Evidence for local roots of the owners of the First Dynasty elite tombs at Abu Rawash

Evidence for local roots of the owners of the First Dynasty elite tombs at Abu Rawash Marinus Ormeling ABSTRACT The status tombs at cemetery M at Abu Rawash share design and layout of the superstructures with elite tombs at other locations, the owners of these tombs are associated with the higher echelons of the state administration in the First Dynasty. The distinct design of their substructures share features with tombs of the middle classes in the cemeteries at the site. Are ‑evaluation of the tomb types shows evidence for three distinct types of substructures of tombs, present in all cemeteries at the site. The distinct differences in design and construction of the substructures are interpreted as belonging to kin groups with each distinct mortuary practices. The mortuary practices were shared by multiple social layers in the local community, including the elite who were buried at cemeteryM. Acareful analysis of the mortuary landscape of the site, suggests the existence of systems of patronage, most likely based on family or kin group lines. It can be argued that patronage may have been akey factor in the social and economic dynamics of the construction of the status tombs at cemetery M. The resulting social interactions provide anew perspective to assess ownership of the tomb as non ‑royal. KEYWORDS Stratified community– shared mortuary practices– kinship groups– systems of patronage– elite tombs– middle class tombs شاور وبأب ىلولأا ةرسلأا نم ةبخنلا رباقم باحصلأ ةيلحملا روذجلا ىلع ةلدأ جنيليمروأ سونيرام صخلملا رصم نم ىرخأ عقاوم نم ةبخنلا رباقم عم ىولعلا اهئانب طيطختو ميمصتلا ىف شاور وبأ ىف M ةنابجلاب رباقملا كرتشت كرتشي امك .ىلولأا ةرسلأا رصع للاخ ةلودلا ةرادلإ ايلعلا تايوتسملا نم صاخشأب رباقملا كلت باحصأ طبتريو ،ةميدقلا تانابجب ىطسولا ةيعامتجلاا ةقبطلل نومتني دارفأ رباقمب ةدوجوم تازيممب مهرباقمب صاخلا ىلفسلا ءانبلل زيمتملا ميمصتلا .عقوملاب ةدوجوم عيمج ىف ةدوجوملا رباقملل ةيلفسلا ةينبلأا نم ةزيمتم زرط ةثلاث ىلع ًلايلد دوجو ىلإ رباقملا كلت زرط مييقت ةداعإ رهظُت تاعومجم ىلإ ىمتنت اهنأ ىلع رباقملا نم ةيلفسلا ءازجلأا ءانبو ميمصت ىف ةزيمملا تافلاتخلاا ريسفت متيو .عقوملاب تانابجلا عمتجملا ىف ةددعتم ةيعامتجا تاقبط لبق نم ةيزئانجلا تاسرامملا مساقت مت ثيح .ةزيمتم ةيزئانج تاسرامم مهنم لكل ،براقلأ ةمظنأ دوجو ىلإ عقوملاب ةيزئانجلا تاسرامملل قيقدلا ليلحتلا ريشي .M ةنابجلا ىف اونفد نيذلا ةبخنلا ةقبط كلذ ىف امب ،ىلحملا ىف اًيسيئر ً لاماع تناك امبر ةياعرلا نأب لوقلا اننكميو .ةبارق تلاص وأ ةرسلأا نم دارفأ ىلع دمتعت حجرلأا ىلع ،ةياعر اًديدج اًروظنم ةجتانلا ةيعامتجلاا تلاعافتلا رفوت .ةنابجلاب ةساردلا كلتب رباقملا دييشتل ةيداصتقلااو ةيعامتجلاا تايكيمانيدلا .ةيكلم ريغ اهنأ ىلع ةربقملا ةيكلم مييقتل ةلادلا تاملكلا ةطسوتملا ةقبطلا رباقم – ةبخنلا رباقم – ةياعرلا ةمظنأ – ةبارقلا تاعومجم – ةكرتشملا ةيزئانجلا تاسرامملا – ىقبطلا عمتجملا PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022, 82–121 83MARINUS ORMELING The large mastaba tomb complexes of the First Dynasty at sites like Tarkhan, Giza, Saqqara North, Abu Ghurab and Abu Rawash are often seen as built by and for the members of the royal court (Emery 1961; Cervello ‑Autuori 2002; Morris 2007a), or even as royal cenotaphs (Emery 1961; Cervello ‑Autuori 2017). Other scholars have argued that the owners of these large mastaba tombs were high officials of the state and members of the royal court. Recently Josep Cervello ‑Autuori (2017) argued extensively in favour of royal ownership of the large tombs at cemetery M at Abu Rawash; the analysis was primarily based on the elite tombs only (see below). Arecent re ‑assessment of the morphology of the tombs of the middle and lower classes in the Lower Cemeteries at Abu Rawash leads to some new and interesting observations. The variety in the design of the substructures of the tombs at this site, visible in both the large status tombs and the smaller tombs, suggest that different mortuary practices occurred side by side. In other words, the funerary records at Abu Rawash attest to multiple distinctive mortuary practices and this suggests that different groups lived side by side in astratified community.1 Based on tomb dimensions and layout, it seems safe to assume that the owners of the tombs in the Lower Cemeteries probably represented the middle and lower social classes of the local community. The large and richly refurbished tombs at cemetery M most likely belonged to the highest social strata of that same community. Social stratification and different mortuary practices in asingle cemetery were common in First Dynasty Egypt, but the precisely dated combination of the two phenomena at Abu Rawash provides asolid base for further research and analysis. The hypothesis addressed in this study will be that all tombs from cemetery M were built by and for the local community. The layout of the cemetery and the clustering of the tombs suggest that the social fabric of the area was an important factor in the choice of the location of the cemetery and the tombs. There is no doubt that the state was involved, the funding of (parts of) the provisions for the tombs derived from state institutions. However, that does not oppose alocal base for the process of decision making and funding or alocal input for expertise, experience and skills of construction activities. In the first sections of this study, the tombs and the cemeteries will be analysed within the context of the Abu Rawash mortuary landscape. It starts with abrief description of the tomb specifics, followed by acomprehensive analysis of the nature of cemetery M; including the social and economic aspects of tomb construction. The resulting information will then be used to propose anew explanation of the development of cemetery M, the ownership of the M ‑tombs and the organisation of tomb construction at the site. 1 The similarities between the elite tombs on hill M and the tombs in cemetery “1957” were recognised by Klasens (1957: 64) from the start. However, he did not explore this issue any further. Klasens started with the name Cemetery “1957” (Klasens 1957), but the idea brought up by Hendrickx (1989 IV: 93) to refer to this with Cemetery 000 makes much more sense and will be followed in this study. 84 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 SETTING THE SCENE: TOMB MORPHOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY AT ABU RAWASH In the late 1950s, Adolf Klasens excavated, on behalf of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities, at Abu Rawash four cemeteries of the middle and lower social classes (cemeteries 000, 300, 400 and 800) and seven tombs at elite2 cemetery M (fig. 1). The results of the three campaigns were published in aseries of preliminary reports (Klasens 1957–1961). An extensive description or acomprehensive study of the results of the excavations were never made. In 1989, Stan Hendrickx re ‑appraised the pottery as reported by Klasens and was able to assign most of the tombs amore precise date (Hendrickx 1989 I: 280–282; Hendrickx 1989 IV: 93–130). Recently, Yann Tristant returned to cemetery M and re ‑excavated all tombs and discovered many new finds and features (Tristant 2008a, 2016 and 2017). As part of abroader re ‑evaluation of the collection of the excavation documents, also known as the Abu Rawash archive,3 currently held by the Leiden Museum of Antiquities, the 2 The term “elite” is loosely used in this study. Tomb dimensions are commonly seen as indicator of social rank and this concept applies to cemetery M and the Lower Cemeteries. Access to cemetery M was apparently restricted; it is therefore assumed that the owners of the M ‑tombs belonged to aprivileged group, most likely the (local) elite. 3 The Abu Rawash archive (in various spellings) consists of the excavation notes made by Klasens and his assistant F. van Veen during the three excavation campaigns in 1957–1959. The notes include sketches, find registrations, excavation photographs, object drawings, draft plans and diaries. These Fig. 1 Abu Rawash site with Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom cemeteries (after Klasens 1961: fig. 13) 85MARINUS ORMELING morphology of the tombs has been re ‑assessed.4 The revised classification encompasses both the smaller burials of the Lower Cemeteries and the status tombs at cemetery M (tab.1). TOMB MORPHOLOGY: AREVISED TYPOLOGY Asimplification of the twelve tomb classes devised by Klasens (1957: 64–67) shows that there were basically three significant variations in the design of tomb substructures at this site. These variations can be recognised in both the M ‑tombs and the middle and lower class tombs (Ormeling 2021: 627; Ormeling, forthcoming). Unfortunately, there were hardly any superstruc‑ tures left at the Lower Cemeteries, this prevents the incorporation of these important features of the tombs of the lower and middle classes in the revised classification. The basic form of the burial chamber was the simple pit grave, without any treatment of the sides of the pit. The body was laid to rest within aburial container that could vary from a(simple) reed mat to a(painted) coffin (Klasens’ classes 1–5 and 8; revised type I ‑A; tab.1). documents have been made available to me for further study and Iwould like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation for this opportunity to the Leiden Museum of Antiquities. 4 An extensive description and analysis of the different types of tombs found at the Lower Cemeter‑ ies will be published in aforthcoming monograph, including construction particulars (Ormeling, forthcoming). Fig. 2 Examples of “lateral niche” burials 893 (left) and 900 (right); undisturbed burial 893 shows the deposition of grave goods, burial 900 had astep (ledge) built with stones, mud and mud bricks after the shaft was dug to the appropriate depth; both burials show the deeper niche (drawing M. Ormeling, based on Klasens’ unpublished Field book 1959 II) 86 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 Asecond type of grave design that occurred frequently was astraight shaft, with aburial niche at one side at the bottom (fig. 2); in many cases the niche was sealed off with awall made of bricks or stones (Klasens’ type 6, “lateral niche” tomb). In the revised classification, the simple form will be type I ‑B, while the more elaborate form, frequent in tombs at hill M, is labelled type III ‑A(tab.1). The distinction lies in the elaborate design and size of the burial niche(s) and the superstructure. At Abu Rawash, burials of this type came in all sorts of sizes and variations at the Lower Cemeteries. These types of burials have been registered at other sites. George Reisner (1936: 52–56) described some of them found at El ‑Amrah, El ‑Ahaiwah and Ballas. They also occur in the wider Memphite area, but apparently not as frequent as at Abu Rawash.5 However, elite burials of this type are (as yet) only/mainly6 encountered at Abu Rawash, with the exception of mastaba S3035 at Saqqara (see below). The “lateral niche” burials (type I ‑B) were definitely not simple or poor, several of these burials were found undisturbed and had large assemblages of grave goods (fig. 2 left; Ormel‑ ing, forthcoming). Athird type consisted of asubstructure with a“constructed burial space” (fig. 3); the construction of the burial chamber and/or subterranean storage rooms was often made of mud bricks, but sometimes stones or mud packings were used (“brick ‑lined” tombs; Klasens’ classes 7 and 9–12). 5 Some examples are (not exhaustive): Abusir burial 12 B (Bonnet 1928: Taf. 2, no 12 B, 6); Turah 9.0.2 (Junker 1912: 24, Taf. XXV); Helwan Op. 4/2 (Köhler 2008b: 119, fig. 7), Op. 4/46 (Köhleretal. 2014), Op. 4/96 (Köhleretal. 2017). Note: the “lateral niche” tombs were not found at Kafr Ghattati (Engles 1990), just afew kilometres south of Abu Rawash. 6 Some tombs at Helwan may be of asimilar design, but the bad state of preservation or the frequent intrusive later burials prevents (as yet) athorough analysis of the superstructures. Revised tomb type Cem. 300 Cem. 400 Cem. M Cem. 000 Cem. 800 totals I‑A Simple pit grave 19 39  44 23 125 28% I‑B Straight shaft with lateral niche(s) 5 29  6 74 114 25% III‑A Shaft with niche(s) and elaborate superstructure   12  1 13 3% II Brick‑lined tomb 36 41 7 19 12 115 26% III‑B Brick‑lined tomb with elaborate superstructure   1   1 0% II‑C Subsidiary burials   66   66 15% –– “other” 3 4 1 4 3 15 3%   63 113 87 73 113 449 Tab.1 Number of tombs per cemetery per revised types 87MARINUS ORMELING The number of storerooms, for Klasens an important criterion, does not affect the underly‑ ing idea of burying the deceased in aconstructed “house for eternity” (“Modellhaus”, Lacher‑ ‑Raschdorff 2014: 210) and is therefore not adecisive factor in the revised classification. Tombs with aconstructed burial space with asimple mastaba superstructure are revised typeII, and type III ‑B for the tombs with more elaborate features at the surface (tab.1). SUBSIDIARY BURIALS AT CEMETERY M The subsidiary burials of the elite tomb complexes can be seen as asub type of the brick ‑lined tombs. Most of these tombs consist of brick ‑lined rectangular tombs in arow that were made in atrench ‑like pit (Montet 1938: pls. II, V; Tristant 2008b: 332–333). They are asignificant part of the Early Dynastic burials at Abu Rawash, some 66 subsidiary tombs have been excavated (tab.1). They are treated as adistinct sub ‑class due to their role in the funerary complex of the owner of the main tomb. These tombs are found in groups, their design is part of the layout of the tomb of another individual and the people buried in the subsidiary tombs were, most likely, not involved in the process of decision making about design and location (Janulikova 2017: 39, “…elite construct…”). Therefore, the subsidiary tombs cannot be compared directly to “individual” tombs in general cemeteries. In the revised classification they are labelled type II ‑C (Ormeling, forthcoming). The results of the revised classification of the tombs are presented in tab.1. 7 The number of subsidiary burials is probably not representative.8 The three main types of tombs– types I ‑A, I ‑B and II (without II ‑C)– represent each about athird of the middle and lower class burials. 7 Each of the Lower Cemeteries had afew tombs that would fall in type “other” (tab.1); they are not relevant for this study. For example, two tombs with stairways leading into substructure (burials 836, 846, Klasens 1960: fig. 14), the only two stairway tombs in all cemeteries of Abu Rawash (Or‑ meling, forthcoming). 8 It is highly likely that in antiquity the Early Dynastic middle class cemeteries extended beneath the Muslim cemetery, the cultivated fields and– probably– beneath the Late Period burials (Klasens 1958b: 32–33; Baudetal. 2003: 21–22; see fig. 1 here). Fig. 3 Tombs M22 (left) and M23 (right) in a3D perspective; both tombs show the practical construc‑ tion method, with some rooms lined with brick walls and other not lined (drawing M. Ormeling, based on Klasens’ unpublished Field book 1959 II) Mud bricks on ledge, possible remains of roof over burial chamber Surface of excavation (possibly also close to surface of construction) . Magazine, brick-lined Burial chamber Ledge 3.03 m 53 cm 49 cm 2.02 m Low brick wall between magazines Magazines (not symmetrical) Brick-lined A-part substructure Brick remnants of cover of burial chamber Burial chamber 2.46 m 88 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 CHRONOLOGY OF CEMETERIES AND TOMBS The dates of the tombs at cemetery M are securely established (tab.2). Several of the tombs contained inscriptions with the name of king Den, most of the others are dated to the Naqada IIIC2 period; only afew cannot be dated by lack of datable objects or re ‑use in antiquity (Tristan 2017: 489, footnote 14). This leads to the conclusion that these 20–21 tombs were constructed during alimited span of time of 80–100 years (Hendrickx 2006: 92, tab.II 1.7). The tombs in the four Lower Cemeteries (fig. 1) were dated to Zero to Second Dynasties by the excavator, with atemporal shift from north to south (Klasens 1960: 70). In 1989, Hendrickx re ‑assessed the dates of the individual tombs, based on the pottery registered. The cemeteries 300 and 400 show differentiation (Hendrickx 1989 I: 281) and are dated Naqada IIIB–IIIC1 and Naqada IIIB–IIID respectively (Hendrickx 1989 IV: 99–116; Hendrickx– van den Brink 2002: 349). Cemeteries 000 and 800 are both dated Naqada IIID (Hendrickx 1989 IV: 93–99, 116–126; Hendrickx– van den Brink 2002: 349). Using the information from the field notes (Klasens Field books 1958 I–II, 1959 I) it is possible to assign adate to most (95%) of the undated burials in cemeteries 300 and 400. The outcome is presented in tab.2 and chart 1. period Lower Cemeteries Cem M I‑A I‑B II II III‑A III‑B II‑C Naq IIIB 9 1 21     Naq IIIC1 32 16 45     Naq IIIC2 12 8 3 7 12 1 66 Naq IIID 70 83 32     unknown date 7 5 8  1   tomb dates adjusted  332 91%  86 98%  tombs other  14 4%  1 1%  tombs undated  20 5%  1 1%    366   88   Tab.2 Chronological developments in tomb types, combined in all cemeteries 89MARINUS ORMELING There is apparently no chronological development in tomb type; the archaeological records of the Lower Cemeteries show the presence of the different tomb types from the start to the end of the sequence of these burial grounds. At afirst glance, it seems that the “lateral niche” burials (type I ‑B) first appear during the Naqada IIIC1 period (tab.2, chart 1). This makes it tempting to see them as aprelude to the large elite tombs at cemetery M and the successive growth of that type of burials in NaqadaIIID. Some caution is needed; it cannot be excluded that cemetery M “attracted” people with an affinity for “lateral niche” burials and provoked abias to this type in the nearby Lower Ceme‑ teries. The slump in the number of burials during Naqada IIIC2 catches the eye, but is more difficult to explain. It cannot be excluded that the people belonging to the group with the “lateral niche” affinity were eligible to aburial in the subsidiary graves at the higher status cemetery M (see below). Another consideration is the difference in duration of the periods on the horizontal axis. The duration of Naqada IIID is yet uncertain and even the time spans of Naqada IIIC1 and IIIC2 are different in the number of years (Hendrickx 2006: 92, tab.II 1.7). Chart 1 Agraphic presentation of the chronological developments in tomb types in the Lower Cemete‑ ries, combined with the elite tombs at Cemetery M 90 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 CEMETERY M IN CONTEXT Cemetery M contains avariety of tombs (fig. 4), mostly large “typical” First Dynasty elite funerary complexes (see below), but one third of the burials consist of smaller tombs. The main characteristics of the First Dynasty M ‑tombs are presented in tab.3.9, 10 9 Acomplete description of the First Dynasty tombs is presented in the excavation reports of the original excavators (Montet 1938 and 1946; Klasens 1961; Tristant 2008a, 2008b, 2016 and 2017). 10 Several tombs are not included in the analyses in this study. Tombs M09, M14, M15, M18 and B1–B3 (excavated by Fernand Bisson de la Roque in 1923, and renamed; cf. Bisson de la Roque 1924) are dated to the Fourth Dynasty, although M14 and M15 may have had an earlier origin and may have been re ‑used First Dynasty tombs (Tristant 2017: 489, footnote 14). The four pits A–D, near tombs M09 and M13, remain enigmatic (Montet 1938: 49–50, 59–60). Fig. 4 Plan of cemetery M (after Baud 2005: fig. 3): First Dynasty tombs excavated by Pierre Montet (1913–1914: M01–M18) and Adolf Klasens (1959: M19–m25); F‑ and B ‑tombs date to the Fourth Dynasty 97MARINUS ORMELING and its institutions would have been dependent (Dickinson 2014: 77). The tombs at cemeteryM stand out by their extensive subterranean spaces, cut out from the bedrock; these activities would have created awork force with the skills, experience and tools to work stone besides construction with mud bricks.16 MODELLING THE LABOUR ORGANISATION DURING THE NAQADA IIIC2 PERIOD AT ABU RAWASH In recent years, several scholars have addressed the issue of labour of construction (Dickinson 2014: 222–271; La Loggia 2015; Engel 2017: 83–84; Lacher ‑Raschdorff 2014: 103–136; Ormeling 2016 and 2017). It has become clear that these studies provide reliable data about the likely work flow, expenditure and duration of activities. The outcome should be treated with caution. After all, they remain amodern reconstruction of past behaviour of which no contemporary sources are available. The first step below is to quantify the efforts of construction of the M ‑tombs, based on representative examples. The actual numbers of required labourers and labour days allow for areconstruction of the organisation of construction labour (tab.4). The next step is to assess the local situation of the construction site. 16 It is tempting to speculate about the possible role the Abu Rawash craftsmen could have had in the construction of mastaba S3035 at Saqqara North. Cemetery M Example tomb Estimated expenditure RemarksDuration (nett days) Workforce Pre ‑burial Post ‑burial Skilled Unskilled Tier A M07, M12 M07 165 10–20 (?) 10–15 130–150 max; 30–40 Post ‑burial activities largely dependend on how the store rooms inside the mastaba were used and/ or covered; estimated height 4.5 meter. M01, M02 M01 160 unknown 10–20 130–150 max; 30–40 Estimated height of the mastaba of 4 meter and enclosure wall of 1.5 meter; note that M01 is more compact constructed than M07. Tier B M03, M04; M06, M10; M11, M13, M19; M25 M19 45–50 10 3–5 20–35 Based on aheight of the mastaba of 3.50 meter and of the enclosure wall of 1.00 meter. M25 80–90 10 (?) 3–5 50 max; 15–20 Dimension of superstructure re‑ ‑interpreted. Post ‑burial activities largely dependend on how the store rooms inside the mastaba were used and/or covered. Tier C M05; M20–24 M21 15 10 –– 4–8 Based on the assumption that the superstructure is built after the burial; height mastaba 1.60–1.80 meter. Tab.4 Expenditure of example elite tombs of cemetery M 98 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 The estimates of the expenditure of mud brick structures are based on areconstruction of the work processes and production rates in antiquity. An example of the methodology is given in the appendix for tomb M25 (below), based on a“best effort” assessment. The reconstruction of M25 is chosen for its distinctive design of the substructure. MODELLING THE EXPENDITURE In the case of the status tombs at Abu Rawash, arepresentative sample of tombs is used to assess the expenditure of the construction (tab.4). The sample tombs provide areliable over‑ view for the labour required for all tombs and assess the overall expenditure.17 The two largest tombs are represented by sample M07 (tier A, tab.4). However, tombs M01 and M02, although smaller in footprint, appear to have acomparable expenditure and are therefore also assigned to tier A(see below). The majority of the large tombs (tier B) are represented by M19 and M25. Tomb M21 stands for the small brick ‑lined tombs (tier C). The results are primarily meant to show the order of magnitude of the workforce, separated in skilled and non ‑skilled labourers, and the approximate duration of the work. As the data in tab.4 shows, the largest tombs at cemetery M could have been erected in atime span of alittle over half ayear (including days off), by aworkforce of ca. 150 men at its peak (making and transporting bricks) and 30–40 workmen under supervision or guidance of 10–20 skilled constructors.18 Interesting is also the outcome for the smaller tombs (tier C), they could be constructed by arelatively small workgroup in amatter of 3–4 weeks. The level of required skills to build these smaller tombs would have been quite low, basically the experience one gained as an unskilled worker during work on alarger tomb. Remarkable is the similarity in expenditure for tombs that appear to be very distinctive in size. The compact and massive construction of tomb M01– footprint only 170 m² (tab.3)– leads to aconstruction effort that was equal to that for the much larger but “airier” M07 (338 m²); awarning that the factor size (footprint) should be treated with some caution to determinate status, importance or costs (expenditure). MODELLING THE ORGANISATION OF LABOUR Alabour crew to build amud‑brick tomb consisted of anumber of professionals– skilled artisans like architects, masons, carpenters and constructors– complemented with larger numbers of non‑ or low skilled workers who would be employed in the manual tasks. The works would (probably) have been directed by asmall number of overseers (managers), people with experience in managing resources (men and materials). Based on the similarities in design and layout, the skilled professionals belonged most likely to the same group of artisans that 17 Information about dimensions is taken from Tristant (2017: fig. 2, 478–480 for M01 and 468–470 for M07) and Klasens (1961: fig. 1, 110–111 for M25); note that figures from La Loggia (2012: 203–205) are, at some points, slightly different for M01 and M07. 18 To show the effect of asmaller crew (ca. 20 men), two schedules are made for the construction of M25. With asmaller labour force the construction would obviously have taken more time, but the tomb could still be finished within ayear. 99MARINUS ORMELING were involved with building the royal tombs at Abydos and elite tombs at other sites. These professionals were most likely employed by the state (Engel 2013: 21). The length of the construction activities is apractical argument to support the notion that construction was initiated by the owner during life; to have his/her tomb ready before death.19 This question applies even to the construction of the smallest tombs at hill M (tier C) and, mutatis mutandis, also for asignificant number of tombs in the Lower Cemeteries. In Early Dynastic Egypt, the mummification practices were not yet developed and abody would have been buried within amatter of days (2–3 days), before natural decomposition would have set in (Powers 2005: 6; Goff 2009: 23).20 However, besides being aplace to dwell in the afterlife, atomb was also seen as an instru‑ ment to project power, prestige and status during life. When an individual oversees the design and the construction of his/her tomb, it is also possible to manipulate the prestige and status that the tomb expresses after death (Parker Pearson 1999: 84–86). This is apotent argument for persons who belonged to the higher levels of society, people who had the means to act when opportunities presented themselves.21 It is generally accepted amongst scholars that the non ‑skilled labourers were corvée or conscript workers (Helck 1975; Eyre 1987: 18, 24–27; Roth 1991: 208; Cooney 2007: 167), who conducted labour for limited periods of time for the state as aform of taxation in kind. The circumstances of recruitment of the labourers who worked at Abu Rawash remains unknown. However, about the origin of the work crews, Ann Macy Roth made an interesting remark about the possible “local” origin of the pyramid workers in the Fourth Dynasty. Based on the find locations of the names of the work crews (phyles), she considered the option that the construction crews for the pyramids could have originated from state institutions in the wider Memphite area (Roth 1991: 210) and were– on arotational basis– deployed in the construction of the tomb of the king. The location of origin of the conscript labourers may have arelation with the size of the levied group. Small numbers of workers can be raised with more ease and flexibility from the direct surroundings of the construction site, to avoid travel time and travel efforts. From apractical and economic viewpoint, the required dynamics of construction of the M ‑tombs (tab.4) would have been suited best by alocal flexible workforce. 19 During the Old Kingdom, sources suggest that it was customary that sons (heirs) built the tombs for their fathers (Eyre 1987: 24). The question remains whether this was the actual situation or aperceived process of familial courtesy from ason to afather. Obviously, this issue would have been important during the entire history of Ancient Egypt. One of the relevant questions is whether the son built his father’stomb after his death or before, as token of honouring his family? 20 The natural decomposition of the human body follows amore or less predictable pattern. Before “rigor mortis” sets in (after 2–6 hours), the body should have been wrapped in the characteristic contracted posture of the Early Dynastic Period. When no extra mummification measures were applied, it can be assumed that the body was buried within the time ‑frame of two to three days (Powers 2005; Goff 2009); apractice still in use nowadays in the Middle East. 21 Deborah Vischak (2006: 257)made an interesting observation with regards to Old Kingdom tombs: “Although groups of artisans executed the work in Old Kingdom elite tombs, the form of the tomb and its program related specifically significant ritual and expressive functions to fulfil, and the tomb owner, as aknowledgeable, informed, and thinking agent, responded to awide range of influences, including religious ideas, cultural traditions and elite mores, among others, in the creation of his tomb program.” (emphasis added) 100 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 The elite buried at cemetery M were– most likely– officials of high status in the admin‑ istration. They were probably in charge of state institutions in the area and, in that capac‑ ity, employed larger numbers of people. Arguable, they had control over the resources and were able to deploy people to different tasks or other jobs (Eyre 1987: 25: “…some degree of independent enterprise”). In other words, they probably had the opportunity, authority and means to deploy workforces at tasks they would seem fit.22 It is, therefore, possible to argue that at Abu Rawash apart of the construction forces were indeed levied locally. As argued above, the repeated construction may have led to alocal skilled workforce. It seems unlikely that the smaller tier C tombs (tab.4) were constructed by the central state organisation. They could be built in matter of days/weeks by asmall crew with limited skills. If this premise is accepted, it is also possible to propose that the medium tombs– like tombs M10, M11, M13 or M19 (tab.4, tier B)– could have been built without in‑ volvement of central state. The construction of the larger tomb complexes would have required the skills and expertise of the central state organisation. These tombs could have been built in aform of (in modern terms) a“joint venture” project. The state would provide the expertise to build the “template”, the local elite, in their role as local administrators, would have brought in funding, aworkforce and the required materials.23 Given the social fabric of possible kin groups, the principles of patronage or patrimonial‑ ism could be explored in this context (Campagno 2016). It is beyond the scope of this study, but it could be possible that apatron ‑client relation was instrument in tomb construction practices. Construction of the large tombs of kings, members of the royal family and high officials of the state would probably fall in the category of the “logic of patronage” (Campagno 2016: 9). The owners of the large M ‑tombs would simultaneously have participated in multiple spheres of patronage. As “clients” to the king and, at the same time, as patrons to lower officials and/or the local community in terms of “logic of kinship” (Campagno 2016: 10–11 and 15–17). As argued by Campagno (2016: 10), the social organisation of early Egypt would have been much more complicated than ageneral concept of dominancy of the king, the “logic of the state”. OBSERVATIONS The aforementioned information can be summarised in five observations. These observations are then used in the next section to explore an alternative explanation for the development of the status cemetery M at Abu Rawash, and, by extension, to situations in comparable cemeteries. 22 Contemporary sources are obviously not available, but also evidence from the Old Kingdom era does not clarify this issue. Christopher Eyre (1987: 22–24) argues for asubstantial role for royal involvement, expressing the value of the formula Htp dj nsw (“aboon which the king gives”) espe‑ cially during the earlier Old Kingdom. Violaine Chauvet (2007: 314, 321) argues against this idea based on an elaborate study of amore substantial part of the available textual evidence from the later Old Kingdom. Although from avery different time in the history of ancient Egypt, this debate shows that the actual royal involvement was different and probably less decisive than decorum, as presented in Old Kingdom biographies, prescribed. 23 Compare Vischak (2006: 257): “…the tomb owners would have been in contact with the workshop creating theirs and other programs”. Again, this situation regards the Old Kingdom, but could mutatis mutandis apply to the situation in the First Dynasty. 101MARINUS ORMELING 1: Multiple mortuary practices that occurred side by side over alonger period of time. There are basically three types of substructures present at Abu Rawash, which suggests that three variations (traditions) of mortuary practices existed in the community. Each tradition can be associated with adifferent view on the requirements for existence in the afterlife. The background of these variations, or their actual meaning, remains unknown. There is insufficient information to elaborate, but it can be speculated that the differences in design traditions could relate to different origins of the adherents of these traditions, i.e. family, kin groups or descend groups (Savage 1997: 228). However, the evidence from Abu Rawash does not support the notion of competition, nor does it supports or negates the idea about migration. The precise dates of the tombs at cemetery M show that people of status, with abackground of two different mortuary practices, were buried at the same time, as evidenced by the five tombs with inscriptions of King Den (tab.3). Acomparable co ‑existence can be found in the four cemeteries in the lower desert (tab.2); the three distinct variations in design occurred over along(er) period, from Naqada IIIB till Naqada IIID, but showed no significant develop‑ ment during this period. 2: The mortuary practices were shared between several social levels. The three types of mortuary practices were found in tombs in all cemeteries. The tombs in cemetery M are larger and more lavishly furbished than the tombs in the Lower Cemeteries, but important construction features were shared; like the closure of the burial niche, the deep straight shaft without further treatment of the walls, the extra space for the storage of grave goods, and– in some cases– the ledge in the shaft. The use of natural stones is also shared, but in the larger status tombs the stones were dressed and made to fit while in the smaller tombs the stones were hardly cut to size or shape. This evidence suggests that multiple strata in the local community shared identical mortuary practices. The inscribed grave goods found in several tombs at cemetery M show that groups involved with the two distinct mortuary practices had direct relations with the royal court and the highest levels of the state’sbureaucracy. Although not attested by direct evidence, the same is probably true for the other larger tombs at hill M, as they shared the same specific archi‑ tecture of sub‑ and superstructures. There is no markedly difference in the material culture (grave goods) in the tombs with the different designs of their substructure. It seems that the groups with different mortuary practices shared the same material culture. The “lateral niche” tombs are not unique for Abu Rawash, but the distinctive design of the large “lateral niche” substructure in elite tombs is only evidenced at Abu Rawash and in mastaba S3035 at Saqqara North (Emery 1938: esp. pls. 1 and 2). The resemblance of the design of the substructure suggests asocial relation between the owner of S3035 and owners of the large tombs of the “lateral niche” type III ‑Aat hill M. 3: The social fabric of status cemetery M shows agrouped constellation of tombs, with an internal stratified social order. The tombs at cemetery M are grouped in distinctive clusters. The clusters west and south each consist of tombs with one type of substructure; the core cluster shows amix of types. Each cluster contains tombs of varying dimensions, attesting to astratified elite society. The smaller 102 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 tombs at hill M are larger than the big tombs in the Lower Cemeteries. Access to the status cemetery M was apparently restricted, but the social background of the different mortuary practices was evidently not acriterion. Cemetery M can be described as acommunal cemetery, like the cemeteries at Naqada, Tarkhan, Giza and Abu Ghurab. Abu Rawash stands out by the sheer number of status tombs and the recognisable clustering of the tombs along lines of burial practices. That pattern of social relations is missing at Saqqara North. The main social relation at that cemetery during the First Dynasty is the one between the owner of the main tomb and its subsidiary burials. 4: The duration of construction suggests that tombs were built in advance, prior to the death of the owners. The expenditure estimates present areliable quantification of the efforts and time it would have cost to build the tomb complexes. The modelling of the variations in the workforce shows that even with asizable number of labourers construction would have taken more than half ayear. Even the smaller tombs, like M05, M08 or M20–M24, required weeks to build (tab.4). As mummification practices were not yet available, this leads to the important observation that construction was– in all probability– started in advance and– most likely– by or on behalf of the future owner of the tomb. The over ‑dimension of the number of subsidiary in tomb M12 also attests to alonger period between design and actual use. This premise means that the owner himself made decisions about the design and layout of the tomb, about his abode for his/her eternal life after his/her death. This may explain the individuality of the tombs and the variety in design. The tombs at cemetery M show as much variety and individuality– even within the constraints of apparent templates for design of substructure and superstructure– as the elite tombs at Saqqara North and Giza. Construction in advance can have consequences for the funeral practices. In asituation of multiple burials in atomb complex, there can be asubstantial delay between the burials (Miniaci 2018: 291–292). Aclear case for the idea of temporality of multiple burials may be the subsidiary tombs. It cannot be excluded that the people buried in the subsidiary tombs died before the death of the owner of the main tomb. 5: The estimates of the expenditure of construction allows for are -evaluation of the organisation of labour. The required skill set for the construction of the larger tombs at Abu Rawash was probably not much different than at other sites. In addition to basic brick construction, additional skills like digging large volumes in rock and hard gravel and handling and dressing large natural rocks (for the portcullis stones) were also needed. The skilled constructors of the large and complex tombs were most probably employed by the central state; manual tasks were performed by unskilled conscript labourers. With the local social interaction between elite and the general population at Abu Rawash in mind, are ‑evaluation of the labour organisation seems appropriate. Patron ‑client relationships could have occurred simultaneously at multiple levels within the community that lived in the vicinity of the cemetery fields now known as Abu Rawash. This idea allows the premise that the unskilled labourers were likely recruited locally and– probably– from the social or 103MARINUS ORMELING kin group. Training of skills and transfer of knowledge would probably have been one of the consequences of the systems of patronage. The skill set to build the smaller tombs at hill M and the medium sized tombs in the Lower Cemeteries was quite basic. Arguable, these skills could be gained while working at the larger tombs at the cemetery. Such considerations could be interesting in the discussion about the organisation of construction of the status tombs, and, subsequently, for the tombs in the Lower Cemeteries.24 DISCUSSION Recently Josep Cervello ‑Autuori (2017) argued for a“royal program” to explain the construction of the elite tombs during the First Dynasty. In his study of multiple elite tombs at Saqqara North, Giza, Tarkhan, Abu Rawash and Abu Ghurab (Cervello ‑Autuori 2017: tab.1, 220), he explains the character of these tombs as “ritual artefacts” (Cervello ‑Autuori 2017: 213) and as “royal”. He focuses on the royal motifs that can be recognised in the structures, like the niched palace façade, the subsidiary burials, the bull horns found at some of the structures (S3504, S3505, and S3507), the cult statues (S3505), the chapel (S3505) or the stepped structure inside S3038. He argues that the large mastabas at Saqqara North can be seen as cenotaphs for the kings (Cervello ‑Autuori 2017: 224) and that the other large tombs are part of an archi‑ tectural program, undertaken by Kings Djet and Den, to establish anet of “royal marks” in the Memphite landscape to affirm royal presence and power (Cervello ‑Autuori 2017: 225). The dislocated tombs, as “replicas”, would have belonged to members of the “royal clan” rather than to officials (Cervello ‑Autuori 2017: 225, citing Stadelmann 1985: 370). The similarity in appearance (especially the niched façade) is mentioned as argument for an organised program; the duration of the program (reigns of Djet and Den) attest the purpose of making amark (Cervello ‑Autuori 2017: 227). The study appears to focus on aselection of tombs, mainly from Saqqara North and Abu Rawash, and aselection of characteristics of the tomb superstructure that are assigned an exclusive royal prerogative. By assigning all characteristic elements of the architecture of the First Dynasty elite tombs aroyal prerogative, possible alternative concepts are excluded by default (Hendrickx 2008: 66–68). All aspects of the tombs and of the cemeteries are made subordinate to the ideology of kingship, as the (apparent singular) driving force of the new state. The variations in design of the tombs are not explained other than “royal”; the distinctive characters of the cemeteries are hardly addressed. In the proposed “state program”, it is only “the king” who had the initiative and secured “his” program. Ithink this premise can be questioned on several grounds.25 The first issue is that it was in the reign of King Den that variation, innovation, creativity and change, espe‑ cially in the design of the tombs, came about in Saqqara and Abu Rawash (Lacher ‑Raschdorff 2014: 213; Ormeling 2021: 626). It is this archaeological evidence that suggests that more than one singular “driving force” was active. Asingular “state program” does not explain the many 24 The organisation of labour in the construction of tombs in all social strata of Early Dynastic Egypt is the subject of the author’sPh.D. research. 25 See also Lesley Warden (2015: 470): “…traditional bias towards ‘big man’ history…”. 104 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 variations and it subordinates all accomplishments of the wider society, including those of the officials of the administration of the state, to the one king. That variability should not be treated as “noise”, but should “…be approached as the situated construction of difference” (Hodder 2000: 26). Secondly, the purpose of the tombs and the remarkable variety in design of the substruc‑ tures are not taken into account. Besides being a“ritual artefact”, the function of each tomb was that of adwelling to cater for the eternal afterlife of the deceased. As outlined above, it is the design of the substructure that expresses the ideas and beliefs of the owner about his/her continued existence in the afterlife. Tombs were designed based on aconscious choice of the owner, it can be postulated that each design expresses the personal and communal identity of the owner (see footnote 21). The archaeological records at Abu Rawash show at least two different communal identities that occurred side by side in place and time and over multiple social levels of the community. The records of the tombs at Saqqara North, especially those from the reign of Den onwards, attest to avariety in design and they also indicate arange of underlying preferences and different choices. Thirdly, the arguments to see aniched palace façade and the subsidiary tombs as exclusive “royal clan” features are not convincing; besides, what constituted the “royal clan” in Early Dynastic Egypt? The concept of establishing a“royal mark” at Abu Rawash is not supported by the actual evidence. Why would the king build so many tombs, in multiple clusters, to make his mark at this location? It is, therefore, difficult to reconcile each tomb with the king. In an earlier study, Ellen Morris (2007a) made astrong case that the officials whose names were found in the elite tombs at Saqqara North were most likely the persons responsible for equipping the tombs and not the owners (Morris 2007a: 187; Kahl 2001: 184). She further ar‑ gued that some tombs may have belonged to queens and that the others may have been built for male relatives of the kings. These latter tombs remained name ‑less to underscore the power and glory of the king, they were not intended to function as tributes to their individual owners (Morris 2007a: 188). The argument that aname of an official and/or an institution primarily marks the loca‑ tion of production or packing of the associated (mobile) goods is strong and valid. It explains why some names were found in multiple tombs and why in other tombs more than one name was found (Morris 2007a: 179–184). The tags with names of officials cannot longer be used as evidence to assign aspecific tomb “one on one” to an official. That does not mean that these officials could not have been the owner of one of these tombs. With their names directly next to the name of the king on labels or sealings, it is clear that they belonged to the highest levels of the administration. With that status and in that capacity, they were most likely eligible to certain preferences, like building alarge tomb that was provisioned, by royal command, by institutions that were overseen by themselves and others. To connect atomb with one person, additional evidence and more personal attestations are necessary.26 26 Like the wand found in the burial chamber of S3504, with the name of King Djet and official Sekhem‑ ka inscribed (Emery 1954: 104). Morris (2007a: 178) compares this artefact with the tags and labels, she sees them (all) as “…one typical genre…”. In my opinion, artefacts of this kind can be used to debate ownership of tombs. The wand, probably agift from the king to anamed official (Sekhemka), would be an item of status that someone would want to take in his grave. Could it be reasonable to argue that someone else would have that object in his or her tomb? 105MARINUS ORMELING The assumption that most of the other tombs belonged to members of the royal clan is, according to Morris (2007a: 175), based on the idea that the wealth of these well ‑equipped tombs could only be royal and would therefore have belonged to family members of the king. The evidence to support this assumption remains unclear. Morris (2007a: 187) rejects the idea that the Saqqara tombs could have been northern cenotaphs of the kings, mainly because of the reported human remains found in the tombs.27 Although she attested the primary purpose of the structures, tombs for deceased members of the royal family, Morris fails to address the differences in design of the tombs at Saqqara and other elite cemeteries. Her approach and explanation are also “top down”; again all ini‑ tiatives are reserved for the king. In recent years, avariety of aspects of the Early Dynastic society has been studied. The re‑ search shows an already vibrant and dynamic society within afunctioning state that consisted of multiple social layers in relation with each other and with the state itself. In combination, these studies provide awider base to explore the First Dynasty elite tombs than just aroyal connotation. With the results of these studies in mind, Iwould like to propose an alternative hypothesis for the development of cemetery M. Ahypothesis, based on social and economic developments during the First Dynasty, that, in my opinion, fits more comfortable with the available archaeological records of astratified community that shared more than one social identity at multiple levels. Developments are in most situations driven by people, who act as agents and initiate, stimulate and steer changes in the existing social structures. Research at Tell el ‑Farkha (e.g. Cialowicz 2008; Debowska ‑Ludwin 2008; Jucha 2016) shows comparable social interrelations, while the large Early Dynastic cemeteries found at other locations– e.g. Helwan (Köhler 2004, 2008a and 2017 [on society]; Köhleretal. 2014 and 2017 [on cemetery records]), Abu Ghurab (Bonnet 1928; Radwan 2000) and Naga ed ‑Der (Reisner 1908; Mace 1909)– show the extend of the population in that era in other parts of the country. Tantalizing are studies about the role and position of– for instance– women in Early Dynastic Egypt. As Susan Kelly (2019) shows, there was more than meets the eye (also Savage 1999). Also interesting are studies of the social organisation of early Egypt (Campagno 2016). Early Dynastic Egyptian society was complex and much more than the king and his inner circle. The proposed explanation rests on the assumption 28 that the economy was one of the primary concerns of the new state: “…for without adequate command of Egypt’seconomic resources, the state simply could not function” (Wilkinson 1999: 113). In response, new landholdings (estates and domains, Wilkinson 1999: 123) were established by the state, to provide sufficient surplus to sustain the state and its growing institutions (Wilkinson 1999: 117). These new landholdings have been attested as early as the reign of Djer (Engel 2013: 37) but surely during the reign of Den (Wilkinson 1999: 123). To control the 27 To whom belonged those human bones? At the time of excavations, the surface of the large mas‑ tabas at Saqqara North was riddled with intrusive burials dating to almost every later period. It is my opinion that, given the methodology of excavation and reporting, especially with regard to the effects of multiple later disturbances and/or post ‑depositional processes, such evidence should be used with utmost caution (Ormeling 2017: 12; Ormeling 2021: 623–624, fig. 6). 28 Caution is required; the available sources– tags and labels associated with grave goods– show astrong bias to aspects of the economy as they left the most traces (Engel 2013: 19, 36). 106 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 resources from these estates and domains, either for food production or of amore industrial nature, administrators were appointed. These administrators were chosen from the ranks of the elite of the state. The primary aim of these landholdings was to provide for the king and his court during life, but also to construct and maintain the mortuary installations for the king and his inner circle (Wilkinson 1999: 110; Müller 2012: 29). The creation of these domains and estates is confirmed by tags, labels and seal impressions that included the names of the kings. The appointment of the managers/controllers led to an increase of the ranks of the state’sadministration, adevelopment that is attested by the increase of the numbers of dif‑ ferent kind of seals during the reigns of Djer, Djet and Den (Müller 2012: 19). The expansion of the numbers of influential officials, prone to make their mark, was most likely an important factor in the drive for change and innovations. It is this expansion of the bureaucracy that can, in my opinion, be correlated with the erection of the elite cemetery at Abu Rawash (and sites like Tarkhan,29 Giza and Abu Ghurab). The expanding administration would be centred in or around the capital Memphis and would probably also have led to agrowth of the general population in that area.30 The area around Abu Rawash31 would have been asuitable choice to expand food producing landholdings to feed the capital. Direct and indisputable evidence for this premise is not available, but agri‑ cultural produce was the basic economic foundation in early Egypt (see below on granaries). The extraordinary number of tombs, constructed in aclear pattern, shows that astrict and exclusive royal initiative was unlikely at Abu Rawash and that more than one social group took part in the social activity in that area; in life and in death by building their tombs. The number of tombs with the distinct design of the “lateral niche” substructure side by side with amore traditional brick ‑lined design, built in succession as the layout of the cemetery attest, belonged to two or three different kin groups that made their mark on the landscape. The “template” for the design of the visible superstructure and the ramifications of the elite tombs showed that they represented (the central role of) the state. Besides the differences in dimensions, the elite tombs at Abu Rawash looked very similar to those at Saqqara North and other elite cemeteries. For the local community the cemetery would probably have presented in the first place the eternal resting place of their ancestors, asacred landscape for people of status of their kin. The relation with the new state would probably have come in the second place, and would have confirmed the status of the local group. Cervello ‑Autuori (2017: 213–214) argues for the “mythical and ritual” aspects of funerary monuments, but it remains unclear why this can only be seen as exclusively royal? 29 Wolfram Grajetzki (2008: 111) assigned the larger palace façade tombs to the local governors of the area. 30 Maybe also in other parts of the country with similar consequences, but these developments are beyond the scope of this study. 31 At Kafr Ghattati, ca. 6 km south of Abu Rawash, asmall cemetery developed during the first part of the First Dynasty (Engles 1990); based on the dimensions of the substructures– no remains of superstructures were found– the tombs probably belonged to the middle classes. The layout of the tombs suggests asmall cemetery of associated burials (Engles 1990: fig. 28). The development of this cemetery could also be explained with the proposed concept of growth and decline of the (middle) elite during the middle of the First Dynasty. 113MARINUS ORMELING Chart 2 Construction schedule of tomb M25. Upper part represents areconstruction with awork crew of an average size; the lower part shows the schedule for aconstruction with asmall crew of max. 20–25 labourers 114 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 dimensions and available workforce would have mattered, but would probably not have been decisive factors. The observation at the end of the exercise is that tomb M25 could have been built by aworkforce of ca. 50 labourers under supervision of 5 skilled artisans in aperiod of 4–6 month, or in ayear with alower number of workmen. The schedule presents the activities in aconstant flow of work, in antiquity that may have been very different. Labour intensive activities as collecting or transporting raw materials or bricks could have been scheduled for specific periods in the year, when labour requirements elsewhere were low; the drying time of bricks may have been of influence of the work flow (Ormeling 2017: 425–426). The boat grave was probably finished after the burial; the boat would have played an important role in the funerary procession. The construction of the subsidiary tombs would have been part of the original design of the tomb complex and would have been finished in line with the other parts of the complex. It remains aquestion at what time the owners of the subsidiary tombs were actually buried. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Iam very grateful for the opportunity that has been offered to me by the Museum of Antiq‑ uities at Leiden; to study the archived documents regarding the excavation at Abu Rawash by Adolf Klasens in the late 1950s. Iwould like to express my gratitude to Dr.Lara Weiss, curator Egyptian Collections, and Mariëlle Bulsink, archivist/librarian. Furthermore, Iwould like to express my appreciation to Andie Byrnes, who reacted on an earlier version of this study and helped me to improve my English. Many thanks are due to Stan Hendrickx, who responded to questions Ihad about his early work on Abu Rawash, and Yann Tristant, who provided some additional information about his recent work on hillM at Abu Rawash. Last but not least Iwould like to express asincere appreciation to the two anonymous re‑ viewers. Their critical questions and comments have helped to improve this article. All errors, omissions or inconsistences remain my responsibility. ARCHIVAL SOURCES Museum of Antiquities, Leiden 1957–1959 Adolf Klasens’ unpublished field notes (Field books 1957, 1958 I–II and 1959 I–III; Tomb catalogues 1957, 1958 and 1959; Field diaries 1957 and 1958; photographs from seasons 1957, 1958 and 1959; Album of Antiquities 1957–1959). 1957–1959 Frits van Veen’sunpublished diaries. 115MARINUS ORMELING BIBLIOGRAPHY Baud, Michel 2002 Djéser et la IIIe dynastie, Paris: Pygmalion. 2005 “La nécropole d’élite de la 1re dynastie à Abou Rawach: essai cartographique”, Archeo ‑Nil 15, pp. 10–16. Baud, Michel– Farout, Dominique– Gourdon, Yannis– Moeller, Nadine– Schenk, Aurelie 2003 “Le cimetière F d’Abou Rawach, nécropole royale de Rêdjedef (IVe dynastie)”, Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 103, pp. 17–71. Bisson de la Roque, Fernand 1924 “Rapport sur les Fouilles d’Abou ‑Roasch (1922–1923)”, Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archeologie orientale du Caire (années 1922–1923). Partie 3, pp. 1–4. Bonnet, Hans 1928 Ein frühgeschichtliches Gräberfeld bei Abusir. Veröffentlichungen der Ernst von Sieglin Expedition in Ägypten 4, Leipzig: Hinrichssche Buchhandlung. Campagno, Marcelo P. 2016 “Chiefs, Kings, and Patrons. Leadership and Social Logics in the Beginnings of Ancient Egypt”, Tra‑ bajos de Egiptologia– Papers on Ancient Egypt 7, pp. 9–22. Cervello ‑Autuori, Josep 2002 “Back to the mastaba tombs of the First Dynasty at Saqqara. Officials or Kings?”, in: Pirelli, Rosanna (ed.). Egyptological Essays on State and Society, Naples: University of Naples, pp. 27–61. 2017 “Monumental funerary architecture and ritual landscape in First Dynasty Egypt”, in: Midant ‑Reynes, Béatrix– Tristant, Yann– Ryan, Ellen (eds.). Egypt at its Origins 5. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference “Origin of the State, Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Cairo, 13th–18th April 2014, Leuven: Peeters, pp. 211–230. Chauvet, Violaine 2007 “Royal Involvement in the Construction of Private Tombs in the Late Old Kingdom”, in: Goyon, Jean ‑Claude– Cardin, Christine (eds.). Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists, Leuven: Peeters, pp. 313–321. Cialowicz, KrzysztofM. 2008 “Cult, ideology and social complexity. Introduction”, in: Midant ‑Reynes, Béatrix– Tristant, Yann– Rowland, Joanne– Hendrickx, Stan (eds.). Egypt at its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State, Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), 5th–8th September 2005, Leuven: Peeters, pp. 1035–1038. Cooney, KathlynM. 2007 “Labour”, in: Wilkinson, Toby (ed.). The Egyptian World, London: Routledge, pp. 160–174. Dalton, Matthew– Peters, Georgie– Tavares, Ana 2015 “Introduction”, in: Dalton, M.– Peters, G.– Tavares, A. (eds.). Archaeological Review from Cambridge 30.1– Seen & Unseen Spaces, Cambridge: University of Cambridge, pp. 1–7. 116 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 Debowska ‑Ludwin, Joanna 2008 “Burial custom and political status of local societies. Aview from Tell el ‑Farkha”, in: Midant ‑Reynes, Béatrix– Tristant, Yann– Rowland, Joanne– Hendrickx, Stan (eds.). Egypt at its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State, Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), 5th–8th September 2005, Leuven: Peeters, pp. 1107–1117. Dickinson, Tessa 2014 ALandscape and Materials -based Approach to Royal Mortuary Architecture in Early Third Millennium BC Egypt, London: University College London (unpublishedPh.D. thesis). Emery, Walter B. 1938 The Tomb of Hemaka, Excavations at Saqqara, Cairo: Government Press Bulaq. 1939 Hor -Aha, Excavations at Saqqara 1937–1938, Cairo: Government Press Bulaq. 1949 Great Tombs of the First Dynasty, Cairo: Government Press 1954 Great Tombs of the First Dynasty II, London: Oxford University Press. 1961 Archaic Egypt, Harmondsworth: Penguin books Ltd. Engel, Eva ‑Maria 2013 “The Organisation of aNascent State: Egypt until the Beginning of the 4th Dynasty”, in: Moreno Garcia, Juan Carlos (ed.). Ancient Egyptian Administration, Leiden: Brill, pp. 19–40. 2017 Umm el -Qaab VI: das Grab des Qa‘a: Architektur und Inventar, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag [Ar‑ chäologische Veröffentlichungen 100]. Engles, Drew R. 1990 “An Early Dynastic Cemetery at Kafr Ghattati”, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 27, pp. 71–87. Eyre, Christopher 1987 “Work and Organisation of Work in the Old Kingdom”, in: Powell, Marvin A. (ed.). Labor in the Near East, New Haven: American Oriental Society, pp. 5–48. Goff, M. Lee 2009 “Early post ‑mortem changes and stages of decomposition in exposed cadavers”, Experimental and Applied Acarology, pp. 21–36. Grajetzki, Wolfram 2008 “The architecture and the signification of the Tarkhan mastabas”, Archéo ‑Nil 18, pp. 103–112. Gramsch, Alexander– Meier, Thomas 2013 “An Archaeological Outline of Ritual Dynamics and Social Space”, in Bergerbrant, Sophie– Sabatini, Serena (eds.). Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies in Honour of Professor Kristian Kristiansen, Oxford: Archaeopress [BAR International Series 2508], pp. 193–198. Helck, Wolfgang 1975 “Arbeiterabteilungen und –organisation”, in: Helck, Wolfgang– Otto, Eberhard (eds.). Lexikon der Ägyptologie. BandI. A–Ernte, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, pp. 371–374. 1984 “Saqqara, Nekropolen der 1.–3. Dyn.”, in: Helck, Wolfgang– Westendorf, Wolfhart (eds.). Lexikon der Ägyptologie. BandV. Pyramidenbau– Steingefäße, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 387–400. 1987 Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. 117MARINUS ORMELING Hendrickx, Stan 1989 De grafvelden der Naqada -cultuur in Zuid Egypte, met bijzondere aandacht voor het Naqada III grafveld te Elkab. Interne chronologie en sociale differentiatie, Leuven: University of Leuven (unpublishedPh.D. thesis). 2006 “Predynastic– Early Dynastic Chronology”, in: Hornung, Erik– Krauss, Rudolf– Warburton, David A. (eds.). Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Leiden– Boston: Brill [Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section One. The Near and Middle East 83], pp. 55–93. 2008 “Les grands mastabas de la 1re dynastie à Saqqara”, Archéo ‑Nil 18, pp. 60–89. Hendrickx, Stan– van den Brink, Edwin 2002 “Inventory of Predynastic and Early Dynastic Cemetery and Settlement Sites in the Egyptian Nile valley”, in: van den Brink, EdwinC. M.– Levy, Thomas E. (eds.). Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd Millennium B.C.E., London: Leicester University Press, pp. 346–402. Hodder, Ian 2000 “Agency and individuals in long ‑term processes”, in: Dobres, Marcia ‑Anne– Robb, John (eds.). Agency in Archaeology, London: Routledge, pp. 21–31. Janulikova, Barbora 2017 Non -elite mortuary variability in the Early Dynastic Memphite region, Cambridge: University of Cam‑ bridge (unpublishedPh.D. thesis). Jeffreys, David– Tavares, Ana 1994 “The Historic Landscape of Early Dynastic Memphis”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 50, pp. 143–169. Jucha, Mariusz A. 2016 “The northeastern part of the Nile Delta during the Naqada III Period”, in: Adams, Mathew Douglas– Midant ‑Reynes, Béatrix– Ryan, Ellen– Tristant, Yann (eds.). Egypt at its Origins 4. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, New York, 26th–30th July 2011, Leuven: Peeters, pp. 63–76. Junker, Herman 1912 Bericht über die Grabungen der Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien auf dem Friedhof in Turah, Winter 1909–1910, Wien: Universitäts Buchhändler. Kahl, Jochem 2001 “Die Funde aus dem ‘Menesgrab’ in Naqada: ein Zwischen Bericht”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 57, pp. 171–185. Kelly, Susan 2019 “Women’swork in the Early Dynastic Period”, Prague Egyptological Studies XXIII, pp. 92–105. Klasens, Adolf 1957 “The Excavations of RMO at Abu ‑Roash. Report of First Season 1957 part I”, Oudheidkundige Mede‑ delingen van het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden 38, pp. 58–68. 1958a “The Excavations of RMO at Abu ‑Roash. Report of First Season 1957 part II”, Oudheidkundige Mede‑ delingen van het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden 39, pp. 20–31. 1958b “The Excavations of RMO at Abu ‑Roash. Report of Second Season 1958 part I”, Oudheidkundige Mededelingen van het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden 39, pp. 32–55. 118 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 1959 “The Excavations of RMO at Abu ‑Roash. Report of Second Season 1958 part II, Cemetery 400”, Oud‑ heidkundige Mededelingen van het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden 40, pp. 41–61. 1960 “The Excavations of RMO at Abu ‑Roash. Report of Third Season 1959 part I”, Oudheidkundige Mede‑ delingen van het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden 41, pp. 69–94. 1961 “The Excavations RMO at Abu ‑Roash. Report of Third Season 1959 part II, Cemetery M”, Oudheid‑ kundige Mededelingen van het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden 42, pp. 108–128. Köhler, E. Christiana 2004 “On the Origins of Memphis. The New Excavations in the Early Dynastic Necropolis at Helwan”, in: Hendrickx, S.– Friedman, R. F.– Cialowicz, K. M.– Chlodnicki, M. (eds.). Egypt at its Origins. Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Krakow, 28th August– 1st September 2002, Leuven: Peeters, pp. 295–317. 2008a “Early Dynastic Society at Memphis”, in: Engel, E. M.– Müller, V.– Hartung, U. (eds.). Zeichen aus dem Sand. Streiflichter aus Aegyptens Geschichte zu Ehren von Gunther Dreyer, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 381–399. 2008b “The Helwan Cemetery”, Archéo ‑Nil 18, pp. 113–130. 2017 “The Development of Social Complexity in Early Egypt. Aview from the perspective of settlements and material culture in the Nile Valley”, Ägypten und Levante 27, pp. 335–356. Köhler, E. Christiana– Jones, Jana 2009 Helwan II. The Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom Funerary Relief Slabs, Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH [Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägypten 25]. Köhler, E. Christiana– Marshall, Christine– Abd El Karem, Mona 2014 Helwan III. Excavations in Operation 4, Tombs 1–50, Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH [Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägypten 26]. Köhler, E. Christiana– Marshall, Christine– Abd El Karem, Mona– Ali, Adel– Böhm, Herbert 2017 Helwan IV, Excavations in Operation 4, Tombs 51–100, Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH [Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägypten 28]. Kolodziejczyk, Piotr 2009 “Granary models from Tell el ‑Farkha: season 2006”, Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization 13, pp. 49–54. La Loggia, Angela S. 2012 Engineering and Construction in Egypt’sEarly Dynastic Period. Areview of Mortuary Structures, Sydney: Macquarie University (unpublishedPh.D. thesis). 2015 Engineering and Construction in Egypt’sEarly Dynastic Period, Leuven: Peeters. Lacher ‑Raschdorff, Claudia 2014 Das Grab des Königs Ninetjer in Saqqara. Architektonische Entwicklung frühzeitlicher Grabanlagen in Ägypten, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag [Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 125]. Lehner, Mark 1997 The Complete Pyramids, London: Thames and Hudson. Lepsius, Carl R. 1849 Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien, Leipzig: Hinrichs. 119MARINUS ORMELING Mace, ArthurC. 1909 The Early Dynastic Cemeteries of Naga ed -Der II, Leipzig: Hinrichs. Midant ‑Reynes, Beatrix– Tristant, Yann 2020 “La violence à l’époque prédynastique”, Archéo ‑Nil 30, pp. 37–58. Miniaci, Gianluca 2018 “Multiple Burials in Ancient Societies: Theory and Methods from Egyptian Archaeology”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 29/2, pp. 287–307. Montet, Pierre 1938 “Tombeaux de la 1ere et IVeme dynasties à Abou ‑Roach”, Kemi 7, 11–70. 1946 “Tombeaux de la 1ere et de la IVeme dynasties à Abou ‑Roach. Deuxieme partie: inventaire des Objects”, Kemi 8, pp. 325–370. Morris, Ellen F. 2007a “On the ownership of the Saqqara Mastabas and the Allotment of Political and Ideological Power at the Dawn of the State”, in: Hawass, Zahi A.– Richards, Janet (eds.). The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt. Essays in honor of David B. O’Connor, Cairo: Conseil Suprême des Antiquités de l’Égypte, pp.171–190. 2007b “Sacrifice for the State: First Dynasty Royal Funerals and the Rite at Macramallah’srectangle”, in: Laneri, Nicola (ed.). Performing Death. Social Analysys of Funerarary Traditions in Ancient Near East and Mediterranean, Chicago: Oriental Institute of University of Chicago [Oriental Institute Seminars 3], pp. 15–37. Müller, Vera 2012 “Do seal impressions prove achange in the administration during the reign of king Den?”, in: Duistermaat, Kim– Regulski, Ilona– Verkinderen, Peter (eds.). Seals and Sealing Practices in the Near East. Developments in Administration and Magic from Prehistory to the Islamic Period, Leuven: Peeters, pp. 17–32. Ormeling, Marinus 2016 “Modelling labour in Ancient Egypt. The First Dynasty Mud Brick Fortress at Elephantine”, in: Adams, Mathew Douglas– Midant ‑Reynes, Béatrix– Ryan, Ellen– Tristant, Yann (eds.). Egypt at its Origins 4. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, New York, 26th–30th July 2011, Leuven: Peeters, pp. 355–375. 2017 “Planning the Construction of First Dynasty Mastabas at Saqqara. Modelling the Development of the Pre ‑stairway Mastabas”, in: Midant ‑Reynes, Béatrix– Tristant, Yann– Ryan, Ellen (eds.). Egypt at its Origins 5. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference “Origin of the State, Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Cairo, 13th–18th April 2014, Leuven: Peeters, pp. 401–432. 2019 “Mastaba S3038 at Saqqara: anew perspective on old data”, Prague Egyptological Studies XXIII, 106–124. 2021 “Revisiting the Archaic Necropolis at Saqqara”, in: Köhler, E. Christiana– Kuch, Nora– Junge, Friede‑ rike– Jeske, Ann ‑kathrin (eds.). Egypt at its Origins 6. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Vienna, 10th–15th September 2017, Leuven: Peeters, pp. 615–634. forthcoming Revisiting the Dutch excavations at Abu Rawash. Parker Pearson, Mike 1999 The archaeology of death and burial, Stroud: Sutton Publishing Ltd. 120 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 Powers, Robert H. 2005 “The Decomposition of Human Remains. ABiochemical Perspective”, in: Rich, Jeremy– Dean, Dorothy E.– Powers, Robert H. (eds.). Forensic Medicine of the Lower Extremity, New York: Springer, pp. 3–15. Quibell, James E. 1923 Archaic Mastabas. Excavations at Saqqara (1912–1914), Le Caire: Imprimerie de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Radwan, Ali 2000 “Mastaba XVII at Abusir (First Dynasty): preliminary results and general remarks”, in: Bárta, Mi‑ roslav– Krejčí, Jaromír (eds.). Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000, Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Oriental Institute, pp. 509–514. Reisner, George 1908 The Early Dynastic Cemeteries of Naga ed -Der, Part I, Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1936 The Development of the Egyptian Tomb down to the Accession of Cheops, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Roth, Ann Macy 1991 Egyptian Phyles in the Old Kingdom. The evolution of asystem of social organization, Chicago: Institute of the University of Chicago. Savage, Stephen H. 1997 “Descent Group Competition and Economic Strategies in Predynastic Egypt”, Journal of Anthropo‑ logical Archaeology 16, pp. 226–268. 1999 “The Status of Women in Predynastic Egypt as Revealed through Mortuary Analysis”, in: Rautman, A. E. (ed.). Reading the Body. Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 77–92. Stadelmann, Reiner 1985 “Die Oberbauten der Königsgräber der 2. Dynastie in Sakkara”, in: Posener ‑Krieger, Paule (ed.). Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire [Bibliotheque d’étude 97/2], pp. 295–307. Strudwick, Nigel 1985 The Administration of Egypt in Old Kingdom, London: Routledge. Sullivan, Elaine A. 2020 “The Hidden and the Seen”, website: https://constructingthesacred.supdigital.org/cts/historic‑ ‑context ‑the ‑formation ‑and ‑function ‑of ‑the ‑funerary ‑landscape ‑in ‑egypt?path=the ‑hidden ‑and‑ ‑the ‑seen ‑visibility ‑and ‑the ‑sacred ‑at ‑saqqara (Accessed on 31st May 2021). Swelim, Nabil 1987 The Brick Pyramid at Abu Rawash– Number Iby Lepsius. Apreliminary study, Alexandria: Archaeological Society of Alexandria. Tavares, Ana 1999 “Saqqara, North, Early Dynastic tombs” in: Bard, Kathryn A. (ed.). Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, London: Routledge, pp. 700–704. 121MARINUS ORMELING Tristant, Yann 2008a “Deux grands tombeaux du cimetière M d’Abou Rawach (1re dynastie)”, Archéo ‑Nil 18, pp. 131–168. 2008b “Les tombes des premières dynasties à Abou Roach”, Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 108, pp. 325–370. 2016 “Abu Rawash 2009–2010. Preliminary results from the re ‑excavation of 1st dynasty elite mastabas at the cemetery M”, in: Adams, Mathew Douglas– Midant ‑Reynes, Béatrix– Ryan, Ellen– Tristant, Yann (eds.). Egypt at its Origins 4. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, New York, 26th–30th July 2011, Leuven: Peeters, pp. 155–176. 2017 “Abu Rawash. New data from the recent excavation of 1st dynasty elite mastabas at the cemetery M”, in: Midant ‑Reynes, Béatrix– Tristant, Yann– Ryan, Ellen (eds.). Egypt at its Origins 5. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference “Origin of the State, Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Cairo, 13th–18th April 2014, Leuven: Peeters, pp. 465–497. Vaudou, Emilie 2008 “Les sepultures subsidiaires des grandes tombes de la 1re dynastie egyptienne”, Archéo ‑Nil 18, pp. 148–168. Vischak, Deborah 2006 “Agency in Old Kingdom elite tomb programs: traditions, locations and meanings”, in: Fitzenreiter, Martin– Kirchner, Steffen– Kriseleit, Olaf (eds.). Studies from the Internet on Egyptology and Sudanarchaeology VI, Dekorierte Grabanlagen im Alten Reich. Methodik und Interpretation, London: Golden House Publications, pp. 255–276. Warden, Lesley A. 2015 “Centralized Taxation during the Old Kingdom”, in: Der Manuelian, Peter– Schneider, Thomas (eds.). Towards aNew History for the Egyptian Old Kingdom: perspectives on the pyramid age, Leiden: Brill, pp. 470–495. Wengrow, David 2006 The Archaeology of Early Egypt. Social Transformations in North -East Africa, 10,000 to 2650 BC, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilkinson, Toby 1999 Early Dynastic Egypt, London: Routledge. Marinus Ormeling University of Leiden/Humanities/Egyptology; [email protected]