HARRASSOWITZ

MITTEILUNGEN
DES DEUTSCHEN ARCHÄOLOGISCHEN INSTITUTS
ABTEILUNG KAIRO

BAND 76/77 – 2020/2021

 Sonderdruck aus/Offprint from

MITTEILUNGEN
DES

DEUTSCHEN
ARCHÄOLOGISCHEN INSTITUTS
ABTEILUNG KAIRO
BAND 76/77

2020/2021

Harrassowitz

302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 3 10.10.22 09:26

 Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo
erscheint seit 1930

MDAIK 76/77, 2020/2021 · VIII, 368 Seiten mit 305 Abbildungen

Die Abkürzungen der ägyptologischen Literatur folgen den Regeln

des Lexikon der Ägyptologie.

Herausgeber
Stephan J. Seidlmayer · Daniel Polz
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Kairo
31. Sharia Abu el-Feda
11211 Kairo – Zamalek
Ägypten
www.dainst.org

Verantwortlicher Redakteur: Daniel Polz, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Kairo

Redaktion: Jessica Jancziak, Katharina Stövesand, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Kairo
redaktion.kairo@dainst.de

Umschlag: Überblick über das Areal des Tempels am Aufweg der Knickpyramide
Foto und © K. Gospodar

ISBN 978-3-447-11794-4
ISSN 0342-1279

Bibliografische Informationen der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie;

detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar.

© 2022 Harrassowitz Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden

Datenkonvertierung, Druck und Verarbeitung: Memminger MedienCentrum AG
Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier
Printed in Germany
www.harrassowitz-verlag.de

302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 4 10.10.22 09:26


Ina Eichner
Ibrahim Abd el-Sattar
Nicholas Brown
Günter Burkard
Richard Bussmann, Bart
Vanthuyne, Gianluca
Miniaci, Emanuele Taccola,
Elena Tiribilli
Marion Claude
Jonathan P. Elias,
Tamás Mekis
Kyra Gospodar
Tom Hardwick,
Peter Lacovara
Rita Hartmann
Zahi Hawass, Sara A. Abdoh
Robert Kuhn, Friederike Sey- Der Qubbet el-Hawa Nord-Friedhof (QHN) –
fried, Karl-Joachim Seyfried, Ein Elitefriedhof in Assuan
Heba Alders, Osama Amer,
Mohamed Hamdi Rabie, Faisal
Hefny, Dirk Jerominek, Adel
Kamel Tohamy, Sarah Konert,
Mirjam Mahn
Katja Lembke, Sayed Abdel
Malik, Ahmed Derbala
Tamás Mekis
This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 5
INHALTSVERZEICHNIS
Nachruf auf Peter Grossmann (1933–2021) VII
Two identical Ptolemaic stelae of Wn-nfr and PA-nfr in the Egyptian 1
Museum Cairo, JE 5387–5388
Raise me up and repel my weariness! 11
A study of the coffin of Thutmose III (CG 61014)
Ostrakon TT85/16 37
Fragment eines autobiographischen Textes der 18. Dynastie
Zawyet Sultan. First preliminary report 43
Survey of seasons 2015, 2017, 2019
Nakhtmin, high priest of Min and Isis in Akhmim 63
and overseer of works for Ay
His career, his tomb and Ay’s memorial temple
Prophet-registrars of Min-Hor-Isis at Akhmim 83
Neue Ergebnisse aus den Arbeiten an der Transportstraße 113
aus Kalksteinblöcken in Dahschur
Bemerkungen zu dem Dekorationsprogramm des Tempels
am Aufweg der Knickpyramide sowie neuen Funden und deren
Bedeutung für den Abbau der Monumente im Snofru-Tal
A sphinx from Kerma in the Karnak Cachette 129
The Old Kingdom settlement at Tell el-Fara’in/Buto 141
An archaeological and ceramic evaluation
Stela of Kha-Ptah 169
177
Erster Grabungsvorbericht (1.–3. Kampagne 2015–2019)
A new Ptolemaic hypogeum with a Hadra vase at Tuna el-Gebel 211
An amuletic papyrus from the coffin TR 21.11.16.11 in the Egyptian 227
Museum Cairo
© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022
or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
10.10.22 09:26
 Éloïse Noc Les simulacres de portes du complexe funéraire de Netjerikhet 239
à Saqqâra : inventaire, spatialisation et commentaires
Olivier Perdu De véritables jumelles parmi les statues privées de temples 261
aux époques tardives
Daniel Polz Die Wiederauffindung einer von Amenmesse usurpierten Stele 275
in Theben-West
Robert Schiestl How empty was the northwestern Delta before the Ptolemies came? 283
Stephan Johannes Felsinschriften am nördlichen Fähranleger von Elephantine 303
Seidlmayer
Marie Vandenbeusch A Soter (re)connection. Five fragments of shrouds from 329
Roman Egypt at the British Museum
Daniel von Recklinghausen Der Kaiser und seine Mitregenten in Hieroglyphen 353
Zu einer neuen Inschrift im Tempel von Esna

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 6 10.10.22 09:26

 Zawyet Sultan. First preliminary report
Survey of seasons 2015, 2017, 2019
By Richard Bussmann, Bart Vanthuyne, Gianluca Miniaci,
Emanuele Taccola and Elena Tiribilli

Abstracts
The article presents preliminary results of archaeo-
logical surveys, conducted between 2015 and 2019
at Hebenu, modern Zawyet Sultan, located 8  km
south of el-Minya. Hebenu was the capital of the 16th
Upper Egyptian nome in Pharaonic times. Evidence
of occupation dates from the Predynastic Period to
the late Old Kingdom and from the mid-18th Dynasty
to the early Islamic Period. Results of the surveys in-
clude the creation of a contour line map of the site,
a preliminary assessment of the spatial distribution
of shaft tombs across the main site (zone  1), the
discovery of new rock tombs and of a falcon statue
(zone 2), the discovery of a cemetery of the early Old
Kingdom (zone  5), selected features in the quarry
zone (zone 6), a settlement profile close to the river
(zone 7) and cemeteries of the New Kingdom and the
Roman Period (zone 8). Selected features mentioned
in previous excavation reports have been re-identi-
fied in the field, georeferenced and are commented
upon. Adjacent areas have been inspected briefly:
the Predynastic site at Sawadah has disappeared,
and two new limestone monoliths have been discov-
ered c. 5 km E/SE of Zawyet Sultan. Investigation of
objects, previously excavated at Zawyet Sultan, has
begun in the Musée du Louvre and the Egyptian Mu-
seum Cairo.
‫يستعرض هذا املقال النتائج األولية ألعامل املسح األثري التي أُجريت يف‬
‫ التي تقع‬،‫ زاوية سلطان حديثًا‬،»‫ يف « ِهبِنو‬2019 ‫ حتى‬2015 ‫الفرتة من‬
‫ كانت « ِهبِنو» عاصمة اإلقليم السادس عرش من‬.‫ كم جنوب املنيا‬8 ‫عىل بعد‬
‫ يعود تاريخ شغل املوقع‬.‫أقاليم مرص العليا يف عرص األرسات املرصية القدمية‬
‫إىل الفرتة من عرص ما قبل األرسات إىل أواخر عرص الدولة القدمية ومن‬
‫ وتشمل نتائج أعامل‬.‫منتصف األرسة الثامنة عرشة إىل أوائل العرص اإلسالمي‬
‫وتقييم أول ًيا للتوزيع الجغرايف‬
ً ‫املسح إنشاء خريطة خطوط كنتورية للموقع‬
‫) واكتشاف مقابر صخرية‬1 ‫للمقابر ذات اآلبار يف املوقع الرئييس (املنطقة‬
‫) واكتشاف جبانة تعود ألوائل عرص الدولة‬2 ‫جديدة ومتثال لصقر (املنطقة‬
‫) وقطا ًعا‬6 ‫) ومعامل مختارة يف منطقة املحاجر (املنطقة‬5 ‫القدمية (املنطقة‬
‫) وجبانات من عرص‬7 ‫جانبيًا ملنطقة سكنية قريبة من نهر النيل (املنطقة‬
‫ أُعيد تحديد املعامل املختارة‬.)8 ‫الدولة الحديثة والعرص الروماين (املنطقة‬
‫املذكورة يف تقارير أعامل التنقيب السابقة يف املوقع ومتت اإلشارة إليها‬
‫ وخضعت املناطق املجاورة للفحص بإيجاز حيث‬.‫جغراف ًيا والتعليق عليها‬
‫ وا ُكتشف أثران جديدان من‬،»‫اختفى موقع عرص ما قبل األرسات يف «سوادة‬
‫ وبدأت‬.‫جنوب رشق زاوية سلطان‬/‫ كم رشق‬5 ‫الحجر الجريي عىل بعد حوايل‬
‫دراسة اآلثار التي ا ُكتشفت من قبل يف زاوية سلطان واملحفوظة حاليًا يف‬
.‫متحف اللوفر واملتحف املرصي بالقاهرة‬
Keywords
Zawyet Sultan – Hebenu – Survey – Old Kingdom
– New Kingdom
Zawyet Sultan is the local name of a village located
next to the archaeological remains of Hebenu, the
Pharaonic capital of the 16th Upper Egyptian nome,
approximately 8 km south of the city of el-Minya in
Middle Egypt. The archaeological site is also known
as Zawyet el-Mayyitin (in various spellings), Zawyet
el-Amwat and Kom el-Ahmar in the Egyptological
research literature. The most spectacular archaeo-
logical features of the site are a minor step pyramid,
dated to the early Old Kingdom, a series of decor-
ated rock tombs of the late Old Kingdom and the
Ramesside rock tomb of Nefersekheru. Previous ex-
cavations at the site have brought to light additional
structures and a substantial number of objects, most
of which have disappeared in magazines and mu-
seum collections without full publication. Due to the
poor state of documentation, it is currently difficult
to understand the complexity of the site and place
the known monuments in their wider archaeological
context.

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited. MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021

302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 43 10.10.22 09:26

 44 Richard Bussmann, Bart Vanthuyne, Gianluca Miniaci, Emanuele Taccola, Elena Tiribilli
The site has good potential for fresh archaeological
fieldwork. Monuments, inscriptions, objects and
references in ancient texts reflect the historical im-
portance of the site. The preserved remains are
extensive and diverse, including settlement struc-
tures, undecorated rock tombs, shaft tombs, surface
tombs and temple blocks, in addition to the pyramid,
and decorated rock tombs. Viewed together they
shed light on changes of local life over five thou-
sand years, from late Prehistory to the early Islamic
­Period and up to the present day. In terms of longev-
ity, Hebenu is comparable to other excavated pro­
vincial capitals, but it is one of the rare, compara-
tively well-preserved examples located in Middle
Egypt. A key question for future research concerns
the interplay of central initiatives and local dynamics
in this region and the role of Hebenu within it.
In 2014, a joint archaeological mission to Zaw-
yet Sultan was launched, today under the direction
of the Minya inspectorate of the Ministry of Tourism
and Antiquities (MoT&A), the University of Cologne
and Pisa University1. The aims of the seasons in 2015,
2017 and 2019 were to map and survey the ­entire
site beyond the boundaries of previous missions, to
select features for future archaeological investiga-
tion and to begin setting up a site management plan
for preservation and conservation2. This report sum-
1
We are grateful to the MoT&A for permission to work at the site
and for their kind support of the mission.
2
The members of the first season, 7 to 22 September 2015,
were: Richard Bussmann (co-director), Ali Mustafa el-
Bakry (directing inspector, MoT&A), Cristina Alù (archae-
ologist), Kristian Brink (photographer), Alaa Fathy Abdu
Mohamed (archaeologist), Marta Krzysanska (ceramicist),
Sylvie Marchand (ceramicist), Rida Salah Abd el-Ghany
(archaeologist), Elena Tiribilli (archaeologist), Bart Van-
thuyne (archaeologist). The inspector of the mission was
Mustafa Omar Mohamed Zaky. The training inspectors
were Mohamed Fauzy Kamil, Alaa Hagag Gag and Fat-
mah Osman Tawfiq. Funding for the mission was provided
by the Egypt Exploration Society. The members of the second
­season, 10 to 28 September 2017, were Richard Bussmann
(co-­director), Gianluca Miniaci (co-director), Anouk Everts
(archaeologist), Mattia Mancini (archaeologist), David
Parry (archaeologist), Julie Santoro (epigrapher), Elena
Tiribilli (archaeologist), Bart Vanthuyne (archaeologist),
Heissam Mohamed Ahmed (inspector). The season has been
funded by the University of Cologne, the University of Pisa, the
Egypt Exploration Society and the Ministero degli Affari Esteri
e della Cooperazione Internazionale (MAECI). The members of
the third season, 17 February to 20 March 2019, were Richard
Bussmann (co-director), Bart Vanthuyne (field director),
Anouk Everts (archaeologist), Mustafa I. Tolba (archae-
ologist), Markus Wallas (archaeologist), Mariola Hepa
(ceramicist), Sergio Alarcon Robledo (architect and pho-
tographer), Hilke Spänhoff (archaeologist). Specialists were
Rayyis Ala Farouk, Rayyis Omar Farouk, Said Abd el-
Radim, Abd el-Hamid Beshir, Sherif Mohamed, Ibrahim
Salah Mahmoud. The trainees were Badr Mohamed Atta,
Mohseen Ali Marty, and Mustafa Abdallah Abd el-
© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022
This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021 or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 44
marises preliminary observations on the topography
and selected features at the site.
The archaeological site is bordered in the north
by a large modern cemetery. Judging from mud-
brick vaults, lying open right next to recently built
tombs higher up the hill, the cemetery may very well
cover parts of the ancient settlement and cemeter-
ies. A barbed wire fence is partially preventing the
modern cemetery from expanding further onto the
archaeological site. The western border of the site
is defined by a modern road. There is no clear de-
marcation of the southern border of the site. A wide
rocky landscape of quarries opens behind the hilltop
of the Eastern Desert plateau, by and large devoid of
archaeological finds.
The site has been divided into eight zones, based
on varying characteristics of the currently visible sur-
face (fig. 1). The zones only serve practical purposes
for orientation and do not suggest coherent areas of
past activity. Excavation may reveal that cemeteries,
for instance, continue from one into the next zone.
Today the most prominent features in zone 1 are the
pyramid, a large mud brick wall, a stone ramp and
a massive layer of settlement debris covering older
shaft tombs, and in zone  2 the rock tombs (fig.  2).
Further remains of mud brick structures, presum-
ably houses and tombs of the Late Period and later,
continue upstream in zone  3 up to an abandoned
military base and a water pumping station. To the
southeast of zone 3 is an area of mud bricks mixed up
with modern construction debris, designated zone 4
and locally referred to as Kom el-Dik. The desert
strip, lying east of zones  3 and 4, has been subdiv-
ided into zone 5, close to zone 1, and zone 8. Zone 6
refers to the quarries and the entire area behind the
hill. The narrow strip of cultivation between the river
and the modern road has been labelled zone 7.
 R. B.
Rahim. The inspectors were Gihan Mohamed Abd el-Aziz
and Ali Ashour Ali. The season has been funded by the
University of Cologne. The members of the fourth season, 25
May to 1 June 2019, were Richard Bussmann (co-director),
Emanuele Taccola (topographer), Elena Tiribilli (archae-
ologist), and Alaa Fathy Abdu Mohamed (inspector). The
results of this mission have been achieved and funded as part
of the University of Pisa project led by Anna Anguissola –
PRA 2018–2019 “Paesaggi funerari tra rito e società. Nuovi
approcci allo studio delle necropoli nel mondo antico”. Further
funding has been provided by the University of Cologne and by
the MAECI. This report has been written as part of the project
“Sozialisierung der Landschaft im frühen altägyptischen Staat:
der Friedhof des frühen Alten Reiches von Zawyet Sultan”,
funded by the German Research Council (DFG), project number
440396169.
10.10.22 09:26
 Zawyet Sultan. First preliminary report 45

Fig. 1  Satellite image, Google Earth (31.07.2019) with Zawyet Sultan zones 1–8 (© Mission to Zawyet Sultan)

Fig. 2  Satellite image, Google Earth (25.02.2013) with location of the main archaeological features described in the article
(© Mission to Zawyet Sultan)

1. History of research at the site
Previous excavations have concentrated on the
northern part of the site, i. e. zones 1 and 2. Barbara
Porter and Rosalind Moss have compiled a list of
publications of archaeological and epigraphic work
carried out at Zawyet Sultan prior to the early 1930s3.
3
PM IV, pp. 132–139. For a bibliographic reference on previous
The most important publications at the time were
Carl Richard Lepsius, Denkmäler, for the architec-
ture and inscriptions of decorated rock tombs, and
the summary reports of excavations in zones  1, 2
(and perhaps 4 and 8), predominantly of shaft tombs
and the pyramid, by Raymond Weill. The latter car-
surveys and works at the site, see also Miniaci 2017, pp. 10–12;
Piacentini 1993, pp. 8–14.

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited. MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021

302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 45 10.10.22 09:26

 46 Richard Bussmann, Bart Vanthuyne, Gianluca Miniaci, Emanuele Taccola, Elena Tiribilli
ried out at least five seasons of excavations at the
site, in 1911 (apparently just a survey), 1912, 1913,
1929, and 1933. Authorisation and budget for arch­
aeological missions at Zawyet had been appointed
by the French Ministère de l’Instruction publique et
des Beaux-arts to Weill also for the years 1927, 1930,
1931, and 1932, according to documents preserved
in the Archives Nationals in Pierrefitte-sur-Seine (for
which there is no evidence if he had actually carried
out excavations on the site). The results of Weill’s
missions have not been published, apart from a few
very short summaries4 and a report on Greek inscrip-
tions found at the site5. Nonetheless, two detailed
catalogues supplied for two exhibitions organised in
Paris at Musée Guimet in 1912 and 1913 provide use-
ful information about Weill’s excavations at Zawyet
for these years’ seasons6. In 1927, Hakim Abou Seif,
inspector of the Antiquity Service, carried out excav-
ations on behalf of Pierre Lacau in some pits located
close to the Old Kingdom tomb of Ni-ankh-Pepy,
later fully published by Alexandre Varille7. In 1993,
Patrizia Piacentini produced a useful overview of
the history of the site and history of its excavations,
providing the current location for most of the objects
excavated by Weill and Abou Seif8. The archives
of Varille, preserved at the Università degli Studi
di Milano, contain information relative to the works
conducted at Zawyet Sultan by him in 19339.
Werner Kaiser and Karl Butzer visited the
site for a survey of Middle Egypt in 195810. Kaiser
and Günter Dreyer published a fresh photo of the
minor step pyramid of Zawyet Sultan for compari-
son with the other six known provincial pyramids11.
Rosemarie Klemm and Dietrich Klemm inspected
the quarries of Zawyet Sultan12. Dieter Kessler
surveyed the site for an account of the historical
topography of Middle Egypt, between Mallawi and
Samalut, and published the drawings of two blocks,
inscribed with the names of Amenhotep III, and one
block, inscribed with those of Ramses  III13. The re-
sults of excavations in zone 3 undertaken by Baghat
Abdu Fanus in 1985 are unpublished.
Jürgen Osing published the decoration and
inscriptions of the tomb of Nefersekheru, with con-
tributions by Günther Heindl on the architecture
4 14
Weill 1913b.
5 15
Weill/Jouguet 1934.
6
Weill 1912b; Weill 1913a.
7
Varille 1938, pp. 5–6; see also Piacentini 2011, pp. 261–262.
8
Piacentini 1993.
9 16
Piacentini 2011.
10
Butzer 1961; Kaiser 1961.
11
Dreyer/Kaiser 1980.
12
Klemm/Klemm 2008, pp. 70–77.
13
Kessler 1981, pp. 209–224, 366, pl. IV.3, 367, pl. V.2.
© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022
This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021 or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 46
and Brigitte Dominicus on the pottery and small
finds14. Boxes with bones and pottery from this ex-
cavation are stored in the underground chambers
of the tomb. A few objects are stored today in the
magazine of Ashmunein, including a stela depicting
the Goddess Astarte, an offering table, two small
wooden boxes, one containing the mummies of two
birds, and the other the mummy of one bird, four
shabtis (one complete, three broken), the figurine of
a baboon, and a pottery ring stand, a vessel and three
bowls15. Dominicus mentions fragments of inscribed
stone fragments found loose in the debris around the
tomb16. These were rediscovered in 2015 and have
been stored in the tomb of Ni-ankh-Pepy, together
with other smaller stone fragments, carrying inscrip-
tions or exhibiting artificial surface treatment.
In 1994, Samy Farid Fathy, of the inspectorate
of Minya, conducted excavations south of zone 3 to
test the ground for the construction of the military
base and the pumping station. In 2003, he excavated
the Old Kingdom rock tomb chambers of Khunes. He
exposed secondary anthropoid cavities, cut into the
floor of this tomb, and square shafts, without reach-
ing the bottom of the shafts. We are grateful to the
Minya inspectorate for making copies of the reports
available to us.
From 1999 to 2003, a team directed by Barry
Kemp carried out a survey and minor excavations on
behalf of the inspectorate of Minya. Kemp published
a fresh report of the architecture of the minor step
pyramid and the remains of a predynastic burial,
found close to the pyramid17. Nadine Moeller re-
corded the superstructure of a set of mastabas, a silo
area and pottery, all dated to the late Old Kingdom18.
Alison Gascoigne took pottery samples across
zones  1, 3 and 4, dating from the Old Kingdom to
the early Islamic Period19. Her PhD thesis is so far the
most comprehensive study of pottery from the site.
Recent theses, which have incorporated material
relating to Zawyet Sultan, include the MA thesis by
Carina Kühne-Wespi on Ptolemaic magical papyri,
kept in the Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussamm-
lung Berlin and possibly found near Zawyet Sultan,
the PhD thesis by Carl Graves on the cultural land-
scape of the 16th Upper Egyptian nome in the Middle
Osing 1992.
Osing 1992, pp. 19–28, no. 24–25, 35–36, 44–45, 50–52, 54–
56, pls. 4–5, 30–31. Three pottery bowls marked “1977” also
derive from this excavation, but their identification with the
pots published is uncertain.
Osing 1992, pp. 19, 21–25, no. 33, 39–40, 42e, pl. 4.
17
Kemp 2014–2015.
18
Moeller 2005; Moeller 2016, pp. 217–219.
19
Gascoigne I 2002, pp. 20–45; Gascoigne II 2002, figs. II.1–
II.41.
10.10.22 09:26
 Zawyet Sultan. First preliminary report 47

Fig. 3  Satellite image, Google Earth (07.12.2019) with points measured in 2019
(© Mission to Zawyet Sultan)

Kingdom, and the PhD thesis by Bart Vanthuyne
on early Old Kingdom rock circle cemeteries in the
15th and 16th Upper Egyptian nomes20.
Previous reports of the current mission to Zaw-
yet Sultan will be referred to in the following sec-
tions21.
 R. B./G. M./E. Ti.
2 . To p o g r a p h y
In the first mission of 2019 (February–March), a Geo-
max Zoom20 Total Station was used to set up a local
site grid (oriented N-S, E-W; units in meters) with the
local 0-point, a metal pin hammered in the desert
NW of the step pyramid, receiving X, Y, Z coordinates
(10000, 10000, 38.7822). All features at the site will be
correlated using this local site reference system.
20
Graves 2017; Kühne 2015; Vanthuyne 2017b. We are grate-
ful to the authors for making a copy of their theses available to
us.
21
The most substantial reports include Marchand et al. 2016;
Taccola et al. 2020, pp.  265–275; Tiribilli et al. 2020,
pp. 151–179.
22
The Z-value for the height was calculated based upon the
38.33  m level taken in the northwest exterior corner of the
During the second mission of 2019 (May–June)
a topographical survey of the site was led by Ema­
nuele Taccola (Laboratorio di Disegno e Restauro
-LADIRE-), using a dual-frequency differential sat-
ellite receiver (GNSS)23. The GNSS system can pro-
vide quick and sub-centimetre of accuracy point
measurements over a wide area, under optimal sat-
ellites visibility conditions. Following the so-called
Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) survey-grade systems,
a point on the ground is calculated connecting the
device to multiple satellite systems, such as GPS,
GLONASS, GALILEO. The antenna receives the
correction data of the measurement from a base
station, positioned in a point with known absolute
coordinates. The specific base station used during
the survey is a satellite put into orbit by the manu-
facturer of the device, Trimble24. The satellite survey
had a triple purpose. On the one hand, the creation
step pyramid by Kemp and his team in 2003, Kemp 2014–2015,
pp. 240, fig. 1, 243, fig. 4.
23
For a more detailed description of the topographical survey
carried out at the site see Taccola et al. 2020, pp. 267–271.
24
The differential correction of the positioning via satellite is
enabled by the RTX Trimble xFill Technology. This procedure
had a precision of about 1.5 cm horizontally and 2.5 cm in ele-
vation, with coordinates expressed according to the UTM pro-
jection system (36N) and WGS84 datum (3104179.945  m N,
286553.462 m E, 52.855 m ellipsoidal elevation).

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited. MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021

302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 47 10.10.22 09:26

 48 Richard Bussmann, Bart Vanthuyne, Gianluca Miniaci, Emanuele Taccola, Elena Tiribilli

Fig. 4  Satellite image, Google Earth (07.12.2019) with projection of 1 m contour
lines (ellipsoidal values) (© Mission to Zawyet Sultan)

Fig. 5  Top and perspective views of the site’s TIN model

(© Mission to Zawyet Sultan)

of a topographic network, with the re-measure-
ment of the existing landmarks, positioned with a
total station in 2019 (see above)25, and the materi­
alization of new fixed landmarks: the topograph-
ical survey carried out with the total station will
henceforth benefit of this precise positioning, which
will allow anchoring new points to the known co-
25
Fixed total station points were also measured with handheld
GPS device (accuracy 3 m).
ordinates, following the resection principle. On the
other hand, the measurement of a dense network
of points, more than one thousand (fig. 3), aimed at
the creation of contour lines of the site. The points
were measured following the variation of the main
elevation and the contours of the natural terraces
of the site, and then they were interpolated using
Leonardo XE and 3DS Max software in order to ob-
tain a Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) model
(fig. 5). From this model the contour lines were then

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021 or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 48 10.10.22 09:26

 Zawyet Sultan. First preliminary report
Fig. 6  Satellite image, Google Earth (07.12.2019)
with path of the cross-sections connected by a
bayonet in correspondence with the modern road
(© Mission to Zawyet Sultan)
extrapolated and overlapped on the satellite image
of the site (fig. 4). Finally, a cross-section was gener-
ated between the top of the mountain and the east
bank of the Nile, in correspondence of the pyramid
and with the modern road (fig. 6). The cross-section
was accomplished acquiring many points along two
parallel straight lines connected by a so-called bay-
onet and combined in a single continuous profile
(fig. 7).
 E. Ta./E. Ti./B. V.
3. Survey results per zone
3.1 Zone 1
Zone 1 extends from the modern Muslim cemetery
in the north to zone 3, and from just below the rock
necropolis in zone 2 to the modern road in the west
(figs. 1–2). It is the most densely occupied area of
the entire site, with a range of structures still stand-
ing in a massive layer of settlement debris, domin-
ated by Roman and late Roman pottery forms. At
a few spots, older mud brick walls are visible, pre-
dominantly belonging to shafts, but in some cases
also to houses or other types of settlement struc-
tures. The following paragraphs report some gen-
eral observations.
Results from cleaning operations around the
pyramid (fig. 2, no. 1) will be presented in the next
preliminary report26.
The large mud brick wall was built in several
phases of unknown date (fig. 2, no. 2). It awaits closer
26
For a summary report, see Bussmann 2018.
© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022
This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 49
49
scrutiny. Rectangular chambers are visible on top of
the wall27. Gascoigne speculates that they indicate
the level of the Graeco-Roman town28.
The substructure of the staircase is exposed at
its lower end. The stone steps are set on a layer of
mud bricks, which rest on a foundation of flat stone
blocks. These are placed either on the bed rock or
on mud bricks held in place with plaster, presumably
to make good the uneven ground. It is possible that
the staircase originally extended further down the
slope. The staircase might have led up to a temple
or shrine for Horus, lord of Hebenu (fig.  2, no. 3)29.
Weill found decorated blocks of this dismantled
building with the names of Amenhotep III among
the town ruins in 191230. In the same year, an archi-
trave of Amenhotep III, presumably one of those
blocks, was moved to the Egyptian Museum Cairo
(TR 13.11.20.1)31. Four decorated blocks, dated on
stylistic grounds to the last decade of the reign of
Amenhotep  III, are still preserved on site. A block
of Ramesses III was visible in situ in the ramp up to
1999, but has since been displaced32. If a temple or
shrine was built at the upper end of the staircase, it
might have demarcated an area of wider elite dis-
play, to which the tomb of Nefersekheru would have
belonged (fig. 2, no. 4).
There is further evidence that the local god was
held in high esteem during the New Kingdom. Tjay-
tjay, one of the high priests serving Horus, lord of
Hebenu, during the reign of Amenhotep III is com-
memorated by a small stone statuette, now kept in
the Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung
Berlin (ÄM 17021)33. The Egyptian Museum Cairo
(JE 89623) has a near complete black granite, seated
falcon-headed statue of Horus of Hebenu wear-
ing the double crown, inscribed with the names of
Ramesses II34. Horus of Hebenu is listed among the
group of deities for which Userhat-Hatiay, chief
sculptor of the lord of the two lands, had to make
new statues in order to restore the traditional cults
after the Amarna Period35. This suggests that Akhen­
aton also targeted Hebenu’s religious buildings, and
27
Bussmann et al. 2016, p. 40, top.
28
Gascoigne I 2002, p. 28.
29
Kessler 1981, pp. 215–222; Spence 1999, pp. 10–17.
30
Weill 1912a, pp. 489–490.
31
Lefebvre 1912, p. 93; Varille 1938, pp. 30–31, fig. 11.
32
Kessler 1981, pp. 215–220; Spence 1999, pp. 10–13.
33
Kozloff 2012, pp. 180–181; Kozloff/Bryan 1992, pp. 248–
249. For additional small finds linking Amenhotep  III with
Hebenu, see Kessler 1981, p. 221.
34
The statue is 1,41 m high and made from black granite; Rad-
wan 1976, pp. 28–29, figs. 7–9.
35
Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden, AP 12 (Stela Leiden V1);
Frood 2007, pp. 123–127; van Dijk 1995; Willems 1998.
MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021
10.10.22 09:26
 50 Richard Bussmann, Bart Vanthuyne, Gianluca Miniaci, Emanuele Taccola, Elena Tiribilli
Fig. 7  Graphical representation of the cross-section (© Mission to Zawyet Sultan)
the name of “Amenhotep” was indeed carved away,
and later poorly restored, in the cartouches of one
of the remaining Zawyet Sultan stone blocks. This
makes it unlikely that the two limestone blocks with
a procession of nome gods bearing offerings and in-
tact unaltered names of Amenhotep III, kept in the
Cleveland Museum of Art (1961.205, 1976.51), de-
rive from the main Horus temple or shrine of Hebenu
as some have proposed36.
The Graeco-Roman settlement was built on top
of a more ancient cemetery, of which Weill exca­
vated many tombs and burial shafts. His group “M”,
dated to the Predynastic Period, was located around
and below the pyramid37. The discovery of a Predy-
nastic burial by Kemp seems to confirm the location38.
Moving from north to south across zone  1, group
RN (dated to the New Kingdom) was located north
of the staircase, group RS (shafts dated to the Old
Kingdom) south of the staircase, group S (mastabas
of the Old Kingdom) south of group RS and group B
(dated to the New Kingdom) furthest south. Group
H, of New Kingdom and Ptolemaic date, is located a
little further up the hill in zone 239. Weill briefly de-
scribed the finds, but published neither a map of the
site nor drawings and photos of the objects.
In 2015, zone 1 was surveyed in order to assess
the spatial spread of the shafts. A total of 120 shafts
were recorded on the ground, and another twenty
from satellite images. The shafts were located with
the help of a handheld GPS device, with an error
margin of approximately 3 m. One point on the map
(fig. 8) indicates the location of one or more shafts
in the immediate vicinity. No sherds were collected
from within the shafts or the surface. The date of
the shafts is therefore yet unclear, and it is difficult
36
Kozloff/Bryan 1992, pp. 10–11, pls. 2, 75, 118–120.
37
Miniaci/Rigault 2019.
38
Kemp 2014–2015, pp. 240–242.
39
Miniaci 2017, pp. 14–15, fig. 3; Piacentini 1993, p. 9, pl. III;
Weill 1913a, pp. 7, 35–38.
© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022
This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021 or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 50
at this stage to connect them unequivocally to any of
Weill’s groups.
However, a few tentative conclusions can be
suggested. Some shafts were arranged in rows, very
clearly so two sets of four shafts located behind the
large mud brick wall. These might belong to a single
mastaba with multiple shafts, comparable to the
mastaba cemetery at the neighbouring site of Beni
Hassan published by John Garstang40. Stephan
Seidlmayer has argued that the individuals buried
in the mastabas of Beni Hassan were sufficiently
high-ranking to be in direct contact with the nom­
arch and thus represent the lowest fringe of the
­local administrative apparatus41. A similar spatial
and social pattern might underpin the arrangement
of mastabas and rock tombs at Zawyet Sultan.
Towards the lower end of the slope at Zawyet
Sultan, the layers of settlement debris thin out, and
larger areas of earlier phases, down to the natural
bed rock, are exposed. Yet, in this area, no shaft
was discovered. The lowest range of shafts recorded
may therefore very well indicate the spatial limit
of the cemetery. The set of mastabas recorded by
Moeller would belong to this group of tombs (fig. 2,
no. 12, fig.  8). Another mastaba, of which only the
lowest layers of mud bricks were preserved, came to
light south of this group in 2019. The silo area, exam-
ined by Moeller, is located just a few meters away
further down the slope (fig. 8). As a working hypoth-
esis, the area between these mastabas and the silo
area might demarcate the approximate transition
in the late Old Kingdom from the cemetery to the
settlement, which was perhaps located on a levée
extending parallel to the river.
40
Garstang 1907.
41
Seidlmayer 2007.
10.10.22 09:26
 Zawyet Sultan. First preliminary report 51

Fig. 8  Satellite image, Google Earth (25.02.2013) with location of zone 1 shafts and the mastaba group and silo area
excavated by Moeller (© Mission to Zawyet Sultan)

3.2 Zone 2
The map Lepsius made with plans of nineteen late
Old Kingdom rock tombs42 was georeferenced to the
local site grid in order to relocate them and deter-
mine the damage caused by quarrying activities in
the latter half of the 19 th century. Regrettably, most
of the recorded rock tombs were largely destroyed,
and what remained is hidden under thick layers of
debris. Only the tombs numbered 2 (Khunes), 4 (Ihy),
12 (Kheteti), 14 (Ni-ankh-Pepy) and 15 (unidentified
owner) by Lepsius, and 21, are now partially or com-
pletely exposed43. A small section of the north-east-
ern corner of the rear chambers of Lepsius tombs 18
(It) and 19 (Neheri) are also possibly preserved. Lep-
sius’ map is not entirely accurate regarding the pos­
itioning and orientation of the rock tombs. However,
given that he only spent four days at the site, the
map proves useful, not least because much of what
Lepsius recorded has disappeared since then.
The precise location of Lepsius tomb  1 is also
unknown. However, there is a partially preserved
decorated rock tomb c. 150  m south of the rock
tomb of Khunes (Lepsius tomb  2) that was not re-
corded by Lepsius. The current mission counts this
42
LD I, Bl. 57.
43
Tomb  21, a reference allocated by the current mission, is lo-
cated immediately south of Lepsius tomb 12.
tomb as tomb number 20 (fig. 2, no. 8). A small pro-
portion of the western wall, the complete northern
rear wall, a portion of the eastern wall and a small
section of the roof still exist. The floor is completely
covered by debris. The rear wall, including the pi-
laster, has the same dimensions and layout as the
northern rear wall of Lepsius tomb 1, but the pre-
served decoration in the later tomb differs from
that in tomb 20 44. Exposure to the elements meant
that the decorated wall surface has severely suf-
fered from erosion. The raised relief is often barely
visible. The western wall, contra Lepsius tomb  1,
shows two registers of figures, some back-to-back,
engaged in various activities, though the exact na-
ture of what they are doing cannot be determined,
due to the weathered surface. The standing tomb
owner, facing west, is carved on the pilaster of the
rear wall. On the east wall, close to the rear wall, the
upper part of a seated adult remains visible, moving
south there is extensive wall damage, and in what
is presumably the middle of the east wall there is
a double register of cattle herding scenes (fig.  9).
Whether there is an additional register with decor-
ation up to the roof, like on the west wall, is unclear.
This tomb shows that there were more decorated
late Old Kingdom rock tombs at Zawyet Sultan
than recorded by Lepsius.
44
LD I, Bl. 57; LD II Text, pp. 57–58.

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited. MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021

302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 51 10.10.22 09:26

 52 Richard Bussmann, Bart Vanthuyne, Gianluca Miniaci, Emanuele Taccola, Elena Tiribilli

Fig. 9  Late Old Kingdom rock tomb no. 20 east wall with cattle herding scene
(Photo M. Wallas, © Mission to Zawyet Sultan)

Likely the decorated tomb described above was
not accessible to him in 1843, as were others. For ex-
ample, Lepsius tomb 5 (Iti) is a southern side cham-
ber to an E-W corridor, and the latter, according to
his tomb plan, appeared to have been unfinished45.
However, this is not the case. It is now clear that this
E-W corridor ends in a perpendicular N-S corridor
with several additional side chambers. In the south-
ern half of the latter corridor, on the west side, there
is an additional chamber and the lintel above the en-
trance has a poorly legible inscription in four lines,
identifying the tomb owner as a sole companion and
also having several overseer titles.
Lepsius also hardly ever recorded burial shafts in
his plans, irrespective of whether these belonged to
the original layout of the tomb or were added later46.
Furthermore, he did not record individual shafts cut
into the hillside immediately above the row of rock
tombs, of which several are visible between Lep-
sius tombs  3 and 7. Parts of forecourts and tomb
entrances of the row of rock tombs were already
quarried into thousands of stone blocks by the time
he was on site47, and some surviving sections have
again become visible, such as in front of tombs 2 and
4. Clearance of the debris in front of the rock tombs
45
LD I, Bl. 57; LD II Text, p. 61.
46
Compare LD I, Bl. 57, with tombs  14–15: Varille 1938, pls.
II–III; tomb 12: Holthoer 1984, pp. 234, 237, fig. 1; tomb 2:
Bussmann et al. 2016, p. 41; Taccola et al. 2020, p. 272,
fig. 7. The rear chamber of tomb 4 also has four unrecorded ob-
long shafts, which are nowadays exposed, but unrecorded by
Lepsius.
47
LD II Text, p. 56.
could make it possible to also enhance Lepsius’ tomb
plans in these areas.
Except from tomb 1, none of the other features
south of tomb 2 (Khunes) and higher up the escarp-
ment were recorded by Lepsius. The position of
clearly visible rock-cut features, such as edges of
shafts or tomb entrances, were recorded for the first
time in 2019. There are many additional depressions
on the escarpment above the line of late Old King-
dom rock tombs that do not show such signs. They
suggest the location of additional tombs. The sur-
vey in this area has shown that in addition to shafts,
there were rock-cut tombs with chambers in the
upper hillside of zone 2. Some of these tombs may
date to the New Kingdom, others to the Ptolemaic
Period, or were at least reused then48.
Shallow, rectangular and anthropoid cavities
were not only cut into the floor of existing tombs, but
also in the open bedrock, visible in the south-eastern
end of zone  2, close to tomb  20. The size of some
of them indicates that they were used for children.
One of the most notable discoveries made in 2019
in zone 2 was a falcon limestone statue in one of the
large rock-cut chambers c. 40  m to the east/north-
east of tomb 20 (fig. 2, no. 9). No inscription is pre-
served on the statue, but it likely represents the local
God Horus, lord of Hebenu (fig. 10)49. A small part of
48
Weill 1912b, pp.  9, 61–63, nos. 215–229; Cemetery H: Pi-
acentini 1993, p. 9, pl. III.48; Weill 1913a, pp. 7, 42–46; 2015
Survey points RB.5–7: Marchand et al. 2016, pp.  173–174,
177–178, 180, fig. 1, 189, fig. 14.
49
The statue (65 cm high, 38 cm wide) is missing its head and feet,
but the chest, wings and onset to the head are preserved. It is

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021 or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 52 10.10.22 09:26

 Zawyet Sultan. First preliminary report 53

Fig. 10  Part of a limestone statue likely of Horus, lord of Hebenu (Photos M. Wallas, © Mission to Zawyet Sultan)

a mosaic was also uncovered, lying loose on the sur-
face in this chamber. More work is required to under-
stand why these fragments were deposited there
and what the precise function of the chamber was, a
tomb or something else.
The oldest finds in zone 2 date to the early Old
Kingdom or slightly before. The 2015 pottery survey
identified sherds of this period scattered among the
late Old Kingdom tomb debris50. The sherds sug-
gest that tombs were built in this area already in the
early Old Kingdom51, which was confirmed in 2019
with the discovery of a small boulder-lined rock circle
tomb c. 20 m south of the Lepsius tomb 2 (Khunes)
(fig. 2, no. 7)52.
3.3 Zone 3
Zone  3 contains an outlier of the Graeco-Roman
settlement interspersed with cemeteries. The earli-
est occupation phase so far attested was in the New
Kingdom. The Anglo-Egyptian mission, directed by
Kemp, found a limestone block with cartouches of
Amenhotep III in the area53.
Baghat Abdu Fanus carried out excavations in
two different locations in 1985 (fig.  2, nos. 10–11).
Several pieces of stone grave architectural elements
can be seen in the northern area he investigated,
together with pieces of a broken pottery coffin. The
southern area contained several rectangular stone
coffins and vaulted lids. One of the site guards re-
ported that one of the larger ones contained a
wealthy burial of a woman. The present location of
these finds needs to be established in the future.

made from local nummulite-rich limestone. Tooth chisel marks

date it to the Late Period or later.
50
2015 Survey points BVT.89–94: Marchand et al. 2016,
53
p. 174, fn. 17. Gascoigne I 2002, pp.  33–36; Gascoigne II 2002, figs. II.1,
51
Bussmann/Miniaci/Vanthuyne in press. II.18–22; 2015 Survey points RB.77–78: Marchand et al.
52
Tiribilli et al. 2020, p. 173, fig. 12. 2016, pp. 172, 180, fig. 1.

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited. MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021

302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 53 10.10.22 09:26

 54 Richard Bussmann, Bart Vanthuyne, Gianluca Miniaci, Emanuele Taccola, Elena Tiribilli
3.4 Zone 4
Two areas of occupation can be distinguished in
zone 4 (fig. 2)54. The settlement and cemetery of the
Roman to early Islamic Period is in the centre, the
area known as Kom el-Dik. It was the last place to re-
main settled before abandonment of the whole site55.
West of this area are two enclosures, outlined
by preserved sections of large mud brick walls. The
space within the northern enclosure was taken over
by military installations, which have in the meantime
been abandoned again, while in the southern area
the SCA carried out excavations directed by Farid
Fathy in 1993–1994, and the Anglo-Egyptian 1999
mission conducted a topographic and geomagnetic
survey.
Two large mud brick walls run not parallel, out-
wards from Kom el-Dik westwards over a distance
of more than 210  m. Near the dried-up canal, east
of the road, another section of walls runs E-W. The
date of these walls is uncertain. The Egyptian mis-
sion found many child burials in small, oblong,
sealed ­pottery coffins, each also containing four clay
­statues of Bastet or Sekhmet. They were dated to
the Roman Period56.
Work by the Egyptian mission south of the mili­
tary installation led to the discovery of a section of
a two-phase mud brick wall running E-W over a dis-
tance of c. 37  m, as well as in the western end, of
three shorter co-axial walls running perpendicular
south of the larger wall. They found late 18th Dynasty
pottery, wine jar labels of years 10/11, and at least
one jar sealing bearing the name of Amenhotep III.
These walls as well as the other large walls reported
above were likewise identified on the geomagnetic
map made in 1999. The 2015 pottery survey found
additional late 18th Dynasty pottery scattered on the
surface, where the Egyptian mission had worked,
and, in addition, also discovered a partially exposed
limestone pedestal (outer diameter: 67 cm; inner col-
umn base diameter: 30 cm) c. 5 m south of the west
end of the New Kingdom wall. The orientation of the
walls and the position of the pedestal suggest that at
least some activity took place south of the E-W ori-
ented wall. The dimensions of the latter wall and the
pedestal suggest it was a structure of some import-
ance, probably during the reign of Amenhotep III.
54
The eastern and southern end of zone 4 are nowadays used as
dumping ground for construction debris.
55
Gascoigne I 2002, pp.  38–42; Gascoigne II 2002, figs. II.1,
II.27–39A; 2015 Survey point BVT.16: Marchand et al. 2016,
pp. 172, 179, 180, fig. 1, 190, fig. 15.
56
Farid Fathy 1994.
© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022
This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021 or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 54
The upper level of the E-W wall was likely rebuilt in
late Roman times57.
3.5 Zone 5
The earliest tombs in zone  5 were found on the
hillside south of the main settlement in zone 1 and
south of the row of late Old Kingdom rock tombs in
zone 2 (fig. 2). One cluster contains a concentration
of large boulders, which could once have been part
of the superstructure of rock circle tombs, identical
to those recorded at other early Old Kingdom ceme­
teries at Dayr al-Barsha58, Dayr Abu Hinnis59, Bani
Hasan al-Shuruq60 and Nuwayrat61. Interspersed be-
tween the boulders were human remains, fragments
of pottery coffins and early Old Kingdom sherds62.
As described above, another boulder-lined tomb was
discovered just south of the rock tomb of Khunes
(Lepsius tomb no. 2; fig. 2, no. 7)63, and, based on the
sherd scatter, additional contemporary tombs are
believed to have once been located in the area of the
zone 2 late Old Kingdom rock tombs64.
There are at least eight shaft tombs in the
second cluster, located about 50 m east of the above
rock circle tomb group. Some of them had a partially
preserved mud brick shaft lining, suggesting that the
tombs may have had a mud brick superstructure65.
Pottery sherds, scattered around the mouths of the
shaft, consisted mainly of beer jars, bowls with inner
ledge rims and Maidum bowls, dating to the late 3rd
and early 4th Dynasties66.
The rock circle tombs at Zawyet Sultan seem
slightly older than the abovementioned shaft tombs.
It is possible that the construction of the small step
pyramid gave rise to a new social class and formed
the impetus for the introduction of a new tomb type,
i. e. the shaft tomb, in this part of Middle Egypt.
The upper part of one partially exposed shaft
tomb measures about 1.3  ×  0.9  m, with the burial
chamber in the north end being about 1.4  m long.
Pieces of a small, oblong pottery coffin and a pottery
57
Farid Fathy 1994; Hamza et al. 1999; 2015 Survey point
BVT.11–12: Marchand et al. 2016, pp. 177, 180, fig. 1.
58
Vanthuyne 2012; Vanthuyne 2016.
59
Vanthuyne 2012; Vanthuyne 2016, pp. 427–430, 456–457;
Vanthuyne 2017a.
60
Vanthuyne 2018.
61
De Meyer et al. 2011.
62
2015 Survey points BVT.51–53, 67–68: Marchand et al.
2016, pp. 174–175, 180, fig. 1, 182, fig. 6; Tiribilli et al. 2020,
pp. 156–157, 171, figs. 6–7.
63
Tiribilli et al. 2020, p. 173, fig. 12.
64
Tiribilli et al. 2020, pp. 157, 173, fig. 11.
65
Tiribilli et al. 2020, pp. 156–157, 172, figs. 8–10.
66
2015 Survey points BVT.49, 58–65: Marchand et al. 2016,
pp. 174–176, 182, fig. 5, 183, fig. 7.
10.10.22 09:26
 Zawyet Sultan. First preliminary report
coffin lid were scattered on the surface, likely deriv-
ing from this disturbed tomb67. An 8  ×  10  m sector
was set up around this tomb in 2019 and all surface
pottery was collected therein. In total, 3414 sherds
were found, containing 699 diagnostic sherds. A pre-
liminary analysis indicates that several dozen early
Old Kingdom beer jars (collared and other types),
five bowls with inner ledge rim, two plates, a Mai-
dum bowl, a bDA-bread mould and several other jar
types had been deposited in and around the tomb,
which were scattered on the surface after it was dis-
turbed. A complete analysis of the pottery is still out-
standing.
Some of the early Old Kingdom tombs contained
burials in small, oblong pottery coffins. The discov-
ery of fragments of large vats suggests that there
were also contemporary burials in or under large
vats in this area. Up to now, the most northern site
where this type of burial was recorded is Nuwayrat68.
Further investigation is required, but it is highly
probable that the most northern site is now Zawyet
Sultan, which is c. 10 km further north of Nuwayrat.
3.6 Zone 6
Zone  6 designates the desert hinterland east of
zones 2 and 8. Notable features on the edge of the
Eastern Desert plateau overlooking ancient Hebenu
are the remains of a 19 th century watch tower and
the tomb of Shaykh Sharaf69. A small rock-cut tomb
and several shallow anthropoid pits were recorded c.
210 m further to the S/SE, likewise on the edge of the
hilltop. Two additional shafts were discovered on the
plateau c. 240 m north of the zone 8 New Kingdom/
Roman desert plain cemetery (fig. 2, nos. 13–15).
In the north-eastern end of zone 6 there are nu­
merous limestone quarries (fig.  2, no. 16), resem-
bling open pits or long, open galleries, which attest
to the importance of this industry in the region70.
The topography of the landscape suggests that the
quarried stone blocks were brought down the talus
slopes towards the mouth of the wadi at the northern
end of the site. This applies equally to the quarries of
Zawyet Sultan further north, investigated by Klemm
67
2015 Survey point BVT.65: Bussmann 2018, p.  17, fig.  17;
Bussmann/Miniaci/Vanthuyne in press; Marchand et al.
2016, pp. 173–175, 180, fig. 1, 181, fig. 4.
68
De Meyer et al. 2011, pp.  682–684, 702, pl. 6; Garstang
1904, pp. 51–57; Garstang 1907, p. 27.
69
Gascoigne I 2002, pp.  42–43; Gascoigne II 2002, figs. II.1,
39B–40.
70
Klemm/Klemm 2008, pp. 61, fig. 76, 70–78; Suto/Takahashi
2013.
© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022
This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 55
55
and Klemm71 and the Japanese mission to Akoris72.
The terrain westwards is nowadays taken over by the
­local Muslim cemetery, but in the past there must
have been a path to a Nile harbour, from which the
stones were shipped to their final destination.
3.7 Zone 7
Zone 7 is a stretch of land between the modern road
and the river. The area is used for the cultivation
of vegetables, small-scale industrial processing of
limestone and, opposite the entrance of the site, as
a landing area for a ferry commuting between Zaw-
yet Sultan and the village of el-Awam on the other
side of the river. A massive layer of pot sherds and
settlement debris is visible in an elevation, located
between the road and the river. It seems to be the
continuation of a similar layer visible in the western
slope of the depression, which has formed in front
of the pyramid. The road was built on top of the
dumped settlement debris and a sandy layer super-
imposing it. The modern landing area and the indus-
trial sites were presumably cut into the same layer.
A geophysical survey is planned to help clarify the
ancient topography and course of the Nile in zone 7.
3.8 Zone 8
The zone 8 desert plain east of zone 3 is dotted with
numerous craters (figs. 2 and 11). Weill’s cemetery
P, excavated in 1913, is possibly located here rather
than in zone 173. The pottery survey of 2015 identi-
fied at least two different phases of occupation for
this area, the late 18th Dynasty and the (late) Roman
Period74. The cemetery contains disturbed remains
of tombs built of mud bricks. Surface finds indicate
the use of pottery coffins and stone coffins in vari-
ous places, a range of small to large ceramic vessels,
faience beads and possibly a blue faience bowl with
black decoration. Textile fragments suggest that at
least some of the bodies were wrapped in cloth, and
judging from the skeletal remains scattered around
the tombs, adults and children were buried here.
One of the better-preserved mud brick tombs
was made of three compartments, oriented along a
true N-S axis, and constructed in a shallow trench,
having only a limited sand cover (fig. 11). It is a size-
71
Klemm/Klemm 2008, pp. 70–77.
72
Hori 2006; Hori 2008; Suto/Takahashi 2016; Suto/
Takahashi 2018.
73
Cemetery P: Weill 1913a, pp.  7, 35–38. Weill dated the
ceme­tery to the New Kingdom.
74
2015 Survey points BVT.35, 41, 43: Marchand et al. 2016,
pp. 174, 177–178, 180, fig. 1, 187, fig. 11, 188, figs. 12–13.
MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021
10.10.22 09:26
 56 Richard Bussmann, Bart Vanthuyne, Gianluca Miniaci, Emanuele Taccola, Elena Tiribilli

Fig. 11  Zone 8 New Kingdom/Roman Period desert plain cemetery with mud brick
tombs in the foreground (Photo B. Vanthuyne, © Mission to Zawyet Sultan)

able tomb more than 10  m long. The small burial
chamber, in the north, and large middle chamber
had a corbelled roof, both plastered with mud on the
inside. The roof of the middle chamber was made of
three rows of mud brick (c. 0.67 m thick), with body
sherds embedded in the muddy mortar between
the bricks to provide extra strength. The southern
component is largely filled with sand and is perhaps
a shallow shaft providing access to the two more
northern chambers.
Some of the disturbed mud brick tombs, very
likely also the vaulted mud brick tombs, can be
dated to the New Kingdom75, as parallels of this
type of tomb were found, for instance, at Abydos76.
Large pottery coffins have been found in the past at
Zawyet Sultan77 and from the New Kingdom to the
Roman Period various types were in use78. As for the
limestone coffins, Thomas Eric Peet states that the
adoption of the vaulted tombs led to the appearance
of the heavy limestone coffin79. Excavations will have
to determine which types of coffins were used in the
desert plain cemetery during which time period.
 B. V./R. B.
75
2015 Survey point BVT.35: Marchand et al. 2016, pp.  174,
177, 180, fig. 1, 187, fig. 11.
76
Cahail 2014, pp. 360–392; Peet 1914, pp. 84–91; Peet/Loat
1913, pp. 29–33.
77
Cotelle-Michel 2004, pp. 142–143.
78
Cotelle-Michel 2004.
79
Peet 1914, p. 91.
4. Surveys in sites bordering
Zawyet Sultan
4.1 Sawadah
In 1958 Kaiser found Naqada IIIA2 sherds near the es-
carpment east of the village of Sawadah80. A new sur-
vey was undertaken in 2017 along this escarpment,
but no additional Predynastic pottery was identi-
fied. However, in three locations, rock-cut shafts and
preserved sections of quarried burial chambers of
unknown date were recorded just west of the ramp
built for the road connecting Minya with New Minya
(fig. 12)81. Kaiser’s photo shows that the Predynastic
pottery was found on the edge of the escarpment,
on the plateau of which there were some mud brick
houses. These must have been part of the abandoned
village of late Medieval to early modern date that was
bulldozed away sometime in 1999–2000 when the in-
clined road was constructed82. Kaiser’s Predynastic
site is now also covered by the latter83.
80
Hendrickx/van den Brink 2002, p.  352, tab. 23.1; Kaiser
1961, p. 36, pl. XIIb.
81
UTM 36N – WGS84 coordinates: 1) 282541.56  m E,
3108841.69  m N; 2) 282538.51  m E, 3108831.10  m N; 3)
282720.30 m E, 3108598.20 m N.
82
Gascoigne I 2002, p. 26.
83
Comparison with Corona satellite images taken in 1968 that
still show the location of the abandoned village indicate that
the Predynastic site was located between UTM 36N – WGS84

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021 or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 56 10.10.22 09:26

 Zawyet Sultan. First preliminary report 57

Fig. 12  Remains of a quarried shaft and burial chamber at the base of the Sawadah
escarpment (UTM 36N – WGS84 coordinates: 282538.51 m E, 3108831.10 m N
(Photo B. Vanthuyne, © Mission to Zawyet Sultan)

Fig. 13  Inspector Alaa Fathy Abdu Mohamed standing on top of the eastern
limestone monolith (Photo B. Vanthuyne, © Mission to Zawyet Sultan)

4.2 Limestone monoliths measures c. 22  ×  8  m. Excavation trenches around

Close to Zawyet Sultan, on the edge of the East-
ern Desert plateau and now bordering New Minya,
there is a limestone quarry with an unfinished
monumental statue and an unfinished large obelisk.
The block out of which the statue was to be carved
coordinates 282394.01 m E, 3109161.87 m N and 282712.93 m
E, 3108717.51 m N.
it are on average 0.6 m wide and up to 8–9 m deep.
The figure of a standing king had been carved on top
of the block to show what it was supposed to look
like. The monolith is estimated to weigh as much
as 4000 t, and the finished statue c. 1300 t. Klemm
and Klemm believe this was done during the reign
of Amenhotep III, due to its monumental propor-
tions. However, more recent investigations by the
Japanese mission to Akoris identified Ptolemaic in-

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited. MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021

302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 57 10.10.22 09:26

 58 Richard Bussmann, Bart Vanthuyne, Gianluca Miniaci, Emanuele Taccola, Elena Tiribilli
scriptions on the ceilings of chambers carved under
the monolith84.
The Japanese mission discovered another un-
finished limestone obelisk and monumental statue
block between 0.8 and 1.5 km south of Akoris/Tehna
el-Jebel. The latter monolith measures c. 24 × 9 m, and
the surrounding trenches are up to 9.4 m deep. This ef-
fort was likewise dated to the Ptolemaic Period, based
on sherds found in these trenches. The investigators
speculated that an unknown Ptolemaic ruler may
therefore have ordered a pair of limestone colossi85.
Satellite image analysis of Zawyet Sultan and
the wider surrounding region undertaken before the
2015 survey led to the discovery of two more huge
limestone monoliths c. 5 km E/SE of the Zawyet Sul-
tan site entrance, and more than 3 km inland from
the Nile (fig. 13)86. Both monumental blocks were in
the process of being carved out of the hillside next
to each other, before the undertaking was discon-
tinued. They narrowly escaped destruction when
modern limestone quarrying stopped just in front of
their location. The latter unfortunately destroyed all
evidence of any preparatory work done to remove
the monoliths to the Nile front.
The site was briefly visited in 2015. Deep, narrow
trenches were cut around the two blocks, the eastern
one measuring max. c. 21 × 8 m, and the western one
max. c. 22  ×  9  m87. The chisel marks are identical to
those visible around the New Minya monolith, con-
firming that both blocks were carved out of the hillside
in a fashion identical to the monoliths further north
investigated by the Japanese mission, whereby the
whole undertaking to make two more massive statues
can likewise be dated to an unknown Ptolemaic ruler.
The sheer dimensions, weight and location high
on the edge of the desert plateau of the four lime-
stone monoliths and two obelisks must have created
such unsurmountable obstacles that engineers at
the time were not able to overcome, whereby all pro-
jects were abandoned.
 B. V.
84
New Minya Monolith: Endo 2007; Endo 2009; Hori 2006,
pp. 17–18, fig. 13; Klemm/Klemm 2008, pp. 72–75; Yasuoka/
Nishimoto 2018. New Minya Obelisk: Nishimoto/Yasuoka
2016; Nishimoto/Yasuoka 2017, pp. 19–20, fig. 16.1–3.
85
Akoris South Quarry monolith: Endo 2009; Hori 2009; Hori
2013, pp.  22, figs. 24, 26, 33–34. Akoris South Quarry obel-
isk: Nishimoto/Yasuoka 2016, p. 19; Nishimoto/Yasuoka
2017, pp. 20, fig. 16.4–6, 21.
86
UTM 36N – WGS84 coordinates: 291417 m E, 3102592 m N.
87
Measurements taken from satellite images.
© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022
This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021 or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 58
5. Archives and collections
Concomitant with the archaeological exploration at
Zawyet Sultan, a project aiming to reassemble all the
objects from Zawyet Sultan started in 2015 under
the direction of Gianluca Miniaci in collaboration
with the Département des Antiquités Égyptiennes du
Musée du Louvre. A large part of the artefacts deriving
from Weill’s excavations at the site in the first half of
the 20th century were brought to France, and then dis-
persed across several French museums and collections.
A large core of Weill’s material from Zawyet Sultan is
preserved in the Musée du Louvre88. Unexpectedly,
only a few objects were brought to Cairo, entering the
collections of the Egyptian Museum Cairo. Among
them, a cluster of objects comes from the excavations
carried out by Weill in 1913 (JE 43832–44188), in 1929
(JE 53047–53108), and in 1933 (JE 60333–60360). Ap-
parently, no objects from the excavation season 1912
are documented in the Egyptian Museum Cairo. Pi-
acentini suggested the objects from 1912 could have
been mixed up together with those coming from Tuna
el-Gebel, hence erroneously labelled as from “Tounah”
in the records of finds in Cairo registers. Objects from
Zawyet Sultan entering the Egyptian Museum Cairo
have been documented for 1927, but they all belong
to the excavations of Abou Seif (JE 51921–51932)89.
The material from Zawyet Sultan is very hetero-
geneous and mirrors the material culture of a provin-
cial community over a long period of time, stretching
from the Predynastic until the Islamic Period (with a
notable gap during the Middle Bronze Age, 2000–
1550 BC, attested also in the survey, see above). One
of the preliminary results at the Musée du Louvre
has been the identification of a large group of Pre-
dynastic objects, consisting of approximately 480
artefacts (including beads, stone palettes, stone and
alabaster vessels, flint knives and grinders), most
probably coming from cemetery M, located under
and adjacent to the step pyramid, and excavated by
Weill on at least two occasions, in 1913 (170 ob-
jects) and 1933 (370 objects)90.
In parallel, the project “An archaeology of the
subordinate élite in Egypt: museum objects and so-
cial analysis at Hebenu (Zawyet Sultan)” led by Elena
Tiribilli at the University of Cologne aims at tracing
the other objects coming from Weill’s excavations
dispersed in French collections other than Paris
(Reims, Académie de Macon and Musée Saint-Remi;
Musée Hotel Bertrand at Chateauroux; Musée des
88
Miniaci 2017.
89
Varille 1938, pp. 5–8, pls. XVIII–XIX.
90
Miniaci/Rigault 2019, pp. 32–35.
10.10.22 09:26
 Zawyet Sultan. First preliminary report
Beaux-Arts at Grenoble; Musée de Die et du Diois at
Die; Musée Guimet at Lyon and Musée Joseph Denais
at Beaufort-en-Vallée)91. The most extensive group
of objects is currently preserved in the Musée Joseph
Denais at Beaufort-en-Vallée, with material from the
pharaonic era to the Islamic epoch92. Another strand
of the museum projects related to the area of Zawyet
Sultan is focussed on the assemblage of the archival
material produced by Weill during his excavations at
the site. Although the results of his excavations were
poorly published and mostly confined to two exhib-
ition catalogues93, we are informed by Weill himself
that he compiled a digging diary and probably had
some notebooks while he was on site, recording the
provenance of objects. For this reason, one strand of
the project is devoted to attempting to locate Weill’s
lost digging diary. Unfortunately, at the moment the
location of these documents, if they are still preserved,
is unknown and the quest to find them is still ongoing.
So far, the archive researches focused on the material
preserved in the Archives Nationales de Pierrefitte-
sur-Seine, at the Académie des Sciences de ­l’Institut
de France in Paris, and at the Bibliothèque d’égyptolo­
gie de l’Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier  3, which
provided a number of administrative documents con-
cerning the excavations of Weill in the site of Zawyet
Sultan, including detailed summaries of the results for
each season of excavation. G. M./E. Ti.
6. Summary
Zawyet Sultan is a complex, multi-period site. Many
features, visible on the surface today, have gone un-
noticed in previous publications. Even those struc-
tures that have been documented, such as the rock
tombs, are far from being studied comprehensively
and raise new questions. The bulk of research into
the site has been focussed on the monuments of the
early to late Old Kingdom. No archaeological remains
of the Middle Kingdom have come to light at Zawyet
Sultan so far. It appears that the site was abandoned
during this period. Occupation of Hebenu resumed no
later than by the reign of Amenhotep III, with the con-
struction of a temple or shrine in the north end of the
site (zone 1) as well as the construction of a large mud
brick structure in the south end (zone 4). In the late
18th Dynasty, mud brick tombs were built in zone 8,
91
This project is funded by the Humboldt Foundation (2019–
2021), project ID 1204446.
92
For a preliminary list of objects preserved in French collections,
see Piacentini 1993, pp. 75–98.
93
Weill 1912b; Weill 1913a.
© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022
This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 59
59
perhaps Weill’s cemetery P, and rock tombs, such as
the one of Nefersekheru (zone 2), in the Ramesside
Period. Fieldwork by Gascoigne also suggests that
portions of zones  1 and 3 were inhabited during the
New Kingdom. The occupation of the site in the Late
Period, the Ptolemaic, Roman and late Roman ­Periods,
which left the most substantial amount of material
at the site, has hardly been documented so far.
Projects planned for the near future include a geo-
archaeological and geophysical survey, closer investi-
gation of known and recently discovered Old Kingdom
structures, such as the pyramid, the tomb of Khunes
and the early Old Kingdom cemetery in zone 5, con-
servation and site development. The projects serve as
a springboard for follow-up projects, dedicated to a
closer examination of the later material at the site.
 R. B.
Bibliography
Bussmann 2018
R. Bussmann, Die Pyramide von Zawyet Sultan.
Lokale Perspektiven, in: Sokar 36, 2018, pp. 6–19.
Bussmann et al. 2016
R. Bussmann/G. Miniaci/A. el-Bakry/E. Tiribilli,
The pyramid, town and cemeteries of Zawyet Sul-
tan, in: EA 48, 2016, pp. 38–41.
Bussmann/Miniaci/Vanthuyne in press
R. Bussmann/G. Miniaci/B. Vanthuyne, The fu-
nerary landscape at Zawyet Sultan. A preliminary
report, in: M. de Meyer/E. Lange-Athinodorou
(eds.), Beyond Memphis. The transition of the late
Old Kingdom to the First Intermediate Period as
­reflected in provincial cemeteries, OLA, in press.
Butzer 1961
K. W. Butzer, Archäologische Fundstellen Ober-
und Mittelägyptens in ihrer geologischen Land-
schaft, in: MDAIK 17, 1961, pp. 54–68.
Cahail 2014
K. M. Cahail, In the shadow of Osiris. Non-royal
mortuary landscapes at South Abydos during the
late Middle and New Kingdoms, unpublished PhD,
University of Pennsylvania, 2014.
Cotelle-Michel 2004
L. Cotelle-Michel, Les sarcophages en terre cuite.
En Egypte et en Nubie de l’époque prédynastique à
l’époque romaine, Dijon 2004.
De Meyer et al. 2011
M. de Meyer/S. Vereecken/B. Vanthuyne/S.
Hendrickx/L. Op de Beeck/H. Willems, The early
Old Kingdom at Nuwayrāt in the 16th Upper Egyp-
tian nome, in: D. Aston/B. Bader/C. Gallorini/
MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021
10.10.22 09:26
 60 Richard Bussmann, Bart Vanthuyne, Gianluca Miniaci, Emanuele Taccola, Elena Tiribilli
P. Nicholson/S. Buckingham (eds.), Under the
potter’s tree. Studies on Ancient Egypt presented to
Janine Bourriau on the occasion of her 70th birthday,
OLA 204, Leuven 2011, pp. 679–702.
Dreyer/Kaiser 1980
G. Dreyer/W. Kaiser, Zu den kleinen Stufen-
pyramiden Ober- und Mittelägyptens, in: MDAIK
36, 1980, pp. 43–59.
Endo 2007
T. Endo, Unfinished colossus remaining in the
quarry at Zāwiyat al-Sulṭān, in: H. Kawanishi/
S. Tsujimura (eds.), Preliminary report. Akoris
2006, Tsukuba 2007, pp. 20–23.
Endo 2009
T. Endo, Investigation of unfinished colossus, in:
H. Kawanishi/S. Tsujimura/T. Hanasaka (eds.),
Preliminary report. Akoris 2008, Tsukuba 2009,
pp. 21–23.
Farid Fathy 1994
S. Farid Fathy, Excavation of Zawiyet Sultan
(Zawiyet El maitin) season in 1994, 1994, unpub-
lished excavation report.
Frood 2007
E. Frood, Biographical texts from Ramessid Egypt,
Atlanta 2007.
Garstang 1904
J. Garstang, Report of excavations at Reqâqnah,
1901–2. Tombs of the Third Egyptian Dynasty at
Reqâqnah and Bêt Khallaf, London 1904.
Garstang 1907
J. Garstang, The burial customs of Ancient Egypt
as illustrated by tombs of the Middle Kingdom. Be-
ing a report of excavations made in the necropolis of
Beni Hassan during 1902–3–4, London 1907.
Gascoigne 2002
A. L. Gascoigne, The impact of the Arab conquest
on late Roman settlement in Egypt I–II, unpub-
lished PhD, University of Cambridge, 2002.
Graves 2017
C. Graves, The Oryx nome. An ancient cultural
landscape of the Middle Kingdom, unpublished
PhD, University of Birmingham, 2017.
Hamza et al. 1999
M. Hamza/B. Kemp/H. Chapman/C. Merrony/N.
Moeller/K. Spence/P. Buckland, A survey of
Zawiyet Sultan (Zawiyet el-Meitin). 1999 season,
1999, pp. 1–31, unpublished excavation report.
Hendrickx/van den Brink 2002
S. Hendrickx/E. C. M. van den Brink, Inventory of
Predynastic and Early Dynastic cemetery and settle-
ment sites in the Egyptian Nile valley, in: E. C. M.
van den Brink/T. E. Levy (eds.), Egypt and the Le-
vant. Interrelations from the 4th through the early
3rd millennium BCE, London 2002, pp. 346–399.
© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022
This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021 or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 60
Holthoer 1984
R. Holthoer, Tomb of Kheteti at Kōm es-Sultān,
in: Studia Orientalia 55, 1984, pp. 231–245.
Hori 2006
Y. Hori, Architectural survey on the quarry faces
in Zawiet Sultan, in: H. Kawanishi/S. Tsujimura
(eds.), Preliminary report. Akoris 2005, Tsukuba
2006, pp. 17–21.
Hori 2008
Y. Hori, Architectural survey on the quarry faces
in Zāwiyat al-Sulṭān, in: H. Kawanishi/S. Tsu-
jimura/T. Hanasaka (eds.), Preliminary report.
Akoris 2007, Tsukuba 2008, pp. 18–21.
Hori 2009
Y. Hori, Architectural survey in the galleries, in:
H. Kawanishi/S. Tsujimura/T. Hanasaka (eds.),
Preliminary report. Akoris 2008, Tsukuba 2009,
pp. 17–19.
Hori 2013
Y. Hori, Laser-scanning at Akoris, in: H. Kawanishi/
S. Tsujimura/T. Hanasaka (eds.), Preliminary re-
port. Akoris 2012, Tsukuba 2013, pp. 22–27.
Kaiser 1961
W. Kaiser, Bericht über eine archäologisch-geolo-
gische Felduntersuchung in Ober- und Mittelägyp-
ten, in: MDAIK 17, 1961, pp. 1–53.
Kemp 2014–2015
B. Kemp, The “pyramid” at Zawiyet Sultan (Zawiyet
el-Meitin), in: MDAIK 70/71, 2014–2015, pp. 239–246.
Kessler 1981
D. Kessler, Historische Topographie der Region
zwischen Mallawi und Samalut, TAVO 30, Wies-
baden 1981.
Klemm/Klemm 2008
R. Klemm/D. D. Klemm, Stones and quarries in
Ancient Egypt, London 2008.
Kozloff 2012
A. P. Kozloff, Amenhotep III. Egypt’s radiant
pharaoh, Cambridge 2012.
Kozloff/Bryan 1992
A. P. Kozloff/B. M. Bryan, Egypt’s dazzling sun.
Amenhotep III and his world, Cleveland 1992.
Kühne 2015
C. Kühne, Horus von Hebenu und die Feindvernich-
tung. Pap. Berlin P. 15764c + d und Pap. Berlin P.
15766, unpublished MA thesis, Heidelberg Univer-
sity, 2015.
LD
C. R. Lepsius, Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethio­
pien. Nach den Zeichnungen der von Seiner Majes-
tät dem Koenige von Preußen Friedrich Wilhelm IV.
nach diesen Ländern gesendeten und in den Jahren
1842–1845 ausgeführten wissenschaftlichen Expedi-
tion auf Befehl Seiner Majestät, Leipzig 1849–1859.
10.10.22 09:26
 Zawyet Sultan. First preliminary report
Lefebvre 1912
G. Lefebvre, À travers la Moyenne-Égypte. Docu-
ments et notes, in: ASAE 12, 1912, pp. 81–94.
Marchand et al. 2016
S. Marchand/A. el-Bakry/R. Bussmann/G. Mini-
aci/B. Vanthuyne, Zawiyet Sultan, Middle Egypt.
A pottery survey, in: BCE 26, 2016, pp. 169–190.
Miniaci 2017
G. Miniaci, Zawyet Sultan au Louvre. Écrire l’histoire
d’un site archéologique du moyen Égypte par la col-
lection du musée parisien, in: EVO 40, 2017, pp. 7–20.
Miniaci/Rigault 2019
G. Miniaci/P. Rigault, A Predynastic necropolis in
the Louvre. Cemetery M of Zawyet Sultan, in: EA
54, 2019, pp. 32–35.
Moeller 2005
N. Moeller, An Old Kingdom town at Zawiet Sul-
tan (Zaweit Meitin) in Middle Egypt. A preliminary
report, in: A. Cooke/F. Simpson (eds.), Current
research in Egyptology II. January 2001, BARIntSer
1380, Oxford 2005, pp. 29–38.
Moeller 2016
N. Moeller, The archaeology of urbanism in An-
cient Egypt. From the Predynastic Period to the end
of the Middle Kingdom, New York 2016.
Nishimoto/Yasuoka 2016
S. Nishimoto/Y. Yasuoka, Architectural investi-
gations of unfinished obelisk, in: H. Kawanishi/S.
Tsujimura/T. Hanasaka (eds.), Preliminary re-
port. Akoris 2015, Nagoya 2016, pp. 19–22.
Nishimoto/Yasuoka 2017
S. Nishimoto/Y. Yasuoka, Investigations in the
Ptolemaic quarry, in: H. Kawanishi/S. Tsujimura/
T. Hanasaka (eds.), Preliminary report. Akoris 2016,
Nagoya 2017, pp. 19–21.
Osing 1992
J. Osing, Das Grab des Nefersecheru in Zawiyet
Sulṭan, AV 88, Mainz 1992.
Peet 1914
T. E. Peet, The cemeteries of Abydos II. 1911–1912,
Memoir EEF 34, London 1914.
Peet/Loat 1913
T. E. Peet/W. L. S. Loat, The cemeteries of Abydos
III. 1912–1913, Memoir EEF 35, London 1913.
Piacentini 1993
P. Piacentini, Zawiet el-Mayetin nel III millennio
A. C., Monografie di SEAP. Series Minor 4, Pisa 1993.
Piacentini 2011
P. Piacentini, Zawiet el-Mayetin negli Archivi
Varille dell’Università degli Studi di Milano (e al-
tri ricordi), in: P. Buzi/D. Picchi/M. Zecchi (eds.),
Aegyptiaca et Coptica. Studi in onore di Sergio Per-
nigotti, BARIntSer 2264, Oxford 2011, pp.  261–
275.
© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022
This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 61
61
PM IV
B. Porter/R. L. B. Moss, Topographical bibliog-
raphy of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic texts, re-
liefs, and paintings IV. Lower and Middle Egypt
(Delta and Cairo to Asyûṭ), Oxford 1934.
Radwan 1976
A. Radwan, Concerning the identification of the
king with the god, in: Magazine of the Faculty of
Archaeology 1, 1976, pp. 24–36.
Seidlmayer 2007
S. J. Seidlmayer, People at Beni Hassan. Contribu-
tions to a model of ancient Egyptian rural society,
in: Z. A. Hawass/J. E. Richards (eds.), The archae-
ology and art of Ancient Egypt. Essays in honor of
David B. O’Connor, SASAE 36.2, Le Caire 2007,
pp. 351–368.
Spence 1999
K. Spence, Preliminary report on the North Tem-
ple, in: M. Hamza/B. Kemp/H. Chapman/C. Mer-
rony/N. Moeller/K. Spence/P. Buckland, A
survey of Zawiyet Sultan (Zawiyet el-Meitin).
1999 season, 1999, pp.  10–17, unpublished ex-
cavation report.
Suto/Takahashi 2013
Y. Suto/R. Takahashi, Field survey of ancient quar-
ries near Akoris and New Minya, in: H. Kawanishi/
S. Tsujimura/T. Hanasaka (eds.), Preliminary re-
port. Akoris 2012, Tsukuba 2013, pp. 17–20.
Suto/Takahashi 2016
Y. Suto/R. Takahashi, Architectural and epi-
graphical investigations, in: H. Kawanishi/S. Tsu-
jimura/T. Hanasaka (eds.), Preliminary report.
Akoris 2015, Nagoya 2016, pp. 15–18.
Suto/Takahashi 2018
Y. Suto/R. Takahashi, Investigations in the Ptol-
emaic quarry at New Minya, in: H. Kawanishi/
S. Tsujimura/T. Hanasaka (eds.), Preliminary
report. Akoris 2017, Nagoya 2018, pp. 19–21.
Taccola et al. 2020
E. Taccola/E. Tiribilli/R. Bussmann/G. Mi­
niaci, Topography and 3D survey in the tomb
of Khunes at Zawyet Sultan, Egypt. Preliminary
results, in: Studi Classici e Orientali 66, 2020,
pp. 265–275.
Tiribilli et al. 2020
E. Tiribilli/R. Bussmann/G. Miniaci/E. Taccola/
B. Vanthuyne, The joint mission at Zawyet Sultan.
Preliminary report of the 2015, 2017, 2019 seasons
at the site and current related research projects, in:
RISE 8, 2020, pp. 151–179.
Van Dijk 1995
J. van Dijk, Maya’s chief sculptor Userhat-Hatiay.
With a note on the length of the reign of Horemheb,
in: GM 148, 1995, pp. 29–34.
MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021
10.10.22 09:26
 62 Richard Bussmann, Bart Vanthuyne, Gianluca Miniaci, Emanuele Taccola, Elena Tiribilli

Vanthuyne 2012 Willems 1998

B. Vanthuyne, Rotscirkelgraven in Deir el Bersja H. Willems, The one and the many in stela Leiden
en Deir Abu Hinnis, in: Ta-Mery 5, 2012, pp. 76–85. V1, in: CdE 73.146, 1998, pp. 231–243.
Vanthuyne 2016 Yasuoka/Nishimoto 2018
B. Vanthuyne, Early Old Kingdom rock circle Y. Yasuoka/S. Nishimoto, Colossus at New Minya
ceme­teries in Deir el-Bersha and Deir Abu Hinnis, in: quarry, in: H. Kawanishi/S. Tsujimura/T. Hana-
M. D. Adams (ed.), Egypt at its origins 4. Proceed- saka (eds.), Preliminary report. Akoris 2017, Na-
ings of the fourth international conference “Origin goya 2018, pp. 21–22.
of the state. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”,
New York, 26th –30th July 2011, OLA 252, Leuven
2016, pp. 427–459. Richard Bussmann
Vanthuyne 2017a Universität zu Köln
B. Vanthuyne, The rock circle cemetery in Dayr Institut für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie,
Abū Ḥinnis, in: B. Midant-Reynes/Y. Tristant Abteilung Ägyptologie
(eds.), Egypt at its origins 5. Proceedings of the Albertus-Magnus-Platz
fifth international conference “Origin of the state. 50923 Köln
Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Cairo, Germany
13th –18th April 2014, OLA 260, Leuven 2017, r.bussmann@uni-koeln.de
pp. 497–519.
Vanthuyne 2017b Bart Vanthuyne
B. Vanthuyne, Early Old Kingdom rock circle Universität zu Köln
­ceme­teries in the 15th and 16th nomes of Upper Institut für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie,
Egypt, unpublished PhD, KU Leuven, 2017. Abteilung Ägyptologie
Vanthuyne 2018 Meister-Ekkehart-Straße 7
B. Vanthuyne, The Beni Hasan el-Shuruq region 50937 Köln
in the Old Kingdom. A preliminary survey report, in: Germany
Prague Egyptological Studies 21, 2018, pp. 94–105. bart.vanthuyne@uni-koeln.de
Varille 1938
A. Varille, La tombe de Ni-Ankh-Pepi à Zâouyet Gianluca Miniaci
el-Mayetîn, MIFAO 70, Le Caire 1938. Università di Pisa
Weill 1912a Dipartimento di Civiltà e Forme del Sapere
R. Weill, Fouilles à Tounah et à Zaouiét el-­ Via dei Mille 19
Maietin (Moyenne-Égypte), in: CRAIBL 56.6, 1912, 56126 Pisa
pp. 484–490. Italy
Weill 1912b gianluca.miniaci@unipi.it
R. Weill, Catalogue sommaire des antiquités égyp-
tiennes exposées au Musée Guimet et provenant de Emanuele Taccola
l’expédition de M. Raymond Weill (campagne de Università di Pisa
1912), Paris 1912. Dipartimento di Civiltà e Forme del Sapere
Weill 1913a Via dei Mille 19
R. Weill, Catalogue des antiquités égyptiennes ex- 56126 Pisa
posées au Musée des Arts Décoratifs et provenant Italy
de l’expédition de M. Raymond Weill (campagne de emanuele.taccola@unipi.it
1913), Paris 1913.
Weill 1913b Elena Tiribilli
R. Weill, Rapport sur des fouilles en Haute-Égypte, Universität zu Köln
in: BSFFA 3, 1913, pp. 132–135. Institut für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie,
Weill/Jouguet 1934 Abteilung Ägyptologie
R. Weill/P. Jouguet, Horus-Apollon au Kôm el-­ Meister-Ekkehart-Straße 7
Ahmar de Zawiét el-Maietin, in: Anonymous (ed.), 50937 Köln
Mélanges Maspero II. Orient grec, romain et by­ Germany
zantin 1, MIFAO 67, Le Caire 1934, pp. 81–104. elena.tiribilli@uni-koeln.de

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2022

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author
MDAIK 76/77 – 2020/2021 or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

302089-OHV-MDAIK-76.indb 62 10.10.22 09:26