DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49271#0075
Excavations at Nuri
53
Henuttakhabit and (2) a silver libation bowl of Nalma’aya was found buried with Netak-
labataman in pyramid X. The pyramid (XXVIII) of Henuttakhabit was by position,
by foundation deposits, and by a shawwabti-type, later than that of Amantakaya (XXVI)
which was built by Maleneqen. By this association, pyramid XVIII and Nalma’aya
are directly attached to the family of Aspalta and to the end of group b. The type of the
pyramid, its stone and masonry, agree with this date, but in small pyramids built of local
stone these features have little significance. The form of the enclosing wall with its
reentrant angles has in my opinion more weight. It is an exact copy on a smaller scale
of the enclosing wall of pyramid V. All the other small pyramids have simple rectangular
enclosures. The second fact, the presence of the silver bowl in the tomb of Netaklabata-
man, has more significance for the date of X than for that of XVIII. As it was buried
with Netaklabataman, it must have been in his possession,— a fact best explained by the
assumption that he was the immediate successor of Nalma’aya.
The only other objects which could be definitely assigned to Nalma’aya were the
shawwabti-figures found in the pyramid. These were of two sorts, one hand-cut and the
other half-molded, but both small and poor. The hand-cut figures present the tradi-
tional type I 3 d, while the half-molded figures, which are smaller, are of a type found in
no other tomb. This new type has a lappet-wig, the right hand higher than the left,
two hoes and a basket, or type III 3 d without the pilaster. , Thus the smaller figures
are a mixture of the traditional type I 3 d and the older type III 2 e which last appeared
in the queen’s figures from XXII. None of the figures from the other small pyramids
(XIX, XVI, XVII) show any such reversion to an older type. Therefore, the shaw-
wabti-figures of XVIII indicate that XVIII is earlier than the other small pyramids.
The relative dates of XVIII and XIX are clear from the positions of the two struc-
tures. Pyramid XVIII, although only 20 cm. higher than XIX, is in the very middle of
the knoll, while XIX is to one side on the “northern” slope of the knoll. Furthermore,
XVIII is directly behind and earlier than VII, while XIX is behind the space between
VII and VI, and might be later than VII.
When the site of XVIII was selected, a number of places remained available for
either a large or a small pyramid (VII, X, in the “western” row, and II, IV, behind);
but the site actually selected was too limited for a large pyramid. From the beginning,
therefore, XVIII must have been planned as a small pyramid. Either the king knew
his own lack of means and resigned himself to a small pyramid, or he died before he had
begun his tomb, leaving the work to his family. In itself, the situation of XVIII is
an excellent one for a small pyramid. The only unsuitable feature is that it encroaches
on the outlook of pyramid I, which up to that time had been carefully respected. This was
no doubt the result of the passage of time, and perhaps also of the decay or destruction
53
Henuttakhabit and (2) a silver libation bowl of Nalma’aya was found buried with Netak-
labataman in pyramid X. The pyramid (XXVIII) of Henuttakhabit was by position,
by foundation deposits, and by a shawwabti-type, later than that of Amantakaya (XXVI)
which was built by Maleneqen. By this association, pyramid XVIII and Nalma’aya
are directly attached to the family of Aspalta and to the end of group b. The type of the
pyramid, its stone and masonry, agree with this date, but in small pyramids built of local
stone these features have little significance. The form of the enclosing wall with its
reentrant angles has in my opinion more weight. It is an exact copy on a smaller scale
of the enclosing wall of pyramid V. All the other small pyramids have simple rectangular
enclosures. The second fact, the presence of the silver bowl in the tomb of Netaklabata-
man, has more significance for the date of X than for that of XVIII. As it was buried
with Netaklabataman, it must have been in his possession,— a fact best explained by the
assumption that he was the immediate successor of Nalma’aya.
The only other objects which could be definitely assigned to Nalma’aya were the
shawwabti-figures found in the pyramid. These were of two sorts, one hand-cut and the
other half-molded, but both small and poor. The hand-cut figures present the tradi-
tional type I 3 d, while the half-molded figures, which are smaller, are of a type found in
no other tomb. This new type has a lappet-wig, the right hand higher than the left,
two hoes and a basket, or type III 3 d without the pilaster. , Thus the smaller figures
are a mixture of the traditional type I 3 d and the older type III 2 e which last appeared
in the queen’s figures from XXII. None of the figures from the other small pyramids
(XIX, XVI, XVII) show any such reversion to an older type. Therefore, the shaw-
wabti-figures of XVIII indicate that XVIII is earlier than the other small pyramids.
The relative dates of XVIII and XIX are clear from the positions of the two struc-
tures. Pyramid XVIII, although only 20 cm. higher than XIX, is in the very middle of
the knoll, while XIX is to one side on the “northern” slope of the knoll. Furthermore,
XVIII is directly behind and earlier than VII, while XIX is behind the space between
VII and VI, and might be later than VII.
When the site of XVIII was selected, a number of places remained available for
either a large or a small pyramid (VII, X, in the “western” row, and II, IV, behind);
but the site actually selected was too limited for a large pyramid. From the beginning,
therefore, XVIII must have been planned as a small pyramid. Either the king knew
his own lack of means and resigned himself to a small pyramid, or he died before he had
begun his tomb, leaving the work to his family. In itself, the situation of XVIII is
an excellent one for a small pyramid. The only unsuitable feature is that it encroaches
on the outlook of pyramid I, which up to that time had been carefully respected. This was
no doubt the result of the passage of time, and perhaps also of the decay or destruction