The Coffin of Taiuy

Museum Number: EA54350

In this case study, I will discuss the archaeological context of the Coffin of Taiuy (Figure 1) currently on

display at the British Museum. I will likewise draw some points of comparison between it and other

similar objects, particularly, the coffin of Katebet (Figure 5), exhibited alongside it. My work is divided in

three main sections. In the first one I will explore the history of the discovery of the object; secondly, I

will comment on its material aspects, and finally I will discuss some of the symbolic meanings that would

have been attached to it in Egyptian society.

One of the bigger issues behind this study is the development of funerary iconography in Ancient

Egypt. For this reason, I intend to contrast a specific coffin at a determined point in the development of

Egyptian mortuary culture with the wider context around it. By means of this I hope to be able to

elucidate the cultural process that led to the creation of the Coffin of Taiuy. The main source I will use for

this study is Gianluca Miniacis Rishi Coffins and the Funerary Culture of Second Intermediate Period

Egypt.

Archaeological context: found site and history of discovery

As Taylor notes, the rishi type appears to have been originated at Thebes, and all save one of the coffins

that have reached us come from Theban cemeteries (2010, 224). Taiuys is not the exception. It was found

in Western Thebes, at el-Birabi, by the Earl of Carnarvon and Howard Carter who undertook several

expeditions into that part of Egypt between the years 1911 and 1914. It is coffin number 15 in complex C

62, tomb 64 (Miniaci 2011, 221). See Figure 3 for a map of the complex.

Before moving onto the object in terms of itself, it is necessary to know that Carters numbering

system places the coffin of Tawy lower in the sequence of the burials recorded, and should therefore,

represent an earlier interment in the tomb (Miniaci 2011, 96). This shows us the popularity of the C 62

complex as a burial ground, and Carter also notes that some of the coffins appear to have been reused

(1912, 4).

1
 Figure 1: Wooden anthropoid coffin of Taiuy.

(After British Museum Online Catalogue EA54350)

2
 In his notebooks, Carter also describes how all the tombs in the C 62 complex were shut off by

the use of sand bricks and stones in the corridors. Figure 2 shows the blocked passages of tomb 62 / 62,

but tomb 64 was in a similar condition (Miniaci 2011, 100). These measures probably were meant to

discourage grave robbers, nevertheless, there is evidence of mummies being re-wrapped (102). The means

used to prevent access to the tombs also provide us with another interesting archaeological detail. Two

funerary cones among the debris bear the cartouche of king Ahmose. There is, Miniaci notes a

noteworthy absence of any other successive kings names (2011,101), which shows us that this complex,

unlike the nearby C 37, fell out of fashion after the reign of Ahmose.

Figure 2: Drawing of the faade of tomb 62/62 by P. Whelan.

(After Miniaci 2011, 101)

By way of general remarks, I must note that both tomb complexes abound in rishi coffins,

however, the material conditions were not ideal for their conservation. Del Vesco remarks on the damage

that flooding caused to the Necropolis (2009, 139), and the Carter wrote of the destructive presence of

white ants that damaged the wood whereof many objects were made (1912, 51).

3
 Figure 3: Plan of complexes C 37 and C 62.

(Cited by Miniaci 2011, 85; after Carnarvon, Earl of, Carter, H. 1912, 37), edited by me.

4
Material Aspects, Manufacture and Dating

Taiuys is an anthropoid coffin made out of sycamore wood, a native timber (Miniaci 2011, 221).

Whereas woods like cedar were reserved to high-ranking people, sycamore fig wood was usual for

individuals of humble rank (Taylor 2001, 220). It appears that this object as many others like it (rishi

coffins from the 17th and 18th dynasties) was hollowed out of a tree trunk (223). It has the following

dimensions:

Height: 195cm

Width: 50,5 cm

Depth: 72,5 cm (Miniaci 2011, 221).

While we could just take a look at the label for dating, certain typological aspects of this coffin

can help us to deduce an approximate point of origin in the development of Egyptian funerary culture

without any curatorial help. The fact that we are dealing with an anthropoid coffin, also called mummy-

shaped or mummiform, is the first clue, as it was during the Middle Kingdom that these objects were

introduced. (Miniaci 2010, 49). As Taylor notes, the first extant example dates back to the 11 th dynasty

(2001, 222). The shape of the coffin therefore establishes a terminus post quem date. It simply could not

have been fabricated before the 11th dynasty. We know this because of its shape, however, the decoration

helps us to pin down the time frame more precisely.

The plaster surface is highly decorated, with a long central inscription panel inscribed in

hieroglyphs and, more conspicuously, a coat of painted feathers, otherwise known as a rishi pattern. The

central column of inscription has been a feature of coffins since around the later Middle Kingdom (Taylor

2001, 222), but the rishi decoration is more historically specific. This pattern is first attested in 17 th

dynasty funerary paraphernalia (Taylor 2001, 223). Miniaci notes, however, that some rarely recorded

instances of such coffins can be found for private individuals during the late Middle Kingdom (2010, 49).

Nevertheless, as Figure 4 attests, it is only during the 17 th dynasty that both royal and non-royal mummies

could find their resting place in rishi coffins, which implies that during this time, these coffins found the

apex of their popularity.

5
 Figure 4: Social distribution of rishi coffins across time

(After Miniaci 2010, 50)

Rishi is a word borrowed from the Arabic that literally means feathered. The term was first used

by Luigi Vassalli to refer to a particular style of decoration which according to him distinguishes these

coffins from those of qualunque altra epoca. It mainly consists on the presence of two lunghe ali, a

vari colori avviluppano tutto il sarcofago (1867,134).

Even though the rishi pattern helps us establish a more exact terminus post quem date, after this

we start finding problems. When looking at curatorial comments, the dating of this coffin is not

completely straightforward. The British Museum online catalogue sets it in the 17 th dynasty. However, the

museum label states it belongs to the early 18 th dynasty, about 1550-1500 BC. Miniaci likewise supports

the latter dating (2011, 221). In my opinion, if it was made during the 18 th dynasty, it must have been

before the paradigm change that Taylor discusses wherein anthropoid coffins started to represent human

simulacra with their arms crossed over their chest, as is the case of the Coffin of Katebet, (Figure 5), an

example of a late 18th dynasty burial, which is exhibited alongside the Coffin of Taiuy. The fact that Taiuy

was a private individual hardly helps us determine the antiquity of this coffin as, as Figure 2 shows, it was

only royalty who engaged in an intermittent use of these funerary artefacts.

6
 Figure 5: the Coffin of Katebet

(After British Museum Online Catalogue EA6665)

In terms of pictorial composition, the feathers function as both horizontal and vertical elements.

At about the height of the torso, they mostly obey a horizontal organisation and as they make their way

downward, they rather favour the latter. It is important to note that the feathers are only present on the

front of the coffin. However, its body is divided horizontally by four yellowish bands that do run down

the sides (see Figure 2) and therefore provide some compositional continuity between the lid and the

box of the coffin. These bands, as Taylor suggests, may have been taken over from the iconography of

rectangular coffins (2001, 223).

Function and Symbolism

Many of the elements of this coffin have a symbolic function linked to reincarnation. First of all, the

feathers can symbolise the figure of the Goddess Nut, embracing the ba of the deceased and welcoming it

into the afterlife. Miniaci provides an alternative reading wherein the feathers directly represent the ba

itself, manifested as a bird, perhaps the heron (2010, 56). A similar point of view is that of Dodson and

Ikram, who propose that the feathers represent the ba, however, not manifested as a bird, but as a human-

bird hybrid, a composition that we now associate to the New Kingdom (204). Finally, Oeter Lacovara

7
suggests that the feathered pattern could be derived from royal attire (2007, 39. Cited by Miniaci 2010,

54).

Moving on to other symbolic elements, the central panel is inscribed with the htp di nswt formula

(Miniaci 2010, 50) shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Typical invocation to Osiris inscribed on rishi coffins

(After Handbook Mummies 1938, 31-2)

This prayer provides the groundwork for the identification of the deceased with the god Osiris.

This ties in with another element of iconography. Taiuy, although not a royal person, is wearing a nemes

headdress, which we see in the coffins of both private and royal individuals (Minaci 2010, 50). This,

however, is not an usurpation of royal prerogatives but rather a symbolic means of identifying the

deceased with the pharaoh, and therefore with the god Osiris (Miniaci 2010, 56; Taylor 2001, 224). The

green pigments which dominate the colour scheme of the coffin are also reminiscent of Osiris, who is

often depicted with green skin.

8
 Other symbolic elements are the eye panel on both sides side of the coffin (See Figure 1),

represented by the symbol. This was not meant to be purely decorative, but actually pragmatic, as it

would have enabled the soul of the deceased to see out of his coffin (Taylor 2001, 220). In more general

terms, speaking about the anthropoid coffin as a whole, Taylor reaches the conclusion that it evidently

acted as a substitute body for the deceased and represented him in the transfigured state to which he

aspired, fully equipped with the attributes of a divine king (223).

A final ritualistic element of this coffin I believe is worth mentioning is the bottom band, which is

decorated with black and red spots, possibly intended to represent the sandy desert as certain vignettes of

the Book of the Dead use this convention (Handbook Mummies 1938, 32).

Conclusion

I would like to end this essay with a reflection on the task of the archaeologist that I believe follows

naturally from the symbolic elements I have been discussing. The archaeological record tends to skew our

perspective. We may know the material conditions where a certain coffin was found, the wood it is made

from, and binomial of the kind of ant that caused it to deteriorate, but the fact that we call the object a

coffin, or a sarcophagus means that we are missing something fundamental about the culture that

constructed it originally.

The word coffin comes from the Greek , which simply means basket. The word

sarcophagus traces its origin to , from (meaning flesh) and (meaning eating). It

was used in the phrase , meaning flesh-eating stone (Klein 1971, s.v.).

Etymologically, therefore, the purpose of a sarcophagus is to eliminate the flesh and perhaps release the

soul from the mortal coil, as Shakespeare put it.

In the culture of Ancient Egypt, the body was in a way an attribute of the soul, and instead

seeking its elimination, funerary rites sought to preserve it. Instead of the word sarcophagus, the Ancient

Egyptians used words as djebat meaning 'shrine', but also the rectangular sarcophagi of the New

Kingdom. Furthermore, the word neb ankh used to refer to coffins means literally 'lord of life'. The word

sukhet denotes a mummy cartonnage and means egg, and finally the word mwt could mean both coffin

9
and mother. (271-3). We can understand the use of these terms intellectually, but as our thoughts are

determined by the fascism of language as Roland Barthes (1977) would put it, it is impossible to adopt

completely the ethos behind them.

That being said, a methodological approach towards the archaeological context of an object can

allow us to cheat this impossibility, insofar as it is philosophically possible. Through understanding the

ritual importance of a bodys resting place, the protection that Ahmose bestowed on complex C 62 takes

on another light. Such an act therefore should be interpreted in the context of the culture in which it

occurred. The same could be said about the act of unwrapping mummies and robbing their graves.

10
References:

Barthes, R. 1977. Lecture in Inauguration of the Chair of Literary Semiology, Collge de

France, January 7, 1977. Translated by Richard Howard. The MIT Press. Vol. 8
(Spring, 1979), pp. 3-16. JSTOR.

British Museum. 1938. Handbook to the Egyptian Mummies and Coffins Exhibited in the British
Museum.
Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities. I. E. S Edwards, 1909-1996;
Alan W Shorter; Sydney Smith, 1889- London: The British Museum, 1938.

British Museum Catalogue a. Coffin of Taiuy. EA54350. London. Retrieved on 13 March 2017 from
World Wide Web:
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?
objectId=117246&partId=1&searchText=rishi&page=1

British Museum Catalogue b. Coffin of Katebet. London. EA6665. Retrieved on 13 March 2017 from
World Wide Web:
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?
objectId=124664&partId=1&searchText=Mummy+of+Katebet&page=1

Carnarvon, Earl of, Carter, H. 1912. Five Years Explorations at Thebes: A Record of Work Done
1907-1911. London.

Cooney, K. M. 2015. Coffins, Cartonnage, and Sarcophagi. In Hartwig, M. A (ed) A Companion

to Ancient Egyptian Art. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 269-292.

Del Vesco, P. 2009. Archaeological context: formation processes. In: Betr, MC and Del Vesco, P
and Miniaci, G, (eds.) Seven Seasons at Dra Abu El-Naga: the Tomb of Huy (tt14): Preliminary
Results.
Dodson, A., Ikram, S. 1998. The Mummy in Ancient Egypt: Equipping the Dead for Eternity. London:
Thames & Hudson Ltd. 204

Klein, E. 1971. A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, Amsterdam:

Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.

Lacovara, P. 2007. A rishi coffin from Giza and the development of this type of mummy case.
In Hawass, Z. and Richards. J. (eds). The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in
Honour of David B. OConnor. Cairo: Conseil Suprme des antiquits de l'gypte. 3-46.

Miniaci, G. 2010. The Iconography of the Rishi Coffins and the legacy of the late Middle
Kingdom. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 46, 49-61.

Miniaci, G. 2011. Rishi Coffins and the Funerary Culture of Second Intermediate Period Egypt.
London: Golden House Publications. 221.

11
Taylor, J. H. 2001. Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt. Chicago. The University of
Chicago Press. 214-43.

Vassali, L. 1867. I monumenti istorici egizi: il museo e gli scavi d'antichit, eseguiti per ordine
di S.A. il Vicer Ismail Pascia: notizia sommaria. Milano. 137.

12