Edited by

Ola el-aguizy, Burt Kasparian

ICE XII
Proceedings of the Twelfth
International Congress
of Egyptologists
3rd – 8th November 2019
Cairo, Egypt

i n s t i t u t f r a n ç a i s d ’a r c h é O l O g i e O r i e n t a l e
ministry Of tOur ism a nd a ntiquities
 Ola el-Aguizy, Burt Kasparian (eds.)

Proceedings
of the Twelfth International
Congress of Egyptologists
ICE XII

3rd–8th November 2019

Cairo, Egypt

Volume I

Bibliothèque générale 71 – 2023

 Table of Contents

Khaled el-Enany
Foreword ................................................................................................................................... V

VOLUME I

i. archaeology, current methods and field work ......................... 1

Alberto Abello Moreno-Cid

Analysis of Human Skeletal and Mummified Remains Found
in the Secondary Burial AT-28-A of the Tomb of the Vizier Amenhotep Huy
(North Asasif, Luxor, West Bank) .................................................................................... 3

Roqaya Ali Massoud

The Funerary Cones of the Scribe Amenemhat, Owner of TT 123 .......................... 13

Aiman Ashmawy Ali

Forgotten Excavation. Part 2: Tell El-Kuʿ ....................................................................... 21

Aiman Ashmawy Ali, Dietrich Raue

The Temple of the Sun-God at Heliopolis: Seasons 2016–2019 ................................ 31

Bettina Bader
Beyond Politics: New Developments in Second Intermediate Period Archaeology
in Egypt (ca. 1800–1550 BC) ................................................................................................ 39

Grażyna Bąkowska-Czerner, Rafał Czerner, Szymon Popławski

Topography of the Ancient Town in Marina el-Alamein:
Recent Data on the Town’s Centre ................................................................................... 47

Table of Contents 629

 Randa Baligh
Sarcophagus of Hat, 19th Dynasty
(Egyptian Museum in Cairo SR 4/13636, TR 14.11.24.3, GEM 6766) ..................... 57

Anna Consonni
Pottery in Context: Remarks Regarding Some Funerary Deposits of Vases
at the Temple of Amenhotep II in Western Thebes .................................................... 71

Kylie Cortebeeck
Regional Variation in First Intermediate Period and Early Middle Kingdom
Ceramic Assemblages and Craft Technologies in Middle Egypt .............................. 83

Lucía Díaz-Iglesias Llanos

Eight 22nd Dynasty Cartonnage Mummy-cases Found at Dra Abu el-Naga ....... 91

Rabee Eissa
Hieroglyphic Signs Comparing Writing and Architecture in Ancient Egypt:
A Case Study of the and Signs .................................................................................. 99

Basem Gehad, Ahmed Hammad, Mahmoud Ibrahim, Mohamed Samah,

Mohamed Hussein, Doaa Badr El Din, Gert Baetens, Mona Mostafa, Mohamed Atef
Ancient Philadelphia Necropolis: Understanding Burial Customs in Fayum
during the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods ....................................................................... 111
Maria Cristina Guidotti
Pottery from Medinet Madi (Fayum): Preliminary Study .......................................... 121

Zahi Hawass
The Discovery of the Royal Workshops in the West Valley of the Kings .............. 127

Irmgard Hein, Sandra Müller

Digital Documentation and Visualisation of the 18th Dynasty Delta Residence
at ʿEzbet Helmi (Eastern Nile Delta) ............................................................................... 143

James K. Hoffmeier
Reflections on a Decade of Research and Excavations
at Tell el-Borg and Its Environs (1998–2008) ................................................................ 151

Regina Hölzl, Vera Müller

Centre or Periphery? A New Project in Vienna Re-evaluating the Late Predynastic
and Early Dynastic Period Cemetery of Turah .............................................................. 165
Balázs J. Irsay-Nagy
The Burial of Thutmosis II: Questions ............................................................................. 173

630 ICE XII – Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Egyptologists

 Rabee Eissa

Hieroglyphic Signs Comparing

Writing and Architecture in Ancient Egypt
A Case Study of the and Signs

he goal of this paper is to compare the architectural designs of two archaeological buildings

T with the shape of two hieroglyphic signs included in many ancient Egyptian words related to
the meaning and functions of those buildings. The two examples discussed here derive from
my work on excavations at Giza for Ancient Egypt Research Associates (AERA). The first structure
is a Fourth Dynasty granary containing five storage installations located one behind the other
and forming a rectangular shape beside a curved line. This structure imitates the hieroglyph ,
which appears in many words related to grain. It is also used as a determinative in words connected
with corn and fruit measures. The second structure is a Fifth Dynasty rectangular room, which
contains five silos for grain storage, imitating the sign ḥw.t, which usually relates to economic
and administrative words.

FIRST SIGN: A FOURTH DYNASTY STORAGE UNIT

IMITATING THE HIEROGLYPH

ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING

During winter 2016, a Fourth Dynasty area named by AERA as Standing Wall Island (SWI),
was excavated.1 The excavation was focused on a large house, occupying the northeast corner of the
SWI at the Pyramids Workers’ Town. The team found five storages unit occupying the western
part of an L-shaped chamber at the south-west corner of the house. The largest of the five storages
is a D-shaped mud-brick silo in the center of the southern part of the room. This D-shaped silo
measures 1.64m N–S and 1.30m E–W across the widest point, and is about 0.54m deep. The walls
showed no sign of an aperture, so people must have added and removed contents from above. This
D-shaped silo is located next to four smaller rounded storage structures, located one behind the
other and forming a curved line. Two of them are constructed from Nile clay, while the other two
are ceramic pots (fig. 1).
I suggest that the D-shaped silo with the four small storages represent together an architecture
unit imitating the hieroglyph . The first of the four small storages is located directly to the

1. Lehner 2016.

Hieroglyphic Signs Comparing Writing and Architecture in Ancient Egypt 99

 north of the D-shaped silo. It is a ceramic pot stuck in the ground. Its rim has a diameter of about
0.22m, while its depth is 0.26m. The curved nature of the line of storage unit became clear with
the location of the second small storage, a rounded structure lined with a Nile clay and situated
to the northwest of the pot. Its diameter is 0.64m and its depth is 0.48m. The third small storage
is identical to the second small one. The fourth storage is a ceramic vat, which has a diameter of
0.56m and is 0.44m deep. At the bottom of the first rounded clay storage, we found three ceramic
vessels (fig. 2). Work by our ceramicists indicates that two of the vessels would have been used to
measure out commodities: the first, a cylindrical pot, is known from tomb scenes to have been used
to measure oil; the second is a pear-shaped vessel, with a capacity twice that of the cylindrical pot.2

COMPARISON STUDY WITH HIEROGLYPH

As mentioned above, the pictorial element in hieroglyphic writing was strongly associated with
the ancient Egyptian environment. In this case, I think that the architectural design of our D-shaped
silo with its neighboring four storages is similar to the shape of hieroglyph . This sign is classified
by Gardiner as U9, a corn measure with grain pouring out.3 It was used as a determinative for some
grain words such as ỉt “barley”,4 bdt “emmer”,5 bšȝ “malted barley”,6 and
šrỉt “type of grain”.7 It was also used as a determinative for corn or fruit measures8, such as ỉpt9
and ỉpt10 “measure of grain”, , , ḥkȝt11 and ḫȝw12 “corn-measure”, while the
person measuring grain was written as ḥkȝw.13 Additionally, the same sign was used in
the word to indicate the corn harvest-tax 14
šmw. This hieroglyph , used in many words
connected to grain, is visually similar to the storage unit of the SWI discussed above in the following
ways. First, there is a clear similarity in the architectural layout of the five storages and the pictorial
shape of the hieroglyph . I suggest that the first part of the sign is illustrated in the ground
with the D-shaped silo. I suggest that the four dots, which are out from the hieroglyphic sign, are
indicated on the ground by the two ceramic vessels and the two rounded, clay-lined structures.
Second, in the light of the use of the sign in the grain measuring process mentioned above, both
location and size of the two ceramic measures that I have described support my hypothesis through
their function as measures for grain stored in this granary. As an additional hypothesis, I suggest,
moreover, that the hieroglyph has the meaning “to store”, when it is used as a determinative

2. Abd el-Moaniem, el-Shafiey 2016.

3. Gardiner 1957, p. 517.
4. Wb I, 142.
5. Wb I, 486.
6. Wb I, 478.
7. Wb IV, 526.
8. Gardiner 1957, p. 516; Gardiner 1941a, p. 158.
9. Faulkner 1991, p. 16.
10. Gardiner 1941b, p. 71.
11. Faulkner 1991, p. 178.
12. Mueller 1972, p. 301.
13. Ward 1982, p. 131, no. 1120a.
14. Gardiner 1941b, p. 29.

100 Rabee Eissa

 for many types of corn. In other words, its purpose is to clarify that this type of grain was already
harvested and moved into storages. Three elements are proposed in support of this suggestion: the
varied hieroglyphic writings of the same types of grain; some diagrams used as determinatives for
grains and granary; and some administrative titles related to the grain and grain storage.
First, as for the names of particular grain types written with the same hieroglyphs and with the
same pronunciation, the words are differentiated by the determinative of each word. For example,
the word for dates in ancient Egyptian: the form bnr.t means “date-palm”;15 bnr means “dates”;16
bnr also means “dates”.17 It is clear here that the three terms share the same main hieroglyph ,
with the same pronunciation for the three words. All are pronounced bnr. However, the meaning of
each word is differentiated by the last hieroglyph, the determinative. The first ends with , referring
to the date palm tree itself. I suggest that the determinative of the second word, the three small cereal
grains, refers to fresh dates or dates which have just been harvested but not stored. As for the third
hieroglyphic form, I suggest that it means stored dates, as indicated by the hieroglyph .
As another example, emmer was written in various forms, such as , bdt,18 bd.t ḥḏ.t
“white emmer”, bd.t dšr.t, “reddish emmer” and bd.t km.t “dark emmer”.19 We
can see that the first form ends with the form of the plant itself, while the determinative of the other
four words is . In addition to dates and emmer, other examples support my hypothesis, notably the
writing of Egyptian barley. Barley was written , and ỉt.20 The sign of the three small seeds is
used in the words that distinguish barley from Lower Egypt ỉt mḥ, from barley from Upper Egypt
ỉt šmʿ.21 The hieroglyph is used to distinguish another type of barley called ỉt dšr which
22
means “yellow barley”, which was used for beer making. If we look at these varied writings of barley, we
notice that both hieroglyphs (M33) and (U9) play a very important role in the differentiation
of the various barley types. I suggest that the hieroglyph is used to describe fresh barely before
harvest and to recognize the different shapes of this grain from Upper and Lower Egypt.23
On the other hand, I suggest that the hieroglyph is applied to the coloured types of emmer
and barley when stored. The colour of the fresh grain is green, while all of white, red, dark and
yellow refer to the stored types after the harvesting, as these colours only appear after the harvest
and the store. My idea could be supported by the clear use of the hieroglyph as a determinative
for the measuring containers mentioned above, used to measure the grains after—and not before—
the harvest. This discussion also provides an opportunity to consider the difference between the

15. Faulkner 1991, p. 83.

16. Faulkner 1991, p. 83.
17. Faulkner 1991, p. 83.
18. Wb I, 486.
19. Wb I, 487.
20. Wb I, 142.
21. Wb I, 142.
22. Wb I, 142.
23. The types of both barley and emmer that are currently planted by people recently are not the same
depending on the temperature and humidity of northern and southern Egypt. Sakha is a famous emmer
type in Delta; Beni-Suef is adapted to the climate of the Middle Egypt provinces, while Sohag is the main
type for the southern farms.

Hieroglyphic Signs Comparing Writing and Architecture in Ancient Egypt 101

 hieroglyphs (U9) and (U10). The U10 sign is a combination of the hieroglyph for individual
grains (M33) and (U9).24 I see this hieroglyph as further evidence of ancient Egyptian
scribes wishing to indicate by use of the form that the grain referred to is in storage.
Second, one of the main images used as determinative for granaries and related terms in ancient
Egypt is the hieroglyph (O51). The middle of the sign displays a vertical line of four dots which
would seem to be grains. According to Khaled Hamza, the earliest represention of a hieroglphic
ideogram for a granary is inscribed on a First Dynasty seal belonging to an individual named
Hotepsedj.25 It is stamped three times on the seal; two of the imprints are distinguished by a horizontal
line of four rectangles as , which I suggest are four grain storage bins. The comparison of the
hieroglyph (O51) and (U9) with the granary ideogram of Hotepsedj shows a common element
in the number four. There are four grains in both (O51) and (U9), and four rectangles in
the Hotepsedj’s seal. I suggest that each grain of the four inside (O51) and each grain of the four
following (U9) may refer not to grains but to the number of silos or bins. In other words, the
four small ideograms here are related to the archictecture of the granaries, not to the grain. Grain
is clearly represented by hieroglyph (M33), of three seed-grains inscribed which, added at the
top of (U9) give us (U10). It is worth mentioning here the significance of number three in
ancient Egypt. Egyptologists recognize that the number three had not only a numerical function, but
was an important signifier of plurality—or unity expressed in plurality.26 This is apparent, for instance,
when expressing the plural in hieroglyphic writing: to achieve this an ideogram may be repeated three
times or have three strokes placed after the noun.27 The three grains of M33 may refer to the plurality
of the stored grain, but the four small ideograms of O51, and U9 may possibly refer to storage units.
In other words, if the ancient Egyptians had wanted to be explicit about plurality, they would have
used three grains and not four.
Third, there are some administrative titles related to the grain, which indicate the different duties
of those bearing these titles and which may support my idea about the hieroglyphs (M33)
and (U9) and the differences in their use. For example, Dilwyn Jones reads as
ỉmy-rȝ (ỉt) šmʿ m spȝwt “overseer of Upper Egyptian barley/grain in the nomes”,28 while he reads
as zš m ḫȝyt “scribe of gathering grain”.29 In the first title, the word barley, which
is un-harvested, is expressed by the hieroglyph (M33), while the gathered/harvested grain is
expressed by the hieroglyph (U9) in the second title. The use of to identify the stored grains
is possibly also explained by its use as a component of two additional titles,
sš ḥsb ỉt m šnw.t [nt] nṯr [ḥtp Ỉmn], “scribe and reckoner of the barley in the offering granary
of Amun”30 and sš ḥsb ỉt m šnw.t “scribe and reckoner of the barley in the granary”.31
In both cases, the sign is used in the two titles which refer to granaries, which means the stored

24. Gardiner 1957, p. 517.

25. Hamza 2007, p. 58; Petrie 1900, pl. XXIII, fig. 41.
26. Sales 2012, p. 118.
27. Te-Velde 1971.
28. Jones 2000, p. 71 (320).
29. Jones 2000, p. 864 (3162).
30. Urk. IV, 1050.
31. Wb IV, 510.

102 Rabee Eissa

grain. I see a similarity between the hieroglyph and the layout of the D-shaped silo and its
four neighbouring storages unit which may be the result of the builders’ desire to imitate the shape
of the hieroglyph in their structure.

SECOND SIGN: A FIFTH DYNASTY STORAGE ROOM

IMITATING THE HIEROGLYPH

ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING

The second case study shows a similarity between the architectural design of a rectangular storage
unit to the shape of the hieroglyph . It is occupying an area of a large Fifth Dynasty mud-brick
administrative building named Silo Building Complex (SBC),32 and located to the east of the
Khentkaus complex (fig. 3). This storage consists of two interconnected spaces, together forming
a rectangular unit known as room B. Room B contains five rounded mud-brick silos located next
to each other in an L-shape. The overall ground plan of the two spaces together is similar to the
hieroglyph for Hw.t. The only access to the two chambers is from the central hall of the building.
The larger of the two spaces forming room B (space 11,237) is 7.30m long by 3.55m wide, while the
dimensions of the smaller one (space 11,238) are 2.10m long by 1.35m wide.

COMPARISON STUDY WITH HIEROGLYPH

The building layout of room B is similar to the shape of hieroglyph ḥw.t (O6) as described by
Alan H. Gardiner, a rectangular enclosure seen in plan.33 The meaning of ḥw.t has been discussed
by many scholars. Manfred Bietak suggests that ḥw.t represents a rectangular installation surrounded
by a wall with a gateway at one corner, which in the Old Kingdom would have been a centre of royal
administration.34 He also observes that the ḥw.t walled, rectangular construction is reminiscent of the
funerary fortresses at Shunet el-Zebieb, Herakonpolis and Saqqara.35 Jaroslav Černy believed that
ḥw.t originally designated fortified castle-like towns as opposed to open towns called nỉwt, and
then was later used in the New Kingdom to mean a temple.36 Juan Carlos Moreno Garcia also suggests
that ḥw.t relates to royal economic centres.37 As shown in Egyptology dictionaries, the hieroglyph
is extensively used in ancient Egyptian texts with a variety of meanings, such as palace,38 temple,39
administrative district,40 and enclosure.41 It is involved in many Egyptian words, most of which refer
to economic, administrative and governmental activities associated with royal projects. Khaled Hamza

32. Tavares et al. 2014.

33. Gardiner 1957, p. 493.
34. Bietak 1979, p. 99.
35. Bietak 1979, p. 99.
36. Černy 1941, pp. 127–30.
37. Moreno García 2013, p. 6.
38. Faulkner 1991, p. 165.
39. Faulkner 1991, p. 165.
40. Faulkner 1991, p. 165.
41. Allen 2010, p. 464.

Hieroglyphic Signs Comparing Writing and Architecture in Ancient Egypt 103

 mentions that there are many different kinds of granaries in ancient Egypt, such as temple granaries,
royal granaries and special granaries serving the army and military fortresses.42 From the location of
the SBC, I suggest that it included a type of granary, which served one of the royal funerary complexes
such as the Khentkaus complex and Menkaure valley temple located directly to the west of the
SBC. There are several Egyptian titles that include the term ḥw.t , showing that it referred to the
religious, administrative and economic responsibilities of the individuals who bore them. Examples
for administrative and economic activities of estates and manors belonging to the pyramid complexes
are represented by the title ḥkȝ ḥw.t “ruler of the estate”. According to Wazier Abd el-Whab,
eight individuals bore this title during the Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period. Five of
them also bore the title ỉmy-r šmʿw “governor of Upper Egypt”. He mentions that Idu I was responsible
for specific cultivated lands, which served the funerary pyramid facilities during the Sixth Dynasty,
and held two titles ḥkȝ ḥw.t (Mry-Rʿ) Mn-nfr mr, “ruler of the estate of the pyramid
of king Meryre (Pepi I)” and ḥkȝ ḥw.t (Nfr-kȝ-Rʿ) Mn-ʿnḫ mr, “ruler of the estate
of the pyramid of king Neferkare (Pepi II)”.43 These titles possibly indicate that the bearers were
responsible for particular farms to supply the royal facilities with grain.44 Henry George Fischer
sees these two titles referring to one of Idu I’s duties related to the administration of the funerary
endowments.45 Interestingly, the hieroglyphic components of the last title mentioned above,
which reads “ruler of the estate of the pyramid of king”, includes both the hieroglyph ḥw.t and
the hieroglyph mr, which indicates a pyramid in ancient Egypt. The connection between the
two hieroglyphs in this title is very visible on the ground context of the SBC, which contains the storage
unit in the shape of ḥw.t and is situated next to the Giza Pyramids, possibly represented in the title with
the sign mr (fig. 4). D. Jones also mentions some titles, which show that ḥkȝ ḥw.t is connected with
the agricultural economy in the Old Kingdom. These are , and ḥkȝ ḥw.t, meaning “estate
manager/property administrator, chief of the estate/field district”.46 Another title reads
ḥkȝ ḥw.t ʿȝ.t ʿḥ.t, “manager of the agricultural fields of the great estate” or “manager of the great estate
and the agricultural fields”.47 H.G. Fischer distinguishes between and , explaining that the
first title refers to the ruler of the royal estates and manors, while the second indicates the ruler of a
town.48 Fischer’s translation is compatible with Blackman’s, who translated ḥkȝ ḥw.t as “Omdeh of
an Ezbeh”–mayor of a manor, and ḥkȝw ḥw.t, as “Town-Omdehs”–mayors of towns”.49 Blackman’s
translation “Omdeh of an Ezbeh” perhaps reflects the actual meaning of the ancient Egyptian ḥkȝ
ḥw.t, showing how it is related to the endowment system with some farms dedicated to serve royal
facilities and to provide its officials with food. The word Omdeh means mayor and Ezbeh means manor.
Most of the Ezbeh names in modern Egypt bear the names of high ranking and very rich people, who
had strong connections to the royal palace before Egypt converted from a monarchy to a republic

42. Hamza 2007, p. 58.

43. Abd el-Whab, 1996, pp. 111–112; Fischer 1968, pp. 72-73.
44. Fischer 1968, p. 72, note 296.
45. Fischer 1955, p. 162.
46. Jones 2000, p. 670, no. 2453.
47. Jones 2000, p. 672, no. 2458.
48. Fischer 1968, p. 73, note 298.
49. Blackman 1924, p. 4.

104 Rabee Eissa

in 1952. All lands, farms and houses of each manor belonged to one person or belonged directly to the
royal palace. I note also that the hieroglyph contains in its upper half the bread loaf sign . This is
a good indication of economic meaning in some specific words including this hieroglyph. A bread loaf
sign under, and separate to, the rectangular ḥw.t sign would be a phonetic complement showing how
the word was pronounced. But the presence of the loaf sign inside the rectangular shape shows that
ḥw.t possibly was connected to the food and feeding processes of the ancient Egyptians. Another title
that should be mentioned here is ỉmy-r ḥw.t “overseer of the estate”.50 According to Ward’s
translation, ḥw.t here means estate “manor”. The same title appears in another form as ỉmy-r
51
ḥw.t nsw “overseer of the royal estate”. I believe Ward’s translation, which refers to some specific areas
of cultivation land dedicated to royal palaces and royal projects and temples in ancient Egypt is correct.
These lands were supposed to provide the people in these places with agricultural products. It is very
important to mention that this system is still used in Egypt today under the name Awqaf. This word
is the plural of Waqf, meaning a piece of land (particularly cultivation land) or a building belonging
to the state with all of its income going to the Ministry of the Awqaf (Ministry of Endowments). This
ministry possesses many manors all over the land of Egypt, as well as a number of old buildings, like
palaces and ancient villas and a large number of mosques in Egypt. The “overseer of the royal estate”
mentioned above makes clear that there are things dedicated to royal palaces and temples.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparison of the two hieroglyphs to archaeological structures in this paper illustrates how
the form of hieroglyphs may have had an impact on forms in the built environment and particularly
buildings and their internal structures. This impact can be observed not only in the religious beliefs,
but in all aspects of daily life. I suggest that there is a connection between the pictorial system of
some hieroglyphic signs and real building on the ground.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abd el-Moaniem, el-Shafiey 2016
Abd el-Moaniem, S., el-Shafiey, M., “Preliminary
Report of Ceramic Excavated in SWI, 2016”
AERA Report on file (unpublished, available
for consultation).
Abd el-Whab 1996
Abd el-Whab, W., The Duality in the Administration
titles in Ancient Egypt until the End of the
New Kingdom (in Arabic), MA Dissertation,
Cairo University, Faculty of Archaeology, Cairo,
1996.
Allen 2010
Allen, J.P., Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the
Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs, Cambridge,
2010 (2nd edition).
Bietak 1979
Bietak, M., “Urban Archaeology and
the “Town problem” in Ancient Egypt”,
in K. Weeks (ed.), Egyptology and the Social
Sciences: Five Studies, Cairo, 1979, pp. 97–144.

50. Ward 1982, p. 34 n. 245.

51. Ward 1982, p. 34 n. 249.

Hieroglyphic Signs Comparing Writing and Architecture in Ancient Egypt 105

 Blackman 1924 Lehner 2016
Blackman, A.M., The Rock Tombs of Meir, part IV, M. Lehner, “Giza Plateau Mapping Project;
ASEg 25, London, 1924. Introduction to Season 2016”, The Oriental
Institute 2015-2016 annual report, Chicago, 2016,
Černy 1941
pp. 82–99, https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/
Černy, J., “The Temple’ as An Abbreviated
oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/
Name for The Temple of Medinet Habu”,
ar/11-20/15-16/ar2016_Giza_Plateau_Mapping_
JEA 26, 1941, pp. 127–30.
Project.pdf
Faulkner 1991
Moreno García 2013
Faulkner, R. O., A Concise Dictionary of
Moreno García, J.C., “The Study of
Middle Egyptian, Oxford 1991.
Ancient Egyptian Administration”,
Fischer 1955 in J.C. Moreno Garcia (ed.), Ancient Egyptian
Fischer, H. G., Denderah in the Old Kingdom and its Administration, Leiden, 2013, pp. 1–17.
aftermath, PhD Dissertation, Michigan, 1955.
Mueller 1972
Fischer 1968 Mueller, D., “A Middle Egyptian Word for
Fischer, H. G., Dendera in the Third Millennium B.C. ‘Measure’”, JEA 58, 1972, pp. 301–2.
down to the Theban Domination of Upper Egypt,
Petrie 1900
Locust Valley, 1968.
Petrie, W.M.F., The Royal Tombs of the Earliest
Gardiner 1941a Dynasties, part I, MEEF 18, London, 1900.
Gardiner, A., “The Word mʿḏȝ and Its Various
Sales 2012
Uses”, JEA 26, 1941, pp. 157–158.
Sales, J. das C., “Divine Triads of Ancient Egypt”,
Gardiner 1941b Hathor 1, 2012, pp. 115–135.
Gardiner, A., “Ramesside Texts Relating to the
Tavares et al. 2014
Taxation and Transport of Corn”, JEA 27, 1941,
Tavares, A., et. al., “Excavations East of the
pp. 19–73.
Khentkawes Town in Giza”, BIFAO 114/2,
Gardiner 1957 pp. 519–561.
Gardiner, A., Egyptian Grammar Being an
Te-Velde 1971
Introduction to the Study of the Hieroglyphs,
Te-Velde, H., “Some Remarks on the Structure of
Oxford, 1957 (3d edition).
Egyptian Divine Triads” JEA 57, 1971, pp. 80–86.
Hamza 2007
Ward 1982
Hamza, K., Granaries in ancient Egypt (written
Ward, W.A., Index of Egyptian Administrative and
in Arabic), Cairo, 2007.
Religious titles of the Middle Kingdom, Beirut, 1982.
Jones 2000
Jones, D., An Index of Ancient Egyptian
Titles, Epithets and Phrases of the
Old Kingdom, BAR-IS 866, Oxford, 2000.

106 Rabee Eissa

Fig. 1. Above: the five storages unit, looking west. © AERA/Daniel Jones. Below: plan showing the layout
of the SWI house. The unit imitating the hieroglyph is coloured blue. Drawing: Mohamed Abd el-Basset.

Hieroglyphic Signs Comparing Writing and Architecture in Ancient Egypt 107

 © AERA/Daniel Jones.

Fig. 2. The three ceramic vessels in the second clay-lined storage.

108 Rabee Eissa

Fig. 3. Above: overview of SBC. The room with the five silos is on the right. © AERA/Rabee Eissa.
Below: plan showing the SBC building; room B which imitates the hieroglyph is coloured blue.
Drawing: Mohamed Abd el-Basset.
Hieroglyphic Signs Comparing Writing and Architecture in Ancient Egypt 109
© AERA/Rabee Eissa.

Fig. 4. The ground context the SBC building nearby the Giza Pyramids.

110 Rabee Eissa