Page 58 [58]
The concept of clustering of tombs within the Saqqara necropolis according to the
profession of their owners, has recently been suggested by some scholars recently.”
Malek presents the idea in his study about the tomb chapel of the ‘royal wb?’
Heqamaatreneheh that the tombs in the cemetery around the Teti pyramid seem to be
grouped on the basis of professional relationships, however, he notes that the available
material is insufficient for definite conclusions to be drawn.’” Raven mentions that the
cemetery near the Teti pyramid seems to have been preferred by ‘royal wb3s’, as well as
by gold-workers, other craftsmen and certain military officials, at the same time, he
points out that this evidence is still not conclusive in itself since most of the officials
bore several titles in the course of their careers and in many cases, it is not clear at all
which title was considered as the most important one for them according to which they
identified themselves within the social and administrative hierarchy.* Two other factors
can also be considered in the organization of the tombs, as Raven also notes, the pattern
of patronage when a superior official allowed a favourite assistant to be buried close to
his own monument, or even within the precincts of his own funerary structure, on the
one hand, and on the other hand, dynastic considerations as in the case of the layout of
tombs in the vicinity of the tomb of Horemheb when the proximity of the founder of
the dynasty had greater importance than other patterns of association. Based on detailed
studies on different aspects of the Saqqara necropolis, Staring concluded that while the
general composition of the two main cemeteries is quite comparable, differences became
obvious in regard to the ranks held by the officials: the cemetery south of the Unas
causeway contains the tombs of higher ranking officials than those located in the one
around the Teti pyramid.’ He also presents a closer look at the case of ‘royal wb3s’
regarding the distribution of tombs within the necropolis, although without any further
conclusions concerning the pattern of organization.*® However, looking at the distribu¬
tion of their certain and hypothetical place of burials (Tables 9-10.), such grouping based
Malek, 1985; Malek, 1988; Raven, 2000; Staring, 2017.
‚= Mälek, 1985, 50; Mälek, 1988, 136.
13 Raven, 2000, 136-137.
“4 Staring, 2017, 601.
15 Staring counts eighteen officials who are represented by the available records, however, the title of
Qenherkhepeshef designated as wh3 is not convincing at all according to the remaining inscription
on his stone block, consequently he is not represented in the present corpus. The cloth-sign, which
might mistakenly have led to the identification of Qenherkhepeshef as an wb3, should rather be
considered as the determinative of the expression #3-s.t n3-S“t ‘office of letters/documents’ which
forms the latter, remaining part of his title. For the photo of the stone block, see Quibell, 1908, pl.
XXXVIL.1.