Early Dynastic Egypt (46 page)

Figure 6.8
Palace-facade architecture, 1. The origins and symbolic applications of an architectural style: (1) early royal
serekhs,
incised on pottery vessels from (a) el-Beda and (b) Tura; the panelled frame represents a section of the façade of the royal palace, and was used to denote royal ownership of the storage jars thus marked (after Kaiser and Dreyer 1982:263, fig.

1. , 7); (2) the lower part of the
   serekh
   

   carved in relief on the funerary stela of
   

   Djet, from Abydos (after Kemp 1989:38, fig. 10); (3) a monumental gateway of mudbrick, excavated within the early town of Nekhen (Hierakonpolis); the gate is thought to have marked the entrance to an Early Dynastic royal palace, hence confirming the appropriateness of the term ‘palace façade’ to describe the characteristic niched style of architecture (after Kemp 1989:40, fig. 11); (4) grave 2275 from the Early Dynastic cemetery at Minshat Abu Omar, north-eastern Delta; three of the internal walls of the grave had been decorated with buttresses and niches in the ‘palace facade’ style, indicating the symbolic potency of this type of architecture to express status, even when hidden from view (after Kroeper 1992:135, fig. 7). Not to same scale.
   

   feature can only be interpreted as an indication of retainer sacrifice: the members of the king’s household were killed (or committed suicide) when their of rule is expressed in several First Dynasty royal burials, where the mound over the king’s tomb also covers the subsidiary burials surrounding the main chamber. Such a sovereign himself died, so that they might accompany him in death as in life (Hoffman 1980:275–9). This practice, which—no doubt for practical and economic reasons—was discontinued after the late First Dynasty, must have been a graphic illustration of the ultimate authority of the king, not only during his earthly life but in the hereafter as well. The ideological constraints of the time may have required suicide on the part of retainers. Only the king, as a member of the divine sphere, was guaranteed an afterlife in the company of the gods; others might hope for some share in an afterlife, by ‘hanging onto the king’s coat-tails’ and following him directly to the next world. (Compare the practice in Japan, once widespread, whereby devoted followers of the emperor would commit ritual suicide at his death, in order to follow him into the next world. A number of individuals made this ultimate expression of loyalty as recently as 1991, on the death of Emperor Hirohito.) Be that as it may, the impetus for such a practice in Early Dynastic Egypt is likely to have come from the top downwards: the king required an entourage in the afterlife, and individual servants may have had little or no choice about following him thence.
   

   The funerary enclosures at Abydos and Hierakonpolis were impressive constructions, consciously resembling the royal palace (Plate 6.2). Their visibility was an important aspect of their function. By contrast, the king’s actual burial place (the royal tomb) fulfilled a rather different purpose, providing an eternal resting place for the king and the wherewithal for his afterlife. Hence, two conflicting factors affected the appearance and
   

   location of the royal tomb, remoteness and visibility. Unlike their Predynastic forebears, whose tombs were located side-by-side with non-royal burials (in Abydos Cemetery U), the kings of the First Dynasty chose to emphasise their unique status, and their separateness from the
   

   

   Plate 6.2
   Palace-facade architecture, 2. The characteristic niched style as applied to the enclosure walls of royal mortuary complexes: (top) the eastern wall of the
   

   Shunet ez-Zebib, Khasekhemwy’s mudbrick funerary enclosure at Abydos (author’s photograph); (bottom) the eastern wall of the step pyramid complex from the following reign (author’s photograph).
   

   rest of humanity, by building their tombs in an isolated spot, surrounded in death only by their closest retainers. Whilst the highest officials of the administration were granted the privilege of tombs on the escarpment at North Saqqara, overlooking the Early Dynastic city of Memphis, the First and late Second Dynasty kings chose to be buried in the ancestral royal necropolis of Abydos. Not only did the location of the royal tombs reinforce the legitimacy of the ruling line—by emphasising descent from the Predynastic rulers of This—it also expressed the unique, unrivalled position of the king at the head of Egyptian society.
   

   As ‘the principal public statement on the nature of kingship’ (Kemp 1989:53), the royal mortuary complex is of key importance for our understanding of Early Dynastic Egypt. The development of the royal tomb and the sophisticated symbolism of mortuary architecture form the subject of the next chapter.
   

   CHAPTER SEVEN‌
   

   ROYAL MORTUARY ARCHITECTURE
   

   The most enduring monuments from Early Dynastic Egypt are not the temples of national or provincial deities but the funerary constructions of kings, their relatives and high officials. During the course of the first three dynasties, Egypt’s ruling class developed mortuary architecture as a potent expression of authority. Royal building projects necessitated the development of a sophisticated administrative apparatus to organise the human and material resources required. The construction of the king’s tomb also fulfilled a number of practical functions, offering the king and his officials an arena in which to demonstrate leadership, providing a focus for the conspicuous consumption of prestige and imported materials, and confirming the legitimacy of the heir to the throne by his participation in the burial of his predecessor (Hoffman 1980:327–8).
   

   The various elements of a mortuary complex represent a sophisticated symbolic vocabulary, proclaiming the owner’s status, embodying the ideology of divine kingship and reflecting contemporary conceptions of the afterlife. Mortuary architecture— especially royal mortuary architecture, which was both more visible and more durable than the burials of ordinary people—is thus a rich source of evidence for Early Dynastic society. This chapter follows the chronological development of royal mortuary architecture, discussing both the changes to the royal tomb over the course of the Early Dynastic period and the symbolism embodied in royal mortuary complexes.
   

   THE MORTUARY COMPLEXES OF THE EARLY DYNASTIC KINGS
   

   Royal funerary monuments of the first three dynasties cluster at two principal sites and comprise two main types of structure. The ancient royal necropolis of Abydos—more specifically, the area known by its modern Arabic name Umm el-Qaab (literally ‘mother of pots’, from the vast quantities of offering pottery littering the site)—was the focus of royal burials throughout the First Dynasty, and again at the end of the Second Dynasty (Figure 7.1). The necropolis of Saqqara, overlooking the capital city of Memphis, was the favoured location for royal interments during the early part of the Second Dynasty, and became the primary royal burial ground from the beginning of the Third Dynasty (Figure 7.2). There was, thus, an alternation between Abydos and Saqqara during the course of the Early Dynastic period, probably depending upon the political and religious currents of the time. At both sites, but more obviously at Abydos, royal mortuary provision comprised two distinct elements: the tomb itself and an accompanying rectangular enclosure for the celebration of funerary ceremonies and/or the king’s mortuary cult. During the First and Second Dynasties, these two elements were geographically separate,
   

   but were fused at the beginning of the Third Dynasty, as exemplified in the Step Pyramid complex of Netjerikhet.
   

   The development of the royal tomb reflects both technological and theological advances; the design of the royal mortuary complex has been said to highlight the multiple role of the king as ruler and representative of the gods (Brinks 1979:157–62). Both symbolic and practical considerations will have affected the planning and construction of the royal tomb, including such factors as axial alignment, symmetry, parallelism, centrality and duality (on the symbolic side), topography, astronomical alignment and technology (on the practical side). Royal mortuary architecture also serves as an index of political change, and not only through the choice of location for the king’s tomb. From the reign of Aha onwards, there appears to have been a marked increase in mortuary elaboration, attested by the large mastaba at North Saqqara (S3357), the royal tomb at Naqada, and the greater size of the king’s own burial complex at Abydos. This development has been interpreted as reflecting the greater economic and political security brought about by the consolidation of the Egyptian state at the beginning of the First Dynasty (Brinks 1979:61). Against a background of increased prosperity and more efficient central control of resources, the Early Dynastic kings sought to emphasise their unique position at the head of Egyptian society, above all through the ‘monumental scale and distinctive architectural symbolism’ of their mortuary constructions (Kemp 1989:53).
   

   First dynasty
   

   The royal tombs on the Umm el-Qaab
   

   Abydos had been a burial ground for royalty since early Predynastic times, serving the rulers of the Thinite region from at least the Naqada I period (
   c.
   3800 BC). According to Manetho, the rulers of the First Dynasty originated from This (Thinis), and their decision to be buried at Abydos, in the ancestral royal necropolis, probably reflects their family ties. The choice of Abydos may have been made for other, equally compelling reasons (Kemp 1966:19). The site was of great antiquity, and its ‘ancient sanctity’ would doubtless have conferred an added supernatural legitimacy upon those buried there (cf. Kemp 1967:25). (This may have been the primary reason for the re-adoption of the cemetery by two kings at the end of the Second Dynasty.) Moreover, the site’s impressive natural setting—at the foot of a dramatic ridge, and directly aligned with a prominent cleft in the line of hills—may have increased the visual impact of the tombs. Before we look at aspects of individual complexes, and the chronological development over the course of the First Dynasty, it will be useful to describe the general features of a royal tomb on the Umm el-Qaab.
   

   

   Figure 7.1
   The royal cemetery at Abydos. The plan shows the contiguity of the three cemetery areas designated by modern archaeologists as Cemetery U (Predynastic), Cemetery B (late Predynastic to early First Dynasty), and the Umm el-Qaab (First Dynasty) (after Spencer 1993:76, fig. 53; Dreyer
   et al
   1996: fig.l).
   

   GENERAL FEATURES