Key Pages:

Home

Any questions regarding material covered in lectures, or in the textbooks, can be posted here using the comments box at the bottom of the page.

Posted at Oct 04/2009 07:35PM:
Blue: Hi. This is regarding Snefru's thee pyramids. Can someone clarify this for me: In my noted I've written that Snefru put a casing on his first pyramid at medum to make the red pyramid. Is this correct? Apart fro this he built the bent pyr. At darshur right?

Prof. B: He built 3 separate pyramids. The Meidum one started as a step pyramid. He finished the pyramid itself but not its associated buildings, and moved to Dahshur in about year 15 of his reign. At Dahshur he built first the Bent Pyramid and then, fairly late in his reign, the Red Pyramid. At some point, however, he did go back to Meidum (this was probably in year 28 or 29 of his reign, so right before he started the Red Pyramid) and put a casing on the step pyramid there to turn it into a real pyramid. It isn't clear that the final stages of construction at Meidum were completed (also true at the Red Pyramid). The Red Pyramid is probably where Snefru was buried but we're not totally sure about that. Hope this helps!

Posted at Oct 06/2009 12:53AM:
Brendan Burke: I know this was brought up in class, but could you clarify the concept of "Dynasty 0?"

Prof. B: "Dynasty 0" refers to the kings with serekhs prior to the First Dynasty. This includes for sure Iry-Hor and Ka, and by some accounts Narmer (some people put Narmer in the 1st Dynasty - he's very much a transitional figure). Because they have this title associated exclusively with kingship, and because they are buried at Umm el-Qaab at Abydos right near the First Dynasty kings, we assume that they were rulers who followed one another in direct succession, to the exclusion of other rulers in this immediate area. That's a closer definition of dynasty than works for some later Egyptian dynasties! It's really the period in which the local kings of Abydos and possibly a greater region gain and consolidate control over all Egypt, which is well established by the time of Narmer and Aha. So it's a somewhat confusing term, but useful given the transitional nature of the time and the known presence of named individuals who called themselves kings.

Posted at Oct 06/2009 12:53AM:
Brendan Burke: Thank you! Prof. B: You're welcome!

Posted at Oct 06/2009 01:44AM:
Ishaan: Could you please clarify this for me: When it comes to the differences b/w the Pyramid structures of the 3rd and 4th dynasties, the 3rd dynasty Pyramids were oriented North - South (Such as Djoser's complex?) and the 4th dynasty pyramids were oriented East - West (Such as the Great Pyramid?). Also, does this apply to the Mastabas as well - specifically when it comes to the positions of the Niches for the offerings?

PS: Is Wadjet another name for Djet? Because I saw a serekh in the book on the Art which was the same as another image in Bard thats showed the serekh under Djet. Just making sure. :)

Thank you so much!

Prof. B: Mastabas retain their north-south orientation throughout the Old Kingdom (though it does get a little looser starting in the 5th Dynasty when mastabas themselves get so much more complex and less regular in plan). The east side is always the ritual side, the place where the dead interface with the living for the giving of offerings. Ultimately this seems to reflect ideas that are present in royal architecture from the time of the Early Dynastic funerary enclosures at Abydos. In those buildings the east side has more elaborate niching than the other three sides, and the major gateways through which people bearing offerings entered were on the east. The enclosures are also one of the major influences on Djoser (and so presumably Sekhemkhet). So the wall defining Djoser's pyramid complex is in essence a funerary enclosure, with it's major gate right there in the south-east just like the enclosures. It's seriously bigger and more complex than a mastaba, and incorporates all sorts of aspects that were not available to or necessary for private individuals, but the baseline assumptions determining its orientation are the same: whole complex goes north-south; axis of approach for living people is from the east to the west. The shift to focus more heavily on an east-west orientation in the 4th Dynasty pyramid complexes probably has to do with the rise of the importance of the sun cult and the association between the king and the sun. So then the dominant axis becomes east-west, but there are still echos of the old north-south axis, for instance in the fact that the entrance to the 4th-6th Dynasty pyramids is on the north side, and the satellite pyramid is still to the south-east (if one were trying to trace that all the way back one would note not only the presence of the South Tomb at Djoser's complex but also the presence of the cult offering chapel in funerary enclosures located in the south-east corner). Again, it is extremely difficult in archaeology to answer the question "why", and we're not always comfortable relating things that are separated by hundreds of years. But most probably the shift in emphasis in pyramid complexes is related to the growing association between the king and the sun, and that is also a handy explanation of why this shift is NOT evident in private monuments - the sun is a royal prerogative and even the highest elite are not, in the Old Kingdom, able to associate with the sun god in death. Hope this helps!

And yes, Wadj is an older reading of Djet (not Wadjet, though, who is a cobra goddess associated with Lower Egypt and who is represented on the uraeus that is a protective symbol worn by the king on his forehead). We have some trouble with early writing and are not always in agreement about how to pronounce early names. (Den sometimes gets called Udimu - told you names were the hardest part of introductory Egyptology!).

Posted at Oct 06/2009 03:11PM:
Nell Brodsky: Could you go over the differences between First Dynasty mastabas and Second Dynasty mastabas? Thank you!

Prof. B: Their basic form and function is the same, but there are some pretty important differences. First, 1st D mastabas are niched elaborately on all sides with no differentiation between niches. 2nd D mastabas are simpler, with (usually) two main niches which are always on the east side. The south, often larger, niche is a cult place for the deceased and the north niche is a cult place for his wife. In the 2nd D we have the development of niche stones, a type of early slab stela, which show the deceased in front of a table of offerings and have a basic list of offerings as well as the name and titles of the dead guy. There is one possible example from the last reign of the 1st Dynasty, but really this is a 2nd D development and indicates the definite presence of ongoing cultic offering activity at those niches (it's less clear that in the 1st D there was any ongoing cult as opposed to simply burying the dead with everything they would need). 1st D mastabas also tend to have large numbers of store-rooms for grave goods built into them, whereas 2nd D mastabas are more solid. A diminishment in the number of goods could also be related to a rise in post-death continued offering cult. In both the 1st and 2nd Ds the mastaba itself is a superstructure, while the burial itself is below ground. This tended to be in a relatively shallow burial chamber in the 1st D, becoming more of a shaft in the 2nd D, but this is a less uniform shift than the changes in the structure of the mastaba itself. Another fairly important shift is in the relation of mastabas to royal tombs. 1st D royal tombs are at Abydos, where no high elite are buried (save those in the subsidiary graves and they seem to have been more household personnel than administrative personnel, if that is even a reasonable distinction at this time). Most 2nd D royal tombs are at Saqqara, however. The largest elite mastabas of both dynasties are at Saqqara (though other Memphite necropolises have hundreds of just slightly lower elite mastabas). So in the 1st D the high elite are buried 100s of kilometers from the king, while in the 2nd they are buried at the same site. This can quite clearly be seen in relation to later practice, which we looked at specifically at Meidum and Giza, where the high elite are buried in close proximity to the king. It is always worth looking not only at the structure of private tombs but at their physical relationship (or non-relationship) to royal burials; same goes in the late OK when we get another major shift in both dimensions of elite burial. Good question, and I hope this helps!

Posted at Oct 07/2009 09:20PM:
amanda bauer: Hi Professor- I know you can't tell us what the essay question will consist of, but could you give us an example of the kind of question you would ask? For example, would it be as specific as describing the funerary complex of Djoser, or as broad as trends in elite funeral practices over the entire period we have covered so far?

Prof. B: Either of those would actually be fair game, but in general I'd expect more about broad trends. If I do ask anything as specific as a single monument it would definitely be one that was stressed as important in both the lectures and the reading. Basically it would be one (like Djoser's complex) that is so pivotal that you really need to know it in order to discuss trends. I'm unlikely to ask something as huge as "elite funeral practices from Badarian through 6th Dynasty" because that's impossible to cover in any sort of detail in a 20 minute essay. More likely I'd pick a shorter range within that period and ask that you discuss changes over the course of, say, two dynasties, ideally using specific examples to illustrate your points.

Posted at Oct 08/2009 09:30AM:
Vicki Wilson: 1. on one of the slides there's a narmer macehead, is that from end of 0 dynasty beginning of 1st? and where exactly was it found

2. can you explain who Djer was?

3. where was the hetedief statue found?

4. lastly what was the importance in Sekhemkhet's pyramid? was it just that he didn't have a south temple and that it was odd for that to happen?

Prof. B: 1. Yup - the macehead is contemporary with Narmer's reign, so right at that transition period from D0 to D1. It was found at Hierakonpolis.
2. Djer was the king who followed Aha, so either the second or third king of the 1st Dynasty depending on if you count Narmer as part of D0 or D1. His tomb was much later (in the Middle Kingdom and onwards) regarded to be the burial place of the god Osiris and so became the location of major cult activity.
3. Hetepdief's statue was found at Memphis - it probably was originally in his tomb as that's the only place we have private sculpture in the OK, but it's a sufficiently early and anomalous statue in other ways that we can't be entirely certain of its original context.
4. Sekhemkhet succeeded Djoser and his pyramid complex is similar to Djoser's in many of its main components (step pyramid, niched enclosure wall, underground galleries, south tomb). It doesn't have the wealth of buildings inside the complex that Djoser does and has no heb sed accommodations. It's totally unclear if this was a planned departure from Djoser's complex or if Sekhemkhet intended to add these things later and simply died before he could. The original enclosure wall was quite close to the pyramid but it was later extended to be about the same length (though not quite the width) of Djoser's, so there presumably would have been room to add a north "temple" and heb sed stuff if he wanted and had time. The pyramid itself was unfinished so an early death is a reasonable hypothesis.

Posted at Oct 08/2009 04:03PM:
Sara Powell: Here is a very specific question that's bothering me: the Arnold reading states that 'Sneferu's statue temple is of great importance because it is the first preserved example of aboveground royal funerary architecture decorated with reliefs' (47). Yet Bard mentions the 'finely carved reliefs of the king' (129) in the South Tomb of Djoser's complex (and has a picture!). What's going on? Does the South Tomb not count as 'royal funerary architecture'?

Prof. B: Excellent question - you've been reading really closely! The issue here is the above ground bit. The reliefs in the South Tomb of Djoser's complex are subterranean (as are the reliefs under the Step Pyramid itself). So Bard is perhaps being a little too finicky and trying to claim a first for the Snefru reliefs - it's first enough that we have no previous valley temples and that is (sort of) a valley temple.

Posted at Oct 08/2009 11:51PM:
Ishaan: Quick question! The Naqada II pottery is "intended to look like stone". I don't remember what it was actually made of?

Thank you!

Prof. B: Egyptian pottery is made of two basic clay types: Nile mud and marl (which is basically a decomposition/erosion product formed at the base of the limestone cliffs). We haven't gone into the distinction in class and in fact it's not super-important unless you're on a dig analyzing pottery, so I don't expect you to know which pots are marl and which Nile. Clay and water, dried then fired to the point of chemical change that allows them to be hard and indissoluble - that's all you need to know about the technical aspects of Egyptian pottery making for right now! And remember that only some of the Naqada II pots are made in imitation of stone (we call it a skeuomorph when something is made in a way to imitate the look of another material). Others, such as the boat motif pots, may have similarities in form with stone vessels but their decoration is different from the skeuomorphs.

Posted at Nov 05/2009 02:24PM:
vicki wilson: Hi, as I was looking through the slides and was wondering if you could explain a little more about the temples at Avaris. In my notes I have temples 2, 3, and 5 but why are they important? Also I was wondering if you could possibly tell me more about the palaces in the Hyksos kingdom. I don't have much in my notes.

Thanks!

Posted at Nov 06/2009 10:12AM:
brad: Good question. The biggest point to take away from the discussion of temples at Avaris is that they are one of the ways in which we see a combination of Egyptian and non-Egyptian influences at the site. The largest temple is considered primarily foreign in design, while the smaller two are similar in layout to Middle Kingdom houses. Some scholars see this similarity as the result of mutual cultural influences at the site: Egyptian houses being adapted to non-Egyptian religious practices and so forth. The merging or blending of these two influences is what is significant about them.

Posted at Dec 02/2009 11:39AM:
Prof B: I posted a reading to the readings page that wasn't assigned but that might be of use to people having difficulty with private tombs of the NK. It talks in a general way about their architecture and meaning and shifts from the 18th Dynasty to the Ramesside period. Check it out if you're interested!

Posted at Dec 03/2009 05:12PM:
nrwang: Hi, what was the significance of the Stelophorus Statue and where was it found?

Prof. B: That very piece is pictured in Robins - she'll give a more complete answer than I would so check it out there!