DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.41333#0048
Eva-Maria Engel
4. Abydos and Saqqara
The Kings were buried at Umm el-Qa’ ab or Saqqara
depending on the place they died.6
Each of the mentioned hypotheses found its pro-
ponents and opponents. There are contrasting state-
ments on the relation between both sites as, for in-
stance, the following by Walter B. EMERY, who, in
his later publications, modified his view of the two
types to a certain extent: “In the south at Abydos,
the superstructures of the royal tombs or cenotaphs
were certainly entirely different in design from their
counterparts in the north.... However, the substruc-
tures of the Abydos monuments in general conform
to the same line of evolution as at Sakkara.”7 While
he hints at similarities between both sites concerning
the substructures, other authors emphasise the dif-
ferences, for instance. Dieter ARNOLD: “Die
Entwicklung der Abydos-Graber verlauft anders als
die der Saqqara-Graber; sie beginnt und endet friiher
als dort.”8or Rainer STADELMANN: “Dieser
offensichtliche Mangel einer Entwicklung [of the
Abydos tombs] und einer Entfaltung iiber fast zwei
Jahrhunderte in einer an sich so dynamischen Zeit
wirkt in der Tat erstaunlich und deutet doch vielleicht
schon auf ein provinzielles Stagnieren und auf eine
spiirbare Distanz von dem Zentrum kiinstlerischer und
geistiger Aktivitathin.”9 or Toby A.H. WILKINSON:
“Unlike the contemporary mastabas at North
Saqqara which emphasised the superstructure, the
1st dynasty royal tombs at Abydos seem to have con-
wie sie im Djoserbezirk gegeben ist, auch bei der Doppelung
Abydos - Saqqara in der 1. Dynastie vorliegt. Das wiirde
bedeuten, daB wir in den koniglichen Grabem in Saqqara
von der Existenz von Konigsstatuen ausgehen mtissen, die
doit die konigliche Prasenz bewirkten.”
6 J.-P. LAUER, Sur le dualisme de la monarchic egyptienne
et son expression architecturale sous les premiere dynas-
ties, BIFAO LV (1955), p. 159; ARNOLD, E. HORN-
UNG, Konigsgraber, LA III, p. 512, footnote 5;
R. STADELMANN, Die agyptischen Pyramiden, Mainz
31997 (hereinafter referred to as: Pyramiden), p. 11.
7 EMERY, Archaic Egypt. Harmondsworth 1961 (hereinaf-
ter referred to as: Archaic Egypt), p. 130.
8 ARNOLD, Lexikon, p. 12 (s.f. Abydos).
9 STADELMANN, Pyramiden, p. 12.
10 T.A.H. WILKINSON, Early Dynastic Egypt, London, New
York 1999 (hereinafter referred to as: Early Dynastic
Egypt), p. 233. In this, he followed W. KAISER, Zur
Entwicklung des abydenischen Konigsgrabes, in: KAI-
SER, G. DREYER, Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen
centrated on the subterranean element. During the
early Ist dynasty the burial chamber was dug pro-
gressively deeper, culminating with the tomb of Den
in which the burial chamber is 6 metres below ground
level.”10
Although they disagreed on many details, most
participants in the debate agreed on two basic
principles:
- the attempt to relate the size of the tomb to the
proposed status of the owner. This argument was
first used to suggest that Saqqara was the burial place
since the tombs at that site are larger than those at
Abydos. Later, after KAISER11 and KEMP12 had
independently shown that the 'Talbezirke' at Kom
el-Sultan belong to the royal burials at Umm el-Qa' ab
and that, therefore, the labour input to construct those
tombs was much larger than at Saqqara, the same
argument was used in favour of Abydos.
- the assumption of two different types of tombs con-
nected with the two parts of Egypt and/or two dif-
ferent population groups.13 The criteria by which the
two types were differentiated are summarised in ta-
ble 1. They consist of quantitative (i.e. the depth of
the burial chamber) as well as of qualitative criteria
(i.e. the presence/absence of certain features). Sur-
prisingly, even scholars who noticed similarities be-
tween tombs at both sites never questioned the va-
lidity of this principle.14
im friihzeitlichen Konigsfriedhof, 2. Vorbericht, MDAIK
38 (1982), p. 256.
11 KAISER, Zu den koniglichen Talbezirken der 1. und 2.
Dynastie in Abydos und zur Baugeschichte des Djoser-
Grabmals, MDAIK 25 (1969) (Gedenkschrift Stock),
pp. Iff.
12 KEMP, Abydos and the Royal Tombs of the First Dy-
nasty,/^ 52 (1966), pp. 13-22.
13 RICKE, Bemerkungen zur agyptischen Baukunst des
Alten Reichs I, BeitrageBf 4, Zurich 1944, p. 40; IDEM,
Bemerkungen II, pp. 18-19.
14 EMERY, Great Tombs of the First Dynasty I, Cairo 1949
(hereinafter referred to as: Great Tombs I), p. 12, IDEM,
Great Tombs III, p. 5 and KAISER, in: KAISER, DREYER,
MDAIK 38 (1982), p. 251 on the similarities between S X
and S 3338 on one hand with the tomb of Qa'a at Umm el-
Qa'ab on the other; W. WOOD, The Archaic Stone Tombs
at Helwan, JEA 73 (1987), pp. 59ff. compares the tombs at
Umm el-Qa'ab with private burials at Helwan;
G.A. REISNER. The Development of the Egyptian Tomb
42
4. Abydos and Saqqara
The Kings were buried at Umm el-Qa’ ab or Saqqara
depending on the place they died.6
Each of the mentioned hypotheses found its pro-
ponents and opponents. There are contrasting state-
ments on the relation between both sites as, for in-
stance, the following by Walter B. EMERY, who, in
his later publications, modified his view of the two
types to a certain extent: “In the south at Abydos,
the superstructures of the royal tombs or cenotaphs
were certainly entirely different in design from their
counterparts in the north.... However, the substruc-
tures of the Abydos monuments in general conform
to the same line of evolution as at Sakkara.”7 While
he hints at similarities between both sites concerning
the substructures, other authors emphasise the dif-
ferences, for instance. Dieter ARNOLD: “Die
Entwicklung der Abydos-Graber verlauft anders als
die der Saqqara-Graber; sie beginnt und endet friiher
als dort.”8or Rainer STADELMANN: “Dieser
offensichtliche Mangel einer Entwicklung [of the
Abydos tombs] und einer Entfaltung iiber fast zwei
Jahrhunderte in einer an sich so dynamischen Zeit
wirkt in der Tat erstaunlich und deutet doch vielleicht
schon auf ein provinzielles Stagnieren und auf eine
spiirbare Distanz von dem Zentrum kiinstlerischer und
geistiger Aktivitathin.”9 or Toby A.H. WILKINSON:
“Unlike the contemporary mastabas at North
Saqqara which emphasised the superstructure, the
1st dynasty royal tombs at Abydos seem to have con-
wie sie im Djoserbezirk gegeben ist, auch bei der Doppelung
Abydos - Saqqara in der 1. Dynastie vorliegt. Das wiirde
bedeuten, daB wir in den koniglichen Grabem in Saqqara
von der Existenz von Konigsstatuen ausgehen mtissen, die
doit die konigliche Prasenz bewirkten.”
6 J.-P. LAUER, Sur le dualisme de la monarchic egyptienne
et son expression architecturale sous les premiere dynas-
ties, BIFAO LV (1955), p. 159; ARNOLD, E. HORN-
UNG, Konigsgraber, LA III, p. 512, footnote 5;
R. STADELMANN, Die agyptischen Pyramiden, Mainz
31997 (hereinafter referred to as: Pyramiden), p. 11.
7 EMERY, Archaic Egypt. Harmondsworth 1961 (hereinaf-
ter referred to as: Archaic Egypt), p. 130.
8 ARNOLD, Lexikon, p. 12 (s.f. Abydos).
9 STADELMANN, Pyramiden, p. 12.
10 T.A.H. WILKINSON, Early Dynastic Egypt, London, New
York 1999 (hereinafter referred to as: Early Dynastic
Egypt), p. 233. In this, he followed W. KAISER, Zur
Entwicklung des abydenischen Konigsgrabes, in: KAI-
SER, G. DREYER, Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen
centrated on the subterranean element. During the
early Ist dynasty the burial chamber was dug pro-
gressively deeper, culminating with the tomb of Den
in which the burial chamber is 6 metres below ground
level.”10
Although they disagreed on many details, most
participants in the debate agreed on two basic
principles:
- the attempt to relate the size of the tomb to the
proposed status of the owner. This argument was
first used to suggest that Saqqara was the burial place
since the tombs at that site are larger than those at
Abydos. Later, after KAISER11 and KEMP12 had
independently shown that the 'Talbezirke' at Kom
el-Sultan belong to the royal burials at Umm el-Qa' ab
and that, therefore, the labour input to construct those
tombs was much larger than at Saqqara, the same
argument was used in favour of Abydos.
- the assumption of two different types of tombs con-
nected with the two parts of Egypt and/or two dif-
ferent population groups.13 The criteria by which the
two types were differentiated are summarised in ta-
ble 1. They consist of quantitative (i.e. the depth of
the burial chamber) as well as of qualitative criteria
(i.e. the presence/absence of certain features). Sur-
prisingly, even scholars who noticed similarities be-
tween tombs at both sites never questioned the va-
lidity of this principle.14
im friihzeitlichen Konigsfriedhof, 2. Vorbericht, MDAIK
38 (1982), p. 256.
11 KAISER, Zu den koniglichen Talbezirken der 1. und 2.
Dynastie in Abydos und zur Baugeschichte des Djoser-
Grabmals, MDAIK 25 (1969) (Gedenkschrift Stock),
pp. Iff.
12 KEMP, Abydos and the Royal Tombs of the First Dy-
nasty,/^ 52 (1966), pp. 13-22.
13 RICKE, Bemerkungen zur agyptischen Baukunst des
Alten Reichs I, BeitrageBf 4, Zurich 1944, p. 40; IDEM,
Bemerkungen II, pp. 18-19.
14 EMERY, Great Tombs of the First Dynasty I, Cairo 1949
(hereinafter referred to as: Great Tombs I), p. 12, IDEM,
Great Tombs III, p. 5 and KAISER, in: KAISER, DREYER,
MDAIK 38 (1982), p. 251 on the similarities between S X
and S 3338 on one hand with the tomb of Qa'a at Umm el-
Qa'ab on the other; W. WOOD, The Archaic Stone Tombs
at Helwan, JEA 73 (1987), pp. 59ff. compares the tombs at
Umm el-Qa'ab with private burials at Helwan;
G.A. REISNER. The Development of the Egyptian Tomb
42