Peter Jánosi, Giza in der 4. Dynastie – (Vienna, 2005).
Vol 1. The Mastabas of the Central Field and the Rock Burials. (Austrian Academy of Arts and Sciences).

p. 418-422 . NOTE: I have not translated all of this, as most of it has nothing to do with the matter at hand, i.e. the dating of the tomb. I have generally omitted footnotes except where directly relevant, and when relevant have placed them within brackets within the text.

28.

Owner: Hemetre

Position: the tomb lies in the northwest corner of the excavated Central Field, between the tombs of Iunre to the Northwest and Anchmare in the Southeast.

Tomb history and publication: the complex was discovered, excavated and published by Hassan in 1934-35. The tomb is now not accessible.

Family Connections.

Hemetre was the “eldest bodily king’s daughter’ and “priestess of Hathor.” Her ancestry is not certain, although she has been thought to be a daughter of Chepfren since the discovery and publication of her tomb. [fn. 2520 Hassan, on the basis of the estate names (domains) compounded with the name Chepfren.] This genealogical attribution rests principally on the position of the tomb within the cemetery, the titles of the tomb’s owner, the names of estates, as well as the circular argument that she has to be placed at the beginning of the 5th dynasty because of the position of her tomb. A while ago, however, Bolshakov, on the basis of various criteria, was able to show convincingly that the princess has to be dated at the earliest to the second half of the 5th Dynasty. This proposal can also be supported on the basis of the construction history of the tomb which shows that Hemetre took over an older, perhaps undecorated tomb, and therefore does not have to be a daughter of Chepfren, as the inscriptions say. Perhaps she was only a more distant relative of the royal house of the 4th Dynasty who had herself buried in the Central Field at Giza during the 5th Dynasty. Hemetre had three sons and a daughter, all of whom are stated to be merely rX.t-nwst (known to the king), Whom she married is unknown.

This rock-cut tomb is one of the largest in this section of the cemetery, and is greater in size than all of the sites attributed to the sons of Chepfren. [fn. 2527 Bolshakov has rightly emphasized the fact that the size of the grave is not commensurate with the rank of its owner.]

[Several ¶¶ of text omitted]

Construction

The rock-cut tomb of Hemetre is noteworthy in several particulars, especially since the owner is to be assigned a place in the second half of the 5th Dynasty, but the tomb clearly shows features typical of the rock tombs of the late 4th Dynasty. It is clear that the original tomb remained incomplete, and was enlarged somewhat later that were also never completed. From this one assumes that Hemetre either took over or was given (?) [sic] a rock-cut tomb of the late 4th or early 5th Dynasty, but was likewise unable to complete it. For the early dating, one points not only to certain architectural characteristics, but also the independent position of the tomb within the cemetery, accessible though its own entranceway.

[Several ¶¶ of text dealing with construction history omitted. The supposed original state of the tomb is discussed, along with the features that Jánosi believes Hemetre added, including the area in which the offering formula in question is now present. He notes that she, too, did not finish the tomb since the decoration and inscriptions are unfinished and the original construction is evident in several places. Missing, too, are the inscriptions on the false door necessary for the mortuary cult].

Dating.

For the chronological placement of the tomb’s owner, see the aforementioned article by Bolshakov. The tomb has, since its discovery, been dated to the beginning of the 5th Dynasty, but architectural peculiarities and the position and size of the complex point without doubt to the fact that the tomb was originally built in the late 4th or early 5th Dynasty, but was -- at the earliest (probably not before Niuserre– partially enlarged and decorated for Hemetre, though it remained incomplete. [Fn. 2542 The recent criticisms made by Baude, ( Royal Family 517, ff.), who sticks to the early dating, are insubstantial, because they are either indemonstrable or too general. See also the most recent Bolshakov comment in Mélanges offert à Edith Varga, Bull. du Musée Hongrois de Beaux-Arts, Suppl 2001. Baude in particular disagrees that the tomb was constructed in several stages. But the demonstrable evolution of tombs in Giza, as well as the state of the princess’s grave, leave no doubt that an earlier grave was altered and partially inscribed for Hemetre.]


On the basis of Jánosi’s study (the overall work is mammoth and exceedingly well-documented and diagrammed), I am now pretty well convinced that the later dating, i.e. mid-5th Dynasty, is likely. Because the tomb is at least partially anomalous, and because I think Jánosi succeeds in demonstrating that tomb was built in stages, for my money at least, the burden of proof has shifted to those asserting the earlier date.


Lee