Pepyankh Henykem of Meir

The Tomb of Pepyankh Henykem
By

Francis James Michael Simons

A thesis submitted to the
University of Birmingham
for the degree of
Master of Philosophy

Department of Classics, Ancient History and Archaeology
School of Humanities
College of Arts and Law
University of Birmingham
November 2013

University of Birmingham Research Archive

e-theses repository

This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third
parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect
of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or
as modified by any successor legislation.

Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in
accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further
distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission
of the copyright holder.

Abstract

This study examines the life and career of the sixth Dynasty official Pepyankh Henykem of Meir
through a detailed analysis of his tomb. In particular, attention is paid to the decoration and meaning
of the serdab and room F. In the case of the serdab this leads to the suggestion that we can construct
the outline of a biography for Pepyankh, as well as identifying potential acquaintances. The
interpretation of room F leads us to reattribute it to Pepyankhs son, Heny.
The tomb is then examined as a whole in order to ascertain the likely order in which it was
constructed. This leads to an interpretation of the connection between the tomb and that of
Pepyankhs father, Niankh-Pepy, as being of principally religious and filial significance.
A complete translation and transliteration of the tomb is provided as an appendix.

Dedicated to my mum, Lesley, for reading the whole bloody thing so many times, and to Ben and
Laura for the occasional cups of tea as I wrote it.

Page 1 of 107 13 November 2013
The Tomb of Pepyankh Henykem
Contents
List of Figures 2
1. Introduction 3-4
2. Background 5-9
a. Description of Meir 5
b. Genealogy of Pepyankh 5-8
c. History of Research 8-9
3. Description of tomb 10-12
4. Serdab decoration 13-20
a. Description 13
b. Analysis 14-20
i. Table of titles found in the serdab 15
ii. Table of names found in the serdab 16
5. Titles of Pepyankh 23-31
a. Table of titles found outside the serdab
b. Chart showing relative ranks of titles outside the serdab
21
23
6. Room F 32-38
a. Description of scenes 32-33
b. Analysis 33-38
7. Building history 39-46
8. Conclusion 47-49
9. Figures 50-57
10. Appendices
a. Appendix 1: Translation of the serdab
b. Appendix 2: Translation of the cattle scene in room F
c. Appendix 3: Translation of the remaining tomb
58-102
58-72
73-74
75-102
11. Bibliography 103-107

List of Figures

1. Map of the tomb 50
2. Pepyankh offering incense to his father, Niankh-Pepy 51
3. Block from the tomb of Nekhebu at Giza 52
6. Block from the tomb of Sabu Ibebi at Giza 55
7. Block from the tomb of Sabu Ibebi at Giza 56
8a. Serdab Entrance and South 57
8b. Serdab North 57

1. Introduction
The following work was initially intended to consider and discuss the entire tomb of Pepyankh
Henykem. However, considerations of space have meant that in order to properly consider the tomb,
it has been necessary to be selective. As such, I have examined the facets of the tomb that seem to me
the most interesting. These are the serdab and room F. Insofar as I am able, I have attempted to
produce some explanation for the puzzling characteristics of both. In addition to this, I have
examined the tomb as a whole in order to ascertain a building history, through which it has been
possible to examine the unusual connection between Pepyankhs tomb and that of his father, Niankh-
Pepy.
In examining these features of the tomb, it became clear that what was recorded was more than a
collection of standard tomb scenes and titles. Glimpses of the real life of Pepyankh Henykem were
visible beneath the paint. It became possible to discern the outline of much of his career, rather than
simply the final, high-ranking stage. Evidence of his relationship with both his father and his son
became clear, and hints of friendships, or at least association, with other high officials came to light.
In short, the tomb of Pepyankh Henykem recorded the life of its owner very effectively.
Alongside this, however, several subsidiary points have become clear. In chapter 4 the decorative
scheme of the serdab is discussed. It is argued that the lack of order and consistency demonstrates the
lack of a plan, which is due to the novelty of this decorative motif. In addition, a connection is
suggested with officials whose tombs are found at Giza. In chapter 5, Pepyankhs various titles are
discussed at length, and the possibility of a hidden biography of Pepyankh is mooted. Perhaps the
most significant result of this research is to be found in chapter 6, which argues that room F of
Pepyankhs tomb should no longer be considered a part of the tomb at all, but rather a separate tomb
belonging to Pepyankhs son and successor, Heny. Finally, chapter 7 explores the most likely order in
which the tomb was constructed. This has shed light on the connection between Pepyankhs tomb and
that of his father, and it is now possible to see the connection principally as a religious and familial,
rather than practical, consideration.
Alongside this, I present a new translation of the entire tomb. While Blackmans translation
1
is
predominantly correct, 60 years of Egyptology have given us a better understanding of some of the
more difficult phrases. Further, as so much of the writing in the tomb consists of official titles, Jones
recent work, An Index of Ancient Egyptian Titles, Epithets and Phrases of the Old Kingdom,
2
has
rendered a new translation desirable.

1
Blackman 1953: 46-49.
2
Jones 2000.

In addition, I present an entirely new transliteration of the whole tomb. This has never before been
done. No transliteration of the tomb, or indeed any part of it longer than one or two sentences, has
ever appeared in print. Both the transliteration and the translation are given in the Appendices.

2. Background
2a. Description of Meir
3

The town of el-Qusiya, ancient Qis (Greek Cusae), once the capital of the fourteenth Upper Egyptian
nome is situated approximately 15 miles south of Amarna and 30 miles north of Asyut. Nothing now
survives of the city of Qis, the whole site being covered by the modern town and a Muslim
graveyard.
4
Aelian mentions the city in his De Natura Animalium
5
as notable for its worship of the
goddess Aphrodite Urania and a cow, the Egyptian goddess Hathor. Hathor is frequently mentioned
in inscriptions from the necropolis as Hathor, Mistress of Qis.
6

Four miles west of the ancient city is the modern village of Meir which gives its name to the nearby
necropolis, site of the tombs of many of those who once ruled from Qis.
7
There are eighteen
decorated tombs in the necropolis, the largest and most important of which belong to rulers of the
sixth and twelfth Dynasties. The tomb of Pepyankh Henykem, the subject of this essay, is the largest
of all.
2b. Genealogy of Pepyankh
Practically all who have written on Pepyankh Henykem have believed, with Blackman,
8
that he was
the youngest of three sons, all named Pepyankh. His father, Niankh-Pepy Sobekhotep, was the
earliest known ruler of Cusae, a position eventually inherited by Pepyankh.
9
His mother was named
Pekher-Nefert, her good name being Bebi.
10
Pepyankh was preceded in office by both of his older
brothers, Pepyankh the Eldest and Pepyankh the Middle, and by at least one nephew, Sobekhotep, son
of Pepyankh the Eldest. His wife was named Set-net-Pepy and he had two sons, Heni, his immediate
successor, and Hepi, Henis successor. Neither sons tomb is preserved, however, and so Pepyankh is
the last sixth Dynasty ruler of whom any certain record survives.
Such has been the established order, occasionally slightly tweaked,
11
since Blackman first excavated
Meir. Kanawati has argued very persuasively
12
, however, that this order is completely incorrect.
Blackmans order is based almost entirely on the strength of his understanding of Ppy-anx wr

3
While a map of the site is desirable, no such map has so far been published. An attempt to use Google maps to
produce one was not successful, as it is not possible to get any useful detail. It is to be hoped that Kanawati will
include one in his publication of the tombs.
4
Blackman 1914: 2.
5
Aelian: 10.27.
6
Blackman 1914: 2.
7
Baines and Malek 1980: 122.
8
Blackman 1914: 9; 1953: passim.
9
Blackman 1914: 9-10.
10
Blackman 1914: 9.
11
Martin-Pardey 1976: 125.
12
El-Khouli & Kanawati 1989: 11-17 & Kanawati 1989: 75-80.

(Pepyankh the eldest) and Ppy-anx Hry-ib (Pepyankh the middle) as meaning the eldest and middle
of three brother Pepyankhs. No other evidence confirms this. Indeed, Pepyankh Henykem is
explicitly referred to in Niankh-Pepys tomb as sA.f wr
13
his eldest son, which Blackman disregards.
14

Presumably, this is because he considered the title to have been a later interpolation,
15
though this is
not explicitly stated. Further, the tombs of the three brothers are not situated in the same cemetery,
as might be expected, but alternate between Meir, where Niankh-Pepy and the younger two
Pepyankhs are buried, and Quseir el-Amarna where Pepyankh the eldest is interred.
16

The new order, proposed by Kanawati,
17
follows the evidence much more closely. It suggests a
father-son succession as follows:
1. w.n-wx Quseir, tomb 2
2. Ppy-anx-wr Quseir, tomb 1
3. %bk-Htp @pi Saqqara Mastaba
18

4. Ppy-anx-Hri-ib Nfr-kA-@ny Meir, tomb D2
5. Ni-anx-Ppy-km @pi-km %bk-Htp Meir, tomb A1
6. Ppy-anx @ny-km Meir, tomb A2
7. @ni No known tomb
8. @pi-km (Possibly identical with 3.) Meir, tomb A4
With the exception of number 1, who appears not to have been related to his successors, this list
corresponds with the name of the eldest son given in each tomb, without forcing us to accept a
confused succession of brothers, nephews and uncles. Further, it removes the necessity of explaining
the alternation of cemeteries, as it shows a clear divide between Quseir el-Amarna, used by the early
rulers of the 14
th
Nome, and Meir, used by their successors. Kanawati posits that this shift may have
been for administrative purposes, as those buried at Quseir held only priestly titles, while those in
Meir held more powerful administrative titles, such as imy-rA Smaw and tAyty sAb TAty.
19

Two of the individuals included, Sobekhotep Hepi and Heni, are not quite so securely placed as the
others but this is less serious a problem than it at first appears. That %bk-Htp @pi, is the son of Ppy-
anx-wr, is certain from the latters tomb,
20
and two separate tombs have been suggested for him. It is

13
Blackman 1953: Pl. 12. Not also Pl. 14 as Kanawati implies (1989: note 8).
14
Blackman 1953: 5.
15
Blackman 1953: 13, note 1, right.
16
El-Khouli & Kanawati 1989: 27-30.
17
Kanawati 1989: 78; Kanawati 2010: 217
18
This attribution is not certain, but seems likely. Kanawati 2004: 57-59; Kanawati 2010: 211-213
19
Kanawati 1989: 78.
20
Chaban 1902: 253.

possible that his tomb is the unrecorded A4 at Meir
21
, though the little that survives of this monument
makes this appear unlikely.
Only a name and title sequence have ever been published from this tomb.
22
These proclaim the owner
to be @pi km, imy-rA Smaw, xtmty bity, smr waty, Xry-Hb.t, imy-rA Hm.w-nTr Hepi the Black,
Overseer of Upper Egypt, Sealer of the King of Lower Egypt, Sole Companion, Lector Priest,
Overseer of the Gods Servants. We can compare this with the known titles of Sobekhotep, as
depicted on two walls of the tomb of his son, Pepyankh the Middle.
23
On one wall Sobekhotep is
called Xry-tp nsw.t imy-[rA] Hm-nTr %bk[-Htp] Kings Liegeman, Overseer of the Gods Servants,
Sobekhotep. On the other, he is called Xry-tp nsw.t imy-rA Hm-nTr n @t-Hr rn.f aA %bk-Htp imAx[w]
x[r] nTr rn.f nfr @pi Kings Liegeman, Overseer of the Gods Servants of Hathor, whose great
name is Sobekhotep, revered with the god, whose good name is Hepi. Most notable here is the
discrepancy between the names Sobekhotep is not called Hepi the Black, but Hepi a notable
difference in a family whose names are so often similar. This is not conclusive, however. Pepyankh
Henykem is called Heny almost as often as Henykem, and so a single example cannot hold much
water. Moreover, as Kanawati suggests, it is possible that the km from tomb A4 has been misread,
particularly when the poor state of preservation is considered.
24

Comparing the titles, it is clear that there is little similarity. Again, the lack of evidence prevents us
from making any firm conclusions based on these lists. All seven of the titles recorded here are
apparently hereditary among the rulers of Meir, and so their absence or presence in these three strings
is hardly surprising. There is, however, one shared title in the lists, and it is this that makes the
identification of Sobekhotep with the owner of tomb A4 unlikely. All three lists contain the title imy-
rA Hm(.w)-nTr Overseer of the Gods Servants. In both of the lists in the tomb of Pepyankh the
Middle, it is written . In the A4 list, however, it is written . The first of these is
common throughout the tombs of the Old Kingdom rulers of Meir Pepyankh the Middle, Niankh-
Pepy and Pepyankh the Black all hold this title and write it in this way. The second arrangement is,
according to Kanawati regularly used in later tombs.
25
Sobekhotep predates the other burials at
Meir, and should not, therefore, be expected to use the later orthography. This is by no means
conclusive proof, but is a reasonably good indication that the owner of A4 is probably somebody else
presumably the second son of Pepyankh Henykem.

21
Kanawati 1989: 77.
22
Blackman 1914: 10-11.
23
Blackman 1924: Pl. 4 & Pl. 15.
24
Kanawati 1989: 77.
25
Kanawati 1989: 80.

The other proposal for Sobekhoteps tomb is a small mastaba in the Unis cemetery at Saqqara.
26
This
is undecorated, save for a false door and an inscribed stone sarcophagus. The surviving text from this
tomb is too long to be worth including here. It will suffice to say that the owner of this tomb has three
names: %bk-Htp, N-anx-Ppy and rn.f nfr @pi.
27
The first and last of these correspond exactly to those
found in the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle, while the other name, though not listed among the names
found there is the name of Pepyankh the Middles son. This son also bears the names Sobekhotep and
Hepi though distinguished by the frequent use of the suffix km the Black. Considering the
frequent reuse of names by the family, it seems reasonably likely that the owner of the Saqqara tomb
is identical with Sobekhotep of Meir. This is given some support by the presence among the titles in
the Saqqara tomb of Xry-tp nsw.t (n) pr-aA
28
Kings Liegeman of the Great House. Though not, as
Kanawati suggests,
29
exactly the same title borne by Sobekhotep in Meir, this is very clearly no more
than a specific form of the shorter title. That the two Sobekhoteps are the same, is, therefore,
eminently plausible.
The second gap in the record comes at the end with @ni. It is suggested that this does not in fact
represent a gap in the archaeological record, but an oversight. It will be argued below
30
that Heni is in
fact the architect of what has been commonly thought of as room F of Pepyankhs tomb. This not
only explains a number of puzzling aspects of the tomb, but removes the most troubling lacuna in
Kanawatis proposed family tree.
31

2c. History of Research
The first work to be carried out on the tomb of Pepyankh Henykem was little more than tomb robbery.
At some point in the late 1870s, an Egyptian, Muhammed Shehin, dug all over Meir. He did not
record his work, and only preserved undamaged artefacts, burning the rest, many of which he himself
had broken, in large bonfires. Many inscribed sarcophagi were consigned to these pyres and whether
Pepyankhs was among them is unknown.
32
In the 1890s, two French archaeologists Daressy and
Barsanti were granted the first official concession in Meir. Daressy apparently copied the
inscriptions and reliefs in the tomb of Pepyankh, but these were never published.
The tomb was first systematically excavated by Aylward M. Blackman and Michael R. Apted
between the 20
th
of November 1949 and the 9
th
of May 1950. The initial stages of the excavation
were occupied by the removal of centuries of bat droppings from the tomb, carried out by Yusif

26
Kanawati 2004: 49.
27
Kanawati 2004: 51, 53.
28
Kanawati 2004: 53. Jones 2000: 2878.
29
Kanawati 2004: 57.
30
See section 6.
31
As detailed above, see page 6.
32
Blackman 1914: 14.

Effendi Khafaga. This lasted until the 11
th
of February 1950, though for most of this time recording
work was being carried out in rooms less badly affected by the bats. The majority of the decoration
was copied down by Moris Effendi Farid, whose drawings were inked in by R. H. Coleman. The rest
of the decoration was copied by Blackman. Apted was also responsible for photographing the tomb.
33

The results of the excavation were published in 1953 by the Egypt Exploration Society as the fifth
volume in the series The Rock Tombs of Meir. The volume also contains records of the tomb of
Pepyankhs father, Niankh-Pepy the Black, and six far smaller tombs, all of which were excavated in
the same season. The book contains 66 plates, 54 of which depict the tomb of Pepyankh. These are
supplemented by 40 pages of explanatory text written by Blackman.
34

Pepyankhs tomb is currently being re-examined by a team from Macquarie University led by Naguib
Kanawati. This work is ongoing, and so far nothing has been published, though Kanawati has
published the tomb of Pepyankh Heryib from the neighbouring site of Quseir el-Amarna. During the
preparation of this essay I contacted Kanawati, but he was unable to tell me anything new as work has
only just begun at the tomb. Kanawatis team are re-recording room F, and hope eventually to record
room D, left unrecorded in Blackmans excavation. The main objective is the study of art ... in the
tomb, including methods of preparation of the wall surface and the use of guide lines.
35
Kanawati
has previously published a number of books and articles concerning Pepyankh and his family.
36

33
Blackman 1953: v-vi.
34
Blackman 1953: vii-viii.
35
Kanawati 2010: personal communication.
36
For example, Kanawati 1980a, 1989, 2010, and El-Khouli & Kanawati 1989.

3. Description of the tomb
37

The tomb of Pepyankh is composed of 6 main rooms, 5 of which are decorated to some extent, and
two additional smaller rooms.
38
The entrance faces southeast and is undecorated. Room A, the room
into which the entrance leads, is a roughly rectangular room measuring approximately 1111 x 123
(3.65m x 3.75m) and has a height of approximately 92 (2.8m). Room A contains doorways leading
to three further rooms. That in the southwest wall leads to room B, the largest room in the tomb, that
in the northwest wall leads to the undecorated room E, and that in the northeast wall leads to room F,
the room containing the serdab and the scenes of the funerary procession. The walls of room A are
decorated with scenes of Pepyankh viewing various types of craftsmen at work metalworkers, vase
makers, jewellers, carpenters, sculptors, vintners, stonemasons, shoe makers and scribes are all
represented. In the northwest wall, east of the entrance to room E, there is a recess in which are the
remains of a statue of Pepyankh. The top half of the statue has been removed and the legs and seat
are all that is left.
Room B is, as mentioned above, the largest room in the tomb. It forms half of a pillared hall shared
between Pepyankhs tomb and that of his father, Niankh-Pepy. It is clearly marked as a separate room
by a section of partition wall between the two halves. This room is roughly rectangular and measures
approximately 329 x 14 9 18 (10m x 4.5m 5.5m) and is approximately 66 (2m) in height.
Apart from the connection in the southwest to Niankh-Pepys tomb, there are three doorways in this
room. In the northeast wall is that leading to room A, and in the northwest are two doorways leading
to rooms D, the burial chamber, and C, the original offerings chamber, respectively. That to room D
is west of that to room C, and leads first down a sloping corridor roughly 164 (5m) long. The
decoration in this room consists primarily of scenes involving food production and offering. Among
the more impressive of these are scenes of Pepyankh supervising ploughing, fishing and fowling, and
of Pepyankh and his son being carried in a sedan supported by 12 men and led by men and women
carrying baskets of food and drink. Also in this room is a large scene of Pepyankh fowling and
fishing from a boat in the Nile. There are three burial shafts sunk into the floor of this room and two
recesses containing the remnants of statues of Pepyankh. The less damaged of these is in the
northwest wall, west of the entrance to room D. It lacks a head and upper torso, but the lower torso is
mostly preserved, as is the rest of the statue. The other, slightly more damaged statue is in a recess in
the northeast wall, north of the doorway to room A. Of this only the legs and seat remain.
Room C, described by Blackman as the Cultus-chamber,
39
is, as mentioned above, the smallest
decorated room. It is roughly rectangular and measures approximately 910 x 72 (3m x 2.2m) and
is approximately 57 (1.7m) in height. There is only one doorway in the room, that leading to room

37
See Fig. 1. All measurements in this section are worked out from the scale in fig. 1.
38
Blackman 1953: Pl. 1.
39
Blackman 1953: 30.

B in the southeast wall. There is a false door in the northwest corner of the room with an offering slab
in front of it. The decoration in this room consists almost entirely of offering scenes. Alongside the
scenes of men bringing various types of offering geese, beef, bread and wine there are two scenes
of Pepyankh sitting at an offering table. On the north wall, above the larger of these two scenes, there
is written the standard list of offerings, a list which is also written on the south wall. Also in this
room are scenes of butchery.
Room D, the burial chamber, is reached by a sloping passageway. The room is more or less
rectangular, and measures roughly 164 x 910 (5m x 3m). It contains a large pit approximately
910 x 411 (3m x 1.5m). The room is roughly 66 (2m) high and the pit is approximately 32
(0.95m) deep. There is only one doorway in the room, that leading to the sloping passageway in its
southeast corner. At the time of Blackmans excavations, the walls of this room were, though
decorated, hopelessly defiled by the excrement of countless generations of bats.
40
As such, no
description exists of this room. This problem still exists for Kanawatis new study of the tomb,
though it is hoped that it will be possible to excavate the room at some stage in the study.
41

Room E is the undecorated room mentioned above. It is an L-shaped chamber, the northeast corner of
which breaks through into room F, damaging some of the decoration therein. It measures
approximately 164 x 66 (5m x 2m) at its longest and narrowest, and 82 x 910 (2.5m x 3m) at
its shortest and widest. The only doorway is in the southeast wall and connects to room A. A large
part of the floor of this room is occupied by a burial shaft measuring 66 x 311 (2m x 1.2m).
Room F is the second largest, and in many ways the most interesting, room in the tomb. It is roughly
oblong and measures approximately 329 x 115 (10m x 3.5m) and is approximately 9 (2.75m)
high. There are two doorways in the room. The one in the southwest corner connects to room A, and
that in the northwest wall leads to room G, a small room which is not discussed by Blackman. There
is a shallow shaft next to the east wall through which room H, a room postulated by Blackman as
belonging to an unrelated intruder,
42
is reached. There are two false door stelae on the east wall of the
room, the northernmost of which is also thought to belong to the owner of room H. A cement
partition in the northeast corner separates the room from another tomb. The south wall of room F is
decorated with a scene of the tomb owner seated, inspecting the bulls and all the small cattle from his
towns.
43
The east and west walls are decorated in ink with the most complete representation of the
funerary procession known from the Old Kingdom, including depictions of ceremonies performed in
the embalmers workshop and in the tent of purification.
Room F occupies the place originally taken by a serdab a chamber for the Ka statues of the tomb
owner. Fortunately, when room F was built, the serdab, being mostly below the level of the new

40
Blackman 1953: 44.
41
Kanawati 2010: Personal communication.
42
Blackman 1953: 46.
43
Blackman 1953: 49.

floor, was preserved and survives mostly intact. The floor at the southern end of the room is almost
completely occupied by the serdab, which measures 164 x 66 (5m x 2m) and is 59 deep
(1.75m). The south wall survives in its entirety, including a piece of the original roof. The remaining
walls survive to over two-thirds of their original height. The east and west walls are disrupted for
approximately 33 (1m) by a burial shaft sunk in the floor of room F at some point after it was
completed and decorated. The eastern side of the shaft contains the blocked entrance to a horizontal
shaft. There is a set of rough steps in the west wall, south of the shaft, leading to the doorway
between rooms F and A. The surviving walls of the serdab are entirely decorated with representations
of the tomb owner as a statue.
Blackman provides no description of rooms G and H, and so apart from describing their location and
dimensions, it is impossible to say anything about them. Room G is reached by a doorway in the
northwest wall of room F. It is roughly rectangular, measuring approximately 47 x 67 (1.4m x
2m) and is approximately 33 (1m) high. Room H is reached by way of a passageway approximately
132 (4m) long. This passageway is an extension of the shallow shaft mentioned in the description
of room F. The room is roughly triangular. It is roughly 910 (3m) long at its greatest length, and
77 (2.3m) wide at the base of the triangle. The room is approximately 57 (1.7m) in height. As
mentioned above, Blackman
44
suggests this room is not part of the original tomb, but belongs instead
to an intruder.

44
Blackman 1953: 46.

4. Serdab Decoration
4a. Description
45

The serdab was originally decorated with somewhere in the region of 250 depictions of Pepyankh as a
standing statue. 218 of these survive, though many are extremely fragmentary. 195 still retain an
inscription, though of these around 20 are too damaged to read. The statues are uniform in design.
Each shows Pepyankh in a short kilt and blue collar. His hair is close cropped and he holds a long
staff vertically in front of him with one hand and a wr-sceptre horizontally with the other. The staff,
kilt and sceptre are all painted yellow, which, in Blackmans estimation, is intended to represent
gilding.
46
Each figure stands on a black pedestal. The inscriptions accompanying each representation
are placed directly in front of the staff, a title is inscribed above the sceptre and a variant of
Pepyankhs name is inscribed below in varying shades of blue.
The south wall is the only surface to survive completely intact. It contains four registers, each with
ten figures facing right, towards the west wall. The east wall originally contained four or five
registers, though this was possibly not uniform along its length. The south end of the wall, which has
survived intact, contains 5 registers, all except the bottom featuring 22 figures. The bottom register
originally contained 21 figures, as that in the south corner appears never to have been painted. There
is a break approximately a third of the way along caused by a burial shaft. All figures face towards
the south wall. The north wall originally contained either four or five registers. The destruction of
the top of this wall, however, makes it impossible to tell. Each register originally contained 11
figures, all of which face towards the west wall. The west wall contains, at its southern end, the
entrance to the serdab. The wall is disrupted approximately halfway along its length by the burial
shaft mentioned above. The section of the wall between the doorway and the south wall has survived
almost completely intact. It contained three registers each featuring 5 figures. The figures face
towards the doorway. The rest of the wall has not fared as well. Originally it depicted either 4 or 5
registers of approximately 18 figures each. All figures face towards the doorway.

45
See figs 8a and 8b.
46
Blackman 1953: 46.

4b. Analysis
47

The extremely repetitive nature of the serdab inscription makes any attempt to understand it difficult
without the imposition of some sort of order. To that end, the titles and name variants have been
counted and tabulated according to the number of occurrences of each in the serdab. As there seems
to be no specific correlation between the title and name variant chosen in each inscription, the two
have been presented in separate lists.
The titles are arranged according to the rank of the titles, as detailed in Baers chart VI G.
48
Baer does
not deal with any of the last 8 titles, and so these have been ordered simply by prevalence. There are
difficulties associated with the use of Baers chart,
49
but as there is no alternative for the vast majority
of the titles in the serdab, it has had to be adopted. This problem has been avoided for the titles from
the rest of the tomb, as detailed below.
50

All titles are given in both Egyptian and English translation, and the number of each title in Jones
Index has been provided for ease of reference. The names are given in order of overall frequency.
The 20 or so inscriptions which are too damaged to be of use have been omitted.
As will be explained below, it is worthwhile to make a distinction between the north end of the
serdab, which for our purposes can be taken to mean the north wall, plus the west wall north of the
doorway, and the south end the south wall, the east wall and the west wall south of the doorway. As
such, totals are provided for the north and south of the serdab before overall totals are given. In
addition, percentages are provided of both the north and south, and of the overall total. North and
south percentages refer to the percentage of the total for each title or name variant. The overall
percentage refers to the percentage of the serdab inscriptions represented by each title and name
variant.

47
See Appendix 1 for translation of the serdab.
48
Baer 1960: 239.
49
This is discussed below, page 20-21.
50
This is discussed below, page 21.

4b.i. Table of titles found in the serdab

Egyptian English Jones
No.
51

North
Total
North
%age
South
Total
South
%age
Total %age of
Total
tAyty sAb TAty He of the Curtain, Chief
Justice and Vizier
3706 0 0 3 100 3 1.8
HAty-a Count 1858 8 40 12 60 20 11.7
xtmty bity Sealer of the King of Lower
Egypt
2775 6 46.1 7 53.9 13 7.6
imy-rA Smaw Overseer of Upper Egypt 896 2 22.2 7 77.8 9 5.3
imy-rA Snw.t Overseer of the Granary 916 1 100 0 0 1 0.6
imy-rA Snw.ty Overseer of the 2 Granaries 923 3 50 3 50 6 3.5
imy-rA pr-HD Overseer of the Treasury 489 4 50 4 50 8 4.7
Xry-Hb.t Hry-tp Lector Priest in Charge
52
2860 2 20 8 80 10 5.8
s(t)m Se(te)m Priest 3241 1 14.3 6 87.7 7 4.1
xtm nTr Gods Sealer 2791 1 50 1 50 2 1.2
smr waty Sole Companion 3268 1 8.3 11 91.7 12 7
smr Companion 3263 6 66.7 3 33.3 9 5.3
Xry- Hb.t Lector Priest 2848 5 35.7 9 64.3 14 8.2
Xry-tp nsw.t Kings Liegeman 2874 1 50 1 50 2 1.2
imy-rA Hm-nTr Overseer of the Gods
Servant(s)
651 12 31.6 26 68.4 38 22.2
Sps nsw.t Noble of the King 3648 2 33.3 4 66.7 6 3.5
sS gs-dp.t Scribe of Protection 3212 1 33.3 2 66.7 3 1.8
mty n sA Regulator of a Phyle 1694 0 0 2 100 2 1.2
sS n sA Scribe of a Phyle 3178 1 50 1 50 2 1.2
sHD Hm-nTr Inspector of Gods Servants 3437 1 50 1 50 2 1.2
wr id.t Great of Censing 1417 1 100 0 0 1 0.6
imy-rA Xnw Overseer of the Residence 738 0 0 1 100 1 0.6
Total 59 34.5 112 65.5 171

51
These refer to index number, not page number.
52
After Goedicke 1977: 122.

4b.ii. Table of name variants found in the serdab
Name North Total North
Percentage
South Total South
Percentage
Total Percentage
of Total
@ny 37 60.6 24 39.3 61 34.1
@nni.t 19 52.7 17 47.3 36 20.1
@ny km 1 3 32 97 33 18.4
@nni.t km 0 0 24 100 24 13.4
Ppy-anx 6 42.9 8 57.1 14 7.8
Ppy-anx km 0 0 3 100 3 1.7
@nny 2 66.7 1 33.3 3 1.7
@nn.t 0 0 2 100 2 1.1
@ni.t 1 100 0 0 1 0.6
@ny.t km 0 0 1 100 1 0.6
@nni km 0 0 1 100 1 0.6
Total 66 36.5 113 63.5 179

A number of points are immediately obvious from the information presented above. Firstly, it will be
easily perceived that names including km the black are almost exclusively confined to the
southern end of the serdab. Of the 62 names ending in km, just one is located in the north of the
serdab. 4 such names - @ny.t km, @nni km, Ppy-anx km & @nni.t km - are found only on the southern
side of the serdab. While this may not be very revealing in first three cases, each of which is found
fewer than five times in total, @nni.t km is found 24 times, and its absence from the north of the
serdab is striking.
It should be pointed out, as Kanawati
53
has said, the km sign in these inscriptions can easily be
mistaken for a chipped part of stone or a splash of paint. This could explain the anomalous northern
km. However, in any case, this single irregularity does not materially affect the overwhelming
statistical majority.
Conversely, it will be noticed that names lacking the km element have an equivalent preponderance on
the northern side of the break. 114 are recorded, just 20 of which are on the southern side. 1 name,
@ni.t, is found only in the north of the serdab, though, as before, this is perhaps not of great interest
a name found only once has to be either north or south of the break, and whichever it is cannot be
considered statistically significant.

53
Kanawati 1989: note 20.

A similar pattern is visible, if not quite so immediately obvious, among the titles. The northern
inscription accounts for approximately a third of the entire serdab, and yet in several cases, notably
among high-ranking titles such as xAty-a and xtmty bity, it includes over a third of the examples. In
fact, with only a few exceptions, the northern inscription contains far more examples of each title than
the percentages dictate that it should. In only three cases, tAyty sAb TAty, Xry- Hb.t Hry-tp and smr waty,
does the north contain substantially fewer than a third of the examples. The last of these smr waty, is,
according to Baer,
54
ranked identically with smr, and, if the totals of both of these titles are added
together, we find that the northern inscription, does in fact contain exactly one third of the total.

It is possibly objectionable that the north/south boundary has been artificially created. This, however,
is not the case. A clear distinction between the two halves is evident when one examines the direction
of the figures depicted. All figures face in the direction of the door. This is particularly evident when
examining the west wall, which includes the doorway. The figures to the south of the door all face
north, while those on the north all face south. At the border of the north and east walls, the opposite
corner to the door, the figures face away from each other, giving the impression of two separate
processions, both heading for the door. As such, a natural boundary is evident.
This natural boundary provides a key to understanding the nature of the serdab inscriptions. If we
consider the way in which the scribe would have carried out the decoration in the serdab, an
interesting conclusion presents itself. The nature of Egyptian writing dictates that a line of text begins
from the direction in which the signs face. Images and script are intimately linked in Egyptian art,
and as such, in this instance, the direction of the figures gives a natural beginning to the inscription.
That is to say, those presented with the task of decorating the serdab, would naturally have started
from the door, inscribed as far as the northeast corner then returned to the door and worked to the
northeast corner from the opposite direction. If this is accepted, we are presented with, essentially,
two separate inscriptions. The, slightly shorter, northern text, and the opposite southern text. The
most obvious distinction between the two is the absence in the north of the honorific epitaph km. This
is coupled with a relative abundance of most higher-ranking titles.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the serdab was not planned in advance, beyond the simple
outline. Not only are there substantial differences between the two inscriptions, as discussed above,
but within each inscription. In the first place, the extremely low frequency of certain titles is striking.
wr id.t and imy-rA Xnw, for example, each feature just once in the serdab and while further instances of
each may have been lost during the construction of room F, it is clear that they can never have been
particularly numerous. Why, as these titles were evidently worthy of inclusion, should they be so

54
Baer 1960: 164, note 5.

uncommon? The reasons for the inclusion of the titles written in the serdab are discussed below,
55

and it is clear that the two titles mentioned above do not differ in any noticeable way from the rest of
those in the serdab. We can suggest no logical reason for the disparity of number between wr id.t and,
for example, smr.
The lack of a coherent plan is further evident in the order of the titles inscribed. Although Fischer has
suggested otherwise,
56
there is no apparent attempt to place the titles in strings, or indeed, to order
them in any way each title and name variant seems to have been thought of as an independent
inscription. However, there is also no evident link between the name variant paired with each title,
and there is wide variation in the pairs, as can be seen in the translation.
57

As can be seen, the serdab decoration lacks unity of purpose. The inconsistencies between the
inscriptions might be explained simply by imagining each to be the work of a different scribe, one of
whom liked writing km while the other did not though this does still imply that neither worked to an
overall plan. The inconsistencies within the inscriptions, however, suggest that no element of the
inscription was effectively planned in advance. We are left with the impression that however many
scribes worked on the serdab, each was given no more instruction than a list of titles and names, and a
request to write one of each next to each statue.

To explain the absence of a plan for the serdab, it is worth considering comparable material from
elsewhere in Egypt. To my knowledge, there exist just three examples of this style of serdab, all of
which were discovered in ruined mastaba tombs in the Senedjemib complex at Giza G 2381,
G2381a and G2381c. These tombs have not yet been fully published, though such a publication is
apparently forthcoming.
58
The owners of these tombs were Nxbw and his two sons PtH-Spss Impy
and %Abw-PtH Ibebi.
59
Unfortunately, the serdabs of these tombs are not preserved intact, but exist
only in a number of loose blocks, mostly held in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.
60
I have been
unable to locate the blocks from the tomb of Ptahshepses Impy, though Brovarski asserts that they are
described in Reisners unpublished notes,
61
and so the following discussion does not include his
serdab.
Both serdabs share the basic features of that belonging to Pepyankh. Several registers of repeating
figures representing statues of the tomb owner are preserved on the surviving blocks, and each figure
is accompanied by a brief inscription containing names and titles. These scenes, however, though

55
Section 5.
56
Fischer 1992: 61.
57
See Appendix 1.
58
Brovarski 2003: xxii.
59
Brovarski 2003: 34.
60
The blocks held at this museum are numbered MFA 13.4339.1-4, MFA 13.6019 & MFA 14.4345.1-2. In
addition, a single block is held in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, J. dE 44621. These blocks all come from the
tombs of Nekhebu and Sabu Ibebi.
61
Brovarski 2003: 3 note 39.

evidently related to Pepyankhs serdab, do not match its decoration exactly. Perhaps the most obvious
difference is that the statues in the Giza tombs are not uniform. Those of Nekhebu vary substantially
in both colour and design, and, as Fischer has shown,
62
seem to follow a pattern of alternating
colours.
63
Those of Sabu Ibebi, though unfinished, also differ from one another.
64
In addition, while
Nekhebus inscriptions are painted on the walls, with black-inked hieroglyphs as in Pepyankhs tomb,
Sabu Ibebis are incised and do not appear to have been painted. It is perhaps of less importance,
though still worth mentioning, that the statues in both Ibebis and Pepyankhs tombs appear to be 10
(0.25m) high, while those in Nekhebus tomb are just 8
1
/
2
(0.21m)

high.
The writing in each case varies substantially, both in location and content. In Nekhebus serdab, as in
Pepyankhs, the writing is in front of each statue, while in Ibebis it is behind. While in Pepyankhs
tomb, each statue is accompanied by one title and one name variant, in Nekhebus case the name is
always the same and on several occasions the title is omitted. In Ibebis serdab the names vary in
each legend, but rather than a single title, an entire string of titles is written each time.
It should be noted that Fischer has observed of Nekhebus serdab that it showed a lack of careful
planning, or a failure to execute the plan progressively and continuously.
65
In addition, he sees
inconsistencies in the pattern of alternating statues as the result of the attempt to provide a transition
between parts of the wall painted simultaneously by two or more artists.
66

The differences between these three serdabs, as well as the inconsistencies within them demonstrate
that Pepyankhs serdab is not unique in its irregularity. Further, the lack of comparable material
offers a compelling explanation for the apparent carelessness with which each was decorated. This
style of serdab was, as far as we are aware, a new departure for Egyptian tomb decoration. Whether it
was invented by Nekhebu, or his architect, or there had been tentative steps in this direction which
have not survived, it is clear that the serdab decoration was an innovation. The scribes and artists who
decorated these serdabs could not have relied on copying from predecessors
67
as no predecessors
existed. It is possible, that, had this decorative concept caught on, the techniques would have been
honed, and the decorative scheme may have become more coherent.
The fact that there was no proliferation of this style of decoration is probably due to two factors. In
the first place, it was invented too late. As Harpur has stated, the 6
th
Dynasty was a period of
consolidation rather than innovation,
68
and the serdab decoration is out of step with this. More

62
Fischer 1963: 21.
63
See figs 3, 4 and 5
64
See figs 6 and 7
65
Fischer 1963: 22.
66
Fischer 1963: 22.
67
Harpur 1987: 231.
68
Harpur 1987: 230.

importantly, however, the serdab was almost invariably an Old Kingdom feature.
69
With the
disappearance of serdabs, decorating serdabs grew considerably less common and so the motif did not
have a chance to flourish.
In addition to this, however, it is worth noting that the nature of the serdab does not encourage
copyists. Artists and scribes, in addition to their training, presumably sought inspiration from their
predecessors, touring older tombs to examine the decorations. The serdab, however, was sealed upon
the completion of the tomb, and so its decoration would have been hidden from view. This
inaccessibility raises an interesting question. How did Pepyankh know about this style of serdab
decoration?
All other examples of this phenomenon occur in a single family, to which Pepyankh does not appear
to have been connected. It is inconceivable that the similarities between the serdabs are a
coincidence, and if they are the result of a commonality of training, we should expect more examples.
An intriguing explanation is presented in the biography of Nekhebu. In this, Nekhebu describes a
number of missions on which he was sent at the behest of the king. The third such mission is
described as follows: His Majesty sent me to [?] to dig the canal of his
[broken]
of Hathor-in-
. I acted and I dug it so that his majesty praised me for it.
70

is Dunhams transliteration of Qis, the town sign of Cusae. This is the only Upper Egyptian
site to which Nekhebu refers, and it is striking that it is also the only site at which a comparable
serdab has been found. It is tempting to imagine a scene in which the visiting architect and the local
ruler discussed their arrangements for the hereafter, with the serdab decoration as the result of their
conversation. There is, however, a serious barrier to this suggestion. The king that sent Nekhebu to
Cusae was Pepy I,
71
and so, if Kanawatis dating of the tomb is correct, Pepyankh was probably not
even born during his visit. It is conceivable that Nekhebus visit sparked a friendship between his
family and that of Pepyankhs, and that the latter knew the sons of the former. Alternatively,
Nekhebu may have spoken to an artist or scribe about his serdab, and the idea stuck until Pepyankhs
tomb was decorated. All of this, however, is mere guesswork, and more certain conclusions must
await the publication of the Giza tombs.

69
Dodson and Ikram 2008: 114.
70
Dunham 1938: 3.
71
Dunham 1938: 1.

5. The Titles of Pepyankh Henykem
In the previous section we discussed the decoration of the serdab, ignoring, for the most part, the
content of the inscriptions. These, however, are of great interest. A careful analysis of the titles
found in the serdab, and a comparison with those found in the rest of the tomb, leads to some
surprising conclusions. To this end, every title attributed to Pepyankh in the tomb, outside of the
serdab, has been counted and tabulated.
5 i. Table of titles found outside the serdab
Egyptian English Jones No.
72
Total
HAty-a Count 1858 21
xtmty bity Sealer of the King of
Lower Egypt
2775 23
imy-rA Smaw Overseer of Upper
Egypt
896 11
imy-rA Sma mAa True overseer of Upper
Egypt
898 3
Xry-Hb.t Hry-tp Lector Priest in Charge 2860 2
s(t)m Se(te)m Priest 3241 1
smr waty Sole Companion 3268 25
Xry- Hb.t Lector Priest 2848 20
xrp SnD.t nb.t Director of every kilt 2737 1
imy-rA Hm-nTr Overseer of the Gods
Servant(s)
651 25

As mentioned above
73
, the accuracy of Baers variable sequence charts has been called into question a
number of times.
74
These charts represent composites of data drawn from a number of tombs thought
to be of the same date.
75
This attempt to draw quite fine distinctions in the span of the 6
th
Dynasty
must rest on the firm dating of the tombs from which the charts are drawn. Unfortunately, very few
tombs from this period are well-dated indeed, Baer based his charts partially on Blackmans dating

72
These refer to index number, not page number.
73
See page 13.
74
Kanawati 1989: 18; Franke 1993: 291.
75
Baer 1960: 222-224.

of the tombs at Meir, which, as has been demonstrated above,
76
was probably wildly inaccurate.
Franke has called on Baers variable sequence charts to be abandoned
77
owing to their shaky
foundations.
As such, it has been thought best to create a ranking chart of the titles in Pepyankhs tomb, based
solely on the data within the tomb, rather than rely on the general, possibly flawed, charts of Baer.
This chart follows Baers method of assessing the rank of a given title - the earlier a title appears in a
sequence of titles, the higher the rank it is presumed to have. There are 28 such title sequences,
consisting of between two and eight titles. The central line of the chart shows the immutable titles
those whose positions never change relative to each other. That is to say, HAty-a is only ever placed
first, before Xtmty bity which is always before smr waty, while imy-rA Hm-nTr, if present, is always the
last title in a sequence.
The titles represented in this chart are drawn from the whole tomb apart from the serdab. It would
obviously be desirable to include the titles within the serdab, but this has proved impossible. Titles
can only be ranked if they are found in sequence, and, although there are many titles in the serdab, it
is impossible to read them as a collection of title sequences. Whether one reads vertically or
horizontally, it quickly becomes clear that the titles are not arranged in order of rank. This is
particularly clear in the several instances in which the same title is written twice in a row.

76
Section 2b.
77
Franke 1993: 291.

5 ii. Chart showing relative ranks of titles outside the serdab

The positions of imy-rA Smaw and imy-rA Sma mAa vary from list to list. The titles can occur in any of
the three positions indicated that is, either before or after xtmty bity, and, in the case of the former,
after Xry-Hb.t, or in the case of the latter, after smr waty. The two titles never appear in the same title
sequence and so it is impossible to state their positions relative to one another. imy-rA Sma mAa appears
three times in the tomb once in each position indicated. imy-rA Smaw appears eleven times once
before xtmty bity, seven times before smr waty and four times after Xry-Hb.t.
Xry-Hb.t Hry-tp occurs once following xtmty bity, but this string consists of only these two titles, and
so we are unable to ascertain its position relative to other titles.
The string Xry-Hb.t Hry-tp, s(t)m, xrp SnD.t nb.t occurs only once, following imy-rA Sma mAa and
preceding imy-rA Hm-nTr. This is marked by red lines on the chart. As they never appear in the same
string as other titles, such as smr waty, their relative positions cannot be securely established.
Comparing this chart with table 4c.i. two points stand out particularly the prevalence of the low-
ranking title imy-rA Hm-nTr and the great difference between the variety of titles recorded in the serdab
and that recorded in the rest of the tomb.

The fact that the lowest ranking of Pepyankhs titles, imy-rA Hm-nTr, is by far the most commonly
inscribed title. It accounts for 22.2% of all the titles preserved in the serdab, and appears in all but
three of the title sequences in the rest of the tomb it is written no fewer than 63 times in total. The
second most common title is, more understandably, HAty-a, the highest ranking title written outside the
serdab. It is puzzling, therefore, that so lowly a title is so often written in the tomb. A few
explanations present themselves. It is possible that the ranking is not accurately represented by the
chart above. Baers method is based on the assumption that within any given line of text, the titles
were written in order from highest to lowest and that this order represented some organized system
larger than the individual line of text.
78
It is conceivable that these assumptions are not accurate.
Perhaps imy-rA Hm-nTr appears at the end of title sequences precisely in order to emphasise its
importance it is the last thing the audience reads, and therefore the freshest in the memory. This,
however, does not seem particularly plausible. In the first case, Baers method, although his results
and his charts have been criticised
79
, by and large, produces sensible results. HAty-a was plainly a title
of high rank, while xrp SnD.t nb.t was lower. The underlying principle, therefore, seems sounds.
Furthermore, Egyptian writing almost invariably accords the highest honour to the first thing written.
This is most evident in the practice of writing the theophoric or royal elements of personal names
first, regardless of their actual position in the name as, for instance, in the name of Pepyankhs
father, Niankh-Pepy the Black, whose name is always written .
Conceivably, the prevalence of imy-rA Hm-nTr can be explained by the fact that it is a role of religious,
rather than administrative, significance. This, however, does not seem particularly likely. If
Pepyankhs aim were simply to emphasise his religious duties, higher-ranking alternatives were
available. Both Xry-Hb.t Hry-tp and Xry-Hb.t far outrank imy-rA Hm-nTr, and yet neither is written as
often. Indeed, Xry-Hb.t Hry-tp is written only twice outside the serdab. The importance of imy-rA Hm-
nTr is very unlikely, therefore, to be simply that it is of religious significance.
That said, there is no reason to discard entirely the idea that the nature of the title is the reason for its
frequent appearance. Although its frequent appearance cannot be explained merely by the fact that it
is religious, the specific nature of the religious role performed by the imy-rA Hm-nTr does offer a
solution. Fischer explains the title as referring to the administration of one of the temples of the local
gods in the provinces.
80
This is evidenced in several texts. The statue of Ggi at Saqqara describes
him as Overseer of priests of Onuris,
81
(imy-rA Hm-nTr n In-Hr.t). A letter from Elephantine calls Irw
'Overseer of priests of Ra,
82
(imy-rA Hm-nTr Ra). Another letter describes Mmi as 'superiore dei

78
Baer 1960: 4.
79
Kanawati 1989: 18.
80
Fischer 1962: 66.
81
Fischer 1954: 29.
82
Smither 1942: 16. However, see Fischer 1954: note 31 who instead reads imy-rA sS Ra.

profeti X
83
(imy-rA Hm-nTr m[]). Roccati notes that the damaged text here begins with an M,
probably the iniziale di un nome proprio come MTTi, MSTi, ecc.
84
Perhaps most tellingly, in the tomb
of Pepyankh the Middle, Pepyankh Henykems grandfather, the tomb owner is designated Overseer
of priest of Hathor, Mistress of Cusae, (imy-rA Hm-nTr n @t-Hr nb.t Qis).
85
Although Pepyankhs own
title never specifies the cult whose gods servants he oversees, it is clear that the title itself implies a
specific cult. It seems almost certain that this must have been the cult of Hathor the Mistress of
Cusae, as evidenced in the tomb of Pepyankh the Middle.
86

If this is accepted, the prevalence of imy-rA Hm-nTr ceases to be a puzzle. Although it is of relatively
low rank on a national, and, as far as such a concept existed in Egypt, secular level, it is of inestimable
importance on a local level. To have held the rank of imy-rA Hm-nTr demonstrates a personal devotion
to both the local cult, adherents of which will have been responsible for the upkeep of Pepyankhs
funeral cult, and to the goddess on whom the cult focussed, Hathor. It is entirely understandable,
therefore, that Pepyankh should want to emphasise his performance of this duty, both to the public, on
the tomb walls, and to the gods, on the walls of the serdab.

The discrepancy between the variety of titles recorded in the serdab and that recorded in the rest of the
tomb is worthy of note. 22 different titles are written in the serdab, compared to just 10 in the rest of
the tomb. Interestingly, two of the titles written outside of the serdab, imy-rA Sma mAa and xrp SnD.t
nb.t, are not replicated within it, which leaves a total of 14 titles which occur only in the serdab. In
order to understand this disparity, it is necessary to examine the nature of the titles in question.
It is easiest to begin with the 10 titles found in the rest of the tomb, excluding imy-rA Hm-nTr, which
has been discussed already. There is very little confusion surrounding these titles. As Baer shows in
his tables of standard title sequences, HAty-a, xtmty bity, smr waty, Xry-Hb.t, s(t)m and xrp SnD.t nb.t are
all found extremely commonly.
87
Of the rest, imy-rA Smaw and Xry-Hb.t Hry-tp are only slightly less
common.
88
It is worth noting that Baers standard sequence charts do not suffer from the same
drawbacks as the variable sequence charts, as they are not connected to dates within the Old
Kingdom, but the period as a whole. imy-rA Sma mAa is not included in Baers standard title charts, and
scholars are undecided as to the precise meaning of mAa in titles. Some, such as Nims, believe it to
show that the office in question was real, not honorific,
89
while others, including James, believe it to

83
Roccati 1968: 16.
84
Roccati 1968: 17.
85
After Blackman 1924: 27.
86
Galvin 1984: 48-49.
87
Baer 1960: 199.
88
Baer 1960: 200.
89
Nims 1938: 647.

be almost certainly wrong to claim that it indicates an active as against a passive holding of a title.
90

Kanawati believes the addition of mAa to ny title might well have carried with it a certain distinction
for its holder.
91
This, unfortunately, is as much as can be said about this title until more is known
about it. It is difficult to suggest any reason beyond careless oversight to explain the absence of imy-
rA Sma mAa and xrp SnD.t nb.t from the serdab, though, as discussed below,
92
this is not an unreasonable
suggestion.
The titles from the rest of the tomb, then, pose few problems they are simply the common titles
inscribed by most tomb owners on the walls of their monuments. More intriguing is the collection of
titles found only in the serdab. Their presence in the serdab is not particularly troublesome
Pepyankh would have wanted to record any titles he had held in life. Their absence from the rest of
the tomb, however, is, at first glance, puzzling. To hide so many titles in a corner of the tomb where
it is certain that no human will see them again does not seem sensible. The nature of the hidden titles,
however, sheds some light on this action. A number of the titles can be grouped together as denoting
duties that were impossible for Pepyankh to have performed in Meir.
Xry-tp nsw.t, literally who is under the head of the King,
93
obviously denotes a role involving direct
service to the crown. As Gunn demonstrates, the role must have been that of an officer who attended
the king in his bedroom.
94
This seems to be echoed by imy-rA Xnw, a relatively rare title.
95
As might
be suspected from the term Xnw, royal residence,
96
most of its holders are buried in Giza and
Saqqara, and we can reasonably assume that the title denoted some specific service within the palace
or at court.
mty n sA is believed to be connected with pyramid temples and the royal funerary cult.
97
Although
this title is frequently attested at the capital, it is relatively rare in provincial tombs.
98
Most holders of
the title also hold the title Sps nsw.t,
99
which appears to be rather a formal designation
100
than a title
designating any specific responsibility. Fischer states that the title probably betokens little more than
Hoffhigkeit.
101
This is supported by the titles use in the Middle Kingdom as a general and non-

90
James 1953: 12-13.
91
Kanawati 1992: 119.
92
Page 41.
93
Blackman 1931: 58 note 9. See also Glanville 1932: 54 note 3.
94
Gunn 1941: 145.
95
Kanawati & Abder-Raziq 1998: 12 note 14.
96
Faulkner 1962: 202.
97
Kanawati 1992: 213.
98
Kanawati 1992: 213-214 & note 1294.
99
Kanawati 1992: 214 note 1294.
100
Fischer 1961b: 423.
101
Fischer 1961a: 28.

titular term for a courtier.
102
Evidently, both titles can only have any actual meaning if their holders
are present at court, in the capital.
Another title connected with mty n sA is sS n sA. Apart from the obvious connection that both are
related to the organisation of a phyle, both titles appear alongside one another on a fragment of relief
belonging to a Ny-anx Nfr-tm.
103
It is worthy of note that the two titles are also in one instance found
next to one another in the serdab. Little has been written about the title, though it seems to have been
of quite low rank. It is attested in the tomb of anx-m-a-@r at Saqqara as belonging to an unnamed
man, whose only other title is Hm-kA.
104
Considering the low status of imy-rA Hm-kA, it is quite clear
that this is a title of very low rank, and as it is apparently the unidentified mans only other title, it
seems reasonable to assume that sS n sA is not an exalted title.
Finally, though here translated literally as Gods Sealer, the title xtm nTr seems to have been held by
certain prominent officials taking part in expeditions in quest of valuable stones and the like.
105

Fischer, who translates the title as expedition leader,
106
states that the duty of the Xtm nTr was to
replenish the royal treasury through expeditions that brought back wealth from foreign regions.
107

Five of these titles designate responsibilities to the king personally responsibilities which could only
be carried out while living in the capital. The other title, xtm nTr, does not require presence in the
capital, but cannot be carried out from Meir. It is safe to assume that those sent on expeditions to
foreign parts in quest of precious items were not, in general, the highest administrators of important
provinces. These titles, then, cannot have been held by Pepyankh during the building of his tomb, but
must instead have been held at an earlier stage in his career.
Another group of titles are evidently lesser versions of titles displayed in the main parts of the tomb.
sHD Hm-nTr and imy-rA Hm-nTr are rarely held by the same person - just three individuals, apart from
Pepyankh, are noted by Kanawati as having recorded both titles on their monuments.
108
Kanawati
calls sHD Hm-nTr the lesser title.
109
This is plainly the case with smr and smr waty a sole
companion must, presumably, at some stage have been simply a companion.
sS gs-dp.t is closely related to the title Xry-Hb.t. Fischer
110
provides a list of twenty-one individuals,
all of whom held both titles, almost invariably in sequence. In light of this fact, Wilsons suggestion

102
Fischer 1964: 25 note 4.
103
Fischer 1996: 8 note 5.
104
Kanawati and Hassan 1997: 42.
105
Gardiner 1917: 35 note 1.
106
Fischer 1968: 13. See also Bell et al 1984: 31 note 7.
107
Fischer 1968: 116.
108
Kanawati 1992: 271.
109
Kanawati 1992: 271.
110
Kanawati 1992: 271.

that the holder of the title was a sort of actor in a passion play,
111
seems unlikely. The role must in
fact denote some specific duty of the lector priest presumably, as Fischer suggests, the role
describes the provision of magical protection, naturally the domain of the lector due to his knowledge
of ritual texts.
112
It should be pointed out that of the very few instances in which sS gs-dp.t and Xry-
Hb.t do not occur in sequence, two are found in Pepyankhs tomb. The first is found in the serdab,
which, as we have mentioned does not contain title sequences. The second instance is found in room
B,
113
in a scene of Pepyankh spearing fish. His son, Heny, standing before him on the skiff, holding a
spear, is called sS gs-dp.t, but not lector priest. Fischer states that it seems likely that Heny is the
same as another Heny, depicted standing behind Pepyankhs son Hepi on a different wall.
114
This
individual does hold the title Xry-Hb.t, though it is not certain that they are the same person. However,
as discussed below,
115
Heny is depicted on the wall of room F, and there certainly bears the title of
lector priest.
wr id.t has not often been discussed, and so its associations are not immediately clear. The similarly
worded title wr DHa has been understood to mean Chief of Leathercrafts
116
and Great of Leather
117

in the sense of abounding in leather. wr bz.t has been similarly interpreted as meaning abounding
in brilliant objects (of silver and gold),
118
and as Great One of the Container of Adornments.
119

Evidently the format of the title indicates a responsibility involving the control and/or use of a specific
commodity, in this case incense. Such a responsibility would naturally fall to a religious official, and
the title is frequently associated with Xry-Hb.t,
120
but Pepyankhs more exalted titles, such as lector
priest in charge and overseer of the gods servants, would have eclipsed it. It is reasonable to assume
that the Xry-Hb.t Hry-tp does not have to concern himself directly with looking after the incense any
more than the Archbishop of Canterbury is in charge of laundering the cassocks.
The absence of these titles from the rest of the tomb is unsurprising in light of the nature of the roles
they represent. Evidently, these are positions which Pepyankh, having filled at some stage, had been
promoted beyond. smr gave way to smr waty, and sHD Hm-nTr to imy-rA Hm-nTr. The two titles
connected with the role of the lector priest were presumably roles with which Pepyankh felt he could

111
Wilson 1970: 210.
112
Fischer 1992: 61.
113
Blackman 1953. Pl. 24.
114
115
Section 6.
116
Brovarski 1973: 455.
117
Fischer 1996: 36.
118
Fischer 1996: 36.
119
Silverman 1994: 253.
120
Fischer 1961: 25.

dispense having secured higher positions. Indeed, in the case of sS gs-dp.t, this is demonstrably the
case as Pepyankhs son, Heny, is depicted as a holder of the title on the tomb wall.
121

Two of the titles in the serdab appear to be simple mistakes. Both imy-rA pr-HD and imy-rA Snw.t are
otherwise unknown for provincial officials and are probably intended to be written in the dual forms,
imy-rA pr.wy-HD and imy-rA Snw.ty. The second of these does in fact appear in the serdab, though the
first does not.
122

Having dealt with these titles, we are left with three that are harder to understand. imy-rA Snw.ty, tAyty
sAb TAty and *imy-rA pr.wy-HD, which, though it never appears, should evidently be understood for imy-
rA pr-HD, all appear only in the serdab, despite their high rank. Strudwick calls tAyty sAb TAty the
senior administrative official in the Old Kingdom.
123
That Pepyankh should possess such a title and
not display it seems extremely unlikely, leading some to suggest that he was appointed only very late
in life, and subsequently relieved of his role,
124
received the position posthumously,
125
or was never
even appointed to the role in the first place, but simply appropriated the title for his benefit in the
afterlife.
126
None of these seem particularly likely. In the first two cases we must believe that the
entire tomb, apart from a small corner of the serdab, was so completely decorated that none of the
titles could be squeezed in, despite their importance. The idea that the title was simply fraudulent is
possible, but in light of what we have discussed regarding the other titles unique to the serdab, an
alternative solution seems preferable.
Approximately 20 individuals are known to have held the title tAyty sAb TAty during the reign of Pepy
II.
127
Even allowing for Pepys incredibly long reign, this number is very high, particularly
considering the great likelihood that other examples have not yet been discovered. It is clear that,
unless the title was held only very briefly by each bearer, there must have been more than one tAyty
sAb TAty in power at any given time. It has been suggested that the problem of concurrent bearers of
what was ostensibly the highest title in Egypt may be resolved by understanding a number of the
instances as simply honorific, implying no actual duties.
128
This is perhaps plausible, though there is
no evidence for it, and Strudwick cannot bring [him]self to believe [it].
129

A rather better suggestion in any case is that the title had regional, as opposed to national, importance.
That is to say, there were a number of tAyty sAb TAty in various parts of the country, each performing

121
122
This is discussed further below, page 41.
123
Strudwick 1985: 334.
124
Kanawati 1980a: 93.
125
Brovarski, personal communication recorded in Eaton-Krauss 1984: 183 note 906.
126
Eaton-Krauss 1984: 183 note 906.
127
Strudwick 1984: 301-303.
128
Helck 1954: 116-7.
129

the duties of that role in their own location. There is, unfortunately, no written evidence for this, but
as Strudwick points out the Old Kingdom is notoriously imprecise in the qualifications of important
titles.
130
We can perhaps envisage a situation similar to that which is apparent with the title imy-rA
Smaw, which can evidently be modified to reflect the precise areas of Upper Egypt over which its
holder is overseer. Pepyankhs grandfather, Pepyankh the Middle held the title imy-rA Sma spAw.t
Hriw.t-ib
131
Overseer of Upper Egypt in the middle provinces,
132
while Shepsi-pu-Min of Akhmim
was imy-rA Sma m spAw.t mHti.t,
133
Overseer of Upper Egypt in the northern provinces.
134
The
proposition that a similar condition pertained for tAyty sAb TAty receives some measure of support from
the later development of the title. During the Middle and New Kingdoms, the division of the title
between Upper and Lower Egypt is well-attested.
135

If we understand tAyty sAb TAty in this way, its relegation to the serdab is slightly less shocking.
Though still important, it is no longer the highest title in the land. A similar case can be made for the
imy-rA nw.ty and *imy-rA pr.wy-HD, the duties of which roles seem to have consisted principally of
the collection of their respective commodities grain in the first case, money in the latter.
136
These
titles are very commonly connected with tAyty sAb TAty, and are also found in too great a number to
have avoided concurrent holders.
137
These too, then, could have been held on a regional basis. If this
is accepted, we are, perhaps, justified in following Gillams suggestion that all three duties were
placed under the control of the imy-rA Smaw.
138
The titles, essentially, are specific duties of the
overseer of Upper Egypt, and as such it is unnecessary to include them in the rest of the tomb, where
the main title is prominent.
Thus, we can see that the 14 titles written only in the serdab fall into four groups:
1. Titles connected to specific, relinquished, responsibilities
a. xtm nTr, Xry-tp nsw.t, imy-rA Xnw, mty n sA, Sps nsw.t, sS n sA
2. Titles superseded by higher titles
a. Smr, sHD Hm-nTr, sS gs-dp.t, wr id.t
3. Mistakes

130
131
Blackman 1924: Pl. 4a 1.
132
Jones 2000: 901.
133
Kanawati 1981: 25.
134
Jones 2000: 900.
135
136
137
Strudwick 1985: 266 & 292.
138
Gillam 1991a: 145.

a. imy-rA Snw.t, imy-rA pr-HD
4. Titles constituting elements of higher titles
a. tAyty sAb TAty, imy-rA Snw.ty, *imy-rA pr.wy-HD
Through this examination of the nature of the titles found in the serdab the reason for their absence
from the rest of the tomb becomes clear. None of these titles are of high enough stature to be worth
inscribing on the main walls of the tomb. They are either titles no longer borne by the tomb owner, or
titles that are implied by his more important roles. Nonetheless, as titles Pepyankh held during his
life, it was evidently desirable to include them in his tomb. Some limited support can be provided to
this argument from a comparison of the surviving sections of the serdab of Nekhebu with his
biographical inscription. In the former, Nekhebu records the title mdH nsw.t,
139
perhaps to be
understood as mdH msw.t qdw.
140
In the latter,
141
he records his career progression from mdH nsw.t
qdw to the higher title of mdH nsw.t qdw n pr.wy.
142
This is evidently an example of the same principle
of retaining all titles held during life.
The serdab inscriptions provide us with valuable information about the career progression of a late 6
th

Dynasty official. In essence, Pepyankhs serdab provides us with the outline of his life. It mirrors, if
somewhat less precisely, Nekhebus biographical inscription, and allows us to get a glimpse of the
man behind the tomb. We can see that Pepyankhs titles, just as those of Nekhebu, were not acquired
purely by inheritance, but were, in part at least, the rewards of training and experience.
143
This
incidentally, offers a partial explanation for the scarcity of the lower priestly ranks at Meir, as noted
by Gillam.
144
Assuming Pepyankh is not an aberration, evidently, those who held the highest ranks
had, at some stage in their career held such ranks as sHD Hm-nTr and mty n sA. They did not record
these titles, as only the highest positions were worth mentioning, and so the evidence for them has
disappeared. In addition, Gillams statement that it was unlikely for [sHD Hm-nTr] to achieve
promotion,
145
while probably substantially correct, should be re-examined in the light of the likely
career progression of the high officials at Meir.

139
Jones 2000: 1728.
140
Strudwick 1985: 43.
141
Sethe 1933: 216.
142
Jones 2000: 1730.
143
Dunham 1938: 7.
144
Gillam 1991a: 176.
145
Gillam 1991a: 153.

6. Room F
146

6a. Description

The east and west walls of room F are decorated with very detailed scenes of a funerary procession.
As this is not discussed in any great detail, and considering the word limit, a description of this is
unnecessary here. The north wall is undecorated, being chiefly occupied by the entrance to room G.
Apart from the funerary scenes, the east wall bears a number of interesting features. Its northern
extent is a cement partition wall, presumably modern, though Blackman is not clear. Approximately
halfway along, there is a false door above a shaft leading to room H. At the southern end of the wall
is a second false door. The south wall is decorated with a relief portraying the inspection of all the
cattle, sheep and goats of his towns by a seated figure of grand scale holding a fox skin whip and a
thin stick, possibly a pen. Above this figure, usually thought to be Pepyankh, there is a list containing
a few titles and naming him Heny, whose good name is Henenit.
In front of the figure, arranged in four registers, an array of cattle and smaller animals are led by
herdsmen, while the hieroglyphic legend lists numbers of cattle and the titles of the herdsmen. The
top register features a herdsman followed by five billy goats and five nanny goats. The front billy
goat is led by a rope attached to its nose. Three small shrubs are depicted among the goats. At the
back of the herd a second herdsman, holding a pot, a long stick, apparently a goad, and a skin-bag.
Four of the goats are drawn on a higher line than the others, while the rear herdsman is on a line
between the two. This is presumably an attempt to imply a great number of goats, spread out across a
wide area.
The second register also shows two herdsmen, one in front of and the other behind the animals. The
animals, however, are cattle. The foremost animal is a young longhorn according to the inscription.
It is depicted without horns and is, again, led by the nose. It is followed by an adult longhorn with its
tongue sticking out. This may be a result of mislabelling as it is smaller than the animal in front. The
udders of the final animal are not depicted, but this could be due to the fortunes of preservation, as the
text and the size of the animal indicate it is a cow. The final herdsman has his left hand on the cows
back and holds a short stick in his right.
The third register also shows a herdsman leading a long-horned bull by the nose. This is followed by
a smaller animal, possibly a calf, with curved horns. The last animal is a cow, apparently licking the
animal in front. It is possible that this is intended to imply that the middle animal is a calf, as cows
are known to lick the rump of their calves to encourage suckling. The final herdsman has his left
hand on the cows back.
The bottom register seems to be intended to represent the front of the procession of cattle. It is led by
an untitled official holding a short stick in his left hand. His right hand is on the bowed head of the

146
See appendix 2 for the translation of this section.

front herdsman, and he exhorts him to bow down excellently before the seated figure. The
herdsman leads a young longhorn by the nose. This is followed by a second young longhorn, and
finally a herdsman driving the cattle with a short stick which he holds in his left hand and carrying a
pot in his right.

6b. Analysis
As was mentioned in the introduction, it is the contention of this work that this room is not part of the
tomb of Pepyankh Henykem. It is further suggested that it belongs, indeed represents the entire tomb
of, Pepyankhs eldest son, Heny. It will be easiest to take these points one at a time.
Apart from its physical proximity, there seems little reason that room F should ever have been
naturally considered part of the same tomb. In the first place, it serves no useful purpose. Pepyankhs
tomb, by which is meant rooms A-E and the serdab, forms an elegant and unified whole - each room
plays a useful part. This has been argued persuasively by OConnor
147
, who asserts that, in order to
promote the magical regeneration of Pepyankh in the afterlife, rooms A-E are designed to reflect an
elite house. This, he argues, hints subtly at a sexual and ultimately reproductive
148
undercurrent in
the design of the tomb. Room F does not fit into the layout.
Even if OConnors arguments are not accepted, however, room F still stands out as inelegant and
purposeless. Its two false doors seem to imply an intention that it be used to receive offerings, but this
is patently unnecessary when it is considered that room C not only contains a false door and offering
table (something lacking in room F), but is in fact entirely decorated with scenes of offering. Further,
room C is almost directly above the burial chamber, room D, which, as Dodson and Ikram
149
point
out, is a general feature of false doors.
It should, of course, be borne in mind that the northernmost false door is evidently linked with room
H, which Blackman supposes to belong to an intruder.
150
However, there still remains the southern
false door, which, as it does not interrupt the rest of the decoration, and is certainly linked to the shaft
that causes the break in the serdab, seems to have been part of the design of the room. In any case,
there is still no reasonable function associated with the room that is not fulfilled elsewhere. Further,
apart from serving no useful function of its own, room F actively destroys something which had a
clear function the serdab.
It seems unlikely that having built and almost completely decorated the serdab, presumably at
reasonable expense, Pepyankh would simply destroy it. If he wished to build and decorate another
room, it is sensible to assume that he would have done so in a different direction so as to avoid
damaging already existing rooms. There was space for such extension in the direction of room E, and

147
OConnor 1996: 631.
148
OConnor 1996: 631.
149
Dodson and Ikram 2008: 120.
150
Blackman 1953: 46.

as such this would seem to be the logical direction for construction. Room E was enlarged after room
F had been decorated, as is evident from the fact that where it breaks into room F, the ink drawings
are damaged. The fact that this space was not used implies that there was a reason to build in this
direction, such as a desire to mirror Pepyankhs connection with Niankh-Pepy.
151

It is clear from the existence of rooms G and H, as well as the extension to room E, that at least once,
and possibly up to three times, intruders built tombs leading off of Pepyankhs. As such, it seems no
great leap to assume that room F could be explained in this way.
The final piece of evidence for denying Pepyankhs ownership of room F is the absence of his name
from its decoration. In the rest of the tomb, Pepyankhs name appears well over 100 times. Room F
contains five different names in total: %SSn, Iri, Ppy-iHy-m-sA, Nfrs.T and @ny rn.f nfr @nni.t.
Pepy-ihy-emsa and Iri are the same person, as is demonstrated elsewhere in the tomb. Seshshen is
also known from elsewhere in the tomb. Nfrs.T is otherwise unrecorded, but of little account here as he
is simply an official in the funeral procession. The final name is usually thought to be one of
Pepyankhs. Pepyankh, however, though he is known by many names, is nowhere else referred to in
this way. The name is most nearly repeated in room B where he is twice named @ny rn.f nfr @nni.t
km, however, it is never exactly paralleled. Further, the list of titles above Heny whose good name is
Henenit, includes the title imy-rA sS.wy (Overseer of the two fowling pools). This too is known
from nowhere else in the tomb. While Pepyankh does have both names and titles which appear only
once, the coincidence of an unfamiliar title and an unparalleled name is too unlikely to allow. Only
two other variants of Pepyankhs name are recorded just once, @ni.t and @nny km. Both examples
occur in the serdab, and could easily be mistakes considering the repetitive nature of the inscription.
Indeed, Kanawati
152
is prepared to reject the name Ppy-anx km on the grounds that it appears just
three times in the serdab. Equally only four titles xrp SnD.t nb.t, imy-rA Snw.t, wr id.t and imy-rA
Xnw appear once for Pepyankh. Of these, imy-rA Snw.t, was considered by Strudwick
153
to be a
compression of imy-rA Snw.ty
154
which appears several times. None of the other unique names and
titles appear together.

Taken together, therefore, a strong case can be built for the exclusion of room F from Pepyankhs
tomb. The second half of the argument is necessarily more tentative, as the evidence for it is
generally circumstantial. However, if the above is accepted, the conclusion that Pepyankhs son Heny
built room F is not too difficult to accept.
The chief evidence of this is the name discussed above. Pepyankhs son is named twice in the rest of
the tomb: in the middle scene of the west wall of room B he is called sA.f srw mry.f smr waty Hry-tp aA

151
See below, page 44.
152
Kanawati 1989: 16 note 41
153
154
This is discussed further on page 41, below.

nDf.t Hn(y) (His eldest son, His beloved, Sole companion, Great chief of Nedjfet, Hen(y)). It is
unfortunate that the final letter of Henys name here appears to be an i, not a y. This is certainly
owing to the vicissitudes of preservation, however. The i is simply the remaining half of a y. He is
named again in the south scene of the same wall, though here he is called mry.f smr waty Hry-tp aA
nDf.t @nny.t rn.f nfr NfrkA (His beloved, sole companion, great chief of the Nedjfet nome, Henenyt,
whose good name is Neferka). This name is difficult to explain. The Henenyt is not spelt correctly,
and the Neferka is a new addition. Three mitigating factors may explain this. First, many members of
the family are known to have multiple names Pepyankh, for instance, is known by Pepyankh, Heny,
Henenit and Henykem, alongside a host of others
155
and these names can be mixed together in
unexpected ways. Pepyankhs good name is variously Heny, Henenit, Henenitkem, and, on one
occasion, both Henykem and Henenitkem. As such this name alone is not necessarily a death knell to
our theory. Second, Pepyankh himself is known by the name Neferka in the tomb of his grandfather,
Pepyankh the Middle.
156
The name does not appear once in his own very extensive lists of names.
Why, then, if among the hundreds of names in the tomb of Pepyankh, Neferka does not appear once,
should we expect to see it in the only example of a name in the tomb of Heny? In any case it is not
certain, though it seems likely, that the two sons are identical with one another, and so our theory
seems still to be valid.
Further evidence for Henys ownership of room F is to be found in the funeral procession scenes.
Lashien has argued very persuasively that no Old Kingdom examples of the funerary procession
depict the actual funeral of the tomb owner.
157
The basis for his argument is the fact that Old
Kingdom tomb scenes represent activities and events that appear to have taken place during the
tomb owners life time, where the owner is shown as a spectator or participant.
158
If the funeral
procession scenes represent the tomb owners actual funeral, they would be the only scenes from the
period depicting events yet to take place.
159
Lashien goes on to point out that in a number of tombs,
though not that of Pepyankh, the procession depicted cannot be that of the actual funeral as the tomb
owner is seen to be surveying it.
160
Instead, he argues, the procession scenes represent the
transportation of funerary furniture to the tomb.
Lashiens argument is, to a certain extent, undermined by his treatment of the scenes in room F. A
single line in these scenes, ih mk Sms imAxw pw sp sn iAw(t) nfr(.t) wr.t, causes Lashien to contradict
the rest of his argument. He suggests that the rare mention of a second time is probably a reference

155
See 4bii, above.
156
157
Lashien 2010: 1-11.
158
Lashien 2010: 1.
159
Lashien 2010: 1.
160
Lashien 2010: 7-9.

to the actual burial of the tomb owner, which will take place in the future.
161
When the bulk of
evidence in favour of Lashiens argument is considered, this seems very unlikely. If it was unlikely
that funeral scenes as a class represented the future, how much more so that this single representation
should be the sole example from the entire Old Kingdom of a scene representing the future? In his
discussion of the scenes, Lashien suggests that it is not clear whether the scenes belong to the tomb of
Pepyankh or that of his father, Niankh-Pepy, and that in any case the entire tomb was probably made
by the son Pepyankh/Henykem after the death of his father Nyankhpepy.
162
His explanation for this
statement is that the decoration in Niankh-Pepys tomb was hastily prepared,
163
though quite how this
demonstrates the conclusion is not entirely clear. He does not go so far as to state that the scene
represents the funeral of Niankh-Pepy, but it is evidently implied, and would certainly remove the
contradiction.
Twenty one tombs are known from the Old Kingdom that contain a representation of the funerary
procession, and of these only two tombs other than Pepyankhs contain depictions in which there is
any cause to doubt the accuracy of Lashiens argument. These are the tomb of +aw and +aw/^mai at
Deir el-Gebrawi,
164
and the tomb of *ti-iqr/KAHp at el-Hawawish.
165
In the former, Djau appears to be
mentioned in the text above the men dragging the coffin. ih mk Sps imAxw pw n HAty-a xtmty bity imy-
rA Sma mAa Hry-tp aA AbDw imy-rA sS.wy imAhw xr nTr +aw, O, behold, the escort of this revered one
for the Count, Sealer of the King of Lower Egypt, True Overseer of Upper Egypt, Great Chief of
Abydos, Overseer of the Two Fowling Pools, the revered one before his god, Djau.
166
Lashien
understands the first revered one to be the coffin and the second to be the elder Djau.
167
This is
possible, but no more likely than the alternative, that the first revered one is the elder Djau and the
second the younger Djau.
The funerary procession of Tjeti-Iker deviates in a subtler way. It is almost identical to the depiction
in the tomb of Tjeti-Ikers son, ^psi-pw-Mnw,
168
except that it lacks the conclusive proof that the tomb
owner is still alive the tomb owner standing on the boat watching the proceedings. As the same
artist decorated both tombs,
169
this is an important difference, and should not be disregarded. Lashien
is doubtless correct in suggesting that the absence is due to the fact that Tjeti-Iker was dead before his
tomb was prepared.
170

161
Lashien 2010: 6.
162
Lashien 2010: 6.
163
Lashien 2010: note 36.
164
Davies 1902: pl. 7.
165
Kanawati 1980: fig. 9
166
Davies 1902: Pl. 7. My own translation and transliteration.
167
Lashien 2010: 5.
168
Kanawati 1981: fig. 19.
169
This is certain from an inscription left by the artist, Seni, Kanawati 1980b: Pl. 8.
170
Lashien 2010: 5.

This is worthy of note for two reasons. The first is that these tombs were made, or at least finished,
by contemporaries of Pepyankh Henykem.
171
The second is that they all occur in tombs in which a
father and son are unusually closely connected Djau shares his tomb with his father, as, effectively,
does Pepyankh. Tjeti-Ikers tomb, as is clearly stated in the decoration, was decorated by the same
man as was his sons tomb, and it is likely that it was started before but finished after Shepsi-pu-
Mins.
172
Lashien and Kanawati are unanimous in their belief that Tjeti-Iker was dead by the time his
tomb was finished.
173

Two arguments seem possible, therefore. Either these three tombs are evidence of a brief period of
time in which funeral scenes began to represent the future, or these three scenes were each drawn
after the death of the tomb owner. The first case does not seem particularly likely. The practice is
known from no other tombs, many of which are also known to have been roughly contemporary with
these three. Further, the development in representation must be seen as a particularly oblique one in
no case is it clearly stated that the funeral had happened, and only through an extremely close
comparison with other such scenes is it possible to see even a hint that these scenes differ.
The second case seems far more plausible. Both Djau and Tjeti-Iker were very likely dead before
their tombs were decorated, and in both cases the decoration was completed by the son of the
deceased, who had presumably overseen the funeral arrangements. It is perfectly plausible that such a
son would depict the actual funeral, perhaps to remind his father of the fact that he had organised it.
This leaves us with Pepyankhs tomb. It is possible, as Lashien implies,
174
that the scenes are
intended to depict the funeral of Pepyankhs father, Niankh-Pepy. However, if this is the case, it is
difficult to explain the placement of the scenes within the tomb. The majority of Niankh-Pepys tomb
is undecorated indeed, most of the rooms were not even fully excavated by the builders and so it
would have been extremely easy to place the funeral scenes almost anywhere in tomb A1. Instead of
this, the scenes are placed in room F which is as far as it is possible to be from Niankh-Pepys part of
the tomb. If, on the other hand, we attribute room F to Heny, the difficulty disappears. Not only do
the depictions fall into the pattern of sons representing their fathers funerals in shared, or close,
tombs, but the location of the drawings becomes understandable Pepyankhs tomb decoration is
complete and there would have been no space for the funeral scenes in his tomb.
@ny, then, is a reasonably likely candidate as the owner of the room F tomb. This is offered some
degree of corroboration when it is considered that the list of titles that precedes the name is, with the
exception noted earlier, a carbon copy of many of the lists of Pepyankhs titles. As Heny would have

171
Kanawati 1992: 136-145.
172
Kanawati 1992: 129.
173
Lashien 2010: 7; Kanawati 1992: 129.
174
Lashien 2010: 6.

inherited these following his fathers death, it is no great leap to make that the depiction on the south
wall represents Heny.
It may be raised in objection to this theory that a son is hardly likely to damage his fathers tomb.
However, there is a very clear example of the opposite being true in the tomb of Pepyankh himself.
Room B of the tomb in effect forms a double pillared room with room A of his fathers tomb. Prior to
the construction of Pepyankhs room B, it seems almost certain from the surviving decoration that the
wall which was knocked down would have been decorated. As such, in connecting to his fathers
tomb, Pepyankh inevitably damaged it.
Finally, it is worth considering that in placing Heny in room F, we very neatly fill in the only major
gap in Kanawatis revised family tree. While this does not exactly support the theory, it is perhaps of
interest that a solution to the problems of room F fits so neatly with Kanawatis revised genealogy.
As can be seen from the foregoing then, to name Heny, son of Pepyankh, owner and architect of room
F, while by no means certain, is an eminently plausible solution to a number of problems.

Two interesting side notes arise from the new arrangement.
If we accept that Room F was built by Heny, it is almost impossible to resist the conclusion that he
died soon after his father. In the first place, the decoration was not finished in the room that was to be
his tomb. This consideration may provide some measure of agreement with the theory. It is not
beyond the realms of belief that the scenes depicted in room F represent the chief influential moments
in Henys life. If he died fairly quickly after his father, he may not have had time to perform many
duties in his new roles. As such, when selecting scenes to go in his tomb, he may have chosen his
greatest moments of triumph the inspection of all cattle and his fathers funeral procession in an
attempt to make up for the damage caused to the serdab. Clearly this is entirely conjectural, and there
can be no confirmation. It does not seem, however, to be particularly implausible.

If Pepyankh is rejected as the owner of room F, whoever the new owner, the question of where the
burial chamber is located naturally appears. There seem to be four likely candidates. Room E, Room
H, Room G and the chamber at the end of the shaft that damaged the serdab. Of these, the first two
can reasonably be ruled out as their construction damaged the decoration of room F. No information
about room G, beyond its existence and rough measurements, are presented by Blackman, so it is
impossible to rule out. However, it still seems that the fourth option provides the most likely location.
The fact that it is in the middle of, but does not damage, the decoration of room F indicates that it was
designed as part of the room. As such, while room G may well be part of a planned complex of
rooms, of which only room F was properly begun, it seems most likely that the serdab chamber was
intended to house the deceased.

7. Building History

Having discussed the serdab and room F, it is of some interest at this point to consider the order in
which the chambers and connections of the tomb were constructed.
175

A number of points are immediately evident from even a cursory examination of the tomb. In the first
place, rooms A, B, C and D of tomb A1 necessarily predate any of the other construction. These
belong to Niankh-Pepy, Pepyankhs father and predecessor, and so there is no question about their
primacy. Equally sure is the fact that rooms C and D were built immediately after room B. Clearly,
owing to their position, they could not have preceded room B, and the fact that they do not cause any
breaks in the decoration strongly indicate that they were conceived as a single design. The same is
true of the relationship between room E and the serdab and room A. In the case of room E, further
confirmation is given by the fact that the serdab was destroyed to build room F had there been a
space where room E is, this would clearly have been a better place to construct a new room.
Finally, it is certain that room F was the last major room to be constructed.
176
This is obviously the
case if, as argued above,
177
room F is the tomb of Heny. Even if this is not accepted, however, it is
clear that room F must have been the last constructed. The fact that the decoration in this room is
unfinished leaves two possibilities. Either the room was the last constructed or the room was begun
earlier but abandoned, for reasons unknown, in favour of room B. The second of these options is
rendered extremely unlikely by the damage to the decoration in room A caused by the creation of the
doorway to room F. If room B, which is completely decorated, was built after room F, it is
reasonable to expect that the damage to room A would have been repaired room A in tomb A1 does
not seem to have been damaged by the connection to room B, presumably as repairs were carried out
after the connection was made. If, on the other hand, room F was built last the damage can be
explained the room was never finished, so nothing was made good.

The order of construction, then, is mostly clear. There are, however, two major uncertainties: the
order in which rooms A and B were constructed, and the direction from which the link between room
B and Niankh-Pepys tomb was made. Four combinations are possible:
1. Room A was the first room of tomb A2, followed by room B, with the link made from
room B
2. Room A was the first room of tomb A2, followed by room B, with the link made from
tomb A1

175
Figure 1 is of the utmost utility throughout this chapter
176
This excludes rooms G and H as well as the extension to room E. No data can be presented about any of
these as Blackman does not discuss them. According to Blackman, they are the work of later intruders.
177
Section 6.

3. Room B was the first room of tomb A2, followed by room A, with the link made from
tomb A1
4. Room B was built as part of tomb A1, left undecorated, and was usurped by Pepyankh as
the first room of tomb A2, room A being built later.

Option 4 can be immediately discounted. In the first place, tomb A1 has no need of a second large
chamber it serves no useful purpose. Further, it is very unlikely that so large a room would have
been created while the decoration in the rest of the tomb was incomplete. Blackman does not state
whether rooms C and D are decorated, but is very clear that room B is not. Further, as is clear from
the plan
178
, both rooms A and B contain unfinished masonry a rough block about 1 metre high in
room A and one about .15 metres high and two unfinished statue recesses in room B.
179

Options 1 and 2 are essentially the same. Unless the connection were made accidentally, if room B
was built after room A the most efficient method of construction would be to work from both sides at
once. In any case, as the decoration in both rooms is undamaged by the doorway, we have no way of
discerning from which direction the link was made.

As such, our choice is reduced to a simple question was the tomb begun with room A or room B?
At first glance, either of these is reasonable, though the implications of each are quite different. If
room A was first, we must imagine the tomb as having initially consisted of no more than the serdab,
room A and room E. Presumably room E was intended as the burial chamber while room A assumed
all remaining functions. If, on the other hand, room B was first, the tomb initially consisted of rooms
B, C and D. In this case room D was the burial chamber, room C the offering chamber, and room B
was used for everything else.
Though this may seem an unimportant point, it is worth considering as the solution will inform our
understanding of the link between the two tombs, which is a particularly unusual feature. Several
explanations, not necessarily mutually exclusive, can be put forward to explain this link:
1. The link was made by mistake and then worked into the tomb.
2. The link was made for practical reasons:
a) It was easier to remove the sand from rooms B, C and D through a closer exit than
room A.
b) It provided a ready-made tomb for Pepyankh.
3. The link was made because of a religious or sentimental desire for closeness to Niankh-Pepy.
If room B was built first, the first two of these suggestions are clearly incorrect the link was the only
entrance, and so neither reason can stand. If, on the other hand, room A was built first, the other two

178
See fig 1.
179
Blackman 1953: Plate 1.

explanations lose their force Pepyankh would not have needed a ready-made tomb when he had
already made one, and the link with Niankh-Pepy can have been no more than an afterthought, rather
than a driving force.

Two points are important in considering the answer to this question. In the first place, we must
consider the coherence of the tomb. As just mentioned, there are two possible models of the tomb in
its initial form rooms A, E and the serdab, or rooms B, C and D. There is no obvious difficulty in
accepting the second of these groups as a unified tomb - all necessary functions are amply fulfilled.
Room D is the burial chamber, room C, the offering chamber, located and decorated appropriately for
its purpose, and room B connecting them and providing abundant space for funerary goods.
The first group, however, does not constitute a functioning tomb as there are no facilities for
performing offerings - there is neither an offering table nor a false door in any of the rooms. Room A
contains a sitting statue of the deceased, and the serdab, apart from its many representations of statues,
would have contained at least one statue as well, but, as Assman
180
and Taylor
181
both make clear,
statues alone are not a substitute for the false door - the ka [passes] through the false-door and
[takes] up temporary residence within the statue of the deceased in order to receive its sustenance.
182

Without the false door, the deceased cannot receive sustenance in the afterlife. In order to accept this
first group as a tomb in its own right, therefore, we are forced to imagine either a small subsidiary
room B, containing offering equipment, or a substantially different decorative scheme for room A.
Taylor states that the serdab was sometimes located directly behind the false door.
183
Conceivably
such a false door could have existed and been destroyed by the creation of room F, but there is no
evidence for this.
This brings us to the second point the serdab. As mentioned above,
184
rooms A and E and the
serdab were constructed at the same time, and as such, each is potentially useful in dating the
construction of room A. Room E sheds no obvious light on this as it lacks decoration, and was in any
case substantially altered at some stage after the later construction of room F. The serdab, however,
despite being demolished for room F, does not suffer from the same drawbacks. Importantly, its
decoration bears a number of traits indicative of its having been the last part of the original tomb to be
built.
Blackman, working on the assumption that room F was built as part of Pepyankhs tomb, declared
that Pepyankh changed his mind
185
about the serdab and ordered its destruction, and although the

180
Assman 2005: 336-7.
181
Taylor 2001: 95.
182
Taylor 2001: 95.
183
Taylor 2001: 166.
184
See page 38, above.
185
Blackman 1916: 254.

basis for this is wrong, it is conceivable that work on the serdab was stopped in order to focus on the
rest of the tomb.
This, however, does not seem to be the case. The decoration of the serdab displays a notable lack of
consistency, which one would not expect in what is essentially a repeating pattern. Many instances of
this are pointed out in the footnotes to the translation provided in appendix 1.
The sign group xtm(ty) bity is written with four different orientations the south, east and
west walls each contain two different writings of the group.
Smaw in the title imy-rA Smaw is written with 3 different signs: M23, M26 and a sign which
seems to be a combination of M23 and M26.
The title sS n sA which appears only twice, is written once with and once without an ideogram
stroke.
The title Xry-Hb.t Hry-tp is written horizontally in all but one instance, where it is vertical.
The name Ppy-anx is written vertically in all but one instance, in which the Ppy is horizontal.
Three figures are not inscribed, but simply painted.
One figure on the west wall was not given a head.
A figure on the west wall and another on the bottom register of the east wall were omitted
altogether.
In addition to these clear errors and inconsistencies we might add the fact that three names, @ni.t,
@nni km and @ny.t km each appear just once in the serdab. Indeed, the first two appear just once in
the entire tomb, while the last appears just twice. The similarly rare @nn.t, which appears twice in the
serdab was unusual enough that Blackman felt compelled to reassure us that the reading is quite
certain.
186
On a similar note, we should perhaps take into account the titles imy-rA Snw.t and imy-rA
pr-HD, both of which are unique among provincial officials of the Old Kingdom. Strudwick
187
regards
these as compressions (for spatial reasons?) of the more usual dual forms (imy-rA Snw.ty and imy-rA
pr.wy-HD. This idea is demonstrably wrong, at least in the case of the granary, as 6 examples of the
dual form: occur in the serdab, occupying exactly the same amount of space as the singular:
. However, the occurrence of two unique titles in a single part of a single tomb is unlikely to
say the least, and so these titles should perhaps be considered errors as well.
Taken individually, none of these errors or inconsistencies is of any real consequence one or two
mistakes are to be expected in any task of this nature. Collectively, however, they cannot reasonably
be ignored. It is very difficult to excuse so great a number of mistakes as the inevitable consequence
of a tedious job, or as the result of several different scribes working on the inscription. The most
reasonable conclusion is that the decoration of the serdab was rushed and a slapdash job resulted.

186
Blackman 1953: 47, note 1.
187

It is eminently unlikely that work on the serdab would have been rushed only to be cancelled so close
to completion, simply to commence work on another part of the tomb. As such, the fact that it was
never finished can best be explained by the death of Pepyankh ending work on the tomb. We can say
with some confidence, therefore, that room A was built after room B.

In light of this, the reason for the connection between the two tombs can be understood more
completely. As has already been discussed, the first two of our explanations cannot stand if room B
was built first. This leaves two explanations
a) Niankh-Pepys tomb was used as a ready-made tomb for Pepyankh.
b) The link was made because of a religious or sentimental desire for closeness to Niankh-Pepy.
Incidentally, although the link was not created for this purpose, there is no reason to suppose that the
main entrance of the tomb was not created for the removal of sand from rooms A, E and the serdab.
This, however, is of no account regarding the rest of the argument presented here.
It is possible that both a and b were factors in the decision to create the link. Neither explanation can
be conclusively invalidated, and both are reasonable. That said, however, under scrutiny it can be
seen that the first option is a relatively weak argument, while the second is strong enough to stand
alone.
On first glance, the idea that tomb A1 was used as a ready-made tomb is very attractive. A good tomb
was of the utmost importance for an Egyptian nobleman, and building one was an expensive and time-
consuming activity. To add rooms to a pre-existing tomb must have been a cheaper option, and, in the
event of an early death, the needs of the deceased were more likely to have been met. We can see that
this type of burial was a fact of ancient Egyptian life without looking further than room H of
Pepyankhs own tomb.
However, though reasonable in theory, this argument does not apply to the tomb of Pepyankh. If the
intention had been to piggyback on the tomb of his father, there is no reason for Pepyankh to have
built so large a tomb himself. Excluding all the rooms constructed later, and even rooms C and D,
which could conceivably have been designed after the excavation of room B, though before its
decoration, we are still left with room B. This is an extravagantly sized room if it was intended as no
more than an addendum to tomb A1 indeed, if rooms C and D are included, it is nearly as big as
tomb A1. This would have required a very great deal of work, and so the idea that a shared tomb was
cheaper and easier cannot stand. Further, the fact that Niankh-Pepys tomb is not finished seems to
speak against the idea that Pepyankh was simply piggybacking on his fathers tomb. It must have
been an easier, less expensive task to complete the decoration of tomb A1 than to build the remainder
of tomb A2. The fact that this was not done indicates that tomb A1 was never thought of as
Pepyankhs main tomb.

This leaves us with just one explanation for the link between tombs A1 and A2 a religious or
sentimental desire for closeness with Niankh-Pepy. This is not without parallels during the Sixth
Dynasty. The tomb of Djau and Djau Shemai at Deir el-Gebrawi is, according to Kanawati a unique
instance in the Old Kingdom of two nomarchs father and son who were buried in one and the
same tomb.
188
An inscription in the tomb describes the reason for this explicitly:
In fact, I saw to it that I was buried in one tomb together with this Djau,
particularly through the desire to be with him in one place,
and not because of the lack of means to build a second tomb.
189

I did this from a desire to see this Djau every day,
Through desire of being with him in one place.
190

Such a desire cannot have been unique to Djau, and it is easy to see Pepyankhs tomb in the same
light. Although Pepyankh did not leave an inscription as forthright and explicit as Djau, one scene in
the tomb fulfils much the same purpose, though in a quite different way. This is inscribed on the end
of the stub of wall, roughly 16 wide, between tombs A1 and A2.
191
The scene shows Pepyankh and
Niankh-Pepy facing one another, the former faces west and the latter east. Niankh-Pepy wears a short
wig, a large necklace and a long kilt, and stands with his arms by his sides. He is depicted as taller
than his son who has a shoulder length wig, a beard, a cloak across his shoulders and a shorter kilt, as
well as a bracelet on each wrist. In addition, both wear what Blackman describes as a stole hanging
over the breast from each shoulder.
192
Pepyankh holds a censer in his right hand into which he is
apparently dropping incense, though for some reason the pellets themselves are not depicted.
193
The
caption between the two men reads offering snTr-incense. Two columns of text above each man list
their titles followed by their name and good name. In each case the caption faces the same direction
as the man to whom it is related. At the top of the wall there is a border consisting of 4 pairs of short
vertical black lines, with a single black line at the western edge, between two horizontal lines which
run the length of the wall.

Blackman Plate 14
Room B, Thickness of Partition Wall
1. HAty-a Count
2. xtm(ty) bity Sealer of the king of Lower Egypt
3. smr waty Sole Companion

188
Kanawati 1977: 59.
189
Alexanian translates this line and not because I did not have a document for the erection of two tombs
(Alexanian 2004: 4). For our purposes, however, this is not a significant change.
190
191
See fig. 2.
192
Blackman 1953: 7.
193
Cf. the same offering as depicted in Blackman 1914: Plate 10, Top register.

4. Xry-Hb.t Lector Priest
5. imy-rA Hm-nTr Overseer of the gods servants
6. imy-rA Smaw Overseer of Upper Egypt
7. N-anx-Ppy Ni-ankh-Pepy
8. rn.f nfr @pi km Whose good name is Hepi the Black.
9. sA.f mry.f Hsy.f His son, his beloved, his favoured one
13. Ppy-anx Pepyankh
14. rn.f nfr @ny km Whose good name is Heny the Black.
15. ir.t snTr Offering snTr-incense.

This scene was recorded by Blackman as belonging to the tomb of Niankh-Pepy, but clearly this is not
the case as it is inscribed on a wall that was only created after Pepyankhs tomb was begun. The
scene is a linking motif between the two tombs, created by Pepyankh during the decoration of his own
tomb. Each man looks towards the tomb of the other, thereby visually rendering the continuity of the
tombs. Further, it is the only scene in either tomb in which a substantial reference is made to the
father or son of the tomb owner. In Niankh-Pepys tomb, Pepyankh is mentioned only twice, each
essentially passing references bearing his name and a single title. Niankh-Pepy is mentioned nowhere
else in Pepyankhs tomb. This scene, on the threshold between the two tombs, gives each man
recognition, and is so situated as to be a seamless link between the two tombs.
The importance of the scene, however, is in the offering made by Pepyankh. Incense has several
functions in Egyptian belief. Most frequently, it is used apotropaeically, to ward off impurities and
evil, thereby purifying the subject.
194
It is used as a gesture of appeasement or capitulation,
195
or to
propitiate favour from a superior.
196
In certain ritual texts, it is used to revivify the body of god or
man by restoring to it its lost moisture.
197
These uses do not appear to be mutually exclusive, and
there seems no reason not to consider the scene as embodying a combination of them. Pepyankh, in
offering incense to his father, is performing a protective, purificatory ritual, and at the same time can
be said to be revivifying him with the exudations of Osiris
198
As this action is immortalised on
the wall of the tomb, Pepyankh is performing this necessary offering in perpetuity, thereby providing
a neat analogue to Djaus desire to see this Djau every day.

194
Haran 1960: 123.
195
Donohue 1992: 83.
196
Donohue 1992: 87.
197
Blackman 1912: 75.
198
Blackman 1912: 75.


In conclusion, it is clear that the most likely order of construction is as follows:
1. Tomb A1, consisting of rooms A, B, C & D, constituting the tomb of Niankh-Pepy.
2. Room B, with rooms C and D, and connection between tombs A1 and A2, constituting half of
the tomb of Pepyankh.
3. Room A, with room E and the serdab, and main entrance to tomb, constituting the second half
of the tomb of Pepyankh.
4. The destruction of the serdab, and construction of room F, constituting the tomb of Heny.
5. Rooms G and H, and extension to room E, all of which are of uncertain purpose.
As a result of this, it is also evident that the connection between tombs A1 and A2 was made
principally, if not entirely, to establish a connection between Pepyankh and his father. In the words of
Djau, it was built due to Pepyankhs desire to be with him in one place.
199

199

8. Conclusion

The tomb of Pepyankh provides us with an unusual, if not unique, opportunity to understand the life
and career of a provincial high official at the end of the Old Kingdom. Though he left no biography
as such, we are able to trace his career, family relationships and possibly even his friendships.
Gillam, in her dissertation on the 14
th
Upper Egyptian nome, stated that in all discussions of
individual titularies, titles are assumed in the absence of any definite indications to have been held
simultaneously with each other. This is not entirely satisfactory, but the nature of our data leaves us
with no choice.
200
The treatment of titles in Pepyankhs tomb, however, allows us to understand his
titulary entirely differently. By physically separating his main titles the highest positions to which
he attained from the lesser roles written only in the serdab, Pepyankh has given us the chance to
glimpse an outline of his personal history.
While many tomb owners record a great number of titles, the serdab inscriptions catalogue
Pepyankhs development from his early career to his peak. Through his serdab, we are able to discern
the outline of a biography, or at the very least a CV, for Pepyankh. We are not given dates, or even
the order of events, but, with some poetic licence, we are able to surmise a career along the following
lines.
We can infer from the number of titles connected to the capital that at some stage earlier in his career,
Pepyankh must have spent some considerable time as an official in Memphis. He must, moreover,
have been relatively successful as an official in the capital, as he collected several titles before,
presumably, returning to Meir to take up his familial titles.
We can see that despite inheriting his titles and responsibilities, Pepyankh was not simply dropped
into the highest roles, but worked his way up from lower appointments. This sort of detail, though it
is hardly surprising, is not usually recorded by high officials of the Old Kingdom. Almost all tomb
owners record their highest positions, but very few make any reference to the fact that they once held
a post as lowly as sHD Hm-nTr.
Finally, we can see the mature Pepyankh, holding the highest administrative posts, but holding the
relatively lowly imy-rA Hm-nTr in higher regard - the worship of his local goddess evidently being of
greater significance to him than overseeing Upper Egypt.

Through an examination of the layout of the tomb, it has been possible to see clear evidence of
Pepyankhs deep filial devotion, and, moreover, the same level of devotion in his son. Both Pepyankh
and Heny wished to spend eternity with their fathers, and built their tombs accordingly. This
principle is known elsewhere in Egypt the tombs of Djau and Djau, and Tjeti-Iker and Shepsi-pu-
Min were examples mentioned above. However, though the principle is known, the specific method is

200
Gillam 1991a: 133.

unusual, possibly unique. Both Pepyankh and Heny built their tombs as extensions of those of their
fathers, and, moreover, included monuments to their fathers in the decoration of their tombs an
incense offering scene from Pepyankh, and an entire funeral from Heny. This close connection to
ones forebears was not, so far as we are aware, particularly fashionable in tomb-building circles. As
such, we should understand this as evidence of a strongly felt filial bond. Pepyankhs family was
evidently a close one.

Apart from what we can see from the content of the serdab decoration, the very fact of its existence
tells us a good deal about Pepyankhs life. The rarity of this type of tomb decoration, coupled with
the impossibility of even seeing it after the serdab was sealed, is extremely suggestive of a personal
relationship between the owners of the tombs in which it features. This relationship is certain in the
case of the three tombs at Giza they belong to a father and his sons. It is not certain where
Pepyankh fits into this group, but it is plausible that he knew at least one of them. If Kanawatis dates
are wrong,
201
it is even conceivable that Pepyankh started the trend, and the other three followed his
lead. Regardless, though the details are unclear, this decorative scheme offers striking evidence
concerning the transfer of ideas in ancient Egypt. In order for any of the tomb owners to have known
of the decorative scheme of the others it seems likely that it was necessary to see it at first hand. It is
possible, therefore, that the serdab demonstrates a friendship between two Egyptian officials of the
Old Kingdom a feature which is very rarely attested indeed.

In many cases, in the Old Kingdom particularly, a tomb is the only surviving record an individual has
left, and it is therefore incumbent upon us, if we wish to understand the lives of individuals who lived
so long ago, to examine these records as closely as possible. This essay has attempted to do just this,
but its scope is very restricted. It would be of great interest to examine the remaining scenes in the
tomb with a close eye to detail. More than this, however, further studies could profitably examine
other tombs in a similar way. In particular, in light of what has been found here, it would be
particularly intriguing to study the tomb of Pepyankhs father, Niankh-Pepy.
The similarity between the serdab of Pepyankh and those of Nekhebu and his sons warrants further
study. It is impossible to believe that there is not a connection, and the nature of this connection is of
great interest. I have hinted above at a possible explanation in the visit of Nekhebu to Meir, and this
deserves investigation. It is possible that the date of Pepyankhs tomb must be revised to make them
contemporary, but this cannot be ascertained until more information becomes available.
The close relationship evidenced within Pepyankhs family was not unique, as was mentioned above.
However, relatively few examples are known, and it seems certain that a study which aims to research

201
This has been suggested by both Polet (2007: 16.) and Gillam (1991b: 85), but I was unaware of their articles
until too late to include them.

familial relationships through an examination of tombs could be rewarding. Altenmller has, for
instance, recently highlighted an intriguing scene in the tombs of Seshemnefer II and Seshemnefer III
at Giza, in which each tomb owner seems to be offering his father a lotus flower.
202
This sort of detail
may well demonstrate a similarly close relationship as that seen in Pepyankhs tomb, and it deserves
to be studied.
It was not possible for me to examine the tomb personally during the course of my study, partly due to
the political situation in Egypt, but mostly due to the parlous state of my own finances. Blackmans
report of the tomb is very good, but it would certainly be useful to examine the tomb in situ. For
instance, in one of the few photos I have of the tomb,
203
I noticed what seems to be a hieratic
inscription in the serdab, but I am not able to decipher it from the photo.

Overall, it should be understood that the tomb of Pepyankh Henykem is a monument of great
importance to Egyptology. It provides the modern world with a chance to glimpse, however
fleetingly, the life, career and relationships of a man who lived over four millennia ago. Without such
glimpses of human experience, Egyptology is merely the study of pretty stones and paper.

202
Altenmller 2008: 155.
203
See fig. 8b. Bottom right corner.

9. Figures
Figure 1 Map of the tomb


Figure 2 Pepyankh offering incense to his father, Niankh-Pepy


Figure 3 Block from the tomb of Nekhebu at Giza

Fischer 1963: Pl. 1a

Figure 4 - Block from the tomb of Nekhebu at Giza
Fischer 1963: Pl. 3.

Figure 5 Block from the tomb of Nekhebu at Giza
Fischer 1963: Pl. 2.

Figure 6 Block from the tomb of Sabu Ibebi at Giza

MFA 13.4345.1 - http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/relief-fragment-from-the-serdab-of-sabu-
ibeby-466495 (accessed 18/8/13)Photograph Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Figure 7 Block from the tomb of Sabu Ibebi at Giza

MFA 13.4345.2 - http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/relief-fragment-from-the-serdab-of-sabu-
ibeby-141806 (accessed 18/8/13) Photograph Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Figure 8a Serdab Entrance and South

Figure 8b Serdab North

Both Bommas, M. 2011: Personal communication.

10. Appendices
When I first began work on this dissertation, I produced as complete a transliteration and translation
of the tomb as my abilities allow. It became obvious fairly quickly that there would not be space to
discuss the entire tomb, and so much of this work was not used. I append it here (as appendix 3)
principally because no other transliteration of the tomb exists in print. As it was not used in the body
of this essay, however, I have not gone to great lengths to solve the trickier problems of translation.
As such, a great deal more of the work than is preferable is simply a succession of question marks. In
addition, such phrases as are not certain have been left a different shade to indicate this fact.
All plate references are to Blackman 1953.

Appendix 1 Serdab Translation

South Wall, top register
1. tAyty sAb TAty He of the curtain, chief justice and vizier
@ny km Heny the Black
2. imy-rA pr-HD Overseer of the treasury
3. imy-rA Xnw Overseer of the residence
@nni.t km Henenit the Black
4. HAty-a Count
@ny Heny
Ppy-anx Pepyankh
6. smr waty Sole companion
@nni.t Henenit
@ny km/@nny km
204
Heny the Black/Heneny the Black

South Wall, 2
nd
Register

204
This is uncertain in Blackmans report. Pl. 40 shows @ny km. Blackman translates @nny km (1953: 46.)

1. HAty-a Count
2. xtm(ty) bity
205
Sealer of the King of Lower Egypt
@nni.t Henenit
4. Xry-Hb.t Hry-tp Lector Priest in Charge
Ppy-anx Pepyankh
5. imy-rA Snw.ty Overseer of the two granaries
7. s(t)m S(et)em Priest
@nni km Heneni the Black
Ppy-anx Pepyankh
10. smr-waty Sole companion

South Wall, 3
rd
Register
1. mty n sA Regulator of a Phyle
2. sHD Hm(.w)-nTr Inspector of the gods servants
Ppy-anx km
206
Pepyankh the Black
4. Sps nsw.t Noble of the king

205
The orientation of this title shows four variations. Most common is , which is seen 7 times. is seen
3 times, twice and just once.
206
This is written with an unusual orientation. It is the only example in the serdab of Ppy written horizontally
rather than vertically.

Ppy-anx km Pepyankh the Black
8. HAty-a Count
@ny.t km Henyt the Black

South Wall, Bottom Register
1. HAty-a Count
@y km/@ny km
207
Hy the Black/Heny the Black
3. Xry-Hb.t Hry-tp
208
Lector Priest in Charge
Ppy-anx km Pepyankh the Black
8. sS gs-dp.t Scribe of Protection

East Wall, South of Break, Top Register

207
This is uncertain in Blackmans report. Pl. 40 shows @y km. Blackman translates @ny km (1953: 46.)
208
This title, usually inscribed horizontally: , is here written vertically:

2. HAty-a Count
6. Only a tiny remnant of the pedestal of the statue survives

East Wall, South of Break, 2nd Register
1. xtm(ty) nTr.t (?) Sealer of the goddess(?)
2. imy-rA Snw.ty Overseer of the 2 granaries
3. xtmty bity Sealer of the king of Lower Egypt
@nni.t Henenit
6. The title here is destroyed. Half of the pedestal, the staff, the tip of the sceptre and
Pepyankhs hand remain. The name is also partially destroyed.
@ny Heny

East Wall, South of Break, 3rd Register
1. HAty-a Count
@ny km
209
Heny the Black

209
There is an unusual mark beneath the km sign in Blackmans plate (1953: Pl. 39 3).

5. HAty-a Count
Ppy-anx Pepyankh
6. The title here is destroyed. The pedestal, the staff, the tip of the sceptre and Pepyankhs
legs remain. The name remains.
@nni.t Henenit

East Wall, South of Break, 4th Register
@ny Heny
2. imy-rA Smaw
210
Overseer of Upper Egypt
@nny Heneny
3. HAty-a Count
Ppy-anx Pepyankh
@nni.t Henenit
@ny Heny
6. The title here is mostly destroyed. Half of the pedestal, the staff and Pepyankhs hand
remains. The name is partly destroyed.
H[] Uncertain. Blackman translates Lector Priest
@nn(i?) Heneni?

East Wall, South of Break, Bottom Register
1. imy-rA Hm-nTr
211
Overseer of the gods servants
@ny Heny
@nni.t Henenit
4. HAty-a Count
@nn.t Henenet
5. The title here is destroyed. The pedestal, the staff, the front of the sceptre, the bottom of
the kilt and Pepyankhs legs remain. The name remains.
@ny Heny

210
Smaw is written with M23: instead of M26: .
211
The first figure in the bottom register is offset by one, so that it is directly beneath figure two of the register
above.

6. All but the front half of the pedestal is lost.

East Wall, Under the Break
1. All but the back half of the pedestal and Pepyankhs back foot is destroyed
2. The pedestal, most of the feet and the bottom of the staff remain.
3. The pedestal, the base of the staff, the front foot and the back foot and leg remain.
4. The pedestal, staff, back foot and front foot and leg survive, as does most of the name.
@ny Heny

East Wall, North of Break, Top Register
1. Completely destroyed
7. Just the base of the pedestal survives.
8. The pedestal and both feet survive.
9. The pedestal, both feet, the staff and part of the name survive.
y km y the Black
nni.t nenit
y(?) y(?)
12. The pedestal, both feet and legs, the staff and most of the name survive.
@nni.t Henenit
13. The pedestal, both feet and legs, the staff and most of the name survive.
East Wall, North of Break, 2nd Register
1. The back half of the pedestal, the back leg and foot, the torso, back arm, necklace and
back half of the sceptre survive.
3. s(t)m
212
S(et)em Priest
@ny Heny

212
The heads have been destroyed in figures 3, 4 and 5.

@nni.t Henenit
@ny Heny
@ny Heny
9. smr Companion
@ny Heny
@ny Heny
@nni.t Henenit
@ny Heny
13. HAty-a Count
@ny Heny

East Wall, North of Break, 3rd Register
1. The back half of the pedestal, the back leg and foot, the torso, back arm, head, necklace
and back half of the sceptre survive.
@nni.t Henenit
Ppy-anx Pepyankh
Ppy-anx Pepyankh
@nni.t Henenit
7. Xry-Hb.t
213
Lector Priest

213
@ and front of sceptre are damaged.

@nni.t Henenit
@nni.t Henenit
9. smr Companion
@ny Heny
@ny Heny
Ppy-anx Pepyankh
12. imy-rA pr-HD Overseer of the gods servants
@ny Heny
@nn.t Henenet

East Wall, North of Break, Bottom Register
1. The back half of the pedestal, back arm, rear leg and foot and back of the sceptre survive.
2. HAty-a Count
@nni.t Henenit
@ny Heny
@nni.t Henenit
5. smr Companion
@ny Heny
@ny Heny
@ny Heny
8. sS n sA Scribe of a Phyle
@nni.t Henenit
9. mty n sA Regulator of a Phyle
@ny Heny
@ny Heny
@ny Heny

@ny Heny
@nni.t Henenit

North Wall, top Register
1. The front half of the pedestal is all that survives. Nothing else survives of this register.

North Wall, 2nd Register
1. The title here is mostly destroyed. The pedestal, the staff, the sceptre and Pepyankhs
legs remain. The name remains.
(HA)ty-a Count
@ny Heny
2. The pedestal, staff, most of the back foot, the front foot and leg survive, as does most of
the name.
@ny Heny
3. Completely destroyed.
4. Completely destroyed apart from the base of the pedestal.
6. Completely destroyed apart from the back of the pedestal.
7. All but the pedestal, feet and base of staff are lost. Part of the name remains.
y y
8. All but the pedestal, feet and base of staff are lost. Part of the name remains.
y y
North Wall, 3rd Register
1. HAty-a Count
@ny Heny
@ny Heny
@ny Heny
@nni.t Henenit

@nni.t Henenit
6. xtm(ty) nTr Sealer of the god
@ny Heny
@ny Heny
8. The title here is mostly destroyed. The pedestal, the staff, the front of the sceptre and
Pepyankhs front hand and legs remain. The name remains.
Xry H(b.t) Lector Priest
@ni.t Henit
9. The pedestal, bottom of the staff, and the front foot and leg survive, as does most of the
name.
(n)ni.t nenit
10. The pedestal, legs, feet and base of the kilt survive.
11. The pedestal, legs, feet and part of the name survive.
y y

North Wall, Bottom Register
@ny Heny
2. HAty-a Count
@ny Heny
@nni.t Henenit
4. smr Companion
@ny Heny
5. Xry- Hb.t Lector Priest
@ny Heny
6. Xry-tp nsw.t Kings liegeman
@nni.t Henenit
7. imy-rA Snw.t Overseer of the granary
@ny Heny
8. wr id.t Great of censing
@ny Heny
9. imy-rA Hm-nTr
214

214
The head of this figure has been destroyed

@nni.t Henenit
Ppy-anx Pepyankh
11. HAty-a Count
@ny Heny

West Wall, South of Doorway, Top Register
2. Completely destroyed apart from the pedestal and feet.
3. The staff and hand are lost, and the title is damaged.
(sm)r waty Sole companion

West Wall, South of Doorway, 2nd Register
1. The pedestal, rear leg and arm, back of sceptre and back of torso are all that survive of
this figure.

West Wall, South of Doorway, Bottom Register
2. HAty-a Count
@nni.t Henenit


West Wall, Between Doorway & Break, top Register
1. The pedestal, bottom of the staff, and the feet survive, as does the name.
2. The pedestal, bottom of the staff, and the feet survive, as does some of the name.
i.t km it the Black
3. The front of the pedestal and the bottom of the staff survive.
4. The back of the pedestal survives.
5. Only the front of the pedestal and base of the staff survive.

West Wall, Between Doorway & Break, 2nd Register
1. HAty-a Count
@nni.t Henenit
@ny Heny
@nny Heneny
4. smr
215
Companion
@ny Heny
5. Only the middle of the staff survives.

West Wall, Between Doorway & Break, Bottom Register
1. HAty-a Count
@ny Heny
@nni.t Henenit
@nni.t Henenit
4. smr
216
Companion
@ny Heny

215
This figure is not inscribed but painted.
216

5. The front of the pedestal, bottom of the staff and most of the name survive.
(H)ny (km?) Heny (the Black?)

West Wall, North of Break, Top Register
3. Only the pedestal and back heel survive.
4. The pedestal, feet and base of the staff survive, as does most of the name.
nni.t nenit
5. The pedestal, legs, feet and bottom half of the staff survive, as does most of the name.
@ny Heny
6. The pedestal, legs, feet and bottom half of the staff survive, as does some of the name.
ny ny
@ny Heny
Ppy-anx Pepyankh
9. The pedestal, legs, feet, sceptre, arm, kilt and most of the staff survive, as does some of
the title and most of the name.
Hry-tp (Lector Priest and) Chief
@nni.t Henenit
10. The pedestal, legs, feet, sceptre, arm, kilt and most of the staff survive, as does the name
@ny Heny
11. The pedestal, legs, feet, sceptre, arm, kilt and most of the staff survive, as does the name
and most of the title.
sH(D) (H)m(.w)-n(Tr) Inspector of the gods servants
@nni.t Henenit

West Wall, North of Break, 2nd Register
1. Destroyed apart from the back of the pedestal and the rear leg.
2. imy-rA Hm-nTr
217
Ppy-anx Pepyankh
3. sS n sA
218
Scribe of a Phyle
@ny Heny

217
The head of this figure is missing.
218
The other example of this title differs from this as it lacks the ideogram stroke.

4. smr Companion
@nni.t Henenit
@nni.t Henenit
6. No figure has been inscribed in this space, but it has been squared in ink.
7. smr
219
Companion
@ny Heny
@ny Heny
@ny Heny
Ppy-anx Pepyankh
11. smr Companion
@ny Heny

West Wall, North of Break, 3rd Register
1. The back of the figure survives complete, but the front, including all inscriptions, are
destroyed.
@nni.t Henenit
3. imy-rA Smaw
220
Overseer of Upper Egypt
@ny Heny
@ny Heny
@ny Heny
@ny Heny
@nni.t Henenit
@nni.t Henenit

219
220
Smaw is written with a modified version of M26. It lacks the line representing the ground and has petals only
at the top of the stalk, not the end of each branch.

@nny Heneny
Ppy-anx Pepyankh
11. HAty-a Count
@ny Heny

West Wall, North of Break, 3rd Register
1. The back of the figure survives complete, but the front, including all inscriptions, are
destroyed.
Hn(i?) Hen(i?)
@ny Heny
4. HAty-a Count
@nni.t Henenit
Ppy-anx Pepyankh
@ny Heny
@ny Heny
@nni.t Henenit
@nni.t Henenit
@ny Heny
@ny Heny

Appendix 2 Room F
Blackman Plate 41
Room F, South Wall
Above Pepyankh
1. HAty-a Count
6. imy-rA Sn.w(ty) Overseer of the (two) granaries
7. imy-rA sS.wy Overseer of the two fowling pools
221

10. @ny rn.f nfr @nni.t Heny, whose good name is Henenit
In front of Pepyankh
1. mAA kA.w aw.wt nb m niw.wt.f Inspecting all the cattle, sheep and goats of
his towns.
Top Register
1. imy-rA Ts(.w)t Overseer of herds of cattle, sheep and
goats
222

2. TAy/kA(.w) 32,400 32,400 males
Register 2
goats
2. rnn iwA 500 500 young longhorns
3. ngAw.w(?) 1,400 1,400 longhorn bulls
4. ii(.k) ir Come along in good order.
5. id.wt 300 300 cows
Register 3
goats
4. id.wt 500 500 cows

221
Jones 2000: 816.
222
Jones 2000: 997.

Bottom Register
goats
2. ks(i) ir Bow down excellently
3. rnn iwA 300 300 young longhorns
4. rnn iwA Young longhorns

Appendix 3 Rest of the tomb
Blackman Plate 15
Room A, South Wall, Inscription
1. HAty-a Count
5. @ny km Heny the Black

Room A, South Wall, West Scene
(Reading right to left)
1. imy-ra sSr Overseer of linen distribution
223

2. imy-ra sSr Overseer of linen distribution
3. xtmw Sealer
224

Lower Register
1. [y].n Tbwty [Maker] of the sandals
2. xn mt n.t n (?) red jasper/carnelian
3. ir.t HtA Sail-making (?)
4. smr t (d)t mDd ???
Upper Register
1. SsAw Skilled
2. sw S(?) smd (?) Twisting
225
(?)
3. mH n aD pw Fill this reel
4. mk aD Sw Behold, the reel is empty!
5. iry r Hst.k (I) am doing as you please.

Room A, West Wall, Scene Above Doorway
4. @nni.t Henenit
Lower Register
1. sS m a.wy Hm.t n Xr.t Ab.d 84 Record from the hands of female slaves for
the whole month: 84

223
Jones 2000: 864.
224
Jones 2000: 2763.
225
Blackmans translation.

2. xtm Sealer
3. dmD n Xr.t rnp.t 996 Total annual allowance (?): 996
Upper Register
1. mnx.t 4000 Clothing: 4000

Blackman Plates 16 & 17
Room A, West Wall
Above Pepiankh
1. HAty-a Count
7. Ppy-anx Pepyankh
Behind Pepiankh
1. in.t t n Hm.wt Bringing bread to the craftsmen
2. Xry-Hb.t imy-rA pr w(?)msAf Lector Priest, overseer of the house, Uemsaf
3. Xry-Hb.t pr-aA pr-nTr-mDA.t sS Lector priest of the house of the sacred
Ppy-iHy-m-Hm
226
rn nfr iri books of the great house, scribe, Pepy-ihy-
emhem, whose good name is Iri.
4. Xry-tp nsw.t sHD Hm(.w)-nTr imy-rA Kings liegeman, inspector of the
pr nfrHr house, Neferher
5. sS sSSn The scribe, Seshshen
6. sHD Hm(.w)-nTr sS n is nTr Htp.t sS Inspector of the gods servants, scribe of
ismsAf Cusae, divine offerings scribe, Qisemsaf
In front of Pepiankh
1. sS nsw a(.w) imy-rA sS(.w) AH.t imy-rA pr Scribe of the royal records, overseer of the
iAi land-scribes, overseer of the house, I(tj)ai
2. mAA kA.t nb n.t Hm(.w)t Viewing all the work of the craftsmen
Top Register
1. dw nby.t (?) Giving a necklace/collar (?)
2. mnx nby.wt in sti rw(?) nby.t(?) Costly necklaces by the stringer of collars
227

3. wAD sw(?) DAm Green stone (?) and fine gold

226
Definitely Hm not sA sign.
227
Jones 2000: 3625.

4. sw Sn(?) isn Twisting thread
228

5. n sti rw(?) nby.t for the stringer of beads
2
nd
Register
1. imy-rA Overseer of the hill
2. ini n Hm Carry (this) away, assuredly
3. ihA ini m Oho! Carry (this) away
4. iry r Hst.k (I) am doing as you please.
5. di hAnS nw Hr sbb Do ? making cool
6. d ir mk sw r-Hr nfr Great ?, behold it ? good.
3
rd
Register
1. Hm.t Craftsman
229

2. Hm.t Craftsman
3. ir(i) kA.t ir mk Tn srw Hr Hs.t Tn Do excellent work! Behold, you, the noble
favours you!
4
th
Register
1. imy-rA sSr sanxy Overseer of linen distribution, Sankhy.
2. xtm rmTprs Sealer, Remetjperes
3. ? iHi ? Ihi

Blackman Plate 18
Room A, North Wall, West End
Bottom Register
1. nDrw
230
x.t pw sin di Tn n sw ir(i) kA.t im.f Chop
79
this wood quickly and give (me) it
(that I may) do work with it.
2. Xry-tp nsw.t @nn.t Kings liegeman, Henenet
3. imy-rA mDH Overseer of carpenters
231

4. mk n Hr ir.t r hs.t.k Behold, we are doing as you please
4
th
Register
1. mnx Sw.t tw n.t aA sin Chisel this leaf (?) of the door quickly
2. iry r Hs.t.k mk wr di.t n.k s (I) am doing as you please. Behold! (I will)
place it for you under your fingers.
3. dm n.t mib.t (?) Sharpening an adze
3
rd
Register

228
After Brovarski 2003: 91.
229
Jones 2000: 2179.
230
This definitely reads chop, not grasp. The determinative is not A24, but a picture of a man chopping with an
axe. In fact, it is simply a smaller version of the image the sentence accompanies.
231
Jones 2000: 571.

1. hA(i) ir sDr.f ws(i) (Place it) down skilfully that it might be lain
(and) sawn.(?)
2. ihA(i) mk nx.t ihA(i) O! (It is) down! Behold, (my) saw is
down(?)!
2
nd
Register
1. ih mk snaa O! Behold! (It) is polished.
2. mk r.k snaa Behold! You polish.
3. srw xr.t imy-rA mDH(.w) ??, overseer of carpenters
4. Xry-tp nsw.t @nni/t Kings liegeman, Henenit
Top Register
imAxw Ppy-iHy-m-sA rn nfr iri books of the great house, scribe, revered one,
Pepy-ihy-emsa, whose good name is Iri.
2. sS tw.t n imy-rA Hm-nTr @nni.t km Painting a statue of the overseer of the gods
servants, Henenit the Black
3. (imy)-rA gnw.ty(.w) (I)TAw (Over)seer of sculptors
232
, (I)tjau
4. tw tn smr waty imy-rA Hm-nTr This statue of sole companion, overseer of
@nni.t km the gods servants, Henenit the Black
5. gnw.ty %bk-m-HA.t Sculptor
233
, Sobekemhat
6. sS %SSn Scribe, Seshshen
7. t Ht n sS dw.t
234
gnw.tyw Bread and beer for the draughtsmen and
sculptors
Blackman Plate 19
Room A, North Wall, East End
Top Register
imAxw Ppy-iHy-m-sA rn nfr iri books of the great house, scribe, revered one,
Pepy-ihy-emsa, whose good name is Iri.
2. mAA sS dx kA.t gnw.ty(?) Viewing the work of the draughtsmen and
sculptors
3. sty Hb Festival perfume
4. Hknw Heknu oil
5. HAty-a Count

232
Jones 2000: 958.
233
Jones 2000: 3700.
234
Determinative T20 instead of Y1.


Blackman Plates 20 and 21
Room A, East Wall
Bottom Register
1. tw.twy nw HAty-a xtm(ty) bity imy-rA Smaw Two statues of the count, sealer of the king
smr waty Xry-Hb.t imy-rA Hm-nTr @ny of Lower Egypt, overseer of Upper Egypt,
km r pr tw.t sole companion, lector priest, overseer of the
gods servants, Heny the Black at the statue
house.
2
nd
Register
1. air.[f]
235
irp ??? wine
2. mH irp Filling with wine
3. irp snw Wine of Pelusium
4. irp dSr Red wine
3rd Register
1. iArr.t Vine
2. Ami
236
irp Mixing wine
Top Register
1. HAty-a Count
7. Ppy-anx rn.f nfr Hn Pepyankh whose good name is Hen
8. mAA Viewing
mry-ra-iHy-m-sA books of the great house, scribe Meryra-ihy-
emsa

235
Blackman readsif.
236
Determinative is not A24 but D41.

10. iri Iri
11. rx-nsw n [.w] sfnw Kings acquaintance of? Sefnu
12. sfnw Sefnu
13. Xrty-nTr
237
iwHi Stonemason Iuhi
14. Xrty-nTr Stw Stonemason Shetu
15. Xrty-nTr Hmi Stonemason Hemi

Blackman Plate 22
Room B, South Wall, East End
North side of angle
2
nd
Register
1. sH nfr ? good
3
rd
Register
1. smr rS.t
238
Companion reshet
2. imy-rA n xA Overseer of a thousand
239

4
th
Register
1. swnw pr-aA Ppy-mr Physician of the great house
240
, Pepymer
5
th
Register
241

2. xtm.ty-nTr Gods sealer
242

3. sS Scribe
4. sAb Judge
243

5. imy-rA sS(.w) Overseer of scribes
6. anxy Ankhy
West side of angle
5
th
Register
1. iAs Ias

Room B, South Wall, East Scenes
Bottom Register

237
This and the following two titles show an unusual writing. As well as the usual R8 atop T28, there is an
additional stroke. Perhaps it is intended that the nr sign be recognised as combined with T20, for a reading
implying not just mason, but sculptor as well.
238
Blackman reads ryp.t.
239
Jones 2000: 692.
240
Jones 2000: 3021.
241
Jones 2000: 3437.
242
Jones 2000: 2791.
243
Jones 2000: 2932.

1. ir imy-wr.t ir Hard to starboard!
2. TAw nfr pw This wind is good.
3. iw aA fA.t sk TAw A ????? wind is high.
4. iry r Hs.t.k (I) am doing as you please.
5. imy-wr.t ir Hard to starboard
6. im.k HA Hmw.w Do not ? Steersman.
4
th
Register
1. di ht
244
A sTA.t t[w] mw ir isHa.t(?) Place down this rope to the water skilfully
3
rd
Register
1. i TAy.t wbA mhw.f O Vizier! To open his fruit.
2. ink pw ir.t.f mtr That is me! He who does (everything) on
time.
3. dmA hrw.t nw n mHy sin Bind together today to the cut flax.
4. iw Hr ir.t r Hs.t.k I am doing as you wish
5. di di iw.t n.k TAy wa (I) cause one man to come to you
6. nfrw Tw wr.t mHy pn You are beautiful stuff. This flax is great!
7. ir wni di Tn wnm hAw pn t Do it quickly that you may allow these
neighbours to eat bread
8. mHy 6,200 Flax: 6,200

2
nd
Register
1. ? ... Hn Illegible
Top Register
1. HA.k Ha, you (donkeys)!

Blackman Plate 24
Room B, South Wall, West Scene
1. sti.t mHy.t aA wr.t m sS.w nw Smaw tA-mHw Spearing a very great number of fish in the
marshes of Upper and Lower Egypt
2. smr waty imy-rA xn.ty(.w)-S pr-aA Sole companion, overseer of land tenants of
sS gs-dp.t @nni.t the great house,
245
scribe of protection,
Henenit
Above Pepiankh

244
Blackman postulates that X1 may be a mistake for D54, rendering h3i.
245
Jones 2000: 710.

1. HAty-a Count
7. imAxw xr wsir-Xnti[mntiw nb Abdw] Revered with Osiris Khenti[mentiu, Lord of
Abydos]
246

8. @ny rn.f nfr @nni.t km Heny, whose good name is Henenit the
Black
Behind Pepiankh
1. sS nsw(.t) a(.w) imy-rA sS(.w) AH.t imy-rA Scribe of the royal records, overseer of the
(pr) iTAi land scribes, overseer (of the house), Itjai

Blackman Plate 25
Room B
West Wall, South End, West side of angle
1. HAty-a Count
6. @nni.t km Henenit the Black
West Wall, East Face of Pillar 4
6. @nni Heneni
West Wall, Architrave
1. HAty-a Count
4. imy-rA Sma mAa True overseer of Upper Egypt
247

246
Jones 2000: 102.

6. s(t)m Setem Priest
7. xrp SnD.t nb.t Director of every kilt
248

9. imAxw xr nTr.f Revered with his god
249

10. Ppy anx rn.f nfr @ny km rn.f nfr @nni.t km Pepy-ankh whose good name is Heny the
Black, whose good name is Henenit the
Black
East Wall, Above Statue Recess
1. HAty-a Count
North Wall, Above Statue Recess
4. Ppy-anx rn.f nfr @nni.t km Pepy-ankh, whose good name is Henenit the
Black
Blackman Plate 26
Room B
West Wall, South Scene, Above Pepiankh
1. HAty-a Count
7. Ppy-anx rn.f nfr @nn.t Pepyankh, whose good name is Henenet
Behind Pepiankh
1. Ppy-mr Pepy-mer
2.
250
mry.f smr waty Hry-tp aA nDf.t His beloved, sole companion, great chief of

247
Jones 2000: 898.
248
Jones 2000: 2737.
249
Jones 2000: 151.

@nny.t rn.f nfr nfrkA the Nedjfet nome, Henenyt, whose good
name is Neferka
1. mAA mnx.t sSr(?) mnx.t Viewing clothing and linen clothing (?)
2. sS nsw a(.w) imy-rA sS(.w) AH.t mry nb.f Scribe of the royal records, overseer of land
ir Hss.t.f ra nb imy-rA pr imy-ib n nb.f iTAi scribes, beloved of his lord, doer of what
pleases him every day, overseer of the
house, favourite of his lord,
251
Itjai.
Bottom Register
1. nfrw sDA mnx.t r is @nni.t Happy (is he) who conveys clothing to the
tomb of Henenit
2. ih mnx.wt Hs.t n nb.s O, clothing favoured by its lord.
3
rd
Register
1. ih mnx.t Hs.t @nni.t nb O! The clothing pleases lord Henenit!

2
nd
Register
1. iw sSp nb mAA.w pa.t srw m knHw
252
Any brightness which the nobles see is as
xf.t mnx.t darkness compared to the clothing
253

2. imy-rA sSr nD-Hm-ib Overseer of linen distribution, Nedjhemib
Top Register
1. ih mnx.wt Hs.t n nb.s O! The clothing is pleasing to its lord.
2. sHD wt(yw) anx.w Inspector of embalmers, Ankhu
3. xrp sH ixw Director of the dining hall
254
, Ikhu
West Wall, North Side of Angle
Bottom Register
1. iw hrxy ?
2. sDA ir Convey (the clothing) carefully!
3. iw srw mA mnx.wt The noble is to inspect the clothing.
3
rd
Register
1. sAb Judge
2. ra a Mouth of the book

250
Blackman asserts that s3.f (his eldest son) is written faintly before the rest of this text.
251
Jones 2000: 231.
252
Determinative F28 instead of N3.
253
After Fischer 1996: 271.
254
Jones 2000: 2682.

3. ir(.y) r Hss.t srw.f Who does what is pleasing to his noble
4. sS nsw.t a.w Scribe of the royal records
5. @ny Heny
6. Hm-kA Ka servant
7.
255

8. Ddi Djedi
2
nd
Register
1. ih mnx.wt Hs.t n nb.s O! The clothing is pleasing to its lord.
Top Register
1. ih mnx.t O! The clothing!
2. nfrw sDA mnx.t Happy (is he) who conveys the clothing.
3. imy-rA sSr Hm-kA ihi Overseer of linen distribution, Ka servant
256
,
Ihi
Blackman Plate 27
Room B, West Wall, Middle Scene
Above Pepiankh
1. HAty-a Count
6. imAxw xr inpw tpy Dw.f Revered with Anubis, the one upon his
hill.
257

Behind Pepiankh
1. sA.f srw His eldest son
2. mry.f His beloved
4. Hry-tp aA nDf.t Great chief of Nedjfet
5. Hn[y] Heni
1. imy-rA sSr s Overseer of linen distribution S

255
Blackman (1953: 34) claims this line reads treasurer, presumably imy-r3 pr-H, but this is not recorded in
the plates.
256
Jones 2000: 2167.
257
Jones 2000: 72.

2. imy-rA sSr sni Overseer of linen distribution Seni
3. imy-rA pr Overseer of the house
4. imy-rA Overseer of

Blackman Plate 28
Room B, West Wall, North Scene
Above Pepiankh
1. HAty-a Count
7. @ny rn.f nfr @nni.t km Heny, whose good name is Henenit the
Black
Behind Pepiankh
1. imy-rA sSr sni Overseer of linen distribution, Seni.
2. smr Xry-tp nsw.t Companion, Kings liegeman
3. sS nsw.t a.w @nni Scribe of the royal records, Heneni
1. xns SA.w sS.w pH nb Traversing swamps, marshes and every
marshland
2. ama(A) Xnm sSy Apd.w Throwing the throwstick and entering the
nesting place of the ducks.
3. Hm.f His wife
4. (m)ry.t.f His beloved
5. X(kr.t) nsw.t Ornament of the king
258

6. Ppy-stn.t Pepysetnet
7. srw in(i) n gnw pn Prince, fetch this Genubird
8. iry in.t n Tw sw I will bring it to you.

Blackman Plate 29
Room B, North Wall
Above Pepiankh
1. HAty-a Count

258
Jones 2000: 2899.

1. mAA nD.t-Hr inn.t n.f m niw.wt (i)n Viewing the gifts brought to him from
HAw.f towns (b)y his subjects(?).
2. sxp.t stp.t in ms.w.f (s)n.w.f kA-Hm.w n Bringing meat and fowl offerings by his
D.t.f children, his brothers and the Ka-servants of
his body
3. sS nsw.t a(.w) Scribe of the royal records.
4. Xry-Hb.t Lector priest
5. srw nb all the noble ones(?)
6. n kA n @ny for the Ka of Heny
Around doorway
1. iw sw.wy(?) wab Hs(i) @ny km imAxw These(?) are pure (who) praise Heny the
xr nTr aA Black, revered with the great god.
2. xrp sH iry Hn.t
259
Director of the dining hall & Keeper of beer
3. xrp sH Director of the dining hall
4. xrp sH iry Hn.t Director of the dining hall & Keeper of beer

Blackman Plate 30
Room B, East Wall, North Scene
Above Pepyankh
1. HAty-a Count
6. Ppy-anx Pepyankh
Behind Pepyankh
Register 1
1. smr Companion
3. imy-rA Tnt.t
260
Overseer of the Tchentet cattle

259
Jones 2000: 1198.
260
Jones 2000: 990.

4. @nn.t Henenet
Register 2
2. pr mDA.t nTr pr-aA sS Scribe of the house of sacred books of the
great house
3. iri Iri
4. imy-rA sSr sanxy Overseer of linen distribution, Sankhy.

Register 3
No inscriptions
Register 4
1. sA.f His son
2. mry.f His beloved
5. Hpi Hepi

1. m[AA] kA.t nb.t nfr.t ir.t m sx.wt n.t Inspecting all of the good work that is done
Smaw tA-mHw in the fields of Upper and Lower Egypt.
Top Register
1. i Illegible
2. nmt.t nmt.t xr Gee up! Gee up!
3. nmt.t Gee up!
4. ini n.k n kA n (I) bring you for the Ka of
5. iry r Hs.t.k (I) do as you please!
6. Hm-kA Ka servant
7. Hm-kA Ka servant
8. HA.k im ink r sSd wny ????
9. dw xrp The stick is driving
10. skA ? kA.w The bulls are ploughing
11. iw Hr.t xprs and (I) am doing ??
12. iw Hn H(r) (m)A skA Hen is inspecting the ploughing.
2
nd
Register
1. iw sw.wy DdA n wSn sx.t n kA n @ny km nb These fat (fowl?) of the poultry marsh are
for the Ka of Henykem, (my) lord.

2. iTi nw kA n Ppy anx km nb sin Take these, quickly, for the ka of Pepyankh-
kem, (my) lord.
3. iw Hb nfrw r a It is a beautiful catch ??
4. ini.n.n wSn iTi n srw We have brought poultry captured for the
noble
5. Ssp nw m a sin in.t Apd Take these from (my) hand quickly that (I)
may fetch (another) bird.
6. rdi xpr nw nis.k r hA.w r wnm t Get to work! ? that you may summon the
neighbours to eat bread
7. iry (I) will!
3
rd
Register
1. wA.t n mHy.t n kA n srw Prepare a way for the fish for the ka of the
noble
2. hii ir TAy Heave ho! Good man!
3. iry (I) will!
4. wr wr ir is mH.t ?? excellently (it) is very full!
5. imy-rA wHA.w Overseer of fisherman
261

6. w n kA n @nni.t km for the ka of Henenitkem
7. sti m dbw ?r tA-mHyt.t ???
8. is sA.t Xr rm.w (It) is fully sated with fish
9. hii r.k Hr Really heave ?
10. Hb nfr pw This is a beautiful catch
Bottom Register
1. n [kA].k @nn.t nb rnn i[wA] For your ka, (my) lord Henenet, a young
longhorn
2. mniw pw anx Hr.k r Sy pw S.t Hr mw This herdsman! ??? for this crocodile ???
upon the water
3. ir.n Dy.t Totalling papyrus stems
4. Xry-Hb.t sS pr-aA nTr pr-a.w sS iri Lector priest, Scribe of the sacred books of
the great house, Scribe, Iri
5. Hbs Sn.t/SA.t 10 m HAtyw SmAy.t (He) who is clothed in 10 thread quality
HAtyw cloth and Upper Egyptian linen
6. r.k H wA sD.t wA xAb rw ???
7. (i)d.wt.f His cows
8. kA nx.t Strong bull

261
Jones 2000: 421.

9. mk wn nfr Behold! Life is good!
10. ??? m Xr n kA HA pw ?? in the underneath of the bull. This ??
11. Iry (I) will!

Blackman Plate 31
Room B, East Wall, Middle Scene
Around Pepyankh
1. HAty-a Count
7. @ny.t Henyt
8. imy-rA sSr Overseer of linen distribution
9. mry nb.f Beloved of his lord
10. iry Hss.t.f ra nb Who does what is praiseworthy to him
everyday.
11. sanxy Sankhy

Behind Pepyankh
Register 2
1. sS nsw.t a.w Scribe of the royal records
2. sAb
262
Judge
4. Hpi Hepi
5. Xry-Hb.t wxxwn Lector Priest, Ukhkhun
Register 3
1. sS nsw.t Scribe of the King
263

2. rA a Mouth of the book
3. sAb Judge
5. Ppy-anx rn.f nfr @ny Pepyankh whose good name is Heny
6. TmAi Tjemai

262
Jones 2000: 2932.
263
Jones 2000: 3148.

7. imy-rA sSr nDHmib Overseer of Linen Distribution, Nedjhemib
Bottom Register
Under Pepyankh
1. Hr Hr Sa(y) Horus upon the sand
2. m rdi.w rdi.w @ny km ??? Heny the Black
3. ir mi mrr Do as is wished.
4. mr(i.i) s(t?) mH.t r wnn s(t?) Sw.t (I) like it(?) full rather than empty
5. ih Ar mk(i) ? O! ????
6. mk(i) r.k snb Protect all of you - the healthy one.
Bottom Register
1. xrp sH mry nb.f ir Hss.t.f rA nb ipw Director of the dining hall, beloved of his
lord, who does what is praiseworthy to him
every day, Ipu
2. mi ir Dr(?) ii.t srw Tread carefully until(?) the noble comes.
3. iry r Hs.t.k (I) will do as you please.
4. Wdn pw This is heavy!
Register 3
1. ? ?
2. sHD xtm(.w)t nDHmib Overseer of sealbearers
264
, Nedjhemib
3. imy-rA isw.t Overseer of crews
4. @nni.t Henenit
5. imy-wr.t wa.t nfr.t pw This western road is beautiful
Register 2
1. xrp sH HnsAi Director of the Dining Hall, Hensai
2. smTn Semtjen
3. xtm smTn Sealer, Semtjen
Top Register
1. wA.t nfr.t anx.t iw.t A beautiful road! May (one) live and return.
2. Hmi Hemi
3. TmAi Tjemai
4. imy-rA Overseer of

Blackman Plate 32
Room B, East Wall, South Scene

264
Jones 2000: 3507.

Right of door
Top Register
1. HAty-a Count
5. @ny.t km Henyt the Black
Register 2
1. sAb rA a @ny Judge, mouth of the book, Heny
2. (imy)-rA pr(-aA?) i(TAi) (Over)seer of the (great) house, Itjai.
Register 3
1. sS nsw.t a.w Hpi Scribe of the royal records, Hepi
Bottom Register
1. Tnw.t mnmn.w a.wt nb Census of all the cattle, sheep and goats.
Above door
1. mAA ir.t irw m kA aw.t nb.t Viewing the levying of the tax on all cattle,
sheep and goats.
Left of door
Bottom Register
1. kA Bull
2. id.t Cow
3. kA Bull
Register 4
1. rnn iwA Young longhorn
2. ngAw.w(?) 1,000 1,000 longhorned bulls
Register 3
1. rnn iwA Young longhorn
2. id.wt (1,000) (1,000)
265
cows
Top Register
1. aA Ass
2. id.t aA Large cow
3. 1,300 1,300
4. id.t aA.t Large cow
5. nbn
266
Neben

265
This is present in Blackmans text, not the Plate.
266
This is present in Blackmans text, not the Plate.


Blackman Plate 33, 1
Room C, West Wall, South of False Door
Top to bottom
1. HAty-a Count
7. t 1,000 1,000 loaves of bread
8. Hn.t 1,000 1,000 jars of beer
9. kA.w 1,000 1,000 oxen
10. Apd.w 1,000 1,000 fowl
11. Ss 1,000 1,000 of alabaster
12. mnx.t 1,000 1,000 of clothing
13. n smr wa.ty for Sole Companion
16. dbH.t-Htp Funerary meal
17. sxp.t stp.t Bringing meat, fowl, bread and beer
offerings
20. imy-rA pr Overseer of the house
21. wx-nfr-Hr Ukhneferher
23. pr-aA pr-nTr-mDA.t sS
267
Scribe of the house of sacred books of the
great house
24. Ppy-iHy-m-sA rn.f nfr iri Pepy-ihy-emsa, whose good name is Iri

Room C, West Wall, False Door
Upper Lintel

267
This is written in solid black. Blackman states that the name iri is possibly written here as well, but it is
uncertain. Blackman 1953: 55.

1. Htp di nsw inpw pr-xrw x(r?) n imy-rA A boon which the king and Anubis give:
Hm(.w)-nTr @nni.t km (namely) invocation offerings to overseer of
the gods servants, Henenit the Black
Right Outer Jamb
1. HAty-a Count
7. imAxw Revered one
Left Outer Jamb
1. (HAty)-a Count
2. (xtm.ty) (b)i.ty Sealer of the king of Lower Egypt
3. s(mr) wa.(ty) Sole Companion
6. imAHw xr nTr-aA
268
Revered one with the great god
7. @nni.t Henenit
Offering slab
3. kA.w 1,000 1,000 oxen
4. Apd.w 1,000 1,000 fowl
7. n HAty-a for Count
13. imAxw xr nTr aA Revered with the great god

268
Jones 2000: 142.

Lower Lintel
Right Inner Jamb
4. Ppy-(anx) (r)n.f nfr @nni.t km Pepyankh whose good name is Henenit the
Black
Left Inner Jamb
4. Ppy-(anx) (r)n.f nfr @nni.t km Pepyankh whose good name is Henenit the
Black

Room C, West Wall, North of False Door
Top Register
1. sxp.t stp.t in ms.f (s)n.f Bringing meat and fowl offerings by his
children and his brothers.
Register 2
1. sxp.t stp.t Bringing meat and fowl offerings
Register
1. sxp.t stp.t Bringing meat and fowl offerings

Blackman Plate 34
Room C, North Wall
Above Pepyankh
1. HAty-a Count

7. Ppy-anx km Pepyankh the Black
Beneath List of Offerings
3. kA.w 1,000 1,000 oxen
4. Apd.w 1,000 1,000 fowl
7. n imy-rA Hm-nTr for Overseer of the gods servants
9. rdi.t bHw Giving libation
10. Hm-kA Ka Servant
11. ir.t snTr Burning incense
12. Sd.t sS in Xry-Hb.t Reciting the book by the lector priest
16. ir.t s:Ax.w aSA in Xry-Hb.t Performing of many recitations by the lector
priest
17. Sd.t sS Reciting the book
18. in.t rd in Xry-Hb.t (The rite of) removing the foot(print
performed) by the lector Priest
19. sS nsw.t a(.w) imy-rA sS(.w) AH.t Scribe of the royal records, overseer of the
iTAi land scribes, Itjai
Bottom Register
1. sxp.t stp.t Bringing meat, fowl, bread and beer
offerings.
2. swnw pr-aA mry.f Ppy-mr Physician of the great house, his beloved,
Pepymer
4. pr-aA pr-nTr-mDA.t sS
269
great house
5. Ppy-iHy-m-sA rn.f nfr iri Pepy-ihy-emsa, whose good name is Iri

269
This is written in solid black. Blackman states that the name iri is possibly written here as well, but it is

6. sSSn Seshshen

Blackman Plate 35
Room C, East Wall
Register 3
1. di(.i) pr(i) (xpS).f pn (I) will cause this its (foreleg) to come out
2. pns(.k) kA.f Cut off its head
3. sSm dm The blade is sharp
4. sab pn Cut this off
5. iry(.i) (I) am doing so.
6. nDr(w) ir Grasp (it) firmly
7. mk wy Hr.s Behold, Im upon it
8. di(.i) mn xpS pw (I) will cause this foreleg ??
9. iw hr(x)wy(?) wr.t It is very ready(?)
Bottom Register
1. iTi ir im n.t Hna Seize it firmly ??
2. iry(.i) (I) am doing so
3. di(.i) pr(i) xpS.f I will cause this foreleg to come out
4. di(.k) pr(i) iw.f n HA.t Dr ii.t Xry-Hb.t Cause meat to come away from the forepart
r ir.t x.t before the lector priest comes to do things.
5. iry(.i) r Hs.t.k (I) am doing as you wish
6. Asw(.k) sin Bind (it) quickly
7. di(.i) ? stp.t (I) will cause (it) ? meat offerings
8. iry(.i) r Hs.t.k (I) am doing as you please
9. nDr(.k) ir di(.i) pr(i) xpS.f Grasp (it) firmly. (I) will cause its foreleg to
come away.
10. iry(.i) r Hs.t.k (I) am doing as you please
11. iTi(.k) xpS pn Seize this foreleg
12. iw hrxwy(?) wr.t It is very ready(?)
13. iry(.i) (I) am doing so.

Blackman Plate 36
Room C, South Wall
Beneath List of Offerings
1. rdi.t bHw in Hm-kA Giving libation by the Ka servant

2. ir.t snTr Burning incense
3. Sd.t sS Reciting the book
4. ir.t s:Ax.w aSA in Xry-Hb.t Doing of many recitations by the lector
priest
8. in.t rd (The rite of) removing the foot(print)
Bottom Register
1. sHD Hm(.w)-kA iAs
270
Inspector of the gods servants,
271
Ias
2. sSSn Seshshen

Blackman Plate 42
East Wall, Bottom Register
(Reading left to right)

2. Dr.t Wailing woman
3. w.t(y) Embalmer
4. Xry-Hb.t smsw Senior lector priest
5. imy-rA w.t(yw) Overseer of embalmers
8. mH sSA.t
272
tw sin Finish this dragging (towing?) in haste.
9. mk wy Hr ir.t r Hs.t.k Behold, I am doing as you please.
10. iri imy-wr.t ir Make skilfully for the west
11. i sdy ir O! An excellent voyage!
12. ir.n.n wA.t We have completed the journey!
13. mk Haw.w ii Behold, the ships are come!
15. w.t(y) Embalmer
16. iri ir Hs.t.k (I am) doing as you please

270
The determinative for Ias name is not A1, but a seated man apparently holding a large flat shape above his
head.
271
Jones 2000: 3475.
272
For sTA.t or sDA.t?

18. w.t(y) Embalmer
20. i iTi m nwH.k pw ir O! Take this rope of yours firmly!
21. Sms r tp ibw Escorting to the foremost(?) of the
purification hut.
22. ih mk Sms imAxw pw O! Behold, the escort of this revered one
sp sn iAw(t) nfr(.t) wr.t for the second time (after?) a very happy old
age.
273

East Wall, Upper Register
1. wt(y) Embalmer
3. imy-rA wt(y) Overseer of embalmers
6. wt(y) Embalmer
8. Sms r wab.t n.t wt(y) Escorting to the pure place of embalmers
9. iAw(.t) nfr wr.t A very good old age
11. w.ty Embalmer
13. Sms r wab.t n.t wt(y) Escorting to the pure place of embalmers
15. w.ty Embalmer
16. wdn x.t Offering things
17. nis r x.t Summoning things
18. HA.w Male mourner
20. sS sSSn
274
The scribe Seshshen

Blackman Plate 43
West Wall, Top Register

273
After Lashien 2010: 6.
274
This is written in heavy black hieroglyphs Blackman 1953: 53.


1. smr waty Xry-Hb.t Sole companion and lector priest
4. pr mDA.t nTr pr-aA sS
275
great house
5. Ppy-iHy-m-sA
276
Pepy-ihy-emsa
7. Sms r ibw Escorting to the purification hut.
8. iAw(t) nfr(.t) wr.t m-m imAxw A very happy old age among the honoured
xr nTr aA nb imn.t ones near the great god, lord of the
west.
10. (Xry)-Hb.t smsw Senior lector priest
11. smr Companion
12. Sms r-tp ibw n hrw-tp Escorting to the purification hut on the first
iAw(t) nfr(.t) wr.t xr nTr.f day (after?) a very happy old age with his
god.
277

13. mk Sms imAxw pw Behold! Escorting this revered one.
14. w.t(y) Embalmer
15. w.t(y) Embalmer
16. w.t(y) Embalmer

West Wall, Middle Register

1. sHD (wt(yw)) Inspector of embalmers
3. Xry-Hb.t smsw Senior lector priest
4. sHD wt(yw) Inspector of embalmers
5. mk Sms imAxw pw Behold, escorting this revered one

275
This is written in solid black. Blackman state that the name iri is possibly written here as well, but it is
276
This is written in solid black and apparently refers to the holder of the preceding title.
277
Theis reads Noch wahrend des ersten Tages. (Theis 2011: 113) for iAw(t) nfr(.t) wr.t

6. sS sSSn
278
The scribe, Seshshen
7. nfrs.T
279
Nefersetch
11. imy(-rA w)t(y) Over(seer of em)balmers
12. wdn x.t Offering things(?)
13. Sd sS in Xry-Hb.t Reciting a document by the lector priest
14. iri Iri
15. sSSn Seshshen
16. HAw Male mourner
18. w.t(y) Embalmer
19. Sms r ibw Escorting to the purification hut
20. imy-rA w.t(y) Overseer of embalmers
21. mk Sms imAxw pw Behold! Escorting this revered one.

West Wall, Bottom register

2. sHD wt(y) Inspector of embalmers
4. smr waty Xry-Hb.t Sole companion and Lector priest
5. Sms r SAb.t Escorting to the coffin boat
280

6. smn Tbw.t tw Making firm the gangplank
281

7. sHD wt(y) Inspector of embalmers
10. Dr.t
282
Wailing woman

278
According to Blackman, this is a mere scribble and obviously inserted in the wrong place Blackman 1953:
54.
279
This and line 10 are both written in solid black hieroglyphs Blackman 1953: 54.
280
After Theis 2011: 44.
281
After Theis 2011: 106.
282
This is the first instance in which the Dr sign is written with the vertical lines.

18. w.t(y) Embalmer
20. imy-wr.t West
21. (ib)w (purificat)ion hut

11. Bibliography
Aelian. On Animals. Trans. A. F. Scholfield [Loeb Classical Library], 2 (London, 1959)
Alexanian, N. 2006. Tomb and Social Status. The Textual Evidence, in M. Barta (ed.) The Old
Kingdom Art and Archaeology, 1-8. Prague.
Altenmller, H. 2008. Family, Ancestor Cult and some Observations on the Chronology of the Late
Fifth Dynasty. in H. Vymazalov and M. Brta (eds), Chronology and Archaeology in Ancient Egypt
(The Third Millennium B.C.). Proceedings of the Conference Held in Prague (June 11-14, 2007). 144-
161. Prague.
Assmann, J. 2005. Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt. Trans. D. Lorton. London.
Baer, K. 1960. Rank and Title in the Old Kingdom. Chicago, IL.
Baines, J & Malek, J. 1980. Atlas of Ancient Egypt. Oxford.
Bell, L., J.H. Johnson, and D. Whitcomb, 1984. The Eastern Desert of Upper Egypt: Routes and
Inscriptions, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies 43, 27-46.
Blackman, A. 1912. The Significance of Incense and Libations in Funerary and Temple Ritual, in
Zeitschrift fur gyptische Sprache 50, 69-75.
1914. The Rock Tombs of Meir I. London.
1916. The Ka-House and the Serdab, in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 3, 250-254.
1924. The Rock Tombs of Meir IV. London.
1931. The Stele of Thethi, Brit. Mus. No. 614, in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 17, 55-61.
1953. The Rock Tombs of Meir V. London.
Brovarski, E. J. 1973. An Unpublished Stele from the First Intermediate Period in the Oriental
Institute Museum in Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32, 453-465.
2003. The Senedjemib Complex I. Boston.
Chabn, M. E. 1902. Ncropole de la VI
e
Dynastie Koeir el-Amarna. in Annales du Service
des Antiquites lEgypte. 3, 250-253.
Davies, N. de G. 1902. The Rock Tombs of Deir el-Gebrwi II. London.
Dodson, A. and S. Ikram, 2008. The Tomb in Ancient Egypt. London.

Donohue, V. A. 1992. A Gesture of Submission, in A. B. Lloyd (ed.) Studies in Pharaonic
Religion and Society in Honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths, 82-114. London.
Dunham, D. 1938. The Biographical Inscriptions of Nekhebu in Boston and Cairo, in The Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology 24, 1-8.
Eaton-Krauss, M. 1984. The Representations of Statuary in Private Tombs of the Old Kingdom.
Wiesbaden.
El-Khouli, A and N. Kanawati, 1989. Quseir el-Amarna. Sydney.
Faulkner, R. 1962. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford.
Fischer, H. G. 1954. Four Provincial Administrators at the Memphite Cemeteries, in Journal of the
American Oriental Society 74, 26-34.
1961a. Three Old Kingdom Palimpsests in the Louvre, in Zeitschrift fr gyptische Sprache und
Altertumskunde 86, 21-31.
1961b. An Occurrence of @nn-nsw.t Ehnasya on Two Statuettes of the Late Old Kingdom, in
Journal of the American Oriental Society 81, 423-425.
1962. A Provincial Statue of the Egyptian Sixth Dynasty, in American Journal of Archaeology 66,
65-69.
1963. Varia Aegyptiaca, in Journal of the American Research Centre in Egypt 2, 15-51.
1964. A Group of Sixth Dynasty Titles Relating to Ptah and Sokar, in Journal of the American
Research Centre in Egypt 3, 25-29.
1968. Dendera in the Third Millennium BC. New York.
1992. Boats in Non-nautical Titles of the Old Kingdom, in Gttinger Miszellen 126, 59-78.
1996. Egyptian Studies III. Varia Nova. New York.
Franke, D. 1993 Review of The Rock Tombs of el-Hawawish. The Cemetery of Akhmim Vol. VII
(1987), Vol. VIII (1988), Vol. IX (1989) by Naguib Kanawati et al. and of Quseir el-Amarna. The
Tombs of Pepy-ankh and Khewen-wekh by Ali El-Khouli and Naguib Kanawati, in The Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 79, 288-292.

Gardiner, A. H. 1917 The Tomb of a Much-Travelled Theban Official, in The Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 4, 28-38.
Galvin, M. 1984. The Hereditary Status of the Titles of the Cult of ator, in The Journal of
Gillam, R. A. 1991a. Topographical, Prosopographical and Historical Studies in the 14
th
Upper
Egyptian Nome. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Toronto.
1991b. Review of Quseir el-Amarna by Naguib Kanawati and Ali el-Khouly, in Discussions in
Egyptology 20, 75-87.
Glanville, S. R. K. 1932. Scribes Palettes in the British Museum. Part 1, in The Journal of
Goedicke, H. 1977. Review of Untersuchungen zur gyptischen Provinzialverwaltungbis zum Ende
des Alten Reiches by Eva Martin-Pardey, in Journal of the American Research Centre in Egypt 14,
121-124.
Gunn, B. 1941. Notes on Egyptian Lexicography, in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 27, 144-
148.
Haran, M. 1960. The Uses of Incense in the Ancient Israelite Ritual, in Vetus Testamentum 10,
113-129.
Harpur, Y. 1987. Decoration in Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom. Oxford.
Helck, H. W. 1954. Untersuchungen zu den Beamtentiteln des gyptischen alten Reiches. Glckstadt.
James, T. G. H. 1953. The Mastaba of Khentika called Ikhekhi. London.
Jones, D. 2000. An Index of Ancient Egyptian Titles, Epithets and Phrases of the Old Kingdom,
Volume 1. Basingstoke.
2000. An Index of Ancient Egyptian Titles, Epithets and Phrases of the Old Kingdom, Volume 2.
Basingstoke.
Kanawati, N. 1977. The Identification of +aw/^mAi and +aw in the Decoration of the Tomb at Deir
el-Gebrawi, in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 63, 59-62.
1980a. Governmental Reforms in Old Kingdom Egypt. Guildford.

1980b. The Rock Tombs of el-Hawawish I. Sydney.
1981. The Rock Tombs of el-Hawawish II. Sydney.
1989. The Chronology of the Overseers of Priests at El-Qusiya in the Sixth Dynasty, in Gttinger
Miszellen 111, 75-80.
1992. Akhmim in the Old Kingdom. Sydney.
2004. Niankhpepy/Sebekhetep/Hepi: Unusual Tomb and Unusual Career, in Gttinger Miszellen
201, 49-61.
2010. Chronology of the Old Kingdom Nobles of el-Qusiya Revisited, in Z. Hawass, P. Der
Manuelian and R. Hussein (eds.) Perspectives on Ancient Egypt; Studies in Honour of Edward
Brovarski. 207-220. Cairo.
Kanawati, N. and M. Abder-Raziq, 1998. The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara Volume III. Sydney.
Kanawati, N. and A. Hassan, 1997. The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara Volume II. Sydney.
Lashien, M. 2010. The Transportation of Funerary Furniture in Old Kingdom Tomb Scenes, in A.
Woods, A. McFarlane and S. Binder (eds.) Egyptian Culture and Society; Studies in honour of Naguib
Kanawati, Volume II. 1-11. Cairo.
Martin-Pardey, E. 1976. Provinzialverwaltung. Hildesheim.
Nims, C. 1938. Some notes on the Family of Mereruka, in Journal of the American Oriental
Society 38, 638-647.
OConnor, D. 1996. Sexuality, Statuary and the Afterlife; Scenes in the tomb of Pepyankh (Heny
the Black). An Interpretive Essay, in P. Der Manuelian (ed.) Studies in Honor (sic.) of William Kelly
Simpson. 621-633. Boston.
Polet, S. 2007. Gnalogie et chronologie chez les nobles de Meir et de Koeir lAncien Empire.
1-18. http://archaeogate.org/egittologia/article/611/11 (accessed 18/8/13).
Sethe, K. 1933. Urkunden des Alten Reiches I. Leipzig.
Silverman, D. 1994. The Title wr bz.t in the Tomb Chapel of KA(.j)-pw-Ra, in D. P. Silverman (ed.)
For His Ka. Essays Offered in Memory of Klaus Baer. 245-255. Chicago
Smither, P. C. 1942. An Old Kingdom Letter Concerning the Crimes of Count Sabni, in The
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 28, 16-19.

Strudwick, N. 1985. The Administration of Egypt in the Old Kingdom. London.
2005. Texts from the Pyramid Age. Atlanta.
Roccati, A. 1968. Una Lettera Inedita dellAntico Regno, in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
54, 14-22.
Taylor, J. H. 2001. Death & the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt. London.
Wilson, J. A. 1970. Review of Dendera in the Third Millennium BC down to the Theban
Domination of Upper Egypt by Henry G. Fischer, in American Journal of Archaeology 74, 209-210.

Pepyankh Henykem of Meir

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pepyankh Henykem of Meir

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pepyankh Henykem of Meir

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Tomb of Pepyankh Henykem

You might also like