DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.50021#0031
IV. Types of Tombs.
13
and 1586 (being less exposed to the moisture of the overflow owing to their shallowness) are
still tolerably preserved while no stick was found of a wooden roof which had any weight
to bear. Therefore the corbel vault certainly gave greater security to the burial than the older
wooden roof and was on that account universally adopted for large tombs.
The first use of the corbel vault discovered in Egypt is in the large tombs in cem. 1500.
None of the small corbels, known anywhere, here, at el Amrah or at Reqaqnah,1 can be dated
so early as N. 1571, 1514 and 1515. The corbel vault was too clumsy, the make-weight required
too much brick-work to make it a practical roof for a house, where merely shelter from sun
and rain was required. This fact that the function of the house roof was merely protection
against sun and rain, makes even the use of heavy brick-work supported by wood seem improbable.
Personally I think the ordinary house roof at this period was a simple wooden roof, plastered with
mud and supported, when necessary by wooden posts. The first evidence of the use of any
other roof in buildings above ground is in the chapels of the mastabas of the Cheops cemetery at
Gizeh (especially G. 1203) where the roof was the ordinary barrel-vault so common in the later
periods both for houses and substructures. In brick-work, I know of nothing approaching a corbel
in any building above ground in Egypt. And it may be that the use of the stairway in the large
wood-roofed tombs led, by some mishap to the wooden roof, to the discovery of the accidental
corbel in the brick-work above and suggested the use of the corbel vault alone as a practical
roof. But the corbel may have been discovered in some very different way; and it is impossible
to hope to reach definite conclusions in the case of the corbel vault any more than in the
case of the true vault and the barrel vault.2 3
A question that at once suggests itself is where is the prototype of the corbel vault at corbel
Abydos. Considering the date of the corbel vault and its succession to the wood-roofed va^yd^
tomb with stairway, one would expect to find the corbel vault used in the tombs of Khasekhemui
and Perabsen. And I am convinced that the corbel vault was actually used in the tomb of
Khasekhemui. The crushing of the walls due to moisture is perfectly typical of all our corbel
vaults and occurs in none of our wood-roofed tombs (see Petrie, R. T. II p. 11—12). Furthermore
the decrease in the size of the chambers both in this tomb and in the tomb of Per-absen
(Petrie, R. T. II p. 11, “row of small cells separated by cross walls like those of the early kings”)
is significant. The tombs as a whole show no decrease in size; the chambers are however
smaller, — because, I believe, a different roof was used, a corbel vault, vn which size was
sacrificed to security. It is unfortunate for this question as well as for so many others that the
Abydos site should have been delivered over to such incompetence as was manifested by Ame-
lineau and to the rapacity of the speculators who financed him/’
1 The El Amrah tombs, b 137, b 178, see Maclver, El-Amrah p. 34, seem to be of the type B 2 a, as found in cem. 3000. At Reqaqnah
(Garstang, Third Egyptian Dynasty} the closed corbels R. 56 and 67 are nearly contemporaneous with the Seneferu-group (61 — 64,54): R. 68, 57,
58 and 72 are contemporaneous with the large 4th dynasty (or later) mastabas: the barrel-vaults R. 80 and no are still later (5 th dynasty?).
2 The true vault in brick-work is certainly used in the 4th dynasty and probably earlier but only in passages where the vault could
be held up either by cohesion (according to Mr. Howard Carter) or by hand until the key-brick was in place. The barrel vault with its
slanting courses secured the same thing,— i. e. the slanting courses supported themselves until the sides ol the vault were so close together
above that they could be supported by hand until the key-brick was in place and so permitted the arching of a wider space than the true
vault built without a center (or frame).
3 Much has been said of the violence of Petrie’s language on this subject. But it is necessary that such work as Amelinean s
should be properly characterized, by those who are competent to judge. And only an excavator can understand the bitter feelings
of one who is a witness to such mad destruction of priceless material as Prof. Petrie saw at Abydos.
13
and 1586 (being less exposed to the moisture of the overflow owing to their shallowness) are
still tolerably preserved while no stick was found of a wooden roof which had any weight
to bear. Therefore the corbel vault certainly gave greater security to the burial than the older
wooden roof and was on that account universally adopted for large tombs.
The first use of the corbel vault discovered in Egypt is in the large tombs in cem. 1500.
None of the small corbels, known anywhere, here, at el Amrah or at Reqaqnah,1 can be dated
so early as N. 1571, 1514 and 1515. The corbel vault was too clumsy, the make-weight required
too much brick-work to make it a practical roof for a house, where merely shelter from sun
and rain was required. This fact that the function of the house roof was merely protection
against sun and rain, makes even the use of heavy brick-work supported by wood seem improbable.
Personally I think the ordinary house roof at this period was a simple wooden roof, plastered with
mud and supported, when necessary by wooden posts. The first evidence of the use of any
other roof in buildings above ground is in the chapels of the mastabas of the Cheops cemetery at
Gizeh (especially G. 1203) where the roof was the ordinary barrel-vault so common in the later
periods both for houses and substructures. In brick-work, I know of nothing approaching a corbel
in any building above ground in Egypt. And it may be that the use of the stairway in the large
wood-roofed tombs led, by some mishap to the wooden roof, to the discovery of the accidental
corbel in the brick-work above and suggested the use of the corbel vault alone as a practical
roof. But the corbel may have been discovered in some very different way; and it is impossible
to hope to reach definite conclusions in the case of the corbel vault any more than in the
case of the true vault and the barrel vault.2 3
A question that at once suggests itself is where is the prototype of the corbel vault at corbel
Abydos. Considering the date of the corbel vault and its succession to the wood-roofed va^yd^
tomb with stairway, one would expect to find the corbel vault used in the tombs of Khasekhemui
and Perabsen. And I am convinced that the corbel vault was actually used in the tomb of
Khasekhemui. The crushing of the walls due to moisture is perfectly typical of all our corbel
vaults and occurs in none of our wood-roofed tombs (see Petrie, R. T. II p. 11—12). Furthermore
the decrease in the size of the chambers both in this tomb and in the tomb of Per-absen
(Petrie, R. T. II p. 11, “row of small cells separated by cross walls like those of the early kings”)
is significant. The tombs as a whole show no decrease in size; the chambers are however
smaller, — because, I believe, a different roof was used, a corbel vault, vn which size was
sacrificed to security. It is unfortunate for this question as well as for so many others that the
Abydos site should have been delivered over to such incompetence as was manifested by Ame-
lineau and to the rapacity of the speculators who financed him/’
1 The El Amrah tombs, b 137, b 178, see Maclver, El-Amrah p. 34, seem to be of the type B 2 a, as found in cem. 3000. At Reqaqnah
(Garstang, Third Egyptian Dynasty} the closed corbels R. 56 and 67 are nearly contemporaneous with the Seneferu-group (61 — 64,54): R. 68, 57,
58 and 72 are contemporaneous with the large 4th dynasty (or later) mastabas: the barrel-vaults R. 80 and no are still later (5 th dynasty?).
2 The true vault in brick-work is certainly used in the 4th dynasty and probably earlier but only in passages where the vault could
be held up either by cohesion (according to Mr. Howard Carter) or by hand until the key-brick was in place. The barrel vault with its
slanting courses secured the same thing,— i. e. the slanting courses supported themselves until the sides ol the vault were so close together
above that they could be supported by hand until the key-brick was in place and so permitted the arching of a wider space than the true
vault built without a center (or frame).
3 Much has been said of the violence of Petrie’s language on this subject. But it is necessary that such work as Amelinean s
should be properly characterized, by those who are competent to judge. And only an excavator can understand the bitter feelings
of one who is a witness to such mad destruction of priceless material as Prof. Petrie saw at Abydos.