The First Kings of Egypt: the Abydos Evidence

oi.ucicago.edu 15. the first KiNGs of eGypt: the abydos eVideNCe 15. THE FIrST KINGS OF EGYPT: THE ABYdOS EVIdENCE LAUREL BESTOCK T he first kings of Egypt built tombs and associated cult structures that demonstrated and helped to perpetuate their new status and position. These are the first known truly monumental provisions for death in Egypt, and they are one of the principal sources of evidence for the rise of Egyptian kingship, with its complex intertwining of power and ideology. These tombs and temples were not only impressive buildings, they were also magnificently equipped, and many of the finest objects known from Early Dynastic Egypt were found in them. Most of the Early Dynastic kings — all the rulers of the First Dynasty and the last two of the Second Dynasty — built their mortuary monuments at the southern site of Abydos. The early royal monuments at Abydos are located in two areas, the tombs far out in the low desert at an area now called Umm el-Qaab, and the temples closer to the urban center of Abydos, in what is now known as the North Cemetery (fig. 15.1). The entire period was characterized by developing notions of how royal funerary architecture should look; no two monuments are alike. Most of these buildings had multiple construction phases, indicating that this renegotiation of royal mortuary practice was happening within reigns as well as between them. Despite this rapid pace of innovation and the differences between Early Dynastic and later royal burial practice, the Abydos monuments highlight aspects of continuity in Egyptian royal culture. Above all in their celebration of kingship and burial, these monuments are recognizably Dynastic. The tombs and enclosures of the Early Dynastic period at Abydos can be broadly grouped into three divisions: the early First Dynasty, the late First Dynasty, and the Second Dynasty. While this separation is didactically helpful, it should be remembered that no two monuments are alike. The following descriptions focus on the characteristic elements of monuments of these sub-periods, referring to individual monuments or finds only when they are different from the norms. the early first dynasty The monuments of the first half of the First Dynasty exhibit the greatest range, which is perhaps unsurprising given that they stand at the head of this time of great innovation. This period comprises four reigns: kings Aha, Djer, Djet, and King Den’s mother Merneith. All these rulers have known tombs at Umm el-Qaab and known cult structures at the North Cemetery. The tombs of these four rulers have some underlying similarities. They are located adjacent to one another, just south of the already ancient cemeteries where Pre- and Protodynastic rulers were buried (see “Tomb U-j: A Royal Burial of Dynasty 0 at Abydos” in this volume). The basic elements of the tombs are in all cases subterranean chambers defined by mudbrick walls (fig. 15.2). We do not know for certain what these tombs looked like from above ground as no superstructures remain. The largest chambers were provided with interior rooms built of wood. All four tombs are quite complicated, notably in their utilization of smaller subsidiary graves. These small graves are very clearly not present in their own right, but rather form complexes focused on the main tomb chambers; the name subsidiary grave is apt. Despite their subordinate role, there is good evidence that the individuals in these graves were far from poor servants, being rather quite elite. This is indicated by the organization and the provisioning of these tombs. Aha, Djer, and Djet all arranged their graves in ways that incorporate hierarchy, particularly with relation to the main tomb. This suggests differentiation of status within the subsidiary populations. The goods interred with these individuals were also of very high quality, including game pieces, furniture, stone and ceramic vessels, tools, weapons, and jewelry. There are also limestone stelae with names and sometimes titles from the reign of Djer on (Catalog Nos. 116–17). These high-status people appear to have been deliberately killed to accompany the king into the afterlife. This is suggested by the homogeneous nature of 137 oi.ucicago.edu before the pyramids figure 15.1. map of abydos showing areas of royal building in the early dynastic period. Courtesy of the pennsylvania-yale-institute of fine arts, New york University expedition to abydos 138 oi.ucicago.edu 15. the first KiNGs of eGypt: the abydos eVideNCe all the individuals buried in them died at the same time. Sacrifice is the most plausible explanation. The royal chambers, while plundered, were all originally equipped with luxury goods. Classes of artifacts are similar to those from the subsidiary graves (Catalog Nos. 19, 83, 91, 102, 112). One unique find from the tomb of Djer was a linen-wrapped arm wearing bracelets; this had been stuffed in a hole and was overlooked for millennia. The bracelets had beads of turquoise, amethyst, lapis, and gold, and in one case the beads were carved in the form of serekhs. It seems most likely that this was the arm of Djer himself — the earliest known royal remains from Egypt (fig. 2.12 herein; Petrie 1901a, frontispiece and p. 16). Despite these similarities, there are also notable differences in these four tombs. Aha was unique in constructing three main tomb chambers. This was in contrast to his predecessors, who had built small double-chambered tombs, and his successors, who built very large single main chambers. Aha’s subsidiary graves are also unique, being singly constructed and arranged on only one side of his tomb. Djer’s reduction of the number of royal chambers and his arrangement of lines of contiguous subsidiary graves on all sides established traditions that would continue for the rest of the dynasty, though the number of such graves he included would never again be equaled. A feature observed at Djet’s tomb was a brick retaining wall that seems to have enclosed a mound of loose sand. This mound was entirely subterranean. It is possible that an additional similar mound would have formed the superstructure of the tomb, and probable that other tombs at Umm el-Qaab would have had similar features now destroyed (Dreyer 1990). Merneith’s tomb is simpler than those of her immediate predecessors, without the complicated banks of subsidiary graves at Djer and Djet’s tomb. The four early First Dynasty rulers built their cult structures, usually now called funerary enclosures, in the North Cemetery (fig. 15.3). Again there are both similarities and differences among these monuments. The funerary enclosures seem to have remained quite static in basic form. They had massive mudbrick walls and would have looked from the outside similar to private mastaba tombs of the period: they were simple rectangles in plan, always oriented north–south.1 Their exterior walls were decorated with a complex pattern of niching on their local east face and simpler niching on their other sides. At the exterior base figure 15.2. plan of Umm el-Qaab showing the subterranean chambers of the early dynastic royal tombs (after dreyer et al. 1996, fig. 1; dreyer et al. 2003, fig. 1) the subsidiary population from Aha’s tomb complex and is reinforced by the architecture of subsidiary graves from Djer and later kings. Here we see numerous graves — 318 for Djer — constructed in contiguous rows, each grave sharing a wall or walls with others. It would have been difficult if not impossible to roof such graves selectively, making it probable that 139 oi.ucicago.edu before the pyramids figure 15.3. plan of the abydos North Cemetery showing all known funerary enclosures. Courtesy of the pennsylvania-yale-institute of fine arts, New york University expedition to abydos of the walls ran a low brick bench. The enclosures had two doorways, one at the southeast and one at the northeast. The southern door was the larger and was usually augmented by a gateway chamber built in the interior of the enclosure. The northern door was blocked with a brick wall in every early First Dynasty example that has been preserved and excavated (O’Connor 2009, p. 171). The interiors of the enclosures were largely open space, though small cult chapels with ceramics and remains of organic offerings were found in some cases; they almost certainly were built in every enclosure. The offerings found in these chapels clarify the role of enclosures as cult structures. Additional activities may have taken place in temporary structures erected in the open space as indicated by the possible remains of one such structure from the reign of Aha (Bestock 2009, pp. 72–73). All the early First Dynasty enclosures are associated with subsidiary graves. Interpreting the precise function or functions of these enclosures is difficult. That they were places of cult offering is clear, and they likely housed important royal ceremonies. That they are in some way related to the mortuary establishment of the kings 140 oi.ucicago.edu 15. the first KiNGs of eGypt: the abydos eVideNCe is also clear, both from their location at Abydos and from their use of subsidiary graves. They do not appear, however, to have functioned like later mortuary temples. Most notably, many of the early First Dynasty enclosures show clear evidence of deliberate destruction fairly early in their history, perhaps either when the king died or when his successor built his own enclosure. This suggests that unending mortuary cult was not the point of these monuments, which rather probably served a cultic function for living kings. Perhaps their destruction indicates that they, like the inhabitants of the subsidiary graves, were ritually killed and buried to accompany the deceased king (O’Connor 2009, p. 176; Bestock 2008, p. 47). The differences between the enclosures of the early First Dynasty rulers in large part mirror the differences in the tombs of this period. Aha was the first to build a positively identified enclosure, though it is possible that earlier ones existed. Aha built three enclosures, one larger than the other two. The larger enclosure had six subsidiary graves, many of which were quite rich, while the smaller enclosures had three graves each; all these graves are constructed separately, like those at Aha’s tomb. Though one of these was intact, it was notably poorer than those of the large enclosure (fig. 15.4). It seems likely that the large enclosure was for Aha himself while the smaller two were for others, perhaps queens (Bestock 2009, pp. 98–102). Djer has one known enclosure. While he thus built fewer than his predecessor Aha, he massively expanded the size and number of subsidiary graves provided, parallel to his innovations at Umm el-Qaab. As at his tomb, Djer’s 269 subsidiary graves here were built in contiguous rows. Petrie noted that some of the bodies in these graves showed signs of having been alive at the time of burial (Petrie 1925, p. 8). Djet’s enclosure had 154 subsidiary graves; its walls have not yet been found though there is no reason to doubt its existence. Merneith’s enclosure is somewhat smaller and narrower than her predecessors’, and has seventy-nine known graves. One further enclosure from this period is known but cannot be attributed to a specific reign on current evidence (but see Bestock 2009, pp. 102–04, for a discussion). This monument is somewhat smaller than Djer’s enclosure, to which it is near. Remarkable figure 15.4. an intact but relatively poor subsidiary burial from one of the small funerary enclosures of aha in the North Cemetery (photo by Laurel bestock) 141 oi.ucicago.edu before the pyramids features of this building are the ten donkeys discovered in its southern subsidiary graves — the only subsidiary graves it is known to have had — and the numerous seal impressions found in its southeast gate. These seal impressions provide the relative date of the building and also show that this door was repeatedly closed and sealed, then reopened (O’Connor 2009, pp. 166, 170). This again highlights the important ritual nature of the enclosures. convincingly interpreted as a type of serdab designed to hold a statue of the king (Dreyer 1990, pp. 77–78). It has further been suggested that the absence of similar features at earlier and later First Dynasty royal tombs is because a chapel with similar function may usually have been a surface feature (O’Connor 2009, pp. 154–55). Anedjib’s small tomb appears to have been built in haste. It is somewhat irregular, and its sixty-three subsidiary graves have narrow walls. These are arranged in banks somewhat analogous to those of Djer and Djet. Semerkhet and Qa’a built tombs that are more impressive, and which incorporate the new feature of subsidiary graves directly abutting the royal chamber. Semerkhet had sixty-nine such graves, and Qa’a, the last king known to have subsidiary graves at all, only twenty-six. Den, Semerkhet, and Qa’a all have known royal name stelae. In the case of Qa’a, one of his two stelae was found near the surface on the east of the tomb, possibly close to the place it was originally erected. Dozens of pieces of stone bowls suggested to Petrie that a place of offering was located here (Petrie 1900, p. 15). Only one funerary enclosure from the later First Dynasty is known, probably due to an accident of preservation or discovery rather than a failure of these kings to build such monuments. Called by Petrie the Western Mastaba, it lies some distance southwest of Merneith’s enclosure, very close to the southwest of Djer’s enclosure (fig. 15.3). The Western Mastaba is similar in scale and proportions to Merneith’s enclosure, but the absence of a low bench at the exterior base of the walls and the absence of surrounding rows of subsidiary graves distinguish it from most earlier enclosures. A unique feature probably to be associated with the Western Mastaba is a line of fourteen buried boats along its western side. The wooden hulls of these boats were about 25 meters long and each was given its own low, boat-shaped superstructure. These may be seen as a kind of subsidiary grave holding important things rather than people in this instance being buried to accompany the king in his afterlife, much like the donkeys of the earlier anonymous enclosure (O’Connor 2009, pp. 185–94). the later first dynasty The monuments of the later First Dynasty at Abydos appear somewhat different from those of preceding generations, though rapid innovation continued to be the rule. These four kings, Den, Anedjib, Semerkhet, and Qa’a, all built subterranean mudbrick tombs at Umm el-Qaab. These are by and large more tightly centralized around the main chamber than were earlier tombs, with the exception of Merneith’s. Stairwells to the royal chamber were built in all these tombs, allowing for the complete construction of a roof and perhaps superstructure before the interment of the king. The number of subsidiary graves also continued its uneven decline from the high of Djer’s reign. An even sharper contrast is clear in the North Cemetery, where only one late First Dynasty enclosure is known. This has no human subsidiary graves at all, and cannot be attributed to a particular king. The first tomb of the second half of the First Dynasty belongs to Den, son of Merneith. Den’s tomb complex at Umm el-Qaab is one of the more remarkable of the First Dynasty royal tombs, and indeed his reign as a whole seems to have been a long and important one. Den’s tomb has the first of the stairways leading down to the main chamber. The main chamber itself is the largest at Umm el-Qaab and was partly lined in red granite (Petrie 1900, p. 11). The arrangement of the 135 subsidiary graves is dissimilar to earlier kings’ tombs; here they are primarily in banks, three deep, on the northwest and northeast sides (fig. 15.2). Many private stelae, often with titles, came from these graves. A unique element of Den’s tomb is an enigmatic suite of rooms at the south corner of the complex. This consists primarily of a staircase leading down to a small room that abuts the outside of the main chamber. This room has been 142 oi.ucicago.edu 15. the first KiNGs of eGypt: the abydos eVideNCe construction (Dreyer et al. 2006, pp. 98–99). The form of the tomb is a small central chamber defined by brick walls. A passageway runs around this chamber, separating it from small rooms on the sides that are also defined by mudbrick walls. A further corridor lies between these small rooms and the outer wall. Inscriptions naming Hetepsekhemwy, Raneb, and Ninetjer were found in the tomb, as well as vessels of copper and seal impressions. Two stelae with Peribsen’s name and the unique Seth-topped serekh were found somewhat out of context on the southwest of the tomb (Petrie 1901a, p. 12). Peribsen’s enclosure, despite its relatively thin walls, is largely similar to those of the First Dynasty. It has the expected niching, gateways, and cult chapel, the latter with substantial remains of offering pottery and seal impressions. It differs from earlier practice in the inclusion of an additional door in the south wall, the elaboration of the north gate, and the absence of any subsidiary graves, human or otherwise. Peribsen was succeeded by Khasekhemwy. Khasekhemwy’s tomb, in contrast to Peribsen’s, went through several iterations, starting as a small, almost square construction on a similar plan to Peribsen’s tomb. Expansions to both north and south led to corridors flanked with small rooms, apparently for the second dynasty King Hetepsekhemwy of the Second Dynasty was responsible for the burial of Qa’a, as shown by seal impressions from the latter’s tomb (Dreyer et al. 1996, pp. 71–72). Despite this, Hetepsekhemwy and his immediate successors were buried not at Abydos but at Saqqara, far to the north. It is only at the very end of the Second Dynasty that royal tombs are again constructed at Abydos, and this during the perhaps tumultuous reign of Peribsen. Peribsen and his successor, Khasekhemwy, built tombs and enclosures at Abydos, in the same areas used by the First Dynasty kings. Their tombs are still subterranean mudbrick constructions, but they differ significantly from the earlier royal tombs. They have relatively small main chambers that do not appear to have had inner wooden rooms. They have sets of small storage chambers — a very large number in the case of Khasekhemwy — but do not have the subsidiary graves seen in the First Dynasty. Subsidiary graves are also absent from the Second Dynasty funerary enclosures, though in plan these are otherwise more similar to their forebears. The tomb of Peribsen is unusual for Abydos in having had only a single construction phase; this and its poorly applied plaster seem to indicate hasty figure 15.5. the shunet ezZebib, funerary enclosure of Khasekhemwy (photo by Laurel bestock) 143 oi.ucicago.edu before the pyramids storage. An intriguing feature of Khasekhemwy’s tomb is the flattening of the walls of the central part of the tomb to barely half their original height, apparently due to the pressure of a massive weight. Dreyer has suggested that this is due to a superstructure mound, potentially stone reveted, and above ground in this case (Dreyer et al. 2003, pp. 108–11). Some elements of this tomb are familiar to anyone aware of Djoser’s Step Pyramid complex: a stonelined main chamber, an astonishing wealth of stone vessels, and fragments of faience tiles that resemble the well-known subsequent djed pillars. Indeed, Djoser’s name itself is found on seal impressions both here and at Khasekhemwy’s enclosure, following the common pattern that is taken to indicate the burial of a dead king by his immediate successor (Dreyer 1998, pp. 31–34). Additional artifacts recovered here include copper vessels, copper tools, flint knives, jars filled with grain, beads, basketry, and sealings. Khasekhemwy’s funerary enclosure is the only standing feature in the Abydos North Cemetery, the only Early Dynastic monument at the site to be largely intact (fig. 15.5). It dominates the landscape. With walls five meters thick and ten meters tall, its niches throwing patterns of light and shadow, it gives some sense of the imposing presence that the other enclosures must have had during the brief periods they stood. Khasekhemwy’s enclosure, now known as the Shunet ez-Zebib, is both typical of this monument type and unique. In general plan, location, orientation, and features it is entirely familiar. Differences include the presence of additional doorways to the west and south, the construction of a perimeter wall around the entire enclosure, and a much more complex chapel than known previously. The northern gate of Khasekhemwy’s enclosure is also unique in not being bricked closed. That the Shunet ez-Zebib was left standing also marks it as different from its predecessors. Perhaps, as Djoser began the process of erecting a monument in stone intended to stand for eternity, the old practice of burying temples with their kings became obsolete. In its lonely monumentality, Khasekhemwy’s enclosure at Abydos marks the end of one era and the beginning of another. note 1 In fact, the Abydos enclosures are oriented substantially off a perfect cardinal axis, as can be seen in figure 15.3, but this is because the Nile in the region of Abydos flows from southeast to northwest. The enclosures are oriented parallel to the Nile, even though the river is many kilometers away. As such, these monuments are notionally rather than cardinally aligned to a north–south axis. Notional directions are used in this discussion. 144