The Memphite necropolis has been a center of archaeological interest from as early as the start of the last century. It has been criss-crossed by the paths of many scientific expeditions and archaeological surveys. Major reconstruction projects are constantly underway here. The mass of published information and the detailed archaeological maps of individual localities suggest, at first sight, that everything here has long ago been discovered, and studied and described several times over. The casual observer might easily believe that there is now no scope left for a new and surprising archaeological find. But this would be a very superficial and inaccurate impression. On the archaeological map of the necropolis there are “white” areas: places about which we know little or nothing. These are, in fact, extensive, and they exist at Abusir as well. One could almost say that they represent the greater part of this particular royal necropolis. The Abusir cemetery was not, after all, composed only of pyramids and the tombs lying in their immediate neighborhood.
Until recently, Egyptologists and archaeologists looked at Abusir in a distinctly one-sided way. Thanks to the pyramids that the pharaohs of the Fifth Dynasty built here, Abusir was considered to be a royal cemetery belonging exclusively to that period. Moreover, the belief prevailed that all that was historically significant and interesting here had already been discovered and studied, particularly during the German Oriental Society’s expedition at the beginning of the last century. In recent years there has been a widespread change in this regard and one of the major reasons has been the surprising discovery of a cemetery with shaft tombs dating from the end of the Twenty-sixth and the beginning of the Twenty-seventh Dynasty, in other words from the end of what is known as the Saite Period and the beginning of Persian Domination over Egypt. Deep in the desert almost one kilometer west of the edge of the Nile Valley, in an area already apparently far back from the Abusir pyramid field, a group of large square-shaped structures was found at the end of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s. It was found partly as a result of a hint on an old map of Abusir drawn up in 1843 by the Lepsius expedition but mostly through the extensive geophysical survey carried out by the Czech Egyptological expedition. The survey indicated the existence of perhaps half a dozen large and several smaller structures, all square in ground plan, on an area of approximately half a square kilometer.
Uncovering the intact foundation deposit, which was laid when work on commenced at the northwest corner of the stone enclosure wall of Udjahorresnet’s shaft tomb at Abusir (photo: Milan Zemina).
A map drawn on the basis of geophysical measuring in the southwest sector of the Abusir cemetery shows the approximate location of the shaft tombs from the Saite-Persian period (by V. Hašek).
The excavations were initiated in 1980 and the first monument under investigation was allocated the identification mark “H” on the archaeological map of the Czech team at Abusir. The first days brought further puzzles rather than immediate explanations. What was found was a sizeable enclosure wall constructed of limestone blocks and defining a square area of ground measuring about 25.5 by 26 meters and containing flat irregular stones laid on a layer of sand, and the remains of mud brick structures. In the middle of this area was the mouth of a large shaft about five and a meters square above which rose the remains of a false vault of limestone blocks (we can only speculate about the form of the structure which once surmounted the shaft: a small pyramid, a stylized primeval hill, or a small chapel?). It was only when the layer of sand and the stones, which had been laid without mortar, had been removed that the mouths of several long shafts were revealed and found to be arranged according to a very original plan. The large shaft, which has already been mentioned, was in the middle and on all four sides it was surrounded by shafts, rectangular in horizontal cross-section, which were arranged at regular intervals to form a square pattern.
Work on uncovering the site continued and brought further surprising discoveries: all the shafts had been filled up with very fine sand from which the coarser pebbles and small boulders had been removed by sieving. The peripheral shafts arranged in the square design were linked together at various levels by large apertures such that the fine sand could flow freely through them. The bottom of the peripheral shafts had still not been reached when excavation work in them was stopped in several places at a depth of approximately 15 meters and sounding probes using a strong steel rod were used to find out how much further they descended. This measure was dictated by the fact that further excavation of the shafts could have endangered the stability of the whole tomb complex. This was because the system of shafts had not been dug in a homogeneous rock base but in a thick layer of the hardened marl clay, in Arabic called tafla, interwoven with narrow layers of petrified salt. The probes indicated that the shafts continued down to a depth of at least 20 meters. At the bottom of the central shall, however, at a depth of about 14 meters, the vaulted ceiling of the burial chamber was discovered.
A winch is indispensable for work in shaft tombs (photo: Milan Zemina).
The chamber, including the ceiling, had been constructed of well crafted blocks of fine white limestone. Thieves had once tunneled a hole in the massive vaulted ceiling. When they broke into the burial chamber they too must have had to clear away the sand filling of the shaft from the greater part of it. This route was clearly not the original access route to the burial chamber. This had been by a smaller, so-called ‘side shaft’ discovered in front of the eastern face of the stone enclosure wall of the tomb.
The central and side shafts, both located on the east-west axis of the tomb complex, were of roughly the same depth and were linked at the bottom by a short horizontal passage. This passage was not completely carved out of the clay base but was designed at one point to cross the eastern peripheral shaft, which had been placed like a “screen” between the side shaft and central shaft. The “screen” effect is apparent from the fact that the bottom of the eastern peripheral shaft is much lower than the floor of the horizontal passage that crosses it. The place where the shaft and the passage cut across each other represented the critical point of an entire security system. For this reason it was here that the tomb’s architect installed a sophisticated draw-bridge, or safety valve preventing entry to the burial chamber. He created it in the following way. He had the part of the horizontal passage that crossed the vertical eastern shaft constructed at the time when the shaft was already being tilled with the fine sand. First, the limestone slabs of paving were laid on the sand and then, likewise on the shaft’s sand filling, the side walls of the perhaps two-meter section of the passage were constructed out of mud bricks. Finally an arch, also of mud brick and perhaps 70 cm thick, was erected over the section. When the arch was completed the whole eastern periphery shaft could be filled with sand up to the very top. This complicated construction thus played a well-calculated function in the ingenious system designed to protect the burial chamber.
Horizontal cross-section at the foundation level of the superstructure of Udjahorresnet’s shaft tomb. The plan shows the arrangement of shafts inside and outside the square stone enclosure wall of the tomb.
The burial chamber at the bottom of the central shaft contained other features making up part of the sand underground security sealing system. These were funneled apertures in the vault of the chamber’s ceiling, which in the course of building had been sealed with plugs of conically-shaped pottery vessels. Only the bottoms of these relatively thin-sided vessels protruded into the chamber. With the plugs installed it was possible to start filling the central shaft above the vault of the burial chamber with sand. This, however, would have been one of the very last phases in the construction of the tomb. Before this came the minutely thought-out construction of the burial chamber and the no less ingenious stage of lowering the giant sarcophagus into it.
Schematic east-west cross-section of Udjahorresnet’s shaft tomb. The dotted line indicates the mudbrick wall in the place where the eastern shaft cuts across the horizontal access corridor and the “drawbridge” was located.
First, at the bottom of the central shaft and at a depth of about 15 meters, foundations were laid for the side walls of the burial chamber, which had a rectangular ground plan with an east-west orientation. The walls, made of ashlars of fine white limestone, were built up to a point roughly just under the level at which construction of the vaulted roof of the chamber was to begin. This further stage of building was, however, deliberately delayed and instead the whole of the shaft, including the half-built chamber, which was still open at the top, was filled right up to its mouth with sand. Then a giant limestone sarcophagus of box type was hauled onto the filled shaft. Its lower part had been carved out of a limestone monolith. The lid too was made from a single huge block of fine white limestone 510 centimeters long, 290 centimeters wide and 110 centimeters thick. A horizontal row of hieroglyphic inscriptions with the name and titles of its owner ran around the lower part of the sarcophagus just under its upper edge.
The work in the eastern peripheral shaft above the “drawbridge” (photo: Milan Zemina).
Archaeological work in the huge and deep shafts filled with fine sand is exceedingly difficult and dangerous (photo: Milan Zemina).
Inside the limestone sarcophagus another sarcophagus was placed, this time anthropoid in form and made of basalt. This anthropoid, or mummiform, sarcophagus was also huge in dimensions and consisted of two parts, a chest and a lid, the smoothed outer surfaces of which were covered by hieroglyphic inscriptions carved in sunk relief.
Plan of Udjahorresnet’s burial chamber with the box-type limestone and anthropoid basalt sarcophagi.
When the sarcophagus had been dragged onto the mouth of the shaft, work commenced on removing sand from below, from the half-built burial chamber. This was carried back up through the short horizontal passage and the so-called side shaft. The bulk of the sand thus began to diminish and the huge double sarcophagus little by little sank lower and lower until it finally reached the level of the burial chamber. At this point there was probably some mechanical intervention to slow the descent of the lid and to apply a breaking system in the gap between the chest of the sarcophagus and the lid. The lid of the inner anthropoid sarcophagus had evidently already been slightly raised before the lowering operation began. Finally, the giant double sarcophagus settled on the floor of the burial chamber, and both the inner and outer lids left slightly raised to just the level that would later allow the mummy of the tomb’s owner to be slid inside. Only after all this would the ceiling vault be completed.
Finally, after the burial ceremony, the last of the priests leaving the burial chamber would give the order to break the pottery plugs in the funneled openings in the arched ceiling. Sand would then have started to cascade into the chamber. The last operation carried out before the retreat from the sarcophagus chamber to the side shaft, from which the escape route led upwards, was to break down the mud brick vault above the “sand sealing”; sand from the eastern peripheral shaft would then begin to pour down into the passage. In a few minutes the whole underground section with the sarcophagus would be buried. Any subsequent attempt to get through to the sarcophagus was foredoomed to failure, since the sand that would have to be removed to make an entry would immediately be replaced by more sand falling from the upper parts of the shafts. The only possible way of overcoming this brilliantly cunning system blocking access to the sarcophagus chamber was to clear the sand filling from both the central and the peripheral shafts. This was the method which thieves finally hit on when they carried out the first break-in, which, to judge by the remains of pottery, occurred in late antiquity (fourth / fifth centuries CE). At first they tried to get through to the underground section by clearing the eastern peripheral shaft and beginning to dig an access tunnel downwards, toward the burial chamber, in its exposed western wall. Where this route led we do not know. It certainly did not reach the burial chamber. They finally decided to clear the greater part of the central shaft and reached the sarcophagus after breaking through the thick vault of the burial chamber. But were the efforts of the tomb robbers ultimately successful?
Detail of the face mask of Udjahorresnet from the basalt inner sarcophagus (photo: Jan Brodský).
The chamber bore the unmistakable signs of the robbers’ activities, including large soot marks left on the vaulted ceiling by torches. There were other black marks on the walls, these ones designed to be here. The hieroglyphic inscriptions on the chamber’s side walls were not carved in relief but only lightly drawn in black ink. They contained passages from religious texts and the name and titles of the owner of the tomb.
A large hole had been made in the eastern side of the outer sarcophagus, by which the thieves had got through to the inner, anthropoid sarcophagus. Another, smaller, hole, about 30 by 40 centimeters in size, had been made in the lower part of the lid of the inner sarcophagus. The anthropoid sarcophagus, the lid and chest sealed with red plaster, was empty and its inner surfaces were clean; there was no trace of the physical remains of the tomb’s owner. To break a hole in the basalt sarcophagus the thieves had used a fire, which they had kindled at the chosen spot. By repeatedly heating this spot and pouring water over it they weakened the structure of the hard stone so much that they could then easily break a hole in it. This method of breaking hard stone was one that the Ancient Egyptians had been using from the time of the pyramid-builders.
But had the mummy actually been inside the sarcophagus? It is hardly likely that the resins and oils used in mummification would have left no distinct traces on the inner surface of the sarcophagus. We can also question whether the hole was large enough to pull out the mummy, wrapped as it would have been in linen bandages, without damaging it and leaving no trace. As a matter of fact, not the smallest fragment of the mummy or its linen bandages was found either in the sarcophagus or in the burial chamber. As investigation of the tomb continued the mysteries increased rather than diminished.
As soon as it proved possible to decipher them, the inscriptions on the outer and inner sarcophagi and on the walls of the burial chamber caused amazement. These left not the shadow of a doubt that the tomb belonged to Udjahorresnet, one of the most important and at the same time one of the most controversial figures in Egypt at the end of the Saite Period and the beginning of the Ist Persian Domination, which is to say in the second half of the sixth century BCE. Udjahorresnet had been known to Egyptologists for many years before the discovery of his tomb at Abusir. He was known primarily thanks to the inscriptions on a naophorous statue of dark-green slate preserved in the Vatican Museum (inv. no. 196). This statue was probably once a part of the Emperor Hadrian’s Egyptian collection in Villa Tivoli. Originally, it may have been located in the main temple of the goddess Neith in Sais. This was a town in the western Delta that, at the time of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, was the scat of the Egyptian kings. The inscriptions with which it is densely covered are biographical in character and provide very important historical testimony concerning the beginning of Persian rule over Egypt. They were first translated and published with a commentary in the 1930s by the celebrated French Egyptologist, Georges Posener, in a work entitled La Première Domination Perse en Eigypte (Cairo, 1936).
From the texts on the statue it appeared that Udjahorresnet was “commander of the foreign mercenaries in Egypt,” “commander of the Egyptian fleet,” “overseer of the scribes of the Great Hall,” and the bearer of many other titles in the reigns of Amasis and Psammetichus III, the last kings of the Saite Dynasty. Surprisingly, Udjahorresnet became a high state official in the administration of the Persian Occupation after the Persian defeat of the Egyptians at the Battle of Pelusium. At this time, in the reigns of Cambyses and Darius I, he even occupied one of the highest offices in the land—the office of Head Physician of Upper and Lower Egypt. This office was far from having only the professional connotations that the name suggests, but corresponded roughly to the position of Prime Minister. This evidence has led some Egyptologists to regard Udjahorresnet as a traitor to Egypt, a man who, though one of the highest-ranking of military commanders, forsook his country and went over to the Persians, ultimately becoming their devoted ally. Other Egyptologists reject the theory that Udjahorresnet was simply a traitor and collaborator and view his career in a more positive light. This they base on the interpretation of a fragment of an inscription on a piece of a statue of Udjahorresnet discovered during American excavations at Memphis in the mid-1950s. The inscription appears to suggest that Udjahorresnet enjoyed an extraordinary reputation as a great sage and that his cult flourished at Memphis during the fourth century BCE. In the inscription there is an allusion to “177 years” and this is believed to refer to the time that had gone by since Udjahorresnet’s death. It is likewise suggested that the statue of Udjahorresnet from which the fragment came originally stood in one of the Memphite temples where it had been placed at the beginning of the second Persian Domination over Egypt, in order to remind the Egyptians, after more than one and three-quarter centuries, of the memory and services of this important sage and loyal Persian ally. The discovery of fragments of two other naophorous statues coming from Memphis indicate that the cult of Udjahorresnet did indeed exist there. The statues were similar to the one preserved in the Vatican Museum.
There is, however, a certain element of contradiction here. This is because while the discovery of the statues points to a Memphite origin, Udjahorresnet’s high-ranking titles and functions, referred to in the inscriptions on the statues, are for the main part linked not to Memphis but to Sais. For this reason it was long believed that any search for Udjahorresnet’s tomb should be conducted in Sais. Some Egyptologists even thought that he might be buried as far away as Persepolis. They based this theory on an allusion at the end of the biographical inscription on the Vatican Museum’s statue disclosing that Udjahorresnet had been summoned to Persia by the Persian king Darius I to help suppress a rebellion in the very heart of the empire using the Egyptian army. The next part of the inscription is damaged or absent but it has been argued that Udjahorresnet died in that campaign and was buried outside Egypt.
The celebrated naophorous statue of Udjahorresnet made of black-green slate is preserved in the Vatican Museum collection (no. 196).
Whatever the fate of Udjahorresnet, neither the inscriptions on his statues nor any other contemporary antiquities provide the least explanation of why this high-ranking dignitary should have chosen the southwestern edge of the pyramid field at Abusir. this remote corner of the Memphite necropolis, for his final resting-place. Did he feel politically and socially isolated in view of his close links with the Persian occupiers and therefore had his tomb built apart from the others, albeit still in the Memphite necropolis? Or was the site chosen, on the contrary, so that Udjahorresnet’s tomb might in the future become the center of another large cemetery where other high-ranking dignitaries might ultimately have been buried near the great sage? It is possible that the choice of the site was influenced by its proximity to the Serapeum, the cemetery of the sacred bulls in northwest Saqqara, which at the time was an important religious and cult center, not only for the Memphite necropolis but for the whole of Egypt. In the vicinity of the Serapeum were catacombs where ibises, baboons, lions, and other sacred animals were interred, cult temples, and many other significant religious buildings. The Serapeum is no more than 1,500 meters southeast of Udjahorresnet’s tomb. But on the other hand, it is possible that the choice of site was primarily a matter of quite practical consideration. In this case, the determining factor might have been the fact that the geological base was not composed of rock but of thick layers of hardened marl clay in which the daring and architecturally very original plan of the system of shafts surrounding and protecting the tomb’s sarcophagus chamber could be carried out. The questions and conjectures surrounding Udjahorresnet’s tomb are legion. One cardinal question, however, stands out from all the rest: was the monument found at Abusir Udjahorresnet’s real tomb?
Miniature faience and wooden tablets forming part of the foundation deposit at Udjahorresnet’s shaft tomb. On several of the tables there is a cartouche with the name of Ahmose II (Gr. Amasis), the penultimate ruler of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty (photo: Milan Zemina).
One of the sarcophagi of sacred Apis bulls in catacombs of the Serapeum in north Saqqara. The sarcophagus was broken into by thieves in early antiquity (photo: Milan Zemina).
Neither in the burial chamber nor elsewhere in the underground parts of the tomb that have as yet been excavated have any of Udjahorresnet’s physical remains, or any other evidence proving beyond doubt the existence of a genuine burial been discovered. On the contrary, archaeological research has so far brought to light several facts that provide grounds for caution and reflection concerning his burial here.
The inscriptions on the walls of the burial chamber remained only at the stage of preliminary drawing and were never carved in the relief (sunk relief, rather than low) as must surely have been the original intention and requirement given the standing of the owner. This fact is in striking contrast not only to the size of the tomb and the originality of its design but also to the estimated length of Udjahorresnet’s life. As a matter of fact, Udjahorresnet held high titles as early as in the time of Amasis (Ahmose II), the penultimate ruler of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, and in that time he also began the construction of his tomb at Abusir, as shown by the king’s cartouches on the faience tablets from foundation deposits found at Udjahorresnet’s tomb. Udjahorresnet’s ambitious official career continued under Psammetik III, Cambyses and, finally, Darius I, during whose reign he died in about 509 BCE. Udjahorresnet thus lived long enough (perhaps between 40 to 50 years and, moreover, always in a privileged social position) to have a good chance to complete his tomb in every detail including the relief decoration of the burial chamber.
Surprisingly few objects were found in Udjahorresnet’s tomb which belonged to the burial equipment: fragments of the so-called magical bricks from the Nile silt, two miniature models of votive offering trays in blue-glazed faience, pottery (including some imported Greek wares), and so on. In addition to that, only five faience statuettes known as ushebtis were found in the underground section of the tomb—surprisingly little, especially for the burial equipment of a magnate and political functionary of Udjahorresnet’s importance! For mortuary cult reasons, 365 of the ushebti statuettes would usually have been deposited in a tomb, one for every day of the year and, in addition, statuettes of foremen, one for every ten of these statuette servants in the other world. It should be added in this context that three of the five ushebti statuettes found were discovered in the sand filling. This had slid down into the underground section from the eastern peripheral shaft in a direction leading from the mouth of the thieves’ tunnel. Unfortunately, this tunnel is clogged with sand today and cannot be cleaned out and investigated. But, as has already been noted, it does not lead to the sarcophagus chamber. In a nutshell, neither in the sarcophagus chamber not anywhere else in the excavated part of the tomb has any important component of a burial been discovered; this includes the canopic jars that should have contained the sealed remains of the internal organs removed during the mummifying procedures.
In the rubble and sand that choked the horizontal passage linking the bottom of the side shaft and the burial chamber, two fragments of limestone were found which fitted together. These came from a vaulted ceiling. On the fragments were remains of hieroglyphic inscriptions in sunk relief. Yet nowhere in underground parts of the tomb so far excavated is there a hieroglyphically inscribed limestone arched ceiling or arched portal from which both these fragments could have come. At the same time it is very unlikely that these two fragments were intrusive objects deposited as a result of some strange set of chances and hauled into the underground part of Udjahorresnet’s tomb from some other neighboring tomb.
At this point, it should be repeated that the peripheral shafts, arranged in a square around the central shaft, have not yet been cleaned out. This, as has been described, is because of the great volume of sand filling which they contain and the inherent danger that clearing them completely could pose. Given that the periphery shafts are filled with the same laboriously sifted sand, with a volume of several thousand cubic meters, could it be that they function the same way as the central shaft? Are there, then, further undiscovered rooms under these peripheral shafts?
It is rather puzzling that no convincing evidence of a mortuary cult has been found in the vicinity of the above-ground part of the tomb, either. Egyptian history was full of reverses, periods of advance and decline, victories and defeats. New religious ideas developed and some of the old customs would be abandoned. In fundamental principles, however, continuity remained unbroken and one of those principles was belief in a life after death and the duty of ensuring that the dead were provided with a mortuary cult. Yet no mortuary cult site has so far been found near Udjahorresnet’s tomb (there is no entrance aperture in the enclosure wall and the cult could have, therefore, taken place only outside this enclosure).
Robbers, as has been mentioned several times, got through to the underground part of the tomb in the face of its builder’s cunning security system. They managed to break in several times, first in the late antiquity (fourth / fifth century CE) and for the last time perhaps in the early Islamic period (ninth / tenth century CE). The central shaft and, in part, even the eastern shaft were cleared out by them. The thieves repeatedly tried to get down to the underground part not only via the shafts but in other places as well. It has already been mentioned, for example, that they dug a tunnel in the tafla wall between the eastern and central shafts, the mouth of which is to be found perhaps six meters under the upper edge of the western wall of the eastern shaft. Immediately behind the entrance aperture the tunnel divides, one branch leading horizontally to the north and the other turning straight down at right angles. The tunnels, however, have collapsed and are full of rubble and sand, and for reasons of safety cannot be explored. It is nevertheless surprising that nowhere in the part of the underground section yet excavated have their exits been found.
A fragment of pottery with a picture of a sphinx was found at the mouth of the so-called working shaft of Udjahorresnet’s tomb. Red baked clay with remains of polychrome. 8.5 by 6.5 centimeters. Imported from the Aegean area, end of the sixth century BCH (photo: Milan Zemina).
Although they could be further elaborated and augmented, we can now summarize the archaeological discoveries and observations here in terms of two conclusions or questions which appear to contradict one another. First, is the ingenious shaft tomb complex constructed for Udjahorresnet on the southeast edge of the Abusir cemetery a genuine tomb or one that is only symbolic in character? Second, is there, in addition to the excavated section of the tomb, yet another part that has so far not been revealed?
Finding answers to these questions will not be easy. Further excavations in Udjahorresnet’s shaft tomb would be not only very demanding but also, and above all, very unsafe and liable to have serious effects on the stability of the whole tomb. Much easier will be the examination of the immediate vicinity of the tomb where other shafts (one such shaft lies close to the southwest corner of the enclosure wall), some of them possibly connected with Udjahorresnet’s tomb, may exist. In practical terms, there is also the possibility left open of completing research on the underground part of the shaft complex by geophysical measuring. Even the employment of this method, however, will not be easy under the prevailing conditions. No matter how difficult the circumstances may be, however, the examination of this tomb should be continued so that the mystery of Udjahorresnet’s funerary monument in Abusir can finally be unraveled.
Egyptian workmen
clearing the underground
galleries of Abusir
(photo: Kamil Voděra).
