This king is another "strange presence" in the Third Dynasty;
owing to his doubtful ownership of the Pyramid of Meydum it has been thought
that this king with a possible reign of 24 years (Turin Canon), could have
been the author of a reinassance which fortells the splendour of the reign
of his follower (and son?) Nebmaat Snofru. Many of the latter's dignitaries
might have lived or being born during Huni's reign. But, as we' ll see, there
are only few concrete proofs of this king's reign and monuments.
The Papyrus Prisse (II, 7) names Huni as Snofru's predecessor [so the foundator
of Dyn. IV would be, as generally reported, the son Huni had by Meresankh
I, the one who married Hetepheres I, another daughter of Huni and future mother
The writing of the name Huni is found in the Turin Papyrus and Saqqara king
list, while it is wanting in the Abydos king list.
In the Old Kingdom cemetery at Elephantine, near the northern side of the
(now disappeared) pyramid of the III rd dyn., a conic granite block was found
(by H. Gautier in 1909) on which an inscription named a king HU or NSWTH or
Nsw Hun(i) (Seidlmayer in Spencer 1996) differently interpreted (Smith in
C.A.H. vol. I cap.XIV, 1971) probably related to the name of a palace: 'Diadem
of the King Huni' (Barta in M.D.A.I.K. 29(1) p.1-4).
The same Huni's name variant Swtenh, Nisuteh or Nswt H (w), is attested
on the Palermo Stone (verso V,1) under the V th dynasty when Neferirkara commemorated
this Nswteh dedicating a monument to him (Urk.I 248,12); for a mention in
Metjen's tomb see below.
Therefore in the late Third Dynasty we have no trace of the name of this
king in the full form "Huni" (but see Heni in the Wadi Maghara reliefs
of Netjerykhet - Djoser [Inscript. Sinai I pl. I,2]: Heni's title is read
as that of a woman in Kahl et al. Corpus, but it might be also a Iry A'at
A'mw (Responsible of the Asiatic boundary) and thus this person would
represent the future king Huni as John Degreef kindly suggests me).
Now we must return to the discussion of the ancient attestation of the
name Niswth or Swteneh or Nswt-Hw (see bibliogr.).
The basic elements of this are the 3 inscriptions in which the writing variant
is Niswth, while we can overlook the MK and later sources, the writing of
which must be a corrupted one, deriving from later Egyptians own misinterpretation
of the original variant of the name, the same as earlier egyptologist have
Hans Goedicke read the name as a nisbe Nj-Swteh (He who belongs to the one
who seizes) referring the king to a god; the causative of the verb wtH or
jtH (to draw, open) would be swtH (to seize); he related this name to the
political program of Huni which would have been the king who finally estabilished
the Egyptian dominion on the southern boundary at Elephantine.
The granite cone inscription was read by Goedicke as the foundation of the
Elephantine fortress by this king (now we know that previous kings were active
on the island, as the clay seals of Peribsen, Sanakht, Djoser, Sekhemkhet
and Khaba show).
Later articles have rejected the reading of the name proposing Njswt Hwj (Barta),
Hw-n.i nsw (Helck); Helck also pointed out that in Metjen inscriptions (see
also below) do appear various other domains which had been read hwt Hn-sn
and which could instead be read hwt Hwn (j-nsw). He proposed to read the name
as 'The Defeater'. Goedicke's translation of the Sshd-Ah has been rejected
in favour of 'The adhorned palace' or 'Palast: Stirnbinde der In.i-nsw-Hw'.
Thus if Huni, who has his name in a cartouche on contemporary inscriptions,
has to be equated with the Nswt H(u) or Nysuteh just quoted, it is likely
that the pyramid on the isle of Elephantine was of his reign (the cone might
have been a pyramidon).
According to recent theories (M.D.A.I.K. 36 p. 43-59 ; M.D.A.I.K. 38 p.
83-93 and 94-95) it appears possible that all the little step pyramids
10-17 meters high, discovered at Zawyet el Mejtin, Abydos (Sinki), Naqada
(Nubt), Khula (Hierakonpolis), Edfu and Elephantine must be attributed to
a single sovereign, maybe just Huni; the Seila pyramid is more developed (the
german archaeologists date it to Snofru), but the Americans (and myself as
well) prefer an higher datation to the reign of Huni (J.A.R.C.E. 25 p.215)
(when he had already ended the 8 steps Meidum Pyramid). Nabil Swelim (op.cit.p.
100- ff) added two more possible contemporary step pyramids: one at Athribis
(reported by the Napoleonic savants; see also Rowe in A.S.A.E. 38) and another
one at Abydos (Currelly, Abydos III, 1904 pl. XV, called 'Tomb Chapel of Ay'
Among these monuments the one south of Edfu, at Naga el Ghonemiya, is the
only one not yet studied properly.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 'SINKI' -like monuments(Little
non-funerary Step Pyramids)
The pyramid of Zawyet el Meytin, near El Miniah, the only pyramid of Egypt
built on the eastern bank of the Nile, had three steps and c. 17 m of height
with a square base of 22,5m each side.
It's the only (among the 'sinki') to have retained traces of a fine limestone
Raymond Weill (C.R.A.I.B.L. 1912) described the inner layers of walls slightly
inclined towards the center with a progressively decreasing height.
Similar to this one was the pyramid of Khola, near Nekhen (Cimmino 'Storia
delle Piramidi' 1990 p.122-5) which was orientated with its edges (not its
sides as commonly happens) towards the Cardinal Points. It was c.10 m high,
the base side was 18,6.
The pyramid of Nubt (Petrie-Quibell 'Naqada and Ballas' 1896 p. 65 tav.
85) three stepped , 22 m of base, had unlike the others, a central pit ; but
the own Petrie declared he wasn't able to understand whether the hole was
an original one or rather a digging made by violators in search of preciousnesses.
For the pyramids of Abydos (SINKI) and Elephantine: M.D.A.I.K.
36,37,38 and bibl. in (Ortiz) G.M. 154, 77-91 n. 4, 40.
The absence of internal chambers prevents from attempting funerary hypotheses.
Not convincing are either the theories of Lauer (the little pyramids marked
the main places for the reconquest of the egyptian territory by Khasekhemui
or the birth-places of the queens), Maragioglio and Rinaldi ('L' Architettura
delle Piramidi Menfite' 1963 p. 70: the function was to highlight the key-places
of the myth of Horus and Seth).
Seidlmayer (in J. Spencer 'Aspects of Early Egypt' 1996 p.122 ff.) thinks
that the construction of these pyramids fulfilled the same ideological needs
as the slightly later representations of offerings brought to the royal estates
of each nomos.
But in the offering bearers symbolism (from Snofru onwards) the figurative
system was an extension of the simple device of the offering lists with goods
useful for the dead afterlife (table of offerings): the importance and skill
of the dead are now shown, beyond the usual titles, also in the visual description
of the mass of persons and places involved in the production of goods for
In the third dynasty a system of radicate administrative organization all
over the valley was still in construction and it was therfore necessary that,
on the provincial level, the presence of a royal cult within each nome became
explicit, as did the request of products and materials that it implies; thus
these monuments could reinforce the ideological presupposition of such a state-request
giving it a more visible and concrete picture of the authority (and of the
presence) of the one to whom the offerings were destined, the king.
By this complex theory each nomos had a similar monument as propaganda of
a royal funerary estate therein; and many other little step pyramids that
would spread along the Nile valley must have been now destroyed or impossible
to be identified.
Furthermore this interpretation implies the theory (of K. Baer) of the presence
of royal cults for the living pharaoh was real.
Though accepting the conclusions of Seidlmayer we must make here a critic
onto its presuppositions: the emphasis that he puts on the 'fiscal' character
of the goods gathering through funerary cult or state ceremony seems to make
it the first stage in the process of development of the administration and
relative bureaucracy; but this understates the fact that, at that time, the
administration system had already much more than half a century of life behind
its back: it's proved by the officials' titles and by the names of administrative
offices on the vessels and labels inscriptions from the early protodynastic
(cemetery U at Abydos, Dynasty 0, Naqada III a,b) until the age of the Thinite
Kings of the first dynasties.
What for me distinguishes the oldest periods from the one we are examinating
is more of quantitative nature than qualitative; thanks to accessory means
such as the one hypothized by Seidlmayer (but certainly as well to the very
installation of state administration offices in all the nomos), the provincial
and decentralized organs of government are actually configured as an instrument
of the state for which they now begin to work with efficience.
M. Lehner (The Complete Pyramids 1997 p.96) concludes in this way the page
on the Provincial Step Pyramids: "These ... may have been symbols
of living sovereignity, hinting that the step pyramid stood for more than
the royal tomb, the marker of a dead king. It is interesting that Huni took
the pyramid to the provinces just before people and produce would be brought
from the provinces to the core of the Egyptian nation for building the largest
pyramids of all time".
Concluding, the progress under the third dynasty is not really a matter
of creation of a bureaucracy, but indeed its employment on a wider
scale and in a more and more centralized way than in the Naqada III phase.
For Kaiser 'the(Elephantine) pyramid seems to have represented
the fictive presence of the king , was a symbolic means of reinforcing state
control implicit in Elephantine's role in the collection and distribution
(W. Kaiser in K. Bard ed. Encyclopedia A.A.E. 1999 p. 283-9; W. Kaiser et
al. in M.D.A.I.K. 53, 1997; see also the studies
in N. Swelim 'Some Problems...' (1983) p. 100 ff.; and A.
Cwiek in G.M. 162 (1998) p.39-52).
I can add that Early Egyptian history had frequently shown us that those
peoples and their kings not seldom showed to have learnt by their predecessors'
mistakes: more than half a century of appearent failures in funerary complex
construction, must have been a heavy influence to deal with for Huni; he
could have thus preferred to express part of the symbolism and function
the pyramid had, preferring to do this by a number of smaller monuments,
easier to accomplish, than with one massive building; this would make Snofru
the builder of 4 pyramids (Meydum, Seila, Dahshur North and South, as many
scholars following Stadelmann's theory do currently believe) and it would
imply a major and repentine organizative and logistic effort happened during
Snofru's reign, who would have managed an higher volume of stone than his
son Khufu (Cheops).
THE PYRAMID OF MEYDUM
It was once thought that Huni had built the 'Romboidal' or 'Southern' pyramid
at Dahshur. This is surely uncorrect.
What remains to be fully proved is the attribution of the Pyramid of Maydum.
The Meidum Pyramid was credited to Snofru by the New Kingdom graffitos calling
it 'beautiful temple of Snfrw'.
Today the belonging of the Meidum pyramid is still disputed (between Huni
and Snofru); it appears certain that the Dahshur pyramids were both made by
the foundator of the IV th dynasty, whereas the one at Meidum, albeit what
was thought about it by the New Kingdom egyptians, might have been the funerary
monument of HUNI; it is furthermore very very probable that the same Snofru
tried to make of that 8 steps pyramid a true 'smooth-edges' pyramid, perhaps
causing the collapse of its revetment. (Once again note that THERE'S NO CONCRETE PROOF FOR THE
ATTRIBUTION TO HUNI OF THE MEYDUM PYRAMID).
On the period of the downfall of the structure there's not concordance among
the scholars; the pharaoh Snofrw apparently began his works on it during or
after the erection of the Rhomboidal pyramid (Mendelsshon 'Riddle..') and
maybe it was the Meidum Pyramid collapse that caused him to diminish the angle
of the Dahshur monument.
The arabic historian Al Maqrizi described the Meidum Pyramid (XV th century)
as formed by five steps , while the graffitos by the workmen who built it
represent it with 3,4 or 5 steps.
After the relations presented by F. Norden (1737) and R.Pococke (1738) and
the brief explorationse of Vyse and Perring (1835) and Lepsius (1845), the
monument was taken into higher consideration by Maspero (1882), Petrie (1892,
1910), Wainwright and Petrie (1912), thence by V. Maragioglio and C.Rinaldi
The Pyramid was initially made in 7 steps for 60 m circa of height; it was
built around a central core on the four sides of which were laid 6 layers
of inclined blocks (74° 5'46''); these, decreasing in height from the
nucleus to outwards, formed the steps.
Huni modified the monument by adding a new external layer next to the base,
increasing the height of the inner layers, piling new blocks on their steps
and perhaps adding a eight step on the central nucleus, the top of which was
the vertex of the pyramid .
After this last phase the height was 82 m circa (160 c.) and the base 122m
(220 c.), with a 52° slope. (Note that we refer here not to the slope
of the oblique layers -which remained unchanged- but indeed to the imaginary
line passing by the edges.
Over the second and fifth step as well as on the ground around the pyramid
there were found traces of ramps used to carry the blocks above. Each step
had to be covered by thick limestone slabs.
The descendery, for the first time dug in the pyramid' s mass, is a corridor
(0,85 m wide, 1,55 m high, 58m long, with 28° of slope) that, starting
from the northern face of the second step (circa 20 m of height, hence few
meters above the first step floor), goes down throughin the oblique layers
and the core ending with 7 steps,and then,after further 9,45 m, with a little
pit; hidden over this pit there's the entrance of a small passage ascending
for 6,65 m to the funerary chamber floor, just at the ground level ; the chamber
is 2,65m in width, 5,05 m in height and 5,90 m in length; its upper part is
not dug in the rock but in the base of the pyramid nucleus and has a (N-S)
triangular section (it's covered by a corbeled vault with 7 blocks); the chamber
is not on the true north-south/east-west axis of the pyramid but it's very
few est of the first (N-S) axis and some meters south of the second (E-W)
Some cords and 3 cedar wood poles near the chamber pit-entrance are the
only objects found within the pyramid with fragments of a wooden coffin found
in a recess of the horizontal corridor (Maspero).
Snofru' s effort consisted in filling the steps and applying blocks to support
the external smooth revetment.
The slope was decreased by few seconds of degree,the base grew to 144 m
(280 c.), the height 91,7m (175cubits). (J. Ortiz G.M. 154, 1996 p. 77-91;
P. Testa D.E. 18,1990 p.54-69; F. Petrie 'Medum' 1892; D. Wildung R.d.E. 21).
The complex was surrounded by a straight wall, 1,4 m thick and 2m high,
of which only a trench remained; the original size was m. 210x210 (400x400
c.) later augmented to 220,5 x 236,25 (420 x 450c.) (Testa in D.E. 18).
The chapel on the pyramid east side, square in plant and with two uncarved
stelae, should have been projected by Snofru (thus in the third and final
constructive phase), because the size reciprocal relations in cubits refer
to basic models used in the third phase (cfr. P. Testa in D.E. 18 page 63).
The 210m cerimonial causeway disappears beneath the fields of the valley;
it had walls 3 cubits thick and 4c. high its floor was 6 cubits large and
3° 98' 22" inclined; the ramp is almost 4° south than the pyramid
The small south pyramid, 26,5 m of base (50 cubits), had four steps, a descendery,
corridor and funerary crypt; both Petrie's (Meidum) as Maragioglio - Rinaldi'
s (op. cit. III p. 47) publications lack of informations to deduce its possible
contemporaneity with the first two construction phases or the third one, thence
to Huni or Snofru .
We are here in presence of the prototype of the royal funerary monument
of the subsequent dynasties, with the pyramid, the satellite pyramid(s), funerary
temple, cerimonial way, and valley temple (this latter hasn not been found
yet at Meidum); they are pointers of a new architectural typology that will
continue to develop at Dahshur ,Giza, Saqqara.
It's not sure, as just told, whether these innovations must be credited
to Huni; it's much more probable that at least the east temple and the causeway
must be attributed to Snofru, whereas nothing can be said about the satellite
pyramid and the valley temple; the archaic enclosure wall is surely Huni '
However it seems that the most recent essays on this period prefer to credit
Snofru with the whole building of the Meydum pyramid since the beginning of
its stepped phase. There is the recent new of the finding of another chamber
in this pyramid.
The Meidum necropolis is noteworthy for some officials' mastabas
too: Nefermaat (another son of Huni and first vizir of Snofru as well as father
of Hemiunu, the architect and vizir of Khufu) was buried with his wife Itet
in the tomb (M 16) from which the famous 'Geese of Maidum' were taken; not less
famous is the statuary group of Rahotep and Nofret, whose tomb (M 6), once again
double, produced a beautiful serie of reliefs now scattered in various museums
and private collections (cfr. J.E.A. 72); the largest mastaba (M 17) is near
the east side of the pyramid, but its owner (maybe a royal prince) is unknown.
Swelim (op. cit. p.97) thought that the bones fragments found in its burial
chamber could be those of Nebkara; but the author supposed,as well, that
the substructure could have been built by Neferka and the superstructure
by Huni (and Snofru).
The Abu Roash Lepsius I Mudbrick Pyramid
Not to be confused with the other,
earlier , mudbrick pyramid-enclosure (Ed Deir, sub v. Sanakht-Nebka),
this huge monument in mudbrick was discovered in 1830s by J. Perring and
surveyed by R. Lepsius (1842-3) who assigned to it the number I in his serie
of Egyptian pyramids on the Denkmaler (1959).
It laid in the easternmost hills promontory in advanced state
of ruin. (I.E.S. Edwards in Bard ed. E.A.A.E. p.82-3). Dr. N. Swelim identified
it as a Mudbrick Pyramid, while Edwards (uncorrectly) as a mastaba; a rock
core was penetrated from N to S by a 25° sloping corridor leading to
a square funerary chamber of 5,5 m of bases and 5 m in height entirely cut
in the rock. The mudbricks, inclined inward of 75-76°, laid over the
rock core in accretion layers (I.E.S. Edwards cit.). Much of the mudbrick
had been stripped away from its position (cfr. photos in A. Dodson KMT 9:2,
1998 p. 36).
N. Swelim's researches ascertained the immense size of the monument which
had a base length of 215 meters.
His reconstruction of the hypothetical height was within the range of 107,5
and 150,5 meters.
The Egyptian Archaeologist is the main source on this monument: Swelim has
infact published a monography of more than 100 pages and 42 tables on this
subject, conducing, with his son Tarek and some persons from the nearby
village, an exploration of the site in 1985 (The Mudbrick Pyramid at Abu
Rawash Lepsius "I", 1987). He was the first modern archaeologist
to consider this monument after the brief investigation by Vyse and Perring,
and the somewhat more detailed accounts left by K. Richard Lepsius and finally
by Bisson de la Roque (cfr. Swelim op.cit. p. 8-13).
The figure above can give a good idea about the system trenches and 5 ramps
and 5 terraces which had been worked out on the giant rock knoll which, as
in Khwfw, Djedefra, Khaefra and Senwseret II, formed the core of the pyramid.
The innermost stratum of the nucleus was called 'Medulla' by Swelim. The burial
chamber would have laid just in axis with the vertex of the pyramid.
The Middle Kingdom date (in XII-XIII dyn mudbrick pyramids were built) can
be excluded by the rock cut core (this kind of substructures is out of fashion
already in the end of fourth dynasty), by the giant size of the project, and
by the presence of some Old Kingdom burials dug in its rocky inner stratum
which had already been deprived of bricks at that time (similar later tombs
were excavated during the Fifth Dynasty in the granite step pyramid of Elephantine,
in Nineteenth Dynasty on Sekhemkhet's pyramid base steps, and in later periods
through the mudbrick superstructures of the Abydos Shunet ez Zebib and Beit
Khallaf Mastaba K1); the relation was similar to that of later pits and galleries
dug in the (Saqqara) complex of Netjerykhet and in the temple of Unas.
The mudbrick monument of Abu Rawash, which would have been
comparable in size to the Zawiyet el Aryan Unfinished pyramid (Neferka,
Nebkara) and to those of Snofru and Khaefra, was indeed never finished.
Its attribution is hypothetical (A. Dodson cit. p. 35-6) and N. Swelim
gave also king Neferka as a possible constructor in alternative to Huni.
(It's possible that one more mudbrick pyramid, now lost, was erected -but
we don't know in which period- at Athribis).
Other sources and materials of Late Third Dynasty
Also very doubtful is the attribution to this king of a king statue head with
Upper Egypt crown (red granite) now in the Brooklyn Museum.
It' s quite certainly the first example of statuary of monumental size since
the Koptos colossi (many scholars prefer to date the head to Khufu' s reign),
being m. 0,543 in height; another similar limestone statuette head in Munchen
is much smaller.
Another piece in Brooklyn, a diorite statuette
of a god with knife could belong to this reign (or earlier to the IInd dyn.),
while the specimens of Sepa - Neset, Rahotep - Nofret, Akhetaa, Metjen, are
chronologically of the III rd to the IV th dyn transition, despite the fact
that they were made for personages who were born during the end of the third
A bit more archaic are the statuettes of Redit (Turin) and expecially Bedjmes
(Ankhwa), Nedjemankh, the lady of Bruxelles, Ankh and the Chicago scribe,
in harder stone (as the god with knife) and datable to the first half of the
III rd dynasty.
The dynastic change is not very well explainable; we know Huni was Snofru' s
father ; despite the necropolis shift from Meidum to Dahshur, nothing can enlighten
the motives of the dynastic change.
We must keep in mind advices like the ones in J. Malek ' s article on J.E.A.
68 (p.93-106) to understand which and how fragile or empty could be the basis
for the traditional Manethonian division into dynasties : a simple erroneous
interpretation of annals or lists (as the original from which the Turin Canon
was copied) might have made the sovereigns at the head of a document column
the founders of that "dynastic" sequence.
There seems to be a break, between Huni and his poorly known predecessors,
in the royal titulary: the cartouche, later a solar sybol, already used by
previous kings (Peribsen, Nebka ?), appears with
Huni for the very first time in a preferential position than the serekh; this
same serekh, enclosing royal Horus names, is never attested for Huni and for
his (?) debated variant Nisuteh, the latter name also found either in cartouche
or with no surrounding device at all.
About the possible transformations in the religious sphere that these formal
changes could underlie,it's evidently hazardous to speculate, in the almost
complete missing of any written source; much attention must equally be paid
in the attempt to give a backward sense to the informations hidden in the
Pyramid Texts : it' s widely accepted that they also echo cults, beliefs
and traditions of an older civilization, but their very equivocal character
and the mere impossibility to plainly know the weight of the later redactions
(V-VIII dyn.) stops easy speculations and prevents from setting diachronically
the myths and the teologies enclosed in them.
[It seems anyhow almost useless to add that,albeit these methodical precisations,the
corpus in question has indeed an unlimited value to catch the ideological
framework that it inherits from a more or less archaic past as well as to
comprehend the influence it had on the subsequent religious and funerary tradition
(Coffin Texts and beyond)]. (cfr. Fattovich in A.I.U.O. 47 (1987) pages 1-14).
With Huni the Egypt might have returned to shine after years of uncertainty
when short lived reigns weakened its power.
This king had, on the contrary, all the time to reorganize the country, for
he may have reigned up to 24 years according to the Royal Canon of Turin. This
document adds that a building or a city called 'Seshem....' (Seshem-tawy in
the Delta ?) was built during his reign; a lacuna doesn' t help to better understand
Thus Huni' s would be the longest reign of the third dynasty (but I don't
fully trust these numerical informations).
Certainly in this dynasty only Djoser' s reign appears more innovative than
Huni' s and it has been obderved how similar is the historical development
of the second and third dynasty: both have a middle phase of apparent crisis
and a strong, reorganizer sovereign as Khasekhemwy and Huni.
The biography of Metjen, dated to Snofru ' s reign, deals with the
career of an individual who very likely was born during the second half of the
third dynasty. (Urkunden I, 1-7 for the text, Breasted 'Ancient records of Egypt'
76-9 for the translation, Goedicke M.D.A.I.K. 21 for a discussion; Lepsius 'Denkmaler'
II 3-7 for his Saqqara tomb).
In Lepsius (op.cit. II, 3 col.17) there's the inscription of the 'Heka Hwt Nyswteh'
(see picture above), thus the administrator of a land domain which bears this
king's name, in the Leontopolite (Zekhemite) IInd Lower Egyptian nome.
It's enormously useful because, in its archaic language, gives a heavy load
of data concerning the administration and the officials' charges through the
titles that Metjen had gained during his life.
Contemporary and equally important are the inscriptions from another memphite
tomb of the very end of the third dynasty or beginning of IVth: the one of Pehernefer
(Z.A.S. 75, 1939 p.63 ff; Helck 'Thinitenzeit' 1987 p. 274-89).
Finally we have to note that it has been recently argued (N. Swelim 'Some
problems' and Kahl 'S.A.H.' p.7) that the reigns of Qa Hedjet (cfr. supra)
and Ba ought to be put at the end of this dynasty; the former king has been
here discussed (cfr) while the latter, only known for few inscriptions on
Djoser' s Step Pyramid stone vessels, had been previously considered an ephemeral
follower of Qa'a at the end of the First dynasty.
I think, at the present state of our knowledge, that Huni is more likely
the immediate predecessor of Snofrw.
Kahl et. al. (1995) consider "Qa Hedjet" the Horus name of Huni.
P. Kaplony (R.A.R. I, 1977 p. 146-155; cfr. table in my Third dyn. page) identified
the the last (6th) king of the dynasaty njswt H(w) with the Horus Neb
Hedjet (?) = Zawiyet el Aryan's northern pyramid inscription Neb Hedjet Nwb.
(See also General Bibli. in Third dyn. page and Hayes', Gardiner
's, Drioton-Vandier 's Histories of Egypt)
W.S. Smith in C.A.H. I,2 (1971) p. 145-207
Zur Deutung der Pyramide von Medum (D. Wildung) R.d.E. 21. 1969/ 135-45
D. Wildung 'Die Rolle Agyptischer Konige...' 1969 p. 101-3
J. von Beckerath, Handbuch der Ag. Konigsnamen, 1984 p. 51
H. Gauthier, Le livre des Rois I, 1910 p. 56-8
Discussion of the name:
Konig Huni ? (L. Borchardt) Z.A.S. 46. 1909/ 12-3
Konig Huni (H. Schafer) Z:A.S. 52. 1914/ p. 98 ff
The Pharaoh Ny-Swth (H. Goedicke) Z.A.S. 81. 1956/ 18-24
A Reconsideration of NISUTEH (E.S. Meltzer) J.E.A. 57. 1971/ 202-3
Zum altagyptischen Namen des Konigs Aches (W. Barta) M.D.A.I.K. 29,1. 1973/
Der Name des Letzen Konigs der 3. Dynastie und die Stadt Ehnas (W. Helck) S.A.K.
4. 1976/ 125-30
Dreyer - Kaiser in M.D.A.I.K. 36 (1980) p. 57-8
Kahl - Kloth - Zimmermann 'Die Inschriften der 3. Dyn.' (1995) p.165