DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49512#0390
354
REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EGYPTIAN TOMB AND ITS
mastaba of the two-niche type with an offering chapel on the south. The number of graves in the
subsidiary cemetery was 136, less than in the cemetery of Zer but still large. Among them are a few
graves of type I B and one very large stairway tomb of type II, probably the burial-place of a queen.
The stairway substructure, introduced in the tomb of Wedymuw, was employed with variations for
the tombs of his three successors, Az-ib, Semerkhet, and Qay-'a. The tomb of Az-ib is very small,
the smallest royal tomb of Dyn. I made after the accession of Zer, and its subsidiary cemetery, of the
hollow rectangle type, is composed of a small number of insignificant graves. It is to be concluded that
either his means were considerably diminished or his reign was very short. His two successors,
Semerkhet and Qay-'a, have tombs only a little less expensive than that of Wedymuw, and may be
reckoned as kings of normal power and length of reign. Both of them have the subsidiary cemetery in
contact with the substructure of the main tomb, a modification of the hollow rectangle type. I reconstruct
the superstructure as a two-niche step mastaba, similar to that of Wedymuw, but covering all the
subsidiary graves. That means these graves contained raff-burials, by which fact I account for the
great diminution in the number of subsidiary graves.
The development of the stairway form in the tomb of Qay-'a gives a new trend to the type II by
the addition of side rooms opening into the lower part of the stairway, and this new feature led directly
to the development of type IV, the dominant form of Dyn. II at Memphis and Dyn. Ill throughout
Egypt.
The stairway entrance introduced in the tomb of Wedymuw was immediately utilized, largely
because of its practical value, in the private tombs from that time to the end of Dyn. I. It can hardly
be said that the royal tombs were copied closely any more than had been the tombs of Zer and Zet.
On the other hand, the stairway entrance was merely added to the old type I B to form the new type
II B. The substructure of type II B was again an open pit in which a c.b. multiple-roomed structure
was built and roofed as before with wooden beams or logs covered with a solid mass of brick and
plaster. The stairway usually descended from the valley side and entered the main burial chamber
from that side, but exceptions occur. In Upper Egypt the substructure was excavated in gravel (type
II B (2)) and followed closely the five-room plan of type I B (2), with paired end chambers. In the
Memphite Nome the substructure was an open pit excavated in the limestone stratum (type II B (1)),
and took various forms, not to be correlated directly with the Upper Egyptian forms. The super-
structures of palace-facade type continued in use without change for the very large mastabas, but two
examples of locally large mastabas at Naga-ed-Der presented simplified panelling on all four sides,
a modification of the palace-facade type.
At Memphis the substructures of type II B (1) are excavated in limestone with marks of copper
chisels on the worked surfaces. One example, FS 3035, also contains a dressed limestone pillar used to
support the heavy roofing beams of the large main chamber. A very large portcullis stone of limestone,
and three magazines hollowed in the rock, one of which (and probably all) was closed with a portcullis
stone. FS 3036 was similar to FS 3035 but lacked the magazines. Two others, FS 3038 and 3041, had
the rock-cut pit lined and subdivided into rooms by means of c.b. walls. Thus the type II B (1) presents
in each case a different ground plan. The technical skill which they show in the excavation of rock, the
quarrying of large pieces of stone, and the dressing of rock surfaces with the use of copper chisels, as
well as by rubbing, shows the progress made in stone working in the Memphite Nome at this time and
permits a logical explanation of the development of the special type II B (1). The employment of the
stone-workers’ craft at Memphis, in the preparation of the substructures of tombs of the second half of
Dyn. I, was necessitated by the geological character of the plateau on which the Archaic Cemetery at
REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EGYPTIAN TOMB AND ITS
mastaba of the two-niche type with an offering chapel on the south. The number of graves in the
subsidiary cemetery was 136, less than in the cemetery of Zer but still large. Among them are a few
graves of type I B and one very large stairway tomb of type II, probably the burial-place of a queen.
The stairway substructure, introduced in the tomb of Wedymuw, was employed with variations for
the tombs of his three successors, Az-ib, Semerkhet, and Qay-'a. The tomb of Az-ib is very small,
the smallest royal tomb of Dyn. I made after the accession of Zer, and its subsidiary cemetery, of the
hollow rectangle type, is composed of a small number of insignificant graves. It is to be concluded that
either his means were considerably diminished or his reign was very short. His two successors,
Semerkhet and Qay-'a, have tombs only a little less expensive than that of Wedymuw, and may be
reckoned as kings of normal power and length of reign. Both of them have the subsidiary cemetery in
contact with the substructure of the main tomb, a modification of the hollow rectangle type. I reconstruct
the superstructure as a two-niche step mastaba, similar to that of Wedymuw, but covering all the
subsidiary graves. That means these graves contained raff-burials, by which fact I account for the
great diminution in the number of subsidiary graves.
The development of the stairway form in the tomb of Qay-'a gives a new trend to the type II by
the addition of side rooms opening into the lower part of the stairway, and this new feature led directly
to the development of type IV, the dominant form of Dyn. II at Memphis and Dyn. Ill throughout
Egypt.
The stairway entrance introduced in the tomb of Wedymuw was immediately utilized, largely
because of its practical value, in the private tombs from that time to the end of Dyn. I. It can hardly
be said that the royal tombs were copied closely any more than had been the tombs of Zer and Zet.
On the other hand, the stairway entrance was merely added to the old type I B to form the new type
II B. The substructure of type II B was again an open pit in which a c.b. multiple-roomed structure
was built and roofed as before with wooden beams or logs covered with a solid mass of brick and
plaster. The stairway usually descended from the valley side and entered the main burial chamber
from that side, but exceptions occur. In Upper Egypt the substructure was excavated in gravel (type
II B (2)) and followed closely the five-room plan of type I B (2), with paired end chambers. In the
Memphite Nome the substructure was an open pit excavated in the limestone stratum (type II B (1)),
and took various forms, not to be correlated directly with the Upper Egyptian forms. The super-
structures of palace-facade type continued in use without change for the very large mastabas, but two
examples of locally large mastabas at Naga-ed-Der presented simplified panelling on all four sides,
a modification of the palace-facade type.
At Memphis the substructures of type II B (1) are excavated in limestone with marks of copper
chisels on the worked surfaces. One example, FS 3035, also contains a dressed limestone pillar used to
support the heavy roofing beams of the large main chamber. A very large portcullis stone of limestone,
and three magazines hollowed in the rock, one of which (and probably all) was closed with a portcullis
stone. FS 3036 was similar to FS 3035 but lacked the magazines. Two others, FS 3038 and 3041, had
the rock-cut pit lined and subdivided into rooms by means of c.b. walls. Thus the type II B (1) presents
in each case a different ground plan. The technical skill which they show in the excavation of rock, the
quarrying of large pieces of stone, and the dressing of rock surfaces with the use of copper chisels, as
well as by rubbing, shows the progress made in stone working in the Memphite Nome at this time and
permits a logical explanation of the development of the special type II B (1). The employment of the
stone-workers’ craft at Memphis, in the preparation of the substructures of tombs of the second half of
Dyn. I, was necessitated by the geological character of the plateau on which the Archaic Cemetery at