John Taylor, Ancient Egyptian Coffins: Evidence for social patterning in the Theban coffins of Dinas by d.h2020

SUDAN 4

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN COFFINS Craft traditions and functionality

edited by

John H. TAYLOR and Marie VANDENBEUSCH

PEETERS

This volume contains the proceedings of the twenty-third Annual Egyptological Colloquium, held at the British Museum in 2014, augmented by additional papers. The twenty-three contributions investigate functionality, iconography and manufacture of ancient Egyptian coffins from the First Intermediate Period to the eighth century AD. The authors explore the conceptual aspects which lay behind the production of coffins through the study of iconography and texts, examining the functional role of these complex objects as ،structured compositions’ which were designed to play an important part in transforming the deceased occupants and perpetuating their existence beyond death. Reinstating coffins in their archaeological and societal contexts, the papers reflect on the circumstances in which they were made, considering workshop practices and regional variability, and studying coffins not only individually but also as components of larger conceptual entities in which the mummy, the burial chamber and the tomb itself all had specific meanings. Several contributions focus on areas of current interest, such as the post-burial adaptation and reuse of coffins, considering how these issues relate to the economic environment in which they were made and to changing attitudes towards the immutability of burial arrangements.

PEETERS-LEUVEN ISBN ‫?؟‬fl-ÌD-MSn-BMtiS-fl

The

British Museum

BRITISH

MUSEUM

PUBLICATIONS

EGYPT

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN COFFINS

Craft traditions and functionality

edited by

John H. TAYLOR and Marie VANDENBEUSCH

PEETERS LEUVEN - PARIS - BRISTOL, CT 20 IS

AND

SUDAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Contributors........................................................................................................................................................

٧n

2014 Colloquium Programme.......................................................................................................................................

John H. Taylor and Marie Vandenbeusch Preface...............................................................................................................................................................................

Conceptual

aspects: religious iconography and texts

Harco Willems The coffins of the lector priest Sesenebenef: a Middle Kingdom Book of the Dead?......................................

Rogério Sousa The genealogy of images: innovation and complexity in coffin decoration during Dynasty 21.....................

Andrzej Niwinski The decoration of the coffin as a theological expression of the idea of the Universe.......................................

René van Walsem Some gleanings from ‘stola’ coffins and related material of Dynasty 21-22 ....................................................

Hisham el-Leithy Iconography and function of stelae and coffins in Dynasties 25-26.....................................................................

Andrea Kucharek Mourning and lamentation on coffins.........................................................................................................................

II. Results

of recent fieldwork and archival research

Marilina Betrô The black-varnished coffin of Qenamon and Ippolito Rosellini’s excavations in the Theban necropolis......

119

Anna Stevens Beyond iconography: The Amarna coffins in social context..................................................................................

139

Marilina Betrô and Gianluca Miniaci Used, reused, plundered and forgotten: A rare group of early Ramesside coffins from tomb MIDAN.05 in the Theban necropolis...............................................................................................................................................

161

Gabor Schreiber Mummy-boards from a Theban group burial dating to Dynasty 20.....................................................................

185

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage or retrieval divices or systems, without the prior written permission from the publisher, except the quotation of brief passages for review purposes.

Fruzsina Bartos An example of a rare Dynasty 22 cartonnage type from the excavation of TT 65 and its surroundings.......

201

Cover illustration: Detail of the coffin of Denytenamun. British Museum EA 6660. Photograph: Joanna Fernandes.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

III. Coffins

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

in context: burial assemblages and sacred space

Marleen De Meyer Reading a burial chamber: Anatomy of a First Intermediate Period coffin in context......................................

217

Wolfram Grajetzki The burial of the ،king’s daughter’ Nubhetepti-khered...........................................................................................

231

Gianluca Miniaci Burial equipment of rishi coffins and the osmosis of the ،rebirth machine’ at the end of the Middle Kingdom............................................................................................................................................................

247

Anders Bettum Nesting (part two): Merging of layers in New Kingdom coffin decoration........................................................

275

Alessia Amenta Curator Egyptian Department Vatican Museums ao.musei@scv.va Marilina Betrò Università di Pisa Egittologia Dipartimento di Civiltà e Forme del Sapere marilina.betro@ unipi. it Anders Bettum Oslo Museum abe@oslomuseum.no

IV. Coffins

in context: society and craft environment

Kathlyn M. Cooney Coffin reuse in Dynasty 21: A case study of the coffins in the British Museum .............................................

295

Alessia Amenta New results from the CT scanning of a coffin..........................................................................................................

323

Edoardo Guzzon Examining the coffins from the collective tomb found by Ernesto Schiaparelli in the Valley of the Queens: An essay on epigraphic and stylistic ،clustered features’ as evidence for workshops.......................................

337

John H. Taylor Evidence for social patterning in Theban coffins of Dynasty 25...........................................................................

349

Coffins

V. context: regional

389

Eva Liptay

Burial equipment from Akhmim in ancient and modern contexts.........................................................................

Katblyn M. Cooney Associate Professor of Ancient Egyptian Art & Architecture Chair of the Department of Near Eastern Languages & Cultures University of California Los Angeles cooney@g. ucla.edu Marleen De Meyer KU Leuven, Faculty of Arts, Department of Archaeology marleen.demeyer@kuleuven.be

variations

Katharina Stovesand Regional variability in Late Period Egypt: Coffin traditions in Middle Egypt...................................................

Fruzsina Bartos Department of Egyptology Faculty of Humanities Eotvds Lorand University fruzsi.bartos@gmail.com

403

Hisham El-Leithy Center of Documentation of Egyptian Antiquities (CDEA) & Scientific Publication Department Ministry of Antiquities Supreme Council of Antiquities, Egypt hie ithy@ aucegypt.edu

Alexandra Kuffer Tracing the history of a coffin and its mummy. The burial equipment from Gamhud at the Museum of Ethnology in Burgdorf (Switzerland)....................................................................................................................

415

Beatrice Huber with a contribution from Claudia Nauerth Coptic coffins from Qarara. The Pfauensarg (peacock coffin) in context...........................................................

435

Wolfram Grajetzki University College London WlfrmG@aol.com

Edoardo Guzzon Independent Researcher edoardo.guzzon@gmail.com Beatrice Huber University of Tübingen, Germany beatrice .huber@ un i -tuebingen.de Andrea Kucharek University of Heidelberg Ágyptologisches Institut Andrea.Kucharek@uni-heidelberg.de Alexandra Küffer Ancient Egypt, History and Ethnography Museum St. Galien, Switzerland alexandra.kueffer@niletimes.ch Éva Liptay Museum of Fine Arts Budapest Department of Egyptian Antiquities eva.liptay@szepmuveszeti.hu Gianluca Miniaci Universita di Pisa Dipartimento di Civiltá e Forme del Sapere gianluca.miniaci@unipi.it Claudia Nauerth University of Heidelberg, Germany Andrzej Niwinski Warsaw University Institute of Archaeology andrzejniwi.egipt@gmail.com Gábor Schreiber Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest gabor.schreiber@gmail.com Rogério Sousa Centre of Humanistic and Classical Studies (University of Coimbra) Centre of History (University of Lisbon) solar.benu@gmail.com

VIII

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Anna Stevens Amarna Project McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge aks52@cam.ac.uk Katharina Stovesand German Archaeological Institute Cairo Institute of African Studies and Egyptology University of Cologne katharina.stoevesand@uni-koeln.de John H. Taylor Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan British Museum jtaylor@britishmuseum.org

Rene van Walsem, Leiden University, Department of Classical and Ancient Cultures, Egyptology Leiden Institute of Area Studies (LIAS) r.van.walsem@hum.leidenuniv.nl; walsemrenevan@hotmail.com Harco Willems KU Leuven, Laculty of Arts, Department of Archaeology harco.willems@kuleuven.be

2014 COLLOQUIUM PROGRAMME Monday 28 July Session: Middle Kingdom A fresh look at some Theban coffins from the late Middle Kingdom Marcel Maree The coffin and tomb of the Kingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Daughter Nubhetepti-khered Wolfram Grajetzki Entering a new world: rishi coffins and the osmosis of the rebirth machine at the end of the late Middle Kingdom Gianluca Miniaci Session: New Kingdom Coffins from the Kingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Valley Susanne Bickel Beyond iconography: the Amarna coffins as archaeological, social and cult artifacts Anna Stevens Observations on the mummy boards found in two Ramesside group burials in Theban Tomb -400Gabor Schreiber The principle of nesting in elite burials and religious art Anders Bettum Session: 21st Dynasty The coffin decoration as theological expression of the idea of the universe Andrzej Niwinski Style and composition: a genealogical perspective on coffin decoration (21st Dynasty) Rogerio Sousa Session: The 2014 Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation Distinguished Lecture in Egyptology The coffins of the lector priest Sesenebenef: a Middle Kingdom Book of the Dead? Harco Willems

Tuesday 29 July Session: Reuse of 21st Dynasty coffins Coffin recycling: funerary culture in a time of economic crisis Kara Cooney New results from CT-scanning of a coffin Alessla Amenta An example of a rare 22nd Dynasty cartonnage type and some reused 21st Dynasty yellow coffin fragments from TT 65 Fruzsina Bartos

2014

COLLOQUIUM PROGRAMME

Session: Late Period

PREFACE 25th 26th Dynasty coffins: a symbiotic relationship between iconography and structure Allison Williams Two family tomb groups of the 25th Dynasty from Deir el Bahari Cynthia Sheikholeslami Iconography and function of stelae and coffins of the 25th-26th Dynasties Hisham el-Leithy Regional variations in the decorative programmes on coffins of the Late and Ptolemaic periods Katharina Stôvesand Burial equipment from Akhmim in ancient and modern contexts Eva Liptay

John H. Taylor and Marie Vandenbeusch

In the past thirty years there has been a steady upsurge of interest in the study of ancient Egyptian coffins, a development which has been manifested most recently in specialist themed exhibitions, in descriptive and discursive publications, and particularly in conferences. In luly 2014 the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan at the British Museum organised an international colloquium entitled 'Ancient Egyptian Coffins: craft traditions and functionality’, the 23rd in the Museum’s series of annual Egyptological colloquia. The two-day gathering was intended not just as a review of current work, but as a forum for the discussion of particular issues. The speakers were invited to focus on the practical and conceptual circumstances in which coffins were made, with consideration of workshop practices and regional variability, as well as analyses of coffin iconography and inscriptions as clues to their functional roles as ‘structured compositions'. Contribrrtors were also encouraged to consider coffins in context, both individually and as components of larger conceptual entities, in which the mrrmmy, the burial chamber and the tomb itself all liad specific meanings. The roles played by coffins in the pre-burial rituals and in post-burial reuse were also to be considered. The chronological approach, favoured at the colloquium and deemed to encourage discussions between sneakers, seemed too linear. In this volume, we therefore decided to present the papers thematically allowing more versatile and conrparative dialogtres. The majority of the papers that were presented at the conference are included in this volume. To these have been appended other contributions, wlrich reflect the themes mentioned above, adding to questions, themes or periods not examined at the conference. As always the colloquium coincided with a keynote paper, the Raymond and Beverly Sackler Distinguished Lecture irr Egyptology. This presentation by Harco Willems on the coffins of the lector priest Sesenebenef is also included in the present volume. Since the 1980s the study of Egyptian coffins has passed through several phases, reflecting a process of orientation and definition in the direction of research. A first stage concentrated on the documentation and

classification of the coffins of major chronological periods, represented notably by the publications of Harco Willems, Gunther Lapp, Andrzej Niwiński, Rene van Waisem and others. This work inevitably overlapped with ground-breaking interpretational stud ies, which are inseparable from attempts to assign dates, provenance and classification to the source mate rial. More intensive documentation has followed: nota bly the collection of data on the scattered contents of the great ‘priests of Amun’ tomb of Bab el Gasus and on the rich but sadly dispersed post-New Kingdom material from Akhmim, from northern Upper Egypt and the Fayum, etc. Simultaneously there has been a move to harness new techniques (such as CT scanning) for scrutinising and recording coffins, attempts to establish a consistent terminology for types and components of coffin ensembles and a drive to recover missing details of provenance and context through archival research. Researchers also examine function and materiality, palaeographical evidence for craftsmen and production scenarios, and socio-economic aspects. All of these themes have been highlighted in the two Vatican conterences (2013 and 2017) and those in Porto, Lisbon and Cambridge. The subtitle of the present volume emphasises ‘func tionality’, a term which is used here, not in relation to computer science, but in its more ‘traditional’ sense of an object’s capacity to serve a purpose. Many of the papers here address this fundamental issue: what were Egyptian coffins designed to do? What clues can we read in their shape, material, iconography, inscriptions, their role in rituals, the manner of their use and deposi tion? In some degree, all of the following contributions throw light on these questions, though the emphasis of each is slightly different. Establishing the chronological evolution of coffins and understanding their ritual/religious functions is an interlinked process. Five studies in this volume focus on the religious texts and iconography of coffins. Harco Willems considers an unusual set of Middle Kingdom coffins which bear spells which foreshadow the Book of the Dead and provide a coherent model for the experience of the deceased in the hereafter. Andrzej Niwiński draws on the rich repertoire of images which

XII

PREFACE

cover the Theban coffins of Dynasty 21, focusing on scenes which magically promoted the notion of the cof fin as a representation of the universe. Rogério Sousa investigates the evolution of the design structure of cof fin lids of the same period to understand the interaction between continuity and variation in the iconographie layout of their surfaces. In order to correctly understand the principles which governed the work of painters, it is necessary to shift freely from macroscopic to micro scopic focus, and it is sometimes the small idiosyn cratic details within a familiar scene, or the composi tion of frames, borderlines and floral collars which can prove to be revealing, as René van Walsem demon strates by a close scrutiny of the ‘stola’ coffins of late Dynasty 21 — early Dynasty 22. In contrast, Andrea Kucharek takes one major theme, that of mourning and lamentation and reviews its occurrence on coffins throughout the entire pharaonic period; this study shows how attention to detail can uncover unexpected allusions to lamentation, as for example in the depiction of bird deities with open beaks. The paper by Hisham el-Leithy considers how important designs could be transferred and adapted between contemporaneous cof fins and stelae. New fieldwork is revealing evidence that deepens knowledge and clarifies understanding of topics hith erto poorly documented. Anna Stevens reports on the Dynasty 18 coffins excavated in the non-elite South Tombs Cemetery at Amarna. The distribution of graves and wooden coffins at the site provides data for an assessment of the socio-economic situation of a local ised population within a narrow time-frame, and the juxtaposition of coffins which depict pre-Amarna dei ties alongside ‘godless’ examples reflecting the new religion emphasises the tension between tradition and innovation in coffin design in the shadow of the most radical cultural upheaval in pharaonic history. Gabor Schreiber considers recently excavated Theban mummy-boards of Dynasty 20, a phase in which study has so far been hampered by a serious shortage of material, while Marilina Betro and Gianluca Miniaci examine fragments of coffins from the early Rames side period, helping to offset the dearth of coffin evi dence which is for the scholar such a frustrating aspect of this otherwise well-documented period. The frag ments in question, recently excavated in a Dynasty 18 tomb at Dra Abu el-Naga, also present evidence for the process of reuse, not only of tombs but also of coffins, which is coming to be seen as a more constant feature of ancient Egyptian mortuary practice than was

previously realised. These last two studies highlight the importance of paying close attention to small frag ments and poorly-preserved specimens, which for much of the history of excavation in Egypt have been neglected or dismissed as of little value. Likewise, Fruszina Bartos’ focus on the fragments of an unusual type of cartonnage case, with images modelled in raised relief on the plastered surface, adds a new dimension to understanding of this distinctive type of body-case of Dynasty 22. Recent years have also witnessed efforts to recover provenance and contextual information on objects which were brought from Egypt long ago. Research among Egyptological archives is a key method, an example of which is given by Marilina Betro in her study of the Dynasty 18 coffin of Qenamon which can now be brought more firmly into the working corpus through the clarification of details of its discovery. Context is of paramount importance in any attempt to understand the roles played by coffins in the wider realm of Egyptian mortuary practices. The coffin within its physical setting in the tomb naturally throws light on the conceptual landscape in which the dead were believed to exist, as well as on the nature, powers and needs of the dead. Four papers approach the subject from this angle. Marleen de Meyer focuses on an undisturbed burial of the First Intermediate Period to interpret the coffin in the context of the other burial goods in the tomb and from this to extract clues to the nature of the funerary rituals. Wolfram Grajetzki examines the burial of the King’s Daughter Nubheteptikhered from the late Middle Kingdom, again investi gating the coffin’s relationship with the accompanying goods, which, he argues, constituted a three-dimensional rendering of the rites of mummification and burial for the deceased, identified as Osiris. Gianluca Miniaci focuses on the period of the emergence of the rishi cof fin, taking account of the different motivations which may have driven change at this time (practical and socio-economic as well as ritual/symbolic), and draws attention to the tendency - marked at this time - for elements of the symbolic rebirth process to migrate between the coffin and other objects in the tomb, a kind of ‘osmosis’ which can be detected in funerary furnish ings at other periods as well. This transmission or movement of symbolic features from surface to surface is also seen in the concentric layering of sacred spaces around the mummy, a phenomenon which becomes particularly prominent in high status burials from the New Kingdom onwards. Anders Bettum develops his

PREFACE

XIII

Map of Egypt showing locations of key sites discussed in papers (Claire Thorne).

previous work on the practice of ،nesting’ coffins by demonstrating that elements or signifiers of different symbolic layers could be merged in the decoration of a single coffin in order either to economise on space and materials or perhaps for ritual purposes which remain to be fully understood. Coffins have long been viewed, quite justifiably, as crucial sources of religious texts and iconography, or of prosopographical data, but a productive trend in cof fin studies today examines them as functional objects whose creation resonated with numerous aspects of ancient Egyptian society and culture. The fourth sec tion of this volume examines the coffin as a manifesta tion of a person’s place in society - a marker of status, a commodity whose character was determined partly

by the cost of its manufacture. Several scholars are exploring what this materiality can reveal about the skills and practices of the craftsmen who responded to the requirements of their clients, and the influence of social status and community economics on the acquisi tion, commissioning, materials, design and adornment of coffins. Kathlyn Cooney, following her thesis on the economic significance of Ramesside coffins, has moved into the area of reuse. Her intensive scrutiny of the ‘yellow coffins’ of Dynasty 19-22 in many muse ums worldwide has revealed a surprisingly high level of reuse : currently at least 50% of coffins of this period are thought to have been adapted or repurposed and the coffins in the British Museum, the subject of her pre sent paper, are no exception. This research has prompted

XIV

PREFACE

the observation that the coffins had become ،transform ative devices, rather than (...) long-term objects to be owned in perpetuity.’ Alessia Amenta explains how new techniques for studying coffins, such as CT scan ning, are augmenting the data for these investigations by capturing clearer images of the internal structure of coffins and revealing evidence for the reuse of compo nent parts. This is a rapidly evolving area of research, and the next steps in this type of non-invasive study will address documentation of the stratigraphy of deco rative layers, and perhaps even the identification of pigments by measuring their density. Edoardo Guzzon looks at the graphic ‘fingerprints’ of craftsmen, as revealed in a large deposit of coffins from a communal burial of Dynasty 25, as a means of reuniting signifi cant groups of coffins, and considering how the crafts men were organised. The Theban coffins of this same period are considered by John Taylor as evidence for social patterning, with the clustering of particular constellations of features as indicators of points on a spectrum of variability which might be related to the status and/or economic capability of the owners. These studies also touch on the question of the personal influ ence which craftsmen could bring to the designs of the coffins they made, contributing something to the vexed question of who determined the ultimate appearance of an individual coffin. The final group of papers concentrates on coffins from different geographical areas of Egypt. While the significance of the regions for coffin development in the Middle Kingdom has long been recognised, for the post-New Kingdom Thebes has traditionally enjoyed the limelight in such studies. In view of the wealth of material from the site it is inevitable that the intensive study of Theban coffins will continue. By comparison, the many coffins from other parts of Egypt have been neglected, but a number of scholars are now redressing the balance, casting the spotlight on other sites. Katharina Stovesand discusses the Late Period coffins from northern and middle Egypt, comparing and contrasting

examples of the ،northern’ tradition with those from the more southerly centres of Thebes and Akhmim, and arguing for the recognition of specific decoration pat terns as hallmarks of particular regions. In Eva Liptay’s discussion of some coffins from Akhmim dating to the first millennium BC the issue of reuse is again in the foreground, with the question of whether some evi dence for its occurrence may denote ancient reuse rather than the familiar antiquities dealers’ practice of combining pieces of different dates. Two further papers describe coffins dating to later periods from other sites in the northern region of the Nile valley. Alexandra Kiiffer considers a coffin in a Swiss museum which can be attributed to the Ptolemaic cemetery of Gamhud in northern Middle Egypt. Her research led her to the excavation of the base of the coffin, hence discovering the skeletal remains of the deceased as well as cartonnage trappings. Finally, Beatrice Huber and Claudia Nauerth provide a full treatment of one of the most interesting coffins of the Coptic period, the 7th-8th cen tury ،peacock coffin’ from Qarara, here discussed in unprecedented depth and with illuminating references to comparanda. Acknowledgements We wish here to record our thanks to all those who participated in the colloquium and to the contributors of the additional papers, as well as to the scholars to acted as chairs for the discussion sessions and the many other colleagues and volunteers who contributed their help and advice to make the colloquium such a reward ing and enjoyable occasion. The production of this volume could not have been achieved without the work of a dedicated team. Special thanks are owed to Carolyn Jones for copy-editing the papers, to Claire Thome for the general map, to the Publication Support Fund of the British Museum, and to the staff of Peeters, Leuven - especially Bert Verrept for their professionalism and attention to detail.

CONCEPTUAL ASPECTS: RELIGIOUS ICONOGRAPHY AND TEXTS

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25 John H. Taylor

Abstract As coffins can be assigned to particular periods and regions with increasing confidence, it becomes easier to examine not only diachronic changes, but also con temporaneous variation and to search for meaningful patterns therein. A person’s social status was strongly reflected in their funerary provision, and in the Third Intermediate Period, when private tombs were rarely conspicuous or original works, the main funerary indi cators of status were the coffins. This paper examines the decorative programmes of two contemporaneous types of Theban coffin assemblage, which can be asso ciated with particular groups in the social hierarchy of Dynasty 25. These ‘higher’ and ،lower elite’ types can be identified as key points within a broader spectrum of coffin production, and it can be proposed that adap tations of these two models reflect the differing social rank and/or purchasing power of their owners. The pat tern of occurrence of the distinctive palaeographical and graphical ،fingerprints’ of particular craftsmen sug gests that the coffin assemblages were not always pro duced in distinct, self-contained ،workshops’, but rather by a wider pool of painters and scribes who adapted their work to the requirements of the purchaser. The paper also poses questions about the conceptual model of the rebirth process as reflected in the coffins of per sons of differing status, and the degree of freedom which the craftsmen may have enjoyed in manipulating the magical texts and images in their repertoire.

Introduction It is a widely accepted view that at all periods syn chronic variations in ancient Egyptian mortuary provi sion — the location and size of tombs and the character of their contents — reflected the social status of the deceased (Wilkinson 2001, 301; Cooney 2007a, 273— 5; 2007b, 4). Although recent research increasingly highlights the complexities and ambiguities which underlie such a statement (Stevenson 2009, 181-2), it remains in a general sense valid. Throughout the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms the tomb was the most

conspicuous signifier of rank, although coffins and other funerary objects also fulfilled that function. In the Third Intermediate Period the significance of the tomb changed: many burials, even those of persons of high status, reused older sepulchres, and such original tombs as were made were architecturally modest and usually had little or no decoration (for example, that of the God’s Wife of Amun Karomama: Mourot 2017, 68-71, pis II—III, 13-16). As has been often observed, at this time the coffin assumed much of the traditional sym bolic role of the tomb in providing a secure and eternal environment for the cyclical rebirth of the deceased, as well as projecting the primary manifestation of its own er’s status during the rituals on the day of burial. A coffin — even a plain and simple one — was an expensive commodity, and possession of ،decorated’ coffins was the prerogative of those members of Egyp tian society who are now generally designated the ،elite’. This is not the place to discuss the definition of that term as used by Egyptologists (on which a consen sus is unlikely to be reached: Grajetzki 2010, 181; Smith 2017, 551). ،Elite’ is used here simply to desig nate those who possessed sufficient surplus ،capital' (Richards 2005, 16; Li 2017, 149, 152٦ 165) to ena ble them to afford a coffin or coffins. As Baines notes (2013, 6, 8), most of such funerary material reflects self-sustaining elite preoccupations, and thus the mem bers of the elite are distinguished by a particular type of burial arrangement, reflecting generally similar beliefs and aspirations (Cooney 2007b, 6). Nonethe less, at any given period, sub-distinctions within the corpus can be recognised, pointing to the existence of a more nuanced relationship between the form and decoration of coffins and the social status of their own ers. The nature of this patterning is considered below, with reference to the Theban necropolis in Dynasty 25. Establishing a social typology for Theban coffins of Dynasty 25 Kathlyn Cooney has offered a brief and subjective classification of the Dynasty 21 coffin corpus into ،highest’, ‘high’, ،mid’ and ،low’ elite and has proposed

350

J. H. TAYLOR

a consistent link between the owner’s social status and the material richness of his/her burial outfit, as manifested chiefly in the number of coffins per person, the materials used, and the proportion of ‘orthodox’ specialised content in the iconography (Cooney 2014, 48). As it stands, this is a simple economic equation, but a cultural dinrension is added by the suggestion that only the ‘higher’ elite could afford the services of those craftsmen who possessed (or had access to) sophisticated religious knowledge, as manifested in the occurrence of specific extracts from the Book of the Dead or the Books of the Netherworld on their coffins, which were presented in both orthodox and innovative ways. Cooney adds that ‘Mid level coffins show a more standard and banal selection of scenes and iconography from the Book of the Dead’, while ‘lower elite coffins ... betray more innovative and unorthodox styles of scenes and iconography, who [sic] do not always pull from the traditional and accepted Book of the Dead scenes, sometimes betraying naive, “folkart" types not seen on higher elite examples' (Cooney 2014, 64). The researcher is therefore directed to examine not only the material quality of the coffins but also their iconographic and inscriptional content as clues to the owner’s status, and, although not considered by Cooney, it is self-evident that the associated burial goods, however limited in number, also contribUte to the picture. Theban coffins of the late 8th to mid-7h century BC also lend themselves well to this approach. The period (Dynasty 25 and early Dynasty 26) was characterised by a new range of norms in elite burial practice, marked most distinctively by the use of assemblages with rectangular (qrsw) outer coffins and anthropoid inner coffins of the ‘bivalve’ type (for the term: Raven 2009, 465). The considerable variation which these coffins show yields evidence for social patterning. The social status of the deceased appears to provide a very strong motivation for variation in burial arrangements, while other potential factors appear far less influential. There is, for example, little reason to

Iru. buried in ‘Grab VII' in the Asasif, has been identified as a Kushite on the grounds of his name and the anatomical features of his skeleton. Exceptionally, it has been suggested that a dark skin-colour was used not only for his image in the judgement scene, but also on the face mask of his inner coffin, t،١ allude to his ethnicity: Budka 2010a, 129; 2010b, 507.

suppose that either the gender or ethnicity of the own ers were reflected in the composition of their burial assemblages at this period in any significant way. The coffins of males and females are usually distinguisha ble only by the rendering of the face and headdress (Taylor 2017) and through the differing depiction of the deceased in scenes of judgement and adoration. Whereas in some periods a woman’s burial outfit was often materially less rich than that of her husband (e.g. fewer and smaller coffins, Cooney 2007b, 253-4), there is little evidence for this in Dynasty 25. More over, the ‘foreign’ ethnicity of an owner is usually detectable on the coffins only through non-Egyptian names (often in unconventional spellings) or occasion ally in minor graphic features such as depictions of Kushite women with dark skin and close-cropped curly hair and a Nubian-style costume (Vittmann 2007; Budka 2010a, 117, 347; 2010b, 503,505,509-10), but even then only in small-scale scenes, not on the coffin mask.1 Libyan ethnicity or cultural affinity is not evoked at all in coffin iconography. Atypical objects placed in the grave or tomb may sometimes point to foreign origin, but the coffins themselves are scarcely distinguishable from those of Egyptians (Budka 2010b, 510, 514), and seem in fact to symbolically confirm the deceased as a member of Egyptian society. In the Theban coffins of this period, diachronic change reflecting evolution in fashions can be recog nised, but considerable synchronic variation is also apparent in the number of coffins per person (one, two or three), in their form (rectangular qrsw, sub-anthro poid or anthropoid)2 and in the specificity of mono graphic and inscriptional content (images and texts selected from important sources, and often located on the surface according to an apparent ‘programme’, ver sus common generic texts and images in repetitive arrangements). The connections between this syn chronic variation and the status of the owners have been noted before (Raven 2009, 481; Sheikholeslami 2014b, 455), and it appears likely that a deeper study of this relationship can contribute to a social typology.

The term 'sub-anthropoid' is used here to denote coffins on which the front and sides are modelled in imitation of the shrouded mummy, whereas the back is completely flat and undecorated, so as to lie in a recumbent position. Such coffins are to be distinguished ftom the ftrlly anthropoid ‘bivalve’ type, depicting the mummified deceased standing on a plinth and supported at the back by a dorsal pillar (Taylor 2003, 107, 112-17).

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

351

On the basis of recurrent clusters of features ('attlibUte states’) a more and a less elaborate type of burial assemblage can be distinguished among the Theban material. These categories, here termed the ‘higher elite’ and ‘lower elite’ types, are based purely on observation of Dynasties 25-26 material, and do not necessarily correlate with elements of Cooney’s classification, mentioned above. It is not proposed that these groupings reflect an actual historical division of ancient Egyptian society into classes; rather they are ‘sociological profiles’, intended to serve simply as an artificial framework for the study of groups of coffins which share similar attributes (Lemos 2017, 124-5). The classification may, however, reveal patterns in the way religious texts and images were used in the burial outfits of persons of different ranks. Although these higher and lower ‘types’ are artificial constructs, there are enough surviving examples of each to indicate that they represented relatively welldefined models of burial assemblages. This probably reflects the influence of the craftsmen over the purchasers, and calls to mind Herodotus’ account of the different types of ‘mummies’ which embalmers showed to prospective customers, graded according to price (de Selincourt 1972, 160; Lloyd 1976, 356). lust as mummification techniques were subject to variation and adaptation, the higher and lower elite burial assemblages just mentioned were by no means the only options available in the period in question. They are points on a spectrum which also included augmented and reduced versions of these two models. The character of these adaptations was doubtless determined by a range of factors including wealth, religious attitudes and the repertoires and technical abilities of craftsmen, as well as time constraints affecting the completion of work. Even a preliminary study of the Theban burial assemblages reveals numerous incremental differences between these two relatively fixed points. Hence without a more intensive study it would be premature to create a 'middle elite’ group, at the risk of oversimplifying a complex subject and inhibiting freedom of

interpretation by forcing examples into loosely defined categories.

In some of the earliest examples of this model, the innermost covering of the body is a cartonnage case or a hybrid bivalve coffin made of cartonnage instead of wood. Examples include the burials of Tabaktenashket (Tamyt) and Ankhpakhered, from Ramesseum tombs 1911.28-9 (Aston 2009, 250) and the ensembles of Ankhefenkhons (i) and his sons Nesamun (ii) and Besenmut (ii) from Deir el-Bahti, Cairo CG 41001,41042-3; 41002,

41044-5; 41007, 41047 (Moret 1913, 1-22, 38-61, 99-101, plsI-II, VII-IX; Gauthier 1913, 1-83, 111-38, pis I-V1I, IX-X). Titenese, wife of the vizier Nesmin B, had a unique (?) assemblage, comprising a qrsw outer coffin, two intermediary sub-anthropoid coffins of wood, and an innermost case of cartonnage (Aston 2009, 204—5).

،Higher elite’ burials These assemblages typically consisted of three wooden coffins, each different in form and decoration (Figs 1-4). The outermost coffin was of rectangular shape, mounted on a flat base, with a post at each cor ner and a vaulted lid or top — a type now commonly known in Egyptological parlance as the qrsw. Painted wooden images of falcons were often placed on the four corner posts and a jackal and falcon on the central band of the lid (Greco 2010, 31; Giovetti and Picchi 2015, 468; Dawson and Strudwick 2016, 214-15). The middle or intermediary coffin was of sub-anthropoid form (above, p. 350, n. 2), while the innermost coffin was of fully anthropoid, ‘bivalve’ shape, depicting the mummified deceased with a plinth beneath the feet and supported by a dorsal pillar, like a statue.3 The qrsw outer coffin is a cosmogram, the universe ،in a box’ (Taylor 2003, 112; Greco 2009, 26; 2010, 45). Its vaulted top is symbolically equated with the sky, and its case with the earthly and netherworld realms; its shape moreover echoes that of a shrine, or — more specifically — the tomb of Osiris (Greco 2009, 21, 24-5; 2010). The deceased in his/her fully mummiform inner coffin was identified with Osiris in the embalm ing hall, surrounded by divine protectors during the night vigil (Stundenwachen) which preceded the day of burial and awaiting resurrection. These coffin assemblages are elaborate symbolic constructs. Their function was to create multiple cosmoi, arranged in layers representing distinct yet inter connected sacred spaces, and all having the deceased as their focal point. The different forms of the coffins were deliberately chosen to reflect their symbolic roles, and texts were used extensively, particularly on the inner coffin, where inscriptions were written some times in very small script and on the internal as well as the external surfaces. The mummy was thus encased in

352

J. H. TAYLOR

Fig. 1: Higher elite assemblage, outer qrsw coffin of Nesamun (ii), Cairo CG 41002 (after Moret 1913, pi. IX).

Fig. 2: Higher elite assemblage, intermediary coffin of Nesamun (ii), Cairo CG 41045 (after Gauthier 1913, pi. VI).

DYNASTY 25

353

354

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

I. H. TAYLOR

magical writings, recalling somewhat the Middle Kingdom Coffin Texts or the New Kingdom practice of inscribing a shroud or unrolling a Book of the Dead papyrus over the body. It is probably no coincidence that this development of the elite burial assemblage reached its full realisation in Dynasty 25 and coincided with a major revival of older funerary literature and the reorganisation of the Book of the Dead. The higher elite coffins have rich selections of funerary texts, not only from the repertoire of Book of the Dead spells but also from the Pyramid Texts (the coffin ensemble of Nesamun [ii] of the Besenmut family is a good exampie; Moret 1913, 38-61, pis VII IX; Gauthier 1913, 31-83, pis IV-VII: see Figs 1-3). There is also evidence that the spatial arrangement of these texts followed a careful plan, with spells which related to (for example) the head or the feet inscribed on the appropriate parts of the coffin (Taylor 2010, 75). One ‘programme’ in particular played a prominent role in the design of these coffins. As Cynthia Sheikholeslami (2010a, 380; 2O14a, 114-22) has pointed out, the form and iconography of these coffin assemblages share many elements with the composition now known as the Awakening of Osiris and the Transit of the Solar Barques. In this highly condensed 'Book of the Netherworld’, Horus awakens Osiris to new life in his shrine-tomb, enabling him to travel in the evening and morning barques of the sun god and thereby to experience endless repetition of the life-cycle (Roberson 2013). This composition, which reflects the concept of ‘solar-Osirian unity’ so prevalent in mortuary practices in the first millennium BC, is first presented in visual form as a large tableau in the Osireion of Sety I at Abydos and also appears in Dynasty 20 in the tombs of Ramesses VI and IX. In Dynasty 22 it is depicted on a wall of the tomb of Sheshonq III at Tanis (NRT V), and pictorial allusions to it show that it was already an influential iconographie source in the design of nonroyal coffins at Thebes in the same periodT The

355

Awakening and Transit gained renewed prominence in Dynasties 25-26, appearing in Theban tombs 33, 132 and 410 (Greco 2014, 194) and in those of Qalhata and Tanutamani at el-Kurru (Sheikholeslami 2010a, 380; 2014a, 114). The tomb, as the place of cyclical regen eration par excellence, would have been the primary location for such iconography, but since decorated tombs were still rare at Thebes at this period, elements of the coffin assemblage assumed that role. The shape of the qrsw coffin, with its corner posts surmounted by falcons, replicates that of the shrine in which Osiris is awakened (Greco 2009, 21; Roberson 2013, pis 1—5), and the deities represented on the sides of the coffin, usually in pr-nw shrines, are members of a company which surrounds Osiris with protection in this sacred setting (Eigner 2017, 78—85). The lid or top of the cof fin carries references to the sky and the solar cycle. The earlier type of lid design on qrsw coffins has a pair of falcons painted at each end, who are named as they ،who are over the comer[s]’ (i.e. of the sky) (Fig. 5); these, no doubt, are two-dimensional equivalents of the wooden falcon figures mentioned above. The spaces between them contain a variety of predominantly cos mological or celestial scenes which often include the separation of Geb and Nut and the deceased piloting the sun god’s barque (Taylor 2003, 117, pi. 73). The later lid design shows the morning and evening barques of the sun god, towed by a company of deities (see Fig. 4), and the celestial allusions are continued on the interior of several of the lids, with a full-length figure of Nut and the goddesses of the hours (Greco 2009, 22-4; 2010, 33—41; Sheikholeslami 2010a; 2014a, 117). The mummies in these assemblages were usually equipped only with a bead net, and not with a mask or any depictions of the hands or other trappings of divin ity, and hence the inner coffin served effectively as the physical manifestation of the transfigured deceased.*5 It represented him/her as Osiris in the embalming hall, attended by Isis and Nephthys (commonly depicted at

Fig. 4: Higher elite assemblage of Djedthutiufankh, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1895.153,155-6 (© The Ashmolean Museum). 4

The figure of the awakening Osiris appears on some Dynasty 22 coffins (such as London, British Museum EA 6659; Taylor 2003, pi. 53), while others have images of the royal attributes (crowns, kilt, sceptres, bows and arrows etc.) which lie beneath Osiris’ bed; these items are depicted in subordinate locations, sometimes inside the wooden coffin (Boston MFA 72.4838b-c, unpublished) or on the back or under the feet of the cartonnage case (Leiden L.XII.3/M.36: Taylor 2003, pi. 51; Toronto 910.10: Wilson and Baum 1978, 11), reinforcing the conceptual equivalence between two-dimensional scene and three-dimen sional projection. Members of the company of protector deities

who watch over the regenerating Osiris are depicted on other cotfins of this period, such as London, British Museum EA 6666 and EA 30721. 5 This role of the inner coffin was probably 'inherited' from the cartonnage cases which were the immediate precursors of the bivalve coffins; it has been observed that some early bivalve coffins were covered with a layer of textile and plaster which effectively concealed the join between lid and case, giving an appearance closely resembling that of a one-piece cartonnage case: Dawson and Strudwick 2016, 216.

356

the foot and head, respectively), and flanked by two forms of Anubis, the Sons of Horus and other protector divinities, whose figures and speeches occupy the two sides of the body on the lid of the coffin, below a winged figure of Nut on the breast (see Fig. 3). Within this protected environment the deceased was purged of corruption and refashioned into a perfect divine image (‫ )?اك‬on the leonine embalming bed. The mummy, lying on this bier, is regularly depicted in the centre of the coffin lid, of'ten uniting with the ba or bathed in the life-restoring rays of the sun (the vignettes of BD 89 and BD 154, respectively) (Taylor 2003, 114, pis 634). But the coffin simultaneously represented the deceased standing resurrected, with a plinth or pedestal beneath his feet and a pillar supporting his back, exactly as in three-dimensional figures of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris (Rindi Nuzzolo 2017; see also below), and thus in the context of the burial assemblage the inner coffin takes the place of Osiris in the two-dimensional scene of awakening, where he is shown in the process of transformation from death to renewed life. The inner coffin in the higher elite assemblages is almost always decorated internally, frequently with lengthy texts (mainly from the Book of the Dead) and also with images such as pairs of goddesses whicli again denote complementary elements of the cosmos. The sub-anthropoid 'middle' coffin has a distinctive, rather austere decorative scheme in which the natural surface of the wood is predominant, with colour used only for the head, the collar, the inscriptions and the images (see Fig. 2). In some assemblages, the decorative content is simple, consisting of little more than an axial inscription on the lid, a horizontal text around the case and a divine figure on the floor. This figure usually represents the Goddess of the West and perhaps associates the intermediary coffin with the protective environment of the tomb, or the necropolis more generally. In a few instances, however, the intermediary coffin draws on older iconographic traditions such as the New Kingdom custom of deploying figures from BD 151 and 161, whicli reference the burial chamber

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

I. H. TAYLOR

Examples: Cairo CG 41045, 41059, 41066: Gauthier 1913, pis VI-VII, XXIV-XXV, XXXVII. Another intermediary coffin of Dynasty 25 has extracts from BD 42 on the lid (Taylor 2006, 287, n. 51). The weighing of the heart and the declaration of innocence are located on the lids of the intermediary anthropoid coffins of Padiamun, Liverpool, World Museum 1953.72 (Miatello 2016), and Shebenwen, New York, MMA 31.3.102 (unpublished), both

around the mummy .٥ Other spells from the Book of the Dead refer to the preservation and reanimation of the corpse (Sheikholeslami 2014a, 120-1). But in the most elaborate examples of the higher elite assemblage the middle coffin has text and imagery which emphasise vindication tltrough the judgement. The weighing of the heart and the declaration of innocence from BD 125 are painted at first on the lid and later around the exterior of' the case (Fig. 6) (for the latter, Sheikholeslami 2014a, 119-21)2 In these instances the coffin effectively represents the hall of judgement. Although not depicted in tlie traditional tableau of the Awakening and Transit, vindication was actually an important stage in Osiris' passage from the tomb to the sky, and it f'eatures prominently in the earlier mortuary liturgies which underlie this model of the resurrection process (Assmann 2005, 281-92). Thus the three layered components of the higher elite burial assemblage manifest a coherently interlinked series of situations through which the deceased wished to progress: mummification and reanimation in the embalming hall; protection in the tomb or vindication in the hall of judgement; and ascent from the tomb to the heavens, where he would participate in the solar cycle by travelling in the day and night barques of' Ra. Many of these higher elite assemblages belonged to the ‘priests of Montu’, a loose term embracing members of several prominent families who served the cult of that deity in Dynasties 25-26. Most were interred in the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri, where shafts and chambers were cut into the floors of the upper and middle terraces, close to the Hathor and Anubis chapels and other shrines (Sheikholeslami 2003). Burial here, in one of the most venerated sacred localities of' Thebes, would surely have been a mark of privilege. The shrines at least must have been accessible at this time and may have served as the stage for funerary ritual activity, and it is possible that their decoration influenced that of the coffin assemblages here discussed (Sheikholeslami 2010a, 381-3). The actual burial places, however, comprised only shafts and chambers without architectural

of which were placed inside outer coffins of qrsw type. Both burials can be assigned to the period of overlap between Dynas ties 22, 23 and 25. Other examples of coffins having these extracts from BD 125 on the lid date to the same period. The outer coffins are usually lost, but in one instance where this is preserved it is of sub-anthropoid shape: Hildesheim 1902a, from Akhmim (Germer et al. 1997, 69, fig. 70).

251

Fig. 5: Higher elite assemblage, outer qrsw coffin of Hor showing earlier lid design, London, British Museum EA 15655 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

Fig. 6: Images of the weighing of the heart and the forty-two assessors on the intermediary coffin of Dimutshepenankh, Cairo CG 41060 (after Gauthier 1913, pi. XXVIII).

358

features or decoration of any kind, and higher elite assemblages that have been found elsewhere in the Theban necropolis were located in tombs of compara ble simplicity (Budka 2010a, 111-22, 342). Hence the coffin assemblages themselves would have supplied the forms, images and texts necessary to effect the res urrection of their occupants. The qrsw coffin thus played a symbolic role analogous to that of a vaulted burial chamber, and indeed as decorated tombs for high-status persons became more frequent in Thebes at this period they sometimes received decoration similar to that of the coffins; an example is the tomb of Ramose at Asasif (TT 132), dated to the reign of Taharqa, in which the vaulted chamber reproduced the same deco ration as is found on qrsw coffins of the period (Greco 2014, 193-7; Sheikholeslami 2014a, 112). The higher elite coffin assemblage therefore fulfilled the same magical role as the architecture and decoration of a tomb; through its form, iconography and inscriptions it provided all that was needed for the perpetual regenera tion of its occupant.8 These burial assemblages usually included a range of additional items which supported and augmented the magical processes which the coffins activated. Canopic jars and chests (though not present in all burials of this type) contributed to the physical integrity of the deceased, whose corruptible mortal body had under gone the required transformation into an eternal s’h. A statue of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris also promoted the resurrec tion of the deceased by means of a close association with the syncretistic deity, particularly through the regenerative power of the primeval waters (Raven 1978/9, 276-81, 288-9; Rindi Nuzzolo 2017, 464-5). The wooden stela alluded to vindication and solar regeneration. The shabtis, deposited in two boxes, ensured that the deceased was free from want and from enforced labour. The deceased might also have protec tion, empowerment and sacred knowledge through the agencies of amulets placed on the mummy and through a Book of the Dead papyrus roll — although in Dynasty 25 the latter were only beginning to re-enter the reper toire of funerary equipment after a period of disuse. The owners of these assemblages were for the most part persons whose high status is clearly apparent

The iconographic/symbolic connections between qrsw coffins and tomb architecture are noted in Russmann 1995, though Eigner (2017, 78-85) modifies her interpretation: the first court

through their titles and their family connections. Among them were Nesptah A and Istemkheb L, the father and mother of Montemhat, the governor of Thebes under Taharqa and Psamtek I and one of the most influential officials in Egypt. Other members of Montemhat’s extensive family who had such coffin assemblages held senior administrative titles such as vizier and rwd 'i hsf n niwt (effectively governor of Thebes: Payraudeau 2003; 2014, I, 223-30). Further burials of this type belonged to members of other lead ing families at Thebes, such as those of Besenmut, Hor ‘A’, Padiamunnebnesttawy and the vizier Pamiu — their status being demonstrated by their numerous sen ior titles, recorded not only on their burial equipment but also on temple statues and administrative papyri. Most had marital links with other leading families such as that of Montemhat, and even with the (admittedly waning) royal line of Takelot III and Rudamun. These families maintained their dominant position from the late 8th into the second half of the 7th century BC. Burial assemblages of the higher elite type are attested for members of five consecutive generations in the Besenmut family, four in the family of Hor ‘A’ and three in the family of Montemhat — all extending over the period from about 700 to 600 BC, but after the lat ter date this style of burial is poorly documented at Thebes. This may have been the result of a stylistic change, a decline in the prosperity of Theban families, or a combination of these factors. Although this ‘higher elite’ style of burial seems to have been a characteristic of persons of senior rank, there are nevertheless a few examples of such assem blages which belonged to individuals without mani festly important titles. Thus Pestjenfy, owner of the exceptionally fine three-coffin set Berlin 50-52, was a God’s Father of Amun, w'¿»-priest and Craftsman of the Amun domain, titles also held by his father and grand father. Personal influence over the artisan community could explain Pestjenfy’s acquisition of an imposing coffin ensemble (Germer, Kischkewitz and Fiining 2009, 40), but since his great grandfather was a priest of Montu (Germer, Kischkewitz and Fiining 2009, 50), family connections may also have been a determining factor.

ot TT 34 and the court of TT 223, rather than being 'imitations’ of qrsw coffins, instead draw on a source common both to tombs and to coffins.

359

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

J. H. rAYLOR

Table 1. Selected list of 'higher elite’ coffin assemblages, arranged in approximately chronological order by generation. Abbreviations: GFA = ‘God’s Father of Amun’ (it-ntr Imny LH = 'Lady of the House’ (nbt pr); N = 'Noblewoman' (spsyt); PA = ‘Prophet of Amun’ (.hm-ntr ’Imny, PM = ‘Prophet of Montu’ (hm-ntr Mntw [nb wist[); ST = ‘Stolist [in] Thebes’ (smi Wist). For the family relationships of the owners, see Vittmann 1978. Titles !Selected 1

Owner

Coffins

Mummies and Associated Burial Items

Bibliography [Selected]

Ankhefenkhons (i)

Outer: Cairo CG 41001 [case], 41004 !lid]; Intermediary: Cairo CG 41043; Inner: Cairo CG 41042; Smaller qrsw coffin: Cairo CG 41001 bis

Stela: Cairo T. 25/12/24/11 (A.9422)

Aston 2009. 208 (TG 859); lansen-Winkeln 2009,415-16, no. 143.

Neskhons (i), wife of Ankhefenkhons (i)

LHN

Outer: Cairo CG 41025; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: Cairo T.28/9/16/7

Stela: Cairo T.28/12/24/15 (A.9449)

Aston 2009, 206 (TG 851); lansen-Winkeln 2009, 417, no. 144.

Tashepenkhons, wife of Nespasefy (ii)

LH N, ihyt « Imn-R’

Outer: Paris, Louvre E.3913; Intermediary: Avignon 23509: Inner: Cairo'?

BD Papyrus: Moscow, Pushkin Mus. I. lb. 121

Aston 2009, 210 (TG 870); Munro and Taylor 2009; Lansen-Winkeln 2009, 436, no. 163.

Nesmutaatneru

LHN

Outer, intermediary and inner: Boston MFA 95.1407b-d

Mummy, with bead net; 2 shabti boxes: Boston MFA 95.1407a, 95.1408-9

Aston 2009, 213-14 (TG 875); Lansen-Winkeln 2009,442, no. 173.

Hor

Outer: London, Brit. Mus. EA 15655; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: London, Brit. Mus. EA 27735

2 shabti boxes: London, Brit. Mus. EA 8525, Aberdeen 299; canopic jars: Madox MSS; Clere MSS, 04.01 (ANT-57-5)

Lansen-Winkeln 2009, 445-6, no. 178; 525, no. 317.

Pamiu, son of vizier Pakharu

Outer: Cairo CG 41036; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: Paris, Louvre E.3863 [lid]

Aston 2009, 207 (TG 855); Lansen-Winkeln 2009, 359, no. 21.

Nesptah A

PM, hity-' ìry-p't rwd ‫ﻻ‬ hsf n niwt

Outer, intermediary and inner LOST

Vassalli MSS (Tiradritti 1994, 65-9, 109-12); Aston 2009, 204 (TG 840); Lansen-Winkeln 2009,448-9, no. 185.

Istemkheb L, wife of Nesptah A

LHN

Outer: Cairo CG 41033; Intermediary: Cairo CG 41072; Inner: LOST

Vassalli MSS (Tiradritti 1994, 659, 115); Aston 2009, 204 (TG 841); Lansen-Winkeln 2009, 449-50, no. 186.

Titenese, wife of vizier Nesmin B

Outer: Cairo CG 41020; 2 intermediaries & cartonnage: Cairo

Stela Cairo T.28/1/25/6

Aston 2009, 2045 (TG 844); Lansen-Winkeln 2009, 450-1, no. 190.

Padiamenet

Outer: Cairo, Nat. Mus. of Egyptian Civilization; Intermediary: Luxor I. 845; Inner: Cairo, Nat. Mus. of Egyptian Civilization (ex Luxor J. 346)

Mummy, with bead net; canopic chest and jars: Luxor J.75; shabti boxes and Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure, location?

Aston 2009, 216 (TG 887); Lansen-Winkeln 2009, 360, no. 22; Sheikholeslami 2010a. 381-5; 2014a.

Heresenes

LHN

Outer, intermediary and inner: location?

Mummy, with bead net; shabti boxes, location?

Aston 2009, 216 (TG 888); Lansen-Winkeln 2009,4934, no. 258; Sheikholeslami 2010a, 381-5.

360

I. H. TAYIOR

Owner Nesamun (ii)

Neskhons (ii), wife of Nesamun (ii)

Naneferheres, wife of Nesamun (ii)

Titles [Selected] PM

IHN

Coffins

Mummies and Associated Burial Items

Bibliography [Selected]

Outer: Cairo CG 41002: Intermediary: Cairo CG 41045; Inner: Cairo CG 41044, foot-board T.25/12/24/13

Stela: Cairo T. 27/1/25/12 Aston 2009, 208 (TG 860); lansen-Winkeln (A.9900) 2009, 425-8.no. 152.

Outer: Cairo CG 41003, fragments Olmiitz 6222A-6223A; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: Cairo T.28/9/16/14

Stela: Cairo T.27/1/25/18 (A.9916); shabti box London, Brit. Mus. EA 46714

Outer: Cairo CG 41012; Intermediary LOST (?); Inner: Cairo T. 21/11/16/10

Stela: Cairo T. 27/1/25/17 Aston 2009, 2089 (TG 861); lansen-Winkeln (A.9930) 2009, 429-30, no. 154.

Mummies and Associated Burial Items

Bibliography [Selected]

Shabti boxes: Cairo Ex. 9101, 9103; canopic chest: LOST

Aston 2009, 205 (TG 848); lansen-Winkeln 2009, 488, no. 248.

Nesamenope, s. of vizier Nesmin B

PM, ST

Outer: Cairo cc; 41022; Intermediary: Cairo CG 41067; Inner: LOST

Shabti boxes Cairo T. 18/11/24/48, T. 4/12/24/9

Aston 2009, 205 (TG 849); lansen-Winkeln 2009, 4867, no. 246.

Nespekashuty

Outer: location? Intermediary: Luxor 1.347; Inner: location?

Mummy, with bead net; shabti boxes: Luxor Mus.

Aston 2009, 216 (TG 889); lansen-Winkeln 2009, 361, no. 24; Sheikholeslami 2010a, 381-7.

Tjesreperet

HI, Nurse of the daughter of Taharqa

Outer: Florence 2161; Intermediary: Florence 2160, 2382-2384 (fragments); Inner: Florence 2159

Stela: Paris, Louvre N.3936; canopic chest and jars, 2 shabti boxes containing shabtis, Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure: Paris, Louvre N.3940 (other objects in tomb perhaps belonged to the husband of T)

Del Francia 1994; Aston 2009, 232-3 (TG 924); Guidotti and Greco, in Guidotti and Tiradritti 2009, 14-30,514; lansen-Winkeln 2009, 207. no. 148; Greco 2010.

Ir [var. friu]

w'b n 'Imn

Outer and intermediary: LOST; Inner: Zagreb 782

Pestjenfy

GFA, hmw pr Imn

Outer: Berlin 50; Intermediary: Berlin 51; Inner: Berlin 52

Mummy, with bead net and amulets: Berlin 53: canopic chest: Berlin 54

Germer, Kischkewitz and Liining 2009, frontispiece, 40-50.

Khetiru

Outer: Cairo IE 94509; Intermediary and inner: Cairo IE 94510

Remains of bead net: Vienna KHM A. 1995; two shabti boxes containing shabtis: Cairo IE 94512, Vienna KHM 1994; Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure: Cairo IE 94511

Aston 2009. 163 (TG 668); Budka 20I0a, 117-19,123.6, 1304, 2634. 273-5, 2914, 365,592, 594, 598-609, 618-20, Taf. 15. 19-20, 44, 60a.

Wesy

wrs'w[?]pr-'I

Outer, intermediary and inner: Bologna KS 1957, 1962, 1964

Mummy?

Giovetti and Picchi 2015, 468-9, 5667 (VII.48).

Ankhefenkhonsu (ii)

Chrysikopoulos 2005, 11-12, 15; Aston 2009, 211 (TG 873); lansen-Winkeln 2009, 4368, no. 164.

Outer: Cairo CG 41004, 41001 [lid]; Intermediary: Cairo CG 41049; Inner: Cairo CG 41048

Padiamun (ii)

Outer: Cairo CG 41008: Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: Cairo CG 41057

Outer: Cairo CG 41024, Liverpool M.H029; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: London, Brit. Mus. EA 22940

Aston 2009, 210 (TG 871); lansen-Winkeln 2009,438-9, no. 165.

Stela: Cairo T.27/1/25/13 Gauthier 1913, 297-323, (A.9917); shabti box (this pis XXI-XXII; man?): Athens H65 Chrysikopoulos 2005, 9-11, 14.

Harsiese R

Outer: Cairo CG 41013; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: Cairo CG 41051

Gauthier 1913, 193 216, pis XIIIXIV.

Hor (xvi)

lansen-Winkeln 2009, 431-2, no. 158.

Outer: Cairo CG 41017; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: Cairo CG 41062

Gauthier 1913, 381404, pis XXX-XXXI.

Nakhtbasteru

ihn

Outer: Cairo CG 41005; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: Cairo CG 41050

Aston 2009, 209 (TG 862); lansen-Winkeln 2009, 428-9, no. 153.

Stela: Cairo T.27/1/25/15 (A.9919); canopic chest and three canopic jars: Cairo CG 4734, 4654-5 and Figeac E.174; shabti box (this man?): Athens -70

Chrysikopoulos 2005, 7-9, 13; Aston 2009. 209 (TG 863); lansenWinkeln 2009,419-21, no. 148.

Tabetjet (ii), probably wife of Besenmut (ii)

LH N

Outer: Cairo CG 41009; Intermediary: Cairo CG 41059; Inner: Cairo CG 41058

Stela: Cairo T.27/1/25/11 (A.9915)

Aston 2009, 204 (TG 843); lansen-Winkeln 2009, 422-3, no. 149.

Djedthutiuefankh

Outer, intermediary and inner: Oxl'ord Ashmolean 1895.153,155-6

Mummy, with bead net, stela, 2 shabti boxes: Oxford Ashmolean 1895.153-4

Aston 2009, 213 (TG 874); lansen-Winkeln 2009,442-3, no. 174.

Tabaktenkhons

IH N

Outer, intermediary and inner: New Yot'k MMA 96,4,1-3

Mummy with bead net; stela: New York MMA 96.4.4; 2 shabti boxes

Aston 2009,214 (TG 876); lansen-Winkeln 2009.441 2. no. 172.

Ta-aat (i)

IH N

Inner (fragment): Liverpool M.13992

Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure, ex-Sabatier Coll.

lansen-Winkeln 2009, 444-5, no. 176.

Gautseshen (iii)

LHN

Outer: Cairo CG 41018; Intermediary: Cairo CG 41063; Inner: Copenhitgen Ny Carlsberg Glypt. AE IN 1522

Stela: Seattle 32.1 = 48.223

Aston 2009, 207 (TG 857); lansen-Winkeln 2009, 5056, no. 281.

Outer: Cairo CG 41016; Intermedia^,: LOST (?); Inner (of this man?): fragment Olmiitz 6224 A

Shabti box (this man?): Athens S68

PM, ST

Coffins Outer: Cairo CG 41023 Others: Cairo

Outer: Cairo CG 41007: Intermediary LOST (?); Inner: Cairo CG 41047, foot-board T.25/12/24/10

Besenmut (iii)

Titles [Selected] Irs tprw n Tmn

PM, GFA

Owner Amenirdis, d. of vizier Nesmin B

Besenmut (ii)

Irthorru (i)

361

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

Wennefer/Iryiry (ii)

GFA

Outer: Cairo CG 41006; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: Cairo CG 41046

Khamhor B, son of vizier Nesmin B

Outer: Cairo CG 41021; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: Cairo (ex Boulaq 728)

Shabti box: Cairo T. 18/1 1/24/49

Aston 2009, 205 (TG 847); lansen-Winkeln 2009, 487-8, no. 247.

Babat (ii), d. of Besenmut LHN (ii) and Tabetjet (ii)

Outer and inner: St. Petersburg, Hermitage Inv. 777a, b; Intermediary: LOST (?)

Sharpe and Bonomi 1858; Uranic 2007, 97, 100 (cat. 118).

Gauthier 1913, 138-69, pi. XI.

Stela: Cairo T. 27/1/25/14 Aston 2009, 207-8 (TG (A.9905) 858); lansen-Winkeln 2009, 362-3, no. 26.

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

i. H. TAYLOR

362 Titles [Selected 1

Owner

Mummies and Associated Burial Items

Coffins

Ta-aat (ii)

LHN

Outer: Elverum, Glomdalsmuseet, no number [lid]; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: San Jose, Rosicrucian Mus. RC 2071

AnkhHor

Outer, intermediary and inner: Leiden RO III/M.20-22

،Lower elite’ burials These assemblages have no rectangular (qrsw) coffin. Instead, an innermost anthropoid coffin of the bivalve type was enclosed within one or two coffins of the sub-anthropoid form. The outer and inner coffins are always highly decorated, while the intermediary coffin, like many of those in higher elite assemblages, is sparingly adorned, with brief inscriptions on the lid and case and the Goddess of the West on the floor, all painted against a ground of natural wood. In many burials, this intermediary coffin is simply omitted, with no observable influence on the decoration of the outer and inner coffins. Thus it is evidently the outer and inner components that bear the weight of magical potency in these assemblages, suggesting that the twocoffin set represented the essential model, to which an intermediary coffin could be added as something of an ‘optional’ feature (Figs 7-11).‫؟‬ The symbolic meaning of these assemblages is manifested predominantly through image. Texts generally play a subordinate role, being fewer in number than on the higher elite coffins, while their content is mainly banal and repetitive, consisting predominantly of htp di nsw and dd mdw in formulae. Passages from the Book of the Dead are occasionally included, but these are usually drawn from a small repertoire of the more familiar spells: thus BD 30B and 56 are inscribed on the lid of the outer coffin of Padiese, with BD 56 repeated, together with BD 59, on the back of his inner coffin (Leiden AMM 19/ M.24 and M.26 respectively). Many of the coffins of this type have an address to Osiris, Bull of the West, which was perhaps intended

9 An apparently unique variant is the assemblage of Shepenwen, Zagreb 667, a set which comprised complete outer and inner

363

Bibliography [Selected] Pierce 1981, 27-37; Naguib 1989, 355-9.

Mummy, with bead net and amulets: Leiden RO III/M.23

Raven and Taconis 2005, 141-5 (cat. 16).

as a brief allusion to the opening of BD 1, but the rest of the spell is omitted (Monnet Saleh 1970, 176-7, 179). On coffins where Book of the Dead spells are included they are frequently incomplete and/or cor ruptly written. The inner coffins have the same shape as those of the higher elite assemblages — the fully three-dimen sional mummiform image with integral plinth and dor sal pillar — but they differ significantly in decoration. One of the typical designs of the lower elite lids is derived from the ،two falcons’ pattern which had been used extensively for cartonnage cases in Dynasty 22 (Taylor 2003; 2006): two solar falcons (the uppermost having a ram’s head) embrace the torso, with figured scenes in the spaces between their wings, and beneath them is a central Abydos fetish flanked by figures of gods and goddesses. Some of the Dynasty 25 inner cotfins took over this design from the cartonnages with little change, except the introduction of a more rigid division between the upper and lower zones (Taylor 2003, 114, pi. 61 : Design 1 : Fig. 12). Others have vari ations on the same design, such as the replacement of the second falcon by one or more horizontal registers (Boston MFA 95.1407b; Leiden AMM 19/M.26; Zagreb 667: respectively Taylor 1988, 174; Giovetti and Picchi 2015, 465; Uranic 2007, 93). However, the most typical arrangement of the lid on the lower elite inner coffins replaces the two falcons with a winged figure of Nut located above 2-4 registers, the lower section containing the central Abydos fetish and paired scenes as before (Taylor 2003, 115, pi. 65: Design 4: Fig. 13). The horizontal registers on the upper body usually feature the judgement, the mummy on a bier

coffins plus an intermediary lid which rested on a rebate inside the outer coffin: Monnet Saleh 1970, 177-8; Uranic 2007, 91.

Fig. 7: Lower elite assemblage, lid of the outer coffin of Amenhotepiyin, Edinburgh A1869.33A (© National Museums Scotland).

Fig. 8: Lower elite assemblage, interior of the outer coffin of Amenhotepiyin, Edinburgh A. 1869.33 (© National Museums Scotland).

364

I H TAYLOR

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

365

Fig- 9: Lower elite assemblage, exterior of the outer coffin of Amenhotepiyin, Edinburgh A. 1869.33 and 33A (© National Museums Scotland).

and the solar barque (reflecting key stages in resurrec tion), and often Sokar as a wrapped or shrouded falcon.10 11 On the back of the inner coffin there is usually a large djed pillar, often wearing the atef crown (see Fig. 12)." Quite frequently, human arms emerge from the top of the pillar, raised up to support the solar disc and often with a wedjat eye in the intervening space (see Fig. 11) — indicating that the painter had in mind as model a version of the BD 16 sunrise vignette, as attested on the papyrus of Ani (London, British Museum EA 10470/2), the Greenfield Papyrus (Lon don, British Museum EA 10554/2) and on a few coffins of Dynasty 25.12 On the backs of the lower elite inner coffins the pillar is sometimes flanked by inscriptions but more frequently by a standardised sequence of paired images arranged from the shoulders to the feet:

10 It is tempting to envisage an evolutionary process in which the traditional ،two falcons’ design was first transferred from onepiece cartonnage cases to bivalve inner coffins, after which the lower falcon was replaced by registers, and finally the figure of Nut was substituted for the ram-headed upper falcon, but the process of change was not necessarily a linear progression. Some of the different versions of the design may have been made at around the same time: Melbourne X79620 (Hope 1988, 60-1) and Leiden AMM 19/M.26 (Giovetti and Picchi 2015, 465) appear lo show the hand of the same painter (in the ram-headed falcon on the breast), yet on each coffin the arrangement of the other elements in the lid decoration is considerably different. 11 The anthropomorphic djed pillar, with human arms holding sceptres, and sometimes with a human head, although frequent on stola coffins and others in Dynasty 22, seems to be rarely depicted on examples of Dynasties 25 and 26.

the hieroglyphs for tpy dw.f, ،He who is upon his mountain’, a common epithet of Anubis; a crowned and bearded serpent adorned with ostrich feathers (Atum?), often with the epithet nb dwif, the emblem of Nefertem; and a standing serpent (Fig. 14, and see Fig. 12).13 The interior of the inner coffin is sometimes inscribed with texts accompanied by small images, but the most common decoration features a large figure of Nut (full face or profile) in the lid and a djed pillar in the case. Frequently, however, the interior is simply painted a uniform white. These inner coffins make reference to the solarOsirian relationship, but in a more concise manner than the coffins of the higher elite assemblages. The embalming and protection of the corpse are represented by the mummy-on-bier vignette; the vindication by the images of judgement and presentation to Ra and/or

It occurs, for example, on the interior of Grenoble 1995 (Taylor 2006, pi. 53b) and on the exterior of Vatican 38073.2.2 (Gasse 1996, 208). A version of this design was revived on the backs of some Theban inner coffins in mid-Dynasty 26: Gauthier 1913, pi. XXXV; Graefe 1990, Taf. 22c. ‘5 The precise meaning of this sequence of images is uncertain, and there are numerous variations of it. On some coffins, tpy dw.f appears on the shoulders and Ne'fertem emblems on the legs, with different intervening images: London, British Museum EA 6676, Boston MFA 95.1407b, Leiden AMM 19/M.26. The Nefertem emblem appears in the same position, but with diff'erent images above, on Belfast. LJlster Museum 1911.501. tpy ‫اي‬,/'appears alone, with short bands of text below, on Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek AE IN 1522 (Jørgensen 2001, 222, 224) and Trier G II c 536 (Minas-Nerpel and Sigmund 2003, 9, 24). 12

Fig. 10: Lower elite assemblage, lid of tire inner coffin of Amenhotepiyin, Edinburgh A. 1869.33C (© National Museums Scotland).

Fig. 11: Lower elite assemblage, back of the inner coffin of Amenhotepiyin, Edinburgh A. 1869.33B (© National Museums Scotland).

J. H. TAYLOR

""""

366

Fig. 12: Lower elite assemblage, inner coffin of Takhebkhenem showing adaptation of ،two falcons’ design, London, British Museum EA 6691 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

Fig. 13: Lower elite assemblage, lid of the inner coffin of Amenfaiher showing ‘classic’ lid design of Dynasty 25, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1886.6548 (© The Ashmolean Museum).

367

Fig. 14: Lower elite assemblage, back of the inner coffin of Panesittawy showing ،classic’ design of Dynasty 25, Leicester Museum and Art Gallery 50.1928 (© Leicester Arts & Museums Service).

368

'. H. TAYLOR

Osiris on the breast (sometimes only the deceased before Osiris and/or Ra is depicted, without the weigh ing scene); the ascent to the celestial regions may be alluded to by an image of the solar barque. The Nut figures on the lid and djed pillars on the base (both exterior and interior) signify the cosmos in which res urrection was to occur.14 The scene of the Awakening and Transit is not specifically referenced. Instead there is stronger emphasis on the daily cycle —- the ascent from netherworld to sky as manifested in the juxtapos ing of solar falcon or Nut above the Abydos fetish on the lid, and the depiction of the sun raised above the djed pillar on the back. The base of the foot and the top of the head often pair the Apis bull, carrying the mummy to the tomb, with the horizon (akhet) sign or scarab beetle, another encapsulation of the cycle of death and rebirth, orientated between notional east and west cardinal points (Liptay 2012, 175). The outer coffin, like the inner, has brilliant poly chrome decoration. The lid design consists of a series of horizontal bands in which a winged solar disc and figured scenes are contrasted with panels filled with vertical columns of text — generally repetitions of banal offering formulae.15 *The design repeats some of the elements of the inner coffin lids, notably the judge ment and vindication, and the mummy lying on a bier. On the outer lids, however, there is no axial division featuring the Abydos fetish or djed pillar; these motifs, so common on the inner coffins, are in fact conspicu ously absent from the outer coffins. Also missing is Nut: she is replaced on the breast by a winged solar disc, named as ‘the Behdetite’ (a motif which also appears above the Awakening and Transit tableau: Roberson 2013, 13), and she does not appear on the interior. A horizon sign is painted at the head-end of the lid, and is balanced most often by a Sokar falcon

on the inclined surface of the foot. These may be intentionally complementary images, contrasting the horizon with the shetyt, the earthly place of resurrection, as the corresponding images on the inner coffins contrast the horizon with the tomb, to which Apis carries the mummy. The exterior walls of the outer coffin are often decorated with a single line of inscription (‫ اﺑﺐ‬mdw in or hip di nsw) which incorporates the identification of the deceased, but on some examples a row of guardian genii are painted, conveying the notion of the protection of a sacred space within (as on Stockholm NME 004: Dodson 2015, 32). The character of this sacred environment is more explicitly revealed by the decoration of the interior. This focuses on the falcon-headed mummiform figure of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, surrounded by a serpent (for the type: Sheikholeslami 2O14b). On a few early exanrples, the god is flanked by texts, but later by Isis and Nephthys, painted on the internal walls.‘٥ He frequently stands on a support containing the hieroglyphs for hntjy] hwt nbw, ‘the Foremost of the House of Gold’ (Sheikholeslami 2O14b, 456-7, figs 23-1) (Fig. 15). This falcon-headed figure is already attested on the interior of some coffins of the later Third Intermediate Period (Paris, Louvre E.10374 and Leiden AMM 20/M.53), where he is named as Ptah-Sokar. On most of the Dynasty 25-26 examples the inscriptions identify him as Sokar, Sokar-Osiris, Osiris-Sokar or Ptah-Sokar-Osiris.17 Sokar, indeed (either named as such or as one of the composite forms just referred to), is notably prominent on the lower elite assemblages. Besides the large image in the outer coffin cases, he is frequently represented as a shenbet falcon mummy on the lid of the inner coffin and on the foot of the outer coffin (Budka 2010a, 287). Moreover, the djed pillar on the rear of the lower

14 The differing iconography of the Nut figures may reflect particu lar shades of meaning: the Nut of the exterior has a strongly protective function, emphasised by her outspread wings (recall ing the ‘Nut formula’ derived ultimately from the Pyramid Texts, ‘Spread your wings over me ...’). The interior figure usually lacks wings and probably had a more nurturing role, especially apparent in the often full-breasted frontal images. The djed pillar on the interior of the case is sometimes almost identical with that on the exterior, and perhaps their meaning was closely similar. Graphic repetition is a regular feature of the lower elite assem blages. 15 A less common lid design features a central line of inscription flanked by symmetrical compartments containing images of dei ties. An example is the outer coffin of Iru, from Asasif ‘Grab VIE (Budka 2010a, Taf. 18a, 60b).

'٠ In a rare variant, the Goddess of the West replaces the falconheaded deity: Copenhagen, National Museum AAa 1 (Schmidt 1919, 183, fig. 1014). Sometimes the falcon-figure is accompanied by additional scenes, such as a tree goddess: Ttibingen 150a (Brunner-Traut and Brunner 1981, Taf. 115-7). 17 On a few Dynasty 25 coffins the deity is differently named: as Ra-Horakhty on London, British Museum EA 47975 (Taylor 1989, 57, fig. 44); as Duamutef on the outer coffin of Padiherishef, Springfield Art Museum (Haynes and Wilson 1984, 15), and as Qebehsenuef on Zagreb 668 (LJranic 2007, 96). Since all of these deities were depicted elsewhere with the head of a falcon it is pi-obable that this feature of the figure was influential in the identification, though whether as an intentional variation or as a result of misunderstanding by the painter is unclear.

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

369

elite inner coffins may also reference Sokar. Adorned with the swiy-crown (twin feathers, solar disc and ram’s horns), the pillar is particularly associated with the deity in his composite nature as Ptah-Sokar-Osiris (Raven 1978-9, 284), while the Nefertem emblems that flank the pillar in nearly every example were intimately linked with the festival processions of Sokar (Gaballa and Kitchen 1969, 56-7, 59-60).18 The funerary role of Sokar grew to prominence dur ing the New Kingdom and was also important in the Third Intermediate Period — particularly in Dynasties 22 and 23, when the deity is depicted frequently on coffins and cartonnage cases both as a falcon and in the form of his distinctive barque, the henu. At the same time Sokar’s barque also appears on temple statuary of private individuals and in the chapel of Osiris Heqadjet at Karnak (van Walsem 1997, 306-7; Graindorge 2001, 306). Thus his prominence in Dynasty 25 simply continues an ongoing trend. He is referenced many times in the inscriptions on the lower elite coffins, usu ally in association with the shetyt (i.e. either as nb styt or hry-ib styt: for example Minas-Nerpel and Sigmund 2003, 18, Abb. 17). The name shetyt (GraindorgeHereil 1994, I, 36-8) denoted both the cabin of the henu barque and the subterranean cavern or shrine in which resurrection took place; in the Amduat, it is the place in the netherworld where the sun undergoes its crucial regeneration during the fourth and fifth hours of the night. Since the lower elite coffin assemblages make an emphatic connection between the deceased and Ptah-Sokar-Osiris in the shetyt, it may be that the outer coffin was regarded as a three-dimensional rep resentation of the god’s cavern-shrine, simultaneously equated with the burial chamber of the tomb, for which the phrase hwt nbw, already referred to above, was a circumlocution. This prominence of Sokar marks a contrast with the higher elite coffins, on which he is much less frequently named or depicted. Of the twenty-one heavily inscribed inner coffins of the ‘priests of Montu’ published by Gauthier (1913), the inscriptions of nine are entirely Fig. 15: Lower elite assemblage, interior of the outer coffin of Takhebkhenem: Osiris-Sokar, lord of the shetyt, standing on hnt hwt nbw, London, British Museum EA 6690 (© Trustees of the British Museum). 18 The emblem is carried in the procession and is depicted in asso ciation with the henu barque, for example, on the Dynasty 22 coffins and cartonnages London, British Museum EA 6659, Manchester 5053, Trieste Pasenenhor and Vienna AS 225. It also appears with the shrouded Sokar falcon on Dynasty 22 cartonnages, such as Leningrad 8723, Brighton AF 155 and London, British Museum EA 7007.

370

Table 2. Selected list of ‘lower elite’ coffin assemblages, comprising complete sets of two or three coffins and excluding isolated ‘outer-’ and ‘inner-’ type coffins where the original composition of the assemblage is unknown. Abbreviations: LH = ‘Lady of the house’ (nht pr); N = ‘Noble woman’ (spsyt). Owner

Titles & Family

Coffins

371

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

i. H. TAYLOR

Mummies and Burial Goods

Titles & Family

Owner

Mummies and Burial Goods

Coffins

Kareset

LH; d. of Padiptah (no title)

Outer and inner: Zagreb 668

Bibliography [Selected]

Bibliography [Selected] Monnet Saleh 1970, 180-1 (cat. 898); Uranic 2007, 946 (cat. 116).

Padiese

kiwty pr-imn; s. of Pakharenkhonsu

Outer: Leiden Inv. AMM 19/M.24; Intermediary: Leiden AMM 19/M.25; Inner: Leiden AMM I9/M.26

Mummy: Leiden AMM 10/M.27

Raven and Taconis 2005, 116-19 (cat. 9); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 5367, no. 342; Giovetti andPicchi 2015,460-6, 565-6 (VII.4346).

Hot

w'¿-priest of Amun and craftsman of pr-lmn [n.b. Raven and Taconis 2005, 120, interpret the latter title as ‘butler’ (wbs), not ‘craftsman’ (hmt)]

Outer and inner: Leiden AMM 3/ M.4O41

Mummy, with bead net: Leiden AMM 3/M.42

Taylor 2003, pi. 74; Raven and Taconis 2005, 1203 (cat. 10).

Inamunnayefnebu

Chief barber of pr-lmn

Outer: Leiden AMM l/M.28; Lntermediary: Leiden AMM1/M.29; Inner: Leiden AMM1/M.30

Mummy, with bead net: Leiden AMM 1/M.31

Raven and Taconis 2005, 13840 (cat. 15); Raven 2009,471-5,488-9.

Asettayefnakht

M''¿-priest of Amun; craftsman of pr-imn.

Outer and inner: Truro, Royal Comwall Mus. 1837.23,2-3

Mummy: Truro, Royal Comwall Mus. 1837.23.1

Dodson 2011.

Takhennu

Outer and inner: Copenhagen, National Mus. AAal

Schmidt 1919, 183, figs 1013-15.

Outer: London, Brit. Mus. EA 6690 Intermediary: EA 669OA Inner: EA 6691

Mummy: London, Brit. Mus. EA 6692

Amenhotepiyin

[no title]; s. of Amenkha

Outer and inner: Edinburgh A.1869.33.AC

Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 556 (394); Manley and Dodson 2010, 82-7.

Pakepu Mummy: London, Brit. Mus. EA 22812

Water pourer on the west of Thebes; s. of Amenhotep

Outer and inner: Cambridge E.2.1869

Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 556 (394); Dawson and Strudwick 2016, 216-21 (no. 43).

Iityiu

Outer and inner: Oxford, Mummy: Oxford, Pitt Pitt RiversMus. 1887.1.481 Rivers Mus. 1887.1.481

Jansen-Winkeln 2009. 556 (394).

Padiheiishef

nbltr(?)

Outer and inner: Springfield Art Museum & Boston, Massachusetts General Hospital

Namenekhmut (?)

hs hnw n Imn

Outer and inner: Turin 22234

Takhebkhenem (Takhenemet)

LH; d. of iry-7 n pr-imn Padiklonsu

Taylor 2003, pl. 61.

Nestawedjat

LH N; d. of Djedmutiuefankh

Outer: London. Brit. Mus. EA 22813 Intermediary: EA 22813 Inner: EA 22812

Usermose

fry-‫ ﻻ‬n pr-/■’; s. of ["if Padiamun ["،،

Outer: Liege 628 (E. 83A); Intermediary: Brussels MRAH E.5889a; Inner: Brussels MRAH E.58S9b

Padianrun

iry-’i pr-،’";„; s. of iry-’i pr-imn Penhay

Outer, intermediary and Mummy: Liverpool inner: Liverpool M. 14003 M. 14003

Asetirdis

Outer, intermediary and inner: Stockholm NME 002-004

Dodson 2015, 28-33.

Hetepamun

Nesamunendjeme (i)

'Ijwty ssny n pr-lmn

Outer: Turin S.5227

Leospo 1989, 68 (12); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 557, no. 397.

Taditjaina

Harwa (ii)

’hwty ssny (?) p،'-("،«

Outer (?): Turin S.5229

D'Amicone 2009, 71 (figs 4748), 81(fig. 55), 99-101; Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 558, no. 397.

Iiu

Mentuirdis

’hwty ssny (?) pr-imn

Outer: Turin S.5221; Intermediary: Turin S.522O; Inner: Turin S.5219

D'Amicone 2009, 536 (figs 30-3), 81 (fig. 54), 11419.

Nakhlkhonsuru

nb Irt-ntr (?) pr-imn

Outer (?): Turin S.5249A-B

D’Amicone 2009, 68-9 (figs 434), 1301.

Padiamenope

Chief of the granary (?) of Khonsu; son of clrief of the granary (?)of Khonsu Pakharkhonsu

Outer: Turin 2235 Intermediary: Turin 2234; Inner: Turin 2233

Leospo 1989, 626 (11).

Shepenwen

IH; d. of Paeniuy and Inamunnayesnebu

Zagreb 667

Monnet Saleh 1970, 1749 (cat. 897); Uranic 2007, 914 (cat. 115); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 551, no. 384.

Inamunnayesnebu

LH; d. of iry-‫ ﻻ‬pr-imn Pakharkhonsu

Toulouse, Mus. CJeorges Labit 49.287.1-2

Antoine, Vandenbeusch and Taylor 2016, 4653.

Delvaux and Therasse 2015, 1249.

Mummy: Toulouse, Mus. Dautant and Aufere Georges Labit 49.287.1-2 2011.

Mummy: Boston, Massachusetts General Hospital

Haynes and Wilson 1984.

Mummy: Tubingen 150c.

Brunner-Traut and Brunner 1981, 228-33, Taf. 11417.

Bead net from mummy: Vienna KHM A.3551

Aston 2009, 163 (TG 669); Budka 2010a, 118-23, 124-6, 128-30, 1324, 257,285-8, 364-5,5923,610-13, Taf. 18, 60b-c.

Outer and inner: Vienna Kunsthistorisches Mus. 220,219 LH, N; d. of w'b imn Hor Outer and inner: Tilbingen 150a-b Outer: location?; Inner: Vienna KHM A.1999

without references to Sokar, Ptah-Sokar, Ptah-SokarOsiris or Sokar-Osiris (Cairo CG 41042, 41044, 41048, 41053, 41055, 41056, 41058, 41068, 41070), while six have only a single mention of the deity (Cairo CG 41046, 41047, 41051, 41052, 41057, 41064: Gauthier 1913, 94, 136, 211, 218, 311, 426 — and only two of these mention the shetyf. Gauthier 1913, 136, 211). Whereas the higher elite coffin assemblage draws heavily on the Awakening and Transit and emphasises the sequential process — from death to new lile via embalming, vindication and entry into the solar journey

— the lower elite model differs. The ultimate goal of the deceased is the same, and the three key principles just mentioned are still referenced, but here the shetyt of Sokar seems to take the place of the Osiris-tomb as the focal environment in which regeneration occurs, while the solar cycle is alluded to less by the day and night barques than by the sunrise iconography ulti mately derived from the BD 16 vignette. The pictorial (like the textual) repertoire is more limited and is char acterised by the repetition of a few magically charged images.

372

I i

I. H. TAYLOR

Burial assemblages of the lower elite type have been found in several localities in the Theban necropolis, notably in QV 43 and 44, a pair of Dynasty 20 princes’ tombs which were reused as communal burial places for persons related by family and occupation (JansenWinkeln 2009, 557-8; D’Amicone 2009; Sheikhole slami 2014b, 454, 469-73; Guzzon 2017). A second group comprised a number of coffins which were pre sented to the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) during his tour of Egypt in 1869 (Birch 1874; JansenWinkeln 2009, 555-6; Sheikholeslami 2014b, 454, 465—9). Although these were allegedly found in one tomb, there is some doubt about the integrity of the group. Nonetheless, several of the individuals were members of one family, suggesting, for them at least, a common burial context, and probably one similar to that of QV 43-44. There is no evidence for architec tural features or contemporaneous tomb decoration in proximity to any of the lower elite coffins which might have provided part of the magical ‘stage setting’ for the rebirth process. Where details of the mummification procedure performed on the body can be ascertained, this turns out to have been of a simple type (excerebra tion was omitted, the abdominal and thoracic cavities were simply filled with mud, sand and linen, and no amulets were placed beneath the wrappings: Raven 2009, 472; the mummy of Iru from Asasif ‘Grab VII’ was also poorly mummified: Budka 2010a, 121). Moreover, these burials rarely included other grave goods which might fulfil supplementary magical func tions, such as canopic containers or shabtis (Sheikhole slami 2014b, 456), although occasionally a stela was provided. The strong emphasis on Ptah-Sokar-Osiris in the lower elite coffin decoration may help to explain why these burials also lack the wooden statues of the composite deity, which were a regular accoutrement of the higher elite type. Perhaps the coffin iconography provided an alternative means of obtaining this power ful divine association.'9 So in most cases the coffin assemblage carries the full burden of responsibility for the resurrection of the deceased. As with the higher elite ensembles it is ‘resurrection in a box’, but a box

Note also that a bead-net pattern on a red ground (a characteris tic feature of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris statues) is painted on the upper

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

of different design and conveying diffeient nuances of meaning.

A spectrum of coffin types at Thebes in Dynasty 25

Most of the coffins of the lower elite group belonged to persons whose titles reflect a subordinate status in Theban society — temple doorkeepers, barbers, craftsmen, butchers, lt-ntr priests, cultivators of the lotus (Sheikholeslami 2014b, 474: there designated as ‘nonelite’), and men with the title Idwty/gwt, conventionally rendered ‘porter’ or 'carrier' (see below, p. 382). Others were minor necropolis officials. Pakepu, owner of the two-coffin set Cambridge E.2.1869 (Dawson and Strudwick 2016, 216-21), was a ‘water pourer on the west of Thebes’ (i.e. a ‘choachyte’), one of the men responsible for the burial places in the necropolis and for making offerings to the dead. Two other owners of lower elite coffins, Padiherishef and Nakhtkhonsuru, also bore titles which seem to indicate duties in the necropolis, although the actual roles they played are unclear (Haynes and Wilson 1984; D’Amicone 2009, 131).

The evidence presented above suggests that at Thebes in Dynasty 25 a generally consistent relation ship existed between the status of the deceased person and the iconographie and textual programmes of the burial goods with which they were provided. The cof fin assemblages of the higher elite type belonged pre dominantly to persons whose titles reflect senior posi tions in the administrative and religious hierarchies —- vizier, mayor, governor, hm-ntr priest — while many were also members of a network of interrelated families or clans which controlled some of the most influential offices. It is a reasonable assumption that through either or both of these circumstances they had access to high levels of materials and craft skills. In contrast, the owners of the lower elite coffins can be assigned to more subordinate positions in these hierar chies; their official titles (where recorded) relate to ،service roles’ in the temples, rather than to the — pre sumably more prestigious — sacerdotal functions, and they seem to belong to family networks which were not directly connected with those of the higher elite. Of course not all coffin assemblages of this period at Thebes can be assigned to one of these two groups. Variability in Egyptian burial goods is present at all levels and in all eras, but it seems that the two catego ries discussed in this paper represented relatively dis tinct models of burial provision, with which large num bers of people were provided. Many other Theban coffin assemblages are clearly variants of these models, and hence the higher and lower elite groups may be regarded as two key points on a spectrum. Most of the assemblages which differ from them nonetheless show affinities with one or the other (or both) and they can be tentatively located elsewhere on the same spectrum, above, below or between the higher and lower elite. A few examples are discussed below. Further research may help to determine the motivations which directed the purchaser’s choice of a particular adaptation of the higher or lower elite model. In her study of Ramesside coffins and their prices, Cooney has shown that indi viduals selected the characteristics of their funerary equipment on the basis of several factors, and that, par ticularly where resources were more limited, the chosen priorities could differ. Thus (somewhat surprisingly) high-quality materials were sometimes juxtaposed with poor draughtsmanship, and vice versa (Cooney 2007b, 7). In the period here under discussion there is no evi dence for the cost of the various components of burial

None of these persons can be linked with the leading families who had coffins of the higher elite type. Genealogical data is notably sparser on the lower elite coffins (perhaps a further indication that the owners could not boast distinguished ancestry), but family links between some of the coffin owners can be demonstrated or at least postulated, and the genealogical data also points to intermarriage among persons of the same rank. Thus Takhebkhenem, owner of the threecoffin set London, British Museum EA 6690-91, was the daughter of a doorkeeper of the pr 'In named Padikhonsu, who had married the daughter of a man named Hor who held the same title. Namenekhamun, a chief butcher of the pr 7mn, whose inner coffin is in Venice, belonged to the fourth generation in the male line to hold this title and was descended from other chief butchers on his mother's side of the family (Raven 2009, 470). Some of the lower elite coffin owners have no recorded titles (Sheikholeslami 2O14b, 474), a circumstance which has been interpreted as a possible indication of foreign origin (Vittmann 2007,

body of some coffins of this period, and particulaily those of the lower elite type.

assemblages, but the Dynasty 25 corpus manifests a similar diversity to the New Kingdom material: con trary to expectations, burial outfits consisting of fewer components (or even of only one coffin) can be associ ated with relatively high-quality painting or inscrip tions, while in contrast, a triple coffin assemblage with an outer qrsw case could have inferior decoration (see below, p. 374-5). The categorisation used in the following paragraphs is intentionally loose and fluid, since we do not yet understand the social implications of a coffin-owner’s choice of (for example) high-quality painting in prefer ence to a larger number of coffins. For earlier periods, such as the Middle and New Kingdoms, the availability of complementary categories of evidence (economic texts, settlement remains, cemetery archaeology, as well as a wider range of burial equipment) has enabled scholars to estimate the status of some coffin owners, postulating the existence of a ،middle class’ or other social groupings below the elite (Richards 2005; Grajetzki 2010). But for Dynasty 25 the evidence is much less varied, being for the most part restricted to the burial assemblages themselves. Hence to propose a ،socioeconomic population model’ based on coffin typology would be premature, and is not attempted here (Cooney 2007b, 6-7). Above the ،higher elite’ The assemblages here designated ‘higher elite’ do not represent the most elaborate burial arrangements of all at Thebes in Dynasties 25 and 26. These, it can be postulated, were provided for persons who occupied the most senior positions in the administrative and reli gious hierarchies. At the pinnacle of Theban society were the God’s Wives of Amun. Their burial arrange ments are not entirely clear; funerary chapels for Shepenwepet I, Amenirdis I, Shepenwepet II and Nitocris were constructed at Medinet Habu, and the subter ranean crypts of some of these monuments may have received burials, yet the only sarcophagi of God’s Wives so far known, those of Nitocris and Ankhnesneferibre, were discovered in tombs close to the Hathor temple at Deir el-Medina. Although Ankhnesneferibre’s sarcophagus had been usurped, recent research favours the view that these tombs, probably intentionally located in a spatial relationship with the Hathor temple and orientated towards the Amun com plex at Karnak, were the original resting places of these God’s Wives (Koch 2012, 31,54; Wagner 2016,

374

J. II. TAYLOR

11-14; Koch 2017, 243-4). Ankhnesneferibre’s sar cophagus is densely covered with texts and images which, though disposed in a unique arrangement, nonetheless express the traditional themes of embalm ing, regeneration, vindication and participation in the solar cycle (Wagner 2016, 484). Both sarcophagi must have contained anthropoid coffins but no traces of them have survived (unless the inner coffin of Ankhnesneferibre is to be recognised as one found reused [?] in 2014 in the tomb of Karabasken [Pischikova et al. 2017, 41-5]). Next to the God’s Wives themselves the most impor tant officials were their Chief Stewards, the mayors and governors such as Montemhat, and the uniquely signifi cant but still enigmatic Lector Priest Padiamenope, owner of TT 33. These individuals were buried in huge monumental ‘palace tombs’ in the Asasif, but it is unfortunate that heavy plundering has left little surviv ing of their original burial equipment (Budka 2010b, 510), depriving us of the chance to observe the relation ship between the coffins and the surrounding environ ment of the tombs. However, in some of these tombs there are architectural elements which replicate the symbolic role of the higher elite qrsw coffins. Edna Russmann argued that the first court of Montemhat’s tomb (TT 34), with its shrines for protective deities and pairs of bound papyrus stalks in relief, imitated the form and iconography of a qrsw coffin (Russmann 1995, 122-5); Dieter Eigner has emphasised (2017) the close association between the guardian deities in pr-nw shrines who line the sides of many qrsw coffins and the shrines in the courtyards of tombs such as that of Karakhamun (TT 223). The central ،massif’ within the tomb of Padiamenope (TT 33) probably also represents a sar cophagus. Not surprisingly, both the tomb architecture and the qrsw coffin represented the burial place of Osi ris. But if the upper architectural spaces in the Asasif tombs fulfilled the same function as the higher elite outer coffins, we know less about how the mummies of the occupants were encased. Some at least seem to have been laid in stone versions of the intermediary and inner coffins of the higher elite assemblage; both the granite coffin of Pabasa from TT 279 (Glasgow, Kelvingrove Museum 1922.86: Buhl 1959, 34-6) and the diorite example of Nesptah, son of Montemhat (Awadalla and el-Sawy 1990) imitate the wooden intermediary type (compare Cairo CG 41045, which is also almost identi cal to that of Nesptah in its dimensions: Gauthier 1913, 74-83, pis VI-VII), while the basalt mummiform sar cophagus of the Chief Steward Ibi (Turin C.2202: Buhl

1959, 122-4; Ferraris and Greco 2015, 192-3) closely resembles an inner wooden coffin of the bivalve type, with the addition of hands and sceptres. The Asasif tombs manifest essentially the same religious concepts as the higher elite coffin assemblages, but these con cepts are realised partly through the medium of archi tectural space and partly through the substitution of stone for wood in some of the coffins. The elements of the religious symbolism are less tightly organised in the tombs, whose many chambers offered space for a more extensive use of mortuary texts and imagery than could be accommodated on a coffin assemblage. Between the ،higher’ and ،lower’ elite As Cooney has been at pains to demonstrate, the purchasers of burial assemblages — particularly those with more limited resources — faced a complex series of choices in order to obtain an acceptable balance between materials, quality of craftsmanship and effica cious magical content (Cooney 2007b, 256-8). Hence it comes as no surprise to find that in Dynasty 25 there were numerous adaptations of the two chief models described above, by which specific elements of the magical ،armoury’ were included or excluded, proba bly as a reflection of the availability of resources to the purchaser. Some examples of the higher elite burial, while retaining the full complement of outer qrsw, sub anthropoid intermediary and bivalve inner coffins, yet have simplified iconographic and/or inscriptional con tent. An example is that of Nesmutaatneru, a member of the Hor ،A’ family, whose qrsw has plain unpainted surfaces, with inscriptions only on the posts and frame. Her intermediary coffin, though finely crafted, lacks the images and texts relating to the judgement, and the inner coffin has a lid design more typical of the lower elite type (Taylor 1988). This lady, whose burial was discovered undisturbed, had no stela, canopic chest or Ptah-Sokar-Osiris statue, although she was provided with two small boxes of crudely modelled shabtis. Her son Djedthutiuefankh, who was buried with her, also had a three-part coffin set with a qrsw but with only repetitive standard texts (see Fig. 4). Djedthutiuefankh possessed shabtis and a stela, but no Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure and no canopic chest; CT scans of his mummy show packages within the wrappings, which probably contain his viscera — perhaps another expedient to reduce cost. Moreover, the inner coffin has no internal decoration and the inscriptions on the exterior were

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

‫ﻵ‬5

somewhat carelessly arranged, the painter awkwardly reducing the scale of the signs at the bottom of col umns, where he had allowed himself insufficient space. Although these persons were members of a collateral branch of the powerful Besenmut family, the resources they were able to spend on their burials may have been smaller than those of their relatives. Like that of Nesmutaatneru, one or two other higher elite assemblages include an inner coffin with a lid design more typical of the lower elite model, such as that of Gautseshen (iii) (Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek AE IN 1522: Jørgensen 2001, 204-41); this coffin, however, is notable for having a gilded face and a larger amount of inscriptional content than is usual for lower elite specimens. If it is correct to suppose that an outer coffin of qrsw form was perceived as a desirable mark ot high status (Raven 2009, 467-8), another adaptation which would undoubtedly have saved expense was to reduce the assemblage to only two components, a qrsw outer cof fin and a bivalve inner coffin. Burial outfits of this type were provided for the sisters Tapeny and Renpetnefert, daughters of the God’s father and Chief Craftsman of Amun Ankh-khonsu (Ferraris and Greco 2015, 188-9, figs 238-41). The qrsw coffins of these women are consequently smaller in size than those of other higher elite burials and also differ from them in structure, hav ing a division running through the middle ot the ،case’.20 In this way the most essential visual elements of the Awakening and Transit model were retained, while the omission of the intermediary coffin suggests that its symbolic value could be considered inferior to that of the outer and inner coffins — a notion perhaps reflected in the often sparse decoration of its surfaces.21 Although the father Ankh-khonsu held only a minor

priestly office, his role as Chief Craftsman might have been influential in his obtaining these pseudo-higher elite burial outfits for his daughters (a privilege perhaps also enjoyed by the craftsman Pestjenfy, p. 358, above). A two-coffin set of a different type is Berlin 3-4 (Germer, Kischkewitz and Liming 2009, 50-5). Here the outer coffin is sub-anthropoid and the inner bivalve, a pairing of forms which typifies the lower elite burial. The decoration, however, is more characteristic of the higher elite, particularly the designs of the inner coffin (lid: Taylor 2003, 114-15, pi. 63, Design 3). Most unu sually, the same lid design is also applied to the outer coffin, and the exterior of its base has a highly unusual arrangement of horizontal lines of text. This unique assemblage was found in the same tomb as the triple coffin set Berlin 50-52, a rare instance of a ،classic’ higher elite assemblage which belonged to a person of non-sacerdotal status, the craftsman Pestjenfy. Other amalgamations of elements of the higher and lower elite assemblages are attested. There are at least two instances in which an outer coffin of qrsw type was combined with an intermediary coffin decorated inter nally with the mummiform falcon-headed image, which is usually identified as Ptah-Sokar-Osiris. One of these assemblages was made for Nesamenope, a relative of Montemhat (Cairo CG 41022, 41067: Moret 1913, 219-26; Gauthier 1913, 465-9, pi. XXXVIII), while the other belonged to the w'6-priest of Amun Ir (Sharpe and Bonomi 1858). The falcon-headed figure on Ir’s coffin is named as Duamutef, perhaps another instance of the intentional or accidental variation which has been mentioned above (n. 17).22 Among the ،lotus cultivators’ who were buried in Q٧43-44 only one individual, Hor, son of Khamontu, had a ٥rsw outer coffin. It has been associated with a

2٥ Another qrsw coffin constructed in this way is Cairo CG 41014, to which belongs the inner coffin CG 41053 (Moret 1913, 15865, pi. XVIII; Gauthier 1913, 22040, pis XV-XVI). It is unclear whether this assemblage consisted ol these two coffins alone, or whether there was originally an intermediary coffin, now lost. The rather small qrsw coffins of Irbastwedjanelu (Paris, Louvre E.3872) and Meresanrenet (Cairo CG 41035: Moret 1913, 290-8, pi. XXXVI) might also have contained only one anthropoid coffin, which would be remarkable since both ladies were descendants of the Dynasty 23 royal family. 21 Possibly another example of a 'two-coffin' qrsw assemblage is represented by the inner coffin of the lady Payestjauemawyanu

in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Trier, and one end of her ،/raw-type outer coffin, Vienna AS 3930: Minas-Nerpel and Sig mund 2003, 16-30. The dimensions of the Vienna fragment indicate that the outer coffin was much smaller than most of the qrsw coffins of higher elite burials and hence may not have contained an intermediary coffin. 22 Another example of an ،intermediary’ anthropoid coffin with a figure of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris on the floor is that of Irthorru, Asti 94B (Leospo 1986, 28-9, 34-5, 38-9). The other components of the assemblage are lost.

I. H. TAYLOR

sub-anthropoid case which appears in all respects to conform to the lower elite outer coffin model: text band between coloured borders on exterior, rosette motif on the thickness, falcon-headed mummiform fig ure on the floor (Leospo 1989, 70-3; D’Amicone 2009, 94 [3.1]). The dimensions of the two coffins permit the smaller to be placed inside the larger, but this would be the only attested instance of the combining of these two distinct types of outer coffin in a single assemblage. Although the sub-anthropoid case is inscribed for a man named Hor, he has no title or filiation and there must be some doubt as to whether he is the same per son as Hor, son of Khamontu. It was noticed above that two common variants of the lower elite model were available — with or without an intermediary coffin. The three-coffin version must undoubtedly have cost more, and it is observable that the inner coffin in these sets sometimes has text pas sages and even vignettes from the Book of the Dead (as on the inner coffin of Nestawedjat, London, British Museum EA 22812: Antoine, Vandenbeusch and Tay lor 2016, 46—53), also probably indications of greater expenditure. Even a two-coffin set could be ‘enriched’ in this way. The two anthropoid coffins of Asettayefnakht (Truro, Royal Cornwall Museum 1837.23.23) exemplify this. They include more specific icono graphic and/or inscriptional content, such as longer passages from Book of the Dead texts and vignettes (Dodson 2011, 4-17). In another variant, a standard bivalve inner coffin was encased in a single outer coffin, sub-anthropoid in form but decorated as an intermediary coffin, with a single line of inscription on the lid and another around the case. Several similar pairs of coffins are among museum collections, but most lack a secure archaeo logical context, so it remains uncertain whether the assemblage is complete or whether a third (outer) cof fin was originally present.23

An example is the coffin assemblage of the lady Kek, daughter of the Chief Butcher of the Domain of Amun Namenekhamun. Leiden AMM 4/M.64-65 (Raven 2009, 465-8, 48 67, photos 2-8). Although the inner coffin is extensively covered with inscriptions on the inside of the lid and both surfaces of the case, their content is banal, with the exception of a corrupt version of BD 54 (Raven 2009, 467). 24 A cartonnage case (London, British Museum EA 75194) that is associated with Nesmut's coffin can be assigned to ;in earlier 23

Below the ،lower elite’ Towards the bottom end of the spectrum a variety of options seems to have been available, probably to ena ble the purchaser to economise when resources were even more restricted. One solution was to have only a single coffin. Although such simple burials have occa sionally been found in controlled excavations, it is impossible to determine how common they were; many individuals are today attested by only one coffin, but information about the circumstances of discovery is often missing, and so one cannot discount the possibil ity that additional coffins — now lost or simply unrec ognised in museums or private collections — might originally have been provided. However, several of the individuals buried in QV4344 and those of the ‘Prince of Wales’ group are repre sented by one coffin only and there is reason to think that some of these were true ‘single-coffin’ burials. The coffin of Bakrenes from the latter group (London, Brit ish Museum EA 15654) has the form, images and texts appropriate to an outer coffin of the lower elite type, but it is smaller in size and contained a mummy in a close-fitting internal matrix which could not have accommodated an inner coffin (Figs 16—18). The coffin of Nesmut, from the same group (London, British Museum EA 75193), has a related design and a similar restricted interior space, contoured to the form of the body.24 A single anthropoid coffin of the ‘intermediary’ type was used as the receptacle for a mummy exca vated in 1991 near to the causeway of Hatshepsut’s temple at Deir el-Bahri; the mummy, only 92.5cm long, was evidently that of a child (Nasr 1992, 142, pis XXVIIA-B, XXVIIIB). Further proof that adults were buried in single cof fins of both these types comes from ‘Tomb 5’, discov ered by Carter and Carnarvon at Deir el-Bahri in 1909— 10 (Carnarvon and Carter 1912, 23-6, pis XIII-XVII;

date on stylistic grounds, and was evidently intrusive. Close par allels to British Museum EA 75193 include Turin S. 5244 from the QV43^١4 burials and Toronto 910.11, without provenance, but it cannot be proved that these burials consisted of a single coffin. Other persons from the Prince of Wales group who are known from only one coffin include Panesittawy (Leicester 50.1928) and Namenekhamun (Birmingham 23’66) but these are ،inner’ coffins, typologically, and it remains possible that associ ated outer coffins were once present but have been lost.

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

Aston 2009, 217-18; lansen-Winkeln 2009, 550-1, nos 378-9, 383). The main chamber of this small couityard tomb contained two groups of burials: five adults and a child in simple uninscribed coffins of Dynasty 22 type had been crowded into the rear of the tomb, apparently to make room for the later interment of two individuals whose inscribed coffins (numbered ‘IB’ and ‘2B’) lay side by side in a ‘slight excavation’. These two were covered with ‘a pink shawl and chain garlands of leaves’, perhaps suggesting that they had been interred at the same time. A third burial in two inscribed coffins (‘lA’) was enclosed within a small sealed chamber on the east side of the courtyard. The inscriptions on the coffins lA, IB and 2B showed that they belonged to a husband, his wife and their son, and on palaeographical and stylistic evidence they can be assigned to Dynasty 25 (the name of Osiris is written with the pennant determinative, Gardiner sign R.8, on all three). None of these individuals had official titles and besides their coffins the only butial goods were floral garlands, a ‘bouquet of cornflowers’ and (on the mummy of the woman) a fillet of leaves and wax figures of the benu and the four Sons of Horus. The coffins show considerable variety, even within this closelylinked nuclear family. The husband, Padikhonsu, had just one anthropoid coffin, having the shape and simple decoration of the ‘intermediary’ type (Cairo JE 43635; unpublished). His wife frtyru also had only one coffin, of sub-anthropoid shape, but this was richer, decorated externally as outer coffins of the lower elite type, and internally with the full-face Nut figure that had been used in intermediary coffins in Dynasty 22 and by Dynasty 25 was usual on the interior of the lid of inner coffins in assemblages. This coffin was therefore (like London, British Museum EA 15654 and EA 75193) a hybrid, uniting in a single container iconographic elements taken from different components of the larger ensembles. The son Padiamun had an outer coffin of ‘intermediary’ type and within it a smaller coffin, made of thin wood and of unusual appearance (possibly indieating that it was a specimen dating to an earlier period which had been reused). The coffins described in the previous paragraphs exemplify several different adaptations of ideal models, in which elements were selected from larger assemblages and combined in innovative ways. Nonetheless, the individual elements are familiar from the richer assemblages, indicating that poorer customers subscribed to the same beliefs and ritual formalities as their more affluent contemporaries.

‫اﻷ‬

378

L H. TAYLOR

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

379

Fig. 17: Exterior of case of single coffin of Bakrenes, London, British Museum EA 15654 (© Trustees of the British Museum').

What is striking is that in burials where only a single anthropoid coffin was provided, it is usually of the ‘sub-anthropoid’ shape characteristic of an outer or intermediary coffin, and with decoration also usual for those types. Single-coffin burials in ‘inner’ coffins with dorsal pillar and pedestal are not only rare but the few attested examples have atypical decoration. The coffin of an untitled man named Harwa, found in Metropolitan Museum of Art excavations at the temple of Hatshepsut, Deir el-Bahri (Winlock 1924, 30, 32, fig. 37), combined the pedestal and proportions of an inner case with decoration appropriate to an intermediary coffin, having a single line of inscription on the lid (Fig. 19).25 It is worth noting here that a fully decorated pedestaltype ‘inner’ coffin was sometimes used to contain refuse from the embalming of high-ranking persons such as Ibi, the Chief Steward of the God’s Wife (Graefe 1990, 39, n.71), although it was more customary to use a plain or simply decorated coffin for this purpose (Dabrowska-Smektala 1968).2٥ One can only speculate on the possible reasons for the apparent rarity of conventional burials in fully decorated bivalve ‘inner’ coffins alone: was the cost of the sculpted form and the densely concentrated decoration prohibitive, or

was there some ideological barrier to employing such a coffin for the mummy without an enclosing layer? The very lowest end of the spectrum is difficult to identify, because of the difficulty of dating burials in undecorated coffins or those without coffins. An idea of the type of coffins that might have been produced for poorer customers may perhaps be gained from some of the examples which were used to contain leftover embalming materials, as already alluded to. A few of these coffins were found at Deir el-Bahri and are asso ciated with the burials of members of the Besenmut family of the middle of Dynasty 26 (Dabrowska-Smektala 1968). They are roughly constructed and painted white, with only rudimentary decoration and inscrip tions. However, crude though these coffins are, they formed part of the burial arrangements of persons of high status — some of whom are attested by fully dec orated functional coffins and even funerary papyri — and their inscriptions (which, though brief, are compe tently executed) might still have been written by highly trained craftsmen. Coffins with pseudo-hieroglyphic inscriptions, which are commonly found at other sites, are rare at Thebes in this period (one example: Budka 2010a, 290-1, Taf. 45a-c), perhaps reflecting the

Fig. 18: Single coffin of Bakrenes, London, British Museum EA 15654, with mummy (from Birch 1874, pi. facing p. 209).

Fig. 19: Single coffin and mummy of Harwa, Cairo Museum (MMA photograph M5C 138. Image: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York).

greater availability of skilled craftsmen there. It is pos sible that there were also ‘craft installations free from institutional control’, producing work of low quality for poorer customers, as suggested by Cooney (2007b, 169), but if so it is difficult to identify such products at Thebes.

painters and scribes who were following ‘patterns’ (albeit patterns which were susceptible to variation). In general, the higher and lower elite burial sets are also distinguishable by different standards of workmanship. Higher elite assemblages show clear signs of greater care in the laying out of the decorated surfaces, with texts and images positioned with regularity and sym metry, and closer attention to detail, with careful delin eation of images and hieroglyphic signs, and paint meticulously applied within outlines. The lower elite assemblages are often characterised by less careful workmanship: freehand painting, and positioning of graphic elements ،by eye’ rather than by preliminary drawing; poor formation of images and of signs; clumsy contractions of texts and reduction in the scale

Identifying craftsmen and ،workshops’ What appears to be another instance of a burial in a single bivalve coffin with pedestal is published in Nasr 1992, 142, pi. XXVIIIA. This coffin was uninscribed and apparently undec orated. Another pedestal-type coffin, found under debris near TT 408, was decorated with a Nut-figure and a single line of inscription

on the lid which identified its owner as a Prophet of Montu Djedasetiuefankh: Abdul-Qader Muhammed 1966, 183, pis CVCVI. Although it was reported to contain a linen-wrapped ،mummy’, one cannot exclude the possibility that this latter might have contained embalming leftovers rather than a corpse.

The consistently similar constellations of diagnostic features of the higher and lower elite assemblages point to the existence of established models or routines for their production. We may suppose that they were made through the collaboration of carpenters, plasterers,

380

I. H. rAYIOR

of hieroglyphs at the end of columns as a result of inef ficient space-planning. The general impression is one of rapid work and less rigorous supervision over the quality of the output. Closer observation reveals a further level of pattern ing, in that on different coffins within each group cer tain graphic and palaeographic idiosyncrasies of the artists recur (Sheikholeslami 2010b). Though this aspect of research is still at an early stage, these recur ring features may be considered the hallmarks (or ،fin gerprints’) of particular painters. Thus, the recurrent clustering of certain hieroglyphic signs drawn in a dis tinctive manner serves to identify the work of a particu lar craftsman on objects from the burial assemblages of two members of the Besenmut family, one of the Hor ‘A’ family and two of the Montemhat family (compare the signs Gardiner A.40, D.54, G.17, 1.10, N.35, Q.l and Y.5 on coffins Cairo CG 41020, 41021 and 41042, Paris, Louvre E.3913, London, British Museum EA 15655 and EA 27735 and on shabti boxes London, British Museum EA 8525 and Aberdeen, Marischal Museum 299). As these examples demonstrate, for the higher elite burials, the same scribe or painter could work not only on coffins but on smaller items of the burial assemblage such as shabti boxes. In the same way, particular craftsmen can be recog nised working on different coffins of the lower elite type. Among many instances that could be cited, one may note the inner coffins of Djedmontuiuefankh, Padiherishef, Namenekhamun and Hererem (respec tively London, British Museum EA 25256; Boston, Massachusetts General Hospital; Birmingham 23’66 and Leiden AMM 21/M.43: respectively, Taylor 2003, figs 65-6, 68; Haynes and Wilson 1984, 11-15; Davies 1985, 101; unpublished). In addition to general simi larities of design layouts, these coffins also share spe cific peculiarities in graphic technique and the forms of certain hieroglyphic signs. Consistency of decoration in coffins of this type belonging to consecutive genera tions of a particular family has likewise been observed, and consistency is also apparent in the similar mum mification treatments which were applied to the bodies (Raven 2009, 479). Although from the New Kingdom, written sources such as the Deir el-Medina archive throw light on the practices of painters and other craftsmen who made funerary equipment (Cooney 2007b), for the Third Intermediate Period this kind of evidence is unavailable and we are almost totally dependent on the visual inspection of the objects themselves for an

understanding of the processes of their production. Nonetheless, the New Kingdom evidence provides a plausible model. Cooney’s study has demonstrated that the skilled craftsmen who were employed to construct the New Kingdom royal tombs supplemented their ‘official’ state income by producing coffins and other objects for the private sector, and that such activity was not only done openly but that it could have accounted for the production of a large number of coffins (Cooney offers a conservative estimate of 80-120 coffins per year: 2007b, 129). The Deir el-Medina evidence reflects the work of only one community on the Theban west bank, and it is highly likely that the same pattern of activity was more widespread. Studies of Theban tomb painting in the New Kingdom have suggested that painters could have been drawn from various sources, and that different styles might reflect the work of craftsmen who were employed respectively in ‘temple’ and ‘palace’ workshops (Hartwig 2004, 30-5) and who might have been ‘lent’ to, or hired by, officials to paint their tombs (Sainz 2017, 111). If such long-term work establishments also existed in Dynasty 25 it is entirely conceivable that the craftsmen might have accepted pri vate commissions to produce burial equipment. Cooney’s model is of an “‘informal workshop” network’, with carpenters, painters and others respond ing to commissions on an ad hoc basis, each contrib uting his specialist skills to produce coffins, and each working sequentially, rather than together in a single centralised location (Cooney 2007b, 128, 133, 146-9). That being so, it may be that there were no permanent workshops or ‘ateliers’ dedicated exclusively to the production of burial equipment, but perhaps instead more loosely organised groups of craftsmen, trained in the ‘state’ sector, who came together on a short term basis to produce funerary assemblages. Several aspects of the Dynasty 25 Theban material favour this pattern. There is little or no evidence for ‘serial’ or ‘speculative’ production — no coffins or other objects which were obviously made in advance with blank spaces for names to be added (Cooney 2007b, 172-3). It is striking that even on the lower elite coffins the names and titles of the owners appear to have been incorporated ‘seamlessly’ into the inscriptions, with no evidence for a ‘last-minute’ addition of the name in a different hand. Moreover, the limitless variation in small details speaks against the mechanical duplica tion of the production-line, the painters following a pattern but not with slavish repetition. Another factor against advance production is that owners’ titles are

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

never altered or upgraded to reflect promotion, as might be expected if coffins were produced during their occupants' lifetimes or long before their deaths (Sheikholeslami 2O14a, 112; 2O14b, 454-5). It is also notable that, on the evidence of their palaeographical ‘fingerprints’, alluded to above, individual craftsmen did not always restrict their services solely to higher or lower elite customers, but painted and inscribed objects that were destined for persons who occupied widely differing places on the spectrum. Thus Leiden AMM 19/M.24, the outermost of a three-coffin set of lower elite type, made for a temple official of junior rank, was undoubtedly inscribed by the same hand that wrote the texts on the higher elite qrsw coffins London, British Museum EA 15655 and Cairo CG 41020 and 41021, and the inner coffins of the priests of Montu Ankhefenkhonsu (i) and Hor, Cairo CG 41042 and London, British Museum EA 27735, respectively (compare Giovetti and Picchi 2015, 460—3 with Moret 1913, pis XX-XXIV, Gauthier 1913, pis 1-11 and Taylor 2001, 239, fig. 176). A shabti box in Cleveland (a type of object mainly associated with higher elite burials) also has palaeographical affinities with the coffins of this priest of Montu, Hor (Berman 1999, 4489), but more surprisingly the same hand is seen in the short inscribed panels on the coffin of Nesmut (London, British Museum EA 75193), one of the group of lower elite specimens which were presented to the Prince of Wales in 1869. Moreover, the single coffin of Irtyru from Carter and Carnarvon’s Tomb 5 shows signs of a craftsman whose work is also attested on the multi-coffin sets of Padiese (Leiden AMM 19/M.24-26) and Nehemsumontu — the latter made for a man who held a responsible ternple-post and whose coffins had gilded faces (Perdu 2004; Taylor 2006, pis 52-3). On the evidence of his title and his burial assemblage it appears that Nehemsumontu, or his family, had more disposable capital than Irtyru. Her coffin perfectly exemplifies the kind of ‘technical and aesthetic choices’ which confronted a person whose wealth was limited and who was therefore compelled to ‘emphasize some aspects over others’ (Cooney 2007b, 181): if less was spent on materials and carpentry, more could perhaps be put towards having the services of one of the more skilled craftsmen to paint the decoration. Certain distinctive markers distinguish another craftsman who apparently worked for both higher and lower elite. His manner of writing inter alia the signs Gardiner E.34, G.14 and W.18 and of composing

381

certain repeated groups, for example the phrase hry-ib styt, appears on lower elite coffins such as Zagreb 667 and Copenhagen, National Museum AAa 1, and is also seen on the inner coffin of Djedthutiuefankh in Oxford, mentioned above as an example of a higher elite burial which nevertheless shows signs of economic constraint. These examples also betray this painter’s repeated fail ure to plan his work carefully, which led him to cram signs together at the lower ends of columns where he had not left enough space. The same painters and scribes therefore seem to be attested across most of the ،visible spectrum’ of The ban coffin production. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we might suppose that the Dynasty 25 coffins were made by craftsmen working in an environment that was organised on a flexible basis, similar to that attested in the New Kingdom, and fashioning products destined for customers of different ranks in accordance with pre-agreed prices. The evident versatility of the craftsmen raises the question of what part they played in determining the symbolic programme which would be manifested in a particular coffin assemblage. It has been suggested that the scribes and painters who pro duced the very varied Dynasty 21 funerary papyri were permitted to innovate in creating the texts and images (Lucarelli 2006, 3, 6; but see also Niwinski 2009, 223); the coffins of Dynasty 25, however, show a closer observance of prescribed models, with variation restricted to a smaller compass. The main choice seems to have been between assemblages which expressed a carefully articulated path to eternity through coffins having particular physical forms and specific texts and images, supplemented with other burial goods and, on the other hand, ensembles comprising coffins alone, whose decoration reflected the key stages in rebirth through a more simplified series of images, enhanced by repetition and giving special emphasis to PtahSokar-Osiris.

Coffins as evidence for social mobility? The rise and fall of individuals and families within the social hierarchy is difficult to trace and even harder to explain satisfactorily, but such mobility may be looked for particularly at periods of social and political change such as Dynasty 25, when opportunities for advancement can be expected to have arisen (Richards 2005, 15). Above, an apparent distinction has been observed between holders of sacerdotal office and

382

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

,. H. TAYLOR

those who fulfilled more mundane functions such as temple doorkeepers, butchers and barbers — a distinc tion seemingly reflected in their burial assemblages. It has also been noted that there are apparent exceptions, such as that of a craftsman who was provided with a rich coffin assemblage of the higher elite type. Several persons who held the title kfwty or gwt — a somewhat enigmatic office, conjectured to have similar responsibilities to those of îry- J, ‘doorkeeper’ (Sheikh oleslami 2014b, 458, n. 29) — are known from lower elite coffins of this period. Whatever its precise mean ing, the title seems to express fairly menial responsi bilities. Since no coffins or other funerary objects are attested for persons with this title in earlier periods, does this indicate a rise in the relative status, and pur chasing power, of the klwty/gwt in Dynasty 25, or did the particular individuals who owned those coffins have access to independent resources, outside the remuneration for their official work? Some of them were related to each other, a point which raises the question of how far family-held wealth (based on shared profits from land, for example) might have been used to maintain a specific level of funerary provision for its members.

Conclusion: social patterning and approaches to resurrection The evidence considered above indicates that, while adaptations of burial-models were widespread, ‘poorer’ burials were not simply cheap imitations of a single elite model. Rather, there were at least two models, each of which served as the basis of adaptations. It is assumed that each burial assemblage, whether elaborate or com paratively simple, represented a complete ‘mechanism’ which would function magically to convey eternal life to its occupant. In the Ramesside Period, although there was variation in the number of components of the burial assemblage and in the materials and craft skills used in their production, the underlying magical ‘model’ was essentially the same for richer and poorer clients. In Dynasty 21, some social differentiation on this basis begins to be noticeable, as noted by Cooney (2014, 48). By Dynasty 25 the distinction is more strongly marked in the higher and lower elite models, not only in number of components and in their form but also in the religious conceptions which they embodied: emphasis could be placed on different choices and arrangements of images to effect rebirth.

The Awakening of Osiris and Transit of the Solar Barques is a model which was mainly associated with the higher elite. The creation of a burial assemblage which was closely based on this source clearly demanded a high proportion of costly materials, con structional and graphic skills and access to highly spe cific religious iconography and texts. The occurrence of the same composition in two Kushite royal tombs of the period and in several high-status Theban tombs is a further indication that this was a prerogative of senior rank. The cost of the work alone might have placed it beyond the reach of the lower elite, irrespective of whether or not ‘decorum’ imposed social restrictions on access to this burial model. The lower elite burial reflects a different emphasis. The Awakening and Transit is not directly referenced, and in the absence of the qrsw coffin the cosmogramconcept is less obvious. Yet here, too, the outer coffin appears to embody the sacred environment in which the deceased was to be resurrected. Celestial allusions occur on the lid (winged solar disc on breast, horizon sign at head), while the case reflects an earthly/netherworld theme, though here prominence is given to Sokar and his shetyt shrine rather than to the Osiris-tomb/ embalming hall. The inner coffin represents the resur rected deceased, and here the embalming hall is refer enced in the mummy-vignette, but the iconography focuses less on the Stundenwachen, and more on the solar cycle and on Sokar, who is represented by his image on the front and is also alluded to in the decora tion on the back. In these ensembles, repetition of a few popular motifs seems to take the place of the icono graphie and textual complexity which characterises the higher elite burials. If the images and inscriptions on the coffins reflect in any way the liturgical texts and ritual acts which were recited and performed at the funeral then it is con ceivable that persons buried in higher and lower elite styles were also distinguished in the cult activities that were performed on their behalf. This raises the further question of the possible significance of the specific burial environment in which the coffins were placed. Did interment in or near the Hatshepsut temple offer a different path to eternity as contrasted with, say, burial in the Valley of the Queens or other parts of the Theban necropolis which were more remote from a functioning cult place? Sheikholeslami has drawn attention to the find spots of coffin assemblages of the lower elite type, with the implication that they occur only in a few places in the necropolis. Although this view may be

modified, it at least suggests continuity of treatment between manufacture of burial goods, interment and perhaps long-term maintenance of family/group burial places — in which latter roles the choachytes would have been influential. Further investigations on the distribution of coffin assemblages in the different areas of the necropolis might throw additional light on this issue.

Bibliography Abdul-Qader Muhammed, M. 1966. Two Theban tombs. ‫أة ﻹﻷﻳﺤﻌﻶ‬١‫|ا ة‬-‫اآة‬-Amvm. Anuales du service des antiquites de 1’Égypte 59, 157—84, pis I—evil. D’Amicone, E. (ed.). 2009. Sarcófagos del antiguo Egipto. Jardineros de Amon en el ١/alle de las Reinas. Wielona. Antoine, D., M. Vandenbeusch and j. H. Taylor. 2016. Egyptian mummies. Exploring ancient lives. Sydmey. Assmann, j. 2005. Death and salvation in ancient Egypt. Translated by D. Lorton. Ithaca. Aston, D. A. 2009. Burial assemblages of Dynasty 21-25. Chronology - Typology - Developments. Österreich¡sehe Akademie der Wissenschaften. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 54. Vienna. Awadalla, A. and A. ebSawy. 1990. Un sarcophage de Nsi-Ptah dans la tonrbe de Montouennhat. Bulletin de !’Institut jran‫؟‬ais d’arclreologie orientale 90,‫ﻗﻶإ‬. Baines, j. 2013. High culture and experience in ancient Egypt. Sheffield; Bristol, CT. Berman, L. M. 1999. 77،،' Cleveland Museum of Art. Catalogue of Egyptian art. New ١‫ﴽ‬0‫اآ‬ Birch, s. 1874. Account of coffins and mummies discovered in Egypt on the occasion of the visit of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, in 1868-9. Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, 2nd series, 10, 185—213. Brunner-Traut, E. and H. Brunner. 1981. Die Ägyptische Sammlung der Universität Tübingen. Ntóvra. am WnCm. Budka, j. 2010a. Bestattungsbrauchtum und Friedhofsstruktur inn Asasif. Eine Untersuchung der- spätzeitlichen Befunde anhand der Ergebnisse der österreichischen Ausgrabungen ،'„ den Jahren 1969—1977. Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des österreichischen Archaologischen Instituts 34. Vienna. Budka, j. 2010b. Kushite tomb groups in Late Period Thebes. In w. Godlewski and A. Lajtar (eds). Between the cataracts: Proceedings of the llth Conference for Nubian Studies, Warsaw University, 27 August-2 September 2006. Part two: Session papers 2. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean, Supplement Series 2/2/2. Warsaw, 503-18.

383

Buhl, M.-L. 1959. The late Egyptian anthropoid stone sar cophagi. Copenhagen. Carnarvon, Earl of and H. Carter. 1912. Five years’ explora tions at Thebes. A record of work done 1907-1911. London; New York; Toronto; Melbourne. Chrysikopoulos, V. 2005. Trois coffrets à oushebtis de la cachette des prêtres de Montou à Deir el-Bahari: Basaenmout, Padiamon et Irethorrou au Musée National d’Athènes. Kyphi 4, 5-15. Cooney, K. M. 2007a. The functional materialism of death in ancient Egypt: A case study of funerary materials from the Ramesside Period. In M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), Das Heilige und die Ware. Zum Spannungsfeld von Religion und Ökonomie. Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyp tologie und Sudanarchäologie 7. London, 273-99. Cooney, K. M. 2007b. The cost of death. The social and economic value of ancient Egyptian funerary art in the Ramesside period. Egyptologische Uitgaven 22. Leiden. Cooney, K. M. 2014. Ancient Egyptian funerary arts as social documents: Social place, reuse, and working towards a new typology of 21st Dynasty coffins. In R. Sousa (ed.), Body, cosmos and eternity. New research trends in the iconography and symbolism of ancient Egyptian coffins. Archaeopress Egyptology 3. Oxford, 45-66. Dabrowska-Smektala, E. 1968. Coffins found in the area of the temple of Tuthmosis III at Deir el-Bahari. Bulletin de TInstitut français d’archéologie orientale 66, 171-81. Dautant, A. and S. Aufrère. 2011. Sur les traces du cercueil et de la momie d’Inimennaÿsnebout, Musée GeorgesLabit, Toulouse. Égypte Afrique & Orient 62, 17-30. Davies, S. 1985. By the gains of industry. Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery 1885-1985. Birmingham. Dawson, J. and H. Strudwick (eds). 2016. Death on the Nile. Uncovering the afterlife of ancient Egypt. Cambridge. Delvaux, L. and I. Therasse. 2015. Sarcophages: sous les étoiles de Nout. Bruxelles. Dodson, A. 2011. Catalogue of Egyptian coffins in provin cial collections of the United Kingdom, I: The South West, www.bris.ac.uk/archanth/research/dodson/ecpuk_ files/truro (last accessed 9 January 2018). Dodson, A. 2015. Ancient Egyptian coffins: The Medelhavsmuseet collection. www.varldskulturmuseema.se/Documents/Medelhavet/Ancient%20Egyptian%20Coffins_ low.pdf (last accessed 5 January 2018). Donadoni Roveri, A. M. (ed.). 1989. Dal museo al museo. Passato e futuro del Museo Egizio di Torino. Turin. Eigner, D. 2017. Remarks on the architecture of the Lichthof in TT 223, Karakhamun. In E. Pischikova (ed.), Tombs of the South Asasif necropolis. New discoveries and research 2012—14. Cairo; New York, 73-88. Ferraris, E. and C. Greco. 2015. La Galleria dei sarcofagi: dimore per l’eternità, in Museo Egizio. Modena, 16493.

384

1. H. TAYLOR

Del Francia, R. 1994. Le trousseau de la tombe de Tcheseperet. État de la question. In M. Dewachter and A. YonÉuà (à١١ Legyptologie et les Champollion. Grenoble, 215-22. Gaballa, G. A. and K. A. Kitchen. 1969. Tire festival of Sokar. Orientalia 38, 1-76, Tab. 1-11. Gasse, X. ١9%. Les sat'cophages de la Troisieme p،tilde Intermediaire du Museo Gregoriano Egizio. IrarmerAr Musei e Gallerie Pontificie. Museo Gregot'iano Egizio. Aegyptiaca Gregoriana III. Vatican. Gairthier, H. 1913. Catalogne generai ،/،'.١' antiquites égyptiennes du Musee du Caire.Nos 4104241072. Cercueils anthropoides des prètres de Montou. carro. Germer. R., H. Altenmtiller, K. H. Hohne, H. Kischkewitz and ‫ل‬. YAocke,. ٦99٩. Mttmmi.es. Life after deatlt. in ancient Egypt. Munich; New York. Germer, R., H. Kischkewitz, and M. Luning. 2009. TJe،7،7،<?،' Mumiengeschichten. Ergebnisse ei.nes multidisziplindreti Forschungsprojektes.Lke^euslourg,. Giovetti, p. and D. Picchi (eds). 2015. Egitto. Splendore »،،7lenario. La collezione di. Leiden a Bologna., ine·, Bologna; Milan. Graefe, E. 1990. /)،،.67 ‫؛‬،'،،/’ des Ibi, 0/,،'،'‫'ا‬،'،'،?،‫ة‬,‫?<؟‬،،‫ﺀ'ا‬،‫’ا‬،،/،،>،'.‫ا‬,' der Gottesgemahlin des Amu.n (Thebanisches Grab Nr. 36). Beschreibung undRekonstruktionsversuche des Oberbaus. Flinde aus dem Oberbau. ‫؟‬imssds. Graindorge, c. 2001. Sokar. In D. B. Redford (ed.), 77،‫ح‬ Oxford encyclopedia of ancient. Egypt, 1 Oxiard, 2٢١5-٦. Graràrg‫؛‬e-٦٦ér&\١, c. ٦994. Le tliett Sokat' à Thèbes all Nouvel Empire. 2 vols. Gottinger Orientforschungen 4/28. Wiesbaden. Grajetzki, w. 2010. Class and society. Position and possessions. In w. Wendrich (ed.), Egyptian archaeology. Chichester, 180-99. Greco, c. 2009. Il sarcofago esterno di Tjes-ra-peret, dimora per l’eternita. In M. c. Guidotti and F. Tiradritti (eds). Guide alle raccolte egizie d'Italia 2. Rinascimento Faraortico la XXV dinasti.a nel Museo Egizio di Firenze. Montepulciano, 21-6. Greco, c. 2010. Il sarcofago esterno di Tjesraperet, nutrice della figlia del faraone Taharqa. Analisi iconografica preliminare. Egitto e u،'c،7،o 67،'،،'،،3145 ,33 '،‫؛‬. Greco, c. 2014. The forgotten tomb of Ramose (TT 132). In E. Pischikova, j. Budka and K. Griffin (eds), Thebes /،، thefirst ،،،،7/،'،،،،/،،،،، BC. Newcastle upon Tyne, 173-99. Guidotti, M. c. 2009. Il conedo funet'ario di Tjes-ra-peret, nutrice della figlia di Taharqo; Nota sul materiale del corredo di Tjes-ra-peret conservato nel Museo del Louvre. In M. c. Guidotti and F. Tiradritti (eds). Guide alle raccolte. Egizi.e d’Italia 2. Rinascimento Faraonico la XXV ،/،7،،،.١'،/،، nel Museo Egizio di Firenze. Montepulciano, 14-20, 27-30, and 514 (catalogue entries). Guidotti, M. c. and F. Tiradritti (eds). 2009. Guide alle raccolte Egizie d'Italia 2. Rinascimento Faraonico

la XXV dinastia nel Museo Eglzio di Firenze. TAorAepulciano. Guzzon. E. 2017. The wooden coffins of the late Third Intermediate Period and Late Period found by Schiaparelli in the Valley of the Queens (QV43 and QV44). In A. Amenta id١\. Gdrd ‫\اﺣﻊ‬١١, Proceedings First Vatican Coffin Conference 79-22 7،،«،' 2075. Vatican, I, 191-7. Hartwig, M. K. 2004. Tomb painting and identity ،7، ancient Thebes, 1419-1372 BCE. Monumenta Aegyptiaca X, Série IMAGO no. 2. Turnlrout. Haynes, J. and ‫ل‬. J. Wilson. 1984. Padihershef, ' mummy. December 2,1984 to January 20,1985. George Walter Vincent Smith Art Museum. Springfield, MA. Hope, c. A. 1988. Gold of the pharaohs. Sydney. ١ausen-١N'wl٦, K. II. Irrscliriften der Spatzeit,٦٦٦. Die 25 Dynastie. Wiesbaden. Jprgensen, M. 2001. Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Catalogue Egypt ٦٦٦. Coffins, mummy adornments arrd mummies from tlte Tlrird Intermediate, Late, Ptolemaic and tlte Roman periods (7050 BC- AD 400). Copenhagen. Kodv, G. 12. 'Die den Anrutr mit ihrer Stimme zufriedenstellen'. Gottesgemahlinnen rtnd Musikerinnen im thebanischen Amunstaat von der 22. bis zur 26. Dynastie. Studien zu ،len Ritualszenen altagyptischer Tempel 27. Dettelbach. Koch, c. 2017. The sarcophagus of Nitocris (Inv. Cairo TN 6/2/21/11: further considerations about the God’s Wives' burial places. In A. Amenta and H. Guichitrd ٠٠١, Proceedings First Vatican Coffin Cottference 79-22 June 2075. Vatican, I, 23148. Lemos. R. 2017. Material culture and social interactions in New Kingdom non-elite cemeteries. In J.-M. Chyla, I. Debowska-Ludwin, K. Rosinska-Balik and c. Walsh ‫ةةةع‬١, Current research in Egyptology 2016. Proceedings of the Seventeentli Annual Symposium, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland, 4-7 May 2016. ٢‫أ\ﻻ‬0‫ةﴽ‬٦ Pliiladelphia, 121-35. Leospo, E. 1986. Museo Archeologico di A.‫؛؟‬،'. La collezione Egizia. Regione Piemonte. Leospo, E. 1989. ‘Sarcofagi di Padiamenemope', ‘Coperchio del sarcofago di Nesamondjaemaniut', 'Sarcofagi di Hor’. In A. M. Donadoni Roveri (ed.). Dal museo al nutseo. Passato e futuro del Museo Egizio di Torino. Turin, 62-6, 68, 70-3. Li, J. 2017. Women, gender and identity ،7، 77،،/'،/ /،،،،'،'،?،،'،//ate Period Egypt.The Theban case study. ‫ردآﻟدا‬, New York. Liptay, E. 2012. ‘The bull coming out of the mountain'. The changing context and connotations of an iconographic motif. In K. A. Kothay (ed.). Art and society. Ancient and modern contexts of Egyptian art. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 13-15 May 2010. Wudapest, ٦69-‫؟‬A, pis 3840.

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

Lloyd, A. B. 1976. Herodotus Book II. Commentary 1-98. Études Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l’Empire Romain 43. Leiden. Lucarelli, R. 2006. The Book of the Dead of Gatseshen. Ancient Egyptian funerary religion in the IOth century BC. Egyptologische Uitgaven 21. Leiden. Manley, B. and A. M. Dodson. 2010. Life everlasting: National Museums Scotland collection of ancient Egyp tian coffins. Edinburgh. Miatello, L. 2016. Texts and iconography of Padiamun's cof fin in the Liverpool Museum. Birmingham Egyptology Journal A, 10-61. Minas-Nerpel, M. and G. Sigmund. 2003. Eine Ägypterin in Trier. Die ägyptische Mumie und der Sarg im Rheini schen Landesmuseum Trier. Trier. Monnet Saleh, J. 1970. Les antiquités égyptiennes de Zagreb. Catalogue raisonné des antiquités égyptiennes con servées au Musée Archéologique de Zagreb en Yougo slavie. Paris, la Haye. Moret, A. 1913. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Nos 41001^41041. Sarcophages de !’Époque Bubastite à l’Époque Saite. Cairo. Mourot, F. 2017. Enjeux de la fouille stratigraphique pour l’étude des tombes à puits de la Troisième Période Inter médiaire. In B. Lurson (ed.), De la mère du roi à l’épouse du dieu. Première synthèse des résultats des fouilles du temple de Touy et de la tombe de Karomama. Actes du Colloque International ‘De la mère du roi à l’épouse du dieu’, Université catholique de Louvain, 14 Mai 2016. Connaissance de l’Égypte Ancienne 18. Safran, 67-80. Munro, I. and J. H. Taylor. 2009. Der Totenbuch-Papyrus der Ta-schep-en-Chonsu aus der späten 25. Dynastie (pMoskau Puschkin-Museum I, lb. 121). Handschriften des Altägyptischen Totenbuches 10. Wiesbaden. Naguib, S.-A. 1989. Petits monuments à inscriptions hiéro glyphiques en Norvège. In Studia in Honorem L. Foti. Studia Aegyptiaca 12,319-75. Nasr, M. 1992. New discoveries at Thebes-West. Memnonia 3, 141-3, pis XXVII-XXIX. Niwinski, A. 2009. Review of Lucarelli, R. The Book of the Dead of Gatseshen. Bibliotheca Orientalis 66, 222-5. Payraudeau, F. 2003. La désignation du Gouverneur de Thèbes aux Époques Libyenne et Éthiopienne. Revue d’Égyptologie 54, 131-53. Payraudeau, F. 2014. Administration, société et pouvoir à Thèbes sous la XXIIe dynastie bubastite. 2 vols. Biblio thèque d’étude 160. Cairo. Perdu, O. 2004. Cercueil momiforme de Néhemsimontou. In M. Desti (ed.), Des dieux, des tombeaux, un savant. En Égypte sur les pas de Mariette pacha. Paris, 208-9. Pierce, R. H. 1981. An ancient Egyptian sarcophagus lid in Glomdalsmuseet. In Nytt om gammalt. Glomdalsmuseet Arbok 1981. Elverum, 27-37.

385

Pischikova, E.) F. Yaseen Abd el Karim, R. Ahmed Ali and E. el Din Kamal el Noby. 2017. Tombs of Karakhamun and Karabasken, 2012-14: fieldwork. In E. Pischikova ٦‫ذاح‬.٦,Tombs of the South Asasif necropolis. New discoverics and research 2072-74. Cairo; New York, 2549. Raven, M. J. 1978-9. Papyrus-sheaths and Ptah-Sokar-Osiris Us. Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te /,،'،'،/،'،، 59/60, 251-96. pis 3941. Raven, M. J. 2009. A Theban quartet: Mummies and coffins of personnel of the temple of Amun. In D. Magee, .1. Bourriau and s. Quirke (eds). Sitting beside 7.،'/«،'،«'. Studies in honour of Jaromir Malek at. the Griffith Institute. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 185. Leuven; Paris; Walpole, MA, 463-90. Raven, M. J. and w. K. Taconis. 2005. Egyptian mummies. Radiological atlas of the collections in the National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden. YtmhrV. Richards, J. 2005. Society and death in ancient Egypt. Mortuary landscapes of tlte Middle Kingdom. CambrlAgg. Rindi Nuzzolo, c. 2017. Tradition and transformation. Retracing Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figures from Akhmim in museums and private collections. In T. Gillen (ed.), (Re)productive traditions in ancient Egypt. Proceedings of the conference held at the University of Liege, 6th-8th February 2075. Aegyptiaca Leodiensia 10. Liege, 445-74. Kobevsorv, ١. N. IT. The Awakening of Osiris and. the Transit of the Solar Barques. Royal apotlteosis in a most concise Book of tlte Underworld and Sky. OrVns Biblicus et Orientalis 262. Fribourg; Gottingen. Russmann, E. R. 1995. The motif of bound papyrus plitnts and the decorative program in Mentuemhat's first court (Further remarks on the decoration of the tomb of Mentweri. ٦١. Journal of the Americatt Research. Center in Egypt 32, 117-26. Sainz, I. V. 2017. Egyptian artists in the New Kingdom: Travelling artists and travelling ideas? In J.-M. Chyla, L Debowska-Ludwin, K. Rosinska-Balik and c. Walsh te٦s١, Current research in Egyptology 2016. Proceedings of tlte Seventeentli. Anttual. Symposium, Jagiellottian University, Krakow, Poland, 4-7 May 2016. ٢‫أﻟﻼ‬0‫ةﴽ‬٦ Philadelphia, 107-20. Schmidt, V. 1919. Sarkofager, Mumiekister, og Mumiehylstre i det Gamle Aegypten. Typologisk Atlas. Copenhagen. de Selincourt, A. 1972. Herodotus. 77،،' Histories. Harmondsworth. Sharpe, s. and J. Bonomi 1858. The triple mummy case of Aroeri-Ao, an Egyptiattpriest, in Dr. Lee's Museum a.t Hartwell House., Buckinghamshire. Loudon. Sheikholeslami, c. M. 2003. The burials of priests of Montu at Deir el-Btthari in the Thebitn necropolis. In N. Strudwick and J. H. Taylor (eds). The Theban necropolis. Past, present and future. Lonvdon, ٦2٦-٦, v٦s 9٦-2, Sheikholeslami, c. M. 2010a. The night and day hours in Twenty-fifth Dynasty sarcophagi from Thebes. In L. Bares,

٦٦١٠ ٠- ٠

386

J. H. TAYLOR

F. Coppens and K. Smolârikovâ (eds), Egypt in transi tion. Social and religious development of Egypt in the first millennium BCE. Proceedings of an International Conference Prague, September 1-4, 2009. Prague, 37695. Sheikholeslami, C. M. 2010b. Palaeographic notes from Twenty-fifth Dynasty Thebes. In Z. Hawass, P. Der Manuelian and R. B. Hussein (eds), Perspectives on ancient Egypt. Studies in honor of Edward Brovarski. Supplément aux Annales du Service des Antiquités de l'Égypte. Cahier 40. Cairo, 405-21. Sheikholeslami, C. M. 2014a. Resurrection in a box: The 25th Dynasty burial ensemble of Padiamunet. In R. Sousa (ed.), Body, cosmos and eternity. New research trends in the iconography and symbolism of ancient Egyptian coffins. Archaeopress Egyptology 3. Oxford, 111-24. Sheikholeslami, C. M. 2014b. Sokar-Osiris and the god desses: Some Twenty-fifth-Twenty-sixth Dynasty cof fins from Thebes. In E. Pischikova, J. Budka and K. Griffin (eds), Thebes in the first millennium BC. Newcastle upon Tyne, 453-82. Smith, M. 2017. Following Osiris. Perspectives on the Osirian afterlife from four millennia. Oxford. Stevenson, A. 2009. Social relationships in Predynastic burials. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 95, 175-92. Taylor, J. H. 1988. Tomb group of Nes-mut-aat-neru. In S. d’Auria, P. Lacovara and C. H. Roehrig, Mummies and magic. The funerary arts of ancient Egypt. Boston, 173-5 (no. 125). Taylor, J. H. 1989. Egyptian coffins. Princes Risborough. Taylor, J. H. 2001. Death and the afterlife in ancient Egypt. London. Taylor, J. H. 2003. Theban coffins from the Twenty-second to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty: Dating and synthesis of development. In N. Strudwick and J. H. Taylor (eds), The Theban necropolis. Past, present and future. London, 95-121, figs 45-75. Taylor, J. H. 2006. The coffin of Padiashaikhet. In K. N. Sowada and B. G. Ockinga (eds), Egyptian art in the Nicholson Museum, Sydney. Sydney, 263—91, pis 46-54, 63-4. Taylor, J. H. (ed.). 2010. Journey through the afterlife. Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. London. Taylor, J. H. 2017. The vulture headdress and other indications of gender on women’s coffins in the 1st millennium BC.

In A. Amenta and H. Guichard (eds), Proceedings First Vatican Coffin Conference 19-22 June 2013. Vatican, II, 541-50. Tiradritti, F. 1994. L’Album di disegni di Luigi Vassalli presso la Civica Biblioteca d’Arte di Milano. In L'egittologo Luigi Vassalli (1812—1887). Disegni e document¡ nei civica istituti cultural¡ Milanesi. Milan, 45-128. Uranic, I. 2007. Aegyptiaca Zagrabiensia. Egyptian collec tion of the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb. Musei Archaeologici Zagrabiensis Catalogi et Monographiae IV. Zagreb. Vittmann, G. 1978. Priester und Beamte im Theben der Spätzeit. Genealogische und prosopographische Unter suchungen zum thebanischen Priester- und Beamtentum der 25. und 26. Dynastie. Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 1. Vienna. Vittmann, G. 2007. A question of names, titles, and iconog raphy. Kushites in priestly, administrative and other positions from Dynasties 25 to 26. Der Antike Sudan 18, 139-61. van Walsem, R. 1997. The coffin of Djedmonthuiufankh in the National Museum ofAntiquities at Leiden, I. Techni cal and monographic!iconological aspects. Egyptologische Uitgaven 10. Leiden. Wagner, M. 2016. Der Sarkophag der Gottesgemahlin Anchnesneferibre. Studien zur spätägyptischen Religion 16. Wiesbaden. Wilkinson, T. H. 2001. Social stratification. In D. B. Redford (ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, 3. Oxford, 301-5. Wilson, S. and C. Baum. 1978. A real case history. The cof fin of Djed-Ma’at-es-ankh. Rotunda 11 (3), 9-13. Winlock, H. E. 1924. The Museum’s excavations at Thebes. Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Pt. II, 5-33.

Manuscript sources Clere MSS. Papers of Jacques Jean Clere (1906-89): the Griffith Institute, Oxford. Madox MSS. Papers of John Madox (1768-1837): private collection.

COFFINS IN CONTEXT: REGIONAL VARIATIONS