2017 A Neglected Hunting Scene From Saqq

Miroslav Bárta / Filip Coppens / Jaromír Krejčí (editors)
ABUSIR AND SAQQARA

IN THE YEAR 2015
FA C U LT Y O F A RT S ,
CHARLES UNIVERSITY
Table Contens iii
ABUSIR AND SAQQARA

IN THE YEAR 2015
Miroslav Bárta – Filip Coppens – Jaromír Krejčí (editors)
Faculty of Arts, Charles University

Prague 2017
iv Table Contens
Reviewers
Ladislav Bareš, Nigel Strudwick
Contributors
Katarína Arias Kytnarová, Miroslav Bárta, Edith Bernhauer, Vivienne Gae Callender,
Filip Coppens, Jan-Michael Dahms, Vassil Dobrev, Veronika Dulíková, Andres Diego
Espinel, Laurel Flentye, Zahi Hawass, Jiří Janák, Peter Jánosi, Lucie Jirásková,
Mohamed Ismail Khaled, Evgeniya Kokina, Jaromír Krejčí, Elisabeth Kruck, Hella
Küllmer, Audran Labrousse, Renata Landgráfová, Rémi Legros, Radek Mařík, Émilie
Martinet, Mohamed Megahed, Diana Míčková, Hassan Nasr el-Dine, Hana
Navratilová, Massimiliano Nuzzolo, Martin Odler, Adel Okasha Khafagy, Christian
Orsenigo, Robert Parker, Stephane Pasquali, Dominic Perry, Marie Peterková
Hlouchová, Patrizia Piacentini, Gabriele Pieke, Maarten J. Raven, Joanne Rowland,
Květa Smoláriková, Saleh Soleiman, Anthony J. Spalinger, Nico Staring, Zdeňka
Sůvová, Geoffrey J. Tassie, Břetislav Vachala, Joris Van Wetering, Hana Vymazalová,
Leslie Anne Warden, Ayano Yamada, Ken Yazawa, Mohammad M. Youssef, Patrizia
Zanfagna
© Faculty of Arts, Charles University, and individual contributors, 2017
ISBN 978-80-7308-758-6
Table Contens v
This volume is dedicated to the memory of Nicole Alexanian (1965–2016)

Table of contens xxiii
Foreword
Miroslav Bárta, Filip Coppens and Jaromír Krejčí
The Abusir and Saqqara meetings have been organised already four times by
the Czech Institute of Egyptology at the Charles University in Prague – in 2000,
2005, 2010 and 2015 (Bárta and Krejčí, eds. 2000; Coppens, ed. 2002; Bárta, Coppens
and Krejčí, eds. 2005 and Bárta, Coppens and Krejčí, eds. 2011). Over the years this
event has become an established tradition to look forward to. Indeed, taking place
every five years, it has developed into an effective and informative platform
bringing scholars up to date with the most recent developments in the field, at Abusir
and Saqqara in particular, but also taking into consideration the neighbouring
pyramid fields as well as all other evidence and research relevant for gaining
a better understanding of the primary subject of the conference. Scholars of
Egyptian archaeology, philology, art history, anthropology, natural sciences and
other disciplines active on the pyramid fields, but also colleagues whose works
elsewhere has an impact on the history of the pyramid fields, meet for a week to
discuss the latest development and discoveries in their respective fields and
establish further cooperation.
It was not different during the last meeting that took place in Prague during June
22–26, 2015. In the present volume we offer 43 contributions by 53 scholars covering
different fields and periods. The overwhelming number of the 31 contributions is
dedicated to various aspects of Old Kingdom archaeology and most present specific
aspects linked with archaeological excavations, both past and present. The successive
period of the Middle Kingdom is represented by three studies; the New Kingdom
period features four and the Late Period three articles, respectively. Finally, the volume
is closed with two more studies which cannot be strictly dated to a specific period.
The very nature of the individual contributions reflects well the current situation in
Egyptology characterized by a focus on archaeology, the theory of artefacts,
iconographic and art historian studies, and the research of largely unpublished
archival materials. What is – rather unfortunately given the present state of affairs –
in great demand are multidisciplinary projects making use of the current hi-tech
standards in world archaeology. Such projects in most cases fail due to the current
restrictions in sampling strategies and subsequent analyses, unlike, for instance, in
Sudanese archaeology. As long as this situation persists, hardly any significant
progress in the current quality of Egyptian archaeology and Egyptology in general
can be envisaged.
The final but perhaps most important and heartfelt words are going to our dear
colleague and friend Nicole Alexanian. This fine German scholar and close friend of
many of us was made to leave this world too early. She devoted her professional career
to the study of the Old Kingdom period, site, tombs and the Dahshur pyramid field
in particular. She was the author of many stimulating articles and studies and
a monograph on the tomb of Netjeraperef. In accord with her family, we take
the liberty to dedicate the present volume to her. We are convinced that her name and
memory will remain everlasting and will thus fulfil one of the most important wishes
of the Ancient Egyptians – achieving endless and blessed presence through your deeds
and thoughts. It is the very hope of the editors that she would enjoy the current
volume and discussions on many themes emerging through the rich collection of
the texts presented below.
It is probably not out of place here to thank all the contributors for their cooperation
during the editorial process. Our sincere thanks go to Jolana Malátková and Martin
Odler for their invaluable help during the preparation of the volumes and to the Serifa
publishing house. We also wish to thank all members of our institute for their help
and encouragement.
xxiv Foreword
Bárta, M. and Krejčí, J., eds.

2000 Abusir and Saqqara in the year 2000. Archiv orientální. Supplemena 9. Academy of
Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute, Prague.
Coppens, F., ed.
2002 Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2001. Proceedings of the Symposium (Prague, September
25th – 27th 2001), Archiv Orientální Supplementa 70.3 (Prague 2002), 261–425.
Bárta, M., Coppens, F. and Krejčí, J., eds.

2006 Abusir and Saqqara in the year 2005. Proceedings of the conference held in Prague,
June 27-July 5, 2005. Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles
University in Prague, Prague.
Bárta, M., Coppens, F. and Krejčí, J., eds.

2011 Abusir And Saqqara In The year 2005. Proceedings of the conference held in Prague,
May 30 – June 4, 2010 (2 volumes). Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts,
Charles University in Prague, Prague.
A neglected hunting scene from Saqqara (Pitt rivers 1926.14.6) 85
A neglected hunting scene from Saqqara (Pitt rivers

1926.14.6) and the iconography of the desert hunters
during the Old Kingdom
Andrés Diego Espinel
In 1926, the British Egyptologist Cecil Mallaby Firth (1878–1931) donated six objects
to the Pitt Rivers Museum (hereafter PRM). According to the PRM registers, all of them
came from Saqqara, where Firth worked as inspector from 1913 until his sudden death
in 1931 (Bierbrier 20124, 190–191). The donation of these objects fitted well with the main
interests of the Oxonian museum, since they were tightly related to technological aspects
of material culture (Stevenson 2013, 62). The first items, PRM 1926.14.1–5, are five early
Old Kingdom flint crescent drills for the making of travertine vases (e.g. Caneva 1970;
Saraydar 2012). The sixth one, PRM 1926.14.6, that will be the subject of this paper, is
an Old Kingdom or First Intermediate Period fragmentary relief that has been barely
mentioned in the Egyptological bibliography (Frood 2013, 90). Despite of its size, it is
a remarkable document for the study of the artistic development of the desert hunting
scenes. The following pages will study it in connection to different iconographic
features related to this kind of representations during the Old Kingdom and First
Fig. 1. Picture and line Intermediate Period, focusing mainly on an analysis of the different kind of weapons
drawing of the limestone and tools employed by the hunters in these scenes, and in the clothes they wear (see
relief Pitt Rivers 1926.14.6 also Swinton 2012, 17–28; Marshall 2012; van Walsem 2014).
(picture by the author
with permission of
Relief Pitt Rivers 1926.14.6. Description, Provenance and possible date.
the Pitt Rivers Museum;
line drawing courtesy The object under study is a small fragmentary relief that depicts a bowman and
of Ana García Martín). his dog (Fig. 1). It is an elongated limestone chip (42.5 cm × 11.6 cm × 8.00 cm) from
86 Andrés Diego Espinel
the upper part of a bigger ashlar that probably decorated an unknown mastaba or,
less plausibly, a royal mortuary complex or sun temple. The stone is slightly granular
and the surface is rough because of a long exposure to climate factors. Actually, the relief
has concretions and irregularities which render the observation of carving details
somewhat difficult. After its acquisition by the museum, a brief description of
the object, its provenance, donor, year of donation and inventory number were written
on its reverse (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Text at the back of

the relief (picture by
the author with permission
of the Pitt Rivers Museum).
The carved surface depicts the head and arms of an archer that, oriented rightwards,
is about to shot an arrow. According to the current remaining traces, he seems to wear
a short wig and head band. In front of him, and following the same orientation, there
is a partial depiction of a slender dog with curled tail and pricked ears which permit
to identify it as a Tsm-dog, maybe a greyhound, basenji or podengo dog (Brixhe 2000,
8, 12), or a common Egyptian street/pariah dog (Goldwasser 2002, 93, n. 4). It has a thick
collar formed by two bands knotted at its back. The dog is stretching its neck and it is
in the “balking pose”, with its legs slightly bent backwards (Evans 2010, 36–37, 124).
Both features suggest that it is biting or capturing an unidentified prey. Moreover,
the remains of a triangle-shaped motif between its hinder legs suggest that the dog is
on a conventional wavy base line which depicts the rugged topography of the desert
(Schäfer 1974, 193–195) or, alternatively, it is treading on a captured animal (Evans
2010, 123). Both the bowman and his dog point strongly to the fact that the relief comes
from an unidentified desert hunting scene, since dogs are not depicted in the two other
Old Kingdom iconographic subjects in which archers are attested (Listemann 2010,
77–79): battle representations (Diego Espinel 2011, 61–62), and military exercise scenes
(el-Awady 2009, 206–208, pl. 12).
The bowman is holding with his left hand a self bow or simple long bow (Tukura
1994). He is drawing the string with the thumb and the index finger of his right hand.
In other words, he seems to use the so-called “primary draw” (Morse 1885, 6, fig. 1).
Having in mind the Egyptian artistic conventions, other less possible poses cannot be
ruled out, as it is the case of the “secondary” and “tertiary” draws (Morse 1885, 7–12,
figs. 4–7). In any case, the way he releases the arrow is considerably different to
the ones attested in Egyptian iconography usually (Wachsmann 2009, 243*–250*). He
also holds a large fanshaped bundle of arrows with the same hand he is drawing
the cord. It is not possible to ascertain if they are oriented upwards or downwards,
what type of arrow point he is using, or how he holds the bundle. In any case, as it will
be seen below, the holding of multiple arrows in the draw hand makes the shooting
of a series of arrows faster and easier. As usual during this period, there are no evidences
of the use of a thumb ring or an archer bracelet. While the first item is not attested during
the pharaonic period, the second one is only archaeologically and iconographically
recorded from the First Intermediate Period on (Le Quellec 2011, 202, 206).
According to the PRM register, Firth recovered the flint crescent drills that he
donated to the museum in the step pyramid area. Except for the general location,
“Saqqara”, the precise provenance of the relief is not stated in the records of the museum,
however. Firth possibly discovered it in the central area of the necropolis, since he
worked in and around the step pyramid, the Teti cemetery and the mortuary complex
of Userkaf. A provenance from other areas of Saqqara cannot be excluded however,

since he probably walked the whole site frequently and the relief, as it has been already
stated, seems to have been discovered on the surface since it is somewhat weathered.
At first sight, the style and iconographic subject of the relief point to an Old
Kingdom date. The dynamic arrangement of the dog hints a Fifth or Sixth Dynasty
attribution, and, as it will be mentioned below, the probable connection of the archer
to a hunting scene suggests a more precise Sixth Dynasty date. The arrangement of
the arrows does not exclude a slightly later date, however. Actually, in similar early
and mid Old Kingdom depictions, the archers are grasping only two to three arrows,
forming a narrow rectangle-like bundle. These are the cases of the reused relief
MMA 22.1.23 from Lisht (Arnold 1999, 265–267, no. 66), the hunting scene in Sahure’s
mortuary complex at Abusir (R.2, see appendix; Fig. 3.a), the training archers in
the causeway of the same royal building (el-Awady 2009, 206–208, pl. 12), and
a fragment of the battle scene in the causeway of Unis’ mortuary complex (Labrousse
Fig. 3. Arrow bundles. and Moussa 2002, 21–22, 136, fig. 16, pl. 1, doc. 5). In all these reliefs arrows are grabbed
a) Narrow bundle taken at the end of the shaft, just before fletching starts. The same applies in some First
where fletching starts Intermediate Period stele mainly from Coptos in which the donor holds the arrows
(Sahure’s mortuary temple, horizontally with his right arm as if they were a sceptre (Fischer 1964, 62, pls. 16,
Borchardt 1913, pl. 17 = R.2); no. 16, 24, no. 27, 32–35, nos. 36–41; see also Gotti 2009). On the contrary, in later
b) Narrow rectangular depictions bowmen sometimes take the arrows at the middle of the shafts, in a similar
bundle taken at the middle of way as the PRM archer. In some instances, they form a long rectangular shape
the arrow (stela presumably (Fig. 3.b), as it is the case of the so-called “Nubian mercenaries” of Gebelein (Fischer 1961,
from Gebelein, Turin S.1270); pls. 11–13) or a hunter in the tomb of Itiibi- iqer (P.20, see appendix). In other occasions,
c) Labrys-like bundle (bowl arrows are depicted as a labrys shaped bundle which is held at its centre (Fig. 3.c). That
from Qubbet el-Hawa = P.15b); is the case of the archers depicted in the tomb of Setka and on some bowls from Qubbet
d) Lighter labrys-like el-Hawa (Edel 2008c, 1800, fig. 7, pls. 74, 85 and P.15b–c, respectively), the warriors
bundles formed by few and hunters in the tomb of Ankhtyfy at Moalla (Vandier 1950, 75, fig. 29, pls. 26, 35;
and separated arrows Fischer 1961, 65, fig. 6), or two stele supposedly from Gebelein (Turin S.1272; Swansea,
(temple of Mentuhetep II at Egypt Centre W1366).1 According to Fischer, the holding of arrows from their middle
Deir el-Bahari, top: Oxford, would date from the 11th dynasty (Fischer 1958; Fischer 1962). However, this motif
Ashmolean Museum is earlier. It would go back to the beginning of the Herakleopolitan period, as it is
AN1896–1908 E.695; bottom: documented in the tomb of Setka (Edel 2008c, 1795–1796), or even to the late Old
London BM EA 43121). Kingdom, as the PRM relief suggests. The labrys or fan-like shaped bunch of arrows
Figures are not in in the PRM relief is similar to the ones depicted in the aforementioned examples but,
the same scale. unlike them, it is broader and it is held by the bowman while drawing his bow.
1
The Swansea stela, along with two other stele from the same museum (EC 62 and EC 148), is
currently under study by the author. I am very grateful to Carolyn Graves-Brown (Swansea
University – Egypt Centre) for permission to study them.
Depictions of lighter labrys-like bunches made of few separate arrows (from three
to seven) (Fig. 3.d) cover a longer period and a bigger area. They are attested in a late
Old Kingdom or First Intermediate Period rock graffiti at Abu Ballas (P.18); in several
reliefs from the mortuary complex of Mentuhetep II at Deir el-Bahari (Fig. 3.d),2 and
in another one from the mortuary complex of Senusert III at Dashur (Cairo JdE 51978;
Fischer 1961, pl. 14c; Müller 1989, pl. 4b). In these cases the number and arrangement
of arrows is slightly different to the PRM example, and only in some of them the archers
are holding them while shooting their bows.
Summing up, the features of the PRM block strongly suggest a Sixth dynasty date
but, taking into consideration the fan shaped group of arrows grasped at the middle
of the shaft, a somewhat later date can’t be excluded.
The iconography of the hunters in the Old Kingdom

The PRM relief serves as a point of departure for analyzing the tools and clothes of
Old Kingdom desert hunters by means of the iconographic evidence. A study of this
kind is necessarily grounded on two-dimensional depictions on temples, tombs and
decorative art objects. Regrettably, the information provided by these data is barely
supported by other pieces of evidence such as texts or material culture. Despite of
their partiality (in all meanings), all together they provide interesting information on
hunting in ancient Egypt, particularly if they are examined diachronically.
Desert hunting scenes: interpretative handicaps and general features

As stated above, observations on desert hunting in the next pages rely almost
completely on the iconographic record. Therefore, any conclusion derived from it
comes from biased and unrealistic sources of information. As many authors have
already underlined, the data provided by the so-called “daily life” scenes in Old
Kingdom mastabas cannot be taken for granted, since these depictions express
the elite ideology and their values, preferences, and needs (e.g. Moreno García 2003;
Moreno García 2006, 217–220). Moreover, they are nuanced and conditioned by general
rules of decorum and more personal agency factors (Baines 1991; Vischak 2006) that,
in the precise case of desert hunting scenes, are mainly connected to the highest elite
groups (Staring 2008, 134). Consequently, depictions of predatory activities should be
read cautiously. They do not reflect actual events, but they include real elements that
do not exclude the probable presence of many other features that could be consciously
omitted by the artists. These scenes also offer information on the different ideological
and social values and meanings of desert hunting, and on the way in which images
and ideas developed or endured over time (Hoffmeier 1975, 11). Despite its actors,
tools and landscapes were virtually the same through time.
During the Old Kingdom desert hunting was a marginal activity. On one hand,
iconographic examples of cynegetic activities are significantly secondary in private
mortuary monuments (Staring 2008, 130 fig. 1; Staring 2011, 259–260, table 1). On
the other hand, zooarchaeological analyses in the sites of Giza and Kom el-Hisn
suggest that desert wild animals were rarely consumed in the Nile valley (Redding
2010; Redding in Wenke et al. 1989, 17–23). For instance, desert animals (hartebeest
and gazelle) are poorly attested and they were mainly consumed by the elites in Giza
(Redding 2010). The same can be said on other settlements closely related to the arid
environments such as Balat (Pantalacci and Lesur-Gebremariam 2009; Pantalacci and
Lesur 2012; Lesur 2015) and ‘Ain el-Gezareen (Churcher in Mills 2007, 8–10) at Dakhla.
In this oasis, wild animals probably served as complementary food in the main
settlements and probably were an important part of the diet in more distant places
such as small peripheral police watchposts (or hunting camps?) and temporal pastoral
camps that were located in desert itself (Kaper and Willems 2002; Pöllath in Riemer
2
I am indebted to Liam McNamara (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) for providing me information
on the unpublished relief Ashmolean Museum AN1896–1908 E.695.
et al. 2005, 332–336; Pöllath 2009, 90, fig. 3, 94–96). Furthermore, the desert hunters (nw.w)
are rarely attested in the textual record both in the pharaonic and Graeco-Roman
periods (Gandonnière 2014; Clarysse and Thompson 2006, 189–191, table 5:8,
respectively). The Gebelein papyri suggest that they could punctually play a significant
economic role in some state institutions of the provincial milieu along with other
gatherers, however (Moreno García 2010, 53). Despite its economic insignificance and
ephemeral nature, Egyptian male elites, as in many other cultures, considered desert
hunting an important status symbol in which different social groups were involved,
and an activity that conveyed many ideological and social messages (Hamilakis 2003;
Baines 2013, 3, 10–11, 17–18, 229). Generally speaking, the depictions of desert hunting
activities can be divided in two main groups during the Old Kingdom. The first one
is formed by hunting scenes in private tombs (including queens’ pyramid temples)
and in royal monuments decorated with Weltkammer-like reliefs. They generally depict
activities connected to the capture of animals alive in order to keep them subsequently
in farms for breeding and fattening and, finally, for being sacrificed as mortuary or
divine offerings (Staring 2008, 130). Leaving aside few exceptions, like the hunters
palette (Louvre E.11254 + London BM EA 20790 and 20792), there are no predynastic
depictions of animals killed by humans or domesticated dogs (Hendrickx 2010, 119–121).
During the Old Kingdom, hunters never kill the animals, but dogs slay the prey along
with wild lions (R.2, R.3, M.8a, M.10a, M.11a, M.13a?, M.14, M.16, M.18?, M.20a, P.3,
P.10a and P.20; Davies et al. 1984, pl. 31; Kanawati 2007, pls. 17b, 61, 74; Fakhry 1961,
14, pl. 49a.)3 or, more rarely, with hyenas or wild dogs (M.20a, see also R.2). Moreover,
leaving aside the earliest attestations (M.1 and M.2a) (Swinton 2012, 23) and one
exception (M.15), the tomb owner and members of his family never take part in the hunt
during the Old Kingdom.4 Only hunters, usually with no name, participate in it.
On the contrary, in the second group, formed by scenes from royal mortuary
complexes, the king is the only human who kills the animals. For instance, Sahure
shoots them arrows from the outside of the game fence (Vandier 1964, 792). Only dogs
and, maybe, hyenas assist the king inside the park (R.2). Hunters with lassoes and
assistants with sticks around the enclosure are only ready for avoiding the possible
flight of animals. In a slightly earlier scene, possibly similar to Sahure’s relief, Userkaf
presumably uses the bow and arrows too (R.1) (Labrousse and Lauer 2000a, 82,
doc. 47). Later, in Pepy’s II mortuary temple (R.7), the king appears inside the desert
game. He maybe employs a maze or, more plausibly, a bow too (Ćwiek 2003, 216–217).
Archers are seldom represented in Old Kingdom hunting scenes, even though they
are attested in predynastic objects (Hendrickx 2010, 120). Actually, they are attested
from the Sixth dynasty in several desert hunting scenes in both the provinces (P.3, P.5,
P.8a?, P.9, P.10a, P.15a–c, P.16–21) (Marshall 2012, 142) and Memphis – as the PRM relief
(M.24) suggests. The entrance of bowmen in hunting scenes marks the beginning of
a gradual change in the meaning of these representations in the private tombs.
Swinton has recently suggested that there is an increasing violence in desert hunting
depictions from the Fourth Dynasty to the late Fifth Dynasty (Swinton 2012, 22–26).
Maybe the growing brutality, already detected in Sahure’s royal hunting scene, is only
derived from a more detailed and complex treatment of the hunting scenes from
the second half of the Old Kingdom. In any case, it is clear that Sixth–Eighth Dynasties
scenes incorporated elements that, apparently, were taken from earlier royal mortuary
complexes (nets, use of bow and arrow, or direct action by the tomb owner, for instance).
Such assumption of royal features was in the same line that other already existing
tendencies for adapting royal privileges and iconographic themes in the private tombs
3
On lions at the top of the fencing net, see docs. M.5a, M.10a? and M.21a there are, at least, two
other attestation of this motif at Saqqara: the tomb of Tjy at Saqqara (date V.7–8) (Wild 1953,
pl. 127); and an unprovenanced relief from Saqqara (date V.9–VI) (Hassan 1975a, 113, fig. 59,
pl. 86c) that, other to a lion on the fence could include an incomplete scene of an auroch that
could be suffocated by a lion.
4
Moreno García (2006, 239–240, n. 147) mentions an exception in the tomb of Heqaib at Qubbet el-Hawa
(tomb QH 28). This monument should be dated from the Middle Kingdom, see Edel (2008a, 294).
and for depicting occasionally the tomb owner in active roles (Diego Espinel 2011,
59–60, n. 65; Zelenková 2010). In fact, during the late Old Kingdom and, above all,
the First Intermediate Period, private depictions of desert hunting transformed slowly
into an activity related almost exclusively to the direct killing of animals by shooting
arrows (e.g. P.17–P.19). This trend, as will be seen below, continued and was strengthened
in the Middle and New Kingdom private tombs, when Old Kingdom royal hunting
scenes probably served as important sources of inspiration (Vandier 1964, 791; Hoffmeier
1975, 8). On another note, Old Kingdom desert hunting scenes are sometimes
juxtaposed to other ones depicting rows of hunters and bearers that bring living game
from the desert to the tomb’s owner (see below). From the Middle Kingdom onwards
both types of scenes do not form a completely coherent group. Animals are depicted
as killed when hunted, but they are alive when transported subsequently. In any case,
in both the Old, Middle and New Kingdom, these scenes would illustrate two different
aspects of the same activity: the destruction of menacing and chaotic animals, and
the provision of hunting products for sustaining the cult of the tomb owner.
The comparison of hunting techniques in the Old Kingdom scenes emphasizes their
obvious idealized nature both in royal and private contexts. On one hand, they include
a wide range of animals that belong to distinct desert biotopes, and they barely depict
others that were frequent in later periods such as ostriches (R.3, M.7a?, M.13a) and
wild donkeys (M.13a, P.8a, P.14a?; Edel and Wenig 1974, pl 17, no. 725; Kemna 1992,
368–369). Other to symbolic intentions and meanings (e.g. Hendrickx 2010, 120) and
to environmental circumstances, such diversity can be explained in some instances
because the game is enclosed in fenced hunting grounds that have been also
interpreted alternatively as game preserves (Herb and Förster 2009, 27–29) (R.2, R.6,
M.5a, M.10a?, M.16, M.18?, M.20a; see also note 3). The epigraph “watching the netting
(mAA wHat)” in a hunting scene in the Fourth Dynasty mastaba of Rahotep at Meidum
(Harpur 2001, 98, fig. 92) indicates that the use of these fences could be taken for
granted in some of the scenes in which they are omitted (Swinton 2012, 23).
Furthermore, as stated below, the depiction of lassoes suggests that hunting was made
mainly inside the fences, while dogs could be used for leading the animals towards
the places where nets were placed, possibly in cutting wadis or gorges like the ones
in Wadi el-Sheikh (Meyer n.d.), but also in open grassy plains or erg areas. There,
animals could be captured alive with bare hands if they were tangled with the nets,
or with ropes, staffs and throwing sticks; or, alternatively, killed by arrows. The use
of these enclosures was probably considered an elite privilege and, therefore, a status
symbol, as they meant strong investments of people and economic resources for their
creation (Le Quellec 2010), for leading or introducing the animals from elsewhere, or,
in the case these enclosures were considered permanent game preserves, for keeping,
watching and defending them. Such installations, on the other hand, should have
very strong and tall fences in order to resist the shoves of big fleeing ungulates like
the aurochs and oryxes. They possibly had additional gadgets for scaring animals and
prevent them far from the nets, like the Roman formido (Newberry 1944).
It is not possible to identify hunting scenes in open spaces, but such kind of hunt
obviously existed. nw.w-hunters were employed as rangers and trackers, since they were
familiar to those activities while hunting in the desert (Gandonnière 2014, 61–63). In
Papyrus Gebelein IV rto. they are apparently organized in couples (Posener-Kriéger
2004, pl. 32), and a group-cylinder seal may attest a three-men group of hunters
(Kaplony 1963, fig. 387). Such pieces of evidence suggest they patrolled the desert in
small groups, possibly not in connection to big predatory activities related to hunting
enclosures, but to smaller ones in open areas. Moreover, an attestation of a hunter
attached to a private household (Gandonnière 2014, 59; see also P.7, P. 10b and, maybe,
P.11b) suggests that they could be purveyors of desert animals and products to
the officials on a modest scale, as it is stated in much later documents. For instance,
in the Graeco-Roman Period hunting was a royal monopoly by means of direct dominion
in which hunters had to pay taxes to the state, or by means of indirect concessions to
temples and private officials (δωρεαί) (Raïos-Chouliara 1981a, 49–52).
Table 1. Main hunting tools Hunting weapons, tools and techniques in Old Kingdom scenes
during the Old Kingdom and In contrast to later periods in which desert hunting was based on the direct killing
First Intermediate period. of animals, Old Kingdom hunting scenes mixed different – and even conflicting –
Numbers are based on data venatic techniques and tools. On the other hand, other important hunting techniques
from the sections a–c of and devices, such as the use of tramps (Le Quellec et al. 2007, 128–133), were surely
the appendix (tools depicted omitted in the scenes even though they are attested in earlier periods and in rock art
in the returning from scenes (Hendrickx 2010, 115–117; Menardi Noguera and Zboray 2012, 143–146;
the desert scenes included). Morrow et al. 2010, 34, HAJ 3A, 145, SHA 13B, 193, WAS 7D, Váhala and Červíček 1999,
Dubious and unknown pl. 102, 401/B). Furthermore, the hunting tools are frequently attested in incomplete or
attestations haven’t been damaged hunting depictions and in some scenes of hunters returning from the desert
reckoned. with game. Consequently, the diversity of tools and weapons cannot be taken at face
value (Tables 1–3). Regarding the scenes depicting the return from the hunt scenes,
an explanation on their nature and identification is necessary. The catalogue of these
Table 2. Main hunting tools scenes (see appendix) have followed the information provided by the “Oxford
during the Old Kingdom and Expedition to Egypt” database, leaving aside a relief from the tomb of Seshemnefer
First Intermediate Period [IV] in mastaba LG 53, and adding ten additional examples (see “scene 2.2.” in Harpur
(tools depicted in the returning n.d.). These instances form an iconographic motif that is far from being unambiguous.
from the desert scenes Its identification is only clear when it is juxtaposed to a hunting scene or it is explicitly
excluded). Dubious and captioned. If not, it can be confounded with similar presentation scenes or depictions
unknown attestations of stalls. Therefore, the set of data provided by this group of scenes is not decisive and
haven´t been reckoned. it should be tackled carefully, despite its figures are significant (Tables 3 and 6).
By far, the main tool used in the desert hunting scenes is the dog (Rice 2006; Table 3. Distribution,
Zahradnik 2009; Listemann 2010). It is employed either to capture living animals or to according to the type of scene
kill them (Tables 1–3).5 Dogs are depicted in hunting scenes from the early Fourth Dynasty, of the main hunting tools
but they are clearly related to the hunters before, since they form part of the nw-semagram during the Old Kingdom and
from the late Second Dynasty (Kahl 2003, 217–18). Hounds are also frequently present First Intermediate Period.
in rock art hunting scenes (Judd 2009, 25), and in some Old Kingdom seals and sealings Dubious and unknown
(Kaplony 1981, pls. 154, no. 19, 157, no. 34). The importance of dog in hunting is attestations haven´t been
evident (Listemann 2010, 71–76). Actually, in some early instances, as in Metjen’s tomb reckoned.
(see note 5), dogs are the only hunters depicted in these scenes that, on the other hand,
could follow older conventions already attested in the Predynastic Period (Hendrickx
and Eyckermann 2012, 58).
Domesticated hyenas could also be used for hunting (Vandier 1964, 797). Actually,
there is current evidence on the possible domestication of hyenas as well-trained dogs
(Rosevear 1974, 351–352; Legge 2010, 616), but ancient Egyptian data on this matter
are scarce and inconclusive. A depiction of a hunter with lashed dogs and hyenas
(M.11b) could confirm this practice, but it could also be explained in a rather different
way (Harpur and Scremin 2008, 322). Moreover, examples of hunting hyenas in action
are ambiguous, as they could depict wild hyenas instead of domesticated ones (R.2
and M.20a). In one instance (M.20a) the hyena could actually be identified as a wild
African dog (Lycaon pictus), that is also attested as a hunting animal in the Predynastic
Period (Hendrickx 2006; Hendrickx and Eyckermann 2012, 60).
Other to the dogs, the main hunting tool was the lasso (Tables 1–3). Its use in Old
Kingdom hunting scenes is only attested from the Fifth Dynasty, even though there
are several predynastic examples (Hendrickx and Eyckermann 2012, 58). Contrary to
dogs, lassoes and leashes are present in the scenes of hunters returning from the desert
with game and in one instance, maybe, a pole lasso seems to be attested (M.22). In
hunting scenes lassoes were frequently employed, as they did not imply the direct
killing of the animal. They were thrown on the neck, horns or legs of the prey. Some
5
The data only includes dogs depicted in hunting scenes where hunters are present (see
catalogue). There are, at least, other six hunting scenes depicting dogs: a fragmentary scene in
the mastaba of Rahotep at Meidum (Harpur 2001, 98, fig. 92), a scene in the mastaba of Metjen
from Saqqara (Berlin ÄM 1105) (date IV.1L) (PM III2 493–494), a fragmentary scene in the tomb
of Nebkauhor at Saqqara (date V.9, reused in VI.4–6) (Hassan 1975b, 30), in an anonymous tomb
at Saqqara (date V.9–VI.1?) (Hassan 1975c, 23–24, pl. 14c), in the mastaba of Akhmerutnesut at
Giza (date V.9–VI.1–2 or VI.1M) (see M.15 and http://www.gizapyramids.org/media/view/
Sites/740/93851?t:state:flow=58044a9e-48cc-4182-8209-7b9652ff3dab, accessed on 22.10.2015),
a complete scene in the anonymous tomb no. 92 at Tell Basta (late OK?) (von Droste zu Hulshoff
1980, 64–65, fig. 13), and a fragmentary hunting scene from the tomb of a Sebekuseri from
Matariya (date IX–XL) (Abd el-Gelil et al. 145–152, fig. 2b; pl. 52b). The sum of hunting dogs
preserved on this depictions is 12.
authors have pointed out that lasso hunting is depicted unrealistically in some
instances, since big ungulates such aurochs are lassoed by a single standing hunter
(Marshall 2012, 133). However, two examples (R.8 and M.11a) suggest that a single
able hunter could tangle the legs of the prey with the cord immobilizing and
knocking it down, particularly if it was on the run. The frequent use of the lasso
raises some other points. Taking into account current anthropological parallels –
admittedly in very different environments and related to other kind of animals such
as reindeers – the use of the lasso by hunters on foot is mainly restricted to the capture
of wild animals in big fenced enclosures (Ingold 1993). It seems rarely employed in
open spaces, in which lassoes were generally thrown by horsemen, not by standing
hunters (Anderson 1985, 118–119, 142; Blackmore 1972, 325–326). Moreover, I haven’t
found other similar ways of lasso-hunting in Africa so far. For instance, they are
not used in current hunter-gatherer groups like the Hadza, who rely mainly on
the use of the bow and – to a lesser extent – dogs for capturing the prey. The absence
of lasso-hunting in current African groups diverges from its evident use in Egypt
and Lower Nubia, as it is attested in rock art. These scenes, however, do not shed
new light on the circumstances in which the lassoes were employed either (Judd
2009, 23; Almagro and Almagro 1968, 97, fig. 97; Váhala and Červíček 1999, pl. 79,
312/A).
Dogs and lassoes were followed, sometimes at a considerable distance, by other
tools or weapons that are generally connected to still hunting techniques or, in other
words, to hunting by means of pursuing game noiselessly. All these tools, including
the bow and arrows, implied to approach carefully the game in order to chase it.
Therefore, their use could exclude, at least initially, the help of loose dogs. These
assumptions on past practices based on current observations should be considered
cautiously, however. In many ways, hunting conditions in ancient Egypt could be
significantly different from those of today. According to some evidences from the
nineteenth century AD, some ungulates probably kept a considerable lesser escape
distance than they do currently, so all these tools and methods would probably be
rather effective in ancient times (Berke 2009). Moreover, the flight initiation distance
of animals may vary depending upon the familiarity of animals with humans, and
the way the latter act with regard to the former in precise areas (Tarakini et al. 2014).
On the other hand, tools such the dogs or lassoes could be very useful if they were
employed in a fenced park or if they were connected to other hunting techniques such
as persistence hunting (a combination of running and tracking to pursue prey to the
point of exhaustion; Leibenberg 2006, 2013). This method, however, cannot be clearly
detected in these scenes (see, however, Marshall 2012, 138).
The bow was the third most important tool. Like the use of dogs, it is only attested
in hunting scenes (Tables 1–3). During the Fifth Dynasty it appears once, maybe twice,
as the king’s hunting weapon (R.1, R.2?). It is also attested at Abu Gurob (R.3), but it
is inside a bow case carried by a hunter. During the Sixth Dynasty, hunters using bows
and arrows appear for the first time in private tombs, possibly pointing out some
changes in the perception of desert hunting as a killing practice in the iconographic
program of the private mortuary chapels that, as it will be seen below, coincided
roughly with other phenomena connected to the depiction of desert hunting scenes,
and, on a more general scale, to changes in mentality and society during this critical
period. The PRM relief is the only Memphite example of this iconographic trend that
took place mainly in the provinces. In all the instances a simple long bow or self bow
is used, and it continues to be the main tool in the Middle and New Kingdom hunting
scenes when the tomb owner is standing and not riding a chariot (Hoffmeier 1975). It
seems to be the main hunting tool in rock art scenes too, but it is usually held by
hunters in a rather inappropriate way for hunting and arrows are rarely depicted
(Judd 2009, 29–30).
Old Kingdom depictions of arrows are usually simplistic. Some examples, however,
suggest the use of wooden sharpened points (e.g. Fig. 3a = R.2; el Awady 2009, pl. 12)
and flint transverse and crescent shaped arrowheads (e.g. Roehrig 1999) that, despite
of their crudeness, have a proven efficacy (Brizzi and Loi 2013). These flint points are
also present, for instance, in hunting and battle scenes during the First Intermediate
Period and the Middle and New Kingdom (e.g. Edel 2008d, pl. 74; fig. 3.d), and in
the depictions of arrows in the object friezes painted on the interior of several Middle
Kingdom coffins (Jéquier 1921, 215, figs. 572–573). Both wooden and flint arrowheads
are attested in the archaeological record, along with other types (Clark et al. 1974;
Western and McLeod 1995; Hikade 2001). The possible use of poison on the arrowheads
cannot be deduced from the iconographic evidence, of course, but some pieces of
evidence in actual arrows would suggest its presence as Hadza and San hunters do
currently for predatory purposes (McDermott 2002, 86; Marlowe 2010, 89–90; Kao
et al. 1989).
Old Kingdom bowmen do not bring quivers in hunting scenes, apart from a very
dubious example (M.4a). If Old Kingdom Egyptian hunters had quivers, they
probably left them aside in order to obtain more mobility. Actually, they might not
bring quivers, as eastern Hadza people do in the present (Woodburn 1970, 31).
During this period bowmen only bring quivers in battle depictions (Goedicke 1971,
76, n. 186) and parade or training scenes (Labrousse and Lauer 2000a, 127; Labrousse
and Lauer 2000b 87, fig. 285a–b). The use of quivers in hunting scenes is also attested
both in later Egyptian examples and in Saharan rock art (Newberry [1895], pl 7;
Blackman 1914, pls. 6–7; BM EA 71570; Menardi Noguera and Zboray 2011, 287–291).
They were probably made of leather or reeds (McDermott 2002, 145). Apparently,
Middle Kingdom arrow quivers in hunting and battle scenes seem slightly longer than
the Old Kingdom ones. On the other hand, no archers’ kitbags were depicted, even
though they probably existed.6
Other tools and techniques are significantly less numerous. The throwing stick, again
only surely attested in hunting scenes, appears from the Fourth Dynasty (Tables 1–3).
It is very similar in size and shape to the ones employed in the swamp fowling scenes,
and it is occasionally present in the nw-semagram (H.1). These boomerang-like sticks
were usually made of wood and had different sizes according to their function. Some
of them resemble the Greek λᾰγωβόλα (sing. λᾰγωβόλον) that were used as throwing
sticks in hare hunting and in the capture of ungulates (Anderson 1985, 40; Nankov
2010). Probably, they weren’t lethal, but they could be effective in order to stun or to
knock down the prey. Other staves with curved tips and, possibly, sharpened borders
are also attested in several depictions of hunters that are not related to hunting scenes.
They could be employed as a club for finishing animals off or for defending from
them, in the same way as the lissan-stick or “tongue” that was employed in recent
times by Eastern Desert Bedouins as a kind of sword (Wilkinson 1837, 329). One of
these sticks was discovered in a predynastic or early dynastic tomb at Gebelein (Turin
S.11112). Similar sticks are depicted in the predynastic hunters palette and they
probably were also employed during the dynastic period. Actually, different early
Middle Kingdom reliefs from Assiut and Thebes attest that they were also employed
as weapons in battle (see Kahl 2007, 76, fig. 53; London BM EA 742, New York MMA
36.3.354i).
Straight sticks or staves and bare hands were also used as non-lethal tools and they
probably were employed after the prey was knocked or immobilize by other tool. They
are depicted more frequently in the return from the desert scenes (Tables 1–3), in which
they serve for guiding the animals when they are presented to the tomb owner
(e.g. M.5c–d, M.8b, M.10b or M.22), as walking aids (H.1–4), and as stick-type bindles
(M.22). Even though the staves rarely occur in hunting scenes, they were probably a very
usual and useful tool, since they appear, along with dogs, as part of the nw-semagram
6
An archer’s kitbag was discovered by Winlock in Thebes (MMA 31.2.47a–e, g–q) (McDermott
2002, 49, 93, 104). The Spanish Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga has recently discovered another
possible kitbag related to two bows and twenty arrows. This material is under study by José
Manuel Galán and David García (ILC-CSIC) (García and Galán 2016). I am indebted to José
Manuel Galán, director of the mission, for information on this finding. Both kitbags are probably
from the late Middle Kingdom or Second Intermediate Period.
from the end of the Second Dynasty (Kahl 2003, 217–218) to the late Old Kingdom
(H.1–4), and even later (Gandonnière 2014, 50, tab. 1 and n. 10).
Other lethal weapons such as spears, mazes, axes, knives or slings never were
depicted in hunting scenes during the Old Kingdom, except for a possible attestation
of a spear in a graffiti of dubious date (P.1). Leaving aside the knives and slings, these
weapons are attested in the aforementioned hunters palette from the late Naqada III
period and another object probably from the same date (Borchardt 1931). The absence
of some of these weapons in Old Kingdom scenes was probably based on artistic
preferences, symbolic meanings or social prestige (Wernick 2014, 102–103). The same
can be said on the aforesaid omission of tramp depictions (trapping pits, cage traps,
spiked wheel traps, etc.) that are attested in other periods and in rock art panels at
both sides of the Nile (Hobbs and Goodman 1995; Le Quellec et al. 2007, 128–133).
Only in one Old Kingdom instance (R.5 = Labrousse and Moussa 2002, 152, fig. 59,
doc. 45) a small gazelle seems to be trapped with some kind of snare. Unfortunately,
this possible example relies on a drawing of a rather eroded relief, not on its direct
observation. The depiction of two caged felines in the tomb of Ptahhotep (II)/Tjefi
also suggests the use of traps during this period (M.11b) (e.g. Hobbs 1989, 98 and
picture between 48–49; Phillips 2006; Porat et al. 2013). The same can be inferred from
the aforementioned presence of leashed hyaenas in the same tomb (M.11b), from
the depiction of living lions inside the fences in some hunting scenes (M.17, M.19?,
M20a; see also note 3), and from the presence of lion remains in some predynastic and
early dynastic tombs (Hendrickx and Eyckerman 2012, 59).
Some hunting scenes and, above all, some depictions in scenes of hunters returning
from the desert with game show other kind of tools connected to the provisioning of
the hunters and the transport or guidance of living animals. Obviously, water skins
played an important role in the sustenance of desert visitors (Menardi Noguera and
Zboray 2011, 281–282). However, they are rarely attested. They occur in two provincial
hunting scenes connected to archers (P.3 and P.5) and in an interesting scene in
Niankhkhnum and Khnumhetep’s mastaba (M.5b) in which several hunters “come
from the west”, and bring the game – mainly gazelle calves – and provisions by
donkey and yoke-bearers. One of the water skins is on the ground along with some
beer (?) jars, and the other one is hanging from a yoke (see, however the caption of
Harpur and Scremin 2010, 249, fig. 266). Yokes are also frequent in other scenes from,
at least, the mid Fifth Dynasty (R.3, M.4b, M.5b, M.7b, M.8b, M.11b, M.13b and M.22),
even though yoke-bearers are present in other kind of scenes from the early Fourth
Dynasty (Harpur and Scremin 2008, 320–321). They generally bear small cages with
hedgehogs, hares or foxes/fennecs, and cylinder-like pouches or containers containing
gazelles and ibexes. A yoke carried by a hunter in the tomb of Ptahhetep (II) offers
some unusually depicted hunters’ goods. It includes a rolled mat, a flask, and a tray
with different kinds of bread that could serve for the provision and rest of the hunters
(M.11b = Harpur and Scremin 2008, 168, fig. 235, 170, figs. 237–238, 321). In one
instance, provisions (jars, and possibly a bag) were also brought on stick-type bindles
(M.22). A hunters’ camp depicted in Nyuserre’s sun temple (R.3) suggests the use of
Meydum bowls for eating and flint (?) knives for slaughtering the hunted animals. As
already stated, sticks are frequently used as tools for guiding animals in this kind of
scenes, and the same goes for lassoes or, more appropriately, leashes, and bare hands,
like the moscophorous-like depictions of hunters carrying gazelles on their shoulders
or in their arms, for instance (e.g. M.8b, M.11b or M.22).
Hunting clothes
By a random whim of fate, very few traces of the archer’s clothe have remained
in the PRM relief. Concerning his haircut, it is formed by small squares that depict
the usual series of rows of curls of the common Egyptian short round tiled style (Tassie
2008, 414). One of the lines seems to be, actually, a continuous band surrounding
the head. Similar hunters’ headbands are rarely attested in different late Old Kingdom
and First Intermediate Period hunting scenes (M.20a, P.8a and P.17). Short round
hairstyles are the most usual hunters’ hairstyles –not reckoned in the appendix– followed
by the cropped style (Tassie 2008, 414). On the contrary, long hairstyles are rare.
Shoulder length bobs are depicted in an unique scene of the tomb owner lassoing
a missing animal (M.15), and in few other examples (M.18?, P.9 and P.11a; Tassie 2008,
415). There are no clear depictions of the receding style or the presence of bald hunters
(Tassie 2008, 416).
A small feature on the shoulder of the PRM hunter could suggest the remains of
a knot that would indicate he wears a garment similar to the knotted cloaks fastened
at one shoulder that are worn by some hunters of the mid/late Fifth and early Sixth
dynasties (Fig. 4a) (R.3, R.6, M.5a, M.10a, M.11a–b, M.18, M.20a, M.21? and P.16)
(Vogelsang-Eastwood 1993, 166–167, fig. 9.13). The precise nature of this kind of garment
is unknown, but it is characteristic of the hunters, since it is almost exclusively worn
by them. It may be made of wool (Vogelsang-Eastwood 1993, 167). In some instances
it is a continuous striped outfit from one shoulder to the top of the knees (M.11a–b
and P.5, for instance). In other examples, however, it is difficult to know if it is a single
attire or a two piece garment with kilt and a single shoulder shirt (M.20a, for example).
Remains of colour in the examples from Ptahhetep’s (II) mastaba (M.11a–b) suggest
a three-coloured striped outfit with green, dark-brown and blue bands that could serve Fig. 4. Different kinds
as some kind of camouflage (Harpur and Scremin 2008, 322). In the case of the tomb of clothes. a) Knotted cload;
of Remni (M.19) blue was substituted by beige or white bands. b) common short kilt;
This kind of garment could be also depicted in two other scenes not related to c) tripartite short kilt;
hunting activities. In both cases it is crossed by a chevron-like pattern that is also d) loincloth; e) apron;
attested, mutatis mutandis, in a rock-art hunting scene in locus 45-R2 at Wadi Abu f) back apron; g) fringed kilt
Subeira, for instance (Graff and Kelany 2013, 324). The earliest example, from the lower or “overseer’s kilt”;
temple of Unis’ mortuary complex, is a person lied down on his belly on the prow of h) “trousers”.
a boat (Labrousse and Moussa 1996, 80, doc. 30, fig. 67, pl. 12). The second example
depicts several men with a feather on their heads that are climbing poles in the so-
called raising of the sHnt-pole ceremony depicted in the mortuary temple of Pepy II
(Jéquier 1938, pl. 13–15; Feder 1998; Ćwiek 2003, 249–250). Both attire and feather,
which is also present in later scenes of this ritual, may suggest a foreign nature of these
individuals (Minas-Nerpel and de Meyer 2013, 152, n. 14). The link between Min,
the god to whom the ceremony was dedicated, and the Eastern Desert and its
inhabitants (Yoyotte 1952), indicates subtly that this kind of garment was similar to
the knotted cloak worn by hunters that, no doubt, operated in that region. They could
be mDAy-people (Giuliani 2004).
Even though this cloak seems to be tightly related to hunting, it was not the most
usual hunting attire at all. The most frequent costume by far is the common short kilt
that is attested in both the return of the desert scenes and the hunting scenes (Fig. 4b;
Tables 4–6). The tripartite short kilt could be another rendition of this attire when
depicting hunters striding (Fig. 4c). There are other kinds of clothes that, in some
instances, are connected to military apparel. That is the case of the loincloths, possibly
made of leather, which are attested in military contexts in later periods (Fig. 4d;
McDermott 2002, 55–56; Veldmeijer 2011, 28–29). They are sometimes the only garment
of hunters (M.5b and M.8b). The same applies for aprons that are particularly common
during the Fifth Dynasty and, again, are worn by soldiers and in other activities (Fig.
4e; e.g. R.2, R.5, M.10a, M.11a and M.16; Goedicke 1971, 59–73; Oppenheim 1999, 318–
319). During the First Intermediate Period aprons changed. They were connected to
long and short kilts and they become a distinctive element of Nubian mercenaries
(Fig. 3b; Fischer 1961; Vogelsang-Eastwood 1993, 47–52). Similar apron-like elements
are also recorded in the Saharan art, but in this case they have been interpreted as
some kind of bags (Menardi Noguera and Zboray 2011, 291–292). That does not seem
to be the case in Egypt, since aprons are clearly attested in some statues and they are
also present in the Nubian archaeological record (e.g. Hafsaas 2005, 107–108). Other
to the apron, there are attestations of “back aprons” that are similar to some rock art
examples (Fig. 4f; Morrow et al. 2010, 38 A; Almagro and Almagro 1968, 97, fig. 71;
Table 4. Main hunting clothes Váhala and Červíček 1999, pl. 120, 459; 195, 772). Their identification remains unclear.
during the Old Kingdom and They are probably folded loincloths or aprons which are tied behind the waist or
First Intermediate Period. sashes tied at the back (Harpur and Scremin 2006, 375, detail 89; Vogelsang-Eastwood
Numbers are based on data 1993, 76, fig. 5.1).
from the appendix (clothes Complete nudity is unusual (M.6a?), even though the wearers of aprons and
depicted in the returning loincloths were virtually nude. On the other hand, long kilts are only attested in two
from the desert scenes late bowls from Qubbet el-Hawa (Fig. 3c; P.15b–c), in some Middle Kingdom hunting
included). scenes (e.g. Newberry 1893, pl. 30), and, maybe, in several earlier rock art examples,
since they could be actually depictions of the penis between the legs (Judd 2009, 28; Table 5. Main hunting clothes
e.g. Morrow et al. 2010, 80 SAL 25 B–C, 83 SAL 27A, 88 SAL 32C, 89 SAL 33A). during the Old Kingdom
The fringed kilt, also known as “overseer’s kilt” (Fig.4g; Harpour and Scremin 2006, and First Intermediate Period
353, detail 5), is attested in two return from the desert scenes that could be presentation (clothes depicted in
scenes, actually (M.5b and M.8b). Regarding footwear, not reckoned in the appendix, the returning from the desert
almost all the hunters walk barefoot. Sandals appear only a couple of times and, scenes excluded).
apparently, they do not have precise meanings leaving aside its possible use as
footwear on the rocky or rough surfaces of the desert (M.11b and M.21; Siebels 1996).
Taking into account that hunting was considered in many cultures as preparation for
warfare, it is not surprising that, as is the case of the aforementioned aprons and Table 6. Distribution,
loincloths, hunters dressed like soldiers. That is the case of a single attestation of according to the type of scene
“trousers” or “shorts” that could be a rendition of very open short kilts on the run of the main hunting clothes
(Fig. 4h; M.11b = Harpour and Scremin 2008, 279, details 57–58). The same can be said during the Old Kingdom and
on crossed baldrics or bands (P.8a, P.9 and P.15b; McDermott 2002, 50), feathers – rarely First Intermediate Period.
present in hunting scenes, and only in very late attestations (P.19–21) – and headbands. Dubious and unknown
Both “trousers” and baldrics are attested in Old Kingdom battle reliefs (Labrousse and attestations haven´t been
Moussa 2002, 136–137, figs. 16–18, 21; Arnold 1999, 266). The latter ones are also reckoned.
attested in Egyptian and Nubian rock art depictions of hunters and dancers (Morrow
et al. 2009, 117 MUA 10I, 133 SHA 2A; Darnell 2002a, 80–81; Hellström 1970, corpus
A221, A237; Almagro and Almagro 1968, 64, fig. 24; 97, fig. 71, 245, fig. 246; Váhala
and Červíček 1999, pl. 119, 456).
Apparently, feathers on the heads are absent in battle and siege depictions until
the early Middle Kingdom (e.g. Jaroš-Deckert 1984, pl. 10), even though they are
frequently depicted on the soldier’s head of the mSa-semagram (Gardiner’s sign A12)
from the Third Dynasty on, and in earlier monuments such as the hunters palette
and different rock art panels (Graff and Kelany 2013, 324; Judd 2009, 29). Some
mSa-semagrams depict two or even four feathers on the head (e.g. Gardiner et al. 1952,
pl. 1, no. 1b). The meaning or function of feathers is unknown. According to
anthropological evidence from Eastern Africa and elsewhere, it could be a mark of
entering into adulthood (Ferraro and Andreatta 2014, 355, fig. 14.5), a symbol of hunting
and the domain of nature (Strecker 1999, 256), a signal that its holder has already killed
rivals or big game (Burton 1856, 44; Galaty 2002, 122, n. 18), a way of appropriation of
the main features of the ostrich: aggressiveness, prudence, good sight and speed
(Behrens 1986; d’Huy 2009), or a protective amulet (McDermott 2002, 113–114).
Feathers are also considered by some ethnic groups in that area as symbols of valour
and leadership (Kassam and Megersa 1989, 27–28). Actually, the description of the
defeated Lybian leader Merey fleeing alone from Merenptah’s army “without a feather
upon his head (and) his legs barefooted” (Kitchen 1982, 14,10) could perfectly refers
to this last meaning.
Finally, in Sahure’s royal hunting scene, the king is depicted with a pleated kilt
with triangular apron (Vogelsang-Eastwood 1993, 41–46). He also wears a short wavy
round hairstyle and a long striated ceremonial beard that, obviously, are not worn by
any Old Kingdom hunter (Tassie 2008, 305, 414). The exclusive kilt and beard, along
with the monopoly of royal direct action on hunting in the iconography of desert
scenes, could be additional ways of stressing the distance between hunting scenes in
royal contexts and in private ones.
Conclusion: The PRM relief in context

Going deeper in the iconographic traits of desert hunting scenes, the PRM relief
reinforces the idea that, as stated before, during the Sixth dynasty and the First
Intermediate Period the use of bows in desert hunting scenes increased to
the detriment of the rest of tools, with the exception of dogs. Such circumstance points
to a change in the perception of desert hunting as a killing practice in the iconographic
program of the private mortuary chapels. Actually, the first depictions of bows in
hunting scenes coincide roughly in time with three other phenomena connected to
this iconographic change that probably derive from the mental and social changes
developed during the late Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period.
First, bow and arrows, among other weapons, became status symbols. They were
represented on several Upper Egyptian steles from Gebelein, Coptos and other
neighbouring centres (Fischer 1961, Fischer 1964; Fischer 1996, 84–85, nn. 23, 25; Gotti
2009). Model bows in tombs could date back to the early Fourth Dynasty (Petrie et al.
1910, 20; Hassan 1976, 66), and by the end of the Old Kingdom, these weapons were
increasingly incorporated in burial equipments (e.g. Saad 1947, 64–65, pls. 29, 31;
Willems 1996, 21, nn. 35–37). They became somewhat frequent during the First
Intermediate Period and the beginning of the Middle Kingdom (Seidlmayer 1990, 194;
Grajetzki 2003, 37; Zitman 2010, 195). Moreover, arrows, self bows and dogs became
the canonical hunting tools in later hunting scenes, except for few royal and private
New Kindgom examples that incorporated chariots and composite bows (Hoffmeier
1975, 11).
The second novelty is the increasing depiction of hunters and soldiers with several
iconographic traits that have been considered as Nubian ethnic markers during the very
late Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period: dark skin, a feather on the head and,
above all, an apron or pendant piece (Fischer 1961; Pemler 2014). Nubian soldiers with
some of these traits were depicted in several late Old Kingdom or early First Intermediate
Period monuments such as the tombs of Setka at Qubbet el-Hawa and Ankhtify at
Mo’alla, in which they are depicted among many other Egyptian archers with the same
attributes (Edel 2008c, 1800, fig. 7; Edel 2008d, pl. 74; Vandier 1950, 97–98). Thay also
appear in some early Middle Kingdom documents like the wooden model of Mesehti
from Asyut, a wooden soldier figure kept at Boston, or the tomb TT 386 of Intef at
Assasif, for instance (Cairo CG 257; Boston MFA 1993.104; Jaroš-Deckert 1984, pl. 14).
In spite of being portrayed as hunters with their dogs, the so-called Nubian mercenaries
depicted in some stele from Gebelein were also probably soldiers (Pemler 2014,
443–444).
Leaving aside some possible exceptions depicting dark-skin hunters (P.15c and
P.16), there are no explicit Old Kingdom examples of Nubian hunters, however. For
instance, despite of few foreign-like names, almost all the nw.w-hunters recorded in
the Gebelein papyri have Egyptian names (Posener-Kriéger 2004, pls. 12, 16, 17, 32, 38,
41, for foreigners see pls. 12, no. 44 and 13, no. 81). The same can be said about
the hunters and overseer of hunters attested in other documents during this period
(Gandonnière 2014). These pieces of evidence do not exclude the possibility that, like
in the army, Nubians or other non Egyptian people worked for the pharaonic state as
hunters. For instance, foreigners were possibly employed in surveying and guiding
activities in the desert during the Old Kingdom (Diego Espinel 2014, 40–41). Furthermore,
during the New Kingdom there are some connections between the nw.w-hunters and
the mDAy-police (Liszka 2010; Gandonnière 2014, 62), even though during that period
the mDAy-qualifier probably lost its ethnic connotations entirely (Liszka 2010; see
however Michaux-Colombot 1994 and 2013).
Taking the evidence at hand, it is not possible to ascertain if the aforementioned
“Nubian markers”, along with the knotted cloak, were actually ethnic features and, if
they were, to whom – Nubians or Bedouins – belonged. Actually, some of these features
probably became equally popular among Nubians and Egyptians because, as tools or
attires, they were effective in both hunting and war, as it is evident in the scene with
Nubian and Egyptian archers in the tomb of Ankhtify (Vandier 1950, 97–98). On the other
hand, feathers could have no ethnic connotations either, since they are also attested
in Saudi Arabia, for instance (Guagnin et al. 2015). Furthermore they are rare in Nubian
rock art, and the same applies for the frequency of bows depicted in that region (Judd
2009, 47). Double baldric-like bands were not related to Nubians exclusively either, as
they were worn by the Tjehenu people too (Diego Espinel 2006, 160; Romion 2014;
e.g. Borchardt 1913, pls. 1, 5–7). Finally, according to some evidence, the knotted cloak
was probably worn by Egyptians, as it happens with two hunters with Egyptian
names in M.11a–b, and, maybe, by Eastern Desert Bedouins (Jéquier 1938, pl. 13–15).
Finally, the third change is the consistent presence of the owner of the tomb as
the main – if not exclusive – hunter actor in the scenes from the reign of Senusert
I onwards. Such prominence contrasts deeply with Old Kingdom private depictions
in which the owner was only a spectator of the capture of living animals in the desert.
In the Middle and New Kingdoms hunting scenes the owner is generally the only
person who shoots arrows with a bow (see, however, Newberry [1895], pl. 7). He can
be assisted by dogs and, rarely, by some hunters that are involved in activities not
connected to the killing of animals if they are not his relatives (Newberry 1893, pl. 30).
This change probably emulated Old Kingdom royal hunting scenes in which the king
was the only human hunter who killed animals, even though he was assisted by other
people that did not slay animals directly (R.2).
Summing up, the PRM relief is a rather singular figure – a sort of iconographic
hapax – with no clear parallels that forms part of the process of popularization of
bowmen in desert hunting scenes during the late Old Kingdom and the First
Intermediate Period. Its fragmentary character and singularity do not permit to
establish conclusively its precise date. Despite of this difficulty, it is an important and
suggestive monument that, no doubt, plays a role in the study of hunting scenes
development. If it is a Late Old Kingdom relief – and that is assumable because of its
style and quality –, it would be the only Memphite example of a non-royal archer in
this kind of representations. And the same applies if it would be dated from the First
Intermediate Period. Both possibilities raise doubts about its actual importance. Did
this relief or similar ones in Memphis inspire provincial examples? Or did it was
inspired by the art from the provinces? I am afraid that the answer, if it is, is waiting
somewhere under the sands of Saqqara and Abusir. In any case, according to the style
of the relief, a Memphite origin for the archer’s motif seems more plausible.
Acknowledgements
This study was possible by a research grant (HAR2010-15873) from the Spanish
Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO). I am grateful to the Pitt Rivers
Museum and particularly to James Coote, curator and joint head of collections, for
permission to study and publish the object and to Madeleine Ding for information on
the object and her technical assistance. I am also grateful to the editors and organizers
of the “Abusir and Saqqara in the year 2015” conference for permitting me to present
this research. I am indebted to Philippe Collombert (MAFS), José Manuel Galán
(ILC-CSIC, Madrid), Carolyn Graves-Brown (Swansea University, Egypt Centre),
Liam McNamara (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford), Jaromir Málek (Oriental Institute,
Oxford) and Saleh Suleiman (SCA, Saqqara zone) for information on some
unpublished material, to Elizabeth Frood (Oriental Institute, Oxford) for information
on the block at the initial stages of my research, and to Anthony Spalinger (University
of Auckland) for some observations. Finally, I am grateful to Ana García Martín for
the line drawing of the Pitt Rivers relief.
Addendum
Only after writing the article, I realized that I overlooked an important study on
the iconography of Old Kingdom hunters (van Walsen 2014). Moreover, at least two
additional scenes, unfortunately fragmentary, can be added. They haven’t been
incorporated into the statistics of weapons and dresses, however. The first example,
to be added to footnote 5, is a scene depicting one dog hunting a gazelle. It comes
from the tomb of Nebkauhor at Saqqara from the end of the Fifth dynasty and reused
by Akhethotep/Hemi during the reign of Pepy II (Mohamed Abdou Mohamed 2011,
176, no. 16). The second relief can be interpreted as a possible scene of hunters
returning from the desert. It is in the mastaba of Seshseshet/Idut at Saqqara, dated
from the reign of Unis and/or Teti (Macramallah 1935: 18, pl. 10 (d)) (M.20*). Among
other figures, it shows two yoke bringers.
Appendix: List of depictions of hunters in Old Kingdom monuments

a) In Desert hunting scenes from royal mortuary complexes and sun temples7
NO.8 TOMB/MONUMENT DATE9 LOCATION BIBLIOGRAPHY TOOLS10 DRESSES11

R.1 Userkaf’s mortuary V.1 Saqqara. Labrousse and Lauer B? [1] –
complex (hunting 2000a, 81-82, docs. L? [1]
scene, incomplete) 47–48; figs. 116a–b, 117.
R.2 Sahure’s mortuary V.2 Abusir. Borchardt 1913, 30–35, B [1] A [3]
complex. (hunting Berlin ÄM pl. 17. D [2] PK [1]
scene, incomplete) 21783. H? [1] U [1]
L [3]
S [1]
R.3 Niuserre’s Weltkammer V.6 Abu Edel and Wenig 1974, B [1] CShK [1]
(hunting scene, Ghurob. pls. 13 (no. 714), D [9] + KC [3]
incomplete). 14 (nos. 250 and 252), [2?] TShK [1]
16 (no. 36), 17 (no. 707), S [1] U [2]
20 (nos. 710, 718, 827). Y [1]
R.4 Isesi’s mortuary V.8 Saqqara Moursi 1987, 190, 192, D? [1] U [2]
complex (?) (hunting South. figs. 8–9. L [1]
scene, incomplete, U [1]
Weltkammer-type
decoration?).
R.5 Unis’ mortuary complex V.9 Saqqara. Labrousse and Moussa BH [1] A [2]
(hunting scene, incomplete; 2002, 37–39, 147, fig. 42, D [9] CShK [2]
Weltkammer-type pl. 6a (doc. 28A); 43, 149, H?[1] LC [2]
decoration?). fig. 50 (doc. 36); 43, 149, fig. L [5] U [7]
51 (doc. 37); 43, 150, fig. 52 T? [1]
(doc. 38); 53, 150, fig. 53 ThS [2] +
(doc. 39); 44–45, 150, fig. 54 [1?]
(doc. 40 A-B); 45, 151, fig. 55 U [4]
(doc. 41); 45, 151, fig. 56
(doc. 42); 46, 151, fig. 57
(doc. 43); 47, 152, fig. 58, pl.
7c (doc. 44); 47, 152, fig. 59
(doc. 45); Diego Espinel
2011, 66 (no. 65, 49).
R.6 Queen Ankhenespepy II VI.4 Saqqara Unpublished. D [4] KC? [1]
mortuary complex South (Pepi I L [2] LC [2]
(hunting scene, mortuary
incomplete).12 complex).
7
Dark grey is for scenes depicting bowmen; light grey is for scenes of return from the desert hunting.
8
“R” refers to royal monuments, “M” to the Memphite area, “P” to provincial sites, and “H” to
hieroglyphic attestations.
9
Dating symbols criteria have been mainly taken from Harpur 1987, 33–35, but in some instances
some dates have been substituted by updated or different interpretations.
10
Abbreviations: A: ass, B: bow, BH: bare hands, C: cage, D: dog, L: lasso, MP: moschophoros-like
bearer, Q: quiver, S: staff, Sp: spear, STB: stick type bindle, ThS: throwing sticks, U: unknown, WS:
water skin, Y: yoke, Numbers in parentheses after the abbreviations indicate the number of
occurrences. Dubious examples are followed by “?”. “U” is both for unknown number of attestations
(when in parentheses), and for unknown depictions because they are incomplete or destroyed.
11
Abbreviations: A: apron, B: baldric, BA: back apron; CShK: common short kilt, DB: double
baldrick, F: feather on head, FK: fringed kilt, HB: headband, KC: knotted cloak, LC: loincloth,
LK: long kilt, N: nude, PK: pleated kilt, T: “trousers”, TShK: tripartite short kilt, U: Unknown,
Numbers in parentheses after the abbreviations indicate the number of occurrences (see note 10).
12
I am indebted to Ph. Collombert, director of the MAFS, for information on this block.
NO.8 TOMB/MONUMENT DATE9 LOCATION BIBLIOGRAPHY TOOLS10 DRESSES11

R.7 King Pepi II mortuary VI.4–6 Saqqara Jéquier 1938, 32, pls. 41–43. U [1] U [1]
complex (hunting scene, South.
incomplete).
R.8 From King Amenemhat I VI.1– Lisht (reused Goedicke 1971, 135–138 D [1] –
mortuary complex VI.7? block) MMA (no. 83). L [1]
(hunting scene?, 09.180.28.
incomplete).
b) In scenes from private monuments – Memphite area (Meidum to Giza).
NO TOMB/MONUMENT DATE LOCATION BIBLIOGRAPHY TOOLS DRESSES

M.1 Tomb of Nefermaat IV.1E– Meidum Harpur 2001, 61, fig. 74. D [5] CShK [1]
(hunting scene, M (T16). Cairo S? [1] U [2]
incomplete). Museum ThS [3]
JdE 43809.
M.2a Tomb of Itet (hunting IV.1M Meidum Harpur 2001, 89–90, fig. 88 D [2]
scene, incomplete). (T16). (upper part), 201–202,
Philadelphia, pl. 37.
Pennsylvani
a University
Museum
E.16141.
M.2b Tomb of Itet (hunters Brussels E. Harpur 2001, 89, fig. 88 BH [1]
returning from the desert, 4948 A+B. (lower part). L [1]
incomplete). S [1]
U [2]
M.2c Tomb of Itet (hunters London BM Harpur 2001, 77, fig. 80, BH [1]
returning from the desert, 69015. 189–190, pls. 11–12.
incomplete).
M.3 Tomb of Minkhaf (hunting IV.2–4 Giza Smith 19492, 167, 170, D? [1] U [1]
scene?, incomplete). (G 7430). fig. 65.
M.4a Tomb of Ptahshepses V.6 Abusir. Vachala 2004, 122–123 Q? [1] CShK [1]
(hunting scene?, (frag. E 2021 + 2159, S [1] U [1]
incomplete). no. 2353).
M.4b Tomb of Ptahshepses Vachala 2004, 122–123 BH [1] A [1]
(hunters returning from (frags. J 489 [2589], 325A). Y [1] CShK [2]
the desert?, incomplete).
M.5a Tomb of Niankhkhnum V.6L–7 Saqqara. Moussa and Altenmüller BH [2] KC [1]
and Khnumhetep 1977, 109–110, pls. 38, 40 D [3] TShK [2]
(hunting scene, complete). (scene 16.2); Harpur and L [2] TShK +
Scremin 2010, 592 (34), ThS [1] BA [1]
262 (279), 267 (286), U [1]
268 (288), 270 (290).
M.5b Tomb of Niankhkhnum Moussa and Altenmüller A [1] BA [1]
and Khnumhetep (hunters 1977, 104–105; pls. 34–35b, BH [1] CShK [2]
returning from the desert, fig. 13 (scene 15.3); Harpur S [3] FK [1]
complete). and Scremin 2010, 246–249 WS [2] LC [3]
(263–266), 591 (33), 627 (74). Y [1]
M.5c Tomb of Niankhkhnum Moussa and Altenmuller BH [2] A [2]
and Khnumhetep (hunters 1977, 118, fig. 18, pl. 48a L [1] CShK [2]
returning from the desert, (scene 22.2); Harpur and MP [2]
complete). Scremin 2010, 310 (329),
630 (78).

M.5d Tomb of Niankhkhnum Moussa and Altenmuller BH [2] A [2]
and Khnumhetep (hunters 1977, 120, fig. 19, pl. 48b MP [1] CShK [2]
returning from the desert, (scene 23); Harpur and S [1]
complete). Scremin 2010, 311 (330),
631 (79).
M.6a Tomb of Fetekty (hunting V.6–8 Abusir. Bárta 2001, 97, fig. 3.17; D [1] A [1]
scene, incomplete). 102–103, pl. 83. L [2] CShK? [1]
N? [1]
M.6b Tomb of Fetekty (hunters Bárta 2001, 97, fig. 3.17; BH [2] A [1]
returning from the desert, 102–103, pl. 83. CShK? [1]
incomplete).
M.7a Tomb of Pehenuka V.6–8E Saqqara. Lepsius [1849–1859], pl. 46; BH [1] A? [1]
(hunting scene, (LS 15 = D70) on the date see Baud 1997, D [3] CShK [1]
incomplete). 75 [1]. U [1]
M.7b Tomb of Pehenuka Lepsius [1849–1859], MP [1] CShK [2]
(hunters returning from pl. 46. ThS? [1]
the desert, incomplete). Y [1]
M.8a Tomb of Tjy (hunters V.7–8E Saqqara Wild 1953, pls. 95, 128, 132. BH [1] CShK [1]
returning from the desert, (D22). U [4] U [3]
incomplete). BH [14]
M.8b Tomb of Tjy (hunters Wild 1966, pls. 165–166. L [2] A [1]
returning from the desert, MP [4] BA [2]
complete). S [2] CShK [15]
Y [1] FK [1]
LC [1]
M.9 Tomb of Raemkai (hunting V.8 Saqqara. Roehrig 1999; on the date D [2] A? [1]
scene, complete). New York, see Baud 1997, 77 [14]. L [2] CShK [1]
MMA S [1] N [1]
08.201.1.g.
M.10a Tomb of Akhtihetep V.8L– Saqqara Davies 1913, pl. 40, 1–2; BH [1] A [1]
(hunting scene, 9E (D64). PM III2 599. D [2] KC [1]
incomplete). U [2]
M.10b Tomb of Akhtihetep Davies 1901, pl. 19. BH [6] CShK [5]
(hunters returning from L [3] LC [3]
the desert, complete). S [2]
M.11a Tomb of Ptahhetep (II)/Tjefi V.9M– Saqqara Harpur and Scremin 2008, D [7] A [1]
(hunting scene, complete). L (D64). 356 (5), 100 (139), 103 (142). L [1] KC [1]
M.11b Tomb of Ptahhetep (II)/Tjefi Harpur and Scremin 2008, BH [6] A [7]
(hunters returning from 357 (6), 167–169 (234–236), C [2] BA [2]
the desert, complete). 172 (241), 174–175 (244–245). D [5] CShK [1]
H [3] KC [1]
MP [1] LC [2]
S [1] T + BA
Y [2] [1]
M.12 Tomb of V.9 Saqqara. Unpublished.13 BH [7] CShK [11]

Ptahshepses/Tjemi MP [1]
(hunters returning from L? [1]
the desert, complete).
13
I am indebted to Saleh Soleiman (Ministry of State for Antiquities) for providing me information
on the scene. The publication of the tomb decoration is currently under preparation.
M.13a Tomb of Nimaatre V.9– Giza Roth 1995, 132–133, D [11] U [6]
(hunting scene, VI.1 (G 2097). pls. 95–97, 189.
incomplete).
M.13b Tomb of Nimaatre (hunters Roth 1995, 132–133, BH [2] U [4]
returning from the desert, pls. 96–97; 189. MP [1]
incomplete). Y [1]
M.14 Tomb of Seshemnefer [IV] V.9– Giza (LG 53). Junker 1953, 151–156, BH [1] A [1]
(hunting scene/hunters VI.1M fig. 63 facing 152, pl. 17. D [1] N [1]
returning from the desert, L [3] N + BA
incomplete). S [1] [1]
U [1] U [2]
M.15 Tomb of Akhmerutnesut V.9– Giza Roth 1988, 83–87, fig. 49. L [1] CShK [1]
(hunting scene, VI.1 (G 2184).
incomplete).
M.16 Tomb of Mereruka VI.1M Saqqara. Duell 1938, pl. 25; D [11] A [1]
(hunting scene, Kanawati, Woods, Shafik L [1]
incomplete). and Mourad 2010, pls. 19,
73a–b.
M.17a Tomb of Niankhnesut VI.1M– Saqqara. Unpublished. A description D [3] U [2]
(hunting scene, L of the scene in Daoud 2007, U [1]
incomplete). 26–28.
M.17b Tomb of Niankhnesut Cleveland PM III2 694; Berman with BH [3] CShK [1]
(hunters returning from Museum of Bohač 1999 141, no. 81. L [1] LC [1]
the desert, incomplete) (?). Art Inv. No. U [1]
1930.734.
M.17c Tomb of Niankhnesut Berlin, Kaiser 1967, 27–28, BH [2] + CShK [1]
(hunters returning from Staatliche fig. 235; Zahradnik 2009, [1?] LC [1]
the desert, incomplete) (?). Museum 209, pl. 25. L [1] U [2]
ÄM 31011. U [1]
M.18 Tomb of Remni (hunting VI.1L Saqqara. Kanawati 2009, 25–26, D [1] + KC [1]
scene, incomplete). pls. 11a–b, 45. [6?]
M.19 Tomb of Seankhuiptah/ VI.1L– Saqqara. Kanawati and D [2] U [1]
Hetepniptah (hunting 2E Abder-Raziq 1998, 56,
scene, incomplete). pl. 71.
M.20a Tomb of Meryteti/Meri VI.1L– Saqqara. Kanawati and D [14] HB [1]
(hunting scene, complete). 2M Abder-Raziq 2004, 23-26; H? [1] KC [3]
pls. 6, 46 L [1] LC [1]
ThS [1] S [2]
M.20b Tomb of Meryteti/Meri Kanawati and BH [10] CShK [10]
(hunters returning from Abder-Raziq 2004, 23–26,
the desert, complete). pl. 46.
M.21 Tomb of Inumin (hunting VI.2E Saqqara. Kanawati 2006, 13–14, D [11] KC? [1]
scene, incomplete). pls. 13–14; 47. U [1]
M.22 Tomb of Wernu (returning VI. 3–4 Davies et al. 1984, pl. 31. BH [8] CShK [14]
from the desert, complete). L [2]
MP [4]
S [2]
STB [3]
Y [1]

M.23 Unprovenanced block VI.4–6 Saqqara. Block kept in the mastaba D [1] U [1]
(hunting scene, of Idut. Unpublished.
incomplete). Černý MSS. 17.118, p. 64,
vso.14
M.24 Unknown tomb (hunting VI (?) Saqqara. Unpublished. B [1] HB [1]
scene, incomplete) Oxford, D [1] KC? [1]
Pitt Rivers
Museum, inv.
no. 1926.14.6
c) In scenes from private monuments – Provinces.

P.1 Graffiti at Wadi Sheikh Ali IV.5? Wadi Sheikh Unpublished, see Meyer, Sp? [U] U [U]
(hunting scenes). ‘Ali (Nag n.d.
Hammadi).
P.2 Tomb of Henqu/Heteti VI.1–2 Deir Kanawati 2005, 32, BH [1] CShK [3]
(hunters returning from el-Gebrawi pls. 9a–b, 39. L [2] +
the desert, incomplete). (N39). [1?]
P.3 Tomb of Ibi (hunting scene, VI.4E Deir Kanawati 2007, 44–45, B [1] CShK +
incomplete). el-Gebrawi pls. 52, 71b. D [1] + BA [1]
(S8). [2?] U [1]
WS [1]
P.4 Tomb of Nehutdesher/ VI.4–5 el-Hawawish Kanawati 1988, 12, fig. 3. D [1] LC [1]
Meri (hunting scene, (G95). L [1]
incomplete).
P.5 Tomb of Pepyankh/Khuy VI.4–5 Sharuna Schenkel and Gomaà 2004, B [1] F [1]
(hunting scene, (V23). 110, pl. 173, table 15. D [1] KC [1]
incomplete) S + WS
[1]
P.6 Tomb of Djau/Shemai and VI.4–6 Deir Kanawati 2013, 42, L [1] CShK [1]
Djau (hunters returning el-Gebrawi pls. 16b, 61, 74.
from the desert, (S12).
incomplete).
P.7 Tomb of Kahep/Tjetiiker VI.5 el-Hawawish Kanawati 1980, 26, fig. 14, – CShK [1]
(hunter figure in offering (H26). pls. 8, 10a.
procession, complete).
P.8a Tomb of Tjauty (T73) VI.5–6 Qasr wa es- Säve-Söderbergh 1994, B [1?] HB [2]
(hunting scene, Saiyad (T73). 42–43, pls. 15–17, 60a. D [7] + CShK [1]
incomplete). [1?] CShK +
DB [1]
U [1]
P.8b Tomb of Tjauty (T73) Säve-Söderbergh 1994, 44, L [4] CShK [2]
(hunters returning from pls. 18, 62a. BH [1] + U [4]
the desert, incomplete). [2?]
U [2]
14
The scene is described as “2nd reg. Hunter sending dog after desert animals. Above him […]
stiw [r]=k tp […] n […]. 3rd reg. Legs of animals”. I am very grateful to J. Málek, former keeper of
the Griffith Institute, for permitting me to consult this notebook.

P.9 Tomb of Idu/Seneni (T66) VI.5–6 Qasr wa Säve-Söderbergh 1994, 33, B [1] CShK? +
(hunting scene, es-Saiyad pls. 10; 56. D [7] + DB [1]
incomplete). (T66). [1?] U + DB [1]
P.10a Tomb of Shepsipumin/ VI.6 el-Hawawish Kanawati 1981, 23, fig. 19. D [3] CshK [2]
Kheni (H24) (hunting (H24). L [1]
scene, incomplete). S [1]
P.10b Tomb of Shepsipumin/ Kanawati 1981, 39–40; BH [1] CShK [1]
Kheni (H24) (hunter figure pl. 9; fig. 26.
in offering procession,
incomplete).
P.11a Earlier tomb of VI.6–7 Qubbet Edel 2008b, 762, 798, D [1] CShK [1]
Pepynakht/Heqaib el-Hawa fig. 20; Edel 2008d, pl. 47; L [1]
(QH 35d) (hunting scene, (QH 35d). on the date of the tomb see S [1]
complete). Vischak 2015, 236–237.
P.11b Tomb of Pepynakht/ Edel 2008b, 758, 796, D [1] CShK [1]
Heqaib 2 (hunter figure, fig. 17; Edel 2008d, pl. 45.
complete).15
P.12 Tomb of Hesimin (hunting VI.6–7 el-Hawawish Kanawati 1987, 13, fig. 3c. D [1] LC [1]
scene, incomplete). (G42). L [1]
P.13 Tomb of Intef/Bekhenet VI.7L el-Hawawish Kanawati 1987, 34, BH [1] A [1]
(hunting scene, (BA63). figs. 20–21. D [1] U [1]
incomplete). L [1]
P.14a Tomb of Meru (hunting VI.7– Naga ed-Deir Peck 1958, 99, pls. 7, 10. B [1] CShK [1]
scene, incomplete). FIP (N3737). [1?] D [1] +
P.14b Tomb of Meru (N3737) Peck 1958, 113, pl. 13. L? [1] CShK [1]
(hunter/dwarf (?)
returning from the desert,
incomplete) (?).
P.15 Decorated bowls from VI.7– Qubbet Edel 2008c, 1967–1974,

a the tomb of Sebekhotep FIP? el-Hawa 1979.
or Iishemai/Setikai (?). (QH 207).
P.15a (Hunting scene, complete). QH Edel 2008c, 1967, fig. 269, B [1] U [1]
2070/1200, 1996, pls. 44–45. D [1]
Aswan
Museum,
Inv. no.:
unknown.
P.15b (Hunting scene, complete). QH Edel 2008c, 1969, fig. 271, B [1] LK [1]
2070/1256, 1998, pl. 47. D [2]
Aswan
Museum,
Inv. no.:
unknown.
P.15c (Hunting scene, complete). QH Edel 2008c, 1970, fig. 272, B [1] F [1]
2070/1257 1999, pl. 48. D [1] LK + A +
Bonn, DB [1]
Ägyptisches
Seminar,
Inv. no. BoS
QH 0/1257
15
The title of the hunter was misread by Edel as mDH(?) (Edel 2008b, 758, 796).

P.16 Tomb of Setka (hunting VI.7– Qubbet Edel 2008c, 1800, fig. 7; B [1] CShK + A
scene, incomplete). IX/XE el-Hawa Edel 2008d, pl. 74. [1]
(QH 110).
P.17 Tomb of Ankhtify (several VI.7– Moálla. Partially published, B [2] B [1]
hunting scenes and hunter IX/XE see Vandier 1950, fig. 29; D [5] HB [1]
figures, incomplete). 93–95, figs. 45–46. CShK [1]
P.18 Abu Ballas 85/55 VI.7– Abu Ballas Förster 2013, 305, B [1] CShK + A
(hunting scene, complete). IX/X (western fig. 17, 310. D [2] [1]
desert). F [1]
P.19 Tomb of Sebekhetep IX/XE Moálla. Partially published, B [3] CShK [1]
(hunting scene, see Vandier 1950, 271–274, D [10] CShK + B
incomplete). fig. 81, pl. 42. [3]
P.20 Tomb of Iti-ibi-iqer IX/XL Asyut. el-Khadragy 2007, B [2] CShK + BA
(hunting scene, 110–113, 125, fig. 5. ThS [1] + DB [1]
incomplete). D [4] + F [2]
[1?] HB [2]
U [1]
P.21 “Dominion behind FIP/XI Farshut road Darnell 2002b, 145, fig. 14. B [1] CShK + A
Thebes” (Theban western (Theban D [1] [1]
desert) (hunter depiction, western F [1]
complete). desert).
d) In hieroglyphic texts from royal and private monuments (Memphis and provinces).

H.1 Metjen. IV.1 Saqqara. Wildung 2011, 67. Lepsius D [2] CShK [2]
Berlin, [1849–1859], pl 3. S [1]
Staatliche ThS [1]
Museum
ÄM 1105.
H.2 Nykare. V.6 Saqqara. Andreu 1997, 23; fig. 4; D [1] CShK? [1]
Cleveland, Fischer 1997, 179; figs. 3–4; S [1]
Museum Berman with Bohač 1999,
of Art 130–132, no. 72;
no. 64.91. Awad 2006, 80; figs. 1–2.
H.3 Pyramid of Neit VI.6? Saqqara Allen 2013, 665 D § 48. S [2] –
(B/E ii 29 = PT 665D § 48). South.
H.4 Pyramid of Ibi VIII Saqqara Jéquier 1935, pl. 11, D [1] –
(B/S iv 562 = PT 665D § 48). South. col. 562. S [1]
Bibliography
Abd el-Gelil, M., Saadani, A., Raue, D.
1996 “Some inscriptions and reliefs from Matariya”, MDAIK 52: 143–156.
Allen, J. P.
2013 A new concordance of the Pyramid Texts. Volume V. PT 539–672, Brown.
Almagro Basch, M., Almagro Gorbea, M.

1968 Estudios de arte rupestre nubio I. Yacimientos situados en la orilla oriental del Nilo, entre
Nag Kolorodna y Kars Ibrim (Nubia egipcia), Madrid.
Anderson, J. K.
1985 Hunting in the ancient world, Berkeley – Los Angeles – London.
Andreu, G.
1997 “La fausse porte de Ny-ka-rê”, in: Berger, C., Mathieu, B., eds., Études sur
l’Ancien Empire et la nécropole de Saqqâra dédiées à Jean-Philippe Lauer, Montpellier,
21–30.
Arnold, Do.
1999 “66. Group of archers”, in: Egyptian art in the age of the pyramids, New York,
265–267.
Awad, Kh. A. Hamza

2006 “Untersuchung zu den Beamtentiteln des Nj-kA-Ra anhand der Scheintur Nr. 64.91
im Cleveland Museum of Art”, in: Moers, G, Behlmer, H., Demuß, K., Widmaier, K.,
eds., in.t Drw. Festschrift fur Friedrich Junge. Band I., Göttingen, 73–87.
el-Awady, T.
2009 Abusir XVI. Sahure – The pyramid causeway. History and decoration program in
the Old Kingdom, Prague.
Baines, J.
1990 “Restricted knowledge, hierarchy, and decorum: modern perceptions and ancient
institutions”, JARCE 27: 1–23.
2013 High culture and experience in ancient Egypt, Sheffield – Bristol.
Bárta, M.
2001 Abusir V. The cemeteries at Abusir South I, Prague.
Baud, M.
1997 “Aux pieds de Djoser. Les mastabes entre fossé et enceinte de la partie nord du
complexe funéraire”, in: Berger, C., Mathieu, B., eds., Études sur l’Ancien Empire et
la nécropole de Saqqâra dédiées à Jean-Philippe Lauer, Montpellier, 69–87.
Behrens, P.
1986 “Straussenfeder”, LÄ VI: 77–82.
Berke, H.
2009 “Scope and behaviour of flight in Saharan gazelles: a remarkable change between
1850 AD and the present”, in: Riemer, H., Förster, F., Herb, M., Pöllath, N., eds.,
Desert animals in the eastern Sahara: status, economic significance, and cultural reflection
in antiquity, Cologne, 128–139.
Berman, L. M., with Bohač, K. J.

1999 The Cleveland Museum of Art. Catalogue of Egyptian art, Cleveland.
Bierbrier, M. L.
20124 Who was who in Egyptology, London.
Blackman, A. M.
1914 The rock tombs of Meir. Part I. The chapel of Ukh-ḥotp’s son Senbi, London.
Blackmore, H. L.
1972 Hunting weapons: from the Middle Ages to the twentieth century, New York.
Borchardt, L.
1913 Das Grabdenkmal des %’aAHu-re’. Band II. Die Wandbilder, Leipzig.
1931 “Ein verzierter Stabteil aus vorgeschichtlicher Zeit”, ZÄS 66: 12–14.
Brixhe, J.
2000 “Contribution à l’étude des canidés dans l’Égypte ancienne”, BiOr 57/1–2:
5–16.
Brizzi, V., Loi, C.

2013 “Tranciante trasverso, cui prodest?”, Cuadernos de prehistoria y arqueología de la
Universidad de Granada 23, 133–164.
Burton, R. F.
1856 First footsteps in east Africa or, an exploration of Harar, London.
Caneva, I.
1970 “I crescenti litici del Fayum”, Origini 4: 161–204.
Clark, J. D., Phillips, J. L., Staley, P. S.

1974 “Interpretations of prehistoric technology from ancient Egyptian and other
sources. Part 1: ancient Egyptian bows and arrows and their relevance for African
prehistory”, Paléorient 2/2: 323–388.
Clarysse, W., Thompson, D. J.

2006 Counting the people in Hellenistic Egypt: Volume 2, historical studies, Cambridge.
Ćwiek, A.
2003 Relief decoration in the royal funerary complexes of the Old Kingdom. Studies in
the development, scene content and iconography, unpublished PhD thesis, Warsaw.
Daoud, Kh.
2007 “Notes on the tomb of Niankhnesut, part I: Reliefs and descriptions”, SAK 36:
23–30.
Darnell, J. Coleman
2002a Theban desert road survey in the Egyptian western desert. Volume 1. Gebel Tjauti rock
inscriptions 1–45 and Wadi el-Hôl rock inscriptions 1–45, Chicago.
2002b “Opening the narrow doors of the desert: discoveries of the Theban desert
road survey”, in: Friedman, R., ed., Egypt and Nubia. Gifts of the desert, London,
132–155.
Davies, N. de G.
1901 The Mastaba of Ptahhetep and Akhethetep, Part II, London.
1913 Five Theban Tombs, London.
Davies, W. V., el-Khouli, A., Lloyd, A. B., Spencer, A. J.

1984 Saqqara tombs I. The mastabas of Mereri and Wernu, London.
Diego Espinel, A.
2006 Etnicidad y territorio en el Egipto del Reino Antiguo, Barcelona.
2011 “Blocks from the Unas causeway recorded in Černý’s notebooks at the Griffith
Institute, Oxford”, in: Strudwick, N., Strudwick, H., eds., Old Kingdom, new perspectives.
Egyptian art and archaeology 2750–2150 BC, Oxford, 50–70.
2014 “Surveyors, guides and other officials in the Egyptian and Nubian deserts.
Epigraphic and historical remarks on some Old Kingdom graffiti”, RdE 65: 29–48.
von Droste zu Hülshoff, V.

1980 Der Igel im alten Ägypten, Hildesheim.
Duell, P.
1938 The mastaba of Mereruka. Part I. Chambers A1–10. Plates 1–103, Chicago.
Edel, E.
2008a Die Felsengräbernekropole der Qubbet el-Hawa bei Assuan. I. Abteilung. Band 1.
Architektur, Darstellungen, Texte, archäologischer Befund und Fund der Gräber
QH 24–QH 34p, Padeborn.
2008b Die Felsengräbernekropole der Qubbet el-Hawa bei Assuan. I. Abteilung. Band 2.
QH 35–QH 101, Padeborn.
2008c Die Felsengräbernekropole der Qubbet el-Hawa bei Assuan. I. Abteilung. Band 3.
2008d Die Felsengräbernekropole der Qubbet el-Hawa bei Assuan. I. Abteilung. Band 4. Pläne
und Tafeln: Architektur, Darstellungen, Texte, archäologischer Befund und Funde der Gräber
Edel, E., Wenig, S.

1974 Die Jahreszeitenreliefs aus dem Sonneheiligtum des Königs Ne-user-re, Berlin.
Evans, L.
2010 Animal behaviour in Egyptian art, Oxford.
Fakhry, A.
1961 The monument of Sneferu at Dahshur. Volume II. The valley temple. Part II. The finds, Cairo.
Feder, F.
1998 “Das Ritual ‘saha-ka-sehnet’ als Tempelfest des Gottes Min”, in: Gundlach, R.,
Rochholz, M., eds., Feste im Tempel. 4. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung, Köln, 10.–12.
Oktober 1996, Wiesbaden, 31–54.
Ferraro, G., Andreatta, S.

2014 Cultural anthropology. An applied perspective, Stamford, CT.
Fischer, H. G.
1958 “Eleventh dynasty relief fragments from Deir el Bahri”, Yale University Art Gallery
Bulletin 24/2: 28–38.
1961 “The Nubian mercenaries of Gebelein during the First Intermediate Period”, Kush
9: 44–80.
1962 “The archer as represented in the First Intermediate Period”, JNES 21/1: 50–52.
1964 Inscriptions from the Coptite nome. Dynasties VI–XI, Rome.
1996 Egyptian studies III. Varia Nova, New York.
1997 “Quelques particuliers à Saqqâra”, in: Berger, C., Mathieu, B., eds., Études sur
l’Ancien Empire et la nécropole de Saqqâra dédiées à Jean-Philippe Lauer, Montpellier,
177–189.
Förster, F.
2013 “Beyond Dakhla: the Abu Ballas trail in the Libyan desert (SW Egypt)”, in:
Förster, F., Riemer, H., ed., Desert road archaeology in ancient Egypt and beyond,
Cologne, 297–337.
Frood, E.
2013 “Egypt and Sudan: Old Kingdom to Late Period”, in: Hicks, D., Stevenson, A., eds.,
World archaeology at the Pitt Rivers Museum: a characterization, Oxford, 90–114.
Galaty, J.
2002 “Vue sur la violence: les frontiers du conflit pastoral au Kenya”, Anthropologie et
Sociétés 26/1: 107–126.
Gandonnière, C.
2014 “Hunters and group of hunters from the Old to the New Kingdom”, Nehet 1:
47–69.
García, D., Galán, J. M.

2016 “An archery set from Dra Abu el-Naga”, Egyptian archaeology 49, 24–28.
Gardiner, A. H., Peet, T. E., Černý, J.

1952 The inscriptions of the Sinai. Part 1. Introduction and plates, London.
Giuliani, S.
2004 “Some cultural aspects of the Medja of the eastern desert”, in: Kendall, T., ed.,
Proceedings of the ninth conference of the international society of Nubian studies (Boston,
21–26 August 1998), Boston, 286–290.
Goedicke, H.
1971 Re-used blocks from the pyramid of Amenemhet I at Lisht, New York.
Goldwasser, O.
2002 Prophets, lovers and giraffes: wor(l)d classification in ancient Egypt, Harrasowitz.
Gotti, G.
2009 “2.11. Stele funeraria di Khuj”, in: d’Amicone, E., Pozzi Battaglia, M., eds., Egitto
mai visto. La montagna dei morti: Assiut quattromila anni fa, Turin.
Graff, G., Kelany, A.

2013 “Paysages graves: la longue continuité du Wadi Abu Subeira (région d’Assouan,
Egypte)”, in: Anati, A., ed., Art as a source of history, Paris, 2013, 315–324.
Grajetzki, W.
2003 Burial customs in ancient Egypt. Life in death for rich and poor, London.
Guagnin, M., Jennings, R. P., Clark-Balzan, L., Groucutt, H. S., Parton, A., Petraglia, M. D.
2015 “Hunters and herders: exploring the neolithic transition in the rock art of
Shuwaymis, Saudi Arabia”, Archaeological Research in Asia 4: 3–16.
Hafsaas, H.
2004 Cattle pastoralists in a multicultural setting. The C-Group people in Lower Nubia.
2500–1500, Ramallah – Bergen.
Hamilakis, Y.
2003 “The sacred geography of hunting: wild animals, social power and gender in
early farming societies”, British School at Athens Studies 9: 239–247.
Harpur, Y.
1987 Decoration in Egyptian tombs of the Old Kingdom. Studies in orientation and scene
content, London – New York.
2001 The tombs of Nefermaat and Rahotep at Maidum. Discovery, destruction and reconstruction,
Cheltenham.
n.d. Oxford Expedition to Egypt: scene details database, York. http://archaeologydataservice.
ac.uk/archives/view/oee_ahrc_2006/. Accessed on 04.11.15.
Harpur, Y., Scremin, P.

2006 The chapel of Kagemni. Scene details, Oxford.
2008 The chapel of Ptahhotep. Scene details, Oxford.
2010 The chapel of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhetep. Scene details, Oxford.
Hassan, A.
1976 Stöcke und Stäbe im Pharaonischen Ägypten bis zum Ende des Neuen Reiches, Munich
– Berlin.
Hassan, F.
1975a Mastabas of Ny-‘ankh-Pepy and others, Cairo.
1975b The mastaba of Neb-kaw-her, Cairo.
1975c Mastabas of princess Hemet-R´ and others, Cairo.
Hellström, P.
1970 The Scandinavian joint expedition to Sudanese Nubia. Volume 1:2 (plates). The rock
drawings, Odense.
Hendrickx, S.
2006 “The dog, the Lycaon pictus and order over chaos in Predynastic Egypt”, in:
Kroeper, K., Chłodnicki, M., Kobusiewicz, M., eds., Archaeology of Early Northeastern
Africa in memory of Lech Krzyżaniak, Poznań, 723–749.
2010 “L’iconographie de la chasse dans le contexte social prédynastique”, Archéo-Nil
20: 106–130.
Hendrickx, S., Eyckerman, M.

2012 “Visual representation and state development in Egypt”, Archéo-Nil 22: 23–72.
Herb, M., Förster, F.

2009 “From desert to town: The economic role of desert game in the Pyramid ages of
ancient Egypt as inferred from historical sources (c. 2600–1800 BC). An outline of
the workshop’s inspiration and objectives”, in: Riemer, H., Förster, F., Herb, M.,
Pöllath, N., eds., Desert animals in the eastern Sahara: status, economic significance, and
cultural reflection in antiquity, Cologne, 17–44.
Hikade, Th.
2001 “Silex-Pfeilspitzen in Ägypten”, MDAIK 57: 109–125.
Hobbs, J. J.
1989 Bedouin life in the Egyptian wilderness, Austin.
Hobbs, J. J., Goodman, S. M.

1995 “Leopard-hunting scenes in dated rock art paintings from the Northern Eastern
Desert of Egypt”, Sahara 7: 7–16.
Hoffmeier, J. K.
1975 “Hunting desert game with the bow: a brief examination”, SSEA Newsletter 6/2:
8–13.
d’Huy, J.
2009 “Une volonté de s’appropier symboliquement les qualités de l’autruche serait
à l’origine de certains jeux graphiques dans l’art rupestre du Sahara oriental”,
Cahiers de l’association des amis de l’art rupestre saharienne 13: 1–4.
Ingold, T.
1993 “The reindeerman’s lasso”, in: Lemonnier, P., ed., Technological choices: transformations
in material cultures since the Neolithic, London, 108–125.
Jaroš-Deckert, B.
1984 Das Grab des Jnj-jtj.f. Die Wandmalereien der XI. Dynastie, Mainz am Rhein.
Jéquier, G.
1921 Les frises d’objects des sarcophages du Moyen Empire, Cairo.
1935 La pyramide d’Aba, Cairo.
1938 Le monument funéraire de Pepi II. Tome II. Le temple, Cairo.
Judd, T.
2009 Rock art of the Eastern desert of Egypt. Content, comparisons, dating and significance,
Oxford.
Junker, H.
1953 Giza XI. Das Friedhof südlich der Cheopspyramide, Wien.
Kahl, J.
2003 Frühägyptisches Wörterbuch. Zweite Lieferung m–h, Wiesbaden.
2007 Ancient Asyut. The first synthesis after 300 years of research, Wiesbaden.
Kaiser, W.
1967 Ägyptisches Museum Berlin, Berlin.
Kanawati, N.
1980 The rock tombs of el-Hawawish. The cemetery of Akhmim. Volume I, Sydney.
1981 The rock tombs of el-Hawawish. The cemetery of Akhmim. Volume II, Sydney.
1987 The rock tombs of el-Hawawish. The cemetery of Akhmim. Volume VII, Sydney.
1988 The rock tombs of el-Hawawish. The cemetery of Akhmim. Volume VIII, Sydney.
2005 Deir el-Gebrawi. Volume I. The northern cliff, Oxford.
2006 The Teti cemetery at Saqqara. Volume VIII. The tomb of Inumin, Oxford.
2007 Deir el-Gebrawi. Volume II. The tomb of Ibi and others, Oxford.
2009 The Teti cemetery at Saqqara. Volume IX. The tomb of Remni, Oxford.
2013 Deir el-Gebrawi. Volume III. The tomb of Djau/Shemai and Djau, Oxford.
Kanawati, N., Abder-Raziq, M.

1998 The Teti cemetery at Saqqara. Volume III. The tombs of Neferseshemre and Seankhuiptah,
Warminster.
2004 Mereruka and his family. Part I. The tomb of Meryteti, Oxford.
Kanawati, N., Woods, A., Shafik, S., Mourad, A. L.

2010 Mereruka and his family. Part III:1. The tomb of Mereruka, Oxford.
Kao, C. Y., Salwen, M. J., Hu, S. L., Pitter, H. M., Woolard, J. M.

1989 “Diamphidia toxin, the bushmen’s arrow poison: possible mechanism of prey-
-killing”, Toxicon 27/12, 1351–1366.
Kaper, O., Willems, H.
2002 “Policing the desert: Old Kingdom activitiy around the Dakhleh Oasis”, in:
Friedman, R., ed., Egypt and Nubia. Gifts of the desert, London, 79–94.
Kaplony, P.
1963 Die Inschriften der ägyptischen Fruhzeit. Band III: Abbildungen, Harrasowitz.
1981 Die Rollsiegel des Alten Reiches. II. Katalog der Rollsiegel. B. Tafeln, Brussels.
Kassam, A., Megersa, G.

1989 “Iron and beads: male and female symbols of creation. A study of ornament
among Booran Oromo (East Africa)”, in: Hodder, I., ed., The meanings of things.
Material culture and symbolic expression, London, 23–32.
Kemna, Cl.
1992 “Bemerkungen zu den Darstellungen der Wildeseljagd”, in: Sesto congresso
internazionale di Egittologia. Atti. Volume I, Turin, 365–371.
el-Khadragy, M.
2007 “Some significant features in the decoration of the chapel of Iti-ibi-iqer at Asyut”,
SAK 36: 105–135.
Kitchen, K. A.
1982 Ramesside inscriptions historical and biographical, Volume III, Oxford.
Labrousse, A., Lauer, J.-Ph.

2000a Les complexes funéraires d’Ouserkaf et de Néferhétepès. Texte, Cairo.
2000b Les complexes funéraires d’Ouserkaf et de Néferhétepès. Planches, Cairo.
Labrousse, A., Moussa, A.

1996 Le temple d’accueil du complexe funéraire du roi Ounas, Cairo.
2002 La chaussée du complexe funéraire du roi Ounas, Cairo.
Legge, A. J.
2010 “The hyaena in dynastic Egypt: fancy food or fantasy food?”, International Journal
of Osteoarchaeology 21: 613–621.
Leibenberg, L.
2006 “Persistence hunting in modern hunter-gatherers”, Current Anthropology 4/6:
1017–1026.
2013 The origin of science. On the evolutionary roots of science and its implications for
selfeducation and citizen science, Cape Town.
Lepsius, C. R.
[1849–1859] Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien nach den Zeichnungen der von seiner
Majestaet dem Koenige von Preussen Friedrich Wilhelm IV nach diesen Laendern
gesendeten und in den Jahren 1842–1845 ausgefuehrten wissenschaftlichen Expedition.
Zweite Abtheilung. Denkmaeler des Alten Reich. Blatt I–LXXXI, Berlin.
Lesur, J.
2015 “Exploitation animale à l’Ancien Empire en Égypte: les apports d’Ayn Asil (oasis
de Dakhla)”, Anthropozoologica 50/1: 33–47.
Listemann, K.
2010 Kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung des Hundes im Alten Ägypten. Untersuchungen anhand
archäologischen und archäologischer Quellen, Munich.
Liszka, K.
2010 “‘Medjay’ (no. 188) in the Onomasticon of Amenemope”, in: Hawass, Z., Wegner, J.,
eds., Millions of jubilees. Studies in honor of David P. Silverman. Volume I, Cairo,
315–331.
Macramallah, R.
1935 Le mastaba d’Idout, Cairo.
Marlowe, F. W.
2010 The Hadza. Hunter-gatherers of Tanzania, Berkeley – Los Angeles – London.
Marshall, N.
2012 “The desert and the hunt”, in: McFarlane, A., Mourad, A.-L., ed., Behind the scenes.
Daily life in Old Kingdom Egypt, Oxford, 125–146.
McDermott, B.
2002 Ancient Egyptian footsoldiers and their weapons: a study of military iconography and
weapon remains (unpublished PhD Thesis), Manchester.
Menardi Noguera, A., Zboray, A.

2011 “Containers, bags, and other manmade objects in the pastoral paintings of the Jebel
el-‘Uweinat: a review”, Cahiers de l’association des amis de l’art rupestre saharienne
15: 274–294.
2012 “Elongated human figures, large cows and tethered wild animals from the northern
Jebel Arkenu (Libya)”, Sahara 23: 133–146.
Meyer, M. W.
n. d. “Wadi Shaikh ‘Ali”, in: Torjesen, K. J., Gabra, G., ed., Claremont Coptic encyclopedia,
Claremont. http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/ref/collection/cce/id/1906.
Accessed on 30.10.15.
Michaux-Colombot, D.
1994 “The mDAy.w, not policemen but an ethnic group from the Eastern Desert”, in:
Bonnet, C., ed., Études nubiennes. Conférence de Genève. Actes du VIIe congrès
international d’études nubiennes, 3–8 septembre 1990, Genève.
2013 “La ruralité méconnue des Medjay immigrés en Égypte au Nouvel Empire”,
Res Antiquae 10: 323–352.
Mills, A. J.
2007 “Report to the Supreme Council of Antiquities on the Excavation activities
in 2007 at the Old Kingdom settlement at ‘Ain Gezareen, Dakhleh Oasis”.
http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/ancient-cultures/files/2013/04/gazzareen-report-
2007.pdf. Accessed on 23. 10. 2015.
Minas-Nerpel, M., de Meyer, M.

2013 “Raising the pole for Min in the temple of Isis at Shanhūr”, ZÄS 140: 150–166.
Mohamed Abdou Mohamed, A.

2011 The tomb of Akhethotep Hemi re-used by Nebkauhor Idu, unpublished PhD thesis,
Prague.
Montet, P.
1925 Les scènes de la vie privée dans les tombeaux égyptiens de l’Ancien Empire,
Strasbourg.
Moreno García, J. C.
2003 “Production alimentaire et idéologie: les limites de l’iconographie pour l’étude
des pratiques agricoles et alimentaires des Égyptiens du IIIe millénaire avant J.-C.”,
Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 29/2: 73–95.
2006 “La gestion sociale de la mémoire dans l’Égypte du IIIe millénaire: les tombes
des particuliers, entre emploi privée et idéologie publique”, in: Fitzenreiter, M.,
Herb, M., ed., Dekorierte Grabanlagen im Alten Reich. Methodik und Interpretation,
London, 215–242.
2010 “La gestion des aires marginales: pHw, gs, Tnw, sxt au IIIe millénaire”, in: Woods,
A., McFarlane, A., Binder, S., eds., Egyptian cultura and society. Studies in honour of
Naguib Kanawati. Volume II, Cairo, 49–69.
Morrow, M., Morrow, M., Judd, T.

20102 Desert rats: rock art topographical survey in Egypt’s eastern desert, Oxford.
Morse, E. S.
1885 Ancient and modern methods of arrow release, Salem.
Moursi, M.
1987 “Die Ausgrabungen in der Gegend um die Pyramide des Dd-kA-ra ‘issj’ bei
Saqqara”, ASAE 71: 185–193.
Moussa, A., Altenmuller, H.

1977 Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhetep, Mainz am Rhein.
Müller, H. W.
1989 Der „Armreif“ des Königs Ahmose und der Handgelenkschutz des Bogenschützen im
Alten Ägypten und Vorderasien, Mainz am Rhein.
Nankov, E.
2010 “Why one needs ‘the odd man out’? The deer hunter with lagobolon from
the frescoes in the Thracian tomb near Alexandrovo”, Archaeologia Bulgarica 14/1:
35–55.
Newberry, P. E.
1893 Beni Hasan. Part I, London.
[1895] El Bersheh. Part I. The tomb of Tehuti-hetep, London.
1944 “The ‘Formido’ employed in hunting by the Egyptians of the Middle Kingdom”,
JEA 30: 75–76.
Oppenheim, A.
1999 “103. Cast of a block with running tropos and an inscription with the names and
titles of Userkaf”, in: Egyptian art in the age of the pyramids, New York, 318–319.
Pantalacci, L., Lesur-Gebremariam, J.

2009 “Wild animals downtown: Evidence from Balat, Dakhla Oasis (end of the 3rd
millennium BC)”, in: Riemer, H., Förster, F., Herb, M., Pöllath, N., eds., Desert
animals in the eastern Sahara: status, economic significance, and cultural reflection in
antiquity, Cologne, 245–259.
Pantalacci, L., Lesur, J.

2012 “Élevage et consommation de viande Balat (oasis de Dakhla). Fin de l’Ancien
Empir-Première Période intermédiaire”, BIFAO 112: 291–315.
Peck, C. Nestmann
1958 Some decorated tombs of the First Intermediate Period at Naga ed-Der, Ann Harbor.
Pemler, D.
2014 “Looking for Nubians in Egypt. Taking a look at the iconographic evidence from
the 1st Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom”, in: Anderson, J. R., Welsby, D. A.,
eds., The Fourth Cataract and beyond. Proceedings of the 12th international conference for
Nubian studies, Leuven – Paris – Walpole, Ma, 443–449.
Petrie, W. M. F., Mackay, E., Wainwright, G.

1910 Meydum and Memphis (III), London.
Phillips, S. R.
2006 “Two enigmatic circular mud brick structures in the Western Field at Giza.
A preliminary report”, in: Bárta, M., ed., The Old Kingdom art and archaeology.
Proceedings of the conference held in Prague, May 31 – June 4, 2004, Prague, 239–258.
Pöllath, N.
2009 “The prehistoric gamebag: the archaeozoological record from sites in the Western
Desert of Egypt”, in: Riemer, H., Förster, F., Herb, M., Pöllath, N., eds., Desert
animals in the eastern Sahara: status, economic significance, and cultural reflection in
antiquity, Cologne, 79–108.
Porat, N., Avner, U., Holzer, A., Shemtov, R., Horwitz, L. K.

2013 “Fourth-millennium-BC ‘leopard traps’ from the Negev Desert (Israel)”, Antiquity
87: 714–727.
Posener-Kriéger, P.
2004 I papiri di Gebelein – Scavi G. Farina 1935, Turin.
Le Quellec, J.-L.
2010 “La chasse au filet sur les peintures rupestres du Sahara central et dans
l’Antiquité”, Cahiers de l’association des amis de l’art rupestre saharienne 14: 255–262.
2011 “Arcs et bracelets d’archers au Sahara et en Égypte, avec une nouvelle proposition
de lectura des ‘nasses’ sahariennes”, Cahiers de l’association des amis de l’art rupestre
saharienne 15: 201–220.
Le Quellec, J.-L., de Flers, P., de Flers, Ph.

2007 Du Sahara au Nil. Peintures rupestres d’avant les pharaons, Paris.
Raïos-Chouliara, H.
1981a “La chasse et les animaux sauvages d’apres les papyrus grecs”, Ἀναγέννησις 1/1:
45–88.
Redding, R.
2010 “Status and diet at the workers’ town, Giza, Egypt”, in: Campana, D., Crabtree,
P., deFrance, S. D., Lev-Tov, J., Choyke, A., eds., Anthropological approaches to
zooarchaeology. Complexity, colonialism, and animal transformations, Oxford, 65–75.
Rice, M.
2006 Swifter than the arrow. The golden hunting hounds of ancient Egypt, New York –
London.
Riemer, H., Försters, F., Hendrickx, S., Nussbaum, S., Eichhorn, B., Pöllath, N.,
Schönfeld, P., Wagner, G.
2005 “Zwei pharaonische Wustenstationen sudwestlich von Dachla”, MDAIK 61:
291–350.
Roehrig, C. H.
1999 “147. The hunt in the desert from the tomb of Ra-em-kai”, in: Egyptian art in the age
of the pyramids, New York, 400–401.
Romion, J.
2014 “Des Égyptiens portant un baudrier libyen?”, Égypte Nilotique et Méditerranéenne 4,
91–102.
Rosevear, D. R.
1974 The carnivores of west Africa, London.
Roth, A. Macy
1988 “14. Mastaba chapel of Akh-Meret-Nesut and his family”, in: d’Auria, S.,
Lacovara, P., Roehrig, C. H., eds., Mummies and magic. The funerary arts of ancient
Egypt, Boston, 83–87.
1995 A cemetery of palace attendants. Including G 2084–2099, G 2230+2231, and G 2240,
Boston.
Saad. Z. Y.
1947 Royal excavations at Saqqara and Helwan (1941–1945), Cairo.
Saraydar, S. C.
2012 “The Egyptian drill. A unique dual-mode device”, Ethnoarchaeology 4/1:
37–52.
Säve-Söderbergh, T.
1994 The Old Kingdom cemetery at Hamra Dom (el-Qasr wa es-Saiyad), Stockholm.
Schäfer, H.
1974 Principles of Egyptian art, Oxford.
Schenkel, W., Gomaà, F.

2004 Scharuna I. Der Grabungsplatz. Die Nekropole. Gräber aus der Alten-Reichs-Nekropole,
Mainz am Rhein.
Seidlmayer, S.
1990 Gräberfelder aus dem Übergang vom Alten zum Mittleren Reich. Studien zur Archäologie
der Ersten Zwischenzeit, Heidelberg.
Siebels, R.
1996 “The wearing of sandals in Old Kingdom tomb decoration”, BACE 7: 75–88.
Smith, W. Stevenson
19492 A history of Egyptian sculpture and painting in the Old Kingdom, London.
Staring, N.
2008 “Iconographic programme and tomb architecture: a focus on desert-related
themes”, in: Gashe, V., Finch, J. eds., Current research in Egyptology 2008.
Proceedings of the ninth annual symposium which took place at the KNH centre for
biomedical Egyptology, University of Manchester, January 2008, Oxford, 129–138.
2011 “Fixed rules or personal choice? On the composition and arrangement of daily life
scenes in Old Kingdom elite tombs”, in: Strudwick, N., Strudwick, H., eds., Old
Kingdom, new perspectives. Egyptian art and archaeology 2750–2150 BC, Oxford, 256–269.
Stevenson, A.
2013 “Egypt and Sudan: Mesolithic to Early Dynastic Period”, in: Hicks, D.,
Stevenson, A., eds., World archaeology at the Pitt Rivers Museum: a characterization,
Oxford, 60–89.
Strecker, I.
1999 “The temptations of war and the struggle for peace among the Hamar of
Southern Ethiopia”, in: Elvert, G., Feuchtwang, S., Neubert, D., eds., Sociologus
Sonderband: Dynamics of violence – Processes of escalation and de-escalation in violent
group conflicts, Berlin, 227–259.
Swinton, J.
2012 The management of estates and their resources in the Egyptian Old Kingdom, Oxford.
Tarakini, T., Crosmary, W.-G., Fritz, H., Mundy, P.

2014 “Flight behavioural responses to sport hunting by two African herbivores”, South
African Journal of Wildlife Research 44/1: 76–83.
Tassie, G. J.
2008 The social and ritual contextualization of ancient Egyptian hair and hairstyle from
the Protodynastic to the end of the Old Kingdom, unpublished PhD thesis, London.
Tukura, D.
1994 “African archery”, in: Hamm, J., ed., The traditional bowyer’s bible. Volume three,
Fort Worth, 143–162
Váhala, F., Červíček, P.

1999 Katalog der Felsbilder aus der Tschechoslowakischen Konzession in Nubien – Die Tafeln,
Prague.
Vachala, B.
2004 Abusir VIII. Die Relieffragmente aus der Mastaba des Ptahschepses in Abusir, Prague.
Vandier, J.
1950 Moàlla – La tombe d’Anktifi et la tombe de Sébekhotep, Cairo.
1964 Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Tome IV. Bas-reliefs et peintures – scenes de la vie
quotidienne, Paris.
van Walsem, R.
2014 “Jachticonografie in de elite graven van het Oude Rijk in Egypte”, Phoenix 60/2–3:
69-97.
Veldmeijer, A. J.
2011 Amarna’s leatherwork: preliminary analysis and catalogue, Leiden.
Vischak, D.
2006 “Agency in Old Kingdom elite tomb programs: traditions, locations, and variable
meanings”, in: Fitzenreiter, M., Herb, M., ed., Dekorierte Grabanlagen im Alten Reich.
Methodik und Interpretation, London, 255–276.
2015 Community and identity in ancient Egypt. The Old Kingdom cemetery at Qubbet el-Hawa,
New York – Cambridge.
Vogelsang-Eastwood, G.
1993 Pharaonic Egyptian clothing, Leiden – New York – Köln.
Wachsmann, Sh.
2009 “On drawing the bow”, Eretz-Israel 29: 238*–257*.
Wenke, R. J., Buck, P. E., Hamroush, H.A., Kobusiewicz, M., Kroeper, K., Redding, R.
1988 “Kom el-Hisn: excavation of an Old Kingdom settlement in the Egyptian delta”,
JARCE 25: 5–34.
Wernick, N.
2014 “Slings in the ancient Near East with reference to the Egyptian material”, ZÄS 141/1:
97–103.
Western, A. C., McLeod, W.

1995 “Woods used in Egyptian bows and arrows”, JEA 81: 77–94.
Wild, H.
1953 Le tombeau de Ti. Fascicule II. La chapelle (première partie), Cairo.
1966 Le tombeau de Ti. Fascicule III. La chapelle (deuxième partie), Cairo.
Wildung, D.
2011 Tierbilder und Tierzeichen im Alten Ägypten, Berlin – Munich.
Wilkinson, J. G.
1837 Manners and customs of the ancient Egyptians including their private life, government,
laws, arts, manufactures, religion, and early history derived from a comparison of the paintings,
sculptures, and monuments still existing, with the accounts of ancient authors. Vol. I,
London.
Willems, H.
1996 The coffin of Heqata (Cairo JdE 36148). A case study of Egyptian funerary culture of
the early Middle Kingdom, Leuven.
Woodburn, J.
1970 Hunters and gatherers: the material culture of the nomadic Hadza, London.
Yoyotte, J.
1952 “Une épithète de Min comme exploratéur des regions orientales”, RdÉ 9: 125–137.
Zahradnik, E.
2009 Der Hund als geliebtes Haustier im Alten Ägypten anhand von bildlichen, schriftlichen
und archäologischen Quellen – Altes und Mittleres Reich, Berlin.
Zelenková, L.
2010 “The royal kilt in non-royal iconography? The tomb owner fowling and spear-
-fishing in the Old and Middle Kingdoms”, BACE 21: 141–166.
Zitman, M.
2010 The necropolis of Assiut. A case study of local Egyptian funerary culture from the Old
Kingdom to the end of the Middle Kingdom. Text, Leuven – Paris – Walpole.

2017 A Neglected Hunting Scene From Saqq

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 A Neglected Hunting Scene From Saqq

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Miroslav Bárta / Filip Coppens / Jaromír Krejčí (editors)

ABUSIR AND SAQQARA

ABUSIR AND SAQQARA

Faculty of Arts, Charles University

© Faculty of Arts, Charles University, and individual contributors, 2017

This volume is dedicated to the memory of Nicole Alexanian (1965–2016)

Bárta, M. and Krejčí, J., eds.

Bárta, M., Coppens, F. and Krejčí, J., eds.

Bárta, M., Coppens, F. and Krejčí, J., eds.

A neglected hunting scene from Saqqara (Pitt rivers

Fig. 2. Text at the back of

of Userkaf. A provenance from other areas of Saqqara cannot be excluded however,

The iconography of the hunters in the Old Kingdom

Desert hunting scenes: interpretative handicaps and general features

Conclusion: The PRM relief in context

Appendix: List of depictions of hunters in Old Kingdom monuments

NO.8 TOMB/MONUMENT DATE9 LOCATION BIBLIOGRAPHY TOOLS10 DRESSES11

NO.8 TOMB/MONUMENT DATE9 LOCATION BIBLIOGRAPHY TOOLS10 DRESSES11

b) In scenes from private monuments – Memphite area (Meidum to Giza).

NO TOMB/MONUMENT DATE LOCATION BIBLIOGRAPHY TOOLS DRESSES

NO TOMB/MONUMENT DATE LOCATION BIBLIOGRAPHY TOOLS DRESSES

M.12 Tomb of V.9 Saqqara. Unpublished.13 BH [7] CShK [11]

NO TOMB/MONUMENT DATE LOCATION BIBLIOGRAPHY TOOLS DRESSES

NO TOMB/MONUMENT DATE LOCATION BIBLIOGRAPHY TOOLS DRESSES

c) In scenes from private monuments – Provinces.

NO TOMB/MONUMENT DATE LOCATION BIBLIOGRAPHY TOOLS DRESSES

NO TOMB/MONUMENT DATE LOCATION BIBLIOGRAPHY TOOLS DRESSES

P.15 Decorated bowls from VI.7– Qubbet Edel 2008c, 1967–1974,

NO TOMB/MONUMENT DATE LOCATION BIBLIOGRAPHY TOOLS DRESSES

NO TOMB/MONUMENT DATE LOCATION BIBLIOGRAPHY TOOLS DRESSES

Almagro Basch, M., Almagro Gorbea, M.

Awad, Kh. A. Hamza

Berman, L. M., with Bohač, K. J.

Brizzi, V., Loi, C.

Clark, J. D., Phillips, J. L., Staley, P. S.

Clarysse, W., Thompson, D. J.

Davies, W. V., el-Khouli, A., Lloyd, A. B., Spencer, A. J.

von Droste zu Hülshoff, V.

Edel, E., Wenig, S.

Ferraro, G., Andreatta, S.

García, D., Galán, J. M.

Gardiner, A. H., Peet, T. E., Černý, J.

Graff, G., Kelany, A.

Harpur, Y., Scremin, P.

Hendrickx, S., Eyckerman, M.

Herb, M., Förster, F.

Hobbs, J. J., Goodman, S. M.

Kanawati, N., Abder-Raziq, M.

Kanawati, N., Woods, A., Shafik, S., Mourad, A. L.

Kao, C. Y., Salwen, M. J., Hu, S. L., Pitter, H. M., Woolard, J. M.

Kassam, A., Megersa, G.

Labrousse, A., Lauer, J.-Ph.

Labrousse, A., Moussa, A.

Menardi Noguera, A., Zboray, A.

Minas-Nerpel, M., de Meyer, M.

Mohamed Abdou Mohamed, A.

Morrow, M., Morrow, M., Judd, T.

Moussa, A., Altenmuller, H.

Pantalacci, L., Lesur-Gebremariam, J.

Pantalacci, L., Lesur, J.

Petrie, W. M. F., Mackay, E., Wainwright, G.

Porat, N., Avner, U., Holzer, A., Shemtov, R., Horwitz, L. K.

Le Quellec, J.-L., de Flers, P., de Flers, Ph.