An Enigmatic Wall from the Cenotaph of

Seti I at Abydos*

Joshua Roberson

Abstract

A group of previously unidentified cryptographic texts from the west wall of the final
transverse chamber of Seti I’s Cenotaph at Abydos are translated and analyzed in terms
of the broader corpus of Underworld Books. The content of these texts as well as their place-
ment on the walls are shown to parallel annotations from the Book of the Earth, which
occur later in the tombs of Ramesses VI and IX. Finally, a possible precursor from the sec-
ond gilded shrine of Tutankhamun is considered. The status of the Book of the Earth as
a supposedly unified composition is then re-evaluated in light of these findings.

The various cosmographic texts and representations from the Cenotaph of Seti I at Abydos, many
of which appear there for the first time, 1 hold a position of considerable importance in the history of
New Kingdom religious literature. Initial construction under Seti I saw the majority of these compo-
sitions painted as polychrome sketches, which his grandson Merneptah converted later to inscribed
relief. 2 One of the only areas of the Cenotaph in which Seti seems to have pursued the relief program
to near-completion was the limestone “sarcophagus chamber.” 3 This room, which lies perpendicular
to the great pillared hall on the eastern side of the structure, appears originally to have contained an
extensive collection of mythological and cosmographic texts and representations. Still extant on the
ceiling of the chamber are the earliest surviving copies of the Book of the Night and Book of Nut, as
well as instructions for the assembly and use of a shadow clock. 4 Unfortunately, the adjacent wall
texts have fared considerably worse, as centuries of repeated exposure to groundwater during the
high Nile have all but effaced the plaster from the porous limestone. 5 The wall inscriptions have been

* I would like to thank Dr. David P. Silverman for providing a number of helpful suggestions during the preparation of the
present article. A preliminary version of this paper, entitled, ‘ “Insignificant Remains?’ Three Enigmatic Texts from the Cenotaph
of Seti I at Abydos, Examined in Context,” was presented in April of 2005 at the fifty-sixth annual meeting of the American
Research Center in Egypt, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I revisited this topic in Joshua Roberson, The Book of the Earth: A Study
of Ancient Egyptian Symbol-Systems and the Evolution of New Kingdom Cosmographic Knowledge (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania,
2007), 458–86, including a detailed discussion of the cryptographic substitution mechanisms employed in the present texts and
others.
1
In addition to the elements from the Book of the Earth discussed in the present paper, the Book of Caverns, Book of Nut,
and Book of the Night all appear for the first time in Seti’s Cenotaph (Erik Hornung, Ägyptische Unterweltsbücher [Zurich–Munich,
1972], 21 and 24).
2 Peter Brand, The Monuments of Seti I: Epigraphic, Historical and Art Historical Analysis (Leiden- Boston–Köln, 2000), 177–78.
3 Henri Frankfort, Adriaan DeBuck, and Battiscombe Gunn, The Cenotaph of Seti I at Abydos, EES Memoir 39 (London, 1933),

vol. 1, 21 and 26–27, identifying the chamber as a massive, monumental “sarcophagus” for the god Osiris (for which, also see
comments in Roberson, Book of the Earth, 62–63).
4
See Frankfort et al., Cenotaph of Seti I, vol. 2, pls. 74–85.
5
Frankfort et al., Cenotaph of Seti I, vol. 1, 21.

93
94 JARCE 43 (2007)

preserved only on the west side, where a handful of badly damaged columns, written entirely in cryp-
tographic script, are now extant, along with a small part of the associated vignette (fig. 1).
Frankfort relegated his discussion of the west wall to a single, terse sentence, dismissing both text
and image as “insignificant remains” and providing no additional translation or commentary. 6 Piankoff
later identified the partially preserved vignette as the earliest example of a scene from the Book of
the Earth, citing parallels from the sarcophagus chambers of Ramesses VI and IX. 7 These later Book
of the Earth tableaux depict a series of recumbent goddesses within semi-circular burial mounds,
from each of which emerge the head and arms of a praising, male deity. The corresponding “mound
scene” from Seti’s Cenotaph preserves only a single tumulus, 8 its associated figures, and a short descrip-
tive caption inside the mound. The later parallels suggest that between five and seven such groups
would have been represented originally. 9 However, the longer sections of cryptic narrative surround-
ing the tableau in the Cenotaph have so far remained unidentified and without translation. As a result,
the specific relationship between the Cenotaph Texts and the corresponding annotations from the
Book of the Earth (if any) has yet to be explained.
The cryptography of Seti’s Cenotaph is fairly typical of the broader New Kingdom corpus (see
the table of correspondences provided in pl. 5, below). 10 The spellings are largely alphabetic and vir-
tually all of the cryptic sign values are well attested elsewhere. 11 Unfortunately, the badly damaged
state of the west wall has reduced its texts to a series of largely disconnected words and phrases. The
resulting lack of continuity underscores the necessity of establishing a context for the interpretation
of the cryptic signs. Logic suggests beginning with the wall’s one known quantity—the partially pre-
served vignette. Given that this tableau corresponds to a known Book of the Earth scene, it is reason-
able to suppose that the accompanying texts might also derive from this same composition.
The first observation regarding the three extant versions of the “mound scene” concerns the pres-
ence or absence of a caption text. None of the figures in the latest version, that of Ramesses IX, are
labeled (pl. 4). However, a series of annotations do appear in the version of Ramesses VI. These labels
correspond closely to the two-line caption inside the preserved mound from the Cenotaph. In the
Ramesses VI version, a short, vertical column precedes each of the praising figures, reading: nhp jmj
j·.t=f, “The springing forth of one who is in his mound” (pl. 1a). 12 Inside the mounds, a second short
text refers to each of the recumbent goddesses as sº˙y.t j·.t=f, “the august one (f.) of his mound,” or,
6
Frankfort et al., Cenotaph of Seti I, vol. 1, 21.
7
Alexandre Piankoff, La création du disque solaire (Cairo, 1953), 19, n. 5. For a comprehensive new study of all extant mate-
rial from the Book of the Earth, see now Roberson, Book of the Earth, passim.
8
The initial curved stroke of a second mound extends from the front of the preserved tumulus (see fig. 1).
9
The sarcophagus chamber of Ramesses VI included seven mounds (the last two without praising figures), spread between
the second and third registers of the right hand wall (see Piankoff, Création, fig. A). Ramesses IX included five mounds in his
sarcophagus chamber, on the second register of the right wall (see Félix Guilmant, Le tombeau de Ramsès IX [Cairo, 1907], fig.
92 and pl. 4 below).
10
Egyptian religious cryptography in the New Kingdom and the methodology for its study have been treated most recently,
and in considerable depth, in John Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity: Cryptographic Compositions
in the Tombs of Tutankhamun, Ramesses VI and Ramesses IX, OBO 198 (Fribourg, 2004). The present article owes much to that
thorough study, as its frequent citation in the following pages will attest.
11
For a convenient summary of the most common alphabetic substitutions employed in New Kingdom cryptographic texts,
see Colleen Manassa, “Appendix of Cryptographic Sign Values,” in Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, 587–617. From a strictly ortho-
graphic standpoint, the only particularly notable feature of the texts is the relatively frequent inclusion of determinatives, which,
as a rule, tend to be omitted in other examples of so-called “normal” cryptography (Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, 14, with other
exceptions to this general rule in n. 2).
12
Or, interpreted verbally: “one who is in his mound springs forth.” For the grammar of labels in the Underworld Books and
their relationships to the scenes they accompany, see Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, 451 and 459, n. 31; and Roberson, Book of the
Earth, 491–92.
 ROBERSON 95

Fig. 1. Sarcophagus hall, west wall (after Frankfort et al., Cenotaph, vol. 2, pl. 87).
96 JARCE 43 (2007)

in one instance, sº˙y(.t) qb·.t=f, “the august one of his sarcophagus” (pl. 1b). The words j·.t and qb·.t
have been hyper-corrected in six out of seven examples to include an additional t before the pronom-
inal element =f, in each of the goddesses’ captions. 13 In addition, all of goddesses’ captions utilize
variations of either the rearing cobra, , or generic serpent, , for the third person suffix =f ( ). 14
This orthographic peculiarity may suggest that the captions of Ramesses VI were adapted from a
cryptographic original. 15
The Cenotaph caption, which consists of two horizontal rows within the single, preserved mound,
provides the expected cryptic precursor to the later captions of Ramesses VI:

nh<p?> m [. . .]
sº˙y.t=f [j·].t -or- sºhy.t q[b·].t

“Springing forth from [. . . ].

His august lady of the [moun]d -or- The august lady of the sar[cophag]us.”

The n and h at the beginning of the first row are clear. The third sign, transcribed above as the nose-
hieroglyph, , is unclear in the original publication, 16 although the Ramesses VI parallel strongly
suggests that the final radical of nhp must have been represented, in some form. 17 The limited space
around the following bird sign, , leaves little to no room for the initial reed leaf of the nisbe jmj, as
found in the later parallel. It would appear instead that the Cenotaph utilized the simple preposition
m after the infinitive nhp, “Springing forth from [his mound].” 18 Turning to the second row, the initial
group proves relatively transparent. However, unlike the version of Ramesses VI, the serpent
appears after sº˙y.t, “august lady,” rather than j·.t. This suggests two possibilities. On the one hand,
the serpent in the Cenotaph caption might reflect the third person masculine suffix, reading sº˙y.t=f
[j·].t, “His august lady of the sarcophagus.” The brevity of the following lacuna suggests that j·.t
would have employed a fairly concise orthography. 19 On the other hand, one might instead interpret
the serpent following sº˙y.t as a writing of alphabetic q, restoring a single bird sign, , in the follow-
ing lacuna and reading qb·.t, “sarcophagus.” Similar spellings of qb·.t are attested in other cryptic con-
texts 20 and the klarschrift group sº˙y.t qb·.t occurs among the parallel captions in the version of
Ramesses VI (pl. 1b, 5). In either case, the damaged word following sº˙y.t retains the hyper-corrected,

13
Note that, while the grammar of the Book of the Earth is Middle Egyptian, the orthography betrays many characteristics of
the later New Kingdom when it was most likely composed, such as the inclusion of seemingly superfluous weak consonants and
the occasional hyper-correction of substantives in the pronominal state (see Roberson, Book of the Earth, 347ff.).
14
The noun j·.t, “mound,” is not otherwise attested with a serpent as a determinative (Wb I, 26.9–14), whereas “his mound,”
written with the usual horned viper suffix, occurs in the adjacent vertical captions, with reference to the praising figure (pl. 1a).
15
Various permutations of the generic serpent in place of the horned viper for suffix =f are well attested in the cryptographic
corpus (see Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, 602 [I14]). The rearing cobra used in this fashion is less common, but may be explained
as a simple substitution of one serpent for another (cf., for example, the use of in place of , for alphabetic r in Ptolemaic
Egyptian, discussed in H. W. Fairman, “An Introduction to the Study of Ptolemaic Signs and Their Values,” BIFAO 43 [1945], 65).
16
See fig. 1; it appears as though one of the head- or face-signs in profile was intended.
17
The spitting mouth appears repeatedly throughout the present texts with the standard cryptic value p (for which, see Dar-
nell, Solar-Osirian Unity, 43–45), while the verb nhp is attested in the tomb of Ramesses IX with the cryptic orthography
(Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, fig. 33, 4). There is no trace of the expected spitting mouth sign in the Cenotaph caption. It is con-
ceivable—albeit purely speculative—that the damaged, third hieroglyph might represent the whole head, , in place of the mouth
(for which, compare the use of the calf’s head in place of the sqm-ear, in Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, 218 [I. 44]), or some similar
pars pro toto substitution.
18 Judging from Frankfort’s hand copy (see above, fig. 1), there appears to have been sufficient space for the suffix =f beneath

the final sign of nhp, reading: *“[He] springs forth from [his mound].”
19
I.e., , or the like. The space is insufficient for an alphabetic spelling as attested, e.g., on the enigmatic wall from the tomb
of Ramesses IX, , j·.wt (after Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, 296).
20
See Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, 81 and fig. 7a: qb·.wt.
 ROBERSON 97

Fig. 2. Cenotaph Text divisions.

double t ending found in the version of Ramesses VI, despite the lack of attached suffix to explain
its apparently pronominal state. This anomaly might suggest that Ramesses VI copied his text
from a master document that included the hyper-corrected form *sº˙y.t j·t.t=f / qb·t.t=f, rather than
the version of Seti I, which appears to have miscopied the same caption as sº˙y.t=f j·t.t (sic.) or sºhy.t
qb·t.t (sic.).
The Cenotaph caption clearly parallels the text labelling the figures from the “mound scene” of
Ramesses VI, albeit with some modifications to syntax and grammar. Turning to the longer sections
of cryptic narrative, one finds their identification to be considerably less straightforward. A prelimi-
nary examination of the west wall of the Cenotaph sarcophagus chamber, taking into account the ori-
entation of the hieroglyphs, preserved borders, and certain distinctive elements of vocabulary, reveals
at least five individual sections of narrative (fig. 2).
Texts 1 and 2 are differentiated by a switch to retrograde orientation, which occurs after the seventh
extant column from the left. 21 In addition, at the very beginning of the eighth column, most of the
introductory formula nn n ntr.w m shr pn, “These gods in this form,” has been preserved, supporting
the identification of a new narrative section at this point. 22 Text 3 (also retrograde) is clearly distinct
from Text 2, inasmuch as the remains of an original border separating the two sections are still present,
as well as traces of a second introductory formula incorporating m shr pn in the first column. Texts 4
and 5 appear in the lower register, beneath the vignette. As in the upper register, an indeterminate

21
All of the texts read from left to right, in the direction faced by the preserved figure in the vignette; the retrograde orien-
tation exhibited by texts 2–5 may be an artifact of the hieratic original from which they were presumably copied (see Henry
G. Fischer, The Orientation of Hieroglyphs [New York, 1997], 16), as also suggested by the use of the hieratic s·-goose throughout
(see n. 26, below).
22 The adverbial phrase nn n ntr.w m shr pn, “these gods in this form,” and its variants (ntr pn m shr pn, etc.) serve as standard

introductory formulae and labels to the vignettes in the Book of the Earth (see Winfried Barta, “Das Erdbuch oder das Buch von
der Wiedergeburt aus der Sonnenscheibe,” GM 98 [1987], 8; for a discussion of the underlying grammar of the introductory
formula, see Roberson, Book of the Earth, 488–94); the same formula also appears often in the Book of the Solar-Osirian Unity
(Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, 454ff.).
98 JARCE 43 (2007)

number of columns have been lost from the left side. The orientation of the entire lower register is
retrograde (left–right). The grammar and vocabulary of text 4, discussed below, suggest the repeti-
tion of a refrain, portions of which can be followed through to column x+20. Text 5 begins in the very
next column, which again commences with the introductory formula, nn n ntr.w m shr pn.
Unfortunately, the preserved sections of Texts 1 and 2 have yet to reveal specific parallels, either
from the Book of the Earth, or the broader Underworld corpus. Certain words and phrases appear to
be consistent with the genre 23 but it remains unclear whether these two passages are unique to Seti’s
Cenotaph, or simply remain unidentified due to their fragmentary context. Plates 2a and 2b, below,
include transcriptions and provisional transliterations of both of these obscure passages.
Following the partially preserved border, the three extant columns of the latter text read from left
to right and the signs exhibit a retrograde orientation. Unlike the preceding two passages, we may
link Text 3 conclusively with an annotation from the Book of the Earth of Ramesses VI, 24 as illus-
trated below in fig. 3. 25

Cen., col. 1: [. . .] s[hr] pn ˙r psq ·kr st·y ˙tp [. . .] wj[· . . .]

R6, cols. 1–2: ntr pn m shr 26 pn ˙r psd j·kr st·y ˙tp m wj(·)=f
Cen., col. 2: [. . .] b·.[t] st·.t sst· º· [. . .]
R6, cols. 2–5: jmj dw·.t=f qwj=f b·.t st·.t sst· º· brj ·kr r 27 wnw.t
Cen., col. 3: [. . .] dj=f 28 [. . .]
R6, col. 5–8: ºp=s kkwj dj=f ˙q.wt m b·.t ·h.tj etc.

“This god in this form upon the back of mysterious Aker, 29

where he has come to rest in his barque:
The one who is in his Duat 30 calls to the mysterious corpse, the great mystery

23
In particular, the presence of the phrase tf ºp=f, “when he passes,” in Text 1, col. x+2, strongly suggests a connection to the
Book of the Earth, which is the primary (though not exclusive) source for the proclitic particle tf (for which, see Alexandre
Piankoff, “La particule ou ,” BIFAO 47 [1948], 171–74). In addition to the characteristic introductory formula in Text 2, col.
1, the group b·.w nn(j.w), “weary bas” (col. 16), also appears frequently in Book of the Earth of Ramesses VI, usually in conjunction
with a form of the verb ºpj, “traverse” (Roberson, Book of the Earth, 513–16).
24
Piankoff, Création, pl. 2, 1–7 (text 3) = Roberson, Book of the Earth, 588–89. Two additional parallels occur on the Late Period
sarcophagi of Tjahorpta (CG 29306) and Djedhor (Louvre D8), for which see Colleen Manassa, The Late Egyptian Underworld: Sar-
cophagi and Related Texts from the Nectanebid Period (Wiesbaden, 2005), vol. 1, 388–89; vol. 2, pls. 281a–b.
25
The enigmatic texts in figures 3 and following have been arranged as closely as possible to their actual layout, as given in
Frankfort et al., Cenotaph of Seti I, pl. 87 (cf. fig. 1, above), while the hieroglyphs from the klarschrift parallels have been aligned
to facilitate comparison with their cryptic counterparts. Note that the sign transcribed as a reed leaf, , has been normalized from
the forms and employed in the cryptic Cenotaph Texts (for these signs, see Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, 607); the former cryp-
tic sign appears three times in the upper register (Text 1, x+7; 3, 1) and once in the lower register (Text 4, x+19); the latter variant
also appears four times, but only in the lower register (Text 4, x+1–2, 8, 18). The cursive goose, , occurs as a standard crypto-
graphic substitution for any of the bird hieroglyphs (see table of correspondences in pl. 5, below).
26
The Book of Earth frequently employs superflous signs—most often plural strokes, as here, but also frequently t and t.
27
Confusion from the hieratic, substituting for (Piankoff, Création, 8, n. 5).
28
Following the Ramesses VI parallel, the cryptic sign probably serves here as a writing of , with the following serpent
as the masculine suffix =f. The second serpent—if reproduced correctly in Frankfort’s hand copy—remains problematic (for pos-
sible interpretations, none of which are wholly satisfactory, see Roberson, Book of the Earth, 473–74).
29 In each of the following translations, elements preserved in both the Cenotaph text and the later parallel have been under-

lined in bold; elements preserved only in the Cenotaph appear in bold only; elements preserved only in the later parallel appear
in plain type.
30
Alternately, take jmj dw·.t=f with the preceding wj·=f, reading “his barque, which is in his Duat.” By this interpretation, the
following qwj=f would represent an additional circumstantial clause.
 ROBERSON 99

Fig. 3. Cenotaph Text 3 + Ramesses VI, cols. 1–9 comparison.

beneath Aker, at the hour (called) “She traverses the darkness,” 31

whereupon he places light in the corpse of the horizon-dweller,” etc.

31
Thus, also Piankoff, Création, 8: “à l’heure (dont le nom est) «Celle qui traverse l’obscurité»”; likewise, Hornung, Unterwelts-
bücher, 430: “(zur?) Stunde «Sie durchwandelt die Finsternis».” The name of the hour, “She traverses the darkness,” resembles the
regular circumstantial use of the sqm=f; the determinative (a seated woman crowned with a disc) identifies the preceding group
as a name. Noted in C. Leitz, LGG 2, 90. Cf. similar examples of hour names from the Book of the Night, discussed in A. Bau-
mann, The Suffix Conjugation of Early Egyptian as Evidenced in the Underworld Books (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1998), 123;
likewise also from the “Hour Ritual” at Edfu, in Jan Assmann, Liturgische Lieder an den Sonnengott. Untersuchungen zur altägyptischen
Hymnik, I (Berlin, 1969), 160.
100 JARCE 43 (2007)

Fig. 4. Cenotaph Text 4.

In the version of Ramesses VI, the preceding passage annotates a vignette depicting the solar
barque atop the back of the double-headed sphinx Aker. 32 The presence of this same text in the Cen-
otaph suggests that a similar representation might originally have appeared there as well. In this
regard, it might also be significant that Ramesses VI placed his Aker vignette and text above and to
the left of the mound scene. Cenotaph Text 3 also appears above and to the left of the mound scene,
perhaps reflecting a similar arrangement. 33
The preserved portion of Cenotaph Text 4 consists of twenty retrograde columns (fig. 4), with an
indeterminate number of lines lost from the beginning of the inscription. A lacuna of five columns
occurs from x+13 to x+17. The traces do not correspond with any of the extant Book of the Earth
passages from the tomb of Ramesses VI. However, a careful reading of the highly fragmentary text
reveals a compelling link to an otherwise unparalleled solar litany from the tomb of Ramesses IX.
In cols. x+3, 5, and 6, one notices an apparent repetition of sqm.n=f clauses utilizing the verb ºp(j),
“to travel/enter.” 34 Col. x+7 begins with the signs and , perhaps representing another iteration of
this clause continued from the end of the preceding column, which has now been lost. In addition, it
is also possible that the ayin-arm in column x+10 could mark the beginning of yet another ºp.n clause.

32
See A. Piankoff and N. Rambova, The Tomb of Ramesses VI (New York, 1954), fig. 115. Similar representations of Aker and
the solar barque, without the preceding annotation, were employed in the tombs of Merneptah (now destroyed), Tawosret,
Ramesses III (now destroyed), and Ramesses IV (see E. Hornung, Zwei Ramessidische Königsgräber: Ramses IV. und Ramses VII.
[Mainz am Rhein, 1990], 7 and pl. 1b).
33 Note, however, that the Cenotaph mound scene faces left, while versions of Ramesses VI and Ramesses IX both face right.

In addition, the distance between the mound scene and the text in question is greater in the version of Ramesses VI, which places
the Aker tableau in the register above, with an additional tableau intervening between them (see Piankoff, Création, pl. A).
34
Thus, reading ºp.n[. . . ] in each case. The cryptic orthography of ºp(j) as is relatively common, being attested both with
and without a walking legs determinative; cf. Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, pls. 7a, 1; 9a, 13; 33, 4 (with determinative); and 7b, 1;
23, 35 (without).
 ROBERSON 101

If we possessed no additional context for this passage, other interpretations

would obviously be possible. In order to confirm the readings suggested
here, it becomes necessary to examine the proposed parallel from the tomb
of Ramesses IX.
As in the Cenotaph, the text in question (reproduced in pl. 3, below) appears
directly in front of Ramesses IX’s version of the “mound scene” (pl. 4). 35 It is
a “speech of Re” (qdw Rº), which assumes the form of a litany in which the sun
god describes his passage through the Underworld. 36 Following a brief pre-
amble (pl. 3, col. 1), the remainder of the text consists of a series of interjec-
tions (j hy, “Oho!”), 37 each of which introduces a following emphatic sqm.n=f
clause 38 utilizing the verb ºp(j)—the same construction and verbal root that ap-
pears in the Cenotaph Text. The full formula (fig. 5), j hy ºp.n=j d(w)·.t, “Oho!
I have traversed the Duat . . . ,” 39 followed by various emphasized adverbial
adjuncts, repeats a total of twenty four times. 40
Fig. 5. Given the apparent presence in Cenotaph Text 4 of multiple instances of the
verbal stem ºp.n, it is highly suggestive that we also find the group repeated
at the beginning of columns x+1, 41 2, and 10. This element immediately
calls to mind the final radical of the interjection j hy, “Oho,” as found in the Ramesses IX litany. This
hypothesis is strengthened further by column x+10, which preserves the expected ayin-arm after ,
reading [j h]y º[p.n=j]. The principal difference between the interjections in the earlier and later ver-
sions appears to be the use of a generic, book-roll determinative in the Cenotaph, as opposed to the
speaking man found in the version of Ramesses IX. If this interpretation of the three double reed-leaf
groups is correct, then the group in column x+8 might correspond to the initial vocative particle, j,
followed by the first radical of h[y]. 42 The more-or-less fully preserved group , which appears in col.
x+19 (discussed below), confirms this reading. At this point, we need only account for the first-person
suffix expected after ºp.n and the direct object, dw·.t. Unfortunately, this portion of the inscription
does not appear to have preserved any trace of the suffix pronoun. 43 On the other hand, dw·.t appears

35
Recall that the versions of the mound scene in the Cenotaph of Seti I and the tomb of Ramesses IX face left and right,
respectively.
36
For a translation of the full Ramesses IX litany, see Roberson, Book of the Earth, 766–70.
37
See Friedrich Abitz, “The Structure of the Decoration in the Tomb of Ramesses IX,” in C. N. Reeves, ed., After Tutºankhamun:
Research and Excavation in the Royal Necropolis at Thebes (London–New York, 1992), 180; see also Wb I, 25; II, 482.
38
For which, see generally H. J. Polotsky, Egyptian Tenses ( Jerusalem, 1965), §§34–40; idem, “Les transpositions du verbe en
égyptien classique,” IOS 6 (1976), §2.6.
39
Cf. a similar formula from a litany in the Saite period Book of the Earth of Horira’a at Saqqara (Lepsius tomb 23), which
employs j h(y) ºp.n=f (var. ºp.n Rº) d(w)·.t, “Oho! He (var. Re) has traversed the Duat . . . ” as the repeated element (text in C. R.
Lepsius, Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien [Geneva, 1972], vol. 3, pl. 280c).
40
Friedrich Abitz, “Bauablauf und Dekoration des Grabes Ramses IX,” SAK 17 (1990), 35, suggests plausibly that the twenty-
four proclamations in the Ramesses IX litany reflect the twenty-four hours of the day and night. For the use of litanies in the
Underworld Books (excluding the present example) see Bauman, Suffix Conjugation, 104–105; for the repetition of the sqm.n=f in
a private funerary litany see, e.g., David P. Silverman, “A Litany from the Eighteenth Dynasty Tomb of Merneith,” in Emily Teeter
and John A. Larson, eds., Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente, SAOC 58 (Chicago, 1999), 380; for
the repetitive structure of litanies generally, see also Jan Assmann, “Litanei,” in LÄ 3, 1062–64.
41 The book roll determinative has not been preserved in col. x+1.
42
The pr-house is an acceptable cryptographic writing of the reed shelter h, , substituting one rectangular building for
another (Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, 263, n. 410).
43
The stroke, , is used for =j in col. x+18; for this relatively common substitution, see Alan H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar
(Oxford, 1994), 535.
102 JARCE 43 (2007)

unambiguously at the beginning of column x+4, utilizing a standard cryptic orthography, 44 which re-
flects the loss of the medial w, yielding the form d·.t. 45
After the lacuna from x+13 to x+17, Cenotaph Text 4 concludes with three columns of relatively
well preserved hieroglyphs. As figure 6 illustrates, this section corresponds to cols. 21–23 from the
Ramesses IX litany, establishing conclusively the identity of the Cenotaph passage.

Cen., col. x+18: d[·].t ºq=j m=tn s[rq . . .]

R9, col. 21: j hy ºp.n=j d·.t ºq=j m=tn srq.n=j b· 46.wt=s[n]
Cen., col. x+19: tn [j] hy <?> 47=sn [. . .]
R9, col. 22: j hy ºp.n=j d·.t j hy ºp.n=j tn j hy [. . .]
Cen., col. x+20: [d·].t [j]mj.w [h]t ˙tp=sn [. . .]
R9, col. 23: j hy ºp.n=j d·.t jmj.w ht=j ˙tp=sn htw=j t[·. . .]

“Oho! I traversed the Dat, entering into you, only after I permitted th[eir]
corpses to breathe.
Oho! (It is so) that I traversed the Dat! 48
Oho! (It is so) that I traversed you all! Oho! They <?> . . .
Oho! I traversed the Dat, even as my followers were resting behind me . . . ” 49

The two passages correspond remarkably well, their principle difference lying in the cryptic text’s
lack of predictable column divisions, as found in the version of Ramesses IX. 50 Given the substantial
lacunae in the Cenotaph Text, it remains unclear whether or not this earlier version included all
twenty-four proclamations found in the later solar litany. At the same time, no trace of the last proc-
lamation, which concludes with the name and epithets of the king in the later version (pl. 3, col. 24),
has survived in the final column of the Cenotaph Text.
The fifth and final preserved Cenotaph Text was placed to the right of the Text 4, directly beneath
the remains of the vignette. A considerable number of signs have been preserved in the first six col-

44
See Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, 586.
45
The spelling d·.t occurs in non-cryptic sources as early as the Pyramid Texts (e.g., PT 306a; 390b; et al.) and survives into
Old Coptic as tH (Wb V, 415).
46
Substituting a crested bird for the aleph-vulture, .
47
Without additional context or clear parallels, the group (tsm?), which has been lost in the Ramesses IX version,
remains obscure.
48
This clause lacks the expected adverbial adjunct; likewise, the following group, j hy ºp.n=j tn; for the translation employed
in these cases, cf. K. Jansen-Winkeln, “Sprachliche Bemerkungen zu den ‘Unterweltsbüchern’,” SAK 32 (2004), 208, who renders
the nominal/emphatic group wnn=sn m shr pn as “(Es ist so,) daß sie in dieser Art sind.”
49
The use of the subject + sqm=f as the adverbial adjunct to a nominal/emphatic sqm.n=f, while atypical for “classical” Middle
Egyptian, is nevertheless confirmed here by the cases in which the subject-first construction (pl. 3, cols. 7, 13, 15, 19, and 23)
interchanges with the stative (col. 20: ms=k(w)), sqm.n=f (cols. 2, 4), and bare circumstantial sqm=f (passim). This use of the subject
+ sqm=f occurs already in Old Egyptian ( James P. Allen, The Inflection of the Verb in the Pyramid Texts [Malibu, 1984], 168–69); and
probably also in literary Middle Egyptian, e.g., Sin. B 241–43, ˙db.n=j ˙r w·.wt Ór ts.w jm nty m-s· phr.t ˙·b=f wpw.t r hnw, “When
I had halted at the Horus-ways, the commander in charge of the garrison, he sent a message to the residence” (translation after
J. F. Borghouts, “Prominence Constructions and Pragmatic Functions,” in Gertie Englund and Paul John Frandsen, eds., Crossroad
[Copenhagen, 1986], 51); for examples from the Underworld Books, see Baumann, Suffix Conjugation, 148–49; for the identifi-
cation of the subject + sqm=f as the circumstantial form of the verb, see also Eric Doret, “A Note on the Egyptian Construction
Noun + sqm.f,” JNES 39 (1980), 37–45.
50
The Ramesses IX text begins each column with a new iteration of the litany, i.e., twenty-four columns = twenty-four iterations
(see pl. 3, below).
 ROBERSON 103

Fig. 6. Text 4, cols. x+18–20; Ramesses IX, cols. 21–24.

umns, enabling the confident identification of this text with a second parallel from the tomb of
Ramesses IX. This later parallel was positioned similarly, i.e., directly behind the twenty-four procla-
mations of the sun god (= Cenotaph Text 4), and immediately beneath the “mound scene.” 51 A line-
by-line comparison of the signs from the earlier and later versions confirms their relationship.

51
Cf. pl. 4, in which the last column of the solar litany is just visible to the right of the mound scene.
104 JARCE 43 (2007)

Fig. 7. Cenotaph Text 5 and Ramesses IX comparison.

Cen., cols. 1–2: nn n ntr.w m s|hr pn b·.wt=sn º[˙º=w?]

R9, cols. 1–2: nn n ntr.w m shr| pn b·[. . .]
Cen., col. 3: [. . .] m qb·.wt=sn sn [. . .]
R9, col. 3: [. . .]
Cen., col. 4: [. . .]=s[n] ˙q.w[t] Rº
R9, col. 4: [m··?] 52 =sn [. . .] Rº
Cen., cols. 5–6: b·[.w]=[s]n ºp=sn | ht
R9, cols. 4–7: [. . .]|.w=sn ºp=sn htw|=f
Cen., cols. 6–7: [. . .] nn n 53 ntr.w| [. . .] s[m]·[w]
54
R9, cols. 6–7: swt (sic.) wnn ntr.w | m kkwj sm·w

“These gods in this form,

their corpses [having stood up?] in their sarcophagi [. . . ]
when they [see?] the ligh[t] of Re:
Their bas, they fly after him,
although (sic.) it is in utter darkness that the(se) gods shall exist.”

52
The proposed restoration is dealt with in greater detail below, “Additional Scenes and Precursors.”
53
The four red crowns preserved here suggest nn n ntr.w (compare col. 1), rather than wnn ntr.w, as in the Ramesses IX version.
54
The enclitic particle swt has been mistakenly placed at the head of its clause.
 ROBERSON 105

Whereas Cenotaph Texts 3 and 4 had to rely heavily upon the later parallels for their restoration,
Text 5 actually helps to fill a troublesome lacuna in the Ramesses IX parallel (cols. 2–4). In addition,
the fact that the first three columns of the Cenotaph Text survive virtually intact provides a good
indication of the original height of the passage. The columns appear to have been considerably
shorter than those of Text 4, which was placed directly in front of it. A similar arrangement appears
in the Ramesses IX parallel, which is roughly one-third the height of the adjacent solar litany (= Ceno-
taph Text 4).
The reconstruction of the stative º[˙º=w] at the end of Cenotaph Text 5, col. 2, is based upon the
presence of the initial ayin, in conjunction with the following prepositional phrase, m qb·.wt=sn,
“in their sarcophagi,” preserved in col. 3. The proposed restoration echoes a statement that occurs
later, near the end of the Ramesses IX passage. 55 In addition, it finds a close parallel in a text from
the Book of the Earth of Ramesses VI, 56 about which we shall have occasion to speak at greater
length below, in connection with a previously unidentified parallel from the second gilded shrine of
Tutankhamun.
The verb [m··] has been restored at the beginning of Ramesses IX’s fourth column. The preserved
eye determinative, , suggests a verb of perception. The following noun, ˙q.wt, supplied by the
Cenotaph Text (col. 4), often serves as the direct object of m·· in the Book of the Earth and other
underworld compositions. 57 The Tutankhamun parallel, discussed below, lends additional support to
the proposed reconstruction.
On the right-hand wall of Ramesses IX’s sarcophagus hall, beneath the “mound scene” and accom-
panying annotation (=Text 5), appear the remains of an unidentified tableau (pl. 4). 58 This scene
originally depicted a group of three or four bearded, male mummies in upright sarcophagi, although
only traces of these figures still survive. It is to this tableau, rather than the “mound scene” placed
above, that Text 5’s description of gods “standing” in relation to their sarcophagi presumably referred.
The inclusion of this text at the same position beneath the earlier “mound scene” in the Cenotaph
suggests that a similar representation of standing mummies appeared originally in that monument. 59
Unfortunately, Seti’s monument has preserved no trace of this tableau, so we must look elsewhere for
potential parallels.
A representation of standing mummies in upright sarcophagi occurs in the Book of the Earth from
the sarcophagus hall of Ramesses VI. 60 One of the texts accompanying this tableau describes the mum-
mies in terms comparable to Cenotaph Text 5 and its counterpart from the tomb of Ramesses IX. 61
A similar representation of mummiform figures in open shrines, rather than sarcophagi, occurs already
in the third hour of the Book of Gates, but the textual evidence in this case provides no suggestive
parallel to the Cenotaph Text. 62

55
Cols. 14–16: [nn n] ntr.w m shr [p]n m qb·.wt=sn º˙º y.t=sn m-hnt qb·.wt=sn, “These gods in this form in their sarcophagi, before
which they stand.”
56
Piankoff Création, pl. 14, 7 = Roberson, Book of the Earth, 640–41: nn n ntr.w m shr pn m j·.t=sn º˙º=y m-hnt qb·.t=sn, “these gods
in this form in their mounds, they having stood up from their sarcophagi.”
57
E.g., Piankoff, Création, 65; Hornung, Zwei ramessidische Königsgräber, 66, 4–5; Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, 81.
58
Abitz, “Der Bauablauf und die Dekoration des Grabes Ramses’ IX,” 34, scene 19, notes only that the tableau is “weitgehend
zerstört.”
59
Recall also that the placement of the solar litany (=Cenotaph Text 4) relative to the mound scene, etc., is maintained
consistently in both the Cenotaph and the tomb of Ramesses IX.
60 Piankoff, Création, 28 and pl. B (upper register, far right). Cf. also a similar representation featuring three gods and three

goddesses from Ramesses VI’s sarcophagus hall, pillar III, side C (see Friedrich Abitz, Pharao als Gott in den Unterweltsbüchern des
Neuen Reiches, OBO 146 [Freiburg, 1995], 142–43, E1).
61
See nos. 54–55, above.
62
See E. Hornung, Das Buch von den Pforten des Jenseits, Aegyptiaca Helvetica 7–8 (Geneva, 1979–80), vol. 1, 50–56, and
vol. 2, 76–79.
106 JARCE 43 (2007)

The earliest representation of standing mummies in upright sarcophagi occurs as part of the Book
of the Solar-Osirian Unity, on the left panel of the second gilded shrine of Tutankhamun. 63 Unlike the
figures depicted in the tombs of Ramesses VI and IX, the mummies in the Tutankhamun tableau are
all clearly female. It is, however, the cryptic annotation above the goddesses’ heads that provides the
most telling link to Cenotaph Text 5 and its counterpart from the sarcophagus hall of Ramesses IX.
Tut.: nn n ntry.t m sbr pn m qb·.wt=sn
Cen./R9: nn n ntr.w m shr pn b·.wt=sn º[˙º=w?] m qb·.wt =sn
Tut.: sn m··=sn ˙q.wt jtn=f b·.w=sn ºpp=sn htw=f b·.w[t . . .]
Cen./R9: [m··]=sn ˙q.wt Rº b·.w=sn ºp=sn htw=f swt wnn ntr.w etc.

One significant difference between the two texts is the group b·.wt=sn º[˙º=w?], “their corpses [hav-
ing stood up?],” which the later recensions insert after the introductory formula. Regarding this
anomaly, it is quite striking that the Tutankhamun passage ends abruptly with b·.w[t], “corpse[s].”
Darnell has suggested plausibly that Tutankhamun’s annotation concludes prematurely due to a lack
of space. 64 If this is the case, then the original master document would presumably have incorpo-
rated b·[.wt] as the pre-posed subject to a following sqm=f or stative. 65 One is tempted to speculate
that the damaged group b·.wt=sn º[˙º=w?], found in the Cenotaph and Ramesses IX parallels, might
represent this missing clause, moved nearer to the beginning of the passage, either as a result of
scribal error or deliberate editing.
The group sn m··=sn ˙qw.t from the second half Tutankhamun’s annotation strengthens the resto-
ration of the verb [m··] proposed above for the Cenotaph and Ramesses IX passages. Regarding the
next clause, Darnell reads the group on Tutankhamun’s shrine as ºpp, interpreting the plural
strokes as the reduplicated p. 66 Both the Cenotaph and Ramesses IX parallels, on the other hand,
clearly write the un-geminated stem, ºp ( and , respectively). The only other significant differ-
ence between the Cenotaph/Ramesses IX text and the earlier parallel is the use of Rº in the later ver-
sions, in place of jtn=f, “his disc.” It possible that this shift might reflect some aspect of the censure of
Amarna theology, which reached a peak during the so-called “restoration” of Seti I, 67 whose Ceno-
taph first incorporated the revised version of this text.
Cenotaph Text 5 appears to represent a later version of the cryptic annotation to the standing
mummies in upright sarcophagi attested first on the second gilded shrine of Tutankhamun. At some
point between that king’s death and the reign of Seti I, the text and vignette would have been altered
to include male rather than female deities, at the same time replacing the “light of the solar disc” with
the “light of Re.” This new recension was then incorporated in the sarcophagus hall of Seti I’s Ceno-
taph, on the west wall, together with the earliest version of the “mound scene,” the twenty-four proc-
lamations of the sun god’s litany (Cenotaph Text 4), and a passage describing Re’s encounter with
Aker (Cenotaph Text 3), 68 in addition to at least two as yet unidentified Underworld texts. The mound
scene and Text 3 next appeared in the collection of Book of the Earth scenes from the sarcophagus

63
See Alexandre Piankoff, The Shrines of Tut-Ankh-Amon (New York, 1955), fig. 41; with discussion in Darnell, Solar-Osirian
Unity, 80–83.
64
Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, 83.
65 Darnell (Solar-Osirian Unity, 83) proposes a subject-stative reconstruction, based on a parallel from elsewhere in the Book

of the Earth (h·.wt=sn mn m s.t=sn [Piankoff, Création, pl. 18, 6–7 = Roberson, Book of the Earth, 660–61]).
66
Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, 81–82.
67
For a general overview of Seti’s “restoration,” see Jacobus Van Dijk, “The Amarna Period and the Later New Kingdom,” in
Ian Shaw, ed., The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford and New York, 2000), 295–96.
68
Probably accompanied by the same vignette that this text annotates in the version of Ramesses VI.
 ROBERSON 107

hall of Ramesses VI, while Texts 4 and 5 resurface later in the burial chamber of Ramesses IX. The
latter king also incorporated a version of the mound scene, but chose to omit the caption found in
the earlier versions as well as Text 3, with its description of Aker and the solar barque, which was not
included in his tomb’s decoration.
The identification of the enigmatic Cenotaph Texts presented here demonstrates clearly that manip-
ulation of Book of the Earth scenes, including integration with related underworld compositions, 69
was already taking place by the reign of Seti I. Seti’s composition shares scenes and texts with the
Book of the Earth of Ramesses VI and the related compilation of Ramesses IX, but not all features
found in the Cenotaph are common to both of the later recensions. This point is significant, because
it suggests that the so-called “Book” of the Earth from the tomb of Ramesses VI was itself a compila-
tion, not unlike the collections of “miscellaneous” scenes from the sarcophagus halls of Ramesses VII
and Ramesses IX. 70 Furthermore, the Cenotaph Texts demonstrate that multiple sections of this com-
position can now be traced back to the earliest years of the Ramessid era or even further, in the case
of Text 5, to the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty.

University of Pennsylvania

69
In this case, the standing mummy tableau from the Book of the Solar-Osirian Unity.
70
Thus, also Barta, “Der Bauablauf und die Dekoration des Grabes Ramses’ IX,” 21, n. 29.
108 JARCE 43 (2007)

Plate 1a. Ramesses VI, “Mound Scene” captions to praising figures (numbered left to right, top to bottom).

Plate 1b. Ramesses VI, captions to recumbent goddesses (numbered left to

right, top to bottom).
 x+1 [. . .].w n [. . .] x+2 [. . .] n [. . .] tf ºp=f 71 [. . .] x+3
[. . . ?? . . .] ºp [. . .] x+4 [. . .] sst·.t? [. . .] x+5 [. . . ?? . . .]
x+6 ntr.w? nt[j?] [. . .] x+7 [. . .q] ntr.w s[. . .]

Plate 2a. Cenotaph Text 1 (unidentified).

Plate 2b. Cenotaph Text 2 (unidentified; retrograde).72

1 [n]n n ntr.w m s[hr pn . . .] 2 [. . .] pn s(s)p73=sn ss[t·? . . .] 3 ntr.t n.t ˙r hft [. . .] 72 73

4 [. . . ?? . . .] 5 [. . . ?? . . .] 6 [. . .] m 74 [. . .] 7–10 [. . .] 11 [?? ˙. . .] 12 [?? . . .]
13 [. . . .w ??. . .] 14 [?] ssp 75.n? [. . .] 15 [ntr?] pn º·? [. . .] 16 [. . .].w b·.w nn 76 [º?]pp [. . .]

71
The proclitic particle tf / rf appears throughout the Book of the Earth; for the very common construction tf ºp=f, see
Roberson, Book of the Earth, 519–22. On the confusion (stemming from the hieratic) between tf and rf, see Piankoff, “La particule
ou ,” 172; for the enigmatic spelling , cf. Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, fig. 10b, 7.
72
It is possible that more than one section of text is represented here, with the division occurring somewhere in the lacuna
from cols. 7–10.
73
For the abbreviated cryptic orthography s(s)p, see Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, 50. This example appears to include the arm,
, as a determinative before the following suffix pronoun; compare the spelling in col. 14.
74
The Book of Nut, on the ceiling above, utilizes for the preposition m (Vladimir Vikentiev, “Quelques mots énigmatiques
dans un texte astronomique,” ASAE 43 [1943], 117).
75
For this orthography of ssp, compare Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, 84 and pl. 7b; the arm following the verb in this case prob-
ably serves as a determinative, as in col. 2, rather than as a spelling of º, “arm” (compare Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, for the epithet
ssp-º, “receiving of arm,” spelled , with the bent arm for º).
76
For b·.w nn(j.w), “weary bas,” which occurs several times in the sarcophagus chamber of Ramesses VI, often introducing a
form of the verb ºpj, “traverse,” see Roberson, Book of the Earth, 513–16.
 110
JARCE 43 (2007)

Plate 3. Solar litany from the sarcophagus chamber of Ramesses IX (photo by the author).
 ROBERSON 111

Plate 4. Above: Ramesses IX mound scene and text, with remains of

standing mummies in upright sarcophagi below (photo by the author).
Below: facsimile drawing of the same scene showing bearded figures
within the lower sarcophagi (now largely destroyed), after Guilmant,
Ramsès IX, pl. 92.
112 JARCE 43 (2007)

77

Plate 5. Summary of cryptic sign values in the Cenotaph Texts.77

77
The use of M22 for j does not occur in the Darnell’s corpus, but is a reasonable substitution for the reed leaf, (one vertical
plant for another; see Darnell, Solar-Osirian Unity, 33–34). This reading may be confirmed by comparison of the alphabetic spell-
ing of wj·, “barque,” found in Cenotaph Text 3, col. 1, and its klarschrift counterpart from the tomb of Ramesses VI.