الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 463 |  |  |
| | | from | 463 | | |
Abstract
English summery
The term cemetery en Échelon was used by Porter and Moss1 to describe a large area of tombs
to the immediate west of the pyramid of Khufu, dividing it into south and north parts, the
former being earlier than the later. Most scholars refer however to the south part when using
the term cemetery en Échelon. The south part consists of 25 or 26 (with G 5110) mastabas
,arranged in three north south lines, and was in all probability built within a short period of
time. The two western lines comprise nine mastabas, the eastern line only seven. The two
southern cores of this line were according to Reisner never built or else were later destroyed
in order to build mastaba G 5110 (which Reisner dated to the reign of Menakure). The
cemetery was clearly laid out on a unified plan, the peculiar feature of which was that each core
left the chapel end of the core behind it exposed to view from the east. Both excavators – Junker
and Reisner – agreed that the cemetery en Échelon was built later than the other two core
cemeteries G 2100 and G 4000 to the west. In the light of many facts Reisner believed that
the cemetery had been built previous to the middle of the reign of Mycerinus and after the middle
of the reign of Khafre. Most of the known tomb owners are however of a date later than the
proposed creation of the cemetery, many of them belonging to the Fifth Dynasty. Janosi2
concluded thus that most of the substructures in the cemetery en Échelon were not constructed
simultaneously with the erection of the cores but later in date. The architects built lines of
mastabas with regular shafts. The poor quality of these excavations and the small sizes of
most the substructures leave no doubt that the owners of these shafts lacked the ‘financial’
means for a proper burial place.
Mastabas east to CEES (the same in Junker VIII)
East of the CEES, were a number of large mastabas which were obviously in continuation of
that cemetery or closely related to the persons buried in the nastabas of that cemetery. Reisner
only mentioned that these mastabas are later than CEES and dated G 5340 to the reign of
Niueserre or later, and G 5350 a generation later. But it seems that all of the main tombs date
to the fifth dynasty because of the family relations they had with CEES.
Reisner divided these lines of tombs to three groups. The large mastabs fall into three groups,
(1) the mastabas related tom G 5110, (2) two mastabas related to G 2150 (Kanofer), and (3)
the mastabas owned by the descendants of the Seshemnofer family. These nastabas are
1 B. PORTER and R.L.B MOSS, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and
Paintings 3. Memphis (Abû Rawâsh to Abûsîr). (Oxford, 1974) , 2nd ed (revised and augmented by Jaromîr
Málek).
2 P. JANOSI, Old Kingdom tombs and dating in M. BARTA (ed.) , the Old Kingdom art and Archaeology.
Proceedings of the conference held in Prague, May 31-June 4, 2004 (Prague, 2006), 175-183.
surrounded by the small and medium secondary mastabas in the space east of the Cem. en ecc
helon but were earlier than those secondary nastabas and clearly built as additions to the Cem.
en e1c helon. East of these mastabas the secondary mastabas includePjt several lars mastabas
but without clear connection with thses three groups of mastabas)
The north part is usually labeled by the snDm-ib complex which forms the nucleus of that part
of cemetery and comprises tombs built in the time span between the late Fifth Dynasty and
First Intermediate Period. The nucleus mastaba was that of Senedjemib Inti (G 2370). At the
time the mastaba was built, that south part of the cemetery had already grown eastwards
beyond G 2360, and G 2370 was built on the top of many older mastabas. The next
construction in the Senedjemib Complex was the mastaba of Senedjemib Mehi (G 2378).
Later two additions (G2376 and G 2377) to the mastaba of Mehi were built on the west and
closed off all access to Akhetmehu’s chapel. G2377 was built against the west wall of G
2378, with G2376 built against its own west wall. G 2384 was next built on the pavement of
the platform on the east side of the court. It may well have belonged to the elder son of
Senedjemib Mehi, likewise named Senedjemib, who is depicted in his father’s mastaba. Next,
the old platform was extended northwards north of G 2384 along the eastern side of G 2378 to
near its northeast corner. The space east of G 2378 was filled with clean limestone debris
retained by two parallel north– south rubble walls about 4 m east of G 2378. On this extension
was constructed a large mastaba without shafts, G 2385. Burial was presumably in slopingpassage
tomb G 2387 A Reisner thought that the proprietor of the mastaba was a son of
Senedjemib Mehi. Late in the reign of Pepy I, Inti’s grandson(?) Nekhebu31 built G 2381 on
the south end of the paved platform. According to Reisner, Nekhebu was buried in slopingpassage
tomb G 2382 A. Three smaller tomb chapels were also set up on the pavement of the
platform. G 2383 was built against the south face of G 2378, west of the portico, and two
others, G 2386–a and b, between G 2384 and the sloping entrance ramp. On the platform east
of G 2381 and south of the ramp approach to the court was built the badly denuded mastaba G
2390. Shaft G 2390 A may have belonged to this mastaba. Outside the complex proper, on a
much lower level to the north of G 2385, was constructed the mud brick mastaba G 2379
(anonymous), and north of this was built G 2391, a small mastaba belonging to a family of
priests of the Senedjemib family. Other priests and servitors of the Senedjemib family had
tombs in the immediate environs to the south and west of the complex (G 2337, 2338, 2361,
2362, 2364, 2366, 2396, 5551 [= old 2347], 5554 [= old G 2357], etc.). Reisner believed that
the smaller mastabas of the Senedjemib Complex together with the tombs of the funerary
priests beside it may well be nearly the last in the Giza cemetery prior to the intrusive burials
of the Saite and Roman Periods. According to him, the official cemetery fell into disuse
during the time of Pepy II or his successors of the late Old Kingdom, through the dissipation
of earlier endowments or their diversion to other uses.
2-Constructing a Geodatabase for the Giza necropolis
The Geodatabase consists of 2000 tombs. Information about each tomb includes owner name,
mastaba type, mastaba material, whether the mastaba has identifiable borders, whether the
tomb has a superstructure, the presence and quality decoration, the number of shafts, the
number of serdabs, titles of the owner divided to categories and the grave goods recorded
according to type and material. Chapels, serdabs and shafts were represented by one feature
class in order to calculate the effort expenditure of each tomb later. Information of serdabs
and chapels included area and type while data of shafts included the volume, type and
material of lining of shaft in addition to the details of the substructure of the tomb like the
type, volume and orientation of burial chamber, volume of canopic pit, volume of passage,
type of blocking , whether there were evidence of burial in tomb, whether the tomb was
plundered , open or found empty. The database included another table which comprises the
family and dependants of tomb owners and their titles, and whether they were attested
elsewhere in the cemetery of Giza. The use, reuse and abuse of mastabas were very difficult
to document as it has diverse archaeological evidence, but intrusive shafts were differentiated
from the original ones when possible.
3. Pattern analysis
One of the most intriguing question concerning the development of high density cemeteries
like Giza, is the overall organization of tombs. Had there been rules governing the distribution
of small tombs/shafts which were inserted between the great original mastabas of the
cemetery? How much was the personal decision involved in choosing the position of one’s
tomb? Were individuals directed only by space and wealth considerations or were there other
limitations, like family, service of older tombs and one’s occupation, which formed the
clusters of tombs. GIS uses many tools of spatial statistics to describe spatial pattern by which
it can be determined if tombs are random, clustered or evenly dispersed across the study area.
Using the tools in the measuring geographic distributions toolset , the following questions
should be answered:
where is the geographic center of all tombs?
Which tomb is the most centrally located?
How are tombs dispersed around the center?
For example the mean center tool can be used to compare the distribution of mastabas of
type II a and VIII c, or to find the center of mastabas based on shaft number (example in map
2).
To find the tomb which is most centrally located to all other tombs, the central feature tool
will be used, as it identifies the tomb that has the lowest total distance to all other tombs
(example in map 2 ).
To measure the distribution of unattributed shafts around tombs, the standard distance tool
would be used. In addition to learning about the distribution of shafts, we might need to
identify distributional trends by the directional distribution tool. The directional
distribution (standard deviational ellipse) tool measures whether a distribution of features
exhibits a directional trend. Using the tool for the directional distribution of deep shafts,
statues and grave goods made of gold gave the output shown in map 3.
Using the average nearest neighbor tool, which calculates a nearest neighbor index based on
the average distance from each feature to its nearest neighboring feature, for the chapels,
serdabs and shafts of the northern part of cemetery En Echelon , shows the results given in
the attached examples.
Another important question is whether the intrusive shafts are randomly located throughout
the study area, or are displaying a clustering or dispersed pattern. This question can be
answered using two approaches for analyzing patterns. The first approach is the global
calculations by the analyzing pattern toolset, while the second is the local calculations by
the mapping clusters toolset.
The hot spot analysis Getis Ord Gi will be used to delineate clusters of tombs with values
significantly higher or lower than the over all study area mean or average value to locate hot
spots, where for example there is a concentration of rich grave goods or deep shafts.
4.2 effort expenditure calculation
One of the principles currently used to evaluate the possibility of the existence of rank or class
stratification is the so called effort expenditure principle. According to such principle, the
energy or effort which was used within the funerary process is an indicator to the rank and
status of the deceased. The effort expenditure for each grave will be calculated by adding the
volume of shafts to the area of chapels, serdabs and whole area of the tomb.
4.3 Selection by attributes and location
ArcGis gives diverse options of simple or combined selections based on attributes or
location. The potential of such selections raise endless research questions:
The tombs which contained finds of copper? Statues?
The tombs whose owners carried the title of tAyty sAb Taty?
The tombs with the range of 100 meters of the great pyramid?.
The tombs of chapel type 3a.?
The tombs with more than 2 shafts, each deeper than 5 meters?