|
-For possible contemporary reigns (Memphis and Abydos) of the
followers of Ninetjer see below.
-Khasekhemwy is a Horus-Seth name; this
king' s name had been Horus Khasekhem in the first part of his
reign.
Nebwyhotepimef (or Hotep-Neterwy-im.f) is not the Nebty/Neswtbity
of Khasekhemwy, but an additional epithet of his Horus name:
the name Nebka, always linked to the following dynasty
(in which it has many difficulties to be fit) might also have
been Khasekhemwy's cartouche name (J.D. Degreef, pers. comm.)
[see the page Nebka] even if there are at least three occurrences of "Nswtbity-Nebty
Khasekhemwy" on stone vessels inscriptions. Furthermore
Nebka is not only a NK list name for it appears also on contemporary
documents, which unfortunately don't clarify the exact position
and status of this king. But, after the known cartouches for
the names of Sened, Neferkaseker and Peribsen, it seems strange
that Khasekhem - Khasekhemwy ignored this new device in his
titulary; notwithstanding possible contrasts with his predecessors
which could have caused him to refuse some innovations of theirs,
the cartouche did appear in Khasekhemwy's documents (a well
known serie of stone vessels inscriptions) to encircle the name
Besh. The suggestion Nebka = Khasekhem
will be fully analyzed in the latter king's page. But it must
be precised here that this is only an enlargement of the variouis
possible positions that the name Nebka could have occupied,
which span from Khasekhemwy to the reign before Huni. The terminus
ante quem is the Abusir inscriptions in Berlin
and the private Saqqara tomb S3345-6 of Akhetaa, in the end
Third Dynasty or (more probably) beginning of the Fourth.
The name Nebty Khasekhemwy Nwbkhetsen has, in its second part,
not a Goldname, but an additional epithet of the Nebty, like
Nebwyhotepimef for the Horus name.
(°) Bbty on NK list of Saqqara and TC and DjaDjatepy
on Abydos KL which have been attributed to Khasekhemwy
on the grounds of a misinterpretation of the hieratic writing
of the two vertical signs for sekhem + t (=kha)
is a rather weak a path, for the latter sign is generally placed
above (so before) the two vertical ones. On the other hand a
better avenue to follow, could be that of Bbty <= Sekhemib:
in the hieratic writing, the vertical signs for s and
sekhem of this king's name, could have been misinterpreted
for two b. But this must have occurred through many intermediate
passages, for OK-MK-NK hieratic signs for s, sxm
and ib are clearly distinguishable from b b t
(and even less probable could have been an equivocal reading
of b + b + t from xa + sxm
+ sxm).
Manetho's Kheneres should come from stg.
like *Khenw-Ra/ Kha-n-Ra or, more probably, Ka-n..Ra
which can't be satisfactorily applied to Khasekhemwy. The king
Manetho places before Thosorthros (Djoser) is a Necherophes
(Necherothes) who has been paralleled with Djoser's Horus name
Netjerykhet. However Manetho's list is based on birth-names
of the kings, not on Horus names. Furthermore Necherophes variant
contains a f in its last syllable: could this be associated
to an abredged rendering of Khasekhemwy's Horus name epithet
Hotep-Netjerwy-im.f [(Htp)NTrw(y)(im).f = *Netjerwf
+ greek suff. es = Netjerwfes/Necherophes]? In this case
Khasekhemwy would have been the foundator of the "Third
Dynasty" in Manetho's dynastic system.
But it is highly doubtful that eg. nTr (= neter/ netjer) would
have been rendered necher instead of nether, since
Manetho's Binothris reprsents Ba(w)neter / Banetjeren = Njnetjer.
On the other hand Khasekhemwy's birth name could have been different
from HtpNetrwyimef and Nbwkhetsen which are known for this king,
and only if this name was Nebka, should Khasekhem be considered
a proper Third Dynasty king (it would be right to consider him
the foundator of the 3rd Dynasty, not much owing to his relations
with Djoser or other historical/cultural motifs, but mostly
for coherence with Manetho's system).
So the question of the birth name of Khasekhem(wy) and his 'dynastic'
(in Manetho's sense) placement remains still open to debate.
(*) It is not certain whether Horus Sekhemib-Perenmaat
changed name in Seth Peribsen/Neswtbity Peribsen.
Wildung and Barta identify Horus Sekhemib with
Nswtbity-Nebty Wng and Seth Peribsen with Neswtbity Snd (I disagree).
Peribsen's position can indeed more likely considered
as corresponding to the 'hudjefa' lacuna of later king lists.
A third chance, the one I do prefer, is that
Sened, Sekhemib and Peribsen are three distinct rulers.
(See Dautzenberg in G.M. 96 p. 25-8 for an identification
of the lacuna indication 'hudjefa' with the Manetho Cheneres and
the name Chaires as a Greek alteration of King Khasekhemwy's).
(Cfr. Kaplony 'Steingefasse' p. 69 ff for Sekhemib's position).
-Nefersenedjra's cartouche has been recently
found on a brick block from Saqqara (Orientalia 57,1988, 330)
in the area near the galleries of the tomb B (Ninetjer). Thus
this is not a Horus name.
The cartouche would be the first known to us
which was used for encircling a royal name, preceding an example
of Nswtbity Neferkaseker and one of Nswtbity Peribsen. But none
of the three can be dated to the Second Dynasty out of any doubt
.
-Nwbnefer has never been found in relation
with Nebra; B.Gunn (A.S.A.E. 28) proposed that this could be the
nebty name of Nebra but this remains an hypothesis. According
to Kaplony 'Neferneb' reigned between Wneg and Sened.
(stone vessel inscription
"Hwt Mnt 'Ankh Nswt-bity NWBNFR").
- Wneg 's Horusname has been suggested by Helck to have
been Za (39 times in Pyr.Deg.V ink inscriptions from Saqqara);
however Kaplony (Steingefasse, 67) thinks that on Cairo 1 Annals'
Fragment there could be the serekh of Wnegsekhemwy.
CHRONOLOGY
The second dynasty lasted about 120-150 years
(compare c.190 years of the Ist dynasty and c. 75 (?) of the third).
On the Annals (Palermo stone,Cairo stone and
related fragments) the supposed reconstructions (see Barta in
Z.A.S. 108, 1981 p. 11-23 and bibl. in note 4; Helck 'Thinitenzeit
1987 p.125) agree in the placement of the second dynasty : it
should start with Hotepsekhemwy at the beginning of the 4th line,
on the right of the original wall, and end on the left side with
the ephemeral reigns of the pre-Khasekhem lacunae; Khasekhem(wy)'
s reign would occupy the first 30-35 years on the right hand beginning
of the fifth line which would go on with Nebka and Djoser on the
Palermo stone(see fig.2 below).
The total number of years in these hypothesized
collocations of kings on the memphite annal stela would be 151.
The regnal years on the Turin Canon are preserved
only for Neferkaseker (8), the lacuna (hudjefa-11), Bebty (27).
One of the main problems in these reconstructions
is the period after Ninetjer's reign and before Khasekhem(wy)'s:
except for the archaeologically sufficiently attested Sekhemib-Peribsen
(probably the same individual),at least 4 other kings' names are
known but the informations are very scanty as well as their relative
position in the dynasty ; according to the cited reconstructions,
extrapolations of the damaged parts of the original stela should
have allotted circa 40 years compartment to this period; supposing
an 11-20 years reign for Sekhemib-Peribsen (who is for some scholars
to be identified with Sened , for others with the lacuna in the
lists), other 20-29 years must be fulfilled with reigns of 4 or
more short reigning kings.
Given the paucity of the material known for these
rulers, it is rather logic to expect that further kings' names
might be added in the next decades or at least we can hope that
the position and titulary of Wneg, Sened, Aaka, Neferkaseker,
Neferkara, Nubnefer will be solved by new findings. There's much
to await for particularly at Saqqara from the Tomb B(Ninetjer)
and from the still unexplored galleries beneath the Djoser complex's
western massif and western side of the North court.
Very tempting is the hypothesis by W. Helck
(Thinitenzeit 1987 p.105) that the Egyptian crown could have been
voluntarily split into two by Horus Ninetjer
who would have put a son to reign in Upper Egypt and another (Wng)
in Lower Egypt; there would be therefore a contemporaneity of
Memphite neswtbity-named kings and Abydene Horus/Seth-named kings.
In a recent article (KMT 1996) A. Dodson has
proposed to shift the position of the Horus Ba and Horus
Sneferka (who are known for few inscriptions on Djoser
complex stone vessels and have been placed between Qaa and Hotepsekhemwy,
as long as with another ruler whose name could be read Sekhet)
to the obscure period of the second dynasty : but even the deepest
analysis of the epigraphy and of the relevant subjects of their
hieroglyphic inscriptions (W.Helck, Z.A.S. 106, 1979; id. Thinitenzeit
1987) such as royal estates and domains,can't assure us about
which of the two possible positions in the chronology is the right
one, therefore I prefer to consider the three mentioned rulers
as Qa'a 's immediate successors. (Nevertheless problems do arise
in this latter case for which see Sneferka page). THE
SECOND DYNASTY :
AN HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW *
(Click
on the Kings' names in the table above for a king by king history)
This
is acknowledged as one of the least known dynasties of Ancient
Egyptian History. The meagre consistence of data for this period
can be reasonably ascribed to two principal factors: 1) uncertain
political situation during the most of the reigns of that period;
2) scarcity of modern researches; thus the obvious result is
the relative paucity of material sources.
1) HISTORICAL PROBLEMS
The political sketch of this dynasty is very uncertain.
We notice two periods which appear to have been of great prosperity
and power, for the central authority seems to have been in full
efficiency: the reigns of Ni-neter and Khasekhemwy, third and
last rulers of the dynasty. Their reigns have relatively abundant
documentary attestations and must be looked at as moments of
splendour and cultural progress. These two were the longest
reigns of the Second Dynasty too.
The situation before Ninetjer's reign and from the death of
Ninetjer to the accession of Khasekhem is obscure at the best.
If the initial Second Dynasty sequence Hotepsekhemwy-Nebra-Ninetjer
is certain (statuette of Redjit Cairo CG 1, stone vessels usurpations),
nothing can be said yet about the period between the reigns
of Qa'a and Hotepsekhemwy.
In the last decades the presence of ephemeral kings reigning
in between the first two dynasties had been interpreted as a
sign of possible political troubles after the death of Qa'a;
this latter king, with his long reign, seems to have also given
an end to other previous dynastic problems which have been supposed
to affect the First Dynasty after Den at the time of kings Adjib
and Semerkhet. This last was, perhaps too easily, considered
a possible non royal usurper of Adjib's throne.
Now, all these considerations, as well as the epigraphical and
comparative study of the scanty material of the ephemeral kings
Sneferka, Bird and Sekhet (??) (especially by Peter Kaplony
and Nabil Swelim) (cfr. above and in Sneferka's
page) pointed to an abrupt but brief crisis which had as one
of its effects, the shift of the royal necropolis from Abydos
to Saqqara.
But the point of view seems to have been suddenly changed again
after the finding of seal impressions of Hotepsekhemwy at Umm
el Qaab tomb Q (Qa'a) in 1995, providing a similar evidence
as that for Khasekhemwy-Netjerykhet direct succession.
This finding, in fact, would witness the presence of the Second
Dynasty founator at the funerals of Qa'a, apparently leaving
no space or occasion for intermediate reigns. But this is, in
my opinion, not a proof of the absence of Sneferka & co.:
instead it only shows Hotepsekhemwy 's will to erase those surely
local rulers whose power could have had the opportunity to arise
in the aftermath of the end of a royal line with the death of
Qa'a.
Therefore the period pre-Hotepsekhemwy is far from being a well
defined one.
We must also remember that kings Sneferka, Bird* and Sekhet
(?) are known by few sources : those of Sneferka
and Sekhet are only from Saqqara,
while 'Bird' is attested on the vessel
inscription P.D. IV n.108 (Djoser's complex) at Saqqara and
perhaps also in R.T. II pl. 8A6, which is from Abydos (Tomb
of Qa'a) !
* [We must rehearse here that there's no connection between
this Horus name (a simple bird with no particular characteristics)
and that of Ba (for this latter see N. Swelim 'Horus Ba' Grenoble
Congress 1979 and id. 'Some Problems ...' p.182-3, 185) which
is instead written with the hieroglyphs B (leg) + B3 (ram)].
The reasons for placing at least Sneferka and Bird after Qa'a
are mainly the epigraphical similarity and the occurrance of
the memphite palace name Hwt Za-Ha-Neb (common for Qa'a, Sneferka
and Bird) and the official name Swdj Khnemw (on Qa'a and Sneferka's
stone vessels inscriptions).
The middle of the Second Dynasty is an even harder (and
longer) period to deal with.
Leaving apart Manetho's names and T.C. Aaka (?), as well as
the indication of lacuna (hudjefa), we have 5 or 6 kings
here (but more could have been): Wneg (probably but not
surely at all = Horus Za), Sened, Nwbnefer
(Nebnefer), Neferkara, and Neferkasokar. They
're analyzed one by one in their pages (click on their names
in the table above).
No royal tomb has been found for any of these rulers, but see
below the point 2).
These are shadowy figures, known by few if not unique contemporary
sources, and recorded in the later king lists of the NK. The
most valuable source for this period are the inscriptions carved
on stone vessels which were found gathered in galleries of the
Djoser's complex at Saqqara. Some of these inscriptions (Za,
Nwbnefer) produced royal names which were previously unknown.
Other inscriptions (Wneg) have been found on materials from
private tombs in the North Saqqara cemetery and in later lists
and papyri (Neferkara, Neferkaseker).
Most of the inscriptions painted in red or black ink
on stone vessels from Djoser's complex galleries (a far more
numerous corpus that that of thinite inscriptions engraved
on the same supports) has been ascribed by Helck (Z.A.S. 106,
1979) to the reign of Ninetjer. The German egyptologist hypothesized
that the bulk of vessels was formerly gathered by Ninetjer,
from other royal and private tombs of the Saqqara cemetery,
and later reused by Djoser who in turn appropriated the funerary
offerings from Ninetjer's (Tomb B ?) storerooms and galleries.
The names of Ninetjer's officials (Khnwmenii, Ruaben) in ink
inscriptions, leave few doubts on the verisimilarity of Helck's
theory.
The same author (in the same article) also dared a more advanced
and not as provable hypothesis about Ninetjer's followers: this
king would have willfully split the reign in two, for some unknown
reason, originating a Lower Egyptian royal line (Nswt bity -
Nebty Wng, Sened, Nwbnefer a.s.o.) and an Upper Egyptian one
(Horus Sekhemib, Seth Peribsen and Horus- Seth Khasekhem). The
occasion for such a hard-to-believe expedient could have been
Ninetjer's will to give a crown to each one of two sons of his,
or maybe the need to face serious problems emerged at the end
of his long reign. But a circumstance like this, is really hard
to suppose as having really happened, or at least to have been
decided by a king: this is an impossible act, out of ancient
Egyptians' culture, beliefs and mythology. But this might have
been indeed happened as a result of other major events, as usurpations
or lack of authority of the crown on the whole Egyptian territory
owing to unknown reasons.
An important source is the inscriptional evidence from the Saqqara
Mastaba (Mariette) B3 of Shery (see A. Moret Mon.Piot
25 p. 273ff, Grdseloff A.S.A.E. 44 p. 294 and W. Kaiser in
G.M. 122); the inscriptions refer to
this IVth dyn. official's employ as 'overseer of the funerary
priests of Peribsen in the necropolis of Sened...' : this
must entail the presence of these kings' funerary monuments
somewhere in the central Saqqara plateau, aroun (or beneath)
Netjerykhet's complex.
Linked to Shery is therefore Peribsen too. So we come to survey
the End of the Second Dynasty.
The main problem for this period is the reign of Peribsen
and his relationship with the predecessor Sekhemib- Perenmaat.
The usually poor archaeological and epigraphical evidence hasn't
yet made it possible to estabilish with a good degree of certainty
if these two were separate individuals or the same one who changed
his royal names and titulary.
Petrie claimed for the presence of a seal impression with the
names Sekhemib-Peribsen, but this has been already disproved
long ago as being indeed the common Sekhemib-Perjenmaat name.
The nature of possible popular (?) upheavals or religious reforms
is yet to be fully studied, as their possible consequencies.
The danger here, is to believe that the evidence we have (i.e.
Seth cult) must perforce have been the cause of some
sort of political breakdown (owing to the speculations made
in the past about the argument). It could have been instead
the contrary: the prolonged weakness of the central authority
could have favoured the arise of new beliefs and traditions
so that what we have always acknowledged as causes of rebellions
or 'heresies', could have been the effect of deeper crises.
Don't forget that, as P. Bell showed in 1970, the study of the
Palermo Stone Nile floods' levels' recordings did evidence a
sudden and marked debate already during the first half of the
apparently flourishing reign of Ni-neter. Thus enviromental
factors must not be overlooked in a research of the causes of
the troubles which the Egyptian state faced in this period.
Finally there' s the double faced reign of Khasekhem(wy):
once some scholars believed that the two names were those of
2 different individuals. This is untenable, but the archaeological
evidence of Horus Khasekhem and Horus Seth Khasekhemwy, particularly
that of Hierakonpolis and Abydos, needs to be reanalyzed in
order to find the reasons for the name/title change and, even
recalling the epithet 'Nebwyhotepimef', we must clarify the
relationship of this king with his predecessor(s) and the reality
of his claim at the Unification of Egypt; is this the common
accession ceremony or, as for Narmer, a very event?
2) ARCHAEOLOGICAL
PROBLEMS
The archaeological researches for Second Dynasty cemeteries
have yielded less material than for the First and Third Dynasty.
Pieces of evidence are sparsely attested at the sites of Abu
Roash, Giza, Zawyiet el Aryan, Saqqara, Tarkhan, Naga ed Deir,
Beit Khallaf, Abydos, Gebelein, Hierakonpolis, Elephantine but
only those from Saqqara and Abydos have a profound 'royal' relevancy,
being of a consistent number and variety. Also for this dynasty
there are pieces (i.e. royal and private statuettes, seals and
stone vessels) of unknown provenance now in private collections
(Michailidis), and others from unsatisfactorily conducted and/
or published excavation campaigns (A.Mariette, E.Amelineau,
J.Quibell). The fact is that many of these period's tombs were
dug when the average of scientifical excavations techniques
was still too low for the modern urges, and the dealers of antiquities
had much more free-hand in spoiling sites and selling pieces
to foreign museums.
But if we consider the most promising sites, Abydos and Saqqara,
the situation is not so poor in possible objects of research.
Moreover the past and modern explorations of Hierakonpolis
(i.e. the city of Nekhen and the 'Fort'), and the recent decades
starting of new excavations at Buto and particularly
at Elephantine, are bringing new data, some of which
related to 2nd dyn. kings' names (Khasekhem and Peribsen) and,
above all, have added to the common source of the funerary monuments
a new scenario that is the one of templar and civil architectures,
and possibly of a King's palace (HK).
Abydos is currently excavated by the German and American
archaeologists who still make interesting findings after a hundred
years of archaeological expeditions at that site; regarding
the Second Dynasty me must perforce mention the campaigns of
David O' Connor at the northern site of the funerary
enclosures (and boats, which perhaps seem to date from the
First Dynasty) and those which were undertaken at the end of
the 70ies by Werner Kaiser and Gunter Dreyer comprehending the
reexcavation of the tomb of Khasekhemwy and the cited Hotepsekhemwy's
findings in that of Qa'a (both excavations are still in progress).
The situation at Saqqara
is also getting better; the potential of this site is greater
than Abydos'. But it has remained a bit too static for many
years. The most of the 2nd Dyn. private tombs were rapidly explored
at the beginning of 1860s and in the early twenteenth century
(respectively by Mariette and Quibell), and a fairly accurate
complement was the study of G.A. Reisner in 1936; we have sufficiently
good maps of the western, central and mid-eastern North
Saqqara cemetery in which a number of Second Dynasty mastabas
are known. We have already mentioned the findings from Neterykhet's
complex' galleries.
More sources of knowledge of IInd dynasty date are the inscribed
private stelae (especially from the necropolis of Helwan) and
some private and few royal statues; these latter (Ninetjer's
and the two of Khasekhemwy) are almost unique, while there are
more examples of private character which, for the mentioned
question of the unprovenancedness, are harder to differentiate
as of Second or instead of Third Dynasty date. Finally the royal
stelae and stone blocks' representations found with names of
Nebra, Peribsen and Khasekhem and naturally the cited relative
abundance of clay seal impressions with the royal serekhs of
Hotep - Hotepsekhemwy, Nebra, Ninetjer, Sekhemib, Peribsen and
Khasekhemwy (from Saqqara, Abydos but also from elsewhere) complete
the picture of the material sources.
Two more categories of archaeological findings remain to be
discussed:
The first one consists in the Royal Enclosures west of
Djoser's and Sekhemkhet's complex.
At least one of these monuments was known by De Morgan's 'Carte
de la Necropolis Memphite' (Gisr el
Mudir) but for many years they remained untouched. W. Kaiser
pointed the attention onto the 'Talbezirke' which became object
of deeper and deeper researches: we only mention B.J. Kemp in
JEA 52 (1966), W. Kaiser in MDAIK 25 (1969), R. Stadelmann in
B.d.E. 97,2 (1985), David O' Connor in JARCE 26 (1989), Nabil
Swelim in MDAIK 47 (1991) and the recent remote sensing and
magnetometry based surveys by the Scottish archaeologists directed
by Ian Mathieson and Ana Tavares (JEA 79, 1993, JEA 83, 1997).
There's not yet a complete accordance among the scholars in
the datation of these structures. The problem is that, unlike
the Abydos enclosures, which were surrounded by 'courtiers'
tombs producing seal impressions and other inscriptional objects
allowing a clear attribution of the structures to the kings
(or some of them) of the Ist dynasty (included Merneith's so
called 'Western Mastaba') and to the Second Dynasty's Peribsen
(Middle Fort) and Khasekhemwy (Shunet ez Zebib), few pots and
vessels have been found in the Saqqara counterparts (Petrie
'Tomb of Courtiers... 1925; O' Connor op.cit.; N. Swelim 'S.P.'1983;
Mathieson - Tavares op. cit.).
The Abydos structures, with panelled facades, although built
with mudbrick are also better preserved than the Saqqara walls,
built in local stone masonry. This depends on the relative isolation
of the Abydos site, whereas Saqqara monuments have much more
heavily suffered the funerary structures' overcrowding in that
area.
The datation is, as said, uncertain. N. Swelim (op. cit. end.
plate) appeared more inclined for a datation to the reigns after
that of Khasekhemwy (Khaba, Sa and Ba), but there are some criticable
points in his picture of the Third Dynasty chronology.
Rainer Stadelmann (op. cit. p. 304 ff and fig.3) and more recently
Ian Mathieson, seem to propend for an earlier date.
Stadelmann was the first, to my knowledge, to evidence two more
possible walls courses, one between Gisr el Mudir's and Sekhemkhet's,
and another west of Djoser's complex (op. cit; cfr. also id.
'Die Aegyptische Pyramiden' 1997 p. 30 fig.9).
The picture shows Stadelmann's attributions of the monuments
in object. The recent excavations instead are inclined to credit
Gisr el Mudir as the royal enclosure of Khasekhemwy. The walls
size is enormous for extension and thickness (more than 15 m,
covered by two parallel stone masonry embankments filled with
rubble and sand ; the enclosure is about 650 x 350 m
-compare Netjerykhet's 544,9x 277,6-).
Only Second and Third Dynasty broken pottery and later burials
have been found on these monument's area; moreover the great
'Wall of the Boss' and the Ptahhotep enclosure seem to have
at least some parts of the walls never completed, therefore
we must expect that these might be unfinished constructions.
At Abydos the Shunet ez Zebib and the Middle Fort (although
not surrounded by as many pits of the retainers as in the Ist
dyn. structures) bore traces of a collapsed central mound which
O'Connor correctly interpreted, by the place it occupied, as
a forerunner of the Mastaba M1 in the Saqqara complex of Netjerykhet.
Not to mention the possible presence of Second Dyn. funerary
boats in the surroundings of those already found not far from
the Shunet.
The other important set of Saqqara monuments of the Second Dynasty
is the series of Underground Galleries, the only remains
of giant mastaba tombs which were built south of Djoser's southern
temenos and beneath the same complex Western Massifs. The galleries
can be divided for convenience in I) those south of Netjerykhet's
complex and II) those within its plan.
I) It has been advanced that more than 2 royal
tombs might have been built south of Djoser's complex. Some
may lay still undiscovered in the NK cemetery east of the complex
of Sekhemkhet. The only two known are the so called Tomb A and
B (PM III2 p.613) which had to be two huge parallel mastabas
with N-S long axis (same orientation as Djoser's complex) distant
120- 150 meters from each others. These tombs' superstructures
were destroyed by the construction of the complex of Unas, but
the labyrinthic substructures of tomb A were found and explored
at the beginning of the 1900 by Barsanti (ASAE 2 and 3), and
those of the tomb B by S. Hassan in 1937-8 (ASAE 38 p. 521)
who only briefly noticed their presence; the map of tomb A,
which was thought to have belonged to Hotepsekhemwy and Nebra
by seal impressions found inside it, was provided by J. P. Lauer
(see Hotepsekhemwy's page) in 1930,
while only the works of the last two decades of 1900 have given
the first impression of the layout of Ninetjer's tomb B substructures
(Peter Munro in G.M. 63, S.A.K. 10, 1983, D.E. 26, 1993; Kaiser
in bibl.1992) as well as interesting suggestions about the eventual
shape of the superstructures.
The tomb A contained seal impressions of Hotepsekhemwy (Gaston
Maspero in ASAE 3, 1902 p. 185-90) but also with the name of
Nebra, so that some scholar thought the latter could have usurped
his predecessor's tomb.
But Nebra might have had a separate monument of his own, yet
undiscovered, as the presence of a stela
with his name points out (it was found reused as a modern house
threshold, and surely was from the nearby Saqqara necropolis)
(Henry G. Fischer in Artibus Asiae 24, 1961 p. 45-56 and Jean
Philippe Lauer in Orientalia 35, 1966 p. 21-7).
II) The galleries under Djoser's complex Western
Massifs and in the north-west sector of the Northern Court have
had only a rapid survey which estabilished their plans (Lauer,
Pyr. Deg. I p. 180-6); the rock in which they're dug is particularly
tender so further explorations are prevented by the risk of
falls. The superstructure is not with absolute certainty by
Djoser (Massif I appears laid on the Pyramid's (PI) western
lower step) but it seems sure that the long galleries, which
were reused by the third dynasty king as storerooms of his complex,
had to belong to a previous ruler's funerary monument, similar
to those a little south (tombs A, B). See below.
As we have seen, Djoser's erection of the Western Massif could
be questioned (also for comparison with the structures in the
eastern part of the complex); there is a clear indication in
the vertical stratigraphy of the Western Massif I eastern wall
and Pyramid P2 western side stratum, which shows that the last
stage in the pyramid's enlargement is later than the Massif'
s building; P2 lays in fact over the Massif's terrace, at more
than 4 meters of height. (Lauer P.D. I, 180; Stadelmann op.cit.
301). We can therefore advance that the Western Massifs' building
might belong to a later stage* in the development of Djoser's
complex (because they seem at least partially unfinished in
the north and for they seem later than P1), but they surely
preceed the last transformation which brought the Pyramid to
the final 6 steps form. *(Kaiser, MDAIK 25, thought that WM
was contemporary with the initial phases of Djoser's complex
development, if not even earlier than the beginning of Djoser's
reign).
Nothing can be said for certain about the subterranean apparatus'
datation, for which we can only attempt cross-comparisons with
contemporary tombs' substructures in order to estabilish a sequence.
The same original ownership of these galleries will reamain
doubtful (even if Khasekhemwy is the first candidate) until
more complete explorations of those impressively extended ambients.
This could be result in new findings (especially seal impressions
and stone vessels fragments) capable to shed new light on the
early purpose and period of construction; but we must also remember
that, even if the sheer extension of the corridors and rooms
makes it very possible to gain such pieces of evidence, we can't
nonetheless espect anything in number and quality alike what
was found in the galleries beneath the pyramid: these last remained
in fact much more difficult to be reached, whereas under the
Western Massifs Firth and Lauer found traces of bones which
had been brought there by hyaenae (as their excrements demonstated).
Thus this part of the Step Pyramid Complex must not have been
unreachable at all.
Another tomb which was probably overbuilt by Djoser is represented
by a gallery beneath the Northern Massif; alike the same complex'
Southern Tomb, it has a west-east long axis, instead of North-South
as the others.
It could be hypothesized that this could have been part of the
tomb of Sened or Peribsen: in fact the mastaba B3 (Shery) in
which Peribsen's and Sened' s funerary cults are mentioned,
although now lost in its exact location, must have been not
far north from Djoser's northern wall (Firth found clay seals
of Khasekhemwy and Djoser in it; cfr. Lauer Pyr.Dg. I, 184 fig.208).
Many more shafts and pits are located in the Step Pyramid Complex
(see the fig. of page 64 in N. Swelim 'Some Problems' 1983)
as i.e. a gallery with N-S direction which is in the western
half of the North Court, between that under the North Massif
and that under the Western Massifs I and II.
It doesn't seem that the Western Massif III (the most external,
near the western wall of the temenos) hide any further galleries.
The reciprocal nature and confrontation of these galleries in
and around the Step Pyramid complex will be analyzed in a more
specifical study.
Some considerations can be expressend since right now:
The plans of tomb A and B substructures (although partial) show
a marked difference in the way they branch off; Hotepsekhemwy's
galleries have a more rectangular and straightforward course
in the N-S direction and, albeith with a wider breadth (c. 120
x 50 m) than those under the Western Massifs I and II, they
both show a relatively ordered nature (but see also below);
the WM galleries have an extremely marked development along
the North-South axis (c. 400 m by only 50 in the W-E extension)
which can't escape to an easy comparison with the unusually
elongated shape of Khasekhemwy's Tomb V at Umm el Qa'ab (Abydos);
but the analysis of the shapes of the stone vessels fragments
found in the W.M. galleries has been judged more fitting for
a Third Dynasty date than for a late Second Dynasty's.
Additionally, in contrast with the sharply and right angled
form of these substructures' rooms and corridors, Ninetjer's
galleries (the known portion is 'only' c. 70 x 50 meters wide
?) have a fairly different plan, because the corridors and chambers
seem to spread off the main central gallery in a quite more
confused way, with apparently less respect for the perpendicular
angles which Tomb A and West. Massifs' galleries do show. It
could also be dared that we would expect a reversed situation
(considering the probable reign length and the relative importance
of Hotepsekhemwy and Ninetjer) i.e. to attribute the (still
uncompletely known) tomb B to an earlier stage of development
than Tomb A and Western Massifs' galleries.
But there is also another important aspect to consider for the
correct analysis of this problem: as Aidan Dodson indicates
(see KMT 9:2, 1996 p. 21-2) Lauer's maps are only sketchy (and
probably quickly drawn) plans of complexes which would have
certainly required a lot of additional time to be more fully
understood and outlined; Munro's recent excavations and planning
should therefore suggest that also tomb A and Western Massifs'
corridors and apartments must have a much less regular and right
angled course than it appears in their up to now still unique
plans publications.
The clay seal impressions finding is a weak proof to estabilish
the ownership of a tomb, but it must be taken into account as
the only determining one until further proofs; and we must also
consider that the total extension of the sub- and super-structures
of Nineter's tomb B might also reveal to be larger than tomb
A's (as it was hypothesized) with new discoveries; as already
noted, the harder consistence of the rock in the eastern area
than that around the Unas Pyramid, could have forced Ninetjer's
architect to adapt themselves to the nature of the rock in executing
the excavations for that substructure: "... when explored,
it was seen that the intended basic regularity of the corridors
and flanking storerooms had not been maintained, probably owing
to the poor quality of the bedrock. Additionally, the area covered
by these passageways and chambers was much broader and larger,
with an additional 5000 square meters covered by this amazing
labyrinth". (A. Dodson loc. cit.)
Our general impression is that a new planning of the tomb A
(and possibly of the Western Massif substructures) as well as
a new and more careful survey are needed to be able to attempt
surer conclusions by their comparative study.
Finally another important aspect, would be to search for an
interpretation of the behaviour of the following rulers in respect
of their predecessors' funerary monuments: not much Unas' complex
and late OK - Saite period private burials, too distant in time
from the tombs in object, but Djoser's treatment and adaptation
to/of them. This latter could have wanted to incorporate his
father 's monument (if West.Mass. Galleries were really an effort
of Khasekhemwy's architects and workmen) into his own funerary
enclosure; also the equal orientation and other matters must
be considered.
Not last, the attempt by Munro's equipe to reconstruct a possible
model of the two Early Second Dynasty tombs in their complex,
including superstructures and surroundings [see Hotepsekhemwy's
and Ninetjer's pages for a description], is another point to
investigate, along with the role of the so called 'dry moat'
trench which runs between Djoser's southern wall and Unas' causeway
(N. Swelim in Baines et al. 'Pyramid studies and other essays'
1988 p. 12-22; A. Tavares' 1993 lecture).
*
This is part of the subject of my Degree Thesis entitled "The
Second Dynasty : Historical and Archaeological Problems"
To see the pages of each Second Dynasty King,
click their names in the table above
|
