Over the last few years, latching onto a renewed interest among scholars in the study of pottery offering trays and soul houses, the author has conducted a study of the objects belonging to this class in Turin’s Museo Egizio. The museum holds a collection of 39 offering trays and 5 soul houses, the majority of which are currently displayed in the permanent galleries. This first publication presents a thorough study of all the offering trays. Soul houses will be addressed in a future paper.1

The Museo Egizio’s collection of offering trays is particularly interesting and rich, since it includes a wide variety of well-preserved specimens and a significant95 number of related fragments, and the provenance and circumstances of acquisition are either well-known or can be reconstructed. Despite this, only a few of them (the best-preserved ones) have been discussed in the literature and, given earlier lack of interest towards this category of objects, their number and origin have been only partially established and understood.

In the present paper, all of the 39 pottery offering trays from the collection of the Museo Egizio are briefly described, analysed, and discussed. A considerable number of other trays from museum collections and archaeological excavations are also considered, allowing for comparisons, the identification of parallels, and the highlighting of apparent similarities and trends within the same site, area, or even region.

While it would be difficult to properly summarise all the complex circumstances under which one of the largest collections of Egyptian antiquities in the world came into being, it should be kept in mind that a large part of the artefacts in the Museo Egizio (inventoried under the designation Catalogo, abbreviated C. or Cat.) was acquired with the purchase of the collection of Bernardino Drovetti, consul in Egypt.2 Another conspicuous group (inventoried under the designation Supplemento, abbreviated S. or Suppl.) came from the numerous campaigns of the Missione Archeologica Italiana (M.A.I.), directed by Ernesto Schiaparelli and his collaborators.3

There are also a number of objects which lost, for one reason or another, their original inventory numbers and were assigned new ones, prefixed “Provvisorio” (abbreviated P. or Provv.). Most of these objects are of uncertain provenance and their modalities of acquisition are unclear.4

The trays in the Museo Egizio can be divided into two groups according to provenance (Asyut, Gebelein) and a third group (unprovenanced) comprising all the remaining objects. The closest provenanced parallels will be used here as “anchors” to propose a likely geographical origin for the unprovenanced ones. Parallels will be searched for in the known corpus of trays from other museum collections and excavations.5

In addition to the summary publication of the entire corpus of trays from the Museo Egizio, this article’s main contribution is to provide a methodology for the typological study of the material and the identification of parallels for the reconstruction of provenances.

Offering trays have been discussed in a number of articles published in the course of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, stimulated by the increasing quantity of material discovered in excavations all over Egypt.11 Actually, offering trays have been part of museum collections since the first half of the nineteenth century.12 Yet, interest among Egyptologists was never keen enough for the wealth of available material to be organised into comprehensive catalogues or monographs, most probably due to their anepigraphic nature.13 This has left the total number of trays in museum collections and excavations unquantified and the distinction between types in the same class of material never sufficiently clear.14 Such a quantification would be the first necessary step to understand the position of trays within the range of cultic and ritual activities. More recent times have seen an increase of articles and publications covering the subject in more or less homogeneous ways.15 Still, we are far from having quantified the material and we continue to work on different corpora and different collections, each of us applying their own method and terminology, often different from those of the others.

As regards the state of research on the subject, the most updated and complete articles on offering trays were written by A. Kilian, who published the material from the German-Egyptian excavations in the necropolis of Asyut.16 Her articles summarise – and clarify – the main interpretations of offering trays, and include general remarks about the materiality, decoration, placement, and use of trays, as well as adding to the corpus new material from recent excavations in Asyut.

The fourteen offering trays recovered by the Italian Archaeological Mission in Asyut and now held in the Museo Egizio were collected during several archaeological campaigns spanning from 1906 to 1913. The archaeological contexts of discovery are not specified in the available records, except in one case (S. 7979, see below). It is known that S. 8141 was found in 1906, and S. 9179 in 1907 or 1908.33 S. 10647 and S. 10648 were found in 1910. The remaining nine trays were found during the archaeological missions from 1911 to 1913.34

The trays recovered by Schiaparelli are comparable with the material excavated by Hogarth, Chassinat,35 Kamal,36 and more recently the German-Egyptian mission. All the Siutian trays published and made98 available in publications, reports, catalogues, and online databases were considered for the present study. The British Museum collection was studied through photographs available on the online catalogue. The trays recovered by the German-Egyptian mission were studied using published data in reports, articles, and publications.

The Siutian offering trays were all modelled in Nile clay. The predominant shape is quadrangular (60.71 %), with a protruding spout. Rectangular shapes (12.5 %) are attested, as well as two U-shaped trays (3.57 %) and two oval ones (3.57 %). The rest are too fragmentary for the original shape to be recognised.

The sheer majority is painted over with a red-brown washing (66.07 %). The remaining trays are either whitewashed (16.07 %) or unpainted (four specimens, 7.14 %), or their surface is too poorly preserved to establish this.

A defining feature of many trays from Asyut is the presence of internal boundaries, small L-shaped inner edges that divide the surface.37 The separation of internal spaces on the surface appears to be inspired by contemporary stone offering tables.38 On the other hand, some trays from Asyut show no spatial divisions of any sort, thus making this a criterion for typological distinction. The presence, absence, or placement of the ox head is also a criterion for typological distinction, as the head appears on 80% of the trays from Asyut.

Combining all these criteria, the present author has developed a typological distinction into four types and five variants (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2

Diagram summarising the types and variants discerned in the corpus of offering trays from Asyut.

The first type, Asyut Type I, comprises rectangular and U-shaped trays, with sunken parallel basins and98 a single raised elongated offering, which could well represent a loaf of bread or a Htp sign, as is the case in contemporary offering tables.39 Type I Variant A includes at least four specimens, presently held in the Museo Egizio and the British Museum (EA)(Table 1):40

Table 1

Asyut Type I Variant A.

Fig. 3

S. 7979 and S. 14945. Photos by Nicola dell’Aquila and Federico Taverni/Museo Egizio.

S. 7979 (Fig. 3) is roughly modelled, with two sub-elliptical depressions between which lies a modelled raised offering. The depressions are connected to each other through a narrow channel incised with a thin tool, which runs below the tip of the raised offering. One of the depressions has a hole for the pouring of liquids. A direct parallel for this tray, albeit of better quality, is EA 46612. S. 7979 is the only Turin offering tray whose archaeological context is known, having been recovered by Schiaparelli’s mission in Tomb 2.41 The context of the tomb was disturbed and only100 a few of the objects from the burial assemblage were recovered: a pottery sherd of a vessel (shoulder + rim, Nile clay, red slip, S. 7975 [sic]); three headrests (S. 7975/1,2,3); two jars (S. 7976 with an ovaloid body and vertical band-shaped rim; S. 7977 with a sub-cylindrical body and an extroverted rim); and an unfired stopper, S. 7980. A date can be proposed for Tomb 2 thanks to the material found inside it, particularly the jars. The ovaloid jar S. 7976 has direct parallels datable to the mid-Eleventh–early-Twelfth Dynasties.42 Jar S. 7977 finds a direct parallel in pottery excavated in Asyut by the German-Egyptian mission and dated to the Eleventh Dynasty (Mentuhotep II).43 The three headrests also point to a date at the transition from the First Intermediate Period to the Middle Kingdom, since their shapes are attested both in Old and Middle Kingdom contexts.44 A slightly earlier date cannot be ruled out, as P. Del Vesco dates similar material from the same site to the First Intermediate Period only.45

Some fragments recovered in Asyut by the German-Egyptian mission46 may belong to this type, but they are too poorly preserved for this to be sure (Table 2).

Table 2

Fragments of OT recovered in Asyut by the German-Egyptian mission, possibly Asyut Type I Variant A.

Type I Variant B is comprised of two U-shaped offering trays47 with basins and a single raised offering (Table 3).

Table 3

Asyut Type I Variant B.

Fig. 4

S. 14943. Photos by Nicola dell’Aquila and Federico Taverni/Museo Egizio.

S. 14943 (Fig. 4) is more difficult to interpret since its surface features are less ascertainable due to erosion. It is a U-shaped offering tray, with two quadrangular depressions in the central part of the tray and a bigger depression in the front.

All the offering trays of Asyut Type I share common101 formal features with three stone offering tables recovered in 1905 by Schiaparelli in Asyut,48 which are rectangular in form, have parallel square basins, and a rudimental single sculpted Htp sign.

Asyut Type II includes quadrangular trays49 with L-shaped or C-shaped internal divisions creating two spaces, one where modelled offerings are laid and one from which the spout departs. In Type II Variant A (Table 4), an ox head is always depicted. The tray recovered by Kamal certainly falls under this type, but its dimensions and present whereabouts are unknown.

Tabella 4

Asyut Type II Variant A.

Fig. 5

S. 10647, S. 10648, S. 14848 (?), S. 14940, and S. 14941. Photos by Nicola dell’Aquila and Federico Taverni/Museo Egizio.

S. 10647 (Fig. 5): The shape of this tray is very irregular. It is difficult to read the features on the internal surface due to the state of preservation of the object, but some details are still discernible. Traces of red paint can be made out on the rim and on the external surface. The ox head against the back rim is without horns and has a very elongated snout and 5 small incisions on the top. The eyes, ears, and nostrils are not depicted. The entire surface of the tray is divided into 5 sections, with very long frontal delimitations that bend and extend to the very large spout in the front of the tray. A circular depression (7.4 cm in diameter) is visible on the left side of the object.

Type II Variant B is characterised by quadrangular trays,50 with frontal divisions and raised platforms at the back of the tray, on top of which offerings are sometimes displayed (Table 5).

Table 5

Asyut Type II Variant B.

Fig. 6

S. 9179 and S. 14944. Photos by Nicola dell’Aquila and Federico Taverni/Museo Egizio.

S. 9179 (Fig. 6) has a single platform, with an ox leg and a round loaf of bread represented on it.

The most direct parallels can be found in an offering tray recovered in Dendera by Petrie51 and an unprovenanced offering tray in the Liverpool Museum, 1973.1.362.10452

Type II Variant C (Table 6) is characterised by trays of quadrangular shape,53 with frontal divisions but without the ox head at the centre of the tray. The ox head is, instead, either decentred (P. 5537, S. 46607, S. 46615) or completely absent (S. 14946).

Table 6

Asyut Type II Variant C.

Fig. 7

P. 5537. Photo by Nicola dell’Aquila and Federico Taverni/Museo Egizio.

P. 5537 (Fig. 7): this offering tray most certainly comes from Asyut, despite its provisional number. Its surface was red-washed and carefully smoothed. The offerings are almost lost, except for an ox head (only a trace of which is now visible) and a modelled vessel on the right corner of the tray, applied over the rim. The frontal delimitations have a smooth L-shape.

Fig. 8

S. 14946. Photo by Nicola dell’Aquila and Federico Taverni/Museo Egizio.

S. 14946 (Fig. 8): The offerings were modelled separately, some of them smoothed with care, others not. Among the offerings, which are all rather crudely rendered, one is a series of four squares. Despite its difficult interpretation, parallels can be found in soul houses found in Buhen.54 The dividing walls are L-shaped, with a sharp angle. The external rim was smoothed and flattened. Traces of red paint are still visible around the rim. On the left back side, a depression is encircled by a low wall. The bottom surface shows that the object was modelled on a very even surface. Interestingly, the bottom was red-washed.

Fragments probably belonging to Asyut Type II are listed below,55 but their fragmentary state makes it impossible to conclusively assign them to this type (Table 7).

Table 7

Fragments of offering trays probably belonging to Asyut Type II.

Fig. 9

S. 14949. Photo by Nicola dell’Aquila and Federico Taverni/Museo Egizio.

Asyut Type III (Table 8) comprises trays of quadrangular shape, sometimes roughly modelled, with a small frontal spout.56 They always depict an ox head105-106 at the centre of the back rim of the tray. There are no internal divisions on the surface of the tray. The offerings are arranged at the centre of the tray, between the ox head and the spout.

Table 8

Asyut Type III.

Fig. 10

S. 8141. Photos by Nicola dell’Aquila and Federico Taverni/Museo Egizio.

The only specimen from the Museo Egizio belonging to this category is S. 8141 (Fig. 10), which finds its most direct parallel in a tray from the British Museum, EA 46616.57 They both have an irregular quadrangular shape, a small frontal spout, and offerings similarly displayed on the surface of the tray. Parallels from other sites include two trays recovered by Petrie at Kahun.58

Asyut Type IV comprises two specimens of oval shape,59 without internal divisions, but too fragmentary to ascertain the presence of the ox head at the rear of the tray (Table 9).

Table 9

Asyut Type IV.

Other trays60 are too fragmentary to fall in any of the proposed typological groupings. I nonetheless include a table (Table 10). At least three trays from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo61 are pending proper107 publication; their analysis could support or alter the findings of this typological study.

Table 10

Trays that are too fragmentary to fall in any of the proposed typological groupings.

The Museo Egizio holds a collection of fourteen offering trays with Gebelein as their recorded provenance. Two trays from the museum collection were added by the author, bringing the total to sixteen trays. Nine of these trays are preserved entirely, while two are fragmentary. The other seven are fragments of trays. Tooley includes in her list at least three offering trays from Gebelein in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, JE 54561, JE 66853, and Cairo 3/9/27/1,62 which are still awaiting proper publication. From the same site, Turin also has five soul houses and an unfired clay model of a granary, but these will be108-109 discussed in another study.

The majority of the trays were recovered during excavations carried out by the Museo Egizio in Gebelein during the 1910-1914 campaigns.63 In particular, Schiaparelli’s handwritten notes indicate that trays S. 11963, S. 11964, S. 11965, S. 11966 (?),64 and S. 11967 were recovered during the 1910-1911 campaign in the southern area of the necropolis of Gebelein. Trays S. 14221 (Fig. 18) and S. 14259 (Fig. 12, Fig. 15) were instead found in tombs in the northern area of the necropolis during the same campaign. Further information about the archaeological context of these trays is unavailable at the moment, but ongoing archival research in the Museo could shed new light on the context of discovery.

Fig. 12

S. 14259, photographed on site amongst other ceramic objects discovered during the 1912 campaign. Archivio Museo Egizio, B0173.

Two further offering trays, P. 5157 and P. 5536, were found in Gebelein, but somehow the information about their history and context was lost and they were assigned a provisional number upon arrival at the Museo Egizio. They undoubtedly come from Gebelein because they have direct parallels in the collection of objects from the same site.

In the corpus of trays from Gebelein, five different shapes can be distinguished (Fig. 13), with a predominance of the oval shape (37.5 %), followed by U-shaped trays (25 %), quadrangular ones (18.75 %), round ones (12.5 %), and one exceptional triangular specimen. The trays were either overpainted with a red wash (62.5 %) or bear no traces of paint. In the corpus, three different distinguishing characteristics were recognised, allowing to establish a typological division in three types and two variants. In two cases, the type corresponds to a specific shape: all the round trays have crossing channels (Type I); all the oval trays display T-shaped channels on their internal surface (Type III). The remaining trays, despite their heterogeneity of shapes, display circular depressions on the internal surface (Type II + Variants of Type II).

Fig. 13

Diagram summarising the types and variants discerned among the Gebelein offering trays.

P. 681

Table 20

P. 681, unclassified specimen, provenance unknown, possibly from Thebes.

Fig. 22

P. 681. Photos by Nicola dell’Aquila and Federico Taverni/Museo Egizio.

P. 681 is unprovenanced and its year of accession to the collection unknown (Fig. 22, Table 20). Made of Nile clay, this U-shaped tray (unpublished) was coated with a brown slip which is visible on the internal and external surfaces of the piece. Two channels depart from two circular depressions on the back rim. Two perpendicular channels cross the longitudinal ones in the centre of the tray, resulting in a grid pattern.

Similarly-shaped offering trays have been mainly found in Upper Egypt. U-shaped trays are frequently attested in Dendera, Esna, and Western Thebes, with some specimens also occurring in Armant and Gebelein. The circular depressions in the centre or in115 the back are found in Dendera,90 Western Thebes,91 Gebelein92 and Esna.93

In specimens from Dendera, Gebelein and Western Thebes, the circular depressions are almost always two in number.94 The double depression appears to be typical of these three sites only, since it is not attested elsewhere. The crossing channels are found exclusively on trays excavated in the Theban Necropolis.95 The combination of U-shape form, circular depressions, and grid channels points to Upper Egypt as the region of origin of the tray and Western Thebes as the possible site of provenance.

This survey of the trays kept in the Museo Egizio and of their parallels yields a few important insights, which may eventually help to establish a common methodology for the study of this category of artefacts:

Trays from the same site tend to strongly resemble each other and site typologies can be established by grouping types according to common characteristics.

The typologies created for the trays from Asyut and Gebelein are quite explicative in this regard. I have divided the Siutian corpus into 4 types and 5 variants, in which the majority of the preserved and fragmentary trays discovered by all the missions that worked at the site can be grouped. I have done the same with the Gebelein corpus, with the sole difference that Type III includes trays from both Gebelein and Armant, highlighting evident common characteristics and pointing to a probable relationship between these two sites.

Besides giving an accurate count of known trays from the same sites, the survey has also shed light on the “popularity” of certain shapes and features, highlighting local trends and common representational aims. For example, Variant A of Type II in the Siutian corpus presents three basic characteristics: the quadrangular shape, the central ox head at the back of the tray, and the L-shaped walls on the front. All these characteristics appear at other sites but never combined, pointing to a peculiar regionalism of the site of Asyut. Not only do trays from the same site look alike and could be grouped in typologies according to shape, arrangement of the offerings, and other macro-characteristics, but it is possible to see that some features occur at other site outside of local boundaries, sometimes with such frequency that it is possible to argue for the existence of an actual style. The most eloquent example is the occurrence of trays with the same shape and arrangement of offerings behind T-shaped channels at Gebelein and Armant.

Not surprisingly, provenanced trays find their closest parallels not only among specimens from the same site, but also among trays found in geographically neighbouring sites, as in the cases of Armant-Gebelein, Gebelein-Thebes, and Thebes-Dendera.

In some cases, the resemblance between unprovenanced trays now kept in various museum collections and trays of known archaeological context and provenance is sometimes so striking that it suggests that the unprovenanced trays actually came from the site where the most parallel specimens are attested.

Through the survey, the already theorised and recognised northern predominance of square trays versus the occurrence of oval or round shapes in the South is confirmed, and further supported by a collection of specimens which have never been properly published or mentioned in the literature. Thanks to these evident similarities, it could be possible to assign a likely provenance to the unprovenanced pieces in the Turin museum’s collection, but only if the provenanced parallels are cross-correlated and if the number of parallels is high enough to make attributions plausible. Through this method, it is also possible to limit the range of likely provenances of some trays which had never been associated with their parallels beforehand. It is evident that this method could only stand to benefit from a broader coverage of all the known trays in collections and excavations, especially those which have no provenance. In this way, and through the mapping of provenanced specimens, some quantitative,117 qualitative and statistical observations could be made, greatly contributing to the work of scholars of the subject by shedding new light on a category of objects that was quite popular and counts hundreds of specimens that are awaiting proper study and publication.

Arnold, D., “Bericht über die vom Deutschen Archäologischen Institut Kairo im Winter 1971/72 in El-Târif durchgeführten Arbeiten”, MDAIK 29 (1973), pp. 135–62.

Barahona Mendieta, Zulema, "11^th Dynasty Pottery Below the Courtyard of Djehuty (TT 11)", BCE 28 (2018), pp. 171-81.

Bienkowski, P. and E. Southworth, Egyptian Antiquities in the Liverpool Museum. I: A List of the Provenanced Objects, Warminster 1986.

Borghouts, J.F., “Libation”, in W. Helck and E. Otto (eds.), LÄ III (1980), pp. 1014–015.

Bourriau, J., “The Vienna System in Retrospect: How Useful Is It?”, in Z. Hawass, and J.E. Richards (eds.), The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of David B. O'Connor (CASAE 36), Le Caire 2007, II, pp. 137–44.

Budka, J., Bestattungsbrauchtum und Friedhofsstruktur im Asasif: eine Untersuchung der spätzeitlichen Befunde anhand der Ergebnisse der österreichischen Ausgrabungen in den Jahren 1969-1977 (UZK 34), Wien 2010.

Carter, H. and the Earl of Carnarvon (eds.), Five Years' Explorations at Thebes: A Record of Work Done 1907–1911, London 1912.

Chassinat, M.E. and C. Palanque, Une campagne de fouilles dans la nécropole d’Assiout, Cairo 1911.

Czerny, E., Tell el Dab’a XXII. „Der Mund der beiden Wege“. Die Siedlung und der Tempelbezirk des Mittleren Reiches von Ezbet Ruschdi, Teil I: Text, Teil II: Abbildungen – Tafeln – Pläne – Profile – Schnitte (UZK 38), Wien 2015.

D'Amicone, E. and E. Fontanella (eds.), Nefer: la donna nell'antico Egitto. Milano, Palazzo Reale 27 gennaio - 9 aprile 2007, Milano 2007.

D'Amicone, E. and M. Pozzi Battaglia (eds.), Egitto mai visto: la montagna dei morti. Assiut quattromila anni fa, Trento 2009.

Del Vesco, P. and B. Moiso (eds.), Missione Egitto 1903–1920: L’avventura archeologica M.A.I. raccontata, Torino and Modena 2017.

Downes, D., The Excavations at Esna 1906-1906, Warminster 1974.

Edel, E., Die Felsgräbernekropole der Qubbet el Hawa bei Assuan, I. Abteilung: Architektur, Darstellungen, Texte, archäologischer Befund und Funde der Gräber [QH 24 - QH 209], Paderborn – Munchen – Wien – Zurich 2008.

Emery, H., S. Smith, A. Millard, and R.M.F. Preston (eds.), The Fortress of Buhen: The Archaeological Report (EES ExcMem 49), London 1979.

Fischer, H., “Kopfstütze”, in W. Helck and E. Otto (eds.), LÄ III (1980), pp. 686–93.

Habachi, L., Tavole d’offerta, are e bacili da libagione, n. 22001-22067 (Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino, serie seconda - collezioni 2), Torino 1977.

Hölzl, R., Ägyptische Opfertafeln und Kultbecken: eine Form- und Funktionsanalyse für das Alte, Mittlere und Neue Reich (HÄB 45), Hildesheim 2002.

Hölzl, R., “Libation Basins from the Old to the New Kingdom: Practical Use and Religious Significance”, in A. Amenta, M.M. Luiselli, and M.N. Sordi (eds.), L'Acqua nell'antico Egitto: vita, rigenerazione, incantesimo, medicamento. Proceedings of the First International Conference for Young Egyptologists, Italy, Chianciano Terme, October 15-18, 2003, Roma 2005, pp. 309–17.

Kahl, J., E. Engel, and L. Sanhueza-Pino, “Pottery from Asyut”, in R. Schiestl and A. Seiler (eds.), Handbook of Pottery of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom. Volume II: The Regional Volume, Wien 2012, pp. 261–71.

Kahl, J., M. El-Khadragy, U. Verhoeven, M. Abdelrahiem, M. van Elsbergen, H. Fahid, A. Kilian, C. Kitagawa, T. Rzeuska, and M. Zöller-Engelhardt, “The Asyut Project: Ninth Season of Fieldwork (2011)”, SAK 41 (2012), pp. 189–235.

Kahl, J., A.M. Sbriglio, P. Del Vesco, and M. Trapani, Asyut: The Excavations of the Italian Archaeological Mission (1906–1913) (Studi del Museo Egizio 1), Modena 2019.

Kamal, A., “Fouilles à Deir Dronka et à Assiout (1913-1914)”, ASAE 16 (1916), pp. 65–114.

Kilian, A., “Pottery Offering Trays: General Observations and New Material from Asyut”, in J. Kahl, M. El-Khadragy, U. Verhoeven, and A. Kilian (eds.), Seven Seasons at Asyut: First Results of the Egyptian-German Cooperation in Archaeological Fieldwork. Proceedings of an International Conference at the University of Sohag, 10^th–11^th of October, 2009, Wiesbaden 2012, pp. 105–18.

Kilian, A., “Offering Trays”, in J. Kahl, N. Deppe, D. Goldsmith, A. Kilian, C. Kitagawa, J. Moje, and M. Zöller-Engelhardt, Asyut, Tomb III: Objects (Part 1) (The Asyut Project 3), Wiesbaden 2016, pp. 173–95.

Koenig, V. and Koenig, Y., “Trois tombes de la Première Période Intermédiare à Balat”, in BIFAO 80 (1980), pp. 35–44.

Kuentz, C., “Bassins et tables d'offrandes”, BIFAO 81 (1981; Supplément : Bulletin du centenaire), pp. 243–82.

Leclère, F., “Les « maisons d’âme » égyptiennes : une tentative de mise au point”, in B. Muller (ed.), "Maquettes architecturales" de l'antiquité : regards croisés (Proche-Orient, Égypte, Chypre, bassin égéen et Grèce, du Néolithique à l'époque hellénistique). Actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 3-5 décembre 1998, Paris 2001, pp. 99–122.

Lunsingh Scheurleer, R.A., Egypte: Geschenk van de Nijl, Amsterdam 1992.

Marini, P., “I contenitori di ushabti: funzioni e concezioni” (doctoral dissertation, Università di Pisa), Pisa 2016.

Martin-Pardey, E., Pelizaeus-Museum, Hildesheim, Lieferung 6: Grabbeigaben, Nachträge und Ergänzungen (CAA), Mainz am Rhein 1991.

Moiso, B., La storia del Museo Egizio, Modena 2016.

Mond, R. and O. Myers (eds.), Cemeteries of Armant I, Oxford 1937.

Müller, W. and I. Forstner-Müller, “A Newly Discovered 'Soul House' in Assuan”, in A. Jiménez-Serrano and C. von Pilgrim (eds.), From the Delta to the Cataract: Studies Dedicated to Mohamed el-Bialy, Leiden 2015, pp. 189–201.

Museo Egizio, Torino and Modena 2015.

Niwinski, A., “Plateaux d’offrandres et « maisons d’âmes » : genèse, évolution et fonction dans le culte des morts au temps de la XIIe dynastie” ÉtudTrav 8 (1975), pp. 103–04.

Nordström, H. and J. Bourriau, “The Vienna System”, in Do. Arnold and J. Bourriau (eds.), An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery, Mainz 1993, pp. 168–82.

Pérez Die, M.d.C., “The Cemetery of the First Intermediate Period / Early Middle Kingdom in Herakleopolis Magna”, unpublished paper delivered at the conference Current Research in Egyptology 2019 (Alcalá de Henares, Spain, 18 June 2019).

Petrie, W.M.F., Dendereh, London 1900.

Petrie, W.M.F., Gizeh and Rifeh (BSAE 13), London 1907.

Petrie, W.M.F., Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara, London 1890.

Petrie, W.M.F., Illahun, Kahun and Gurob: 1889–90, London 1891.

Petrie, W.M.F., Qurneh (BSAE 16), London 1909.

Petrie, W.M.F., Funeral Furniture and Stone Vases, London 1937.

Petrie, W.M.F., “Soul-House”, in J. Hastings (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, XI, New York 1908–1926, pp. 755–56.

Raven, M.J., “Numbering Systems in the Egyptian Department of the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden at Leiden”, in OMRO 72 (1992), pp. 7–14.

Ridley, R.T., Napoleon's Proconsul in Egypt: The Life and Times of Bernardino Drovetti, London 1998.

Rzeuska, T.I., Chronological Overview of Pottery from Asyut: A Contribution to the History of Gebel Asyut al-gharbi (The Asyut Project 7), Wiesbaden 2017.

Schiestl, R. and A. Seiler, Handbook of Pottery of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom. Volume I: The Corpus Volume (ÖAW 72), Wien 2012.

Schneider, H.D. and M.J. Raven, De Egyptische Oudheid: een inleiding aan de hand van de Egyptische verzameling in het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden to Leiden, ’s-Gravenhage 1981.

Seipel, W., Ägypten, Götter, Gräber und die Kunst, 4000 Jahre Jenseitsglaube, I, Linz 1989.

Slater, R.A., “The Archaeology of Dendereh in the First Intermediate Period” (dissertation, University of Pennsylvania 1974).

Tooley, A.M.J., “Middle Kingdom Burial Customs” (dissertation, University of Manchester 1989).

Tooley, A.M.J., “Models”, in D.B. Redford (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Oxford 2001, pp. 424–28.

Waksman, Y., “Provenance Studies: Productions and Compositional Groups”, in A.M.W. Hunt, The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Ceramic Analysis, Oxford 2017, pp. 148–61.

Zitman, M., The Necropolis of Assiut: A Case Study of Local Egyptian Funerary Culture from the Old Kingdom to the End of the Middle Kingdom (OLA 180), Leuven 2010.