Anth.309: Ppt. lecture-10: Dynasties 0-2 Abydos valley enclosures, their components, theories regarding function(s), retainer burials, the overall mortuary complex and rituals, and

ANT 309:

Egypt in the Age of the Pyramids

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

Lecture 10: Early Dynastic Egypt: Dyns.0-2

© Notes & images compiled by Gregory Mumford 2016

Selected questions regarding ED Abydos valley enclosures:

• INITIALLY, only one enclosure was known: i.e., Khasekhemwy’s standing one.

• OTHERS have been found by Aryton (1904), Petrie (1921-22), and O’Connor

(1986+): now know of 10 enclosures for 8 rulers, with two enclosures = ? kings.

• WHAT are the huge, open mud brick enclosures, which are located separately

from the royal tombs at Umm el-Qaab at Abydos? Many theories …

• HOW might these enclosures have functioned? Can we theorize sufficiently?

• TO WHOM does each enclosure belong in relation to each royal tomb?

• WHERE are 2 enclosures for 2 rulers otherwise found in Abydos tombs?

• WHY are the earliest ones reduced to ground level, while the last one (dating to

Khasekhemwy) survives to a height of 10 metres?

• HOW might the associated interior chapels have functioned? Mortuary rites?

• HOW might the vast open courtyard have functioned? Sed festival rites?

• WHAT = significance of their design? Doorways? Outer low walling system?

• WHY are there retainer burials around the enclosures? Were they sacrificed?

• HOW do the valley enclosures relate to the separate royal tombs at Abydos?

• HOW do the Abydos royal mortuary complexes relate to Dynasty 3 ones?

Late Predynastic to

Early Dynastic Egypt:

Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS: DYNs.1-2 ENCLOSURES

Explorations & Theories

Dyns.1-2 Funerary Enclosures:

A cluster of 10 small through massive,

rectilinear enclosures of mud brick

have been uncovered about 1.5 km

(0.93 miles) north of the Early Dynastic

royal tombs at Umm el-Qaab.

Umm el-Qaab

Enclosures

Settlement

N

Sacred / Holy landscape of Abydos kept pristine: mining / quarrying = prohibited


These enclosures lay near what

became a settlement area and

the main temple for deities

sacred to Abydos:

a. initially a jackal-deity, Khenteimentiu,

b. subsequently Osiris, King of the Dead


These enclosures lay near what

became a settlement area and

the main temple for deities

sacred to Abydos:

a. initially a jackal-deity, Khenteimentiu,

b. subsequently Osiris, King of the Dead

Kom el-Sultan:

Early Dynastic through Old Kingdom

settlement and temple area with

(a). Shrines to Khenti-amentiu, etc.

(b). Shrines to kings (royal cult)


However, early explorers only knew

about the last in the sequence of such

enclosures, which had remained

standing to 11 metres in height.

It is called the Shunet el-Zebib:

“Storehouse of Raisins.”


Investigations and speculations

concerning the Shunet el-Zebib

(“Shuneh”) and its environs include:

1798-1801: Napoleonic expedition

mapped this area

Chounet

elzebyb

granite blocks

(Sety 1) temple

Napoleonic map of Abydos





1860s: August Mariette

1904: Edward Ayrton, who found

other adjacent enclosures.





1921-22: Flinders Petrie, who also

found more enclosures nearby.





1986-present: David O’Connor,

who yet again found more enclosures.

Further excavation has revealed that

most, if not probably all, rulers of

Dynasty 1 and late Dynasty 2

built one such rectilinear enclosure

in this area.

Covers the Osiris cult at Abydos and

Egypt’s earliest pharaohs: Predyn.-LP


Over the years, various different

theories have been proposed

regarding the enclosures’ function(s):

a. A local appellation: “Storehouse

of Raisins,” the reason for which

remains unknown (possibly a more

recent reuse of for storage).





b. Mariette: A police post guarding

the cemetery from tomb robbers.

Old Kingdom police officer with

attack-baboon (early K9-squad)

Shunet el-Zebib

as a fortress





c. Mariette: An enclosure for livestock





d. Mariette: An embalming installation





e. Mariette: The “Tomb of Osiris” noted

at Abydos in Ancient Egyptian texts





f. Ayrton: One of several royal forts and

residences for ED kings visiting Abydos





g. Jean-Phillipe Lauer: Successive

storehouses for funerary provisions

built by each king for dispersal to private

mortuary cults via Khentamentiu’s temple


h. Flinders Petrie: admitted the

possibility of the “fort” function,

but found another enclosure

with adjacent retainer burials:

he called it the “Western Mastaba”

Petrie’s “Western Mastaba” associated

with some burials mortuary function?

Elite mastaba at Saqqara

with associated burials


i. Flinders Petrie: modified his view

to suggest that the enclosures

functioned as royal cult temples

(proto-“Valley Temples”), beside

which courtiers placed their burials

(Abydos North Cemetery).


j. Barry Kemp: theorized (1960s)

that each fortress-like enclosure

functioned as a royal “funerary

palace,” providing a residence for

each king’s ka (spirit).

“Funerary palace” for the king’s ka-spirit


k. German scholars: modified this

view and termed the enclosures

“valley places” (Talbezirke).

They assumed they preceded the

pyramid Valley Temples.

“Valley places”

Nile

Royal tombs Wadi route

“causeway”

Abu Sir: Dyn.5 pyramids


l. Dieter Arnold: Suggests the Abydos

enclosures were designed specifically

as ceremonial centres, which he calls

“fortresses of the gods,” where the

living king would host annual rites

including the assemblage of many

cult statues and taxes, and the ritual

killing of POWs and wild animals.

He argued these were also intended

to serve the king’s spirit.


m. O’Connor: It seems today that each

one had a cultic purpose related to

the funerary-royal cult of the king

during his lifetime, and for a brief

period after his death.

Late Predynastic to


Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC


Summation of discoveries

Dyns.1-2 Funerary Enclosures (“Valley Places”; “Fortresses of the gods”):

In 2001-2005, the Pennsylvania-Yale-institute discovered three new enclosures

(dating to King Aha; nos.I-III) and a buried fleet of 14 boats placed in mud brick

graves beside the Dynasty 1 “Western Mastaba.”

Ruler’s enclosure: Measurements: Area: Rank:

a. Dyn.1 King Aha I 21.7 x 31.7 m 687.9 sq.m 5

b. Dyn.1 King Aha II 10 x 16.7 m 167 sq.m 6

c. Dyn.1 King Aha III 10 x 13.3 m 133 sq.m 6

d. Dyn.1 King Djer 53.3 x 93.3 m. 4,973 sq.m 2

e. Dyn.1 King Djet 46.7 x 85 m 3,970 sq.m 2

f. Dyn.1 Queen Merneith 25 x 65 m. 1,625 sq.m 4

g. Dyn.1 Anonymous 37 x 67 m 2,479 sq.m 3

h. Dyn.1 “Western Mastaba” 29 x 67 m 1,943 sq.m 4

i. 2 missing Dyn.1 enclosures (?) (?) (?)

j. Dyn.2 Peribsen 53.3 x 103.3 m 5,506 sq.m 2

k. Dyn.2 Khasekhemwy 77.7 m x 133.5 10,373 sq.m 1

Dyn.2 “valley enclosure” of King Khasekhemwy 77.7 x 133.5 m (10,373 sq. m)

Late Predynastic to


Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS: DYN.1 ENCLOSURES

King Aha’s enclosures I-III

Aha enclosures I-III:

During Aha’s reign, he apparently

built three small enclosures:

Umm el-Qaab:

North Abydos

enclosures


The largest (Aha I) yielded six

subsidiary (sacrificial) retainer burials,

yielding pottery containers and

clay jar sealings dating to Aha’s reign.

This enclosure (I) probably facilitated

King Aha’s cult.

The remaining 2 smaller enclosures

(Aha II-III) had 3 subsidiary burials

each, which may have been related

to the cult of two of Aha’s queens(?),

or other close royal family members.

North Abydos

enclosures

Aha:

33 male

retainers

aged

20-25

Like his three

valley enclosures,

Aha had 3 tombs

for himself & prob.

2 family members:


E.g., Aha’s tomb at Umm el-Qaab

was accompanied by two adjacent

& contemporary tombs of similar size,

suggesting a close relationship between

the three variously sized enclosures.

North Abydos

enclosures


Although a Coptic cemetery obscured

parts of Aha enclosures I-III,

enough evidence remained to indicate

that two contained an inner mud brick

chapel & a northeast East entryway.


Aha I:

Largest enclosure (Aha I) contained

an elaborate NE entry with an inner

screening wall and a chapel placed

in the eastern half of its courtyard.

It had a blocked-up northern/NE doorway

like some of the other enclosures

(e.g., Djer; Western Mastaba).

5 - 6? subsidiary mud brick tombs

lay outside the enclosure wall

(including a child burial).

Note elaborate niching along East wall

N


Aha II:

Aha II had the best preserved interior

chapel and a pile of wooden poles.

This suggests an additional transitory

pole-frame structure may have been

erected within the open area

to the east of the chapel.

3-4(?) subsidiary mud brick tombs

lay outside the enclosure wall.

The fourth burial lies between Aha I

and II and may actually be associated

with the Aha enclosure II.


N


Aha III:

The smallest enclosure (Aha III) had

been disturbed by later Coptic graves

and activity, and lacked traces of an

inner chapel.

2 - 3(?) subsidiary mud brick tombs

lay outside the enclosure wall.


N

Subsidiary burial associated with Aha-III

Late Predynastic to


Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS: DYN.1 ENCLOSURES

King Djer & Western enclosures

Djer enclosure & Western enclosure:

Djer’s enclosure:

King Djer’s enclosure also yielded a

mud brick chapel in the eastern side

of its courtyard (This chapel was very

similar in size and design to Aha’s

chapels in Aha I-II).

It also had a blocked-up N.-doorway.

Djer enclosure & Western enclosure:

“Western Mastaba”:

Pottery from this enclosure dated it to

Dynasty 1: probably one of 4 rulers:

Den, Anedjib, Semerkhet, or Qa‘a.

It also yielded a blocked-up northern

doorway.

A fleet of 14 boats placed in mud brick

superstructures has been re-dated to

the “Western Mastaba” versus the

Dyn.2 enclosure of Khasekhemwy

(to which they were originally ascribed).

Its large size suggests it belongs to

King Den since he has the 3rd largest

tomb complex.

MK model

“Western Mastaba” i.e., Enclosure – may = Den, Anedjib, Semerkhet, or Qa‘a

(Probably belongs to Den since its large size parallels his huge tomb complex)

Late Predynastic to


Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS: Late Predyn.? / DYN.1

ENCLOSURE (late Dyn.1?)

Late Predynastic(?) – Dyn.1:

Anonymous enclosure:

A 2002-3 magnetometer survey

revealed a significant enclosure to

the southwest of Aha’s enclosures.

It has been dated by pottery to the

late Predynastic to early Dynasty 1.

Late Predynastic(?) – Dyn.1:

Anonymous enclosure:

The original owner still remains

Unidentified: could it be Narmer???

a. May be too large for Narmer,

or any other late Predyn. rulers.

(owing to their much smaller tombs)

b. Possibly late Dyn.1, based on its

size and other late Dyn.1 rulers

without known enclosures:

Den, Anedjib, Semerkhet, or Qa‘a.

It also had three subsidiary burials

to the southeast that yielded

10 donkeys: i.e., draught animals. Narmer

Aha

Den?

B

C

D

E

F

A

Each new enclosure emphasizes

an unimpeded / fresh eastern view

Could it be the owner

of late Predyn. Tomb U-j:

i.e., King Scorpion(?)

Late Predynastic to


Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS: Late DYN.2 ENCLOSURE

Peribsen’s enclosure

Peribsen enclosure:

In 1904, Ayrton found an entry

at the Southeast corner of

Peribsen’s enclosure.

Another opening lay in the S/SE wall.

He also found a chapel within the

SE section of the enclosure.

Although he was unable to excavate

the NW wall owing to some graves,

the 1988 expedition found the area

to be clear and exposed an ornate

gateway beside the north corner.

Peribsen enclosure:

Of note, like his tomb, Peribsen’s

enclosure lacked retainer burials.

Hence, the custom of sacrificial

burial appears to have ceased by

Dynasty 2 –unless one accepts the

presence of three bodies in King

Khasekhemwy’s tomb as reflecting

a few sacrificial burials.

Note: The

“East” wall

of chapel &

enclosure

both have

the most

elaborate

Niching

(like mastabas)

Note: elaborate niching lies

along east side of the chapel

(= the most important side

facing rising sun: LIFE / RE-BIRTH)

Late Predynastic to


Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS: Late DYN.2 ENCLOSURE

Khasekhemwy’s enclosure

Khasekhemwy enclosure:

After an initial investigation by

August Mariette’s expedition (1860s),

Ayrton investigated Khasekhemwy’s

enclosure & found a large mud brick

chapel in its Southeast end.

The1986 and subsequent expeditions

by O’Connor have been investigating

different parts of this massive enclosure.


This enclosure had a double wall

surrounding it with a gateway in the

SW wall, a gateway in the SE wall,

& elaborate gateways with screen walls

in the northwest and southeast walls,

beside the corners.

N


The 1986 re-investigation of the

mud brick chapel and its environs

revealed the stratified deposits

remaining from successive

ritual offerings.

N

Dyn.6 tomb scene of funerary rites


In the NW part of the enclosure,

later investigations yielded

what initially appeared to be

a mud brick encased mound

of gravel and sand.

But, in 2000, it actually turned out

to be the edging from a mud brick

-lined basin in the west & south

parts of the courtyard.

O’Conner believes these basins

may have facilitated the building

& plastering of the enclosure wall.

Generic mould

and tools for

producing

mud bricks

(MK example)

Basin for

mud brick

production


O’Conner believes these basins

may have facilitated the building

& plastering of the enclosure wall.

There is evidence for the basins’

abandonment & possible in-filling

after the completion of his enclosure.

Basin for

mud brick

production


Hence, O’Connor’s published early

theories regarding a proto-pyramid

for Khasekhemwy = now invalidated.

Basin for

mud brick

production

Late Predynastic to


Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC


OVERALL SUMMARY.

ED enclosures summary:

Plan: The ED enclosures at Abydos

exhibit a mostly rectilinear plan.

Walls: they have substantial walls that

vary in their widths and probably ranged

from 5-8 metres in height for the

smallest enclosures (e.g., Aha),

to 10-11 m. in height for the others.


Plaster: The enclosures contained a

dark grey mud plaster coating their

interior and exterior wall surfaces.

Khasekhemwy’s enclosure also yielded

an outer plaster layer with a light

yellow-brown colour.


Niches: The exterior walls were also

designed with a series of tall alternating

vertical niches and buttresses, which

may have been capped by a wooden

lintel near the wall top.


Niches cont.:

These niches exhibit regular

slight insetting along the northwest,

southwest, and southeast walls.

The most important northeast

(i.e., “eastern”) exterior wall

displays a series of ornate niches

consisting of a deep niche

separated by 3-4 shallow niches

along the length of the wall.

The symbolism behind this design

remains uncertain, but it would have

provided a play between

light and shadow.

It also resembles the “palace-façade”

design exhibited in the elite Dyn.1

tombs at Saqqara and elsewhere.

Reconstruction of Dyn.1 Mastaba 3357: “palace façade” buttressing


Bench-and-bastion: Along the base

of each Dyn.1 enclosure, a low mud

brick and plastered bench extended

around each wall.

So far, these perimeter benches

lack any trace of installations:

For instance, they lack the pairs

of real bull’s horns set in modelled

bovine heads that have been found

in some of the Saqqara tombs.

Saqqara mastaba tomb with base-bench Private mastaba tomb


Bench-and-bastion:

The exterior corner of each Dyn.1

enclosure has also yielded traces

of a short circular bastion that

extends out from the perimeter bench,

but rises no higher than the low bench

top.

These bastions are non-functional,

and remain uncertain regarding their

symbolism / purpose.

Low bench

Cross-section:

Mumford:

- Do they

imitate a

wooden

frame

structure

with corner

posts? (like

in Dyn.3)


ALL the known ED enclosures

yielded an entryway near their

“north” and “east” corners.

These areas often held ornate

doorways with interior screen walls.

The most important door appears

to lie along the “east” wall, near

the “south” end of the enclosure.

Peribsen Khasekhemwy

ED private

tombs:

East side,

South end,

has the

main cultic

installation


ALL the known ED enclosures

yielded an entryway near their

“north” and “east” corners.

The next most important door is

placed either at the “eastern” end

of the “north” wall,

or, in many cases, at the “northern”

end of the “east” wall.

Hence, this pattern approximates

the emphasis upon a southern entry

and northern symbolic door along

the east side of mastaba tombs at

Saqqara and elsewhere in ED+ Egypt.

Khasekhemwy N. entry


East entry: The “East” entry led into a

small vestibule, which in-turn gave access

into the enclosure’s courtyard

and to an interior chapel.

Some large enclosure’s (Khasekhemwy)

put the gate chamber in the encl.-wall.

Smaller enclosures contained an

interior built screen wall with a

second doorway. Khasekhemwy enclosure

Peribsen’s enclosure

Dyn.3: elite tomb at Saqqara with an

elaborate South Chapel & entryway.


East entry:

These “East” entryways had functional

wooden doors that were regularly

opened, shut, and re-sealed:

attested by many broken clay door

sealings from the corner chamber in the

anonymous enclosure (beside Aha).

Peribsen

E.g., wooden door (Dynasty 5

mastaba of Kaemhesit, Saqqara)

Clay = pressed

over rope tying

door closed &

Impressed with

a stamp seal to

detect an illicit

entry.

Clay

Door

knob


East entry:

In contrast, in all Dyn.1 enclosures,

every “northern” entry along the “east” side

exhibited a formal, albeit simple, entryway

that was later blocked up with mud bricks

and coated in plaster to form a deep niche.

Example of a Dyn.1 door blocking


Dyn.2 N-entries & more entryways:

The two Dynasty 2 enclosures had

more elaborate northern entryways,

which seem to have remained open.

This suggests a possible change in

their function (versus the Dynasty 1

northern doors/niches).

Peribsen Khasekhemwy


Dyn.2 N-entries & more entryways:

The Dyn.2 enclosures also contained

more entryways than before, including

one in the SW and SE wall:

a. Khasekhemwy

b. Possibly Peribsen.

These entries remained simple,

but provided doorways in all four walls

(albeit not axially placed).


Open courtyards

Most of the ED enclosures appear

to have a substantial open space

within their walls (aside from the

smallest enclosures of Aha).

The evidence indicates that most,

if not presumably all enclosures,

originally contained one mud brick

chapel that usually lay in their

courtyard’s eastern side.

Aha Peribsen Khasekhemwy


Open courtyards

However, the function(s) of the

remaining open space, in each

enclosure, remains in question:

Later ideas about Sed-festival.

Note: Khasekhemwy’s basins in

his courtyard appear to be related

to construction work.

Khasekhemwy enclosure (late Dyn.2)

King Den’s Sed-festival (within enclosure)

Dyn.3: Step Pyramid complex

has many Sed-festival facilities

Abydos valley enclosure courtyards:

may have held Sed-festival etc. rites

Example of a Sed-festival court from Dynasty 3:

Shrines of deities of Upper Egypt on one side of courtyard

Shrines of deities of Lower Egypt on other side …

King receives their acknowledgement & pledges of patronage

Frame & matting shrines

Late Predynastic to


Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC


Overview: interior chapels.


ED Chapels:

Aside from Khskhmwy’s large chapel,

MOST chapels are relatively small

and similar in size and plan:

E.g., Djer’s chapel 104.5 sq. m.

E.g., Peribsen’s chapel 108 sq. m.

The chapels have a similar alignment

(NW-SE), being either

a. Squared with the enclosure wall,

or

b. Set somewhat off angle in relation

to its associated enclosure wall.

The chapels are not exceptionally

well-engineered, displaying floor plans

and corners that are not squared-off,

but are frequently trapezoidal.

Dyn.1:

Aha-I’s

chapel


ED Chapel plans & appearance:

MOST of the chapels had a roughly

square plan.

Peribsen’s chapel = most rectilinear.

The chapels may have risen to

3 metres in height.

One of Aha’s chapels revealed

evidence for a flat roof.

Hence, the chapels may have

appeared as low-lying simple cubes,

albeit with external decorative

niches. Next page

Simple flat-roofed shrines


ED Chapel exteriors:

The interior & exterior wall faces

also appear to have been plastered

with dark grey mud.

Aha chapels I-II have plain wall faces.

Peribsen’s chapel yielded an intricate

pattern of niching along its “eastern”

wall face, with some simple niching

placed along part of the southern

exterior wall face.

Less elaborate niching than shown here

East

Example of ED Mastaba facade


ED Chapel exteriors:

Khasekhemwy’s chapel contained

even more complex niching at the

centre of its “eastern” façade,

with a simple pattern along the

remaining three exterior wall faces.

Hence, as in ED-Old Kingdom

mastaba-tomb chapel designs, the

eastern face represents the focal point

for cult activities.

Orn

ate

East “p

ala

ce façade” Khasekhemwy chapel

Old Kingdom

Giza mastaba

G-4970

Example of ED mastaba East Face


Chapel front room:

The chapel’s outer entry room

sometimes stretches along most of

the length of the chapel’s front:

E.g., Peribsen; Khasekhemwy.

In other chapels it is slightly shorter

and leads to a northwest (“north”)

side-chamber (e.g., Aha I-II).

Dyn.2: Peribsen Dyn.2: Khasekhemwy

Dyn.1: Aha-I Dyn.1: Aha-II

East East

Dynasty 3 mastaba tomb chapel:

- much variance in designs for

private funerary cult rites.


Chapel front room:

In two of Aha’s chapels (I-II),

the inner side-chamber yielded

a low bench along its “east” wall,

which bore traces of repeated and

intense burning and libations

(i.e., pouring of liquids).

Hence this secondary & sometimes

frontal chamber appears to be

the focal point for ritual offerings,

but otherwise lacks cult statues/stelae.

OK chapel example

?

Bench

WEST WALL

E E


Chapel rear chamber:

3rd rear chamber in Aha chapel I,

and possibly Aha chapel II,

appears to be entirely enclosed:

it lacked an entry doorway,

unless this existed above the

preserved height of its walls,

or had been via the rooftop.

Another suggestion is that these

enclosed long rooms resemble

the Old Kingdom “serdab” chambers

from private mastaba-tombs, and

some royal mortuary cult temples.

Serdab-statue

chamber

East


Chapel rear chamber:

These (OK) rooms contained statues for

the ka-spirit of the deceased person(s).

Such chambers usually had one or

more small slit-windows at head height:

to allow the statue to see out,

to receive incense offerings, and

to hear recitations by mortuary priests.

Early Dyn.3 serdab chamber for

King Djoser (son of Khasekhemwy)

Serdab-chamber appears in Dyn.3,

and more commonly in Dyn.4+

Does Abydos have early royal tradition?

Wooden statue bases from room-7

7

Dist. subsidiary grave in E. Corridor:

elderly man –(Merka stela nearby!)

Late Dyn.1 (temp. King Qa‘a)

Saqqara Mastaba 3505 official Merka

- Earliest private ka-spirit statues in a

funerary temple (proto-serdab room)

- Merka stela prob. from retainer grave

?


Dyn.2 chapel focus shifts to back-room:

The back room in Peribsen’s chapel

did contain an access doorway.

This might indicate it had become

a new focal point(?) for offerings,

unless it also had serdab cult statues.

Dyn.2: no bench in side-chamber

Dyn. 4:

King Khafre

Valley Temple

cult statues

= accessible

to mortuary

priests

East

Khasekhemwy successor: Djoser

Ka-spirit

statue

Ka-spirit

statue


Dyn.2 chapel focus shifts to back-room:

Khasekhemwy’s chapel was quite

complex in comparison to all the

surviving, preceding enclosure chapels.

The front part of Khasekhemwy’s chapel

seems similar to preceding chapel plans,

but these chambers led to a much more

complicated and partly preserved

arrangement of interior rooms.

The remains of libations and incense

occurred in the innermost, SE chamber (J)

This suggests that in Khasekhemwy’s reign

the chapel and cultic rituals had become

much more complicated.

Khasekhemwy’s chapel:

?

East

Dynasty 2 valley enclosure chapel versus Dynasty 3 pyramid chapel:

Note: one faces east while the other faces north, but both have similarities

Late Dyn.2:

Khasekhemwy

Enclosure chapel

Early Dyn.3:

Djoser

Step Pyramid Complex pyramid chapel

Late Predynastic to


Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC


Overview: retainer burials.

Retainer burials at Umm el-Qaab and North Abydos:

ROYAL TOMB: Retainers: ENCLOSURE Workers TOTALS:

Aha (3) 36 burials Enclosures I-III: 6 burials 42 burials

Djer 326 burials Enclosure: 269 burials 595 burials

Djet 174 burials Enclosure: 154 burials 328 burials

Merneith 41 burials Enclosure: 80 burials 121 burials

Den 121 burials (?) (?) 121+ burials

Anedjib 63 burials (?) (?) 63+ burials

Semerkhet 69 burials (?) (?) 69+ burials

Qa‘a 26 burials (?) (?) 26+ burials

Peribsen No burials Enclosure None -

Khasekhemwy 3 burials Enclosure None 3+? Burials

GRAND TOTAL: 1,247 burials

Also 14 boat burials

10 donkey burials

7 (pet) lion cub burials

Several hunting hound burials

Dyn.1 enclosure subsidiary graves:

Sacrificial vs. natural burials:

In Dyn.1, the enclosure for each ruler

identified at North Abydos has yielded

exterior subsidiary retainer burials.

Like at Umm el-Qaab, the retainer

burials were placed in regular mud brick

complexes around each enclosure.

Most of the individual subsidiary tombs

are relatively small and normally held

a single person.

The burials of retainers around both

the Dyn.1 royal tombs at Umm el-Qaab

and the enclosures at North Abydos

have been long debated as …

(a). Sacrifices (or willing suicides)

versus

(b). Natural deaths.

Dyn.1 N. Abydos:

Valley enclosure

of King Djer with

adjacent retainer

burial complex.


Sacrificial lower status burials:

O’Connor excavated retainer

burials from Aha’s 3 enclosures

and re-excavated some retainer

tombs from Djer’s enclosure.



O’Connor’s excavated retainer

burials from Aha’s 3 enclosures

and re-excavated some retainer

tombs from Djer’s enclosure.

This led him to conclude that

there is strong evidence for

human sacrifice in these and

other retainer burials at Abydos.

1921 Petrie excavation of retainer burials



Despite some plundering, the

subsidiary retainer burials around

the Dyn.1 enclosures appear to

represent a slightly lower class of

servants than ones at the royal tombs.

In essence, the var. enclosure servant

burials contained male and female

craftspeople and artisans

(versus the more personal body

servants beside the royal tombs).

Selected examples of retainer burials,

excavated by W.M.F. Petrie in 1921,

from the environs of the enclosures

(“forts”): E.g., “Western Mastaba”


Workers/artisans for king’s afterlife:

Retainer tombs around Djer & Djet’s

enclosures produced labourers’

copper tools, including:

knives, adzes, chisels, needles, axes.

Such tool types are associated with

carpentry and other industries.

Selected examples of retainer burials,

excavated by W.M.F. Petrie in 1921,

from the environs of the enclosures

(“forts”): E.g., “Western Mastaba”



Retainer tombs around Djer & Djet’s

enclosures produced labourers’

copper tools, including:

knives, adzes, chisels, needles, axes.

Such tool types are associated with

carpentry and other industries.

Petrie 1921 excavations:

Copper tools from 17+ retainer tombs:

328, 387, 388, 420, 429, 461, 465,

501, 510, 601, 615, 640, 646, 654,

660, 726, and 784 (some have flint).

MK model carpenter’s workshop



Each ruler probably wished to retain

artisans who could make diverse items

of wood, leather & textiles in the afterlife.


flint tools from 7+ retainer tombs:

123, 330, 413, 420, 601, 726, 784(2)

(some had copper tools as well)

MK model weaving/textile workshop



Another group of six retainer burials

yielded game boards and pieces,

perhaps reflecting the artisans

who made such items (for the elite),

rather than games for their own use.


game pieces from burial nos.:

121, 122, 123, 126, 156, and 426.

Example of a New Kingdom

game board & pieces

(Tutankhamun’s tomb)



Other graves yielded granary models,

which may also reflect granary workers

maintaining the ruler’s supplies

(vs. personal usage by a few servants).

384 • Possibly ensuring food supply

for retainers to enable them

to continue living & serving

the king in the afterlife.


Facilities for the king’s afterlife:

The discovery of the burial of

10 donkeys beside the “Anonymous”

enclosure might suggest the need for

draught animals in the afterlife:

i.e., delivering grain supplies.

Reconstruction of MK

draught donkeys in Nubia


Facilities for the king’s afterlife:

In addition, the placement of 14

long wooden ships in mud brick boat

graves beside the “Western Mastaba”

(enclosure) implies both a desire & a

felt need for some sort of water transport,

or other form of Netherworld transport

during the king’s afterlife.

Hence, these other types of subsidiary

burials would appear to facilitate other

needs in the afterlife that the king

might feel required a physical presence

to guarantee fulfilment, rather than

a simple implied wish …

Dyn.1 boats

of var. types

NK example


Evidence for sacrificial burials:

O’Connor found retainer burials around

Aha’s enclosures (I-III) lying under a

continuous mud-plaster paving

that surrounded these enclosures.

He did not find any surviving surface

features marking the underlying tombs.

One of Aha’s retainer burials included a

small child in a large tomb (beside Aha I).

Other Aha-retainers = 33 young males:

an abnormal pattern for natural deaths


Evidence for sacrificial burials:

Counter-arguments:

Mumford: The space between each

tomb’s top & the overlying ground surface

was filled prior to the paving phase:

This might allow different periods of

interment prior to the single placement

of plaster paving over all of Aha’s

subsidiary burials. i.e., other options?

Last 2 kings of

Dyn.1: sealed

tomb complex

at one point!

Burial of transferred bodies(?)


Evidence for surface markers:

Small limestone stelae were found

within or near many of the subsequent

retainer tombs associated with the

Dyn.1 royal tombs, and near the

subsidiary burials at the enclosures

for Kings Djer & Djet, & Qn. Merneith.

Far fewer stelae came from burials

around the enclosures: i.e., lower rank

Retainer

tomb nos:

442

= Djet

453

= Djet

117

= Djet

159

= Djet

446

= Djet

442

= Djet


Evidence for surface markers:

The observable erosion patterns

present on some of these stelae

led Petrie to conclude that their rough

bases had been set into the ground.

O’Connor has suggested that the

stelae originally lay in niches

within a small mud brick superstructure

(like some Dyn.1 subsidiary graves

found beside elite tombs at Saqqara

and elsewhere).


Eastern & Western gaps:

The retainer tombs around the

enclosures of Djer, Djet & Merneith

have revealed a noticeable gap

opposite the main “south” entry

in the “eastern” area of their location

(like SW gap at the royal tombs).

This access point also produced

the most prestigious retainer burials

around the royal enclosures.

This implies that the eastern entry

represented a major access route

that required an opening through

substantial enclosing superstructures.

Another gap in the continuous retainer

burial complexes also appears at the

western corner near the enclosures

(But lacked a corresponding entryway

in the enclosure walls; it may be an

access point for the cult/rituals).

Note: The enclosures ALL emphasize

The southern entry on the East wall

i.e., SE entryway consistent feature!

The Northern entry/niche is almost as

consistent, but varies a little (optional)

Town and temple


Exterior chapel near Djer enclosure:

More analysis is required to discern

The exact nature of the retainer burials

around these enclosures:

Of additional interest, Petrie found a

small mud brick chapel built above

the western row of the retainer tombs

associated with Djer’s enclosure.



Although the chapel had apparently

been built soon after retainer tombs

had been roofed and sealed,

the chapel’s doorway was subsequently

bricked up and it went out of usage.

Recent exposure of Djer’s retainer shrine

Shrine plan in relation to Djer enclosure



It is not certain whether this chapel

served the retainer tombs, or perhaps

more likely some ritual that involved

circulating/processing around outer

enclosure wall (Sed festival?; other?).

Djer’s retainer burial

tombs at N.Abydos:

Reisner’s proposed

infrastructure:

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.

King Djer 15+ large retainer

tomb-chambers

lay adjacent to the

most important

entryway.

Late Predynastic to


Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC


Other aspects of enclosures

Other aspects of ED enclosures:

Transitory royal enclosures:

The completed ED enclosures,

which originally rose at least 5-11 m.

would have been far more visible

and impressive than the minimal to

moderate superstructures covering

the royal tombs at Abydos.

Merneith’s enclosure vs. tomb



Matthew Adams & David O’Connor

independently came to the conclusion,

however, that each enclosure at

North Abydos had been levelled

soon after its construction & usage,

prior to building each new enclosure.

Valley enclosure

construction program:

levelling the enclosure

of one’s predecessor

& beginning to make a

new enclosure

More substantial transitory enclosures

Dyn.3 replica

of less substantial building



Only Khskhmwy’s enclosure survived,

presumably because the next ruler

(King Djoser) chose to relocate his

“combined” tomb and enclosure

at Saqqara, far to the north,

rather than at North Abydos:

i.e., no need to level Khskhmwy encl.

King Djoser

relocates

his tomb

and royal

enclosure

to Saqqara Saqqara



O’Connor also suggests that

various religious concepts may also

have changed regarding the efficacy

of the rites concerning the dismantling

of enclosures and other aspects

of the royal mortuary cult:

I.e., Djoser introduced “permanent”

stone mortuary structures.

Dyn.3 Step Pyramid complex



The excavations and study of the

preceding enclosures revealed that

they were levelled to a similar height,

in contrast to the Shunet el-Zebib,

which remained standing to almost

its full, original height.

In addition, the environs of these

earlier enclosures lacked the substantial

amounts of brick debris one would

expect from natural and long-term

erosion and collapse.

Earth spoil heaps still remaining

from ca. 1350 BC (Amenhotep III)

Levelled enclosure

WALL Debris

slope

Debris

slope



The successive dismantling of

earlier enclosures would have

contributed ready made mud bricks

for each new and nearby enclosure.

Some new larger ones would need

additional fresh bricks, while any

smaller enclosures would have more

than enough recycled mud bricks.



The ease of production regarding

mud bricks, however, would argue

that the prime reason behind

dismantling each successive enclosure

had another requirement:

O’Connor & Adams have theorized that

after the death, burial & funerary rites

for each ED ruler, his/her enclosure

would be dismantled and a new one

built for use during the lifetime &

funerary rites of his/her successor.



The evident transitory nature of

the enclosures limits their usage

to each ruler’s reign & funerary rites.

It mostly excludes a mortuary cult

application during their afterlife.

The Abydos priesthood operated at the

enclosure mostly during the king’s life NK funerary procession & rites



The completion of several enclosures’

northern doorways, in conjunction with

its subsequent careful blocking and

conversion into a deep niche,

suggest that each enclosure was

used for at least several years,

if not decades, during each ruler’s

reign (i.e., = Dyn.1).



The northern entry would have

facilitated at least 1 important ritual

(e.g., Sed festival?) in the otherwise

empty northern courtyard of each

enclosure.

Merneith’s

enclosure

Heb Sed festival:

Middle Kingdom coronation ceremony

for King as ruler of Lower Egypt (N),

and king as ruler of Upper Egypt (S).



Changes in the rituals associated

with the enclosures are implied by

the elaboration & retention of

an open northern doorway in

both Peribsen’s & Khasekhemwy’s

enclosures in late Dynasty 2.

Dyn.3: Djoser running Sed-race



They also each added a doorway

in both enclosures’ west wall.



It is possible that coronation rites,

the Sed festival, ritual races,

rejuvenation ceremonies,

renewed oaths of allegiance,

and other rituals were conducted

in these enclosures during each

ruler’s lifetime (see Dyn.3 lectures).



It is possible that coronation rites,

the Sed festival, ritual races,

rejuvenation ceremonies,

renewed oaths of allegiance,

and other rituals were conducted

within these enclosures during

each ruler’s lifetime (see Dyn.3 lectures).

Peribsen’s enclosure & pottery in foreground



Khasekhemwy’s enclosure received

an outer, lower wall that might have

facilitated the king’s or priesthood’s

ceremonial procession around

the enclosure.

This is attested for certain temples

and settlement walls (e.g., Memphis).



Late Predynastic to Early Dynastic

dockets and other scenes

portray kings in open areas

participating in various ceremonies

and rituals:

E.g., coronation rites.

King Den running the ritual course in his

Sed-festival (= during the ruler’s lifetime)

Late Predynastic to


Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS: DYNs.1-2 mortuary complex

Rites & rituals in life-death.

ED enclosures & tombs’ functions:

ED royal mortuary complex:

The natural, 1.5 km-long route linking

virtually each royal tomb at U. el-Qaab

to an enclosure at North Abydos,

is very suggestive of a unified plan

and ritual functions between these

otherwise separate components.

The isolation & distance of royal tombs

began previously in the Predynastic.

It may have been maintained as a

tradition by the ED successors

to these early & apparently venerated

rulers (was there a real King Osiris?).

Later pyramid causeway

Umm el-Gaab

Royal ka-spirit chapels and

Khentyamentiu Temple

Abydos: Early Dynastic to Old Kingdom: Temple of Khentyamentiu.

Royal ka (spirit) chapels: each king animated by his own ka and the “ka of kingship”

Funerary enclosures

Abydos: Development of the Cult of Osiris: Early Dynastic to New Kingdom.

Royal

Tombs

Dyns.1-2

Funerary

Enclosures

Dyns.1-2

Dyns.1-2

funeral

procession

and royal cult

EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD:

Early Town and Temple of Khentyamentiu



The decision to build separate Dyn.1

and late Dyn.2 valley enclosures

near the edge of the Nile flood plain,

beside the local settlement & temple,

may have had more practical reasons:

E.g., availability of clay sources,

workforce, and priesthood.

Main Early Dynastic – Old Kingdom

temple and settlement at Abydos: Chapels of kings; temple of Khenamentiu



The decision to build separate Dyn.1

and late Dyn.2 valley enclosures

near the edge of the Nile flood plain,

beside the local settlement & temple,

may have had more practical reasons:

E.g., availability of clay sources,

workforce, and priesthood.

Main temple: OK ka-temples for kings

Khentamentiu

Jackal-deity

(similar to the

deity Anubis in

appearance)



The enclosures experienced many rites,

presumably mainly in the king’s lifetime,

while the tombs received one main ritual,

namely the ruler’s funeral and burial.

Eldest son conducted burial rites



The royal burial procession apparently

traversed the valley route from the

Nile flood plain settlement, main temple,

and royal enclosures to Umm el-Qaab.



In the late Predynastic to early Dyn.1,

the royal body was initially lowered

into the central subterranean chamber,

which was subsequently roofed with

beams, planking, and reeds,

covered by a subterranean mound

(i.e., primordial mound?), and possibly

topped by some sort of superstructure

including a pair of royal stelae.

Early Dyn.1: a simple mound would likely seal the subterranean burial chamber

Later rulers preferred to complete as much of their tomb as possible

Did they learn from experience that the heir concentrated more on his own tomb?



By late Dyn.1, a ramp, or stairway,

enabled the subterranean tomb

to be roofed prior to the burial,

with the body being introduced

via the passageway.

King Den: stairway access

to subterranean burial chamber



The tomb entryway would then be

sealed by lowering stone blocking doors,

and presumably further surface blockings

to secure both the entryway and

to deter potential tomb robbery.

Some late Dyn.1 royal tombs

display stone portcullis features

(as in this example from a

private elite mastaba at Saqqara)

Generic example



Petrie encountered highly aromatic

and saturated sand filling the entry

passage of King Semerkhet’s tomb

to a depth of 3 feet.

This suggests the purposeful pouring

of aromatic oils in this area during

the funerary rites, and possibly the

additional seepage of oil from pottery jars

placed in the tomb complex.



After the burial, each ruler’s funerary

possessions would still be present

and at hand for use in the afterlife

(after his/her funerary rites):

a. Retainers (beside both the tomb &

dismantled enclosure) to supply

all the king’s needs: valets, artisans, +







b. Hunting hounds (beside the tomb

& dismantled enclosure): hunting.

Egyptian burials often contained

beloved pets (complete with leashes)







c. Draught donkeys: to bring supplies

Donkeys formed main overland transport







d Fleet of ships (near one enclosure):

to aid in practical-ritual needs.

Old Kingdom ship model







e. Lions (near the tomb): protection/pets

7 lion cubs (beside Aha’s tomb)







f. Food and drink (within the tomb):

for ensuring afterlife nourishment

Example of funerary feast from tomb

Example of funerary feast from tomb

(Saqqara Dyn. 2 Mastaba 3477)







g. Clothing, jewellery, furniture, games,

etc. (within the tomb): afterlife use.

Dyn.1 linen dress upper fragment from

a private tomb at Tarkhan (N. Egypt)



There is some evidence that each

of the royal tombs may have had a

mortuary chapel near its S/SW corner.

This would have facilitated the

maintenance of the ruler’s cult

during his/her afterlife.

The incorporation of a SW gap in the

surrounding retainer burial complexes

suggests that a need existed for

regular traffic through this space

to the environs of at least one

mortuary shrine (e.g., Den’s tomb).

However, there is no evidence

that these mortuary cults existed

beyond early Dynasty 3:

Only King Djoser is attested

in the vicinity of this area (via seals),

in relation to completing the burial of

his father King Khasekhemwy.

N



Tomb & enclosure have parallel features:

Both the royal mortuary chapel and

the royal enclosure chapel:

a. Lay to the south

b. Had an access point via a gap

in their surrounding retainer burials

for longer-term traffic.

Both the royal enclosures and

many royal tombs had:

c. A NE entry for a brief, or one-time

ceremony, before both the tomb

and enclosure entry = blocked-up.

“S” chapel

“S” chapel

Retainer

burials

Retainer

burials

NE entry (1 time)

NE entry (1 time)

SE main

cult access

SW/S main cult

access point



Tomb & enclosure have parallel features:

O’Connor notes that the tomb and

enclosure complexes, including all

their components (chapels; open spaces,

provisions; possessions; retainers; etc.)

= a symbolic palace infrastructure that

played a major role in ensuring the king’s

every eternal need.

Palace facade

Late Predynastic to


Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS: DYNs.1-2 elite cemetery

for some high officials.

ED Elite tombs at Abydos:

The SCA has recently found

elite Early Dynastic tombs

to South of Sety I’s temple.

This is somewhat similar to

other royal cemeteries,

where elite officials are honoured

by a burial place not too far from

the current king’s tomb.

In the case of Umm el-Qaab,

the royal tombs are still sufficiently

isolated from other burials.

Information is still lacking on the

exact nature of the high officials

buried at Abydos:

It is possible that they represent

administrators for the temple and

settlement versus the high officials

who facilitated the running of the

state at Memphis (Saqqara tombs!)

Elite tombs

Dyn.3 tomb of Djoser & associated courtiers

Late Predynastic to


Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS:

CONCLUSIONS


Conclusion:

The seemingly separate ED

royal components at Abydos

are actually tightly integrated into

a unified intent involving the

ascension, reign, burial, and

mortuary cult of each ruler.

Each enclosure appears

to facilitate rituals & ceremonies

mostly carried out during

the lifetime of its patron ruler,

including his own funerary rites.

The tomb facilitated the physical

burial of the king (& his personal

attendants, including harem)

The South tomb chapel enabled

the mortuary cult to function

(as did the (later) ka-spirit chapels

in the main temple at Abydos) Town

Flood plain

Sacred landscape of Holy Abydos


Conclusion (cont. …):

Each royal tomb and the subsidiary

burials associated with both the

tomb and its affiliated enclosure

seem to supply, via symbolic magic,

the full range of needs for the

deceased king during his afterlife:

a. The production of food, drink,

clothing, games, etc. by servants.

b. The transportation of materials

by boats and donkeys.

c. The care of the king’s person

by various personal servants.

d. The phys. comfort of the kings via

personal possessions+furnishings.

e. Favourite hounds and pet lions

for hunting & protection in afterlife.

f. Games, musicians, singers, and

other personnel for entertainment.

Late Predynastic to


Ca.3,300 – 2,700 BC

ABYDOS:

SUMMARY:

Early Dynastic Royal Valley Enclosures at Abydos:

• The royal valley enclosures at Abydos lie about 1.5+ km from the royal tombs

at Umm el-Qaab.

• The first known, and only standing enclosure (Khasekhemwy) was called

“Shunet el-Zebib,” which translates as “The Storehouse of Raisins.”

• Its theorized function varied when only this enclosure was known:

(a). A police post guarding the cemetery

(b). An enclosure for livestock

(c). An installation for embalming

(d). The tomb of Osiris (noted in later texts)

• Theories about its function changed with discovery of further enclosures:

(e). Royal forts and residences for ED kings

(f). Successive royal storehouses for funerary provisions

(g). Possibly fortifications

(h). Royal cult temples with courtier burials

(i). Royal funerary palaces (each one for the ka-spirit of the king assoc. with it)

(j). “Valley Places” as proto Valley Temples (found with Dyns.4-6+ pyramids).

(k). “Fortresses of the gods”: ceremonial centres for annual royal rites.

(l). Cultic centres for royal funerary etc. cult in life and at burial: Sed-festivals(?)

• A Sed-festival function seems probable alongside royal funerary/burial rites.

Early Dynastic Royal Valley Enclosures at Abydos: components & trends.

• In general, the enclosures get larger over time in Dyns.1 and late 2.

• Abydos yields almost one enclosure for every ED royal tomb at Umm el-Qaab

(several enclosures remain unidentified with a specific ED ruler).

• King Aha had 3 enclosures: 2 small ones probably being for queens/others?

• One enclosure had a buried fleet of 14 river boats: function? (funerary fleet?)

• Dyn.1 enclosures had retainer burials, some of whom seem to be sacrificial

The retainers include lower class individuals than at tombs; many craftsmen.

• (late) Dyn.2 enclosures lacked retainer burials, but = larger & more elaborate.

• The enclosures face “East” (actually NE) and initially seem to emphasize a

fresh location to the “East” of earlier enclosures (until running out of space)

• The main entry to the enclosure lay along the eastern side, at the south end,

while a secondary entry lay at the northern end (on east side, or NE end)

• Many enclosures contain a chapel, with an Eastern entry and elaborate

Eastern wall face, with evidence for multiple rituals inside: e.g., incense, etc.

• Hence, enclosures replicate mastaba tomb layout: Eastern focus (life/rebirth)

• Each successive ruler leveled the mud brick enclosure of his/her predecessor,

except for Khasekhemwy’s enclosure (since Djoser moved his tomb to North).

How did the ED royal tomb and enclosure complex function?:

• There seems to be an intricate, complex association between the main temple,

funerary enclosures, wadi route to Umm el-Qaab, the royal cemetery, and poss.

the sacred landscape (i.e., later protected from disturbance: terraces of Osiris).

• The town contained a temple to Khentyimentiu (Foremost of the Westerners),

a jackal-deity who helped guide the deceased to the Afterlife (and over a few

centuries became the cult centre for Osiris, King/Lord of the Dead).

• The main temple had ka-spirit chapels for kings, in essence maintaining the

cult of the living-dead rulers: e.g., daily provision of incense, sustenance, etc.

• The nearby enclosures seem to be an added royal cultic installation built during

each ruler’s lifetime, used during the funerary and burial rites, and dismantled:

• The enclosures also probably functioned as early Sed-festival enclosures,

perhaps having other reed structures and other temporary fittings.

• The long route to the royal burial place served for both regular mortuary cult

rites and for the burial procession for each Dyn.1 and late Dyn.2 ruler.

• A SW surface chapel may have served mortuary offerings, etc. at royal tomb.

• Later, the cult of Osiris selected one ED royal tomb to serve as the “burial place

of Osiris” and focal point of processions, changing Abydos into a holy site and

place of pilgrimage and cultic installations for both royalty and commoners.

Documents

Anth.309: Ppt. lecture-10: Dynasties 0-2 Abydos valley enclosures, their components, theories regarding function(s), retainer burials, the overall mortuary complex and rituals, and