Early Dynastic Egypt (49 page)

To judge from the inscription on the statue of the priest Hetepdief, the mortuary cult of the first three Second Dynasty kings was celebrated at Saqqara. Nebra’s funerary monument must therefore have been located here (Stadelmann 1985:298). He may have usurped the gallery tomb begun by his predecessor Hetepsekhemwy. Alternatively, a separate mortuary complex adjacent to the Hetepsekhemwy and Ninetjer tombs might have been incorporated into Netjerikhet’s grand building scheme. The galleries beneath the Western Massif of the Step Pyramid complex may have been a Second Dynasty royal tomb, given their size and general layout (contra Roth 1993:43, n. 40). These galleries have been suggested as the tomb of Sened (Dodson 1996:24) or Khasekhemwy (Stadelmann 1985:299), but they could equally have been built for Nebra. Recent fieldwork to the west of the Step Pyramid complex has revealed another, possibly royal, Second Dynasty tomb (Giddy 1997a: 28), while the unfinished galleries beneath the North Court of the complex may represent further tombs of this date, incorporated by Netjerikhet into the final phase of his funerary monument.

The precise choice of location for the Second Dynasty royal tombs was probably influenced by the natural topography, in particular a wadi or natural depression running to the south of the Step Pyramid complex (Leclant and Clerc 1994:381). Although set further back in the desert than the élite tombs at North Saqqara, and therefore invisible from the cultivation to the east, the Second Dynasty royal tombs would have been ‘equally, if not more, prominent as viewed from the Abusir valley’ (Jeffreys and Tavares 1994:151). If the Early Dynastic centre of Memphis did indeed lie in the vicinity of Lake Abusir, the sight-line up the Abusir valley would help to explain the location of all the Early Dynastic monuments of western Saqqara, including the possible cultic enclosure of Den, the Second Dynasty royal tombs, and the anonymous rectangular enclosures (Jeffreys and Tavares 1994:151, 166 fig. 7, 168 fig. 9).

ENCLOSURES

Among the most mysterious monuments in Egypt are the two large, anonymous enclosures to the west of the Netjerikhet and Sekhemkhet complexes (Swelim 1991). Named the Ptahhotep enclosure and the Gisr el-Mudir (‘great enclosure’), they are believed by some scholars to be further, unfinished step pyramid enclosures of the Third Dynasty (Wildung 1969a: 136–7; Edwards 1993:93). However, the Gisr el-Mudir shows no signs of a building at its centre (Mathieson and Tavares 1993:30), and it would have been extremely difficult and impractical to construct a pyramid once the enclosure wall had been completed (Stadelmann 1985:305). (Compare the Sekhemkhet complex, where the underground chambers of the pyramid had been finished when the enclosure wall was only six courses high.) The Ptahhotep enclosure, immediately to the west of the Step Pyramid complex, does show a ‘large mudbrick rectangular structure’ at the centre, ‘where there are also fragments of limestone’ (Mathieson and Tavares 1993:28). Unfortunately, the nature of this structure has not been established. It has been plausibly suggested that the Saqqara enclosures were counterparts to the ‘funerary enclosures’ at Abydos (Stadelmann 1985:307). In this case, they may have been built to accompany the nearby royal tombs of the Second Dynasty, notably the galleries of Hetepsekhemwy and Ninetjer (Kaiser 1985a: 54, n. 39, for an alternative view). Less plausibly, the Ptahhotep enclosure has been attributed to Khasekhemwy (Stadelmann 1985:306), although there is no indication that this king ever constructed a funerary monument at Saqqara. A careful survey has found no evidence of a third enclosure to the east of the Gisr el-Mudir (Mathieson and Tavares 1993:27, contra Stadelmann 1985:304, n. 28), despite the suggestive aerial photographs of the area (Capart 1930: pl. XIV).

To date, the most intensive investigation has been carried out on the Gisr el-Mudir (Tavares 1995). Although no structure has yet been located with certainty inside the Gisr el-Mudir, fragments of limestone, red quartzite, pink granite and black basalt are strewn over a considerable area in the north-west corner, suggesting that a building may have existed in this part of the enclosure (Mathieson and Tavares 1993:29–30). Both faces of the west wall are visible, permitting an analysis of the construction technique. The walls seem to have been built with a rubble core, but the corners ‘show solid masonry construction’ (Mathieson and Tavares 1993:30). Archive photographs from investigations by the Egyptian Antiquities Organisation show a construction technique reminiscent of Third Dynasty step pyramids, namely ‘masonry in two tiers with courses sloping

inwards’ (Mathieson and Tavares 1993:29). However, pottery beer-jars found in the fill of the south-west corner of the enclosure have been provisionally dated to the end of the Second/beginning of the Third Dynasty, apparently confirming the early date of the monument (Bettles
et al.
1995:3–4). The excavators comment that ‘a full investigation of the corners and any possible foundation deposits associated with them may yet prove to be the only way to date more closely the Gisr el-Mudir’ (Bettles
et al.
1995:3). None the less, the apparent absence of any central structure distinguishes the enclosure from the nearby step pyramid complexes of Netjerikhet and Sekhemkhet. It seems more likely that the Gisr el-Mudir represents an intermediate stage between the mudbrick funerary enclosures of Abydos and the stone step pyramid complexes of the Third Dynasty. The use of stone is certainly cruder and more rudimentary than in the Third Dynasty monuments (cf. Bettles
et al.
1995: figs 2, 3). A Second Dynasty date would suit such an intermediate type of funerary monument. It is tempting to link the Gisr el-Mudir to one of the Second Dynasty royal tombs in the vicinity; and Ninetjer, as probably the longest reigning king of the dynasty buried at Saqqara, must be a strong candidate for the builder of such an impressive enclosure (cf. Stadelmann 1985). However, it should be acknowledged that there are problems with this hypothesis. The enormous size of the enclosure seems to argue against a Second Dynasty date; and, despite the greater availability of stone at Saqqara, some scholars consider it illogical that a stone enclosure should pre-date the mudbrick enclosures of Peribsen and Khasekhemwy at Abydos (Hendrickx, personal communication).

Abydos

TOMBS

Kings Peribsen and Khasekhemwy at the end of the Second Dynasty chose to be buried amongst their First Dynasty forebears, in the ancestral royal cemetery on the Umm el- Qaab. The reason behind the return to Abydos cannot be ascertained, though internal politics may have played a part (Kemp 1967:30; Stadelmann 1985:295). Judging by the published private and royal tombs at Saqqara and Helwan, a move towards a reduced series of rooms, entered by means of a shaft, seems characteristic of the late Second and early Third Dynasty in the Memphite area. By contrast, the tombs of Peribsen and Khasekhemwy at Abydos appear to have been closely modelled on their First Dynasty antecedents at the same site (Kaiser 1992:180–1 fig. 4b, e, 183; Roth 1993:44): their general layout comprises a central burial chamber surrounded by store-rooms.

The tomb of Peribsen reverted to the model of the early First Dynasty (Petrie 1901: pl. LVIII). It is closer in plan to the tombs of Djer and Djet than to the tombs of Den and Qaa, showing a series of small cells surrounding the burial chamber, separated by cross walls. A new feature, however, is a continuous passage surrounding the whole tomb, perhaps designed to safeguard against tomb robbers entering from the side (Petrie 1901:11).

The tomb of Khasekhemwy is quite different from all the others on the Umm el-Qaab. Its curious, elongated form represents a subsequent extension of the original plan (Kaiser 1992:183; Giddy 1997b: 28). Much of it was built from newly made bricks which subsequently collapsed. A positive outcome of this poor construction was that the

collapsed walls preserved a large number of the original grave goods with which the tomb was furnished. As a result, the tomb of Khasekhemwy yielded a more representative selection of artefacts than the other royal tombs on the Umm el-Qaab (Petrie 1901:12). A unique feature is the stone-built burial chamber, fashioned from carefully dressed blocks of limestone (Petrie 1901:13).

FUNERARY ENCLOSURES

Peribsen and Khasekhemwy followed the practice of their First Dynasty predecessors, not only in the choice of location and general layout of their tombs, but also in constructing separate funerary enclosures of mudbrick on the low desert opposite the town of Abydos (Kemp 1966; Kaiser 1969). Unlike the First Dynasty enclosures, those of the late Second Dynasty are not surrounded by lines of subsidiary tombs (Lauer 1988:5).

The enclosure of Khasekhemwy, known by its Arabic nickname Shunet ez-Zebib (literally, ‘Storehouse of Raisins’), is the most prominent ancient building in the northern part of Abydos (Kemp 1989:53–4, 56 fig. 18A). Its massive mudbrick walls still stand to a great height, testament to the strength and solidity of its construction. Until the recent re-investigation of the Shunet ez-Zebib, the interiors of the Early Dynastic funerary enclosures ‘remained generally mysterious and unknown’ (O’Connor 1991:7). The Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition was successful in uncovering a large expanse of the original Second Dynasty mudplaster floor inside the Shunet ez-Zebib. More interesting, a line of angled bricks was all that remained of a destroyed feature in the centre of the enclosure (O’Connor 1991: 9–10, figs 6–7). The angle of the brickwork is suggestive and the excavators reconstruct the feature as ‘a large mound made of sand and gravel… covered with a brick skin, of which this brickwork is the lowest and only surviving piece’ (O’Connor 1991:7). Such a mound would have been hidden from general view by the high walls of the enclosure, but immediately visible on entering the building (O’Connor 1991:8). If this reconstruction is correct, the similarities between the enclosure and the Step Pyramid complex of Netjerikhet become all the more striking (cf. O’Connor 1991:10, fig. 8). Indeed, in its earliest phase, when the tomb was covered by a simple mastaba (M
₁
), the Netjerikhet complex was simply ‘a larger-scale stone copy of the Khasekhemwy complex’ (O’Connor 1991:8). No feature comparable to the proposed brick-covered mound has yet been found inside any other funerary enclosure at Abydos. The funerary character of the enclosures, and their place at the head of a long tradition of royal mortuary architecture, is emphasised by the discovery of a fleet of funerary boats, buried in special boat graves alongside the Shunet ez-Zebib (see below).

Hierakonpolis

Khasekhemwy built another massive mudbrick enclosure, very similar in size and architecture to the Shunet ez-Zebib, on the edge of the Great Wadi at Hierakonpolis (Clarke, in Quibell and Green 1902:19–20; Alexanian n.d., 1998). Nicknamed ‘the Fort’ (because of its massive construction), the monument still stands as a prominent landmark in the area. Decorated fragments of pink granite relief, bearing the king’s
serekh,
were found in and around the entrance to the monument (Lansing 1935:44, fig. 11). The decorative scheme puts particular emphasis on the king, and shows him engaged in ritual

activities. This suggests that ‘the Fort’ was perhaps built as an arena for the celebration and/or commemoration of the royal cult (Alexanian 1998). More specifically, ‘the Fort’ and its counterparts at Abydos have been interpreted as models of the
h-n r,
a building which served as an arena for the celebration of ritual festivals (Arnold 1994:94, 256–7). There is no indication that Khasekhemwy ever prepared a tomb for himself at Hierakonpolis (contra Dodson 1996:26), and it remains a mystery why he should have erected two funerary enclosures, one at Abydos and one at Hierakonpolis. He clearly felt a special attachment to the latter site, to judge from the number of monuments and artefacts found there which bear his name.

Third dynasty

The kings of the Third Dynasty made a decisive break with the past, abandoning the ancient royal burial ground of Abydos in favour of the Memphite necropolis. From the reign of Netjerikhet until the collapse of the Old Kingdom, all royal mortuary complexes were located along the edge of the western desert bordering the Nile valley in the vicinity of the capital. The Step Pyramid of Netjerikhet is the most complete and most impressive mortuary complex of the Third Dynasty. His successor, Sekhemkhet, began an equally ambitious monument nearby, but died leaving it unfinished. Another unfinished step pyramid, dated by its architecture and construction technique to the Third Dynasty, is the ‘layer pyramid’ at Zawiyet el-Aryan, between Giza and Abusir. It has been attributed to Khaba, on the basis of inscribed stone bowls found in a nearby tomb. The mortuary complex of Sanakht has not been securely identified, though the so-called ‘brick pyramid’ at Abu Rawash (on the northern edge of the Memphite necropolis) has been suggested as a possible candidate (Dodson 1996:30). The pyramid presumed to have been built by the last king of the Third Dynasty, Huni, lies far to the south of his predecessors’ monuments, at the site of Maidum near the entrance to the Fayum. Begun as a step pyramid, it was converted into a true pyramid at the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty, thus ushering in the distinctive royal mortuary architecture of the Old Kingdom.