Securing Eternity

Ancient Egyptian Tomb Protection from Prehistory to the Pyramids

Reg Clark

• Publisher: The American University in Cairo Press
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9789774169021
• eBook ISBN: 9781617979484
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: History of Architecture
• Index: Social Sciences

The ancient Egyptian tomb evolved rapidly over a period of about 2,500 years, from a simple backfilled pit to an enormous stone pyramid with complex security arrangements. Much of this development was arguably driven by the ever-present threat of tomb robbery, which compelled tomb builders to introduce special architectural measures to prevent it. However, until now most scholarly Egyptological discussions of tomb security have tended to be brief and usually included only as part of a larger work, the topic instead being the subject of lurid speculation and fantasy in novels, the popular press, and cinema. In Securing Eternity, Reg Clark traces in detail the development of the Egyptian royal and private tombs from the Predynastic Period to the early Fourth Dynasty. In doing so, he demonstrates that many of the familiar architectural elements of the Egyptian tomb that we take for granted today in fact originated from security features to protect the tomb, rather than from monumental or religious considerations. Richly illustrated with more than 150 photographs and tomb plans, this unique study will be of interest to students, specialists, and general readers alike.

 

 

 

1

The Purpose and Context of the Egyptian
Tomb and the Need for It to Be Secure

The overwhelming evidence of the investment made by the ancient Egyptians in the construction, decoration, and protection of their tombs suggests that for them, the tomb was far more than just a practical method of hygienically disposing of their dead. It is evident from the care taken by the Egyptians to respectfully inter their corpses and equip their tombs with grave goods, from the Badarian culture (about 5000–4000 bc) onward, that during the Predynastic Period they were developing a funerary culture with particular beliefs, but precisely what these were remains open to debate.¹ Moreover, and importantly from the tomb security point of view, we also know from excavations that these Predynastic graves were being systematically robbed of their valuables, almost as soon as they were completed.²

We can surmise that by the end of the Predynastic Period (about 3150 bc), with the emergence of bipartite (two-part) tombs comprising a substructure for the burial and an aboveground offering place, usually allied with some form of protective superstructure,³ the Egyptians believed in a form of afterlife⁴ in which the tomb played an essential part. It did this by both protecting the body and enabling the deceased to be provided with food and drink offerings by the living, which benefited the tomb owner by providing ‘magical’ sustenance in the hereafter.⁵ Following on, the Early Dynastic Period saw a rapid upsurge in the number of these types of tombs, which were now built in a wide variety of styles and differing locations, many of which retained the bipartite form of a concealed substructure to contain the body and a visible protective superstructure above with a defined offering place. Additionally, in a few elite necropoleis, some large tombs now also incorporated storehouses for vast numbers of grave goods, which were concealed in magazines both above- and belowground.⁶ However, in parallel with these developments, it is also apparent from the increasing number of security features that were being incorporated in the tombs to protect them, such as reinforced substructures, access route blockings, and protective superstructures, that wholesale tomb robbery was rampant and a serious ongoing problem.

This substantial investment in tomb security raises two important questions. First, what was it in the tomb that needed protecting? Second, why did the tomb continue to be used in its bipartite form and remain partly visible on the surface rather than being totally concealed and hidden from view, which would have been a far more effective form of defense? These questions are best answered by looking at the mortuary beliefs and customs of the ancient Egyptians that may have influenced the tomb’s design.⁷

Although there is little written evidence from the Early Dynastic Period or the Third and Fourth Dynasties concerning mortuary beliefs, later Old Kingdom inscriptions, such as the Pyramid Texts,⁸ reveal that the corpse of the deceased was associated with two spiritual elements, the ba and the ka. These were an integral part of a human being in life but separated from it at death.⁹ Moreover, we know that the ancient Egyptians believed that once a corpse was interred within its tomb, the structure formed not only a secure repository for the body but also a dwelling for the ka and the ba.¹⁰ The ka remained in the tomb with the body; the ba could leave during the day to join the world of the living but had to return at night.¹¹ However, both had to be able to reunite with the body in the tomb every day in order for the deceased to attain the highest desirable form in the afterlife, which was an akh, or ‘effective’ spiritual being, able to enjoy an eternal existence both on earth and among the gods in the cosmos.¹² In this context, perhaps the tomb was therefore the place where, in a daily reenactment of this process, the Egyptologist Harold Hays had suggested “the hidden deceased becomes effective after rebirth.”¹³ Consequently, in order that this crucial cycle could take place, it would have been essential for the body, or at least its substitute in the form of a statue or relief depicting the deceased,¹⁴ to remain in situ and undamaged in its final resting place, which undoubtedly was one of the key reasons that the tomb needed to be made secure.

In addition, from early on, personal property in the form of valuables and prized domestic objects was often included with the burial as, from the Egyptian viewpoint, the deceased was still regarded as an entity in his or her own right and would use those items in the afterlife.¹⁵ The nature of the grave goods varied over time. In the Predynastic Period, dependent on their owner’s status, graves might contain variously: stone bead necklaces; mudstone palettes for grinding cosmetics; copper fish hooks; needles; axe heads; ivory bracelets, pins, and spoons; ornamental flint tools; stone unguent and cosmetic jars; and sundry items decorated with gold foil.¹⁶ By the Early Dynastic Period, the inventory of items deposited in high-status graves had increased considerably and included: jewelry of gold and semi-precious stones; cosmetic and toilet articles of ivory, bone, and stone; ornamental hard stone jars and vases; copper tools and vessels; furniture, games, boxes, and weapons in ivory and wood; and woven goods such as linen, clothing, and basketwork.¹⁷

These valuable accoutrements attracted grave robbers,¹⁸ who sought items of portable wealth that could be easily recycled, such as jewelry, amulets, copper, silver, and gold—although ivory, textiles, and furniture, together with fresh oils and unguents, were also desirable.¹⁹ Therefore, depending on the location of these commodities within the tomb, it also became necessary for appropriate security measures to be put in place to protect them.

Finally, both the ba and the ka could partake of sustenance by absorbing the ‘essence’ of food offerings provided for them in actual or symbolic form,²⁰ accessed through a portal that was typically marked by a stela, offering niche, or false door. Usually set into a superstructure, the portal formed a liminal zone that connected this world with the world of the dead and provided a focus where the cult of the deceased could be celebrated, offerings left, and the living could interact with the dead.²¹ The visible aboveground elements therefore formed an important focal point and memorial, where the dead, although secure deep within their substructures, were still approachable and able to be communicated with,²² cared for, and remembered as an integral part of the living community.²³

From the tomb security point of view, the presence of such a conspicuous structure was arguably counterproductive, as it would have drawn unwelcome attention to the tomb. But, undoubtedly aware of this shortcoming, rather than discard the aboveground element altogether, the ancient Egyptians sought to make the best of both worlds by exploiting the protective potential of the superstructure and using its architecture to increase the tomb’s security levels instead.

Conclusion

It would seem, therefore, that the choices made by the Egyptians in relation to their tombs’ architecture, location, and contents were governed by the pursuit of their beliefs regarding the afterlife, which paradoxically rendered many of these elements vulnerable to the depredations of tomb robbers, vandals,²⁴ and, in times of war or civil disorder, perhaps even bands of looters.²⁵ To prevent this happening, and to compensate for their inherent vulnerabilities, these structures therefore needed to be made more secure, which was achieved by modifying their architecture in ways that up until the early Fourth Dynasty significantly affected the design and development of the Egyptian tomb in general, which is the topic explored in the rest of this book.

2

Securing the Early Tomb: Prehistory to the End of the Predynastic Period

This chapter traces the early development of tomb security in ancient Egypt from the Late Paleolithic Period (about 21,000–12,000 bc) up until the end of the Naqada IIIA Period (about 3300–3150 bc) to see what effect, if any, these security precautions had on the architecture of the Egyptian tomb. To put these developments into broader perspective, it concomitantly traces the development of grave architecture as a whole within the context of the various cultures concerned to ‘set the scene’ for the analysis and discussion in the chapters that follow.

The Late Paleolithic: An Early Beginning

The earliest intentional burial discovered in the Nile Valley appears to be that of a child, found at Taramsa Hill near Qena, which dates to the mid-Middle Paleolithic Period (about 55,0...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of images
• Preface
• Introduction
• Abbreviations
• Maps
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Afterword
• Notes
• Bibliography