Preliminary report on archaeological activities on the Late Period shaft tomb necropolis in Abusir, mainly the tomb of Wahibremeryneith (AW 6)

PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXIX/2022, 7–26 Preliminary report on archaeological activities on the Late Period shaft tomb necropolis in Abusir, mainly the tomb of Wahibremeryneith (AW 6) Ladislav Bareš– Květa Smoláriková – Jiří Janák– Renata Landgráfová ABSTRACT In agroup of large shaft tombs situated in the western part of the ancient Egyptian necropolis at Abusir and dating to late Twenty ‑sixth Dynasty or early Twenty ‑seventh Dynasty, aunique embalming cache has been unearthed. With altogether 370 large pottery storage jars and anumber of smaller artefacts it certainly belongs to the largest finds of its kind in not only the area of the pyramid fields, but in the entire Egypt. All those vessels were found in ashaft (measuring 5.3 × 5.3 m) adjacent to ahuge burial structure AW 6. Here, the vessels were subsequently laid in altogether 14 clusters, situated at depths from 4 to 12 m and adjoining the sides of the shaft in turns to form ahuge spiral. In the uppermost group of the vessels, moreover, four inscribed canopic jars made of limestone were found, all of them empty and clearly unused. According to the texts inscribed on them, the canopic jars belonged to certain Wahibremeryneith, son of the Lady Irturut. Although anumber of dignitaries of such aname are known from this period, none of them can be identified as the owner of this tomb. Judging from the dimensions and arrangement of his tomb, he must have belonged to the highest dignitaries of his times, together with his neighbours in the cemetery– Udjahorresnet, Iufaa and Menekhibnekau. KEYWORDS Abusir– Late Period– shaft tomb– embalming cache– Wahibremeryneith )AW 6( تين ىرم عر بيإ حاو ةربقم :ريصوبأ ىف رخأتملا رصعلا رباقم ةنابجب ةيرثلأا لامعلاا نع ىئدبم ريرقت افوفارجدنلا اتانير – كاناي ىجي – افوكيرلاومس اتيفك – شرب فلاسيدلا صخلملا ىبرغلا ءزجلا ىف عقت ىتلا ،ةريبكلا ةيرئبلا رباقملا نم ةعومجم لخاد كلذو ،اهعون نم ةديرف طينحت عئادو ةئيبخ فاشتكا مت ةعباسلا ةرسلأا لئاوأ وأ نيرشعلاو ةسداسلا ةرسلأا رصع رخاوأ ىلإ رباقملا كلت خيرأت عجريو ،ةميدقلا ريصوبأ ةنابج نم ىلإ ىمتنت ديكأتلاب ةئيبخلا كلت نإف ،ةريغصلا ةيرثلأا عطقلا نم ددعو ،ريبك ىراخف نيزخت ءانإ 370 عومجمبو .نيرشعلاو ىناولأا هذه عيمج ىلع روثعلا مت .اهلمكأب رصم ىف نكلو ،ريصوبأ تامارهأ ةنابج لخاد طقف سيل اهعون نم تافاشتكلاا ربكأ 14 ىلامجإ ىف اًقحلا ىناولأا عادا مت دقو .(AW 6) مخضلا نفدلا رئب راوجب )رتم 5.3 × 5.3 هتاسايق تغلب( صاخ رئب ىف تلكش ثيح ،رئبلا بناوج راوجب مهيلع روثعلا مت امك ،رتم 12 ىلإ 4 نيب حوارتت قامعأ ىلع مهيلع روثعلا مت ثيح ،ةعومجم ةعبرأ ىلع ىناولأا نم ةيولعلا ةعومجملاب روثعلا مت ،ةيراخفلا ىناولأا كلت ىلإ ةفاضلإاو .ىنوزلح لكش مهعضو ةقيرط نيغراف مهيلع روثعلا دقو ،ةيفيلغوريهلا تاباتكلا ضعب ىجراخلا اهحطس لمحي ،ىريجلا رجحلا نم ةعونصم ةيبوناك ىناوأ بيإ حاو ىعدي صخشل ةيبوناكلا ىناولأا كلت ىمتنت ،اهيلع ةشوقنملا صوصنلل اًقفوو .مهمادختسا متي مل مهنأ حضاولا نمو مسلاا اذه اولمح نيذلا ةزرابلا تايصخشلا نم ددعب ةيارد ىلع اننأ نم مغرلا ىلعو اذه .توروترإ ةديسلا نبا ،تين ىرم عر دبلا ،ةربقملا طيطختو داعبأ نم ًاقلاطناو .ةربقملا كلت بحاص هنأ مهنم ًايأ ديدحت اننكمي لا هنأ لاإ ،ةرتفلا كلت نم نوفورعملاو 8PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXIX/2022 روح اجدو ةرواجملا رباقملاب نينوفدملا هناريج عم لاحلا وه امك ،هرصع نم تايصخشلا رابك ىلإ ىمتني ناك اهبحاص نأ .واكين بيإ خنم – اع فويإ – تنسر ةلادلا تاملكلا تين ىرم عر بيإ حاو – طينحت ةئيبخ – ةيرئب ةربقم – رخأتملا رصعلا – ريصوبأ INITIAL WORKS ON THE SHAFT TOMB AW 6 AT ABUSIR, SEASONS OF 2015 AND 2017 The large Late Period shaft tomb dubbed AW 6 (within the documentation system of the Czech Institute of Egyptology)1 is the fourth such structure archaeologically explored at the Abusir necropolis so far (fig. 1).2 This tomb, situated about 50 m to the north ‑east from the sepulchre of Udjahorresnet, appears already on the map traced by Georg Erbkam during the Prussian expedition to Egypt led by Karl Richard Lepsius and published in the year 1849 (Lepsius 1849–1859 I: tab.32). Anyway, its proper archaeological exploration was started by the Czech archaeological mission only in the year 2015. During two short archaeological seasons in 2015 3 and 2017 4 , the part of the structure situated above ground and its closest surroundings have been completely excavated (Bareš– Bělohoubková 2016; Bareš– Bělohoubková– Landgráfová– Smoláriková 2018) (fig. 2). The su‑ perstructure of the tomb consisted of amassive enclosure wall (measuring about 19.5 × 19.5 m 1 For the definition of this type of Egyptian tombs, see, e.g., El ‑Sadeek (1984: 162–164); Bareš (1999: 21–28); Stammers (2009: 26–39). 2 Since 1980, burial structures of the same kind and of about the same size, belonging to Udjahorresnet (Bareš 1999), Iufaa (Bareš– Smoláriková 2008) and Menekhibnekau (Bareš– Smoláriková 2011), have been excavated in this part of the Abusir necropolis. 3 In 2015, the staff of the mission consisted of Ladislav Bareš, Dana Bělohoubková, Jiří Janák, Renata Landgráfová, Diana Míčková, Květa Smoláriková (Egyptologists), Vladimír Brůna (geodesist), Martin Dvořák (conservator), Martin Frouz (photographer). The Ministry of Antiquities was represented by Mr. Taha Mahfouz Abdel Meguid Daoud, Mr. Ikrami Abdel Maougoud Muhammad and Mr. Mahmoud Muhammad Abdel Hamid Farag (inspectors). The team would like to thank Mr. Sabri Farag, Director General, and Mr. Hamdi Amin, Chief ‑Inspector from the Ministry of Antiquities Inspectorate at Saqqara. The skilled workmen from Abusir and Saqqara were led by their foremen Ahmad Masoud Fahin and Marzouq Abdel Waheed. 4 In 2017, the staff of the mission consisted of Ladislav Bareš, Dana Bělohoubková, Filip Coppens, Jiří Janák, Renata Landgráfová, Nenad Marković, Diana Míčková, Květa Smoláriková (Egyptologists), Vla‑ dimír Brůna (geodesist), Martin Dvořák (conservator). The Ministry of Antiquities was represented by Mr. Mashour Mahmoud Aziz el ‑Din and Mr. Marwan Abou Bakr Muhammad (inspectors). The team would like to thank Mr. Sabri Farag, Director General, and Mr. Hamdi Amin, Chief ‑Inspector from the Ministry of Antiquities Inspectorate at Saqqara. The skilled workmen from Abusir and Saqqara were led by Said Muhammad Metwalla and Muhammad Fawzi el ‑Akrat (foremen). 9LADISLAV BAREŠ– KVĚTA SMOLÁRIKOVÁ – JIŘÍ JANÁK– RENATA LANDGRÁFOVÁ Fig. 1 General map of the Late Period shaft tomb necropolis in Abusir (drawing K. Smoláriková, L. Vařeková) 10 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXIX/2022 and about 2.2 m thick) built exclusively of white limestone ashlars. Already in antiquity, the enclosure wall has been almost completely destroyed and removed by stone robbers. Because of that, only its foundations have been unearthed, consisting of alevelled ground with only afew limestone blocks remaining in situ. No traces of any relief decoration have been found here or in its nearest vicinity, which leaves us to conclude that, most probably, the superstructure of the tomb has never been completely finished.5 On the other hand, amassive layer (some 20–35 cm thick), consisting of white limestone fragments, larger and smaller, chips and dust, surrounds the original outer face of the enclosure on all its four sides. Such an amount of white 5 The absence of relief fragments in this tomb is quite striking when compared with hundreds of such items that came to light in the tomb of Menekhibnekau; afew relief fragments– originally coming from those structures– have been unearthed in the tombs of Udjahorresnet and Iufaa as well. Fig. 2 General view of tomb AW 6 at the end of the excavation season of 2017 (photographed from akite, photo V. Brůna) 11LADISLAV BAREŠ– KVĚTA SMOLÁRIKOVÁ – JIŘÍ JANÁK– RENATA LANDGRÁFOVÁ limestone indicates that the construction of the enclosure wall must have been completed at least to acertain degree. Inside the enclosure, ahuge main shaft is situated, measuring about 14 × 14 m. Judging from its badly eroded sides and its filling consisting of clean wind ‑blown sand, yellow in colour, the shaft must have been emptied by ancient tomb robbers (probably during Late Antiquity, like the nearby tombs of Udjahorresnet and Menekhibnekau) (Bareš 1999: 85; Bareš– Smoláriková 2008: 57) 6 and subsequently left open. In the centre of the south‑ ern wing of the enclosure wall, adjoining the outer side of its foundations, amouth of asmall lateral shaft has been found, orientated north ‑south and measuring 2.7 × 2.16 m. As no other small shaft has been found next to the outer face of the enclosure, we believed that this south‑ ern shaft might give access to the underground parts of the tomb. However, the excavation of the 23 m deep shaft in the spring season of 2022 showed that it has not been connected to the burial pit and contained three unfinished burial niches at its bottom (aseparate report on the 2022 season will be published in near future). Among the very limited number of finds uncovered in the above ‑ground parts of the tomb so far, four bases intended for astela or astatue are perhaps the most interesting. One of them (Exc. No. 7/AW 6/2017) has even been unearthed in situ in front of the northern outer face of the enclosure wall, exactly in its centre. It was made of awhite limestone block 50 cm long, 32 cm thick and 24 cm high, lying directly on the tafla bedrock and joined to it by athin layer of whitish lime mortar. In the upper face of the block, put parallel to the outer face of the enclosure wall, ashallow depression (measuring 34 × 16 cm and about 6 cm deep) has roughly been cut. Remnants of fine grey mortar, found at the bottom of the depression, seem to prove that another artefact had originally been placed here. Judging from the orientation of the block, asmall stela rather than astatue might had been inserted here. Asimilar base, with arather roughly cut outer face as well, came to light in the rubble above the mouth of asouthern lateral shaft, i.e., in about the axis of the southern wing of the enclosure wall. Fragments of similar pieces have been found in front of the eastern and western wings of the enclosure, too. Because of that, asmall stela seems to have originally been erected in front of the enclosure in the axis of each of its four faces.7 THE EMBALMING DEPOSIT, SEASON OF 2021 Already in the year 2017, the mouth of another shaft was unearthed south of the south ‑western corner of the enclosure, very close to the tomb’senclosure wall.8 In the 2021 season, this shaft (measuring 5.3 × 5.3 metres and about 15 m deep) has been completely excavated.9 Judging from 6 In the spring season of 2022, two Coptic vessels were moreover discovered, forgotten by the robbers in the main shaft. They will be treated in some detail in afuture report. 7 One should bear in mind, in this respect, that large stelae built of white limestone ashlars seem to have been embedded in the centres of each of the outer sides of the enclosure wall of the nearby tomb of Iufaa (see Bareš– Smoláriková 2008: 37–38). 8 In the place where the two are the nearest to each other, the side of this shaft is situated only some 0.7 m from the outer face of the foundation trench of the enclosure wall. 9 In 2021, the staff of the mission consisted of Ladislav Bareš, Dana Bělohoubková, Jiří Janák, Renata Landgráfová, Mohamed Megahed, Květa Smoláriková (Egyptologists), Vladimír Brůna (geodesist), 12 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXIX/2022 its sides that showed no traces of erosion, as well as from its fill consisting of dark sand and tafla pieces, it seemed almost certain that the shaft had been left unnoticed by the ancient tomb robbers, and the excavation proved this assumption. Amassive, up to one ‑meter thick layer of the same colour and consistence as the fill of this shaft surrounds all four outer sides of the original enclosure wall. This stratum, situated above the layer of limestone fragments and chips mentioned above, clearly constitutes the original fill of the main shaft, thrown out by the robbers after the enclosure wall had been demolished. As atiny layer of pure yellow sand separates both strata mentioned here, the destruction of the masonry of the enclosure wall and the clearing of the main shaft could in no way have been contemporary, although the length of the time span between both those activities can only be guessed at. In the fill of the smaller shaft situated close to the south ‑western corner of the enclosure, at depths from 4.4 to 12.1 metres, altogether fourteen clusters of large pottery storage vessels came to light, placed subsequently in different parts of it (in the corners above all) and sepa‑ rated by alayer of sand. The number of jars discovered in these 14 clusters of vessels (storage jars) varied considerably from 7 to even 52 pieces (fig. 3). In total, more than 370 large storage Petr Košárek (photographer). The Ministry of Antiquities was represented by Mr. Muhammad Mahmoud Abdel Mubdi and Mr. Essam (inspectors). The team would like to thank Mr. Sabri Farag, Director General, Dr. Muhammad Youssef, Director, Mr. Mahmoud Shaaban, Chief ‑Inspector, Mr. Salah el ‑Aasi, Inspector from the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities Inspectorate at Saqqara. The skilled workmen from Abusir and Saqqara were led by Said Muhammad Metwalla and Muhammad Fawzi el ‑Akrat (foremen). Fig. 3 One of the 14 layers of deposited vessels (photo: P.Košárek) 13LADISLAV BAREŠ– KVĚTA SMOLÁRIKOVÁ – JIŘÍ JANÁK– RENATA LANDGRÁFOVÁ jars have been brought to light in the shaft. Due to the enormous pressure of sand, arather large number of them (especially in the lower layers) have been heavily crushed and their contents spread all around. The huge number of ritually buried vessels as well as the fact that nothing has been found at the shaft’sbottom show that it served as an embalmer’sdeposit. POTTERY FROM THE EMBALMERS’ DEPOSIT From aceramological point of view, two different types of Egyptian storage jars/amphorae (Smoláriková 2006: 189–196) can be identified. The first type, which clearly predominates, is represented by the large two ‑handled amphora with awide mouth and amodelled rim; two massive vertical handles were attached to the shoulders below the rim, and the base was slightly pointed. Those vessels were fabricated of rather fine silt, fired reddish ‑brown and heavily tempered with straw; their surface was wet ‑smoothed or coated with red fugitive slip. The second type– more suitable for storage– is represented by the large two ‑handled amphora with ashort, tubular neck, elongated body (very close to the so‑called “sausage” type, see Aston– Aston 2010: 212, 61) and rounded base; the surface was smoothed and covered with shallow ridges and two massive handles were attached below the shoulder. Although empty, almost all those amphorae have been sealed with massive plaster or mud stoppers. It is not without interest that quite frequently well ‑visible remains of fine white linen were identified that adhered to the interior of these amphorae. Certainly, they represent traces of the original contents of the amphorae, used by embalmers during the mummification process. Though only asmall portion of the embalming deposit could have been examined so far, it is evident that Fig. 4 A“goldfish” jar discovered within the embalming deposit of Wahibremeryneith (photo: P.Košárek) 14 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXIX/2022 fragmentarily preserved smaller vessels were often deposited inside these amphorae, which is aphenomenon well ‑known from numerous other sites across Egypt (Bareš– Smoláriková 2011: 81–99). Most of these smaller vessels were cooking pots or so ‑called “goldfish” jars of different sizes but almost regularly covered with red fugitive slip (fig. 4; Aston– Aston 2010: 230, plate 24). Curiously, fine drop ‑shaped jars with fine red slipped burnished surface, so numerous in the embalming deposit of Menekhibnekau buried nearby, were extremely rare (Bareš– Smoláriková 2011: 157); the same is so far true about large bottles with aribbed neck and fine burnished surface (Bareš– Smoláriková 2011: 153). Abit more numerous were coarse jars with ashort rolled rim and slightly pointed or rounded base; their surface was wet ‑smoothed or self ‑slipped (Bareš 1999: 91, no. 6). Despite the fact that Nile silt wares were in definite majority, several pieces made of marl clay were also discovered, and surprisingly they were of an excellent quality, as acouple of large fine beakers proved (Aston– Aston 2010: 179–183). They are fired to white with acarefully smoothed surface, their walls are thin and their base is slightly pointed; one of them even bore short hieratic inscription mentioning probably the intended content of the vessel: rD.w, “efflux” (of the body of the deceased; Exc. No. 9/AW 6/2021; fig. 5). However, besides the Egyptian transport amphorae anice corpus of Samian amphorae and their possible local imitations was discovered. These transport amphorae belonging to atype known from the island of Samos, which was an excellent producer of olive oil and perhaps wine (Cook– Dupont 2003: 164–169), form aparticularly large and conspicuous group that we believe to be locally produced ware, especially as their fabrics (extremely gritty and dark Fig. 5 Marl clay beaker with ashort hieratic inscription: rD.w, “efflux” (photo P.Košárek) 15LADISLAV BAREŠ– KVĚTA SMOLÁRIKOVÁ – JIŘÍ JANÁK– RENATA LANDGRÁFOVÁ red, friable, rich in mica and with alarge portion of sand grains) differ considerably from the dense and extremely hard genuine Greek ones (usually fired to brownish colour outer zones and grey core). Only one piece from this assemblage can be attributed to Corinthian provenance (Dupont– Goyon 1992: 153–165, fig. 1/11), while others will be subject to further study and petrographic analysis (fig. 6). The most exceptional finds include the completely or fragmentarily preserved exemplars of medium ‑sized faience cups in the shape of ib (heart) (Exc. Nos. 4–8/AW 6/2021; fig. 7), unique even in the wider Memphite area. Their surface and interior had abrownish tint, perhaps due to acombination of bodily fluid and embalming agents, thus scientific analyses are necessary in the future. Last but not least, an almost completely (without aneck and rim) preserved Bes ‑flask with amodelled face of Bes (Exc. No. 3/AW5/2021; fig. 8) is worth mentioning; it was found at adepth of about 12 m in the centre of the shaft. Although partly broken, the two tiny holes for suspension, secondarily drilled on the shoulders, which might substitute broken handles, indicate that this vessel could have been used in embalming workshop as astrong apotropaic amulet (Raven 2019: 145). Moreover, these Bes ‑flasks are very helpful for dating assemblages of pottery because they were typical and quite widespread for the early fifth century BC; this chronological setting corresponds to Aston’sLate Period Phase C (French 1992: 86) and French’sThird Phase of the Late Dynastic, or Persian era and finds many parallels in Egypt, mostly in the Nile Delta (Aston– Aston 2010: 179). In the uppermost group of pottery vessels, at adepth of 4 m under the crown of the shaft, four limestone canopic jars (Exc. No. 2/AW 6/2021a ‑d; fig. 9) were unearthed, filled with sand Fig. 6 Greek ‑style amphorae and Greek imports (photo: P.Košárek) 22 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXIX/2022 APPENDIX: LIST OF ATTESTATIONS OF THE NAME WAHIBREMERYNEITH 1. Wahibremeryneith, Prophet of Horus son of Neith, wife Tashenesi, father of Amenhotp, Director of the Mansions, and Psametiksaneith, Director of Mansions: – Statue London, British Museum EA 41517 (see Malek 1999: 779, no. 801–733–300). – Statue Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1131 (see El ‑Sayed 1975: 145–152). – Statue Stockholm, Medelhavsmuseet 83 (see El ‑Sayed 1975: 242, § 22 b). 2. Wahibremeryneith, Director of the Mansions, father of Tutu, Director of the Mansions, Overseer of the Treasury: Statue (see Malek 1999: 786, no. 801–735–410). 3. Wahibremeryneith, Director of the Mansions of Neith, Overseer of Sailors, etc., son of Taqerneith: Statue Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale inv. no. 19687 (1068) (see Malek 1999: 814, no. 801–748–341; Pirelli 1998: 112–113). 4. Wahibremeryneith, Prophet of Living Apis, son of Udjahorresnet and Heret, wife Esetemkhebit, father of Udjahorresnet, Khui psametik, Henad and Psametiksaneith: Serapeum stela Paris, Louvre SIM 4112 (Vercoutter 1962: 93–99). 5. Wahibremeryneith, Commander of the Army: Shabti Vienna 5339 (see Chevereau 2003: 110 [doc.143]). 6. Wahibremeryneith, father of Scribe Ankhhapi: Demotic papyrus Cairo CG 50066 (see El ‑Sayed 1982: 505 [doc.724]). 7. Wahibremeryneith, God’sfather, father of Lady Neithites: Serapeum stela Paris, Louvre 4053 (see El ‑Sayed 1982: 505 [doc.725]). 8. Wahibremeryneith, Prophet of Thoth, father of Djed hor: Stone sarcophagus Cairo 13/1/2/2 (see El ‑Sayed 1982: 505 [doc.726]). 9. Wahibremeryneith: Canopic jar Leiden 34 (see El ‑Sayed 1982: 505 [doc.727a]). 10. Wahibremeryneith: Basalt weight (see El ‑Sayed 1982: 505 [doc.727 b]). 11. Wahibremeryneith: Shabti Bologna no. 216 (see El ‑Sayed 1982: 506 [doc.727c]). 12. Wahibremeryneith: Fragment of anaophorous statue, seen in aCairo shop in winter 1971–1972 (see El ‑Sayed 1982: 506 [doc.727d]). 13. Wahibremeryneith: Statue owned by Count de Beaumont ‑Bonelli (see El ‑Sayed 1982: 429 [doc.492]). 14. Wahibremeryneith, God’sfather: Round ‑topped stela, formerly in Verona, Museo Calceolari (see Malek 2012: 431, no. 803–075–650). 15. Wahibremeryneith, God’sfather, son of Netiyty: Shabti (see Chappaz 2021).25 16. Wahibremeryneith, General of Army, son of Tadipakhas(?): Shabti (see Chappaz 2021). 17. Wahibremeryneith, son of Akhemkhy(?): Two shabtis (see Chappaz 2021). 18. Wahibremeryneith, Commander of Troops: Fragment of ashabti Oxford, Ashmolean Museum (Chevereau 2003: 391, doc.179bis). 25 The reference to Egitto e Vicino Oriente 3, 1980=1983: 109 is not valid. 23LADISLAV BAREŠ– KVĚTA SMOLÁRIKOVÁ – JIŘÍ JANÁK– RENATA LANDGRÁFOVÁ BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, T. George 1949 “Some Egyptian sun hymns”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 8/4, pp. 349–355. Anthes, Rudolf 1939 “Das Berliner Henat ‑Relief”, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 75, pp. 21–31. Assmann, Jan 1970 Der König als Sonnenpriester: ein kosmographischer Begleittext zur kultischen Sonnenhymnik in thebani‑ schen Tempeln und Gräbern, Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin [Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo, Ägyptologische Reihe 7]. 1983 Sonnenhymnen in thebanischen Gräbern, Mainz am Rhein: Zabern [Theben 1]. Aston, David A.– Aston, Barbara B. 2010 Late Period Pottery from the New Kingdom Necropolis at Saqqara. Egypt Exploration Society– National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden, Excavations 1975–1995, London– Leiden: Egypt Exploration Society. Backes, Burkhardt 2016 Der „papyrus Schmitt“ (Berlin P.3057): Ein Funeräres Ritualbuch der Ägyptischen Spätzeit, Berlin: De Gruyter [Ägyptische und Orientalische Papyri und Handschriften des Ägyptischen Museums und Papyrussammlung Berlin 4]. Bareš, Ladislav 1999 The shaft tomb of Udjahorresnet at Abusir, Prague: Universitas Carolina Pragensis, The Karolinum Press [Abusir IV]. 2010 “Family ties among the owners of the large Late Period shaft tombs at Abusir (Egypt)”, Anthropologie: International Journal of Human Diversity and Evolution 48/2, pp. 139–143. Bareš, Ladislav– Bělohoubková, Dana 2016 “Objeví se další Iufaa? (Jaro 2015 všachtových hrobkách vAbúsíru)” [Would another Iufaa appear? (Spring 2015 in the shaft tombs at Abusir), in Czech], Pražské egyptologické studie XVI, pp. 3–6. Bareš, Ladislav– Bělohoubková, Dana– Landgráfová, Renata– Smoláriková, Květa 2018 “Další šachtová hrobka vAbúsíru– zatím více otázek, než odpovědí (Jarní sezóna 2017 vprostoru velkých šachtových hrobek zpoloviny 1. tisíciletípř.Kr. vzápadním Abúsíru)” [Another shaft tomb at Abusir– more questions, less answers (Spring archaeological season of 2017 in the group of the shaft tombs in western Abusir), in Czech], Pražské egyptologické studie XX, pp. 3–11. Bareš, Ladislav– Smoláriková, Květa 2008 The shaft tomb of Iufaa. Vol. I: Archaeology Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague [Abusir XVII]. 2011 The shaft tomb of Menekhibnekau. Vol. I: Archaeology, Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague [Abusir XXV]. Chapman, Sarah Lynn 2016 The Embalming Ritual of Late Period through Ptolemaic Egypt, Birmingham: University of Birmingham (unpublished,Ph.D. thesis). 24 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXIX/2022 Chappaz, Jean ‑Luc 2021 Shabtis_Basse_Époque (https:// d86e7b_79591418253846ce9e0b8542e8d8d6d4.pdf (segweb.ch). Ac‑ cessed on 21st January 2022). Chevereau, Pierre ‑Marie 2003 Prosopographie des cadres militaires égyptiens de la Basse Époque, Paris: Cybele [Études et mémoires d’égyptologie 2]. Cook, R. M.– Dupont, Pierre 2003 East Greek Pottery, London– New York: Routledge. Dupont, Pierre– Goyon, Jean ‑Claude 1992 “Amphores grecques archaïques de Gurna: à propos d’une publication récente”, in: Zaccone, Gian Maria– Ricardi di Netro, Tomaso (eds.). Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia– Atti, Torino: International Association of Egyptologists, pp. 153–165. French, G. Peter 1992 “APreliminary Study of Pottery in the Late Dynastic and Ptolemaic Period”, Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 3, pp. 83–93. Klotz, David 2014 “Hibis Varia (§ 1–3): Diverse Liturgical Texts from Hibis Temple”, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kul‑ tur 43, pp. 173–207. Kockelmann, Holger 2008 Untersuchungen zu den späten Totenbuch–Handschriften auf Mumienbinden, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz [Studien zum Altägyptischen Totenbuch 12]. Landgráfová, Renata– Janák, Jiří 2021 “AHandbook of aKherep ‑Selket from the Tomb of Iufaa: the Book of Primeval Snakes”, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 148/2, pp. 180–206. Landgráfová, Renata– Janák, Jiří– Míčková, Diana 2021 “Iufaa as asun priest and his false window. Going forth into daylight at the eastern horizon”, in: Bárta, Miroslav– Coppens, Filip– Krejčí, Jaromír (eds.). Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2020, Prague: Faculty of Arts, Charles University, pp. 347–357. Landgráfová, Renata– Míčková, Diana 2020 “Purification of the Whopper: The Royal Purification Ritual in the Shaft Tomb of Iufaa”, in: Coppens, Filip– Vymazalová, Hana (eds.). 11. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: The Discourse between Tomb and Temple, Prague, May 24–27, 2017, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz [Königtum, Staat und Gesellschaft früher Hochkulturen 3,6], pp. 183–207. 2021 “Secrets of the laboratory (jz). The mummification ritual on the southern wall of the burial chamber of Iufaa at Abusir”, in: Bárta, Miroslav– Coppens, Filip– Krejčí, Jaromír (eds.). Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2020, Prague: Faculty of Arts, Charles University, pp. 359–369. Lepsius, Karl Richard 1849–1859 Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien. Vols. I–XII, Berlin: Nicolaische Buchhandlung. 25LADISLAV BAREŠ– KVĚTA SMOLÁRIKOVÁ – JIŘÍ JANÁK– RENATA LANDGRÁFOVÁ Lieven, Alexandra von 2000 Der Himmel über Esna. Eine Fallstudie zur Religiösen Astronomie in Ägypten, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz [Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 64]. Malek, Jaromir 1999 Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Statues and Paintings. Vol. VIII: Objects of Provenance Not Known. Part 2: Private Statues (Dynasty XVIII to the Roman Period). Statues of Deities, Oxford: Griffith Institute– Ashmolean Museum. 2012 Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Statues and Paintings. Vol. VIII: Objects of Provenance Not Known. Part 4: Stelae (Dynasty XVIII to the Roman Period), 803–044–050 to 803–099–990, Oxford: Griffith Institute. Müller ‑Roth, Marcus 2008 Das Buch vom Tage, Fribourg– Göttingen: Academic Press– Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht [Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 236]. Pirelli, Rosanna 1998 “The Saitic Statues of the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Naples”, Annales du Service des Anti‑ quités de l’Égypte 73, pp. 108–115. Plas, Dirk van der 1986 L’Hymne à la Crue du Nil, Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten [Egyptologische Uit‑ gaven IV]. Quack, Joachim Friedrich 2002 “Königsweihe, Priesterweihe, Isisweihe”, in: Assmann, Jan– Bommas, Martin (eds.). Ägyptische Mysterien?, München: Fink, pp. 95–108. 2013 “The conceptions of purity in Egyptian religion”, in: Frevel, Christian– Nihan, Christophe (eds.). Purity and the forming of religious traditions in in the ancient Mediterranean world and ancient Judaism, Leiden: Brill [Dynamics in the history of religion 3], pp. 115–158. Raven, Maarten 2019 Egyptian Magic. The Quest for Thoth’sBook of Secrets, Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Ranke, Hermann 1935 Die altägyptischen Personennamen. Bd. I: Verzeichnis der Namen, Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin. El ‑Sadeek, Wafaa 1984 Twenty ‑Sixth Dynasty Necropolis at Gizeh, Wien: AFRO–PUB [Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien 29– Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 5]. Sauneron, Serge 1969 Le temple d’Esna. Nos. 399–472, Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale [Esna 4.1]. El ‑Sayed, Ramadan 1975 Documents relatifs à Saïs et ses divinités, Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale [Bibliothèque d’études 69]. 1976 “À propos du titre xrp ‑Hwwt ”, Revue d’égyptologie 28, pp. 97–110. 26 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXIX/2022 1982 La déesse Neith de Saïs. T. II: Documentation, Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale [Biblio‑ thèque d’étude 86]. Schott, Siegfried 1957 Die Reinigung Pharaos in einem memphitischen Tempel (Berlin P 13242), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht [Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch ‑Historische Klasse 3]. Smoláriková, Květa 2006 “Egyptian and Aegean Amphorae from the Saite Shaft Tombs at Abusir”, Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 8, pp. 189–196. Stadler, Martin A. 2022 Das Soknopaiosritual. Texte zum “Täglichen Ritual” im Tempel des Soknopaios zu Dimê, Berlin: de Gruyter [Ägyptische und Orientalische Papyri und Handschriften des Ägyptischen Museums und Berlin Papyrussammlung 6]. Stammers, Michael 2009 The Elite Late Period Egyptian Tombs at Memphis, Oxford: Archaeopress [British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1903]. Vercoutter, Jean 1962 Textes biographiques du Sérapéum de Memphis: contribution à l’étude des stèles votives du Sérapéum, Paris: Librairie ancient Honoré Champion [Bibliothèque de l’École des hautes études, sciences historiques et philologiques 316]. Zivie ‑Coche, ChristianeM. 1991 Giza au premier millénaire. Autour du temple d’Isis, dame des pyramides, Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Ladislav Bareš Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University; [email protected] Květa Smoláriková Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University; [email protected] Jiří Janák Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University; [email protected] Renata Landgráfová Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University; [email protected]