A Group of Miniature Royal Sarcophagi from

South Abydos
Josef W. Wegner

University of Pennsylvania

n 1902 Arthur Weigall first defined the principal architectural features of the tomb enclosure
of Senwosret III at South Abydos.1 The enclosure can be broadly categorized as a form of ceremonial or mortuary enclosure by virtue of its major interior feature: the subterranean tomb or
cenotaph of Senwosret III which lies within its upper section. However, the vast, T-shaped configuration of the enclosure lacks immediately recognizable parallels in the wider royal mortuary
tradition of ancient Egypt. Due to the absence of architectural comparanda, understanding the
particular functions of the Senwosret III enclosure can only derive from detailed archaeological
investigation of the enclosure studied within the context of its wider landscape. As part of the
research program of the University of Pennsylvania at South Abydos, work has been ongoing on
both the subterranean tomb and the mortuary enclosure.2 It has been anticipated that excavation
of the tombs interior along with detailed study of the features of the aboveground enclosure will
provide new data with which to understand these intimately connected structures that form the
symbolic focus of the mortuary complex and cult of Senwosret III at Abydos.
The vast scale and heavily-sanded condition of the mortuary enclosure presents a physical
challenge in the investigation of this structure. At the current time, we have examined selected
areas of the enclosure in combination with work on the tomb interior. The T-shaped enclosure
itself (Fig. 1) encompasses an area of 18,000 square meters, organized into an Upper Enclosure,
measuring 90 by 150 meters which abuts the base of the limestone cliffs, and a Lower Enclosure
measuring 48 by 106 meters. Together these form an asymmetrical T-shape. The Lower
Enclosure extends toward the floodplain and is aligned with the central axis of the Senwosret III
mortuary temple which is positioned 700 meters away at the edge of the low desert. Whereas
the preserved features of the Lower Enclosure are close to the surface, the Upper Enclosure is
deeply buried in sand which accumulates against the base of the gebel. The tomb enclosure as a
whole is surrounded by a number of additional structures including: two brick walled, debrisfilled Dummy Mastabas, on the east side (S7, S8); and two satellite mastabas (S9, S10) on the
351

Fig. 1: Plan of the Senwosret III tomb enclosure showing the concentration of model sarcophagus
fragments excavated in 2004.

A Group of Miniature Royal Sarcophagi from South Abydos

west side. Also external to the tomb enclosure is a multi-chambered entrance building which is
positioned on the west side of the enclosures front wall and adjacent to a central ramp/staircase
system that leads up into the interior.
Excavations of the Senwosret III mortuary enclosure were initiated in 1997; we have now
reexamined extensive sections of the architecture originally located by Weigall and also defined
a number of significant new architectural elements which had remained unnoticed during the
rapidly executed work of 1901-1902. The sequence of activity represented in the enclosure can
be broadly defined as comprising two phases: (1) Phase I: during its initial period of use the
enclosure seems to have functioned as an open-fronted, walled work-space, the construction site
of the subterranean tomb of Senwosret III; (2) Phase II: after completion of tomb construction, the front of the enclosure was walled off, and a group of special purpose buildings were
installed both inside and fronting the Lower Enclosure.3 This second phase of activity appears
to represent a brief period of ritual or ceremonial activity that likely accompanied the furnishing
and final closing of the tomb. Immediately after this second phase, the majority of the standing
architecture was razed. Much of the resulting debris was sealed inside the two dummy mastabas
on the enclosures western side. In 2004 we recovered remnants of these special purpose buildings in Mastaba S9, still retaining fresh, multi-colored plastered surfaces indicative of the short
period of their use. In association with these razed buildings occur clay sealings impressed with
a stamp seal naming Dw-Inpw, Anubis-mountain. This seal appears to have served as a form of
necropolis seal associated with these special purpose buildings. Its use was perhaps limited exclusively to the second, ceremonial phase of the tomb enclosure.4
One of the areas excavated in 2004 is the entrance complex (Fig. 1), currently the best preserved section of surface architecture which appears to be linked with the primary phases of the
tomb enclosure. In this location a series of superimposed staircases constitute the briefly-used
formal entrance into the tomb enclosure. On the west side of the entrance sits a small, but wellconstructed building containing two rooms and a projecting entrance vestibule. The rooms have
wood door frames and the inner room contains a stone-lined niche. Dense deposits of ceramics
on the front (north) face of this building indicate a period of intense and specialized activity
defined by extensive, repetitive burning of incense in small bowls, and high-volume use of water.
This building may have served as a purification house at the entrance to the enclosure during its
Phase II use as a ceremonial or ritual enclosure. Other razed buildings contained in the dummy
mastabas appear likely to have once populated the now-heavily denuded zone in the central part
of the Lower Enclosure.
An intriguing discovery made in 2004 occurred in the front part of the Lower Enclosures
interior and adjacent to the entrance complex. In disturbed debris we retrieved seventeen fragments belonging to a group of model royal sarcophagi. The fragments derive from two, though
perhaps more, different sarcophagi produced in fine-grained, white limestone. The sarcophagi
are decorated with a miniature version of the paneled, palace-faade style which characterizes
full-scale royal sarcophagi of the late Twelfth Dynasty. The fragments include elements of the
paneled sarcophagus boxes, as well as matching vaulted lids. The dimensions of the lid fragments
demonstrate the existence of multiple, differently scaled, model sarcophagi.
Since work is still ongoing in the Senwosret III tomb enclosure, it has been a hope during
recent seasons that additional related fragments might be identified. Future work may indeed
produce more evidence, particularly from the extensive, still unexamined areas of the Lower
Enclosure. Nevertheless, a sufficient number of fragments were recovered in 2004 to permit
detailed reconstruction of the format and scale of these model sarcophagi and to present some
353

We g n e r

preliminary thoughts on the possible function of these objects. In light of their high quality,
and use of paneled, palace-faade decoration, these model sarcophagi are almost certainly royal
objects. Of particular interest is the possible function of these model sarcophagi. This article will
examine the fragments and possible reconstruction of the model royal sarcophagi. We will then
examine their possible functions within the context of the Senwosret III tomb enclosure.
Given their find spot - albeit disturbed - at the front end of the Lower Enclosure it is possible these objects relate to the primary functions of the enclosure during its initial use as a royal
building site, or secondarily as a form of ceremonial enclosure. Possible explanations are their
use as architects or builders models during Phase I, or their use as ritual equipment perhaps
associated with the briefly used ceremonial structures of Phase II. Conceivably, they may have
served as part of a suite of mortuary ceremonies associated with closing of the royal tomb itself.
However, given their tenuous relationship with these razed buildings, what other possibilities
exist for their function? A more probable explanation is that these sarcophagi are the remains of
royal shabti burials. In the same mode that non-royal shabti equipment mimics the attributes
of full-scale burial equipment, at South Abydos we may have evidence for late Middle Kingdom
versions of royal shabtis buried in miniaturized paneled sarcophagi. If so, what is the origin of
these royal shabtis? Two principal possibilities present themselves. One potential explanation is
that the sarcophagi derive from the mortuary assemblage of the subterranean tomb of Senwosret
III or one of the other subsidiary royal tombs. In that case, they may represent some of the original tomb equipment which had been stripped and discarded by ancient tomb robbers in the
process of plundering the site. Alternatively, however, they might derive from a differing mode
of shabti usage: that of the extrasepuchral shabti burial. The tradition of extrasepulchral shabti
burials - well attested in private examples of the late Middle Kingdom at Abydos and elsewhere
- may in this case have a royal parallel in the context of the Senwosret III mortuary enclosure.
Over the course of his career, David Silverman has devoted much of his intellectual energy
to understanding Egypts Middle Kingdom. With his long-time work on the treasures from the
tomb of Tutankhamun he has also maintained an undying passion for the study of royal funerary arts. This publication is written with the hope that the topic bridges these two interests and
is here presented in recognition of Davids existing and ongoing contributions to Egyptology.

The South Abydos Model Sarcophagus Fragments

The fragments recovered in 2004 include seventeen pieces of both the box and lid belonging
to two or more model sarcophagi. 5 The presence of multiple model sarcophagi is demonstrated
by the fragments of two quite differently sized lids (Fig. 2). The lids employ the typical format
of raised rectangular ends with a shallow, vaulted top set between narrow flat ledges. The base of
the lid mimics full-scale sarcophagi having a rectangular projection to fit onto the sarcophagus
box. Although no fragments preserve the vault across the entire width, the curve and approximate midpoint of the vault can be measured on several pieces permitting an estimate of their
width and length. The lids derive from a larger model sarcophagus, here Model 1, and a smaller
one termed here Model 2. The lid of Model 1 can be estimated at ca. 10-12 by 25-30 cm while
that of Model 2 is significantly smaller at ca. 8 by 16-18 cm. 6
Although the lid fragments indicate multiple, differently scaled models, the majority of
the box fragments appear to derive from a single sarcophagus, most likely the one labeled here
Model 1. This sarcophagus had walls 1.85 cm in thickness. The rim of the sarcophagus has a
recessed lip for the lid which has a matching projection on the inner surface. Elements of the
sarcophagus box include the paneling of the lower part of the box (Fig. 3), as well as pieces of
354

Fig. 2: Lid fragments associated with larger format (Model 1) and smaller format (Model 2) model
sarcophagi.

We g n e r

Fig. 3: Fragments of the palace-faade paneling and reconstruction of the paneling pattern.

the upper wall and rim (Fig. 4). The format mimics that of full-scale royal sarcophagi with the
palace-faade paneling comprising the lower part of the box and projecting beyond the smooth
face of the upper part of the box. Although several of the fragments are eroded (eg. 034655), in
the better preserved pieces the quality of carving is remarkably fine. This is seen particularly in
the finely dressed, narrow recesses of the paneling - suggestive perhaps of an object produced in
a royal workshop.7 One informative fragment (034745g) preserves the full height of the upper
box: from the rim down to top of the palace-faade paneling. The height of this smooth-sided,
upper section of the box measures 4.95 cm. Unfortunately none of the fragments preserve the
full height of the paneling itself. This dimension can only be estimated through extrapolation
of total box height from other indicators such as the width (estimated from the lid fragments),
and the possible ratio between paneling and overall box height as it occurs on full-scale paneled
sarcophagi. On full-scale royal sarcophagi the palace-faade typically measures between 1/3 and
1/2 of total box height. 8 None of the South Abydos fragments preserves the sarcophagus base
which probably had a smooth-sided plinth as occurs on full-scale royal sarcophagi.
The primary box and lid fragments are shown in Figs. 2-4 which together form the basis
for the photographic reconstruction of Model 1 (Fig. 6). One of the significant details of the
sarcophagus box is the format of the paneling employed. Although fragmentary, a sufficient
number of pieces have been recovered to reconstruct the predominant format of the paneling.
This follows a pattern of raised panels, 2.25 cm wide, which project beyond the face of the
356

A Group of Miniature Royal Sarcophagi from South Abydos

Fig. 4: Reconstruction of the larger model sarcophagus (Model 1) showing the main identified fragments.

sarcophagus wall. Inside each raised panel are two recessed rectangles, one set within the other
forming a niche within a niche. Separating each of the raised panels are recessed panels, 1.45
cm wide and cut into the face of the sarcophagus wall. These sunk panels have a single niche.
The pattern is that of alternating raised and sunk panels: the raised panels being wider with a
more complex niche pattern.
It should be observed that the paneling pattern on the Abydos model sarcophagus differs
somewhat from the standard format used in full-scale royal sarcophagi of the Middle Kingdom
which occur exclusively in the Twelfth Dynasty pyramid complexes at Dahshur, Lahun and
Hawara. The paneled royal sarcophagi in the Memphite region employ an archaic palace-faade
design which appears to copy directly the format of niches and buttresses on the Step Pyramid
of Djoser at Saqqara.9 This format includes raised panels in which a central gate or door recess
is flanked by two pairs of niches. The raised gate-panels are separated usually by three narrower
panels; each of these individual panels also contains a pair of niches. The ends of the paneled
royal sarcophagi in several cases employ a design element of eight superimposed rows of rectangular holes that extend over the upper half of the panel-design (Fig. 5).10 This distinctive design
conspicuously mimics the exterior of the Djoser enclosure, possibly copied for symbolic reasons
in Twelfth Dynasty palace-faade design.
357

Fig. 5: Palace-faade paneling as employed on the sarcophagi of Senwosret III (Dahshur) and princess Neferuptah (Hawara).

A Group of Miniature Royal Sarcophagi from South Abydos

Given the fragmentary state of the South Abydos model sarcophagi it is possible there
are additional stylistic elements to the paneling. Nevertheless, it is clear the pattern of single
recessed niches differs from the predominant pattern of double niches seen in the Memphite
Middle Kingdom royal sarcophagi. The Abydos model fragments represent the only sarcophagus employing a fully carved palace-faade recovered from Upper Egypt. Therefore it appears
difficult to propose regional stylistic variation as a factor. Moreover, as a royal mortuary object,
it appears quite possible that the model sarcophagi were produced in a royal workshop in the
north and transported to Abydos as part of mortuary ceremonies - whether actual or symbolic- performed at the South Abydos complex of Senwosret III. Hence, one might suppose
that the craftsmen responsible would have been predominantly influenced by the Memphite
style of paneling on full-scale Twelfth Dynasty royal sarcophagi. If, however, the artisans who
created the Abydos model sarcophagi had access to architectural prototypes other than the
Step Pyramid, we may observe that there is a considerable range of variation in Early Dynastic
palace-faade architecture, some versions of which employ niche patterns not dissimilar to
those on the model sarcophagus. The Early Dynastic funerary enclosures at North Abydos
all employ versions of a relatively simple pattern of three or four panels separated by recessed
niches. Certainly at least one of these enclosures - that of Khasekhemwy - would have been
standing and visible at the time of the Twelfth Dynasty and might have offered a potential prototype for Middle Kingdom artisans. It is conceivable that the paneling design on the Abydos
model sarcophagus was intended to be more explicitly archaic and Osirian in its symbolic connotations, thereby departing from the Djoser-inspired paneling on contemporary Memphite
royal sarcophagi.
Perhaps the most significant influence on the Abydos model sarcophagus is that since this is
a miniaturization, the artisans may have adapted the format of the paneling design for practical reasons. With an estimated length of 25-30 cm in the case of Model 1,11 an exact copy of
the paneling of a full-scale royal sarcophagus, such as that of Senwosret III at Dahshur, would
result in recesses on the order of 2 mm. At such small size a true scale rendering of the paneled
sarcophagus would have been impossible to carve. Abbreviation of the nichework of the palacefaade was therefore a necessity. Interestingly, a degree of simplification of the palace-faade on
a full-scale sarcophagus of the late Twelfth Dynasty is to be observed on the very large (3.06
m) granite sarcophagus of princess Neferuptah from her pyramid south-east of Hawara, and
also on the contemporary sarcophagus of Amenemhat III in his Hawara pyramid.12 In these
examples the raised gate panels alternate with single rather than the standard triple panels, each
containing paired niches (Fig. 6). Although still employing the double internal niche, the format of the Neferuptah sarcophagus is close to that of the Abydos model sarcophagus fragments.
Simplification of the Neferuptah paneling to employ single internal niches rather than paired
niches would result in the panel pattern of the Abydos model sarcophagus fragments.
For that reason, I suggest that the paneling design evidenced at South Abydos is an adaptation for technical reasons of the standard paneling of Twelfth Dynasty royal sarcophagi. The
raised panels are the equivalent of the gate panels while the narrower sunk panels follow the
simplified format of intervening panels seen in the Neferuptah sarcophagus. Not surprisingly
the paneling pattern at South Abydos shows similarities to the format used in some other small
objects that employ a variant of this architectural design. In particular we may observe the paneled caskets from the Lahun tomb of Sithathoriunet which employ alternating recessed niches
and false door panels with nested rectangles akin to the system on the model sarcophagus.13
The panel variant we see on the South Abydos model sarcophagus may thus be an abbreviated
359

We g n e r

Fig. 6: A photographic reconstruction of the larger South Abydos model sarcophagus (Model 1). The
udjat element is hypothetical, based on the parallel of full-scale sarcophagi.

version of the archaic palace-faade form, but perhaps not attempting a direct correspondence
with any specific architectural prototype.
Are the South Abydos model sarcophagi necessarily royal objects? It is true that adaptations of the architectural paneling occur in non-royal mortuary traditions during the Middle
Kingdom.14 During the Twelfth Dynasty we see the motif adapted particularly onto elite sarcophagi.15 Perhaps the best, complete example of this period is the limestone sarcophagus of the
nomarch Ibu from Qaw el-Kebir.16 Other examples occur in both Upper and Lower Egyptian
private tombs.17 While Dieter Arnold has argued that use of palace-faade paneling during the
Middle Kingdom is a direct adaptation of an archaic style inspired by the Djoser Step Pyramid,
Angela Schwab has noted the use of paneling design on private sarcophagi in both Upper and
Lower Egypt and proposed a more widespread use of the motif.18 In my view, discussion of
architectural paneling on both royal and private sarcophagi must distinguish critically between
two differing types: the true palace-faade style with a variant of raised gate panels and elaborate nichework which draws direct inspiration from archaic architectural forms, and the more
generalized motif of door paneling (false-doors) used frequently on non-royal sarcophagi such as
that of Ibu. This private version of paneling, while also imparting an architectural mode to the
360

A Group of Miniature Royal Sarcophagi from South Abydos

sarcophagus is not truly a version of the palace-faade. With alternating raised and sunk panels
and elaborate nichework, the South Abydos sarcophagus fragments clearly employ an adaptation of the archaic palace-faade. Consequently there is little doubt that our Model 1 at least
represents a miniaturized version of a late Middle Kingdom royal sarcophagus.19

Possible Functions of the South Abydos Model Sarcophagi

As we have seen above, the model sarcophagus fragments come from the lower end of the
Senwosret III mortuary enclosure. They derive from a disturbed context. However, the concentration of so many pieces over a relatively small area suggests the sarcophagi are likely to have
been broken up in that vicinity and have not migrated far. Where, however, was the original
depositional context of the sarcophagi and what possible functions may be ascribed to them?
Several possible explanations exist for the model sarcophagi each of which we will examine in
turn. The principal possible explanations for these objects are the following:
1. These miniature sarcophagi may have functioned as architects or builders models and
served as a guide for the cutting and decoration of full-scale sarcophagi.
2. The model royal sarcophagi may have been used in a ceremonial context: perhaps liked
to rituals of presentation, or alternatively, in demarcating the sacred space of the mortuary enclosure in the form of foundation deposits.
3. The model sarcophagi belong to royal shabti burials associated with one of the tombs at
South Abydos: the subterranean tomb of Senwosret III itself, or the adjacent Mastaba
S9 or S10.
4. The sarcophagi may derive rather from extrasepulchral shabtis, not directly linked with
the original tomb assemblage of the royal tombs but rather deposited for votive reasons,
presumably by one or more royal dedicators in the vicinity of the Senwosret III mortuary enclosure.

Architects or Builders Models?

As we have seen above, one of the functions of the T-shaped tomb enclosure was as a demarcated work-site for construction and outfitting of the subterranean tomb of Senwosret III. In
its initial form, the enclosure took the configuration of a walled, but open-fronted work-area.
Only later was its front closed and its formal, axial entrance added. These later changes appear
to have transformed the enclosure from a royal construction site to a ceremonial enclosure used
in mortuary rituals that marked the completion of the subterranean royal tomb. Are the sarcophagus fragments vestiges of reference models used in completing full-scale sarcophagi inside
the tomb enclosure during its initial phase as a construction area? Their survival in fragmentary
condition inside the Lower Enclosure would in this case imply that the objects had been discarded and smashed prior to the extensive removal of the builders debris which was later buried
as fill-material inside the core of subsidiary Mastabas S7 and S8.
Numerous problems arise in explaining the miniature sarcophagi as architects or builders
models. Significantly, the sarcophagi match neither the form, nor the material, of the kings sarcophagus inside the subterranean tomb of Senwosret III. Although employing standard format
vaulted lids like those of the model sarcophagi, the red granite sarcophagus and canopic chest
inside the tomb are smooth sided and unadorned. If this set of miniature sarcophagi served as
builders models they are unlikely to be related to the sarcophagus of Senwosret III. The two
subsidiary mastabas -S9 and S10 - on the north-east side of the enclosure also represent late
361

We g n e r

Middle Kingdom royal burials (Fig.1).20 S9 has a monolithic burial chamber roofed with covering blocks, a smaller version of the Hawara-type of burial chamber. The relatively small size of
the internal dimensions of the burial crypt (1.1 x 3.1 m), however, suggests it would have been
equipped with a wooden coffin set inside of the stone burial chamber. The burial chamber of
Mastaba S10 is destroyed. As a result, in neither case is there evidence for use of separate stone
sarcophagi, with or without palace-faade paneling.21
It is possible there exist additional, as-yet undiscovered satellite tombs associated with the
tomb enclosure of Senwosret III. Two of the enigmatic structures associated with the enclosure
are the Dummy Mastabas (S7 and S8: Fig.1) whose superstructures contain the bulk of construction debris generated in the process of building the Senwosret III tomb. Weigall in 1902
examined the core of these two structures looking for chambers on the assumption that their
interiors might - like Mastabas S9 and S10 - contain built chambers and access passages entered
from the superstructure proper.22 Recent work at South Abydos has shown that the superstructure of one of the two dummy mastabas (S7), took that of the vaulted pr-nw shrine which is
so closely linked with mortuary architecture and burial equipment.23 What remains uncertain
is whether these structures have some independent symbolic function, or whether they too are
subsidiary tomb superstructures. It would perhaps be not be surprising if there were additional
subsidiary royal tombs linked with the Senwosret III enclosure at South Abydos. The Dahshur
pyramid complex has a series of satellite pyramids belonging to royal women. These typically
have substructures entered via vertical shafts that are architecturally independent of the pyramids themselves. The burials of royal women at Dahshur employ variations on the paneled
sarcophagus type. It remains quite plausible that the two Dummy Mastabas at South Abydos
are satellite royal tombs which - like the queens pyramids at Dahshur - may have associated,
yet to be located interiors and presumably stone sarcophagi.
Even if there exist additional royal tombs in and around the tomb enclosure at South Abydos
it appears improbable the model sarcophagi served as builders models for these. As we have
noted above, the paneling of Model 1 shows an adaptation, but not an exact scale version of
the palace-faade used on full scale sarcophagi in the Memphite region during the late Middle
Kingdom. The role of such a small, finely crafted miniature sarcophagus as a reference object
in creating a full scale sarcophagus appears to be highly doubtful. The finely cut and beautifully
smoothed paneling design appears more likely to be associated with an object whose primary
functions were ritual or ceremonial as opposed to utilitarian. It is in this latter sphere that we
may seek the functions of the South Abydos model sarcophagi.

Ritual Object Used in Sanctification or Mortuary Ceremonies?

If the model sarcophagus fragments are not builders models related to the initial construction phase of the Senwosret III tomb enclosure, could they perhaps relate rather to the
second phase of ritual /ceremonial activity that appears to have occurred inside the Lower
Enclosure? Although the bulk of these purposely removed buildings were buried inside the
fill of Mastaba S7, the occurrence of the sarcophagus fragments in the front of the Lower
Enclosure may associate them with one of the structures that once occupied that badly
eroded area of the tomb enclosure. There also, we have recovered examples of the Dw-Inpw
seal impressions which appear to have served in the sealing of these special purpose, shortlived buildings. In this case the function of the sarcophagi could relate to the ceremonial
functions of those buildings, perhaps connected with royal mortuary rituals centered on the
subterranean tomb.
362

A Group of Miniature Royal Sarcophagi from South Abydos

In a 1994 brief communication, Nicholas Reeves published a miniature royal sarcophagus

of the New Kingdom in the collection of the British Museum (EA 36279). Decorated with a
recumbent figure of the king flanked by Nephthys and Isis (partially broken), the piece is identifiable as a model sarcophagus dating to the Nineteenth or early Twentieth Dynasty.24 Reeves
proposed that this Ramesside model sarcophagus belongs to a wider category of architectural
models whose functions may rather be primarily ritual in nature. Reeves noted an earlier 1973
article in which Alexander Badawy had suggested that architectural models, particularly those
of temples were used in a specific sanctification ritual, that of Presenting the House to its Lord.25
The Ramesside miniature sarcophagus suggests that such a role for architectural models may
extend also to the architectural spaces of the royal tomb, burial chamber and sarcophagus.
Such rituals could have included the symbolic sanctification and presentation of the tomb, and
particularly the sarcophagus itself to its occupant: the deceased and mummified king.26 In this
guise, rituals of consecration of the sarcophagus may have been an integral stage in the wider
suite of mortuary ceremonies that accompanied royal death, mummification and interment.
The South Abydos model sarcophagi might potentially fit within such a ceremonial setting,
particularly if their original context was the group of probable ritual buildings that once stood
inside the lower part of the Senwosret III tomb enclosure. The two sarcophagi, Model 1 (ca.
25-30 cm) and Model 2 (ca. 16-18 cm) are both considerably larger than the Ramesside model
sarcophagus which is a relatively diminutive object (only 5.4 cm in length). Moreover, whereas
EA 36279 is a solid object (amulet-like as Reeves observes), the two South Abydos model sarcophagi are miniaturized but functional insofar as the lids are removable and suggest a wider
ensemble of objects which together formed a symbolic adaptation of the elements of full-scale
royal burial. Despite these differences, it appears possible that the South Abydos model sarcophagi might also have served as ritual objects in some form of presentation ceremonies. The high
quality of carving which we have already observed would appear in line with objects crafted to
serve in royal mortuary rituals. If this is the case, the objects presumably served a brief, ceremonial purpose inside the tomb enclosure whereafter they were deposited somewhere in the vicinity
of the Lower Enclosure. Perhaps later on they were then disturbed and broken into fragments at
the front end of the tomb enclosure.
In discussing the potential role of these model sarcophagi in sanctification rituals we may
note one other related possibility. Rather than an association with the direct ritualized presentation of the tomb in the context of mortuary ceremonies, it might also be possible that these
models were part of ritual foundation deposits either associated with the T-shaped enclosure
itself, or in connection with the same group of short-lived ceremonial buildings which briefly
populated the interior of the Lower Enclosure. Like many of the objects typically associated with
foundation deposits, the current objects are miniatures. Models used in foundation ceremonies
appear to have symbolized actual objects used in surveying, construction, and the dedication
rites of buildings. Model tools such as hoes, and bricks symbolized the actual construction
process; rites of consecration appear related to model vessels and actual food offerings. The
ritual of Presenting the House to its Lord we have discussed above is itself a final stage in the
foundation process which, however, appears less frequently to have left a physical expression in
actual foundation deposits.27 Given the evident importance of rituals of consecration it appears
a viable possibility that architectural models or miniaturized renditions of the royal sarcophagus
could have functioned in a version of these dedication ceremonies at South Abydos. Direct correspondence with the format of the sarcophagus inside the tomb would be less relevant than the
models evocation of a royal sarcophagus, as emphasized by the palace-faade.
363

We g n e r

An intriguing, possibly parallel, case in which there occurs use of miniature objects in some
form of ceremonial setting was documented in the excavation of the complex of Ahmose at
South Abydos. Located just to the south of the Senwosret III tomb, the Terrace Temple of
Ahmose is a still little-understood structure that occupies an elevated position on the base of the
gebel overlooking the subterranean tomb or cenotaph of Ahmose. The platform of the Terrace
Temple appears designed to have supported one or more structures which may never have been
completed but perhaps had been temporary buildings, subsequently razed, as in the case of the
Senwosret III enclosure. Associated with a group of brick chambers on the south side of the
platform Charles Currelly excavated a series of foundation deposits containing ceramic and
stone model vessels. Also uncovered were the remains of a series of carefully placed wood models: boats (decayed, but identifiable), miniature paddles and sticks.28 The nature of this assemblage is obscure but suggests some form of consecration rites connected with the temple itself.
Given the occurrence of model boats and oars, the structure may have supported mortuary-type
ceremonies, perhaps linked with the subterranean tomb of Ahmose which is situated below the
Terrace Temple on the low desert.29
In view of these New Kingdom parallels, we may entertain the possibility that the model sarcophagi are ritual objects that had served in ceremonies of sanctification inside the tomb enclosure. They could have served in a Twelfth Dynasty royal equivalent to the ritual of Presenting
the House to its Lord. Subsequently they may have been buried in a ritual deposit somewhere
in the front area of the Lower Enclosure. Presumably it was only later that their interment was
somehow disturbed and the sarcophagi damaged. Although this possibility is intriguing, in my
view it represents a less likely function for these model sarcophagi. The proposed ritual function accounts for the small size and fine quality of the objects. However, the fact that we have
evidence for multiple model royal sarcophagi which are functional miniaturized versions of
full-scale sarcophagi suggests a stronger possibility may be that these represent a series of model
sarcophagi belonging to royal mummiform figurines or shabtis. Here we turn to examine that
explanation in more detail.

Royal Shabti Sarcophagi?

Despite the long history of research into the development of ancient Egyptian mummiform
funerary figurines, there still exist questions regarding the early development of this type of mortuary object. Initially appearing during the First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom
in the form of wax and mud figurines,30 the key elements of the shabti form proper coalesced
during the Twelfth Dynasty in the Osirid, mummiform figurines inscribed with names and
titles of the deceased.31 Some of the earliest complete sets of shabti-type equipment derive from
the burials of the royal women of Nebhepetre-Mentuhotep at Deir el-Bahri including those
of queens Neferu, Kemsit, Kawit and the burial of Si-Iah.32 Employing the early form of wax
figurines in miniature wooden coffins, these objects testify to the use of this object type in the
funerary assemblages of royalty of the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. Yet, subsequent to
the Eleventh Dynasty the shabti form appears to have evolved primarily in the non-royal sphere.
Shabtis can appear during the Middle Kingdom in relatively modest tombs such as those excavated by Garstang and Peet at Abydos. Nevertheless, the existing evidence indicates the shabti
to be a relatively rare funerary object, associated primarily with the middle and higher economic
strata of Egyptian society and typically limited to one or two examples per individual.33 These
were interred sometimes within the tomb, but also already in extrasepulchral contexts - a distinct practice we will address further below.
364

A Group of Miniature Royal Sarcophagi from South Abydos

A notable feature of the existing data is that shabtis bearing the names of kings are not attested
from the Middle Kingdom. The first datable royal shabti is that of Ahmose from the beginning
of the Eighteenth Dynasty. This has given rise to the often-stated, but questionable conclusion
that shabtis were not adapted into the mortuary repertoire of kings until ca. 1550 BCE. The
Eighteenth Dynasty is often seen as a period of dynamic change wherein the formerly private
funerary tradition of shabtis was now suddenly embraced by royalty.34 This view has been summarized by John Taylor: In the Eighteenth Dynasty, the production of fine shabtis resumedOne of
the most significant innovations of the period was that shabtis began to be provided for kings. 35
Was, however, the use of shabtis so strictly delineated between private and royal funerary
traditions prior to the start of the Eighteenth Dynasty? As occurs in the case of other funerary
artifacts, there may exist a greater time depth to the evolution of these forms which are less
clearly evidenced in the relatively less abundant archaeological record of the Middle Kingdom.36
The conclusion that shabtis did not exist in the royal burial assemblages of the Middle Kingdom
is a tenuous one for a variety of reasons. Although several intact royal tombs of the late Middle
Kingdom - those of princess Neferuptah at Hawara,37 and king Auibre-Hor at Dahshur38 - are
conspicuously devoid of shabtis, these tombs hardly constitute a representative sample of the
wider patterns and variety in royal mortuary practices over the course of the Middle Kingdom.
In view of the fact that virtually all royal tombs of the Twelfth Dynasty were severely plundered
we must address a potential preservation-gap in the evidence. The statistically low likelihood of
encountering preserved evidence for Middle Kingdom royal shabtis is emphasized by the scarcity
of this object type in general for the Middle Kingdom as a whole. The fact that early forerunners
to shabti-equipment in the form of wax-figurines was already present in royal funerary practices
of the Eleventh Dynasty at Deir el-Bahri suggests that it is quite possible the scant evidence
masks a lengthy period of use of shabtis in royal funerary traditions of the Middle Kingdom
Although burial of shabtis individually - and apart from any associated model coffins or
sarcophagi - certainly occurred during the Middle Kingdom, several examples demonstrate the
emergence of the tradition of model coffins and sarcophagi which mimic the elements of full
scale burial. This practice is illustrated well in the Deir el-Bahri royal examples where the figurines were wrapped in linen and buried in model wooden coffins with removable lids and miniature versions of standard coffin decoration including painted inscriptions and eye-panels. The
Twelfth Dynasty examples show some variation with use of shrine-shaped boxes for standing
mummiform figurines.39 This tendency for use of model coffins and sarcophagi is attested during the late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period, illustrated by examples such as
the extrasepulchral shabti burials of Bener and Wahnoferhotep (Lisht, Thirteenth Dynasty), and
Nemtyemweskhet (Abydos, Thirteenth Dynasty). The continuing use of coffinettes is shown in
the painted limestone sarcophagus attributed to the lady Kamose (Thebes, Second Intermediate
Period), complete with panel design and divine imagery of Nut, Isis and Nepthys.40 The tradition of model sarcophagi for shabtis expands significantly during the New Kingdom with many
of the higher quality examples being provided with both anthropoid coffins and rectangular
sarcophagi.41
The two South Abydos model sarcophagi parallel these other examples through virtue of
being functional, but miniaturized versions of full-scale sarcophagi. It is perhaps instructive
to observe that the size of these is comparable to other examples of model sarcophagi used for
shabtis and mummiform figurines. The largest group at Deir el-Bahri are the coffins of Queen
Neferu ranging between 18-24 cm in length.42 The Bener and Wahnoferhotep sarcophagi from
Lisht are similarly scaled with Bener being 28 cm in length, Wahnoferhotep measuring 24 cm
365

We g n e r

in length. The later Kamose limestone sarcophagus measures a comparable 26 cm. Therefore,
on the basis of scale, functionality (as contrasted with the Ramesside model royal sarcophagus),
as well as the phenomenon of miniaturization of attributes of full-scale sarcophagi we may
conclude that it is highly likely these examples from South Abydos are shabti sarcophagi. With
the use of the palace-faade explicitly documented for Model 1, these represent royal versions
of model sarcophagi. Consequently, once they would have contained royal shabtis dating to the
late Middle Kingdom.
If we accept the identification of the South Abydos model sarcophagi as belonging to royal
shabtis we then arrive again at the issue of their original context. On the basis of the parallels,
two principal options present themselves:
(a) The shabtis originally belong to the burial assemblage of one of the royal tombs at
South Abydos: possibly the subterranean tomb of Senwosret III itself, or one of the
subsidiary burials such as Mastaba S9 or S10.
(b) The shabtis may not be directly linked with a burial assemblage but rather may be a
royal version of extrasepulchral shabtis.
The first explanation - that these model sarcophagi are the shattered remains of shabtis from
a royal burial assemblage - would imply that their disturbed context is the product of the process
of tomb robbery in and around the Senwosret III tomb enclosure. Significantly, the fragments
were excavated at considerable distance both from the Senwosret III tomb (ca. 140 m. away),
as well as from Mastabas S9 (ca. 75 m. away) and S10 (ca. 180 m. away). A likely scenario for
tomb robbery would be the opening and stripping of the shabti figurines from their containers.
The figurines themselves may have employed gold or other valuable materials.43 Presumably
the limestone model sarcophagi would have had no tangible economic value and would have
been immediately destroyed or abandoned in situ. The considerable distance between the three
tombs in question and the cluster of sarcophagus fragments at the front of the Lower Enclosure
would appear to militate against their identification as part of royal tomb equipment. I would
observe, however, that given the large-scale, and likely highly organized system through which
these tombs must have been robbed, we might envision a process whereby shabtis still inside
their model sarcophagi were first carried to the surface and then opened elsewhere, perhaps by
those responsible for the robbery enterprise. Discard of the unwanted model sarcophagi might
then occur quite far from the actual tomb. If, however, we view the movement of the model
sarcophagi so far from their original location to be improbable, it would appear more likely that
these objects relate to the second possible mode of shabti deposition: that of the extrasepulchral
shabti burial.

Extrasepulchral Royal Shabti Burials?

The interment of shabtis or groups of shabtis in locations of particular religious importance

is a practice that runs parallel to their more familiar employment as actual tomb equipment.
The dedication of these extrasepuchral shabtis is particularly well documented for the New
Kingdom where specific locations appear to have attracted ongoing deposition of large concentrations of both private and royal shabtis. Archaeological work has defined a number of areas of
intensive extrasepulchral activity such as Giza South (Zawiyet Abu Mesallem) and the Serapeum
in the Memphite necropolis, as well as Umm el-Gaab at Abydos, where extrasepulchral shabtis
were buried in the area of Heqareshu Hill and adjacent to the Early Dynastic royal tombs. In
366

A Group of Miniature Royal Sarcophagi from South Abydos

Fig. 7: The model sarcophagus and shabti burial of Nemtyemweskhet in situ beneath the chapel of
Ay at North Abydos (photograph courtesy of Carolyn Routledge, World Museum, Liverpool).

such cases the presence of a symbolic tomb belonging to Osiris (Umm el-Gaab) or Sokar (the
shetayet, or Sokar-tomb in Rosetau), may have attracted the deposition of extensive clusters
of votive shabtis; I.E.S. Edwards has linked the phenomenon of extraspulchral shabtis with
the Osirian associations of the shabti figurines themselves and the veneration of that deity.44
Extrasepulchral shabtis appear particularly notable for certain royal officials who were capable
of dedicating large shabti groups. These include prominent individuals such as Qenamun who
dedicated large shabti groups at both Abydos and Zawiyet Abu Mesallem.45 However, a quite
wide array of officials and royal family members of the New Kingdom appear to have engaged in
this particular tradition. Importantly, at least during the New Kingdom, kings were also active in
the dedication of extrasepulchral shabtis, with a number of examples associated with the Osiris
cult at Abydos.46
While clearly a widespread ritual practice during the New Kingdom, the deposition of
extrasepulchral shabtis was already a fully developed custom during the Middle Kingdom.
Here we may turn to examine three of the best documented examples of extrasepulchral shabtis
already mentioned above: the shabti of Nemtyemweskhet at North Abydos, and those of Bener
and Wahnoferhotep at Lisht. These particular examples provide comparative evidence relevant
to understanding the South Abydos model royal sarcophagi.
367

We g n e r

Fig. 8: The limestone model sarcophagus of Nemtyemweskhet (Garstang Museum, University of

Liverpool, object E.712. Photograph courtesy of Steven Snape).

The most significant example of a private extrasepulchral shabti from Abydos is the intact
model sarcophagus, wooden coffinette, and shabti belonging to a high steward of the Thirteenth
Dynasty, Nemtyemweskhet. John Garstang found this shabti in 1907 buried beneath the floor
of a votive chapel in the cenotaph area of North Abydos (Fig. 7). This particular chapel contained two still in-situ stelae commemorating one extended family: that of Ay, son of Ibi, and
his wife Ata.47 The familys origins appear to have lain in the Tjebite (10th) nome of Qaw
el-Kebir. 48 The two stelae were set in opposite (north and south) niches in the interior walls
of the chapel courtyard. Garstang discovered the intact model sarcophagus buried beneath
the niche of the southern stela (Bolton 10.20.11). Two additional stelae - larger and higher in
quality than the Garstang pair - had been previously recovered by Mariette (CCG 20087 and
20100).49 The principal dedicatee of this latter stele pair is Amenemhatseneb Nemtyemweskhet
(or simply Nemtyemweskhet).50 Nemtyemweskhet was a man of considerable status who
had the royal administrative title xtmty-bity, imy-r pr wr, 'royal sealbearer, high steward.' It
was the shabti burial of this same Nemtyemweskhet which Garstang found in the Ay family
chapel. Nemtyemweskhet might have been a member of this extended family, or -more likely368

Fig. 9: The wooden coffinette of Nemtyemweskhet (World Museum, Liverpool, object 55.82.114.
Photograph courtesy of Carolyn Routledge).

We g n e r

Fig. 10: Reconstruction of the limestone shabti sarcophagus and

wooden coffinette of Nemtyemweskhet.

an administrative superior to Ay. Ay may have been responsible for installation of the two
Nemtyemweskhet stelae and for interment of Nemtyemweskhet's shabti burial in the votive
chapel zone at North Abydos.
When Garstang discovered the shabti burial of Nemtyemweskhet it was intact. The set
was composed of a limestone model sarcophagus with vaulted lid (together measuring 37.5 x
28.5 x 21 cm)51 which contained a decorated wooden coffinette (box and lid together measuring 29.25 x 17.25 x 12.25 cm).52 The limestone sarcophagus (Fig. 8) is plain, the sides of the
box roughly-chiseled. The wooden coffin (Fig. 9) is painted with funerary texts employing the
form of truncated hieroglyphs typical of funerary equipment during the Thirteenth Dynasty,
and with an eye panel, representing the head-end of the coffin. Inside the wooden coffinette
Garstang found a gilded ushabti. Unfortunately, the shabti figurine itself vanished shortly
after the time of excavation and appears not to have been drawn or photographed. It is unclear
370

A Group of Miniature Royal Sarcophagi from South Abydos

whether the figurine was wrapped in linen, as occurs in the contemporaneous shabti burials of
Wahnoferhotep and Bener at Lisht and the earlier Deir el-Bahri wax figurines.
The Nemtyemeweskhet shabti burial provides the only approximately datable (early-middle
Thirteenth Dynasty), late Middle Kingdom example of an extrasepulchral shabti which employs
a limestone model sarcophagus. The Nemtyemweskhet sarcophagus provides an interesting
comparison with the South Abydos fragments. Whereas the South Abydos fragments show
a very fine level of craftsmanship with delicately rendered decoration, the Nemtyemweskhet
sarcophagus is not only larger (37.5 cm versus ca. 25-30 cm estimated for our Model 1), but
considerably rougher. Aside from its vaulted lid, the exterior faces of the Nemtyemweskhet box
are left in a rough-chiseled state. Despite the stylistic and qualitative differences we see here an
articulated shabti burial which may parallel the original format of those at South Abydos. Use
of a limestone sarcophagus to house a smaller wooden coffinette and shabti figurine (Fig. 10) is
likely to have been the case also for the South Abydos examples, albeit in our case rendered in
the mode of a royal, rather than private burial.
Two other intact late Middle Kingdom shabti burials are those of Bener and Wahnoferhotep,
which Albert Lythgoe excavated in 1909 and 1914 at the Lisht pyramid complex of Senwosret
I.53 These were buried adjacent to the entrance to the pyramid temple of Senwosret I, in a manner which indicates intentional interment.54 Like that of Nemtyemwekhet at North Abydos, they
are thereby classified as extrasepulchral shabtis. Both employ a painted wooden coffinette similar
in size and with a nearly identical set of offering formulae to that of Nemtyemeweskhet.55 Unlike
Nemtyemweskhet, neither Wahnoferhotep nor Bener has a stone sarcophagus, an additional
element potentially attributable to the relatively high status and wealth of Nemtyemweskhet.56
Importantly, the original disposition of these shabtis is well documented. The shabtis of both
Bener (of calcite bearing the shabti spell), and Wahnoferhotep (of wood with gesso and gilding,
also with shabti spell), were wrapped in linen and buried on their left side with each figurines
head positioned behind the double-eye panel of its model coffin.57
These intact examples of Late Middle Kingdom shabti burials are instructive as they illustrate the extent of the tradition of miniaturization of the wider suite of elements associated
with full-scale human burial. This feature is witnessed already in the Eleventh Dynasty funerary
figurines and coffins at Deir el-Bahri with their use of linen-wrappings and inscribed wooden
coffins. This mode of shabti burial, of course, does not mean that all shabtis during the Middle
Kingdom necessarily were equipped with individual sets of coffins and sarcophagi. Despite the
fact that the overall number of shabtis for the Middle Kingdom is quite small, it appears certain
that already during that time individual shabti figurines were being buried singly and without
coffinettes in private tombs.58 Nevertheless, the Osirian connotations of the shabti suggest
that where financial resources permitted - as in the examples of Nemtyemweskhet, Bener and
Wahnoferhotep - preference was for a fully-articulated, miniaturized rendition of the saH, the
divinely treated body as prepared for journey to, and regeneration in, the netherworld.
Use of model sarcophagi and coffinettes was especially relevant in extrasepulchral contexts
where - without those elements - the shabti would effectively exist divorced from the architectural setting provided by the burial chamber and actual interment of the person with whom the
shabti was linked. Evocation of a full Osirian burial liberated from the actual tomb thus became
a mechanism for associating the deceased with a wide range of sacred localities. In the case of
Nemtyemeweskhet, the burial of an extrasepulchral shabti within the votive chapel zone at North
Abydos is clearly a statement on his desired afterlife associations with Osiris-Khentiamentiu,
his cult place and the complex of rituals celebrated at Abydos. In the case of Bener and
371

We g n e r

Wahnoferhotep, however, we see confirmation of the fact that burial of extrasepulchral shabtis
in the Middle Kingdom could express a rich range of afterlife associations including connections
to royal mortuary cults and presumably the identity of individual kings. The South Abydos
model sarcophagi may represent a royal parallel to this dedication of extrasepulchral shabtis at
the site of a major royal mortuary cult: in this case that of Khakaure-Senwosret III.59

Conclusions

Given the fragmentary condition of the South Abydos model sarcophagi, there exist a number of viable explanations for their original context and function. However, in view of the disposition of the fragments quite far from the three known royal tombs, it appears the most probable
explanation is that these represent the remains of a group of extrasepulchral royal shabti burials
that were once deposited somewhere in the front part of the Senwosret III tomb enclosure. This
enigmatic structure seems to have gone through a changing pattern of use during the construction of the subterranean tomb, and appears to have subsequently housed ceremonial buildings.
This same structure may then later on have become a focal point for votive activity. Although
fragmentary, I would propose that these objects may represent part of a wider phenomenon of
dedications by both royal and private people in the area of the Senwosret III tomb and at the
base of the Dw-Inpw. Although it appears that the architecture of the tomb enclosure was razed
and the location of the subterranean tomb was lost to view shortly after its closing, this would
not have detracted from the sanctity of the place, particularly in connection with the ongoing
mortuary cult of Senwosret III maintained by the community of Wah-Sut.
These model sarcophagi with use of the palace-faade style may represent dedications of
royal extrasepulchral shabtis akin to the later New Kingdom custom of burying royal shabtis
in particularly sacrosanct areas. Use of the palace-faade style implies that they were commissioned and deposited during a timeframe when that particular style still represented an active
element of royal mortuary traditions: presumably during the late Twelfth or earliest part of the
Thirteenth Dynasy. The two subsidiary mastabas (S9 and S10) suggest an interest of certain
royal and elite individuals during this same timeframe in linking themselves with the Senwosret
III tomb and mortuary cult at South Abydos. For other people who did not actually build a
tomb at South Abydos, an extrasepulchral shabti burial may have served as a mechanism for
eternal association with Senwosret III. Although considerable work has already been conducted
in and around the Senwosret III tomb enclosure, the surface has barely been scratched in the
investigation of this expansive landscape. I would hypothesize that in future investigations particularly in the large area of the Lower Enclosure - we may encounter a wider tradition of
votive dedications of which extrasepulchral shabtis are one tangible expression. The continuing
veneration of Senwosret III as part of the wider cultic fabric of Abydos may have served to
attract this form of religious expression for kings and commoners alike during the late Middle
Kingdom, as did the nearby cult of Osiris himself.
Notes:

1
2

A. E. P. Weigall, The Tomb and Cemetery of Senusret III, in Abydos, Part III (London, 1904), 11-20.
This work is conducted in association with the combined University of Pennsylvania-Yale-Institute of Fine Arts,
New York University Expedition to Abydos, D. OConnor and W. K. Simpson, general directors; and under the
oversight of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities. Particular thanks are due to the SCA and Dr. Zahi Hawass for support of the research program at South Abydos.
For the current evidence on the architecture and building sequence of the tomb enclosure see in more detail: Ap-

372

A Group of Miniature Royal Sarcophagi from South Abydos

9
10

11
12

13
14

15
16
17
18
19

pendix 1: The Senwosret III Tomb Enclosure, in J. Wegner, The Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III at Abydos (New
Haven and Philadelphia 2007), 365-381, especially Fig. 166.
See discussion in J. Wegner and M. Abu el-Yazid. The Mountain-of-Anubis: Necropolis Seal of the Senwosret III
Tomb at Abydos (2005), 399-415; J. Wegner, Beneath the Mountain-of-Anubis: Ancient Egypts First Hidden Royal
Tomb (2006), 15-22; J. Wegner, From Elephant-Mountain to Anubis-Mountain? A Theory on the Origins and
Development of the Name Abdju (2007), 459-476.
The field numbers of the objects are SA (South Abydos) 034655, 034696, 034735, 034745 A through L, and
034766 A-B, deriving from excavation Unit 132. In this article we discuss the best, identified pieces of the model
sarcophagi. Several of the fragments with smooth worked surfaces do not provide substantive information on the
form and size of the models and are not included here.
The fragments belonging to the lid of Model 2 (pieces numbered SA.034696 and 034735) have a slightly highercurving vault than occurs in Model 1. Due to this higher vault, it has been considered possible that these fragments
come from a model canopic chest rather than a sarcophagus. At the present time, however, this identification remains uncertain and we take it as a model sarcophagus lid of slightly smaller format, although we may also note that
all of the box fragments with palace-faade paneling appear to be attributable to Model 1.
Compare the carving quality of the South Abydos model sarcophagus with the much rougher format of the limestone model sarcophagus of the Thirteenth Dynasty high steward Nemtyemweskhet from North Abydos (see Fig.
8).
For full-scale paneled royal sarcophagi of the late Twelfth Dynasty see particularly: D. Arnold, The Pyramid Complex
of Senwosret III at Dahshur (New York, 2002), Pls. 104-119 (queens gallery sarcophagi); D. Arnold, Die Pyramidenbezirk des Knigs Amenemhet III. in Dahschur (Mainz, 1987).
Arnold, The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret III, 36-37.
Ibid, 23-24. Arnold suggests these holes represent a decorative adaptation of putlog-holes or the heads of supporting
beams as it would originally have existed in mudbrick architecture. Most importantly the design element occurs in
stone on the Djoser enclosure wall and was copied on the enclosure wall of the Senwosret III pyramid complex at
Dahshur and on contemporary royal sarcophagi, including Senwosret III and Weret II (at Dahshur); and the sarcophagus in Tomb 7 at Lahun. Other paneled royal sarcophagi lack this design element.
Model 2 would have been even smaller although we have no smaller box fragments making it uncertain whether that
model employed a paneled sarcophagus box.
N. Farag and Z. Iskander, The Discovery of Neferuptah, (Cairo, 1971), 17-26 and Pls. 16a-b. This same simplification must exist also on the Hawara sarcophagus of Amenemhat III as shown by the plans of W. M. F. Petrie, Kahun,
Gurob and Hawara, (London, 1890), Pl. 3. The earlier Dahshur sarcophagus of Amenemhat III employs the pattern
of gates separated by triple panels, for which see: Arnold, Die Pyramidenbezirk des Knigs Amenemhet III. in Dahschur, 32-35 and Abb. 12.
H. E. Winlock, The Treasure of El Lahun, Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, 1934),12-22 and Pl. I; and R.
Schiestl, The Coffin from Tomb 1 at Byblos, gypten und Levante 17 (2007), 265-271.
See typology and discussion of G. Lapp, Typologie der Srge und Sargkammern von der 6. bis 13. Dynastie (Heidelberg, 1993), 40 ff., and plates; and discussion of H. Willems, Chests of Life: A Study of the Typology and Conceptual
Development of Middle Kingdom Standard Class Coffins (Leiden, 1988), on Middle Kingdom coffin decoration.
Use of paneling variants also occurs on 12th Dynasty mastabas at Lisht and Dahshur: D. Arnold, Middle Kingdom
Tomb Architecture at Lisht (New Haven and London, 2008).
H. Steckeweh, Die Frstengrber von Qw (Leipzig,1936), Tafel 16.
A. Schwab, Die Sarkophage des Mittleren Reiches (Ph.D. diss., University of Vienna, 1989). The current writer has
not managed to locate a copy of this study.
See discussion of Arnold, The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret III, 36-37.
As we have noted above, since the smaller format Model 2 lid lacks identified box fragments the style of its sarcopha-

373

We g n e r
gus box remains uncertain.
20 D. McCormack, Borrowed Legacy: Royal Tombs S9 and S10 at South Abydos, Expedition 48:2 (2006), 23-26.
21 Although in the case of the Hawara pyramid of Amenemhat III the paneled quartzite sarcophagus was set within the
monolithic burial chamber prior to lowering of the massive cover stones: Petrie, Kahun, Gurob and Hawara, 16-17
and Pls. 2-4.
22 Lack of evidence for built interiors resulted in their identification as purely dummy buildings, Weigall viewed them
as architectural decoys meant to draw would-be tomb-robbers away from the actual location of the subterranean
tomb.
23 J. Wegner and M. Abu el-Yazid. The Mountain-of-Anubis: Necropolis Seal of the Senwosret III Tomb at Abydos
(2005), 399-415.
24 N. Reeves, Observations on a Model Royal Sarcophagus in the British Museum, RdE 45 (1994), 201-205.
25 A. Badawy, A Monumental Gateway for a Temple of King Sety I; An Ancient Model Restored, In Miscellanea
Wilbouriana 1 (Brooklyn, 1972), 1-20.
26 Such a function could extend also to the late Middle Kingdom tomb model of a pyramid interior from the valley
temple of the Dahshur complex of Amenemhat III: Arnold, Die Pyramidenbezirk des Knigs Amenemhet III, 86-88;
Taf. 35, 66.
27 James M. Weinstein, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Egypt (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania 1973), 5 ff;
and 425-426.
28 E. Ayrton, C. Currelly and A. Weigall, Abydos III (London, 1904), 32-34; Pls. 45-48 and 53 (plan).
29 S. Harvey, The Cults of Ahmose at Abydos (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania,1998), 430-432.
30 H, Schneider, Shabtis: An Introduction to the History of Ancient Egyptian Funerary Statuettes (Leiden, 1977), 177182. These include Schneiders Classes I-II, funerary statuettes (Class I in human form, and Class II, mummiform).
31 Schneider, Shabtis, Class III, shabtis of the Middle Kingdom.
32 E. Naville, The XIth Dynasty Temple at Deir El-Bahari: Part I (London, 1907), Pls. 9, 11; J. Taylor, Death and the
Afterlife in Ancient Egypt (2003), 117, Fig. 77 (Kawit); W. C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt: Part 1(Cambridge MA,
1953), 326-329 (Si-Iah)
33 Schneiders comprehensive catalog cites only nine examples of shabtis (Class III dateable to the Middle Kingdom):
Schneider, Shabtis, 182-184. Other sporadic examples occur, but do not significantly augment the corpus: for example: G. Janes, Shabtis: A Private View (Paris, 2002), 3-5.
34 See for instance, J. Baines and P. Lacovara, Burial and the Dead in Ancient Egyptian Society: Respect, Formalism
and Neglect, Journal of Social Archaeology (2002), 9-10.
35 Taylor, Death and the Afterlife, 119.
36 See for instance the discussion of S. Quirke, Two Thirteenth Dynasty Heart Scarabs JEOL 37 (2001-2002), 31-40,
where he discusses late Middle Kingdom examples of the heart scarab and comments on the evolving strategies for
attaining eternal life through religious figural imagery during the late Middle Kingdom.
37 On the Neferuptah tomb: N. Farag and Z. Iskander, The Discovery of Neferuptah (Cairo, 1971).
38 J. De Morgan, Fouilles Dahchour mars-juin 1894 (Vienna, 1895), 88-106; and 107-115 on the burial of princess
Nubheptikhered.
39 As illustrated by the mummiform figurines of Senebtisi in shrine-shaped boxes, a precursor to the later shabti boxes
of this form.
40 Schneider, Shabtis, 26 (catalog) and Plate 2. As Schneider mentions, the sarcophagus was sold on the antiquities
market in Luxor containing the inscribed shabti of the lady Kamose. However, there is some doubt whether the
model sarcophagus and shabti originally belonged together.
41 Examples in the Cairo Museum collection: P. Newberry, Funerary Statuettes and Model Sarcophagi ( Cairo,1957).
See discussion of Taylor, Death and the Afterlife, 119 ff, with photographs of New Kingdom example of nested

374

A Group of Miniature Royal Sarcophagi from South Abydos

anthropoid coffin and rectangular sarcophagus of Eighteenth Dynasty: Fig. 82.
42 Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt I, 326-330.
43 One can note here the unfortunate modern parallel of the 1907 disappearance of the gilded shabti of Nemtyemewekhet at North Abydos, leaving only its model wooden coffin and limestone sarcophagus to the archaeologist,
John Garstang!
44 I. E. S. Edwards, The Shetayet of Rosetau, in L. Lesko (ed.), Egyptological Studies in Honor of Richard A. Parker
(Hanover and London, 1986), 27-36.
45 F. Pumpenmeier, Eine Gunstgabe von seiten des Knigs: Ein extrasepulkrales Shabtidepot Qen-Amuns in Abydos (Heidelberg, 1998).
46 Extrasepulchral shabtis at Abydos include examples of Amenhotep II, as well as a fragmentary model coffin of
Ramses I: J. and L. Aubert, Statuettes gyptiennes: Chaouabtis, Ouchebtis (Paris, 1974), 33, 42ff. See discussion of
Pumpenmeier, Eine Gunstgabe von seiten des Knigs, 76-78; G. Dreyer, et.al., Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen
im frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof 7./8. Vorbericht, MDAIK 52 (1996), esp. 71 and Taf. 25; and general discussion
of Taylor, Death and the Afterlife,133-135.
47 For further discussion of this stela group and connections with the town of Wah-Sut at South Abydos see: J. Wegner,
External Connections of the Community of Wah-Sut during the late Middle Kingdom, in Fs. for Edward Brovarski
(Cairo, 2010).
48 These two are Bolton Museum 10.20/11, and Cairo JdE 39069: V. A. Donohue, The Egyptian Collection (Bolton,
1967), no. 25; W. Simpson, Terrace of the Great God at Abydos (New Haven and Philadelphia, 1974), 4, 18, 23 and
Pl. 29. See also discussion of J. Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals (Cambridge, 1988), 65, and Fig. 50 (p. 54).
49 Simpson, The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos, 18 and Pl. 29. He numbers them as follows: CCG 20087 (ANOC
19.1); CCG 20100 (ANOC 19.2); el-Arabah E330 (ANOC 19.3); Bolton 10.20/11 (ANOC 19.4) and JdE 39069
(ANOC 19.5).
50 Stela CCG 20087 (ANOC 19.1); and CCG 20100 (ANOC19.2).
51 The limestone sarcophagus is now in the Garstang Museum (E.712), University of Liverpool. Thanks to Stephen
Snape for kindly providing me with photograph and measurements of the piece, the details of which are otherwise
unpublished.
52 The wooden model coffin is in the collection of the World Museum, Liverpool (formerly Liverpool Museum,
55.82.114). Thanks to Carolyn Routledge for providing me with photographs of the piece. For additional comments and photographs, see Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, 93-94.
53 D. Arnold, The Pyramid of Senwosret I (New York, 1988), 34-39; Pls. 11-15.
54 Arnold Pyramid of Senwosret I, 34 and 37 demonstrates these were not discarded from robbed tombs in the vicinity
as Lythgoe had speculated. Their burial on the north side of the Senwosret I causeway (in the north-gate/cabin area
between causeway and mastaba of Imhotep, see Arnold, Pyramid of Senwosret I. Pl. 80), suggests a purposeful placement near the entrance into the pyramid temple of Senwosret I.
55 See P. Dorman, The Inscriptions of the Model Coffins of Wahnoferhotep and Bener (Appendix I), in Arnold,
Pyramid of Senwosret I, 147-149. Dorman notes the consistency of the offering formulae with full-scale late Middle
Kingdom coffins including Satsobek, Nubhetepikhered, king Hor (Dahshur); Hapyankhtyfy (Meir); Sebekaa (Thebes). See Dormans summary of the location of invocation of deities (p. 147), to which corpus we may also add the
texts on the Nemtyemweskhet model coffin.
56 Nemtyemweskhet was royal seal bearer and high steward (xtmty-bity, imy-r pr wr), a central governmental office
second only to that of vizier during the late Middle Kingdom. Wahnoferhotep was royal adherent (sA-nswt), and
Bener was a hall-keeper of the palace (iry-at n aH), high status men but below the position occupied by Nemtyemwekhet. If, however, sA-nswt is read literally as kings son, Wahnoferhotep was a royal prince of Dynasty 13, possibly
a son of Neferhotep I (see Schneider, Shabtis, 183). Any significance to the use of a stone sarcophagus in the case of
Nemtyemeweskhet would then appear less likely.

375

We g n e r
57 Imitating the disposition of full-scale human burials during the period. The shabtis of Bener and Wahnoferhotep
at Lisht are also the earliest known to incorporate CT Spell 472, the shabti spell, on actual shabti figurines. The use
of the shabti spell prior to these examples occurs only on Middle Kingdom coffins as part of the Coffin Texts: see
discussion of Schneider, Shabtis, 46-49.
58 See the listed examples of Schneider, Shabtis, 178-184.
59 One might note here the overt royal role in the dedication of private extrasepulchral shabtis during the New Kingdom. This is well illustrated in the shabti groups of Qenamun which employ the text-label di.w/iry.w m Hswt nt
xr-nswt/ made through favor of the king, see Pumpenmeier, Eine Gunstgabe von seiten des Knigs, 47-48. Such an
explicit royal role in extrasepulchral shabti production and dedication could apply also to the Middle Kingdom at
locations like the Senwosret III complex.

References Cited:
D. Arnold, Die Pyramidenbezirk des Knigs Amenemhet III. in Dahschur: Die Pyramide, DAI, Archologische
Verffentlichungen 53 (Mainz, 1987).
D. Arnold, The Pyramid of Senwosret I, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Egyptian Expedition, vol. 22 (New York,
1988).
D. Arnold, The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret III at Dahshur: Architectural Studies, Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Egyptian Expedition, vol. 26 (New York, 2002).
D. Arnold, Middle Kingdom Tomb Architecture at Lisht, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Egyptian Expedition, vol. 27
(New Haven and London, 2008).
J.-F. and L. Aubert, Statuettes gyptiennes: Chaouabtis, Ouchebtis, Librairie dAmrique et dOrient (Paris, 1974).
E. R. Ayrton, C. Currelly and A. E. P. Weigall, Abydos, Part III, The Egypt Exploration Fund (London, 1904).
J. Baines and P. Lacovara, Burial and the Dead in Ancient Egyptian Society: Respect, Formalism and Neglect, Journal
of Social Archaeology 2:5 (2002), 1-36.
A. M. Blackman and H. W. Fairman, The Consecration of an Egyptian Temple according to the Use of Edfu, JEA
32 (1946), 75-91.
A. Badawy, A Monumental Gateway for a Temple of King Sety I; An Ancient Model Restored, in Miscellanea
Wilbouriana 1 (Brooklyn, 1972), 1-20.
J. Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals: Egyptian Art in the Middle Kingdom (Cambridge and New York, 1988).
J. De Morgan, Fouilles Dahchour mars-juin 1894 (Vienna, 1895).
G. Dreyer, E.-M. Engel, U. Hartung, T. Hikade, E. C. Khler and F. Pumpenmeier, Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen
im frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof 7./8. Vorbericht, MDAIK 52 (1996), 11-81.
I. E. S. Edwards, The Shetayet of Rosetau, in L. Lesko (ed.), Egyptological Studies in Honor of Richard A. Parker
(Hanover and London, 1986), 27-36.
N. Farag and Z. Iskander, The Discovery of Neferuptah, Antiquities Department of Egypt (Cairo, 1971).
S. Harvey, The Cults of Ahmose at Abydos (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1998).
W. C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt: Part 1 (Cambridge MA, 1953).
G. Janes, Shabtis, A Private View: Ancient Egyptian Funerary Statuettes in European Private Collections (Paris, 2002).
G. Lapp, Typologie der Srge und Sargkammern von der 6. bis 13. Dynastie, Studien zur Archologie und Geschichte
Altgyptens, Band 7 (Heidelberg, 1993).
D. McCormack, Borrowed Legacy: Royal Tombs S9 and S10 at South Abydos, Expedition 48:2 (2006), 23-26.
D. McCormack, Dynasty XIII Kingship in Ancient Egypt: A Study of Political Power and Administration through an
Investigation of the Royal Tombs of the Late Middle Kingdom (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2008).
E. Naville, The XIth Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari: Part I, Egypt Exploration Fund, 28th Memoir (London, 1907).
P. Newberry, Funerary Statuettes and Model Sarcophagi, Catalogue Gnral des Antiquits gyptiennes, IFAO (Cairo,
1957).

376

A Group of Miniature Royal Sarcophagi from South Abydos

W. M. F. Petrie, Kahun, Gurob and Hawara (London, 1890).
F. Pumpenmeier, Eine Gunstgabe von seiten des Knigs: Ein extrasepulkrales Shabtidepot Qen-Amuns in Abydos, Studien zur
Archologie und Geschichte Altgyptens, Band 19 (Heidelberg, 1998).
S. Quirke, Two Thirteenth Dynasty Heart Scarabs, Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 37 (2001-2002), 31-40.
N. Reeves, Observations on a Model Royal Sarcophagus in the British Museum, Rd 45 (1994), 201-205.
R. Schiestl, The Coffin from Tomb 1 at Byblos, gypten und Levante 17 (2002), 265-271.
H. D. Schneider, Shabtis: An Introduction to the History of Ancient Egyptian Funerary Statuettes, Collections of the
National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden Volume II (Leiden, 1977).
A. Schwab, Die Sarkophage des Mittleren Reiches (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Vienna, 1989).
W. K. Simpson, The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos: the Offering Chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13, Publications of the
Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Abydos, no. 5 (New Haven and Philadelphia, 1974).
H. Steckeweh, Die Frstengrber von Qw, Verffentlichungen der Ernst von Sieglin-Expedition, 6. Band (Leipzig,
1936).
J. Taylor, Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt, The British Museum Company (London, 2003).
J. Wegner and M. Abu el-Yazid. The Mountain-of-Anubis: Necropolis Seal of the Senwosret III Tomb at Abydos, in E.
Czerny, et.al. (eds.), Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak (Leuven, 2005), 399-415.
J. Wegner, Beneath the Mountain-of-Anubis: Ancient Egypts First Hidden Royal Tomb. Expedition 48:2 (2006),
15-22.
J. Wegner, The Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III at Abydos, Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt,
vol. 8 (New Haven and Philadelphia, 2007).
J. Wegner, From Elephant-Mountain to Anubis-Mountain ? A Theory on the Origins and Development of the Name
Abdju, in Z. Hawass and J. Richards (eds.), The Archaeology of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of David
OConnor, Vol. II (Cairo, 2007), 459-476.
J. Wegner, The Tomb of Senwosret III at Abydos: Considerations on the Origins and Development of the Royal
Amduat-Tomb, in W. K. Simpson, D. Silverman and J. Wegner (eds.), Archaism and Innovation: Studies in the
Culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt (New Haven and Philadelphia, 2009), 103-168.
J. Wegner, External Connections of the Community of Wah-Sut during the late Middle Kingdom, in Fs. for Edward
Brovarski (Cairo, 2010).
A. E. P. Weigall, The Tomb and Cemetery of Senusret III, in E. Ayrton, C. Currelly and A. Weigall, Abydos, Part III.
The Egypt Exploration Society (London, 1904), 11-20.
J. M. Weinstein, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Egypt (Ph.D. diss, University of Pennsylvania, 1973).
H. Willems, Chests of Life: A Study of the Typology and Conceptual Development of Middle Kingdom Standard Class Coffins,
Ex Oriente Lux (Leiden, 1988).
H. E. Winlock, The Treasure of El Lahun, The Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, 1934).

377