Leuven: Peeters [Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 262], pp. 133–191. forthcoming “La statuaire privée en bois dans la collection égyptienne du musée d’Ethnographie de Neucha‑ tel”, in: Rogger, Isadora (ed.). L’Egypte au MEN: regards croisés, Neuchatel: Musée d’ethnographie Neuchatel. Fábián, ZoltánI. 2011 “News from Old Kingdom Thebes”, in: Bechtold, Eszter– Gulyás, András– Hasznos, Andrea (eds.). From Illahun to Djeme. Papers Presented in Honour of Ulrich Luft, Oxford: Archaeopress [British Ar‑ chaeological Reports International Series 2311], pp. 43–53. 101PHILIPP SEYR– ABD EL RAHMAN MEDHAT Fitzenreiter, Martin 2001 Statue und Kult. Eine Studie der funerären Praxis an nichtköniglichen Grabanlagen der Residenz des Alten Reiches, Berlin: Humboldt ‑Universität zu Berlin, Lepsius Institut [Internet ‑Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie 3]. Firth, CyrilM. 1926 “Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Saqqara (1925‑1926)”, Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte 26, pp. 97–101. Florès, Jérémie 2015 Les céréales: Analyse d’une gestion au Protodynastique et sous l’Ancien Empire, Hamburg: Helmut Buske [Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, Beiheft 17]. Freed, Rita 2000 “Observations on the dating and decoration of the tombs of Ihy and Hetep at Saqqara”, 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 9], pp. 207–214. Gale, Rowena– Gasson, Peter– Hepper, Nigel– Killen, Geoffrey 2000 “Wood”, in: Nicholson, Paul T.– Shaw, Ian (eds.). Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 334–371. Harpur, Yvonne 1987 Decoration in Egyptian tombs of the Old Kingdom. Studies in Orientation and Scene Content, London– New York: Routledge– Kegan Paul [Studies in Egyptology]. Harvey, JuliaC. 1999 “Old Kingdom wooden statues. Stylistic criteria”, in: Ziegler, Christiane– Palayret, Nadine (eds.). L’art de l’Ancien Empire égyptien. Actes du colloque organisé au musée du Louvre par le Service culturel les 3 et 4 avril 1998, Paris: Documentation française [Bibliothèque des centres d’études supérieures spécialisés. Travaux du Centre d’études supérieures spécialisé d’histoire des religions de Strasbourg], pp. 355–379. 2001 Wooden Statues of the Old Kingdom. ATypological Study, Leiden– Boston– Cologne: Brill– Styx [Egyp‑ tological Memoirs 2]. 2006a “Continuity or Collapse. Wooden Statues from the End of the Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period”, in: Bárta, Miroslav (ed.). The Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology. Proceedings of the Conference Held in Prague, May 31– June 4, 2004, Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, pp. 157–166. 2006b “Statue of Tjeteti”, in: Andrews, Carol A. R.– van Dijk, Jacobus (eds.). Objects for Eternity. Egyptian Antiquities from the W. Arnold Meijer Collection, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, pp. 60–63. 2009 “Wooden Statuary”, in: Wendrich, Willeke (ed.). UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles: Uni‑ versity of California Los Angeles (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/65m484sn. Accessed on 26 th November 2020.). 2011 “Two Old Kingdom wooden statues in aprivate collection in the Netherlands”, in: Callender, Vivienne G.– Bareš, Ladislav– Bárta, Miroslav– Janák, Jiří– Krejčí, Jaromír (eds.). Times, Signs and Pyramids. Studies in Honour of Miroslav Verner on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, Prague: Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, pp. 157–172. 2018 “Old Kingdom Wooden Statues and Beyond”, in: Kuraszkiewicz, Kamil O.– Kopp, Edyta– Takács, Daniel (eds.). ‘The Perfection that Endures …’ Studies on Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology, Warsaw: Department of Egyptology, Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Warsaw, pp. 175–176. 102 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVI/2021 Hawass, Zahi 2002 “Old Kingdom Wooden Statues from Saqqara Recently Arrived at the Egyptian Museum”, in: Eldamaty, Mamdouh– Trad, May (eds.). Egyptian Museum Collections around the World. Studies for the Centennial of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities, pp. 523–532. Helck, Wolfgang 1954 Untersuchungen zu den Beamtentiteln des ägyptischen Alten Reiches, Glückstein: Augustin [Ägyptolo‑ gische Forschungen 18]. Jánosi, Peter 2006 Die Gräberwelt der Pyramidenzeit, Mainz: Zabern [Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie, Sonderbände der Antiken Welt]. Jones, Dilwyn 2000 An Index of Ancient Egyptian Titles, Epithets and Phrases of the Old Kingdom, Oxford: Archaeopress [British Archaeological Reports International Series 866]. Jørgensen, Mogens 1996 Catalogue Egypt I(3000‑1550 BC) Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Kanawati, Naguib– Abdel Raziq, Mahmud 2013 The Unis Cemetery at Saqqara. Vol. II. The Tombs of Iynefert and Ihy (reused by Idut), Warminster: Aris & Phillips [Australian Center for Egyptology: Reports 19]. Lehmann, Katja 2000 Der Serdab in den Privatgräbern des Alten Reiches, Heidelberg: Universität Heidelberg (unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Loeben, Christian E.– Eaton ‑Krauss, Marianne 1997 “Some Remarks on the Louvre Statues of Sepa (A36 and 37) and Nesames (A38)”, in: Goring, Eliza‑ beth– Reeves, Nicholas– Ruffle, John (eds.). Chief of Seers. Egyptian Studies in Memory of Cyril Aldred, London– New York: Kegan Paul International, pp. 83–87. Luqma, Nadya 2002 “نقاط الإبداع في أسلوب صناعة ا لتمvال الخشبى ل"خ البلد"”, in: Eldamaty, Mamdouh– Trad, May (eds.). Egyptian Museum Collections around the World. Studies for the Centennial of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities, pp. ٧٧–٨٧. Macramallah, Rizkallah 1935 Le mastaba d’Idout, Rizka, Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale [Fouilles à Saqqarah]. Málek, Jaromír 1999 Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and PaintingsVIII. Part 1: Royal Statues, Private Statues (Predynastic to Dynasty XVII), Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum. Marcello, Stefania Di– Doneux, Kristine– Longo, Costanza– Saccuman, Roberto– Valenzuela, Marisol 2014 “Gli interventi di conservazione e restauro realizzati aalcune opere lignee del Museo Egizio del Cairo”, in: Cavezzali, Donatella (ed.). La conservazione dell’arte egiziana: percorsi di formazione per il restauro delle collezioni del Museo Egizio del Cairo, Rome: Gangemi Editore spa, pp. 171–182. ” دلبلا خيشب"ريهشلا "بعاك"ل ىبشخلا لاثمتلا ةعانص بولسأ يف عادبلإا طاقن“ 103PHILIPP SEYR– ABD EL RAHMAN MEDHAT Martinet, Émilie 2019 L’ Administration provinciale sous l’Ancien Empire égyptien, Boston: Brill [Probleme der Ägyptologie 28]. McCorquodale, Kim 2013 Representations of the Family in the Egyptian Old Kingdom. Women and Marriage, Oxford: Archaeopress [British Archaeological Reports International Series 2513]. Medhat, Abd El Rahman 2016 An Applied Archaeometric Study on the Evaluation of Chemical Degradation of Wooden Icons Due to the Stratigraphic Structure and the Appropriate Treatment Methods Applied on aSelected Object Dating Back to the 18th Century, Cairo: University of Cairo (unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Medhat, Abd El Rahman– Ali, Mona– Abdel ‑Ghani, Mona 2015 “Analytical Investigation on aCoptic Wooden Icon from the 18th Century Using SEDM ‑EDX Micros‑ copy and FTIR Spectroscopy”, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 15, pp. 151–161. Medhat, Abd El Rahman– Zidan, Yassien– El Hadidi, NesrinM. N. 2009 “Study of the Use of Polymers in the Treatment and Conservation of Historical Wood”, in: Anonymous (ed.). International Conference on Wooden Cultural Heritage. Evaluation of Deterioration, and Management of Change, October 7‑10, 2009 (https://www.academia.edu/11561480/Study_on_the_Use_of_Poly‑ mers_in_the_Treament_and_Conservation_of_Historical_Wood. Accessed on 26th November 2020.). Mougenot, Frédéric 2012 “Metchetchi en famille sur le linteau 93.32.3 du Chrysler Museum of Art de Norfolk”, Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 112, pp. 275–290. Munro, Peter 1984 “Der Unas ‑Friedhof Nord ‑West. 6. Vorbericht über die Arbeiten der Gruppe Berlin/Hannover in Saqqara (Teil 2)”, Göttinger Miszellen 75, pp. 73–95. 1994 “Bemerkungen zur Datierung MTTi’s, zu seinen Statuen Brooklyn 51.1 / Kansas City 51‑1 und zu ver‑ wandten Rundbildern”, in: Berger, Catherine– Clerc, Gisèle– Grimal, Nicolas (eds.). Hommages à Jean Leclant. Vol. 1: Études pharaoniques, Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale [Bibliothèque d’étude 106/1], pp. 245–277. Myśliwiec, Karol 2008 “AContribution to the Second Style in Old Kingdom Art”, in: D’Auria, Susan (ed.). Servant of Mut. Studies in Honor of Richard A. Fazzini, Leiden– Boston: Brill [Probleme der Ägyptologie 28], pp. 170–178. Neumann, Katharina– Schoch, Werner– Détienne, Pierre– Schweingruber, Fritz Hans 2000 Woods of the Sahara and the Sahel. An Anatomical Atlas, Bern –Stuttgart– Wien: Verlag Paul Haupt. Nuzzolo, Massimiliano 2017 “Patterns of tomb placement in the Memphite necropolis. Fifth Dynasty Saqqara in context”, in: Bárta, Miroslav– Coppens, Filip– Krejčí, Jaromír (eds.). Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2015, Prague: Faculty of Arts, Charles University, pp. 257–292. Papazian, Hratch 2013 “The Central Administration of the Resources in the Old Kingdom. Departments, Treasuries, Gra‑ naries and Work Centers”, in: Moreno García, JuanC. (ed.). Ancient Egyptian Administration, Leiden: Brill [Handbuch der Orientalistik 104], pp. 41–83.