AH1701.pdf__Campagno-libre.pdf

Space and Shape

Notes on Pre- and Proto-State Funerary Practices in Ancient Egypt

Marcelo Campagno

raphy of such items that may offer valuable informa-tion concerning religion beliefs or describe domestic,ritual or warlike scenes. However, perhaps due to thegeneral coincidence between bigger tomb sizes and high-er levels of wealth on one side, and the increasing di-mension and complexity of tombs and grave goods astime advances on the other, studies on variations inEgyptian funerary practices contemporary with the emer-gence of the State mostly emphasize size and wealth oftombs, as the most relevant indicators of the process ofi n c reasing social differentiation taking place during thosetimes in the Nile Valley. In Bards words, increased so-cial differentiation, as one factor of social change in anincreasingly complex society, is perhaps the only socialtrait in an evolving state that can be demonstrated bythe predynastic mortuary evidence.1

Although the existence of a relation between sizeand wealth graves, on one side, and social differentiationon the other, has received a variety of criticisms,2 it is,from Binford onwards, a criterion currently accepted byspecialists. In effect, if it is true that some of Binfords as-sertions have been set apart (such as the one concerninga strong correlation between funerary practices and soci-etys subsistence strategies), the existence of a certaincongruence between social complexity and funerary prac-tices has been maintained not only on theoretical level

1 Bard, Farmers, 36. See also Wilkinsons conclusions (State For-mation, 89f.): During the Naqada II period, the five Predyn a s-tic sites in the present study Mostagedda, Ma t m a r, Ma h a s n a ,Armant and Hierakonpolis share a common trend: increasingauthority, as reflected in increasing mortuary elaboration.

2 For instance, Ho d d e r, Symbols, who says that testimonies of ma-terial culture can only be an indirect reflex of the human society.Within the limits of Eg y p t o l o g y, the position of Griswold, in:Fr i e d m a n / Adams (Eds.), Fo l l owers, 194, is worth mentioning:while grave size and provisioning increase through time, thismay be more re f l e c t i ve of an increased emphasis in prov i s i o n i n gfor the dead rather than an actual increase in inequality .

M. Campagno, Space and Shape, AH 17, 2003, 1326 13

1. Initial considerations

The emergence of the State constitutes a social changeprocess of an enormous magnitude. In effect, its adventsignifies the constitution of a social pole, which concen-trates the legitimate monopoly of coercion implying atype of society qualitatively diverse from the precedingone. In the Nile Valley, that process takes place in theIVth millennium B.C. and is well established by the firstthird of the following millennium (that is, during thelast phases of Predynastic Period and the Early DynasticPeriod). What kind of evidence testifies the existence ofthose transformations that led to the Egyptian State?Given their preservation conditions remarkably betterthan those of other spheres, such as residential spaces orcult structures , most testimonies come from the fu-nerary practice domain. And what kind of informationis drawn from such funerary evidence? Studies aboutvariations in the funerary sphere between Predynasticand Early Dynastic Periods have mainly emphasized theexistence of an increasing social differentiation process,traceable in the transformations shown by tombs of dif-ferent cemeteries along the Nile Valley.

In particular, studies that emphasize this kind of so-cial differentiation process take into consideration twotypes of indicators. On the one side, grave size is high-lighted both surface area and depth , assuming biggertombs must belong to individuals of a higher social sta-tus: thus, these individuals might have graves that im-plied a larger energy expenditure on the part of society.On the other hand, grave wealth is emphasized, mainlyfrom items integrating the grave offerings: a larger quan-tity and higher quality of them is thought to correspondto individuals who, while alive, occupied higher socialpositions. As a matter of fact, both indicators provideother kinds of relevant information in order to think theprocess in which the State emerges, such as origin of ma-terials used for the manufacture of grave goods thatmay indicate the existence of long-distance exchangenetworks , quality of objects manufactured hinting atthe presence of a specialized craftsmanship , or iconog-

but also within the domain of Eg y p t o l o g y.3 In theEgyptian society, the existence of a certain relationshipbetween burial customs and social standing is still rein-forced, if funerary practices throughout the State era aretaken into account, when the king and the elite tombsreach an enormous level of complexity, whereas most ofthe members of society is still buried in small tombs ac-companied by a reduced quantity of funerary offerings.

Now, as it was said before, the indications about anincreasing social differentiation intra-site and as a gen-eral trend is one of the most widespread ways of inter-preting funerary practices of that period around whichthe emergence of the Egyptian State took place. Fromour point of view, such perspective of analysis has mar-ginalized the possibility of making other considerationsabout that same evidence. Near the end of this article,we will try to think about the reasons for this situation.But before that, we are interested in considering somecharacteristics of Pre- and Proto-dynastic funerary prac-tices in the Nile Valley that may provide a different butcomplementary perspective of the studies on social dif-ferentiation. This different perspective tries basically torelate the information from a number of predynasticcemeteries (Badari, Naga ed-Dr, Armant, Nagada, Hi e r a-konpolis) with that coming from the first big cemeteriesof the early State elite: those of Abydos and Saqqara. Inparticular, we are interested in considering two aspectsof those funerary practices: space distribution and tombshapes in both periods. And we find this all the more rel-e vant since, unlike the continuous and increasing pro c e s semphasized by studies based on tomb size and wealth,an analysis of funerary space organization and tombshapes shows a picture in which what predominates isalteration and discontinuity.

2. Funerary practices in pre-State communities

Throughout the Predynastic Period (from the settle-ment of the first agrarian communities to the emergenceof the State), and despite regional differences, funerarypractices show a considerable homogeneity. Firstly, thedead were usually buried in special areas, on the deserticbanks, out of the productive areas. Most of excavatedtombs present the same features: single burials withcorpses in foetal position and respecting certain criteriaconcerning orientation with respect to cardinal points.Bodies used to be protected by coarse clothes, animalskins, cane mattings, and as from Nagada I the firstwood or clay coffins. Secondly, the dead were placed inpits that initially were oval in shape and with a size ex-ceeding by little that of the corpses, and from Nagada I

onwards, alongside these, the first rectangular tombs(hardly over 2 m) appear. Thirdly, a number of objectswere placed beside corpses as burial goods: bowls andclay or stone vessels that probably contained differentkinds of foods (beer, bread, meat); jewels and ornaments(pearls, feathers, rings, bracelets, necklaces, cosmetic pa-lettes); stone, bone, ivory and copper tools (knives, ar-rows, axes, harpoons, needles, maces) in real size andsmall scale; and other objects (human figurines, carvedtusks) which are more difficult to classify. As with tombsize, funerary offerings tend to increase in number andcomplexity in the last predynastic phases.4

2-a Space distribution

Now then, the first aspect of predynastic funerary prac-tices we are interested in analyzing relates to space dis-tribution within the cemeteries. Here, we will intend toestablish the principles underlying the way of arrangingthe space assigned to the dead. In this sense, there is agroup of studies that allows us to notice a remarkablecharacteristic of several cemeteries: the existence of dif-ferent tomb clusters in the necropolises integrated byburials, differentiated according to the kind of gravegoods. In effect, Badarian burials in Badari (North,

3 From the theoretical viewpoint, see Binford, in: Binford (Ed.),Archaeological Perspective; Peebles and Kus, in: Am. Ant. 42,1977; Tainter, in: Schiffer (Ed.), Advances 1; OShea, Variabili-ty; Carr, in: Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2,1995. Within Egyptology, see Castillos, in: JSSEA 12, 1982;Anderson, in: JARCE 29, 1992; Ellis, in: van den Brink (Ed.),Nile Delta; Bard, Farmers; Hendrickx, Elkab V; Wilkinson,State Formation; Savage, in: Journal of Anthropological Archae-ology 16, 1997.

4 There certainly is a remarkable difference most of all in thefifth millennium between funerary offerings from Upper andLower Egypt. In effect, already as from Badarian Period, there isevidence of a large and increasing number of goods in graves inthe south, whereas for the north the tombs from Merimda andEl-Omari present scarce or no offerings (a single bowl or orna-ment as burial offering seem to be the rule; see Hoffman, Egyptbefore Pharaohs, 110; 174; 196). As a matter of fact, althoughtombs from the Maadian epoch show some more offerings, thedifferences between southern and northern burial goods will re-main until the final cultural homogeneity reached in Nagada IIItimes. Such a disparity may be related with a different wealthdisplay modalities and even might be a symptom of diver-gences as to funerary beliefs. However, the fact remains thatthere existed a similar normativity in both regions in what re-spects to corpse disposition, as well as the fact that also in thenorth, be it in a lesser quantity, they still placed offerings fortheir dead. Thus, it is possible to suppose that, in spite of re-gional particularities, funerary practices in both regions werebased on the same generic system of beliefs.

14 M. Campagno, Space and Shape

West and South Cemeteries) show this pattern and asimilar case seems to appear among Nagada II gravesfrom Naga ed-Dr (Cemetery N7000), Armant (Ceme-tery 1400-1500), Nagada (Cemetery N east, N west, Band T) and Hierakonpolis (Cemetery Hk43).

Let us now have a closer look at these data. In rela-tion to necropolises from Badari, Andersons analysis es-tablishes that the most notable aspect of burial place-ment was the tendency to separate burials into distinctclusters in various sections of the same cemetery.5 In ef-fect, in spite of the fact that most tombs have been plun-dered, it is possible to determine the existence of a larg-er concentration of materials, such as ivory or carnelian,in specific sectors within each cemetery, that might pointto a link among individuals buried in those tombs, dif-ferentiating them from other individuals buried withinthe same necropolis. In Cemetery 1400-1500 from Ar-mant, Bards study indicates that, although up to Naga-da IIa phase, tombs are grouped within the same sector,this pattern changes in Nagada IIb, when larger, rec-tangular graves are distributed farther to the north, inless dense concentrations, while smaller Nagada IIb ovalgraves tend to be more closely spaced among those ofNagada Ic and IIa.6

As to Naga ed-Dr, according to Savages analysis,the grave distribution in Cemetery N7000 shows firsttwo clusters, one small to the west, and a much largercluster located to the east on the upper terrace. A bitcloser examination, however, shows that the larger clus-ter on the upper terrace appears to be a conglomerate ofsmaller clusters that have merged into one larger unit.[] There is virtually no chance that the six clusters arethe result of random grave placement.7 In relation tocemeteries in Nagada, the existence of clusters can be es-tablished for the totality of cemeteries used in the area,which differ notably both in tomb size and wealth (theaverage of offerings and grave size from CemeteryT areremarkable higher than those from Cemeteries B, NEast and N West).8 Finally, as to Hierakonpoliss Ceme-tery Hk43, an area has been uncovered, in which thegraves were arranged in large densely packed circlesaround an empty centre, perhaps once covered with anaboveground monument (Fig. 1).9

What do these tomb clusters in different Nile Valleysites during the pre-State period indicate? For the Badariarea, Andersons analysis provides us with some clues.The existence in different clusters of elderly, adult andsub-adult skeletons, as well as male and female ones,warns us against any inference of an age or sex distinc-tion as criteria for the establishment of clusters. Norhave known authority symbols been found, that mightallow us to think of any kind of socio-political differ-ences. Likewise, nothing allows us to suppose that weare dealing with groups differentiated by their special-ized activities (craftsmen, herdsmen, etc.). Accordingly,

Anderson concludes: the tendency to place burials inclusters within cemeteries might, therefore, reflect theexistence of Badarian family or clan groups.10 Savagesstudy on the Naga ed-Dr cemetery proposes identicalresults: in effect, I think it best to refer to these by thegeneric term descent groups.11 Bard gets to similarconclusions with respect to Armant and Nagada burials,like Friedman in what respects to Hi e r a k o n p o l i ss Ceme-t e ry Hk43.12 In effect, the existence of different descentgroups could explain the grouping of tombs in clustersand cemeteries as well as the distinctions in burial goods.1 3

Now then, the cemetery organization of the pre-State period as a result of groupings determined by thedifferent descent groups within the community agreeswith the position kinship regularly assumes in non-Statecommunities: that is, the principle which provides thescheme through which the basic relations of those soci-eties are expressed. As a matter of fact, the ethnograph-ic, ethnohistoric and to a certain extent archaeolog-ical registers allow us to note that in village communities,

5 Anderson, in: JARCE 29, 1992, 62.6 Bard, in: JEA 74, 1988, 42; Bard, Farmers, 55.7 Savage, in: Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16, 1997,

228; 234. Recently, Delrue has criticized Savages analysis, sug-gesting that most of his clusters can be the result of temporaldrift. However, important is to say that even Delrue recognizethe existence of two separate clusters of Stufe IIc-d period in thecemetery. See Delrue, in: Willems (Ed.), Social Aspects, 3133;4953.

8 See Bard, in: Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2, 1989,227231.

9 Friedman et al., in: JARCE 36, 1999, 4.10 Anderson, in: JARCE 29, 1992, 62.11 Savage, in: Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16, 1997,

228. In spite of the recent criticism of Savages analysis by Del-rue, this author doesnt rule out the possibility that the two clus-ters of Stufe IIc-d period he recognizes could have been organ-ized according to kinship criteria. See Delrue, in: Willems (Ed.),Social Aspects, 53.

12 In relation to clusters in Cemetery 1400-1500 from Armant,Bard, Farmers, 69; 105, points out that, as from Nagada IIb, itis possible to establish the existence of two descent groups thatwould separately occupy the east and west areas of the cemetery:descent group members may simply have buried their deadnearest the most recent burial on one side of the cemetery areaor the other, depending on kin affiliation. Likewise, the mor-tuary evidence of CemeteryT at Nagada represents members ofthe highest-status descent gro u p. In relation to Cemetery Hk43,Friedman, in: JARCE 36, 1999, 4, suggests that groupings canbe attributed to related family members.

13 According to Tainter, in: Schiffer (Ed.), Advances 1, 123, theethnographic evidence seems to indicate that in cemeteries, thepresence of formal disposal areas is consistently associated withcorporate groups practising lineal descent.

M. Campagno, Space and Shape 15

kinship is the dominant practice, extending its princi-ples to the whole social network.14 In this way, everypractice integrating the network expresses itself in kin-ship terms, thus speaking the idiom of kinship.15 Thathegemonic position of kinship practice can be fully ap-preciated in many different ambits of non-State com-munities. Through kinship terms, for instance, criteriafor the inclusion (kinsmen) or exclusion (non-kinsmen)of individuals in relation to their communities are es-tablished. Production is also organized by kinship units.Exchanges are established in relation to kinship dis-tance. In the same way, kinship provides a symboliccode to express political and ritual relationships.16

Thus, if we verify in pre-State cemeteries of the NileValley a space organization in clusters that might pointto the different kinship groups of the community, wewould find an indication of the presence of kinship as anunderlying model for funerary practices. The organiza-tion of the space assigned to the dead could have beenestablished in the very same terms, which organized thewhole of society.

2-b Tomb shapes

If we now consider the second aspect of pre-State funer-ary practices we are interested in analyzing the oneconcerning predynastic tomb shapes , a remarkablecorrelation with the shapes of houses of those inhabi-

14 Those principles are based in the norm of reciprocity which,according to Gouldner, implies two basic and interrelated exi-gencies: 1) people must help those that helped them; 2) peoplemust not wrong those who helped them. Thus kinship practiceimplies a duty of mutual help among the members of the socie-ty it regulates. It also implies an unending interplay of gifts andcountergifts in which the receiver is always in debt with thedonor. See Sahlins, Stone Age, Chap. 5.

15 Webster, in: Am. Ant. 40, 1975, 465.16 Godelier, Economa, Chap. 7; see Sahlins, Stone Age, Chap.

25.


Fig. 1: Cemetery Hierakonpolis Hk43 (from Friedman et al., JARCE 36, 1999, 5).

tants of the Nile appears (Figs. 25).17 In effect, as it wassaid before, the oldest graves were predominantly oval inshape. This general characteristic is witnessed in LowerEgypt (Merimda, El-Omari) as well as in most Badarianand Amratian/Nagada I cemeteries (Badari, Hemmami-

17 In relation to the shapes of Predynastic graves and residentialsites, cf. Vandier, Manuel; Murray, in: JEA 42, 1956; Badawy,A rc h i t e c t u re; Hoffman, Egypt before Pharaohs; Hassan, in: Jo u r-nal of World Prehistory 2, 1988; Uphill, Towns; Porta, Architet-tura; Midant-Reynes, Prhistoire; Vercoutter, Egypte; Spencer,Early Egypt.


Fig. 2: Badarian Tombs (from Murray, 1956, 88). Fig. 3: Nagada III Tombs (from Murray, 1956, 91).

Fig. 4: Re c o n s t ruction of Houses in Merimda (from Ba d a w y, 1966, 12).

Fig. 5: Re c o n s t ruction of a Nagada II House (from Uphill, 1988, 12).

yeh, Mahasna, Abydos, El-Amrah, Armant). And, at thesame time, the remains of settlements for the same peri-od show dwellings of similar shapes: that is, roundedhuts. So far, this could just be a hazardous analogy be-tween house and tomb shapes.

However, the parallelism is reinforced when we con-sider a second element. As from Amratian/Nagada Iphase, and with more intensity during Gerzean/NagadaII times, archaeology detects burials of a new type, thatsome authors associate with the emergence of a certainhigher social stratum. This second type is composed ofneatly rectangular-shaped tombs, as it is highlighted bycertain Nagada I graves in Hierakonpolis and by a goodnumber of Nagada II graves in the cemeteries of Ha-rageh, Badari, Hemmamiyeh, Abydos, Nagada, Armant.Now then, the same type of innovation, for the same pe-riod, is witnessed in the way residential places are de-signed, such as the evidence of certain clay models ofrectangular houses, as well as the residential remains inHierakonpolis and Maadi testify.18 Such a parallelismhas not been overlooked by many researchers carefuleye.19 But what is the reason for such an analogy? Whatkind of connection can be established between the as-pect of tombs and that of dwellings?

From our viewpoint, it seems probable that a changein building patterns in one of the spaces residential orfunerary could have resulted in an equivalent transfor-mation in the other domain. Or in other words, one andthe same criterion could underlie the organization ofboth residential and funerary spaces. And this could bethe case because in non-State societies there seems toexist an inseverable bond linking the dead with the liv-ing: the dead continue to be a constituent part of socie-ty. In effect, according to Godelier, in those societies,membership to the community is not only an attributeof the living but of the whole group including the deadforbears and their descendants living or to-be. It is inthis sense that the community appears as a superior real-ity, as the unity factor between individuals and genera-tions.20

What then does this community of the living andthe dead imply as such? Just as it happens with the crite-rion underlying funerary space distribution, the concep-tion of the dead as full-fledged members of their com-munities seems to be related to the existence of kinshipas the principle of social organization, inasmuch as so-cial bonds persist beyond the physical disappearance ofindividuals. If the dead receive the same treatment as theliving, this is so because the difference between the twois less significant than the fact of still being kinsmen, be-cause kinship continues to be the practice that expressesthat relationship between the living and the dead. Inthese conditions, it seems reasonable to suppose that theliving descendants would have conceived that their deadancestors dwellings should possess a similar shape to

that of their own dwellings. Graves did not exclude thedead kinsmen to an inhospitable and unknown place:they were simply a new house or, as Michael Hoffmanhas pointed out, a mini-home.21

Thus, we believe it is possible to consider that bothspace organization in cemeteries and tomb and houseshape continuity are indicators of the fact that funerarypractices in pre-State Nile Valley were organized accord-ing to the framework the idiom provided by kin-ship, as the social principle dominant in the constitu-tion of non-State communities. If, while keeping inmind this idea, we now consider the same variables inthe big cemeteries of the early Egyptian State elite, theradical difference separating both periods can be fullyappreciated.

3. Funerary practices in early State times

The first indications of State-like practices in the NileValley go back to 34003300 B.C. in Upper Egypt. Theevidence seems to suggest the existence of different pro-to-States that might have appeared more or less simul-taneously under similar general conditions and that wouldbecome unified in one kingdom of Upper Egypt. Be-tween 3200 and 3000 B.C. the so-called Nagada IIIa-b phase that southern kingdom would have extendedto the Nile Delta, thus forming an only and widespreadState between the First Cataract and the MediterraneanSea.22 From that moment starts the period attributed byManetho to the First Dynasty and that is conventional-ly called Early Dynastic Period. From the start, the dy-nastic elite had two big cemeteries, one in the south, inAbydos, in the area in which the State had emerged, andthe other in the north, in Saqqara, in the vicinity of thenew State capital located in Memphis. As a matter offact, there is a controversy among specialists as to the

18 In Hierakonpolis and in Maadi a good number of residential re-mains of oval or round shape is also found. Notably, in bothplaces, that dwelling type has its own parallel in the presence oftombs of similar shapes.

1 9 See, among others, Va n d i e r, Manuel, 499f.; Kanawati, To m b, 57;Hassan, in: Friedman/Adams (Eds.), Followers, 317; Vercoutter,Egypte, 158; Spencer, Early Egypt, 36f.; Tefnin, in: Archo-Nil3, 1993, 9.

20 Godelier, Economa, 89f. See also Godelier, Cuerpo, 133.21 Hoffman, Egypt before Pharaohs, 110.22 In relation to the proto-States, see Kemp, Anatomy, 3146.


specific royal character of those cemeteries. There aresome who think that, due to its contiguity to the previ-ous Cemetery U, Cemetery B in Abydos must be con-s i d e red the only royal necropolis, whereas that of Sa q q a r awould have been used by higher State officials. Othersthink it was in Saqqara, near the new capital, wherekings would have been buried, and that, in order to con-tinue the southern funerary tradition, c e n o t a p h s wouldhave been built in Abydos. There are even those whomaintain that, in accordance with the dual characteristicof Egyptian thought, both necropolises should be re-garded as royal: the king would have a tomb in each halfof Egypt. For our own purposes, it may suffice here toindicate that although the royal character of both ceme-teries has been questioned, nobody, however, has everdoubted about the State character of either.23

Which is the most prominent characteristic of grave sin these cemeteries? Doubtless, their monumentality. InAbydos, the re m a rkably bigger dimensions of royal tombsare already exhibited in the Cemetery U, in which themonarchs of the previous era would have been buried(in particular, tomb U-j, with an area of over 65 m andtwelve chambers for the royal corpse and funerary offer-ings, constitutes the biggest tomb of its epoch). Nowthen, in the contiguous Cemetery B, dimensions andcomplexity would be even larger, with mastabas whosesize must have varied from 103 m for Narmers tomb toalmost 630 m for Qaas one, and with a great number ofchambers for the kings funerary offerings, as well as awood-covered central chamber. As from the fifth king ofthe Dynasty, Den, onwards, and due to the depth ofgraves, it was also necessary to build entrance stairs. Thegrave substructures were covered with sand and gravelmounds that remained below surface level, while largesuperstructures, of which only a few traces remain, werebuilt at the top. But apart from the mastaba in the ceme-tery, each king also had his own funerary palace, whichconsisted of a rectangular precinct much bigger than themastaba (Ahas funerary palace reaches 800 m whileDjers reaches 5175 m), designed for the dead kings cultso that he might still carry on his royal rituals in the af-terlife.

As to the Saqqara Cemetery, it also consists of hugerectangular mudbrick buildings far larger than thoseof Abydos with a great number of chambers, thelargest and deepest of which is in the middle of thebuilding. Dimensions vary from 512 m for the mastabaassociated with Adjib to 2405 m for that alternativelyattributed to king Qaa or his official Merka. Externalwalls presented more complex characteristics (see infra)and were higher than those of the mastabas in Abydos( p robably about 5 m). Su r rounding some mastabas, hun-d reds of clay bullheads with real horns were placed (as amatter of fact, Egyptian kingship always exhibited bull-like features), as well as the funerary barks belonging to

the grave owners. Here, substructures were also crownedby mounds: however, unlike in Abydos, in the tomb as-sociated with king Adjib such a mound shows a trunk-pyramidal superstructure built in stone and mudbrick,probably an antecedent of the later pyramidal tombsbuilt as from Dynasty III.

3-a Space distribution

Now then, what happens with space organization in theearly State elites cemeteries of Abydos and Saqqara? Inboth necropolises, space distribution shows a radicallydifferent pattern from the one found in pre-State ceme-teries. The scenery is certainly dominated by the largeroyal tombs, but there is another characteristic presentin both State cemeteries, which is very significant: theinclusion of numerous minor graves belonging to differ-ent members of the new society from members of theroyal entourage to craftsmen and servants , in direct re-lation to the royal tombs. In Abydos, king Ahas tomb iscomposed of three funerary chambers, next to whichthere is a group of thirty subsidiary graves. The tombs ofthe following kings of the First Dynasty (Djer, Uadji,Den, Adjib and queen Merneith) are surrounded, intheir perimeter, by the same kind of graves housing agreat number of followers. In the cases of Semerkhetand Qaa, the last kings of the Dynasty, lesser graves alsosurround the royal chamber, but they are part now ofthe same building, that serves as the king tomb. As tothe Saqqara Cemetery, it also presents an organizationpattern in which a great number of subsidiary tombssurround the big mastabas, and the same happens in re-lation to the funerary palaces in Abydos (Figs. 68).24

23 In relation to the discussion about the location of tombs of kingsof the First Dynasty, see Lauer, in: BIFAO 55, 1956, 153171;Lauer in: BIFAO 79, 1979, 355366; Kemp, in: JEA 52, 1966,1322; Hoffman, Egypt before Pharaohs, 280288; Spencer,Early Egypt, 9193; Cervell, Egipto y frica, 228232; Wi l k i n-son, Early Dynastic Egypt, 259f.

24 For the tombs in Abydos and Saqqara, see Vandier, Manuel,613643; Lauer, in: BIFAO 55, 1956, 153171; Emery, Archa-ic Egypt, 48104; Kemp, in: JEA 52, 1966, 1322; Kaiser/Dreyer, in: MDAIK 38, 1982, 211269; Dreyer et al., in:MDAIK 46, 1990, 5390; Dreyer et al., in: MDAIK 49, 1993,2362; Dreyer, in: van den Brink (Ed.), Nile Delta, 293299;Spencer, Early Egypt, 7197; Cervell, Egipto y frica, 222228; Adams/Cialowicz, Protodynastic Egypt, 1721; Wilkin-son, Early Dynastic Egypt, 230260. As to the funerary palaces(mainly concentrated in Abydos, but also present in other areassuch as Saqqara and Hierakonpolis), see Lauer, in: BIFAO 79,1979, 355394; OConnor, in: JARCE 26, 1989, 512586;Kemp, Anatomy, 5355; Cervell, Egipto y frica, 223f.


What does such a space organization suggest us?From our viewpoint, the fact that in most cases royaltombs are surrounded by much lesser graves provides uswith a symbolic picture of the Egyptian State society. Ineffect, the king appears, in each case, as occupying thescene centre: his tomb impresses by its size and design,but also by the centrality it acquires in relation to theother graves. These, on the other hand, present muchmore modest dimensions and characteristics and theirperipheral situation seems not only to refer to their spa-tial location but also to the one their owners occupy insociety vis--vis the king-god.25 It is in this sense thatHoffmans words acquire all their meaning: particular-ly during the period of the unification, it is the burialcomplexes that personify the nature of the new Stateand its regime. They are microcosms of the way that thenew kings conceived the relation of the cosmic andearthly orders.26 It is because the king there could be

25 The hypothesis supported by some authors suggesting thosesubsidiary graves belonged to individuals sacrificed at the mo-ment of the kings burial is based mainly on the analysis carriedout on human remains, found in Ahas tomb subsidiary graves inAbydos, that seem to belong to young individuals between 20and 25, what would allow to think in unnatural deaths. It is notpossible to know if such was the case for the rest of the royaltombs. However, if that were so, the practice of human sacrificeswould certainly reinforce the image of the State as an almightypower, capable of deciding upon the life and death of individu-als. See Edwards, in: CAH, Vol. 2, 1971, 59; Hoffman, Egyptbefore Pharaohs, 275279; Dreyer et al., in: MDAIK 46, 1990,8186; Spencer, Early Egypt, 72; Baines, in: OConnor/Silver-man (Eds.), Egyptian Kingship, 132; 135137; Cervell, Egip-to y frica, 211213.

26 Hoffman, Egypt before Pharaohs, 327.


Fig. 6: Cemetery B of Abydos (from Spencer, 1993, 76).

Fig. 7: Tomb 3503 in Cemetery of Saqqara (from Emery, 1961, 67). Fig. 8: Tomb 3504 in Cemetery of Saqqara (from Emery, 1961, 72).

little doubt about it is the absolute centre of theemerging State that funerary practices of this new socie-ty do nothing but reproduce that situation, projecting itto the space assigned to the dead.

Thus, if on one side the organization of mortu-ary space in the pre-State period allows us to notice thepresence of tomb clusters which seem to refer to kinshipcriteria, early State elite cemeteries on the other side present a radical discontinuity inasmuch as their space isarranged after the kings monumental tombs aroundwhich are grouped the infinitely smaller graves of fol-lowers and servants. So, alongside the increasing com-plexity of funerary offerings and the larger dimensionsof the tombs, a new principle radically different fromthat of pre-State times, seems to underlie the way funer-ary space is distributed in early State elite cemeteries.And that principle is compatible with the new way soci-ety would be structured since State practice emerges andconsolidates.

3-b Tomb shapes

If we now consider the shape of the early State elitetombs in Abydos and Saqqara, the total contrast withpre-State graves could not be more striking. In effect,both by their dimensions and architectural complexity,the new elite graves acquire shapes and magnitudes un-known before State emergence. Now then, if the sym-bolic principles underlying the building of elite graves as well as the ideological effects their aspect had in soci-ety are considered, such tombs imply, in comparisonwith pre-State graves, both a continuity and a deepchange.

On one side, the kings tomb and those of his en-tourage reiterate the direct link between tomb and house,as it happened in pre-State times. As Cervell pointsout: in Egypt, the oldest royal mastabas [those built in

Cemetery B in Abydos] reproduced the structure of themost sophisticated houses of the time.27 Throughoutpharaonic times, that strong link between the residentialdomains of the dead and the living will never disappear.Thus, for instance, during the Old Kingdom, princeHardjedef recommends to his son: Furnish your housein the graveyard and enrich your place in the WestThe house of the death is for life. In effect, in AncientEgypt the tomb was always a house for eternity.28

Now then, if the conception of the tomb as the de-ceaseds dwelling is still current in State times, thatconception as far as the kings tomb and those of hisentourage are concerned exhibits a change: it wouldno longer be associated to the belief about the deceasedspermanence within his or her community of origin, as afull-fledged member thereof, in his or her condition ofre l a t i ve of the living members of that community. Rather,early State elite tombs would be directly related to a newkind of abodes: the first royal palaces, the new placeswhere the social pole capable of imposing its will as aconsequence of its monopoly of coercion would be con-centrated.

Thus, in Abydos, the royal mastabas of the First Dy-nasty seem to combine two symbolic principles: the in-ner mound could be related to the cosmogonic primor-dial hill out of which the primeval god created theuniverse; and the shape of the perimetral superstructure,on the other hand, would remind of the houses, thusreproducing the earthly abode as an abode for the eter-n i t y (Figs. 9; 10).2 9 As to funerary palaces whose peri-

27 Cervell, Egipto y frica, 160 (our translation).28 Kanawati, Tomb, 21. In relation to The Instruction of Prince

Hardjedef, see Lichtheim, Egyptian Literature, Vol. 1, 58f.29 Cervell, Egipto y frica, 222 (our translation).


Fig. 9: Reconstruction of a Tomb in Cemetery B of Abydos (fromLauer, 1956, pl. IV).

Fig. 10: Cut of a Tomb in Cemetery B of Abydos (from Cervell,1996, 312).

meter was also surrounded by mudbrick walls, they in-corporated an important architectural innovation: theso-called niched walls, such as, it seems, was already thenorm for the building of royal palaces. And, althoughthere is no direct evidence of those palaces (probablyconstructed in light materials), there is a group of serekhs the identifying symbol of each king representing theroyal palace structure from Dynasty 0 onwards. In ef-fect, the serekh consisted of a rectangle with the kingsname written on its upper part, some ve rtical lines evo c a-t i ve of the palace niched walls on its lower part, and afalcon (Horus) perched on top.30 Thus, the funerarycomplexes of Abydos would reflect this relationship be-tween tomb and dwelling place twofold: the big butplain-walled mastabas would still remember the housesof ancestral tradition, linked to the creation and dwel-ling-places of the forbears; funerary palaces, on the oth-er hand, would not only exhibit rooms of dimensionspreviously unknown, but also an architectural style di-rectly linked to the specific shape royal residences of theliving pharaohs would take on.31

Besides, the external appearance of funerary palacesin Abydos coincides with the aspect of the tombs thatstarted to be built in Saqqara from the beginnings of the

First Dynasty. As a matter of fact, as Cervell proposes:the mastabas from Saqqara are the result of the conju-gation of the two buildings in Abydos: the mastaba andthe funerary niched palace, which thus results in a nichedmastaba. If the southern ancestral tradition had requiredrespect for the plain mastaba, and the newly createdbuilding the funerary palace had been kept topo-graphically apart from it, the new tomb in Saqqara, alsoa new creation, could incorporate unhindered the func-tional and decorative innovation (Figs. 11; 12).32

Now then, both royal palaces and their funerarycorrelations showed dimensions without precedents inpre-State buildings. According to what was indicatedbefore, those graves reached truly monumental dimen-sions with the beginning of the First Dynasty. In effect,both the mastabas and the funerary palaces in Abydosand Saqqara but also some other tombs in differentsites along the Nile Valley and linked to the State elite are large-scale constructions, built thanks to the controlover a wide range of resources (labour-force, raw materi-als, different skills of craftsmanship) which only theemerging State was capable of mustering. Thus, theEgyptian State was introducing a kind of constructionthat represented an explicit testimony of its creating ca-pability. In Triggers words: the solidity and materialpermanence of structures [help to] convince the specta-tor of the reality of the power that brought them into ex-istence. [] The splendour of such buildings may pro-claim, and by doing so reinforce, the status of rulers, of

30 Certainly, the serekh, as a royal symbol par excellence, combinesin its image the monarchs name, his condition of Horus and hisnarrow link with the palace he resides in. About the serekhmeaning, see Spencer, Early Egypt, 5961, Baines, in: OCon-nor/Silverman (Eds.), Egyptian Kingship, 121124; Cervell,Egipto y frica, 200f.; OBrien, in: JEA 33, 1996, 135f.

31 To this respect, see Cervell, Egipto y frica, 222224.32 Cervell, Egipto y frica, 226 (our translation).


Fig. 11: Reconstruction of a Tomb in Cemetery of Saqqara (from Lauer, 1956, pl. IV).

Fig. 12: Reconstruction of a "niched" wall (from Spencer, 1993, 58).

their protective gods, and of the State. [] Further-more, by participating in erecting monuments that glo-rify the power of the upper classes, peasant labourers aremade to acknowledge their subordinate status and theirsense of their own inferiority is reinforced.33

Thus, as from the First Dynasty, the elites tombswould represent a direct indicator of the State might.Without abandoning the ancestral concept that linkedthe dead to the living, the new graves, however, not on-ly had radically changed their aspect but also the ideo-logical effects those constructions could induce in socie-ty. Unlike pre-State burials, those of the early State elite,far from testifying the essential membership of the deadto the community as kinsmen of the living, were indica-tors of the new State power; a power that burst into vil-lages when the time arrived for the paying of tributes in kind but also in labour force to carry out its programof monumental constructions and that left behind,with each and eve ry one of those qualitatively new build-ings, a permanent material trace of its domination.

3-c Contrasts

Of course, with the State advent, the funerary patternbased on kinship was not totally substituted by the newState pattern. In effect, only the elite directly linked tothe State pole must have had access to those tombs ofmonumental aspect. The largest part of society, on thecontrary, would still be grouped in village communitiesand carry out their funerary practices according to tradi-tional kinship principles. It is precisely in that contrastof burial ways that root one of the main modes of testi-fying the radical splitting that characterizes the new typeof society: on the one side, a small group of big andcomplex tombs, representative of the State power; onthe other, a multitude of small and simple tombs, simi-lar to those of pre-State times and representative of apredominantly peasant social majority.

If, apart from Abydos and Saqqara, we consider oth-er cemeteries from the early State period, the magnitudeof that contrast can be fully appreciated. In Tarkhan, asite 60 km south of the newly founded Memphis, theburials of the Early Dynastic Period are grouped in twodistinct areas: the so-called Hill Cemeteries, where themore complex tombs were found including objectswith serekhs and niche architecture and the ValleyCemetery, with most of the small tombs with simple fu-nerary goods. As Wilkinson points out, this patternsuggests the existence of a distinct lite class within thesociety at Tarkhan, a class which emphasized its distinc-tiveness from the general population by means of a sep-arate cemetery. Hill Cemetery A may have served a yetmore rarefied lite. Within this cemetery the two mostelaborate burials [] may have belonged to provincialgovernors.34 Now then, it is significant that in the Val-

ley Cemetery, where the largest part of Tarkhan popula-tion would concentrate, Elliss analysis indicates, on thewestern side of the necropolis, the presence of a tombcluster among which are six little mastabas that con-tains certain objects stone vases, rectangular cosmeticpalettes, ivory needles, beads and whose goods volumeis somewhat bigger and could constitute a special areafor a specific corporate group.35 Thus, the Valley Ceme-tery presents a space organization that reminds that ofother cemeteries from pre-State times. Consequently, inTarkhan, we would not only find documented the con-trast between two burial areas segregated according tomembership to the State pole of society, but also, at thesame time, the existence of funerary criteria similar tothose used in pre-State times, based on kinship, for thedistribution of the funerary space accessible to the great-est group of population.36

That contrast between burial characteristics of earlyState elite and those of the rest of society also appears inother regions, such as that of Armant and Nagada, bothalready considered with reference to pre-State funerarypatterns. In these sites, the testimony consists in thesudden occurrence of tombs of a State style, which wasnot prefigured in the previous funerary pattern. In Ar-mant, Cemetery 1200, some 9 km from Cemetery 1400-1500 already mentioned, presents, for the Nagada IIIbphase, two big tombs of 24 and 30.45 m, with mud-brick walls and several chambers. Although the locationof the bulk of contemporary tombs is unknown (Ceme-tery 1400-1500 had already been abandoned), Bardconcludes that as there is nothing in the developmentof grave types in Cemetery 1400-1500 that anticipatesTombs 1207 and 1208, a reasonable hypothesis is thatthese tomb types developed elsewhere and were intro-duced by forces outside the existing social order at Ar-mant.37 In relation to Nagada, for the beginnings of theperiod starting with the First Dynasty, two big royaltombs have also been documented, next to a necropoliswith a great quantity of common people tombs, some6.8 km from the above mentioned Cemetery N.38 Al-

33 Trigger, in: World Archaeology 22, 1990, 122; 125. See also En-drdi, in: GM 125, 1991, 25, who highlights the creation of anew discourse in monumentalism that is typical of the buildingpractices of the emerging State.

34 Wilkinson, State Formation, 72.35 Ellis, in: van den Brink (Ed.), Nile Delta, 254.36 Perhaps the same kind of considerations could be applied to

other non-State elite cemeteries of Early Dynastic times, such asthe Cemetery of middle class in Saqqara, whose space distri-bution shows a pattern of six clearly different groupings. SeeMacramallah, Cimetire.

37 Bard, Farmers, 74; see also ibid., 54; 57.38 de Morgan, Recherches, 159; Bard, Farmers, 80.


though no information about that necropolis excavatedover a century ago is actually available, it surely musthave been in sharp contrast with the two big royaltombs, similar in dimensions and architectural design tothe mastabas of Saqqara, one of which (some 1425 m)could have been Narmers wifes the queen Neithhotep perhaps representing a post-unification alliance be-tween Nagada and the newly established powers in thenorth, where such elaborate palace-faade tombs []are more common: then, the purpose of the tomb wouldhave been to help cement control of the newly unifiedState.39 It should be remarked that, like in Armant,such tombs located outside the pre-existent cemeteriesand with dimensions and architectural design divergingfrom those known in these places represented a sharpcontrast with the funerary pattern previously in force,thus symbolizing the profound split that separated theState pole from the rest of society.

4. Final considerations

After this survey, it can be seen that State emergencedeeply modifies previous funerary practices, introducingfunerary criteria that diverge from those available in pre-State communities. In these communities, in which kin-ship can be suspected to be in force as the social articu-lator par excellence, funerary practices seem to have beencarried out according to that organizer principle: conse-quently, both space distribution within cemeteries andtomb shapes refer to that pattern of social organization.In other words, they are expressed in terms of the id-iom of kinship. In contradistinction, funerary practicesof the emerging State describe a remarkably differentspace organization, centred around each royal tomb,which, although still keeping the traditional link be-tween tomb and house, now reflect the architectural and symbolic characteristics of the royal palace, thematerial core from which emanate the decisions of anew social power, capable of imposing its will, thanks tothe possession of the legitimate monopoly of coercion.

Now then, in the face of such a verification, thequestion arises again about the reason for the prevalenceof statements, so common in studies about pre- andproto-State funerary world in Ancient Egypt, claimingthe existence of a gradual and in crescendo evolutive con-tinuum. Of course, this does not mean to question thesequence itself, showing comparatively bigger dimen-sions and richer funerary goods in tombs the nearer theyget to the times when the State emerged in the Nile Val-ley. What is being questioned instead is the broad preva-lence of that kind of statements over any other kind ofconsiderations concerning the same evidence. Why does

that prevalence occur? From our viewpoint, this is di-rectly related to the current dominant position of evolu-tionism in social studies. Since social processes in par-ticular, processes such as the one implying the Stateadvent are conceived in terms of growth, expansion,development of what was potential in a previous stage,the researchers spontaneous eye tends to focus onthose sequences that best seem to confirm transhistor-ical evolution laws from societies with a lower level ofcivilization to other more developed.

Inasmuch as the State emergence is conceived asone of the ascending steps in the evolutive scale, the evo-lutionist reading tends to organize the available infor-mation according to the dictum that postulates a transi-tion from a simpler society to a more complex one. Andthe funerary evidence in the Nile Valley seems to fit wellin such a reading. In effect, given the smallerbigger,poorerricher sequence of tombs, and correlated in arather irreflexive way with the simplicitycomplexity ax-is of the evolutionist theory, the slow evolution towardsthe State appears as an intrinsic datum of the register,rather than an interpretation privileging that sequenceover other modes of thinking those same testimonies.This is not the place to propose in extenso the objectionsto the evolutionist strategy. Suffice it to say that, as far asthe process in which the State emerges is concerned, andbeyond the strongly ethnocentric connotations behindthat perspective, the evolutionist strategy tends to over-look, to dissolve the radical difference that separates oneperiod from the other, a difference basically dictated bythe introduction of the legitimate monopoly of coercionas a resource for the making of social decisions.40

Thus, the analysis of pre- and proto-State funerarypractices in the Nile Valley that emphasize size and rich-ness of tombs have indicated the existence of a tomb se-quence that, as a general rule, present bigger and richergraves the more we advance in the chronology. Such se-quences are a relevant aspect about the Egyptian funer-ary world. However, they are perhaps only one of therelevant aspects that group of evidence may offer. In ef-fect, the consideration of other aspects such as funer-ary space distribution and tomb shapes may provideus with other perspective to look into what would con-tinue, what would change, and what would be a radicalbreak in relation to that remote process that would re-sult in the organization of one of the most ancient Statesocieties of the world.

39 Bard, Farmers, 109. In relation to queen Neithhoteps probablet o m b, see also Va n d i e r, Manuel, 634637; Em e ry, Archaic Eg y p t ,4749; Kemp, in: JEA 59, 1973, 43; Hoffman, Egypt beforePharaohs, 322324.

40 To this respect, see Campagno, in: Boletn de AntropologaAmericana 33, 1998, 102105.


Bibliography

Adams/Cialowicz, Protodynastic EgyptBarbara Adams/Krzysztof M. Cialowicz, ProtodynasticEgypt, Buckinghamshire 1997.

Anderson, in: JARCE 29, 1992Wendy Anderson, Badarian Burials: Evidence of SocialInequality in Middle Egypt During the Early PredynasticEra, in: JARCE 29, 1992, 5166.

Badawy, ArchitectureAlexandre Badawy, Architecture in Ancient Egypt andthe Near East, Massachusetts 1966.

Baines, in: OConnor/Silverman (Eds.), Egyptian KingshipJohn Baines, Origins of Egyptian Kingship, in: OCon-nor/Silverman (Eds.), Egyptian Kingship, 95156.

Bard, FarmersKathryn A. Bard, From Farmers to Pharaohs. MortuaryEvidence for the Rise of Complex Society in Eg y p t ,Sheffield 1994.

Bard, in: JEA 74, 1988Kathryn A. Bard, A Quantitative Analysis of the Predy-nastic Burials in Armant Cemetery 1400-1500, in: JEA74, 1988, 3955.

Bard, in: Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2, 1989Kathryn A. Bard, The Evolution of Social Complexity inPredynastic Egypt: An Analysis of the Naqada Cemeter-ies, in: Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2, 1989,223248.

Binford, in: Binford (Ed.), Archaeological PerspectiveLouis Binford, Mortuary Practices: Their Study and theirPotential, in: Binford (Ed.), Archaeological Perspective,208243.

Binford (Ed.), Archaeological PerspectiveLouis Binford, An Archaeological Perspective, NewYork1972.

Campagno, in: Boletn de Antropologa Americana 33, 1998Marcelo Campagno, Pierre Clastres y el surgimiento delEstado. Veinte aos despus, in: Boletn de AntropologaAmericana 33, 1998, 101113.

Carr, in: Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2, 1995Christopher Carr, Mo rt u a ry practices: Their Social, Ph i l o-s o p h i c a l - Religious, Circumstantial, and Physical Deter-minants, in: Journal of Archaeological Method and The-ory 2, 1995, 105200.

Castillos, in: JSSEA 12, 1982Juan Jos Castillos, Analyses of Egyptian Predynastic andEarly Dynastic Cemeteries. Final Conclusions, in: JSSEA12, 1982, 2953.

Cervell, Egipto y fricaJosep Cervell Autuori, Egipto y frica. Origen de la ci-vilizacin y la monarqua faranicas en su contexto afri-cano, Sabadell 1996.

Delrue, in: Willems (Ed.), Social AspectsParsival Delrue, The Predynastic Cemetery N7000 atNaga ed-Dr. A Re-evaluation, in: Willems (Ed.), SocialAspects, 2166.

de Morgan, RecherchesJacques de Morgan, Re c h e rches sur les Origines de l Eg y p t e .Ethnographie prhistorique et Tombeau royal de N-gadah, Paris 1897.

Dreyer, in: van den Brink (Ed.), Nile DeltaGnter Dreyer, Recent Discoveries in the U-Cemetery atAbydos, in: van den Brink (Ed.), Nile Delta, 293300.

Dreyer et al., in: MDAIK 46, 1990Gnter Dreyer et al., Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchun-gen im frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof. 3./4. Vorbericht,in: MDAIK 46, 1990, 5390.

Dreyer et al., in: MDAIK 49, 1993Gnter Dre ye r, Umm el-Qa a b. Nachuntersuchungen im frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof. 5./6. Vorbericht, in:MDAIK 49, 1993, 2362.

Edwards, in: CAH, Vol. 2, 1971I. E. S. Edwards, The Early Dynastic Period in Egypt, in:CAH, Vol. 2, 1971, 170.

Ellis, in: van den Brink (Ed.), Nile DeltaChris Ellis, A Statistical Analysis of the ProtodynasticBurials in the Valley Cemetery of Kafr Tarkhan, in: vanden Brink (Ed.), Nile Delta, 241248.

Emery, Archaic EgyptWalter B. Emery, Archaic Egypt, Harmondsworth 1961.

Endrdi, in: GM 125, 1991Julia Endrdi, Figurative discourse and Communica-tion in the Emerging State of Egypt, in: GM 125, 1991,2136.

Friedman et al., in: JARCE 36, 1999Rene Friedman et. al., Pre l i m i n a ry Re p o rt on Field Wo rkat Hierakonpolis, in: JARCE 36, 1999, 135.

Friedman/Adams (Eds.), FollowersRene Friedman/Barbara Adams (Eds.), The Followers ofHorus. Studies dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman,Egyptian Studies Association Publication No. 2, Oxford1992.

Godelier, CuerpoMaurice Godelier, Cuerpo, parentesco y poder. Perspecti-vas antropolgicas y crticas, Quito 2000.

Godelier, EconomaMaurice Godelier, Economa, fetichismo y religin en lassociedades primitivas, Mxico 1974.

Griswold, in: Friedman/Adams (Eds.), FollowersWilliam A. Griswold, Measuring Social Inequality at Ar-mant, in: Friedman/Adams (Eds.), Followers, 193198.

Hassan, in: Friedman/Adams (Eds.), FollowersFekri Hassan, Primeval Goddess to Divine King. TheMythogenesis of Power in the Early Egyptian State, in:Friedman/Adams (Eds.), Followers, 307322.

Hassan, in: Journal of World Prehistory 2, 1988Fekri Hassan, The Predynastic of Egypt, in: Journal ofWorld Prehistory 2, 1988, 135185.

Hendrickx, Elkab VStan Hendrickx, Elkab V. The Naqada III Cemetery,Bruxelles 1994.

Hodder, SymbolsIan Ho d d e r, Symbols in Action. Et h n o a rchaeological St u d-ies of Material Culture, Cambridge 1982.

Hoffman, Egypt before PharaohsMichael A. Hoffman, Egypt before the Pharaohs, NewYork 1993.

Kaiser/Dreyer, in: MDAIK 38, 1982Werner Kaiser/Gnter Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab. Nachun-tersuchungen im frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof. 2. Vor-bericht, in: MDAIK 38, 1982, 211269.

Kanawati, TombNaguib Kanawati, The Tomb and its Significance in An-cient Egypt, Guizeh 1987.

Kemp, AnatomyBarry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt. Anatomy of a Civiliza-tion, London 1989.


Kemp, in: JEA 52, 1966Barry J. Kemp, Abydos and the Royal Tombs of the FirstDynasty, in: JEA 52, 1966, 1322.

Kemp, in: JEA 59, 1973Barry J. Kemp, Photographs of the Decorated Tomb atHierakonpolis, in: JEA 59, 1973, 3643.

Lauer, in: BIFAO 55, 1956Jean-Philippe Lauer, Sur le dualisme de la monarquiegyptienne et son expression architecturale sous les pre-mires dynasties, in: BIFAO 55, 1956, 153171.

Lauer, in: BIFAO 79, 1979Jean-Philippe Lauer, Le developpement des complexesfuneraires royaux en Egypte, in: BIFAO 79, 1979, 355394.

Lichtheim, Egyptian LiteratureMiriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. 1,Berkeley 1973.

Macramallah, CimetireR. Macramallah, Un Cimetire Archaque de la ClasseMoyenne du Peuple Saqqarah, Le Caire 1940.

Midant-Reynes, PrhistoireBeatrix Midant-Reynes, Prhistoire de lEgypte. Des pre-miers hommes aux premiers pharaons, Paris 1992.

Murray, in: JEA 42, 1956Ma r g a ret Mu r r a y, Burial Customs and Beliefs in the He re-after in Predynastic Egypt, in: JEA 42, 1956, 8696.

OBrien, in: JARCE 33, 1996Alexandra A. OBrien, The Serekh as an Aspect of theIconography of Early Egyptian Kingship, in: JARCE 33,1996, 123138.

OConnor, in: JARCE 26, 1989David OConnor, New Funerary Enclosures (Talbezirke)of the Early Dynastic Period at Abydos, in: JARCE 26,1989, 5186.

OConnor/Silverman (Eds.), Egyptian KingshipDavid OConnor/David P. Si l verman (Eds.), AncientEgyptian Kingship, Leiden 1995.

OShea, VariabilityJohn OShea, Mortuary Variability, New York 1984.

Peebles/Kus, in: Am. Ant. 42, 1977Christopher S. Peebles/Susan M. Kus, Some Archaeolog-ical Correlates of Ranked Societies, in: Am. Ant. 42,1977, 421448.

Porta, ArchitetturaGabriella Porta, Larchitettura egizia delle origini in legnoe materiali leggeri, Milano 1989.

Sahlins, Stone AgeMarshall Sahlins, Stone Age Economics, Chicago 1974.

Savage, in: Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16, 1997Stephen H. Savage, Descent Group Competition andEconomic Strategies in Predynastic Egypt, in: Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 16, 1997, 226268.

Schiffer (Ed.), AdvancesMichael B. Schiffer (Ed.), Advances in ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory Vol. 1, 1978.

Spencer, Early EgyptA. J. Spencer, Early Egypt, London 1993.

Tainter, in: Schiffer (Ed.), Advances 1Joseph A. Tainter, Mortuary Practices and the Study ofPrehistoric Social Systems, in: Schiffer (Ed.), Advances 1,105141.

Tefnin, in: Archo-Nil 3, 1993Roland Tefnin, Limage et son cadre. Rflexions sur lastructure du champ figuratif en Egypte prdynastique, in:Archo-Nil 3, 1993, 722.

Trigger, in: World Archaeology 22, 1990Bruce G. Trigger, Monumental Architecture: A Thermo-dynamic Explanation of Symbolic Behaviour, in: WorldArchaeology 22, 1990, 119132.

Uphill, TownsEric P. Uphill, Egyptian Towns and Cities, Aylesbury1988.

van den Brink (Ed.), Nile DeltaEdwin C. M. van den Brink (Ed.), The Nile Delta inTransition. 4th.3rd. Millennium B.C., Tel Aviv 1992.

Vandier, ManuelJacques Vandier, Manuel dArcheologie Egyptienne, Vol.1, Paris 1952.

Vercoutter, EgypteJean Vercoutter, LEgypte et la valle du Nil. Tome I: Desorigines la fin de lAncien Em p i re 120002000 av. J.-C.,Paris 1992.

Webster, in: Am. Ant. 40, 1975David Webster, Warfare and the Evolution of the State: AReconsideration, in: Am. Ant. 40, 1975, 464470.

Wilkinson, Early Dynastic EgyptToby A. H. Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, London1999.

Wilkinson, State FormationTo by A. H. Wilkinson, State Formation in Egypt. Chro n-ology and society, Cambridge Monographs in African Ar-chaeology, vol. 40, BAR International Series 651, Oxford1996.

Willems (Ed.), Social AspectsHarco Willems (Ed.), Social Aspects of Funerary Culturein the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms. Proceedingsof the international symposium held at Leiden Universi-ty 67 June, 1996, Leuven 2001.


Documents

AH1701.pdf__Campagno-libre.pdf