ANT 309:

Egypt in the Age of the Pyramids

(Predyn.–Second Intermediate Period: 5,000-1550 BC)

Lecture 9:
Early Dynastic Egypt: Dyns.0-2
© Notes & images compiled by Gregory Mumford 2016
Selected questions regarding various aspects of Dyns.0-2 royal burials:
• What innovations emerge from Dyns.0-2 that display the foundations of the
Old Kingdom state (Dynasties 3-6+)?
• Is there evidence for a Dynasty “0” (N3) ancestral royal lineage at Abydos?
• What various things do the Dyn.0 serekh-names and commodity tags imply?
• Can we reconstruct a generic Dyn.0 royal tomb from Abydos?
• What may constitute a Dyn.0 royal tomb versus an elite tomb?
Size? Design? Quality of contents? Specific items? Etc.
• What can we say about the Dynasty 1 royal tombs at Abydos?
Substructures? Superstructures? Contents? Significance? Function? Etc.
• What can we say about the royal retainer burials at Abydos? (vs. Saqqara)
Sacrificial burials? Other options? Significance? Why only Dyn.1? Elsewhere?
• Should we exhibit extreme caution in labeling something “sacrificial”?
What constitutes reasonable doubt? Can it simply remain unresolved? Other?
• How far can/should one go in interpreting retainer burial complexes?
Are such notions useful? Misleading? Ethnoarchaeology? Later parallels?
• How are the Dynasty 2 royal burials different? Similar?
Is there an evolution towards the royal Step Pyramid complexes of Dyn.3?
Early Dynastic EGYPT:
ED period is characterized by
a. “Kingship”
rulers exhibiting titulary & regalia
used by later pharaonic rulers
Early Dynastic EGYPT: Late Predyn.-Dyn.1 Dyn.1 stela of Merka
ED period is characterized by Egyptian writing

b. Administration
implied by material remains
and writing (proto-glyphs & glyphs)
c. Writing
Evolving from pictographs to more
complex signs & symbols: 3300 BC
Early Dynastic EGYPT:
ED period is characterized by
d. (Early) monumental architecture
Mainly funerary and cultic
(E.g., sculpture; buildings; etc.)
Early Dynastic EGYPT:
King Den’s tomb
ED period is characterized by
e. Distinct social hierarchy
i.e., differential wealth (min. to high)
Early Dynastic EGYPT:
ED period is characterized by
f. Crafts & industries:
The rise of royal & elite patronage
promoting diverse manufactories …
ED EGYPT:
f. Mesopotamian interrelations:
Late Predynastic-Early Dynastic Egypt
exhibits indirect-direct interrelations
with Mesopotamia:
E.g., Buttressed and niched architecture
(Egyptian mastaba tombs = similar
façade to Mesopotamian temples.
Some scholars argue for more direct
Mesopotamian contact with & influence
upon Egypt, including an impetus
behind the development of Egyptian
hieroglyphs (3,300 BC). Appearance of writing systems
Gunter Dreyer’s discovery of early
Egyptian writing, about 150 years prior
to Dynasty 1, places it close to the
emergence of Mesopotamian writing Mesopotamia
(3,500 BC). 3,500 BC
Hence, both writing systems may
have emerged independently. Egypt 3,300 BC
 Late Predynastic to
Early Dynastic Egypt:
Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS:
ROYAL TOMBS
in Cemeteries U & B
ABYDOS: Cemeteries U and B:
Naqada I-III: 3800 - 3100 BC.
The earliest royal tombs appear in
Cemetery U at Abydos: Tomb U-j.
This cemetery area lies in the desert
SW of the Nile floodplain & settlement.
Cemetery grew slowly; shifts from S-N

U-j

Abydos:
Cemetery U spans Naqada I-III
ABYDOS: Cemeteries U and B: Naqada I-II
Naqada I-III: 3800 - 3100 BC.
The earliest royal tombs appear in
Cemetery U at Abydos: Tomb U-j.
a. Regular/simple grave pits lie along
the NW in Naqada I-II

Abydos:
Generic pit Cemetery U spans Naqada I-III
ABYDOS: Cemeteries U and B: Naqada II
Naqada II - III: 3500/3400 - 3100 BC.
The earliest royal tombs appear in
Cemetery U at Abydos: Tomb U-j.
b. Larger tombs appear along the NW
and SE edge in late Naqada II-III
Naqada II-III

U-j
Naqada II-III

Abydos:
Cemetery U spans Naqada I-III
ABYDOS: Cemeteries U and B:
Naqada IIIa-b: 3400/3300-3100 BC.
The earliest royal tombs appear in
Cemetery U at Abydos: Tomb U-j.

c. A few substantial tombs emerge to

the south in mid-Naqada III,
blending into Cemetery B:
- Large mud brick substructures:
3-4 chambers. U-j
-1 large mud-brick substructure:
12 chambers (= Tomb U-j).

Naqada III

Abydos:
Cemetery U spans Naqada I-III
ABYDOS: Cemeteries U and B:
Naqada IIIb+: ca. 3100/3050 BC. N
The earliest royal tombs appear in
Cemetery U at Abydos: Tomb U-j.
- 1 huge 3-roomed mb substructure
identified with King Aha (Dyn.1).

S
ABYDOS: Cemeteries U-B
Predynastic royal lineage at Abydos:
Gunter Dreyer has proposed that
the 17 substantial tombs in the
southern part of Cemetery U,
which merges into Cemetery B,
may reflect a sequence/lineage of
17 proto-kings at Abydos.
13 of these tombs cluster around
Tomb U-j: Kings? Family? Retainers?
ABYDOS: Cemeteries U-B
Transition from Dyn. 0 – Dyn. 1:
Cemetery B yielded the tombs of
Narmer and Aha, whose reigns span
the end of the Predynastic (Dyn.0)
and the advent of Dynasty 1.
Dreyer generally equates mud brick
tombs with two (or more) chambers
with royal burials in the late Predyn.
sequence in Cemetery U.
But these may simply reflect the upper
strata of society vs. actual early kings.
ABYDOS: Cemeteries U-B
Other evidence for Dyn.0 rulers:
The discovery of 7-8 early royal
serekh-names from Cemetery U,
however, indicates the emergence
of some powerful Predyn. rulers.
They are thereby apparently distinct
in this region, & an increasingly
broader part of Ancient Egypt. Protodynastic / Naqada IIIa-b

Naqada II-III pottery

expansion
ABYDOS: Cemeteries U-B
A Dynasty 0 unified(?) Egypt:
Dreyer suggests, however, that as
many as 8 of these early proto-kings
may have ruled a “united” Egypt ...
PRIOR to Kings Narmer & Aha (Menes?)

King Scorpion
ABYDOS: Cemeteries U-B
Objections to Dyn.0 unified Egypt:
BUT the earliest tombs in this possible
“royal” sequence are similar in size
to other tombs & graves in Cemetery U,
implies that fewer social & material
elements distinguished the elite &
early leaders in mid-Naqada III (i.e.,
late Predynastic; Protodyn.; Dyn.0).
It is difficult to equate any particular late
Predyn. tombs with a ruler (except U-j)
ABYDOS Cem.-U, Tomb U-j: Tomb U-j
Very few royal tomb candidates:
Tomb U-j = dated to Naqada IIIa2
(Late Predynastic)
Burial chamber (no.1) measures
20 square metres: i.e., = quite large.
It contained a large wooded feature:
a “shrine” or sarcophagus/coffin.

Tomb U-j
ABYDOS Cem.-U, Tomb U-j:
The average Dyn.0 tomb at Abydos:
• Most substantial burial chambers in
Cem. U average 15 sq. m. (5 x 10 m)
ABYDOS Cem.-U, Tomb U-j: Tomb U-j
Some huge burial chambers:
Only Tomb U-d has a burial chamber
of 19.4 square metres: i.e., like U-j.
BUT, Tomb U-j has an additional
11 chambers, which raise its area
to 84 square metres.
Hence, U-j = distinguished in BOTH
its size & distinct storage space
set aside for provisions and other Tomb U-j
furnishings.
ABYDOS: Tomb U-j yielded:
Distinct royal components in tomb U-j:
A wooden “shrine” or coffin in the
burial chamber (no.1): = elite or royal.
A typical royal sceptre from the burial
chamber (no.1)

The royal sceptre

Wooden
“shrine”
or
coffin
ABYDOS: Tomb U-j yielded:
Other elite/royal contents from U-j:
• Portions from wooden boxes from 7
chamber 11 (clothing?; jewellery?; etc.)
• 3 rooms (especially nos.7 & 10) 10
yielded wine jars, many of which
actually imitated foreign Canaanite 11
wine jars (initially believed to have
been imported until NAA revealed
the local origin of the clay).

Wine jars in room-10 of Tomb U-j

ABYDOS: Tomb U-j yielded:
Imported wine jars (Canaanite wine):
• Other wine jars may represent actual
imports from Canaan (Palestine),
and are associated with cylinder seal
impressions from 250 mud-sealing caps.
• These jars held over 4,500 litres of wine
= sufficient to supply few 1000 persons
with a small bowl/“cup” of wine.

Clay jar seals

Late Predynastic
bone cylinder seal
with seal impression
in clay (below it)
ABYDOS: Tomb U-j yielded:
Evidence for many more jars in U-j: 1 2
• The surviving pottery containers and
5 6 7
jar base impressions suggested 100s
of such containers holding food & drink. 10
• The impressions from pot bases also
indicate that pottery containers lay 12
throughout many other chambers:
the burial chamber (no.1) and rooms
2, 5, 6-7, 10, 12.

Descriptive tags on containers

Generic wine jars from Dyn.1 tomb
ABYDOS: Tomb U-j yielded:
Reconstructing tomb U-j’s contents:
• The entire tomb may have originally
held close to a 1000 pottery jars.
• The chambers had numerous small
dockets (perforated tags) that had been
originally attached to containers.
• These tags sometimes designated their
contents, quantities, & other details.
E.g., Place of origin.

Generic wine jars from Dyn.1 tomb

ABYDOS Tomb U-j writing:
• 164 dockets & 133 painted jars,
bear many pictographic signs,
& a few examples of numerals.
• A few signs may continue into
fully developed Egyptian hieroglyphs.
• Dreyer suggests the name Abu
(3bw) for Abydos may appear on
one docket with an elephant on a
mountain, in front of a tree:
E.g., Elephant glyph = later assoc.
with the phonetic value 3b (ab)
E.g., 3-peaked mountain sign is
later assoc. with phonetic dw
• Dreyer believes the signs on most
dockets & labels reflect a complex
administrative infrastructure:
E.g., a scorpion & tree on a jar may
reflect the provisioning of jar contents
from an estate of King Scorpion.
ABYDOS Tomb U-j writing:
Can one find similar/same place names?
• Dreyer has attempted to equate other
labels with signs known from elsewhere:
E.g., Two “fighting” figures = similar to
battling figures in “Towns” palette.
ABYDOS Tomb U-j writing: Towns’
Palette
Contrasting theories/views on signs:
• D. O’Connor believes most early signs
represent place names, versus Dreyer
who believes only some indicate towns.
• The 250 cylinder seal impressions from
clay jar-caps may reflect Egyptian clays
and display Egyptian-style motifs:
i.e., Earlier local types occur elsewhere
in Cemetery U.
• Ulrich Hartung interprets some cylinder
seal impressions from U-j as reflecting
diverse economic institutions that
provided supplies to Abydos/Tomb U-j.
ABYDOS Tomb U-j writing: Predynastic bone cylinder seal
Mesopotamian-derived cylinder seals,
but bearing Egyptian dec. motifs:
O’Connor stresses the non-Mesopotamian-
style of the cylinder seal motifs (Egy. dec.);
He notes five types of seal are discernable.
ABYDOS Tomb U-j writing:
Five cylinder seal types:
• Each seal type has a central panel
laid in a wide, ornate frame
with a geometric design.
• The interior panel is quite small
(1.8 cm x 3 cm).
• It contains general scenes of
wildlife and vegetation:
E.g., a person, animals (ibexes),
birds (ibis), snakes, insects (scorpions),
boats?, and trees (flowers; palm trees).

Examples of cylinder seal designs

from Tomb U-j and its environs
ABYDOS Tomb U-j writing:
Five cylinder seal types & intent:
• O’Connor believes different seal types
formed known identifications with the
owners of var. estates & their products.
• Sealing implies a security measure for
the shipment, storage, & overall integrity
of the contents: the intricate nature of
the clay sealing caps would minimize
attempts to disguise theft of the contents.

Hard-to-duplicate seal
designs to make it harder
to disguise breaching jar
Political power of Tomb U-j’s owner:
Extracting place names from tags:
• O’Connor assigns 45 place names
(“towns”) to the docket symbols.
Political power of Tomb U-j’s owner:
Estates supplying funerary products?:
• He interprets them as indicating 45
towns supplied materials to the burial.
• Unless jars represented trade or “gifts”
from autonomous neighbouring polities,
the apparent prominence of Tomb U-j
in Naqada IIIa Egypt suggest that:
• Either neighbouring vassal city-states,
or poss. towns under Abydos’ control,
contributed the jars & their contents.
Political power of Tomb U-j’s owner:
King Tomb U-j probably ruled S. Egypt:
• O’Connor suggests this ruler controlled
Egypt as far south as Elephantine,
?
but is unsure how far N he ruled Egypt.

King Scorpion (= Tomb U-j ?)

Political power of Tomb U-j’s owner:
Other ideas regarding King U-j’s rule:
• Dreyer believes this ruler may have
controlled, or dominated, the delta,
identifying two place names with later
?
known delta localities.
• O’Connor contests the phonetic links
to these symbols.

Did King U-j rule the delta???

Cemeteries B & Umm El-Qaab:
Naqada II
Relative spatial & temporal sequence:
Naqada IIIc (Late Predyn.-Dyn.1):
• Abydos royal tombs at Abydos shift Naqada III
southward to Cem.-B & Umm el-Qaab,
spanning late Predynastic to Dyn.1.
Narmer
Aha (Dyn. 1)

Khasekhemwy
(Dyn. 2)
Cemeteries B & Umm El-Qaab:
Dyn.0-1 kings’ hometown (Thinis):
Dynasty 1 and late 2:
• Cemetery B yielded rectilinear mud
brick tombs for the Dynasty “0” Kings
Iry-Hor, Qa, and Narmer
(near the tomb of King Aha; Dyn.1).
• In the Ptolemaic period, an Egyptian
historian Manetho recorded that the
kings of Dyns. 1-2 originated from
Thinite province containing Abydos.
• Thinis itself lay NW of Abydos.
• It appears to be a relatively minor
settlement, with adjacent cemeteries
that display no exceptionally notable
remains: is this the hometown???
Cemeteries B & Umm El-Qaab:
Do other wealthy Naqada III tombs
appear in Southern Egypt?
• Aside from Abydos’ royal tombs,
only Naqada had very wealthy tombs
in southern Egypt during early Dyn.1.
Town of Naqada

Naqada
Cemeteries B & Umm El-Qaab:
Naqada appears to have some wealth: Ed-Deir
• Town+cemetery at Nubt-Naqada had very
wealthy tombs in S. Egypt in early Dyn.1. Ballas

Nubt

Naqada

Access to gold sources via

Qift (Koptos) & Wadi Hammamat
Cemeteries B & Umm El-Qaab:
Naqada’s relationship to other sites:
• Naqada lay btw. Abydos-Hierakonpolis,
& may have formed the admin. centre(?)
of southern Egypt during the late Predyn.
• Although surviving excerpts from Manetho
may = inaccurate, most Early Dyn. kings
retained links with Abydos, building their
tombs near late Predyn. Abydene rulers.

Late Predynastic Naqada may

have been an admnistrative centre
for Southern (UE) Egyptian kingdom
Cemeteries B & Umm El-Qaab:
New capital at Memphis (E. of Saqqara):
• Otherwise, they presumably spent much
of their time residing at Memphis,
the new capital of a united Egypt.
• The administrative centre at Memphis was
well-sited at the apex of the delta, enabling
the most direct contact with all of Egypt,
controlling any traffic Elephantine/Aswan,
or downstream to Mediterranean Sea
(along the multiple delta river branches).

Memphis eclipses
other late Predyn.
centres once it
becomes the capital
 Late Predynastic to
Early Dynastic Egypt:
Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS:
DYN.1 ROYAL TOMBS in
cemeteries B-Umm el-Qaab
DYN.1 ROYAL TOMBS:
Post-ED status of Abydos tombs:
• The Abydos royal tombs apparently
experienced multiple robberies,
& one period of extensive burning
in some tombs, which contained much
wood construction & furnishings, and
other combustible materials.
• Dreyer’s recent re-excavation here
has shown that many may have been
explored during the Middle Kingdom,
presumably in a purposeful search for MK bier of Osiris: placed in Djer’s tomb
the tomb of Osiris.
DYN.1 ROYAL TOMBS:
Monument conservation in the past:
• A few Early Dynastic royal tombs
were renovated in the New Kingdom
and subsequent periods.
• This included modifications in relation
to their sanctity and role in the Osiris
cult at Abydos.
• Image of Djer’s tomb with Dyn.18 stairs
added to aid the annual Osiris rites.

Photo from W.M.F. Petrie, 1901.

The Royal Tombs of the Earliest
Dynasties 1901 Part II.
DYN.1 ROYAL TOMBS:
Further robberies and three phases
of excavation in the last century
have yielded the royal tombs
as they currently exist.
Hence, such successive disturbances
have made it difficult to comprehend
fully the Early Dynastic royal tombs’
original design and their contents.
Surprisingly, however, sufficient traces
remain to reconstruct a reasonable
notion of the original tomb designs
and their mortuary offerings.
 Late Predynastic to
Early Dynastic Egypt:
Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS:
DYN.1 ROYAL TOMBS
sub-structures
DYN.1 Tomb substructure designs:
Royal tomb substructure increase in size:
• There is a noticeable increase in the size,
and presumably wealth & power of kings,
via their tomb complex sizes: Predyn.-ED

Many Cemetery U tombs 22.5 sq. m.

Elite mid-Naqada III tombs 45 sq. m.
Tomb U-j measures 84 sq. m.
Aha’s tomb measures 304 sq. m.
Many E.D. tombs measure 307 sq. m.
King Den’s tomb measures 475-728
Anedjib’s tomb = esp. small 112 sq. m.
Semerkhet’s tomb measures 211 sq. m.
DYN.1 Tomb substructure designs:
Changes in royal tomb design:
• Although each royal tomb differs
in its specific design details,
there is a mid-Dyn.1 shift from
a roof-accessed burial chamber to a
ramp/stair accessed burial chamber.
• Only the tomb substructure survives:
• The royal burial chamber represents
the prime focus and largest chamber Dyn.1: Tomb of Aha & possibly 2 queens
within the subterranean complex. Tomb of Qaa at Umm el-Qaab
DYN.1 tomb substructures: King
Anedjib
Benefits of stair/ramp access:
• Ramp/stairway access enhanced
security of the isolated royal tombs,
allowing a single sealing & covering
of all the subterranean chambers
prior to the royal burial.
• This also created greater confidence
for the current ruler regarding the
completion of his funerary monument.
• It left less post-funeral traffic, labourers,
potential security breaches, and
residual construction work.

Generic mort. scene

DYN.1 Tomb substructure designs:
Royal burial chamber fittings:
• The burial chambers contained an
inner wooden shrine, or encasing
structure, that enclosed the coffin.
• Traces of such planking reveal
imported aromatic cedar was used
often.
IMAGE: from tomb of King Anedjib
(Petrie’s reading = “Azab”)

Generic ED coffin
DYN.1 Tomb substructure designs:
Royal tomb substructure storage rooms:
• The late Predynastic and Dynasty 1
royal tombs also contained surrounding
chambers for storage, ranging from
a few to many additional rooms.
• In a few cases, the storage chambers
were built separately from the main
burial chamber.

Tomb complex of King Den

DYN.1 tomb substructures:

Evolution of alignment significance?:

• In late Old Kingdom mortuary texts,
the N-aligned ramp access in pyramids
enabled the king & selected family to
ascend to the N. circumpolar stars
(the “imperishable ones”).
• What about ED royal tombs?
Is there evidence for early star cult?

Dynasties 3-6:
Early Dynastic royal tomb Pyramid entry shafts are normally
aligned precisely with circumpolar stars
DYN.1 tomb substructures: Entry alignment:
Evolution of alignment significance?
• BUT, ED royal tomb entrances are
only generally aligned eastward, with
a SW access to the complex Dyn.1
•  Early Dynastic royal tombs appear
to follow a different tradition(!): unsure
what this is: Underworld/Khentyimentiu?
DYN.1 tomb substructures: Entry alignment:

Varying entry alignments:

• What might this mean vs. later pyr.
• The ED royal tombs placed less
importance on specific alignments
than the later pyramid tombs:
• For instance, King Qa‘a’s tomb
adopted a northern entry since
it was placed too close to an earlier
royal tomb along its east side.
• Hence, aside from a general
preference in facing the rising sun,
the Dynasty 1 rulers appear to prefer
place their tombs close to each other
rather than fulfil any popular
preferences regarding alignment.
 ED tomb alignment is generally
a minimal requirement versus other
preferences: e.g., tomb security.
 Late Predynastic to
Early Dynastic Egypt:
Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS:
DYN.1 ROYAL TOMBS
super-structures
DYN.1 Tomb superstructures:
How might ED royal tombs = roofed?
• The only evidence for superstructures
include: ...
(a). Traces of a planking, bricks, plaster,
sand, & gravel for roofing.

• Beginning with King Djer, an additional

overlying subterranean sand & rubble
mound (primordial mound?) may cap
the underground mud brick complex.
• These mounds lay under the ground
surface and ranged from square to
rectilinear in plan.
• Some display definite gently sloping
(battered) mud brick retaining walls
with a plaster coating
•These subterranean mounds did not
survive to their tops, which may
have been flat, or slightly convex.
 BURIAL SUPERSTRUCTURE: other evidence ...
Tomb of King Aha: 11.7 x 9.4 m.
• Post holes in floor to support ceiling
• Superstructure entirely disappeared  wooden boards
• Hor Aha’s name incised on clay jar sealings and wooden items.
King Djet: cross-section

King Djet: top-plan

 Dyn.1 tomb of King Djet:
evidence for a mud brick capped subterranean “primordial” mound

It is uncertain whether another surface mound lay over the subterranean mound
It is theorized that the pair of royal stelae fronted some type of superstructure.
DYN.1 Tomb superstructures:
What identified each ruler’s tomb?:
(b). A pair of matching stone stelae
bearing the ruler’s serekh/Horus name.
• The lower rough portions of these
stelae show they were embedded
partly in ground: poss. freestanding?
• At least a few seem to have been put
in an above-ground niche:
i.e., erosion patterns vs. Intact surface.

Pair of royal stelae for King Peribsen

from Umm el-Qaab at Abydos.
DYN.1 Tomb superstructures:
Freedstanding ED royal tomb stelae:
• Some stelae were embedded deeply in
the sand and appear to have stood
against, or beside a superstructure.
DYN.1 Tomb superstructures:
The Early Dynastic royal stelae
vary widely in their use of materials,
size, quality of carving, & rendition
of the royal Horus-name.
(a). King Djet had a high quality pair
of stelae
(b). King Den had a poorly finished
set of stelae
(c). Other royal stelae are moderately
sculpted
DYN.1 Tomb superstructures:
The Early Dynastic royal stelae
vary widely in their use of materials,
size, quality of carving, & rendition
of the royal Horus-name.
(a). King Djet had a high quality pair
of stelae
(b). King Den had a poorly finished
set of stelae
(c). Other royal stelae are moderately
sculpted

Stele of King Djer

DYN.1 Tomb superstructures: Stele of King Semerkhet

The Early Dynastic royal stelae

vary widely in their use of materials,
size, quality of carving, & rendition
of the royal Horus-name.
(a). King Djet had a high quality pair
of stelae
(b). King Den had a poorly finished
set of stelae
(c). Other royal stelae are moderately
sculpted
DYN.1 Tomb superstructures:
The Early Dynastic royal stelae
vary widely in their use of materials,
size, quality of carving, & rendition
of the royal Horus-name.
(a). King Djet had a high quality pair
of stelae
(b). King Den had a poorly finished
set of stelae
(c). Other royal stelae are moderately
sculpted
DYN.1 Tomb superstructures:
Dyns.1-2 royal stelae vary in height
Royal stelae range widely in height:
(a). King Djet 2.5 m high
(2 m above ground)
(b). Qn Merneith 1.57 m high
(1 m above ground)
(c). King Qa‘a 1.43 m high
(1 m above ground)
DYN.1 Tomb superstructures:
Royal tomb upper mound/structure?:
(c). Some scholars suggest the tomb
substructure received yet again another
mound, perhaps secured by mud brick
retaining walls and plaster
•No evidence actually remains for such
structures (2nd mound = postulated). Qn. Merneith

• Of note: Dreyer argues that the vast

amount of sand and gravel dug to
facilitate the subterranean substructure
could easily have been used to create
both the overlying subterranean mound
and an upper, above-ground mound.

Plan of Qn. Merneith’s tomb

DYN.1 Tomb superstructures:
No royal superstructure theory:
(d). Other scholars speculate that
only the pair of stelae remained
as surface markers for the location
of the royal burials and their associated
subsurface retainer tombs.
DYN.1 Tomb superstructures:
Royal tomb enclosure wall SW entry:
(e). The retention of an opening/gap
at the SW corner of the subterranean
retainer tomb complexes 
suggests that a sufficiently notable
surface structure existed to require
leaving surface access to the area of
the main royal tomb.
DYN.1 Tomb superstructures:
Royal tomb enclosure wall SW entry:
• Presumably SW entryway enabled
the royal mortuary cult’s priesthood SW
to service each ruler’s tomb.
• The separate subsidiary graves also
prob. had an above-ground structure,
which would explain the need to leave
a gap at the Southwest corner.

SW

SW
DYN.1 Tomb superstructures:
Sacrificial royal retainer burials:
(f). The apparent requirement for
having sacrificial retainer burials
is another major component that helps
distinguish Abydos’ royal tombs
from most contemporary elite tombs:
E.g., Saqqara; Tarkhan; Abu Roash.

Retainer burials from Umm el-Qaab

DYN.1 Tomb superstructures:
Private/elite retainer burials:
(f). Elite/private tombs apparently had
some non-sacrificial retainer tombs.
Each tomb was individual, & the bodies
easily added separately upon a natural
death versus all at one time.
DYN.1 Tomb superstructures:
Some objectives of retainer burials:
(g). Apparently the Dyn.1 kings’
mortuary requirements also appear
to include the services of retainers
during the afterlife.
• This may only have been guaranteed
by dispatching/killing servants alongside
other royal requirements in afterlife: ...
- provisions,
- furnishings,
- clothing,
- etc.

The royal retainer burials contained

many stelae with the names & titles
of the king’s personal servants:
E.g., Musicians.
DYN.1 Tomb superstructures:
Other living beings desired in death:
(g). Alongside requiring the afterlife
services of retainers, the king also had
pets who appear to have been sacrificed
as well: e.g., dogs, lions, etc.
• This suggests retainers had minimal
freedom of choice (which continued).
• While human sacrifice appears to have
ceased relatively soon in late Dyn.1,
favourite pets appear in later tombs.
Favourite hound
DYN.1 Tomb superstructures:
Private/elite tomb superstructures:
• In contrast to the minimal, if any,
constructed surface features for
Dyn.1 & late Dyn.2 royal tombs,
the elite ED tombs at Saqqara
placed much more emphasis on
elaborate & visible superstructures.
• In other elite cemeteries, at Helwan,
Tarkhan, Thinis, and Naga ed-Deir,
the size & complexity of the
superstructures decreased rapidly
throughout Dyn.1.
DYN.1 Tomb superstructures:
Rise of Memphis & its royal cemetery:
• Major elite tombs at Saqqara imply
that Memphis was rapidly becoming the
focal point for elite wealth/high officials,
which peaks here in much of the OK.
• By Dyns.3-4, & even in Dyns.5-6,
the royal pyramid tombs represent
a vast difference between the resources
commanded by the pharaoh in contrast
to his highest officials.
 Late Predynastic to
Early Dynastic Egypt:
Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS:
DYN.1 ROYAL TOMBS
Royal cult chapels
DYN.1 associated royal cult chapel:
King Den’s complex yielded a separate
9 x 9 metre subterranean chamber
beside the southeast side of his tomb.

Figurine
of a ruler
in Sed-festival
robe from Dyn.1: Tomb of King Den at Umm el-Qaab

Function?
- Royal cult?
- Spirit-statuette?
- Ancestor?
- Commemorative?
- Other?

Subterranean Ka-spirit chapel of Den

DYN.1 associated royal cult chapel:

The chamber interior measured several

metres along each side and contained
a large niche along its northwest wall.
A wall had been built subsequently
to close off this niche.

Dyn.2:
statuette
of a king in
Sed-Festival
robes

Function?
Tomb of Den:
complex behind
tomb with cult
Ka?-statue plinth.

Ka-statue = physical embodiment of the deceased

and a “bodily casing” for the spirit (ka) and insurance
against the destruction of the deceased’s real body.
DYN.1 associated royal cult chapel:

This has led to the notion that it

had functioned as a serdab chamber:
i.e., a chamber known mostly from the
Old Kingdom and built to house a
ka-spirit statue for the deceased.

Dyn.2
statue Old Kingdom serdab-statue chamber
of King
Kasekh
-emwy
DYN.1 associated royal cult chapel:

A winding stairway accessed the

chamber from the south.
However, this chamber is unique
at Umm el-Qaab, unless other such
chapels were built on the surface
(as is suggested by David O’Connor).

Dyn.2:
statuette
of a king in
Sed-Festival
robes

Function?
DYN.1 associated royal cult chapel:
Den’s subterranean chapel was
entered by a surface doorway
on its southwest side.
O’Connor observes a SW gap in all
the retainer tomb complexes around
the Dynasty 1 royal tombs.
He argues that it probably served as
an access point to an original,
albeit now missing, southern surface
Chapel (& Den’s subsurface chapel). Dreyer vs. O’Connor reconstructions
of ED royal tomb superstructures
Hence, O’Connor reconstructs Dyn.1
royal superstructures as normally
having both an upper surface mound
& a postulated adjacent small mud
brick Southern chapel.
 O’Connor’s suggested position of
Surface chapels based on Den’s
preserved SE subsurface chapel

Also = Den
King Den

King Qa’a
DYN.1 associated royal cult chapel:
Early surface shrines above tombs?:
• Some parallels exist from this period
from a tomb at Hierakonpolis).
Possibly a pole-frame structure
with matting such as some tombs
at Hierakonpolis
 DYN.1 associated royal cult chapel:
O’Connor also suggests that the
twin stelae may have flanked
the doorway to such chapels.
In contrast, Dreyer speculates that
the SW gap in the retainer tombs
may have enabled the king’s spirit
(ka) to travel to the Underworld.
O’Connor’s suggestion seems
more logical, and provides a plausible Pair of royal stelae may have flanked
predecessor for The entry to the chapel (as in Dyn.4+)
a. Old Kingdom mortuary priesthoods
and
b. Old Kingdom royal cult chapels.
Dyn.4:
Pair of royal
stelae in the
surface chapel
by Sneferu’s
pyramid
 Late Predynastic to
Early Dynastic Egypt:
Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS:
DYN.1 ROYAL TOMBS
Sacrificial retainer burials
DYN.1 sacrificial burials: Sandal-bearer (retainer)
of King Narmer (Dyn.0)
Prior to, or during the royal funeral
preparations and procession,
it appears that each Dyn.1 ruler
may have had var. retainers killed.

Retainer named Nofret

DYN.1 sacrificial burials: Qn. Merneith

Their bodies were placed in small

individual tombs/chambers around
the ruler’s tomb at Umm el-Qaab
and the royal Valley Enclosure
(near the main temple at Abydos).

Retainer burials from Umm el-Qaab

Valley Enclosure of Aha

DYN.1 sacrificial burials:

Such retainer burials are first known

during Aha’s reign, but may appear
earlier in some of the small graves
in Cemetery U.

Recently excavated
“sacrificial” retainer burial
from Dyn.1 King Aha’s
Valley Enclosure at Abydos.
DYN.1 sacrificial burials: Tomb
U-j
Perhaps retainers were placed in
the burial chambers of some of
the larger tombs in Cemeteries U & B.

?Dynasty 0
retainer burials
are not confirmed
DYN.1 sacrificial burials:
The Dyn.1 “sacrificial” burials included
mostly personal servants/retainers,
but may also have consisted of
some officials, courtiers & kin/relations.

100s of stelae in
The retainer burials:
- Mostly names
- Some titles
E.g., Nofret, musician
Sample of retainer burials
including some tools
in short coffins with pottery
from the retainer’s
(also tools of trade: e.g., musicians)
profession in life.
DYN.1 sacrificial burials:

Some hunting dog burials also occur

near some royal tombs.
Pet lions were buried in a long tomb
adjacent to Aha’s tomb (7 lion cubs).

Ramesses II’s military camp

during Dyn.19 (New Kingdom):
royal pet lion in camp. Example of lion game piece from Abydos
DYN.1 sacrificial burials:

The numbers of retainer tombs

peaked at 325 persons/tombs under
King Djer.

Dyn.1: Tomb of King Djer

with an adjacent series of mud brick
complexes for 325 retainer burials.
DYN.1 sacrificial burials:

Retainer burials decreased to 20

under King Qa‘a at the end of Dyn.1,

Retainer burials
(temp. King Qa‘a)

Example of a
retainer / subsidiary
burial from King Aha’s
Valley Enclosure area.
DYN.1 sacrificial burials: Late Dyn.2:
Peribsen’s
After King Qa’a the practice appears tomb.
to have ceased (unless 3 bodies found
in Khasekhemwy’s tomb represent
sacrificial retainer burials).

Late Dyn.2:
Khasekhemwy’s
tomb.

King Khasekhemwy’s tomb today

DYN.1 sacrificial burials: Empty burial chamber?
Egyptologists have debated whether
many or all of these retainers
were truly sacrificed, arguing that:
a. Not all of the pre-prepared
retainer tombs contained bodies.
DYN.1 sacrificial burials:

b. The bodies of many retainers

may easily have been introduced
periodically via roof/ceiling entry.

sealed Open access

Saqqara elite retainer burials

Cross-section Cross-section
DYN.1 sacrificial burials: Retainer dies before ruler?
Killed upon ruler’s death?
c. The bodies of retainers who died Retainer dies in next reign?
during their ruler’s reign may
have been placed in their intended
burial place beside the king’s tomb
prior to the king’s burial.
d. Retainers who survived into
subsequent reigns may have been
buried alongside the ruler in whose
reign they died (naturally).
Queen Merneith

?
King Den
DYN.1 sacrificial burials:
e. If each ruler sacrificed their
personal retainers, the next ruler
may have needed to train
replacement retainers.
f. The shift to a single underground
royal complex with var. adjoining
magazines & retainer tomb chambers,
and other evidence, suggests that Did they kill 100s of trained retainers?
the entire complex was roofed Who was selected?
at one time. Were some left for next ruler?
This possibly required the sacrifice
and placement of retainers into
the tomb at this point.

Mass killing
at one time?
DYN.1 sacrificial burials:

g. Otherwise, only the central

royal tomb chamber received
a separate entryway in mid-Dyn.1.

Adjoining retainer tombs:
- Superstructure roof = missing!
- Could there be multiple openings?
- Does it have to be roofed once?
- Could outer chambers be roofed
differently?
Other options???
Did they bury all retainers who died
during the ruler’s reign in the tomb?
 leaving empty only a few retainer
chambers for retainers who lived
past the ruler’s death?
i.e., They could roof the tomb prior to
the king’s funeral, having only burials
of retainers who died in his reign.
Transfer bodies of retainers at 1 point?
DYN.1 sacrificial burials:
h. O’Connor excavated King Aha’s
Valley Enclosure complex,
finding definite sacrificial burials
of mostly young men placed under
a single, continuous flooring
around the enclosure complex.
i. Hence, it would appear that
at least some retainer burials
represent prob./definite sacrifices,
but some doubt remains regarding
most of the other retainer burials.

Aha
III
burial
DYN.1 sacrificial burials:
No pushing at the back!
j. In addition, it remains unknown:
I was here first!
(a). Whether the sacrificial
retainers represented …
willing or unwilling sacrifices?
(b). How the retainers = killed?
i.e., the examined bodies bore
no apparent traces of violence:
Were they killed by poisoning? “An honour to die
strangulation? cutting a vein? Etc. and serve the king
for eternity –as in life”
DYN.1 sacrificial burials:
Although retainer burials form a major
component in Dyn.1 royal burials, they
were much less significant elsewhere
Elite tombs at Saqqara, and lesser
officials’ tombs at Tarkhan & Abu Roash,
contain their own retainer tombs,
which are placed near the tomb owner’s
complex (mastaba-tomb superstructure).
However, in the case of these private
Mastaba-tombs, their subsidiary burials
do not appear to have been sacrificed.
Instead they have a distinct separate
architecture and entryways.
DYN.1 sacrificial burials:
The separate retainer tomb complexes
at Abydos probably had a superstructure,
explaining why a SW opening was
needed between them to access the
inner royal tomb complex.

Queen Merneith:
Hypothetical superstructure
for exterior retainer tombs at Abydos:
modeled after elite retainer burials.
DYN.1 sacrificial burials:
Many royal retainer tombs had
a single surface stela with
an undressed back.
This suggests that they = placed
in niches in a superstructure
to enable/cause the erosion they
display on their carved face.
These stelae often bore the name
and title of the retainer,
thereby providing information on
their gender, status, & specific
employment in the king’s household.
The retainer tombs associated with
elite private tombs at Saqqara &
Tarkhan, had superstructures
and stelae emplacements,
suggesting a similar layout
may have been used at Abydos.
 Late Predynastic to
Early Dynastic Egypt:
Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS:
Djer’s Retainers
(more analysis)
Djer’s retainer burial chambers: King Djer
Abydos subsidiary burials:
The subsidiary burials around Djer’s
tomb are subdivided into different
complexes, which may reflect their
court rank, kinship, royal favour, &
internal court loyalties/groupings.
(tomb assignments = pre-planned)
Based upon later parallels within the
Giza necropolis, different social-family
lines within the court formed distinct
social & kinship groupings within
the cemetery, via the king’s favour.
The king’s personal servants also
contained their distinct subdivisions:
a. The harem
b. The royal bodyguard
c. Chamberlains
d. Chair/palanquin-bearers
e. Cooks and bakers
f. Others
Djer’s retainer burial chambers: King Djer
U. el-Qaab subsidiary burial gender.
Of the 318 retainer tomb chambers
located beside King Djer’s tomb,
70 yielded stelae (= 22%).
At least 60 (86%) of these represent
female names, presumably from
the king’s harem.
The remaining 10 (14%) represent
male names.
It is uncertain whether the other 248
tombs yielded mostly female burials
(following the known proportion of
86%)
Other chambers bore a white-painted
strip on the S-wall with the occupant’s
name: i.e., pre-assigned tomb chamber
Petrie noted many chambers had been
robbed/disturbed  data incomplete!
Djer’s retainer burial chambers: King Djer
U. el-Qaab subsidiary burial rank.
Within Djer’s retainer tombs,
there is a set of 17 larger tombs,
with six somewhat larger chambers:
possibly for the most favoured
concubines?
These retainer burials yield smaller
tombs near each of the large ones,
suggesting a retinue for each main
concubine?: i.e., 2-4 persons each.
Reisner has also noted that other
tomb chambers appear to suggest
male inhabitants  probably including
various services: chair-carriers? etc.
NOTE: A close examination of the
individual retainer tombs & their relative
placement, size, occupants, features, &
groupings, suggests a conscious
pre-planned purpose: rankings, etc.!
Djer’s retainer burial chambers: King Djer

Reisner’s proposed infrastructure:

Djer tomb retainers:
G (W-row 1-6): 6 chief harem
G (W-row 11-17): 11 Lesser harem
G (M & E,1): 2 Harem-keepers?
G M.2-23; E.2-23 44 Harem-retinue?
H (2nd row 5,9): 2 Keeper’s harem
servants
H (remainder): 38 Harem servants,
males
A (N.1-9; 9-20): 20 Separate harem?
B (1-21) 21 Bodyguard,
chair-bearers
C 34 Service company
C+D 21 Service company
D 40 Service company
E 51 Service company Chief
F 28 Service company harem
TOTAL: 318 Retainer burials women?
Djer’s retainer burial chambers: King Djer

Reisner’s proposed infrastructure:

Djer tomb retainers:
G (W-row 1-6): 6 chief harem
G (W-row 11-17): 11 Lesser harem
G (M & E,1): 2 Harem-keepers?
G M.2-23; E.2-23 44 Harem-retinue?
H (2nd row 5,9): 2 Keeper’s harem
servants
H (remainder): 38 Harem servants,
males
A (N.1-9; 9-20): 20 Separate harem?
B (1-21) 21 Bodyguard,
chair-bearers
C 34 Service company
C+D 21 Service company
D 40 Service company Slightly
E 51 Service company lower
F 28 Service company ranking
harem
TOTAL: 318 Retainer burials women?
Djer’s retainer burial chambers: King Djer

Reisner’s proposed infrastructure:

Djer tomb retainers:
G (W-row 1-6): 6 chief harem
G (W-row 11-17): 11 Lesser harem
G (M & E,1): 2 Harem-keepers?
G M.2-23; E.2-23 44 Harem-retinue?
H (2nd row 5,9): 2 Keeper’s harem
servants
H (remainder): 38 Harem servants,
males
A (N.1-9; 9-20): 20 Separate harem?
B (1-21) 21 Bodyguard,
chair-bearers
C 34 Service company
C+D 21 Service company
D 40 Service company
E 51 Service company
F 28 Service company
TOTAL: 318 Retainer burials “male” eunuchs(?)
Djer’s retainer burial chambers: King Djer

Reisner’s proposed infrastructure:

Djer tomb retainers:
G (W-row 1-6): 6 chief harem
G (W-row 11-17): 11 Lesser harem
G (M & E,1): 2 Harem-keepers?
G M.2-23; E.2-23 44 Harem-retinue?
H (2nd row 5,9): 2 Keeper’s harem
servants
H (remainder): 38 Harem servants,
males
A (N.1-9; 9-20): 20 Separate harem?
B (1-21) 21 Bodyguard,
chair-bearers
C 34 Service company
C+D 21 Service company
D 40 Service company Retinue
E 51 Service company for the
F 28 Service company harem?

TOTAL: 318 Retainer burials

 2 harem-keeper
Djer’s retainer burial chambers: King Djer overseers?
Reisner’s proposed infrastructure:
Djer tomb retainers:
G (W-row 1-6): 6 chief harem
G (W-row 11-17): 11 Lesser harem
G (M & E,1): 2 Harem-keepers?
G M.2-23; E.2-23 44 Harem-retinue?
H (2nd row 5,9): 2 Keeper’s harem
servants
H (remainder): 38 Harem servants,
males
A (N.1-9; 9-20): 20 Separate harem?
B (1-21) 21 Bodyguard,
chair-bearers
C 34 Service company
C+D 21 Service company
D 40 Service company
E 51 Service company
F 28 Service company
TOTAL: 318 Retainer burials
Djer’s retainer burial chambers: King Djer Male harem servants?

Reisner’s proposed infrastructure:

Djer tomb retainers:
G (W-row 1-6): 6 chief harem
G (W-row 11-17): 11 Lesser harem
G (M & E,1): 2 Harem-keepers?
G M.2-23; E.2-23 44 Harem-retinue?
H (2nd row 5,9): 2 Keeper’s harem
servants
H (remainder): 38 Harem servants,
males
A (N.1-9; 9-20): 20 Separate harem?
B (1-21) 21 Bodyguard,
chair-bearers
C 34 Service company
C+D 21 Service company
D 40 Service company
E 51 Service company
F 28 Service company
TOTAL: 318 Retainer burials
Djer’s retainer burial chambers: King Djer

Reisner’s proposed infrastructure:

Djer tomb retainers:
G (W-row 1-6): 6 chief harem
G (W-row 11-17): 11 Lesser harem
G (M & E,1): 2 Harem-keepers?
G M.2-23; E.2-23 44 Harem-retinue?
H (2nd row 5,9): 2 Keeper’s harem
servants
H (remainder): 38 Harem servants,
males
A (N.1-9; 9-20): 20 Separate harem?
B (1-21) 21 Bodyguard,
chair-bearers
C 34 Service company
C+D 21 Service company
D 40 Service company
E 51 Service company
F 28 Service company
TOTAL: 318 Retainer burials
Separate harem?
Djer’s retainer burial chambers: King Djer

Reisner’s proposed infrastructure:

Djer tomb retainers:
G (W-row 1-6): 6 chief harem
G (W-row 11-17): 11 Lesser harem
G (M & E,1): 2 Harem-keepers?
G M.2-23; E.2-23 44 Harem-retinue?
H (2nd row 5,9): 2 Keeper’s harem
servants
H (remainder): 38 Harem servants,
males
A (N.1-9; 9-20): 20 Separate harem?
B (1-21) 21 Bodyguard,
chair-bearers
C 34 Service company
C+D 21 Service company
D 40 Service company
E 51 Service company
F 28 Service company
TOTAL: 318 Retainer burials
Djer’s retainer burial chambers: King Djer

Reisner’s proposed infrastructure:

Djer tomb retainers:
G (W-row 1-6): 6 chief harem
G (W-row 11-17): 11 Lesser harem
G (M & E,1): 2 Harem-keepers?
G M.2-23; E.2-23 44 Harem-retinue?
H (2nd row 5,9): 2 Keeper’s harem
servants
H (remainder): 38 Harem servants,
males
A (N.1-9; 9-20): 20 Separate harem?
B (1-21) 21 Bodyguard,
chair-bearers
C 34 Service company
C+D 21 Service company
D 40 Service company
E 51 Service company
F 28 Service company
TOTAL: 318 Retainer burials
Djer’s retainer burial chambers: King Djer

Reisner’s proposed infrastructure:

Djer tomb retainers:
G (W-row 1-6): 6 chief harem
G (W-row 11-17): 11 Lesser harem
G (M & E,1): 2 Harem-keepers?
G M.2-23; E.2-23 44 Harem-retinue?
H (2nd row 5,9): 2 Keeper’s harem
servants
H (remainder): 38 Harem servants,
males
A (N.1-9; 9-20): 20 Separate harem?
B (1-21) 21 Bodyguard,
chair-bearers
C 34 Service company
C+D 21 Service company
D 40 Service company
E 51 Service company
F 28 Service company
TOTAL: 318 Retainer burials
Djer’s retainer burial chambers: King Djer

Reisner’s proposed infrastructure:

Djer tomb retainers:
G (W-row 1-6): 6 chief harem
G (W-row 11-17): 11 Lesser harem
G (M & E,1): 2 Harem-keepers?
G M.2-23; E.2-23 44 Harem-retinue?
H (2nd row 5,9): 2 Keeper’s harem
servants
H (remainder): 38 Harem servants,
males
A (N.1-9; 9-20): 20 Separate harem?
B (1-21) 21 Bodyguard,
chair-bearers
C 34 Service company
C+D 21 Service company
D 40 Service company
E 51 Service company
F 28 Service company
TOTAL: 318 Retainer burials
Djer’s retainer burial chambers: King Djer

Reisner’s proposed infrastructure:

Djer tomb retainers:
G (W-row 1-6): 6 chief harem
G (W-row 11-17): 11 Lesser harem
G (M & E,1): 2 Harem-keepers?
G M.2-23; E.2-23 44 Harem-retinue?
H (2nd row 5,9): 2 Keeper’s harem
servants
H (remainder): 38 Harem servants,
males
A (N.1-9; 9-20): 20 Separate harem?
B (1-21) 21 Bodyguard,
chair-bearers
C 34 Service company
C+D 21 Service company
D 40 Service company
E 51 Service company
F 28 Service company
TOTAL: 318 Retainer burials
Djer’s retainer burial chambers: King Djer

Reisner’s proposed infrastructure:

Djer tomb retainers:
G (W-row 1-6): 6 chief harem
G (W-row 11-17): 11 Lesser harem
G (M & E,1): 2 Harem-keepers?
G M.2-23; E.2-23 44 Harem-retinue?
H (2nd row 5,9): 2 Keeper’s harem
servants
H (remainder): 38 Harem servants,
males
A (N.1-9; 9-20): 20 Separate harem?
B (1-21) 21 Bodyguard,
chair-bearers
C 34 Service company
C+D 21 Service company
D 40 Service company
E 51 Service company
F 28 Service company
TOTAL: 318 Retainer burials
Djer’s retainer burial King Djer 15+ large retainer
tombs at N.Abydos: tomb-chambers
lay adjacent to the
Reisner’s proposed most important
Infrastructure (enclosures): entryway.
Djer’s valley enclosure:
- 281 retainer tombs
- Tombs placed one-by-
one, or in pairs, into a
trench: = accumulative.
- The chamber sizes are
not much smaller than
those by the king’s tomb
- Reisner suggests they
held funerary priests,
administrative officials,
- O’Connor suggests they
contained craftsmen:
i.e., lower-ranking than
those at Umm el-Qaab.
 Late Predynastic to
Early Dynastic Egypt:
Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

SAQQARA:
Early DYN.2 ROYAL TOMBS
General discussion
DYN.2 royal tombs:
Most Dynasty 2 royal tombs appear
to have re-located north to Saqqara,
only returning to Abydos during the
reigns of the last two rulers of Dyn.2.

Memphis

Abydos
DYN.2 royal tombs:

Early Dyn.2 Saqqara royal tombs:

The shift of at least three royal tombs
to Saqqara has been attested via
(i). the association of royal inscriptions
with two subterranean tomb complexes
to the south of Djoser’s Step Pyramid,
and …
DYN.2 royal tombs:

Early Dyn.2 Saqqara royal tombs:

(ii). the discovery of an ex-situ stela
of another king from this region: Nebra
DYN.2 royal tombs: = far larger(!)

Early Dyn.2 Saqqara royal tombs:

(ii). the discovery of an ex-situ stela
of another king from this region: Nebra
The subterranean rock-cut galleries
for both Kings Hetepsekhemwy and
Ninetjer span an area of 4,000 sq. m.
each, which far exceeds the earlier
Dyn.1 tomb substructures at Abydos.
Early Dyn.2 Saqqara royal tombs:
Main difference = a greater emphasis
on storage space in both early Dyn.2
royal complexes at Saqqara.
However, the magazine size increase
simply continues an overall trend
witnessed during late Predyn.-Dyn.1.
Early Dyn.2 Saqqara royal tombs:

The extensive construction by Djoser,

and others at Saqqara, has removed
any traces of a superstructure
that may have survived above
these early Dynasty 2 galleries.
Early Dyn.2 Saqqara royal tombs:

The separate valley enclosures

identified for Dyn.1 & late Dyn.2
rulers at Abydos remain unconfirmed
for early Dyn.2 rulers at Saqqara,
which lay closer to the Nile flood plain.
Some scholars have suggested that
a few unexplored massive enclosures,
noted in Western Desert at Saqqara,
may represent such enclosures.
Early Dyn.2 Saqqara royal tombs:
In contrast, other scholars have noted
that the early Dyn.2 subterranean
galleries may have been overlaid
by an enclosure: i.e., similar to
Dyn.3 step pyramid complexes).
Poss. they combined 2 components
that otherwise remained separate at
Abydos.
If both early Dyn.2 tombs had an
overlying enclosure, or mastaba,
the local topography & adjacent
nature of both subterranean galleries
would have permitted a maximum
superstructure of 45 by 125 m. each.
Early Dyn.2 Saqqara royal tombs:

This would compare well with both

Peribsen and Khasekhemwy’s
Valley Enclosures at Abydos:
54 x 101 metres & 61 x 120 m, each.

Khasekhemwy enclosure

Hetepsekhemwy
Early Dyn.2 Saqqara royal tombs:
Since both tombs had a South entry,
any mastaba superstructure
would have lain above the rock-cut entry
within the enclosure.
O’Conner has suggested that a surface
mortuary chapel also probably lay near
the entryway, while a royal stele (of King
Nebra) lay nearby.

Possible surface chapel for the

substructure of King Hetepsekhemwy
 Late Predynastic to
Early Dynastic Egypt:
Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS:
Late DYN.2 ROYAL TOMBS
General discussion
Late Dyn.2 Abydos royal tombs:
The reason(s) behind the return of
Kings Peribsen and Khasekhemwy’s
tombs to Abydos remain conjecture.

Memphis

Abydos
Late Dyn.2 Abydos royal tombs:

Some scholars have speculated

that a civil war(?) may have split Egypt,
leaving Peribsen with only a
southern option for his tomb: Abydos.
Late Dyn.2 Abydos royal tombs:

The next ruler, Khasekhemwy,

is sometimes ascribed with reuniting
Egypt from the south and thereby also
opting to locate his tomb at Abydos.
Late Dyn.2 Abydos royal tombs:

The subterranean complexes for their

Abydos tombs initially appear innovative,
but in actuality retain underlying concepts
& components found in the preceding
Dyn.1 to early Dyn.2 substructures.

Dyn.2: Peribsen

Dyn.2: Khasekhemwy
However, Khasekhemwy dug a very
deep pit, 7 metres into the subsurface.
He also incorporated an increasingly
massive complex of storage rooms
into the original tomb design.
O’Connor maintains his theory that
these late Dynasty 2 royal tombs
had a surface chapel along the
Southern exterior side of the tomb.
The discovery of Peribsen’s stelae
pair near Southwest exterior corner
of his tomb argues in favour of the
placement of a royal chapel in this area.
Unlike the Dyn.1 royal tombs, the Dyn.2
royal tombs lack obvious retainer burials.
It should be noted, however, that three
human burials were placed near
Khasekhemwy’s burial chamber,
and might represent sacrificial burials
(this remains speculative).

Stone built chamber(!)

 Late Predynastic to
Early Dynastic Egypt:
Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS:
DYNs.1-2 ROYAL TOMBS
Funerary contents
DYN.1 Royal tomb contents:
The royal tombs at Abydos
have been excavated variously
by Emile Amelineau, W.M.F. Petrie,
and Gunter Dreyer.
The fragmentary remains from the
Dyn.1 and late Dyn.2 royal tombs
and their environs have produced
sufficient evidence to reconstruct
the general types of items placed
originally within these tombs:
a. Fragments of jewellery
b. Pieces from inlaid furniture & boxes
c. Ivory, wood, stone sculptures & items.
d. Shards from numerous stone
containers for unguents, aromatics, +
e. Many pottery containers: food, drink,
etc. (e.g., wine)
Emile Amelineau
f. Linen clothing and textiles
 Royal tombs at Abydos:
Some burial chambers symbolically replicate larger complexes:
E.g., Dummy doors painted in red = symbolizing wood.
 Probably replicating the king’s palace for an afterlife use.
DYN.1 Royal tomb contents:
The royal tombs at Abydos
have been excavated variously
by Emile Amelineau, W.M.F. Petrie,
and Gunter Dreyer.
The fragmentary remains from the
Dyn.1 and late Dyn.2 royal tombs
and their environs have produced
sufficient evidence to reconstruct
the general types of items placed
originally within these tombs:
a. Fragments of jewellery
b. Pieces from inlaid furniture & boxes
c. Ivory, wood, stone sculptures & items.
d. Shards from numerous stone
containers for unguents, aromatics, +
e. Many pottery containers: food, drink,
etc. (e.g., wine)
f. Linen clothing and textiles Tomb of Peribsen (Dyn. 2)
ABYDOS ROYAL SARCOPHAGI and COFFINS not preserved from Dyns.1-2:
Probably similar to elite examples (like Old Kingdom royal sarcophagi)
PRIVATE COFFINS: = symbolic timber frame & matting dwelling (also royal)
Example Dyn.2 / 3:
Rectilinear “House” coffin for flexed burials.
Panelled coffins: Saqqara, Tarkhan, Beni Hasan.
Previous coffins = rectangular wooden boxes.
Contents of royal tombs: remnants of royal(?) mummy --Djer?

Royal Horus falcon

on serekh-facade
 Royal tomb contents:
Royal serekh/Horus-name and other bracelets from a fragment of an arm
found hidden in a wall niche in King Djer’s tomb entry passageway
The king? Queen? Concubine? (presumably secreted by a tomb robber / robbers
-- who may have been disturbed during his/their robbery …)
Contents of royal tombs:
Examples of furniture and furniture
Inlay pieces.
Contents of royal tombs

E.g., inlay pieces from game

boards:
for recreation.

Furniture fittings
(boxes; chests):
for holding clothing, etc.

Tools:
For retainers/servants.
Contents of royal tombs.
Game pieces and game board
Clothes and weaponry appear
in royal tombs (Abydos):

Generic examples from elite

ED private tombs are shown here
Contents of royal tombs.

Dyn.2: Tomb of Khasekhemwy

Copper pouring vessel.

(part of a set with
a bowl [below])

Copper bowl.
(part of a set
With a jug
[above])
Contents of royal tombs.

Dyn.2: Tomb of Khasekhemwy

Gold-capped vessel.

 For precious unguents

(i.e., cosmetics)

Gold capped carnelian vessel.

 For precious unguents

(i.e., cosmetics)
 Dyn.1:
Tomb of
Queen
Merneith
Chamber-2
Wine jars
with clay
seals
Contents of royal tombs:
Pottery containers for
provisions:
Imported Syrian jars (wine, etc.)
Royal hunting hounds sometimes
appear in burials (Abydos & Saqqara)
Royal lions sometimes appear near royal burials (Abydos)
- Protection in life  probable protective feature in death
Royal burials at Abydos:
Retainers serving king in death
- Tools for their use in afterlife …
SUMMARY:
Dynasty 0-2 transitional period for Egyptian state:
• Kingship: i.e., iconography (clothing; regalia; appearance) and titles

• Administration: i.e., Officials, titles, institutions, re-dispersal mechanisms, etc.

• Writing: form/signs, vocabulary, grammar, usage, etc.

• Monumental architecture: tombs, temples, housing, & foreign influences.

• Social hierarchy: increasing distinctions between lower through upper classes

• Crafts and industries: increasing variance and innovations for state, elite,
& royalty: E.g., stone-working, construction components in stone, etc.

• International trade, interactions, and influences:

E.g., Brief, intense influence from Mesopotamia (disappears in Dyn.1)
E.g., Brief Egyptian domination of Southwest Palestine (disappears in Dyn.1)
E.g., Now found direct contact with South Sinai to obtain turquoise & copper
E.g., Continuous, albeit changing, relations with Lower Nubia (N. Sudan)
E.g., Increasing ventures into Eastern Desert for mining and quarrying
E.g., Increasing ventures into Western Desert: trade, quarrying, mining, etc.
Ancestral royal lineage at Abydos in Dynasties 0-1+:
• Cemetery U at Abydos contains a shift in Naqada II-III elite tombs of increasing
size, culminating in largest Tomb U-j.
• Some of the tombs are distinct, large, and have multiple storage chambers.
• Despite var. theories, most remain debatable regarding “elite” versus “royal”
leadership from this region (Thinite nome/province: traditional royal home town)
• Only Tomb U-j is confirmed as probably royal: i.e., it yielded a royal sceptre.
• King Narmer’s possible tomb is actually fairly small and insignificant for
a major king and “unifier” of Egypt (Narmer palette), unless his burial was
actually elsewhere (which would remove it from a linear sequence at Abydos).
• King Aha’s complex and retainer burials fits the status of “Menes” much better!
• Ivory tags and their motifs may be interpreted variously:
- Contents and their quantities (attached to containers)
- Various potential places: Funerary estates; towns within kingdom;
vassal states; trading partners; etc.
- The Ancient town of Thinis and its cemetery is actually separate from the
ancient town and cemetery at Abydos, albeit within the same province:
Thinis seems small, poor, and insignificant for the traditional hometown of
Egypt’s earliest rulers. What is going on? Did they originate elsewhere? Etc.
Dynasty 1 royal tombs at Abydos:
• Multiple disturbances: past destructions, rumaging, various excavators,
recording systems, publications, etc.
• Trend: rapid growth in size from Dyn.0 – 1 (average 307 square metres)
• Trend: Adopting a stair/ramp accessing burial chamber in mid-Dynasty 1.
• Burial chamber: a wooden shrine, flooring, etc., with probable interior coffin.
• Subterranean storage chambers: provisions (jars), possessions (boxes), etc.
• Entry alignment varies: generally east, but seems unimportant versus other
factors: i.e., proximity to other royal tombs, security, etc.
• Superstructure: Some trace of wooden beams, planks, etc. over chamber.
Subsurface lower mound covering evident in a few examples
Second, upper mound theorized (not confirmed)
Dyn.1 royal tombs may have no superstructure (open court)
• Twin royal stelae: precedes twin royal stelae found in Old Kingdom pyramids.
they vary in size, material, quality of production, etc.
• SW entry to surface enclosure; postulated SW surface funerary chapel.
• Retainer burial complex: around tombs and valley enclosures (see below)
• Subterranean SE royal cult chapel (Den): ka-spirit statue (proto-serdab room?)
Dyn.1 “sacrificial” retainer burials associated with royal tombs at Abydos:
• Retainer burials/tombs appear around both the royal tombs at Umm el-Qaab
(Abydos royal cemetery) and the royal valley enclosures (near Osiris temple).
• Many retainer tombs yield stelae with names and some titles (many = female)
• Many retainer tomb chamber walls have a white strip & painted names & titles.
• Some “retainer” tomb chambers may have held officials, courtiers, family, etc.?
• Some chambers yielded pet dogs, lions, etc.
• Late Dyn.1 retainer tombs shift to being placed beside the royal tomb complex
i.e., suggested single roof covering everything: idea of sacrifice at royal burial.
• Debate regarding actual retainer “sacrifice” versus a natural death & burial.
Options: one roof over late Dyn.1 royal complex; transfer of retainer bodies to
royal complex from holding area; individual roof openings; other …
• Questions: Why are many retainer tomb chambers empty? Are they all tombs?
Some were disturbed: some were never used? Burial under next king?
• Manner of death: no trace of violence; poisoning? Strangulation? Cutting a
vein? Other? Natural death? Combination?
• Djer’s retainer complex analyzed: Harem; bodyguard; Chamberlains; Carrying-
chair bearers; Cooks; Bakers; other service personnel (singers; etc.).
Dyn.2 royal tombs at Saqqara (early-mid Dyn.2) and Abydos (late Dyn.2):
• Saqqara: Huge subterranean rock-cut complexes (precede Dyn.3 ones)
Emphasis upon storeroom galleries (much like Dyn.3 Step Pyramids)
Southern entry (unlike most later pyramids)
Superstructure absent: open enclosure? Mastaba? Funerary chapel?
Some evidence for twin royal stelae (probably from surface area)
Some nearby open enclosures dating to Dynasty 2 (or Dynasty 3):
E.g., Gisr el-Mudir to west of Djoser and Sekhemkhet pyramids
No retainer burials evident.
• Abydos: Large subterranean complex in mud brick, cut & placed in sand.
Ramp access to large complex (from South side).
Many storage chambers around central burial chamber (like Dyn.3)
Superstructure not evident: debated open area versus mastaba.
Twin stelae found at SW corner of Peribsen’s tomb (at surface)
Theorized surface funerary chapel beside tomb (reed hut?)
NB: First use of stone for full chamber for Khasekhemwy (late Dyn.2)
No distinct retainer burials evident
• Dyns. 1-2 tomb features and contents:
- Symbolic subterranean palace (dummy doors), like later Step Pyramid;
- Wooden shrine & coffin; wrapped body; jewellery; furniture; boxes; game
boards & pieces; tools (retainers); weaponry; clothing & textiles; containers; +