DOI Artikel:
Naville, Edouard: Egypt Exploration Fund, [1]: excavations at Abydos
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12422#0019
6
Egypt Exploration Eund.
would indicate the Xlbh Dynasty, perhaps also the style of tlie statuettes ;
but tlie table with tlie little vases points to the VIth Dynasty. I saw
one much finer but of tlie same type in a dated tomb of tlie VItli Dynasty
discovered by Mr. Eeisner at Ghizeh.
Close to tins Egyptian tomb, and separated from it by a thickness of
rock of not more t'han one foot, was an oval surface" tomb with red vases
and crouched body, a good spécimen of tlie type called predynastic, but
which I call native. I bave no hésitation in saying that it would hâve
been impossible to dig in the rock tlie large tomb without disturbing the
small one. In clearing tlie sand so as to show the rock and trace the
shaft, tlie small surface burial would have been broken into and possibly
swept away. There is no doubt that the oval tomb is of later date than
the Egyptian shaft.
After this tomb 21 we excavated a great number of Egyptian shafts ;
but not one of them was intact ; they had ail been reused, sometimes
twice. There was no more door to the chambers, or it had been broken into
and partly destroyed. Many of thèse tombs had the régulai' Egyptian form,
a deep shaft with a side-chamber, but the deceased was not an Egyptian,
there was no régulai- Egyptian coffin, and a total absence of the objects
which belong to an Egyptian burial (pl. II. 4). The coffms, when there
were any, were rudely made boxes, and the bodies were in varions
positions.
In several cases predynastic, or what I call native tombs were made
over Egyptian shafts ; for that purpose a small cavity was eut in the rock
forming the wall of the shaft. When it was reoccupied and dug out again,
the small tomb was eut through, a little bit of mud or brick wall was made
to close it on the side, flush with the wall of the shaft, and the bones were
sometimes gathered together in the part which remained untouched. Here
again I maintain that it would have been impossible to dig the shaft in
the rock without destroying the small tomb. The mud or brick wall was
not made by the men who originally made the shaft, but by those who dug
out the rubbish with which it had been filled, in order to reuse it. The
proof of it is this positive fact, that every one of the shafts which eut
through a surface tomb was reused, not by Egyptians, but by the men
who were buried in tlie native tombs. This seems to me the reason
why the surface tombs were preserved and not destroyed : the men who
reoccupied the Egyptian shafts were the same who were buried in the
surface-tombs.
In fact we have here a curious example of an Egyptian cemetery, which
may be of the Vlth or the XIth Dynasty, having been invaded by the old
Egypt Exploration Eund.
would indicate the Xlbh Dynasty, perhaps also the style of tlie statuettes ;
but tlie table with tlie little vases points to the VIth Dynasty. I saw
one much finer but of tlie same type in a dated tomb of tlie VItli Dynasty
discovered by Mr. Eeisner at Ghizeh.
Close to tins Egyptian tomb, and separated from it by a thickness of
rock of not more t'han one foot, was an oval surface" tomb with red vases
and crouched body, a good spécimen of tlie type called predynastic, but
which I call native. I bave no hésitation in saying that it would hâve
been impossible to dig in the rock tlie large tomb without disturbing the
small one. In clearing tlie sand so as to show the rock and trace the
shaft, tlie small surface burial would have been broken into and possibly
swept away. There is no doubt that the oval tomb is of later date than
the Egyptian shaft.
After this tomb 21 we excavated a great number of Egyptian shafts ;
but not one of them was intact ; they had ail been reused, sometimes
twice. There was no more door to the chambers, or it had been broken into
and partly destroyed. Many of thèse tombs had the régulai' Egyptian form,
a deep shaft with a side-chamber, but the deceased was not an Egyptian,
there was no régulai- Egyptian coffin, and a total absence of the objects
which belong to an Egyptian burial (pl. II. 4). The coffms, when there
were any, were rudely made boxes, and the bodies were in varions
positions.
In several cases predynastic, or what I call native tombs were made
over Egyptian shafts ; for that purpose a small cavity was eut in the rock
forming the wall of the shaft. When it was reoccupied and dug out again,
the small tomb was eut through, a little bit of mud or brick wall was made
to close it on the side, flush with the wall of the shaft, and the bones were
sometimes gathered together in the part which remained untouched. Here
again I maintain that it would have been impossible to dig the shaft in
the rock without destroying the small tomb. The mud or brick wall was
not made by the men who originally made the shaft, but by those who dug
out the rubbish with which it had been filled, in order to reuse it. The
proof of it is this positive fact, that every one of the shafts which eut
through a surface tomb was reused, not by Egyptians, but by the men
who were buried in tlie native tombs. This seems to me the reason
why the surface tombs were preserved and not destroyed : the men who
reoccupied the Egyptian shafts were the same who were buried in the
surface-tombs.
In fact we have here a curious example of an Egyptian cemetery, which
may be of the Vlth or the XIth Dynasty, having been invaded by the old