DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49512#0361
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ROYAL SUPERSTRUCTURES OF DYNASTIES I-II 325
the stepped pyramid, from which the great pyramids of Dyn. IV were derived. The suggestion is
strengthened by the well-known pot-marks of Dyn. I, which appear to represent in profile a stepped
mastaba with nearly vertical faces.
b. The Tomb of Zet
Turning to the tomb of Zet, the facts are nearly identical with those presented by the tomb of Zer,
and I would reconstruct it in the same form as a stepped mastaba not quite square in form. The weakness
of the c.b. walls, lining the open pit, as compared with the thick lining of Zer, is obvious and would seem
to indicate a superstructure farther out from the faces of the substructure. The distances of the inner
lines of the subsidiary graves from the faces of the substructure are as follows:
From the southern face to group a: on west 6-2 m.; on east 5-9 m.
From the eastern face to group g: on south 6-o m.; on north 8-o m.
From the northern face to group b: on east 9-60 m.; on west 10-3 m.
From the western face to group e: on north 5-8 m.
Taking the distance from group e to the NW corner as fixing the maximum limits of the superstructure,
the maximum size would be:
Zet: (a) If square:
N-
S
E-W
Prop.
Area
Maximum
25-8
m.
25-8 m.
i/i
665 sq. m.
Minimum
i8-o
m.
18-0 m.
324 sq. m.
(b) If oblong as
substructure
•
Maximum
•
25-8
m.
23-1 m.
l/l-I2
595-98 sq. m.
Minimum
16-0
m.
13-3 m.
l/l-2
212-8 sq. m.
The resulting superstructure I reconstruct as a square or nearly square stepped mastaba (layer mastaba)
with a flat top (see Fig. 173). This would be the first or second structure of this type, as already premised
in the case of the superstructure of Zer.
c. The Tomb of Merneith
The substructure of Merneith is more nearly square than that of Zet, having a proportion of 1/1-18
against the Zer proportion of 1/1-08 and the Zet proportion of 1/1-24. The differences are as follows:
(1) The long axis lies N-S, not E-W as in Zer and Zet.
(2) The lining walls are thicker than those of Zet, but not so thick as those of Zer. Zer, 2-6 m.; Zet,
0-9-1 m.; Merneith, 1-2 m.
(3) The burial chamber with much less space between the wooden chamber and the c.b. wall is sur-
rounded by eight compartments, which are not so deep as the main chamber.
(4) The subsidiary graves lie in a hollow rectangle, which is incomplete on the southern half of the
western side.
There is no doubt in my mind that the arrangement of the subsidiary graves marks the fact that this
rectangle lay outside the superstructure as in the case of Giza V and the lower cemeteries at Abydos.
The width of the space between the substructure and the rectangle of subsidiary graves is as follows:
From southern face to group a:
From eastern face to group b:
From northern face to group c:
From western face to group d:
on west 7-4 m.;
on south 3-25 m.
on east 5-410.;
on north 3-65 m.
on east 7-4 m.
on north 3-2 m.
on west 5-10 m
in middle 3-6 m.
the stepped pyramid, from which the great pyramids of Dyn. IV were derived. The suggestion is
strengthened by the well-known pot-marks of Dyn. I, which appear to represent in profile a stepped
mastaba with nearly vertical faces.
b. The Tomb of Zet
Turning to the tomb of Zet, the facts are nearly identical with those presented by the tomb of Zer,
and I would reconstruct it in the same form as a stepped mastaba not quite square in form. The weakness
of the c.b. walls, lining the open pit, as compared with the thick lining of Zer, is obvious and would seem
to indicate a superstructure farther out from the faces of the substructure. The distances of the inner
lines of the subsidiary graves from the faces of the substructure are as follows:
From the southern face to group a: on west 6-2 m.; on east 5-9 m.
From the eastern face to group g: on south 6-o m.; on north 8-o m.
From the northern face to group b: on east 9-60 m.; on west 10-3 m.
From the western face to group e: on north 5-8 m.
Taking the distance from group e to the NW corner as fixing the maximum limits of the superstructure,
the maximum size would be:
Zet: (a) If square:
N-
S
E-W
Prop.
Area
Maximum
25-8
m.
25-8 m.
i/i
665 sq. m.
Minimum
i8-o
m.
18-0 m.
324 sq. m.
(b) If oblong as
substructure
•
Maximum
•
25-8
m.
23-1 m.
l/l-I2
595-98 sq. m.
Minimum
16-0
m.
13-3 m.
l/l-2
212-8 sq. m.
The resulting superstructure I reconstruct as a square or nearly square stepped mastaba (layer mastaba)
with a flat top (see Fig. 173). This would be the first or second structure of this type, as already premised
in the case of the superstructure of Zer.
c. The Tomb of Merneith
The substructure of Merneith is more nearly square than that of Zet, having a proportion of 1/1-18
against the Zer proportion of 1/1-08 and the Zet proportion of 1/1-24. The differences are as follows:
(1) The long axis lies N-S, not E-W as in Zer and Zet.
(2) The lining walls are thicker than those of Zet, but not so thick as those of Zer. Zer, 2-6 m.; Zet,
0-9-1 m.; Merneith, 1-2 m.
(3) The burial chamber with much less space between the wooden chamber and the c.b. wall is sur-
rounded by eight compartments, which are not so deep as the main chamber.
(4) The subsidiary graves lie in a hollow rectangle, which is incomplete on the southern half of the
western side.
There is no doubt in my mind that the arrangement of the subsidiary graves marks the fact that this
rectangle lay outside the superstructure as in the case of Giza V and the lower cemeteries at Abydos.
The width of the space between the substructure and the rectangle of subsidiary graves is as follows:
From southern face to group a:
From eastern face to group b:
From northern face to group c:
From western face to group d:
on west 7-4 m.;
on south 3-25 m.
on east 5-410.;
on north 3-65 m.
on east 7-4 m.
on north 3-2 m.
on west 5-10 m
in middle 3-6 m.