Early Dynastic Egypt (47 page)

At its most basic, each tomb consists of ‘a large square pit lined with brickwork’ (Petrie 1900:4). The surrounding chambers—which served as subsidiary burials in late First Dynasty tombs—are often at a higher level than the main burial chamber. In the tombs of Djer and Djet the surrounding rooms open off the central chamber; from the time of Merneith onwards, they surround the burial chamber but do not interconnect. The tombs of the kings from Aha to Anedjib inclusive are accompanied by ranges of smaller, subsidiary burials. These are arranged in rows or blocks, either adjacent to the royal tomb or surrounding it.

Unlike the contemporary mastabas at North Saqqara which emphasised the superstructure, the First Dynasty royal tombs at Abydos seem to have concentrated on the subterranean element. During the early First Dynasty the burial chamber was dug progressively deeper, culminating with the tomb of Den in which the burial chamber is 6 metres below ground level. None the less, the superstructure of the tomb was a symbolically important component. Few, if any, traces of superstructure have survived from the Predynastic royal tombs at Abydos, Hierakonpolis and Naqada; but it has been argued that the superstructure of the First Dynasty royal tombs is likely to have evolved from these earlier burials (Kemp 1989:53). The appearance of the early First Dynasty tombs remains uncertain, although a simple mound of earth covering the burial chamber seems likely. The existence of any visible superstructure has been doubted (O’Connor 1991:7, contra Dreyer 1991), although it seems improbable that the tomb would have been entirely unmarked on the surface (cf. Dreyer 1991:102). The superstructures of the mid- and later First Dynasty tombs (from the reign of Djet onwards) apparently comprised two elements: a hidden tumulus over the burial chamber and a larger mound covering the whole tomb (Dreyer 1991). The hidden tumulus was entirely contained within the grave pit, and was itself covered by the large grave mound. Consequently, it can have fulfilled no architectural purpose and must, therefore, have had a symbolic function. The provision of not one but two tumuli suggests that the symbol of a mound had great importance for the deceased; it may eventually have been regarded as essential for the resurrection of the dead in the grave (Dreyer 1991:101). As a highly symbolic feature, the hidden tumulus also found its way into the contemporary mastabas at North Saqqara. Several mastabas (for example, S3507 from the reign of Den) were found to contain the remains of a concealed sand and rubble mound covering the burial chamber, completely hidden from view by the rest of the superstructure. As we have seen in Chapter 3, the mound inside Saqqara mastaba S3038, from the reign of Anedjib, had a stepped appearance, foreshadowing the form of the Third Dynasty step pyramids. If the architecture of the élite tombs at North Saqqara kept pace with, and indeed mimicked, the architecture of the royal tombs at Abydos, then the superstructures of the late First Dynasty tombs on the Umm el-Qaab may also have been stepped. This hypothesis receives some support from the iconographic evidence, including the depiction of stepped structures—identified by some as the royal tomb—on inscribed stone bowls of the late First Dynasty. One scholar has gone so far as to suggest that the superstructures of all royal tombs until the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty ‘can reasonably be assumed to have been stepped’ (Roth 1993:43–4).

A pair of stelae bearing the name of the royal owner probably stood in front of the tomb, on the east side, although none was found
in situ
(Petrie 1900:6).

SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT

The sequence of royal tombs from the first half of the First Dynasty shows rapid and dramatic development (cf. Kaiser and Dreyer 1982:245–60). The tomb complex at the head of the Early Dynastic sequence comprises three elements, two brick-lined chambers (B1 and B2) and an adjacent offering-pit cut into the surface (B0). The complex has been ascribed to a King *Iry-Hor on the basis of seal-impressions and inscribed vessels found in the brick-lined chambers (Kaiser and Dreyer 1982:232–5; this attribution is disputed by Wilkinson 1993; O’Brien 1996:131–2). It has been questioned whether the two brick- lined chambers belonged to the same burial, since ‘one would have expected…that if B1 and 2 were parts of the same tomb they would…have been given the same orientation’ (Kemp 1966:22). This part of the cemetery has suffered greatly from disturbance and mixing of the tomb contents, so that the date and ownership of B0/1/2 must remain in some doubt.

None the less, it seems to have been customary for kings of late ‘Dynasty 0’ to build a tomb composed of two separate chambers. The adjacent chambers B7 and B9 almost certainly belonged to King ‘Ka’, probably Narmer’s immediate predecessor. Narmer himself combined two chambers in one large pit, producing his double tomb B17/18. Some doubts have been expressed as to whether B17/18 really represents Narmer’s tomb. It would seem a rather insignificant monument for so prominent a king, and there are unexplored parts of the Abydos necropolis which might conceal a more impressive tomb. Only by a thorough exploration of the entire Umm el-Qaab can we hope to solve the riddle.

Narmer’s successor Aha seems to have reverted to the earlier custom, building his chambers separately, and on a much larger scale (Kemp 1966:22). His mortuary complex comprises three large chambers (B10, B15 and B19), two smaller pits (B13 and B14) and a series of 34 subsidiary burials (B16), mostly in three parallel rows, spreading eastwards (Petrie 1901: pl. LIX). The graves of retainers which accompany Aha’s tomb appear as a new feature in royal mortuary provision, one that was to remain standard at Abydos throughout the First Dynasty. It was once suggested that the westernmost chamber of the Aha complex, B19, may have been built earlier than the other two. Its attribution to an ephemeral successor of Aha is not supported by any inscriptions and has been rejected as ‘unconvincing’ (Kemp 1966:22). There seems little doubt that all three chambers, B10/15/19, belong to one and the same complex, given their near identical size and other similarities. The slightly different orientation of chamber B10 may indicate that it was built first (Kaiser and Dreyer 1982:219). The two chambers to the west of B19 (B13 and B14) show similarities to Narmer’s double tomb (B17/18): the northern chamber is smaller than the southern, and contained two post-holes, perhaps from a wooden construction within the pit. Hence, chambers B13 and B14 may represent an earlier stage in Aha’s mortuary complex, modelled closely on the tomb of his predecessor. Once the three main chambers had been built, B14 seems to have become the tomb of a person called Benerib
(Bnr-ỉb)
(Petrie 1901:5).

To the east of Aha’s complex lies a four-chambered tomb, illustrated by Petrie on his cemetery plans but neither numbered nor described by him. Recently designated chamber B50 (Dreyer 1990:68), the tomb has been re-excavated by the German expedition, which found it to be completely empty, but for a small bone label inscribed with some numerals and a few faience beads. Lack of evidence makes the dating and attribution of B50

impossible. None the less, its orientation, the same as B7/9 and B17/18, may be significant. It may have been the tomb of one of Aha’s predecessors; King ‘Scorpion’ has been suggested as a possible occupant (Dreyer 1990:71), although the archaeological and historical indications point to him having been buried at Hierakonpolis (Brinks 1979:148).

Equally mysterious is the adjacent pit, labelled B40 (Dreyer 1990:70). Discovered beneath a deposit of later offering-pottery, B40 showed no signs of any walling material such as mudbrick. It has been mooted as the tomb of ‘Athothis I’, a supposed ephemeral successor of Aha (Dreyer 1990:71).

The tomb complex of Djer, Aha’s successor, shows a number of new features. The main burial chamber was provided with a series of recesses, painted red, perhaps early false doors (Petrie 1901:8). The subsidiary burials—numbering 318, the most of any royal tomb at Abydos—were arranged in two groups. One large block is located to the north-east of the king’s tomb, another group surrounds the tomb on all four sides, with a gap to the south-west (Petrie 1901: pls LVIII, LX-LXI).

Many of the subsidiary graves accompanying the tomb of Djet contained crudely inscribed and roughly finished private stelae, giving the name (and sometimes title) of the deceased. In addition, some of the graves were identified by having the names of their occupants ‘inscribed in red paint on the walls’ (Petrie 1900:8). The tomb of Djet was the only tomb on the Umm el-Qaab to preserve evidence of the original superstructure. A retaining wall of mudbricks held in place a tumulus of earth which covered the burial chamber (Petrie 1900:9) but did not rise above the ground surface. Another feature of Djet’s burial, unparalleled in the other First Dynasty royal tombs at Abydos, is the presence of ceramic
s3
-signs, which were apparently placed in niches in the burial chamber to provide extra protection for the deceased king (B.Adams 1994).

The tomb of Merneith shows great regularity and precision in its construction. A central burial chamber is surrounded by eight store-rooms, and the whole is encircled by a line of subsidiary graves (Petrie 1900: pl. LXI). As in the tomb of Djer, the ring of subsidiary graves is broken at the south-west corner, providing a direct sight-line between the burial chamber and the cleft in the cliffs behind the Umm el-Qaab. The Egyptians may have believed this cleft to be an entrance to the underworld (Patch 1991:56–7; cf. R.Friedman 1994:17).

The tomb of Den was described by Petrie as ‘one of the most costly and sumptuous’ (Petrie 1900:11). It shows several unique features, emphasising Den’s reign as a cultural high point of the Early Dynastic period. The burial chamber was paved with slabs of pink granite from Aswan, the largest use of granite until the Step Pyramid complex of Netjerikhet (Petrie 1901:9). Another innovation is the entrance stairway which gives access to the burial chamber, crossing the east range of subsidiary graves. This must have represented a threat to the security of the burial, and was therefore blocked by a stone ‘portcullis’ slab. Unique on the Umm el-Qaab is the separate annex with its own staircase, located at the south-west corner of Den’s tomb (Petrie 1901:11; Dreyer 1990:76–9, figs 7–8). A limestone block in the furthest room strongly indicates a pedestal, perhaps for a statue. Given the proximity of the annex to the king’s burial chamber, it is unlikely that such a statue would have been other than of the king himself (Dreyer 1990:77). This hypothesis leads to an entirely new interpretation of the annex as a whole. The far room may be seen as a forerunner of the
serdab,
housing the statue of

the deceased king for his mortuary cult. The staircase leading to the annex has been interpreted as providing not an entrance but an exit for the king’s
ka.
The two pits in front of the annex may have been the graves of particularly favoured retainers, or alternatively officials connected in some way with the king’s mortuary cult. The orientation of the annex to the south-west is unlikely to have been unintentional, and may be linked to the course of the Great Wadi which connects the Umm el-Qaab and the site of the funerary enclosures nearer the cultivation (Dreyer 1990:78).

The small size and poor, apparently hasty construction of Anedjib’s tomb (Petrie 1900:12) can be explained if it is regarded as an ‘emergency burial’ (Kaiser and Dreyer 1982:251). It is possible that the king died unexpectedly, forcing the rapid completion of a tomb without the necessary time for an elaborate monument. As in the tomb of Den, the entrance stairway approaches the tomb from the east, perhaps oriented to the rising sun.

The tomb of Semerkhet shows a new development: the subsidiary graves are built immediately adjoining the burial chamber, forming a single, unified structure (Petrie 1900:13, pl. LX). This is of great significance, since ‘it would appear probable that the superstructure covered not only the burial chamber but also the subsidiary graves’ (Emery 1961:85). It follows that the occupants of the subsidiary graves must have been buried at the same time as the king himself. Hence, the tomb of Semerkhet seems to represent the first proven instance of retainer sacrifice.