Space and Shape

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

Marcelo Campagno

1. Initial considerations
The emergence of the State constitutes a social change
process of an enormous magnitude. In effect, its advent
signifies the constitution of a social pole, which concentrates the legitimate monopoly of coercion implying a
type of society qualitatively diverse from the preceding
one. In the Nile Valley, that process takes place in the
IVth millennium B.C. and is well established by the first
third of the following millennium (that is, during the
last phases of Predynastic Period and the Early Dynastic
Period). What kind of evidence testifies the existence of
those transformations that led to the Egyptian State?
Given their preservation conditions remarkably better
than those of other spheres, such as residential spaces or
cult structures , most testimonies come from the funerary practice domain. And what kind of information
is drawn from such funerary evidence? Studies about
variations in the funerary sphere between Predynastic
and Early Dynastic Periods have mainly emphasized the
existence of an increasing social differentiation process,
traceable in the transformations shown by tombs of different cemeteries along the Nile Valley.
In particular, studies that emphasize this kind of social differentiation process take into consideration two
types of indicators. On the one side, grave size is highlighted both surface area and depth , assuming bigger
tombs must belong to individuals of a higher social status: thus, these individuals might have graves that implied a larger energy expenditure on the part of society.
On the other hand, grave wealth is emphasized, mainly
from items integrating the grave offerings: a larger quantity and higher quality of them is thought to correspond
to individuals who, while alive, occupied higher social
positions. As a matter of fact, both indicators provide
other kinds of relevant information in order to think the
process in which the State emerges, such as origin of materials used for the manufacture of grave goods that
may indicate the existence of long-distance exchange
networks , quality of objects manufactured hinting at
the presence of a specialized craftsmanship , or iconogM. Campagno, Space and Shape, AH 17, 2003, 1326

raphy of such items that may offer valuable information concerning religion beliefs or describe domestic,
ritual or warlike scenes. However, perhaps due to the
general coincidence between bigger tomb sizes and higher levels of wealth on one side, and the increasing dimension and complexity of tombs and grave goods as
time advances on the other, studies on variations in
Egyptian funerary practices contemporary with the emergence of the State mostly emphasize size and wealth of
tombs, as the most relevant indicators of the process of
increasing social differentiation taking place during those
times in the Nile Valley. In Bards words, increased social differentiation, as one factor of social change in an
increasingly complex society, is perhaps the only social
trait in an evolving state that can be demonstrated by
the predynastic mortuary evidence.1
Although the existence of a relation between size
and wealth graves, on one side, and social differentiation
on the other, has received a variety of criticisms,2 it is,
from Binford onwards, a criterion currently accepted by
specialists. In effect, if it is true that some of Binfords assertions have been set apart (such as the one concerning
a strong correlation between funerary practices and societys subsistence strategies), the existence of a certain
congruence between social complexity and funerary practices has been maintained not only on theoretical level

Bard, Farmers, 36. See also Wilkinsons conclusions (State Formation, 89f.): During the Naqada II period, the five Predynastic sites in the present study Mostagedda, Matmar, Mahasna,
Armant and Hierakonpolis share a common trend: increasing
authority, as reflected in increasing mortuary elaboration.
For instance, Hodder, Symbols, who says that testimonies of material culture can only be an indirect reflex of the human society.
Within the limits of Egyptology, the position of Griswold, in:
Friedman/Adams (Eds.), Followers, 194, is worth mentioning:
while grave size and provisioning increase through time, this
may be more reflective of an increased emphasis in provisioning
for the dead rather than an actual increase in inequality.

13

but also within the domain of Egyptology.3 In the

Egyptian society, the existence of a certain relationship
between burial customs and social standing is still reinforced, if funerary practices throughout the State era are
taken into account, when the king and the elite tombs
reach an enormous level of complexity, whereas most of
the members of society is still buried in small tombs accompanied by a reduced quantity of funerary offerings.
Now, as it was said before, the indications about an
increasing social differentiation intra-site and as a general trend is one of the most widespread ways of interpreting funerary practices of that period around which
the emergence of the Egyptian State took place. From
our point of view, such perspective of analysis has marginalized the possibility of making other considerations
about 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 some
characteristics of Pre- and Proto-dynastic funerary practices in the Nile Valley that may provide a different but
complementary perspective of the studies on social differentiation. This different perspective tries basically to
relate the information from a number of predynastic
cemeteries (Badari, Naga ed-Dr, Armant, Nagada, Hierakonpolis) with that coming from the first big cemeteries
of the early State elite: those of Abydos and Saqqara. In
particular, we are interested in considering two aspects
of those funerary practices: space distribution and tomb
shapes in both periods. And we find this all the more relevant since, unlike the continuous and increasing process
emphasized by studies based on tomb size and wealth,
an analysis of funerary space organization and tomb
shapes shows a picture in which what predominates is
alteration and discontinuity.

2. Funerary practices
in pre-State communities
Throughout the Predynastic Period (from the settlement of the first agrarian communities to the emergence
of the State), and despite regional differences, funerary
practices show a considerable homogeneity. Firstly, the
dead were usually buried in special areas, on the desertic
banks, out of the productive areas. Most of excavated
tombs present the same features: single burials with
corpses in foetal position and respecting certain criteria
concerning orientation with respect to cardinal points.
Bodies used to be protected by coarse clothes, animal
skins, cane mattings, and as from Nagada I the first
wood or clay coffins. Secondly, the dead were placed in
pits that initially were oval in shape and with a size exceeding by little that of the corpses, and from Nagada I
14

onwards, alongside these, the first rectangular tombs

(hardly over 2 m) appear. Thirdly, a number of objects
were placed beside corpses as burial goods: bowls and
clay or stone vessels that probably contained different
kinds of foods (beer, bread, meat); jewels and ornaments
(pearls, feathers, rings, bracelets, necklaces, cosmetic palettes); stone, bone, ivory and copper tools (knives, arrows, axes, harpoons, needles, maces) in real size and
small scale; and other objects (human figurines, carved
tusks) which are more difficult to classify. As with tomb
size, funerary offerings tend to increase in number and
complexity in the last predynastic phases.4

2-a Space distribution

Now then, the first aspect of predynastic funerary practices we are interested in analyzing relates to space distribution within the cemeteries. Here, we will intend to
establish the principles underlying the way of arranging
the space assigned to the dead. In this sense, there is a
group of studies that allows us to notice a remarkable
characteristic of several cemeteries: the existence of different tomb clusters in the necropolises integrated by
burials, differentiated according to the kind of grave
goods. In effect, Badarian burials in Badari (North,

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, Variability; 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 Archaeology 16, 1997.
There certainly is a remarkable difference most of all in the
fifth millennium between funerary offerings from Upper and
Lower Egypt. In effect, already as from Badarian Period, there is
evidence of a large and increasing number of goods in graves in
the south, whereas for the north the tombs from Merimda and
El-Omari present scarce or no offerings (a single bowl or ornament as burial offering seem to be the rule; see Hoffman, Egypt
before Pharaohs, 110; 174; 196). As a matter of fact, although
tombs from the Maadian epoch show some more offerings, the
differences between southern and northern burial goods will remain until the final cultural homogeneity reached in Nagada III
times. Such a disparity may be related with a different wealth
display modalities and even might be a symptom of divergences as to funerary beliefs. However, the fact remains that
there existed a similar normativity in both regions in what respects to corpse disposition, as well as the fact that also in the
north, be it in a lesser quantity, they still placed offerings for
their dead. Thus, it is possible to suppose that, in spite of regional particularities, funerary practices in both regions were
based on the same generic system of beliefs.

M. Campagno, Space and Shape

West and South Cemeteries) show this pattern and a

similar case seems to appear among Nagada II graves
from Naga ed-Dr (Cemetery N7000), Armant (Cemetery 1400-1500), Nagada (Cemetery N east, N west, B
and T) and Hierakonpolis (Cemetery Hk43).
Let us now have a closer look at these data. In relation to necropolises from Badari, Andersons analysis establishes that the most notable aspect of burial placement was the tendency to separate burials into distinct
clusters in various sections of the same cemetery.5 In effect, in spite of the fact that most tombs have been plundered, it is possible to determine the existence of a larger concentration of materials, such as ivory or carnelian,
in specific sectors within each cemetery, that might point
to a link among individuals buried in those tombs, differentiating them from other individuals buried within
the same necropolis. In Cemetery 1400-1500 from Armant, Bards study indicates that, although up to Nagada IIa phase, tombs are grouped within the same sector,
this pattern changes in Nagada IIb, when larger, rectangular graves are distributed farther to the north, in
less dense concentrations, while smaller Nagada IIb oval
graves tend to be more closely spaced among those of
Nagada Ic and IIa.6
As to Naga ed-Dr, according to Savages analysis,
the grave distribution in Cemetery N7000 shows first
two clusters, one small to the west, and a much larger
cluster located to the east on the upper terrace. A bit
closer examination, however, shows that the larger cluster on the upper terrace appears to be a conglomerate of
smaller clusters that have merged into one larger unit.
[] There is virtually no chance that the six clusters are
the result of random grave placement.7 In relation to
cemeteries in Nagada, the existence of clusters can be established for the totality of cemeteries used in the area,
which differ notably both in tomb size and wealth (the
average of offerings and grave size from CemeteryT are
remarkable higher than those from Cemeteries B, N
East and N West).8 Finally, as to Hierakonpoliss Cemetery Hk43, an area has been uncovered, in which the
graves were arranged in large densely packed circles
around an empty centre, perhaps once covered with an
aboveground monument (Fig. 1).9
What do these tomb clusters in different Nile Valley
sites during the pre-State period indicate? For the Badari
area, Andersons analysis provides us with some clues.
The existence in different clusters of elderly, adult and
sub-adult skeletons, as well as male and female ones,
warns us against any inference of an age or sex distinction as criteria for the establishment of clusters. Nor
have known authority symbols been found, that might
allow us to think of any kind of socio-political differences. Likewise, nothing allows us to suppose that we
are dealing with groups differentiated by their specialized activities (craftsmen, herdsmen, etc.). Accordingly,
M. Campagno, Space and Shape

Anderson concludes: the tendency to place burials in

clusters within cemeteries might, therefore, reflect the
existence of Badarian family or clan groups.10 Savages
study on the Naga ed-Dr cemetery proposes identical
results: in effect, I think it best to refer to these by the
generic term descent groups.11 Bard gets to similar
conclusions with respect to Armant and Nagada burials,
like Friedman in what respects to Hierakonpoliss Cemetery Hk43.12 In effect, the existence of different descent
groups could explain the grouping of tombs in clusters
and cemeteries as well as the distinctions in burial goods.13
Now then, the cemetery organization of the preState period as a result of groupings determined by the
different descent groups within the community agrees
with the position kinship regularly assumes in non-State
communities: that is, the principle which provides the
scheme through which the basic relations of those societies are expressed. As a matter of fact, the ethnographic, ethnohistoric and to a certain extent archaeological 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, suggesting that most of his clusters can be the result of temporal
drift. However, important is to say that even Delrue recognize
the existence of two separate clusters of Stufe IIc-d period in the
cemetery. 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 Delrue, this author doesnt rule out the possibility that the two clusters of Stufe IIc-d period he recognizes could have been organized 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, it
is possible to establish the existence of two descent groups that
would separately occupy the east and west areas of the cemetery:
descent group members may simply have buried their dead
nearest the most recent burial on one side of the cemetery area
or the other, depending on kin affiliation. Likewise, the mortuary evidence of CemeteryT at Nagada represents members of
the highest-status descent group. In relation to Cemetery Hk43,
Friedman, in: JARCE 36, 1999, 4, suggests that groupings can
be attributed to related family members.
13 According to Tainter, in: Schiffer (Ed.), Advances 1, 123, the
ethnographic evidence seems to indicate that in cemeteries, the
presence of formal disposal areas is consistently associated with
corporate groups practising lineal descent.

15

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

kinship is the dominant practice, extending its principles to the whole social network.14 In this way, every
practice integrating the network expresses itself in kinship terms, thus speaking the idiom of kinship.15 That
hegemonic position of kinship practice can be fully appreciated in many different ambits of non-State communities. Through kinship terms, for instance, criteria
for the inclusion (kinsmen) or exclusion (non-kinsmen)
of individuals in relation to their communities are established. Production is also organized by kinship units.
Exchanges are established in relation to kinship distance. In the same way, kinship provides a symbolic
code to express political and ritual relationships.16
Thus, if we verify in pre-State cemeteries of the Nile
Valley a space organization in clusters that might point
to the different kinship groups of the community, we
would find an indication of the presence of kinship as an
underlying model for funerary practices. The organization of the space assigned to the dead could have been
established in the very same terms, which organized the
whole of society.
16

2-b Tomb shapes

If we now consider the second aspect of pre-State funerary practices we are interested in analyzing the one
concerning predynastic tomb shapes , a remarkable
correlation 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 exigencies: 1) people must help those that helped them; 2) people
must not wrong those who helped them. Thus kinship practice
implies a duty of mutual help among the members of the society it regulates. It also implies an unending interplay of gifts and
countergifts in which the receiver is always in debt with the
donor. 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.

M. Campagno, Space and Shape

Fig. 2: Badarian Tombs (from Murray, 1956, 88).

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

Fig. 5: Reconstruction of a Nagada II House (from Uphill, 1988, 12).

Fig. 4: Reconstruction of Houses in Merimda (from Badawy, 1966, 12).

tants of the Nile appears (Figs. 25).17 In effect, as it was

said before, the oldest graves were predominantly oval in
shape. This general characteristic is witnessed in Lower
Egypt (Merimda, El-Omari) as well as in most Badarian
and Amratian/Nagada I cemeteries (Badari, HemmamiM. Campagno, Space and Shape

17

In relation to the shapes of Predynastic graves and residential

sites, cf. Vandier, Manuel; Murray, in: JEA 42, 1956; Badawy,
Architecture; Hoffman, Egypt before Pharaohs; Hassan, in: Journal of World Prehistory 2, 1988; Uphill, Towns; Porta, Architettura; Midant-Reynes, Prhistoire; Vercoutter, Egypte; Spencer,
Early Egypt.

17

yeh, Mahasna, Abydos, El-Amrah, Armant). And, at the

same time, the remains of settlements for the same period show dwellings of similar shapes: that is, rounded
huts. So far, this could just be a hazardous analogy between house and tomb shapes.
However, the parallelism is reinforced when we consider a second element. As from Amratian/Nagada I
phase, and with more intensity during Gerzean/Nagada
II times, archaeology detects burials of a new type, that
some authors associate with the emergence of a certain
higher social stratum. This second type is composed of
neatly rectangular-shaped tombs, as it is highlighted by
certain Nagada I graves in Hierakonpolis and by a good
number of Nagada II graves in the cemeteries of Harageh, Badari, Hemmamiyeh, Abydos, Nagada, Armant.
Now then, the same type of innovation, for the same period, is witnessed in the way residential places are designed, such as the evidence of certain clay models of
rectangular houses, as well as the residential remains in
Hierakonpolis and Maadi testify.18 Such a parallelism
has not been overlooked by many researchers careful
eye.19 But what is the reason for such an analogy? What
kind of connection can be established between the aspect of tombs and that of dwellings?
From our viewpoint, it seems probable that a change
in building patterns in one of the spaces residential or
funerary could have resulted in an equivalent transformation in the other domain. Or in other words, one and
the same criterion could underlie the organization of
both residential and funerary spaces. And this could be
the case because in non-State societies there seems to
exist an inseverable bond linking the dead with the living: the dead continue to be a constituent part of society. In effect, according to Godelier, in those societies,
membership to the community is not only an attribute
of the living but of the whole group including the dead
forbears and their descendants living or to-be. It is in
this sense that the community appears as a superior reality, as the unity factor between individuals and generations.20
What then does this community of the living and
the dead imply as such? Just as it happens with the criterion underlying funerary space distribution, the conception of the dead as full-fledged members of their communities seems to be related to the existence of kinship
as the principle of social organization, inasmuch as social bonds persist beyond the physical disappearance of
individuals. If the dead receive the same treatment as the
living, this is so because the difference between the two
is less significant than the fact of still being kinsmen, because kinship continues to be the practice that expresses
that relationship between the living and the dead. In
these conditions, it seems reasonable to suppose that the
living descendants would have conceived that their dead
ancestors dwellings should possess a similar shape to
18

that of their own dwellings. Graves did not exclude the

dead kinsmen to an inhospitable and unknown place:
they were simply a new house or, as Michael Hoffman
has pointed out, a mini-home.21
Thus, we believe it is possible to consider that both
space organization in cemeteries and tomb and house
shape continuity are indicators of the fact that funerary
practices in pre-State Nile Valley were organized according to the framework the idiom provided by kinship, as the social principle dominant in the constitution of non-State communities. If, while keeping in
mind this idea, we now consider the same variables in
the big cemeteries of the early Egyptian State elite, the
radical difference separating both periods can be fully
appreciated.

3. Funerary practices
in early State times
The first indications of State-like practices in the Nile
Valley go back to 34003300 B.C. in Upper Egypt. The
evidence seems to suggest the existence of different proto-States that might have appeared more or less simultaneously under similar general conditions and that would
become unified in one kingdom of Upper Egypt. Between 3200 and 3000 B.C. the so-called Nagada IIIab phase that southern kingdom would have extended
to the Nile Delta, thus forming an only and widespread
State between the First Cataract and the Mediterranean
Sea.22 From that moment starts the period attributed by
Manetho to the First Dynasty and that is conventionally called Early Dynastic Period. From the start, the dynastic elite had two big cemeteries, one in the south, in
Abydos, in the area in which the State had emerged, and
the other in the north, in Saqqara, in the vicinity of the
new State capital located in Memphis. As a matter of
fact, there is a controversy among specialists as to the

18

In Hierakonpolis and in Maadi a good number of residential remains of oval or round shape is also found. Notably, in both
places, that dwelling type has its own parallel in the presence of
tombs of similar shapes.
19 See, among others, Vandier, Manuel, 499f.; Kanawati, Tomb, 57;
Hassan, in: Friedman/Adams (Eds.), Followers, 317; Vercoutter,
Egypte, 158; Spencer, Early Egypt, 36f.; Tefnin, in: Archo-Nil
3, 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.

M. Campagno, Space and Shape

specific royal character of those cemeteries. There are

some who think that, due to its contiguity to the previous Cemetery U, Cemetery B in Abydos must be considered the only royal necropolis, whereas that of Saqqara
would have been used by higher State officials. Others
think it was in Saqqara, near the new capital, where
kings would have been buried, and that, in order to continue the southern funerary tradition, cenotaphs would
have been built in Abydos. There are even those who
maintain that, in accordance with the dual characteristic
of Egyptian thought, both necropolises should be regarded as royal: the king would have a tomb in each half
of Egypt. For our own purposes, it may suffice here to
indicate that although the royal character of both cemeteries has been questioned, nobody, however, has ever
doubted about the State character of either.23
Which is the most prominent characteristic of graves
in these cemeteries? Doubtless, their monumentality. In
Abydos, the remarkably bigger dimensions of royal tombs
are already exhibited in the Cemetery U, in which the
monarchs of the previous era would have been buried
(in particular, tomb U-j, with an area of over 65 m and
twelve chambers for the royal corpse and funerary offerings, constitutes the biggest tomb of its epoch). Now
then, in the contiguous Cemetery B, dimensions and
complexity would be even larger, with mastabas whose
size must have varied from 103 m for Narmers tomb to
almost 630 m for Qaas one, and with a great number of
chambers for the kings funerary offerings, as well as a
wood-covered central chamber. As from the fifth king of
the Dynasty, Den, onwards, and due to the depth of
graves, it was also necessary to build entrance stairs. The
grave substructures were covered with sand and gravel
mounds that remained below surface level, while large
superstructures, of which only a few traces remain, were
built at the top. But apart from the mastaba in the cemetery, each king also had his own funerary palace, which
consisted of a rectangular precinct much bigger than the
mastaba (Ahas funerary palace reaches 800 m while
Djers reaches 5175 m), designed for the dead kings cult
so that he might still carry on his royal rituals in the afterlife.
As to the Saqqara Cemetery, it also consists of huge
rectangular mudbrick buildings far larger than those
of Abydos with a great number of chambers, the
largest and deepest of which is in the middle of the
building. Dimensions vary from 512 m for the mastaba
associated with Adjib to 2405 m for that alternatively
attributed to king Qaa or his official Merka. External
walls presented more complex characteristics (see infra)
and were higher than those of the mastabas in Abydos
(probably about 5 m). Surrounding some mastabas, hundreds of clay bullheads with real horns were placed (as a
matter of fact, Egyptian kingship always exhibited bulllike features), as well as the funerary barks belonging to
M. Campagno, Space and Shape

the grave owners. Here, substructures were also crowned

by mounds: however, unlike in Abydos, in the tomb associated with king Adjib such a mound shows a trunkpyramidal superstructure built in stone and mudbrick,
probably an antecedent of the later pyramidal tombs
built as from Dynasty III.

3-a Space distribution

Now then, what happens with space organization in the
early State elites cemeteries of Abydos and Saqqara? In
both necropolises, space distribution shows a radically
different pattern from the one found in pre-State cemeteries. The scenery is certainly dominated by the large
royal tombs, but there is another characteristic present
in both State cemeteries, which is very significant: the
inclusion of numerous minor graves belonging to different members of the new society from members of the
royal entourage to craftsmen and servants , in direct relation to the royal tombs. In Abydos, king Ahas tomb is
composed of three funerary chambers, next to which
there is a group of thirty subsidiary graves. The tombs of
the following kings of the First Dynasty (Djer, Uadji,
Den, Adjib and queen Merneith) are surrounded, in
their perimeter, by the same kind of graves housing a
great number of followers. In the cases of Semerkhet
and Qaa, the last kings of the Dynasty, lesser graves also
surround the royal chamber, but they are part now of
the same building, that serves as the king tomb. As to
the Saqqara Cemetery, it also presents an organization
pattern in which a great number of subsidiary tombs
surround the big mastabas, and the same happens in relation to the funerary palaces in Abydos (Figs. 68).24

23

In relation to the discussion about the location of tombs of kings

of 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; Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 259f.
24 For the tombs in Abydos and Saqqara, see Vandier, Manuel,
613643; Lauer, in: BIFAO 55, 1956, 153171; Emery, Archaic 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, 222
228; Adams/Cialowicz, Protodynastic Egypt, 1721; Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 230260. As to the funerary palaces
(mainly concentrated in Abydos, but also present in other areas
such 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.

19

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

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

What does such a space organization suggest us?

From our viewpoint, the fact that in most cases royal
tombs are surrounded by much lesser graves provides us
with a symbolic picture of the Egyptian State society. In
effect, the king appears, in each case, as occupying the
scene centre: his tomb impresses by its size and design,
but also by the centrality it acquires in relation to the
other graves. These, on the other hand, present much
more modest dimensions and characteristics and their
peripheral situation seems not only to refer to their spatial location but also to the one their owners occupy in
society vis--vis the king-god.25 It is in this sense that
Hoffmans words acquire all their meaning: particularly during the period of the unification, it is the burial
complexes that personify the nature of the new State
and its regime. They are microcosms of the way that the
new kings conceived the relation of the cosmic and
earthly orders.26 It is because the king there could be
20

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

25

The hypothesis supported by some authors suggesting those

subsidiary graves belonged to individuals sacrificed at the moment of the kings burial is based mainly on the analysis carried
out on human remains, found in Ahas tomb subsidiary graves in
Abydos, that seem to belong to young individuals between 20
and 25, what would allow to think in unnatural deaths. It is not
possible to know if such was the case for the rest of the royal
tombs. However, if that were so, the practice of human sacrifices
would certainly reinforce the image of the State as an almighty
power, capable of deciding upon the life and death of individuals. See Edwards, in: CAH, Vol. 2, 1971, 59; Hoffman, Egypt
before Pharaohs, 275279; Dreyer et al., in: MDAIK 46, 1990,
8186; Spencer, Early Egypt, 72; Baines, in: OConnor/Silverman (Eds.), Egyptian Kingship, 132; 135137; Cervell, Egipto y frica, 211213.
26 Hoffman, Egypt before Pharaohs, 327.

M. Campagno, Space and Shape

Fig. 9: Reconstruction of a Tomb in Cemetery B of Abydos (from

Lauer, 1956, pl. IV).

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

1996, 312).

little doubt about it is the absolute centre of the

emerging State that funerary practices of this new society do nothing but reproduce that situation, projecting it
to the space assigned to the dead.
Thus, if on one side the organization of mortuary space in the pre-State period allows us to notice the
presence of tomb clusters which seem to refer to kinship
criteria, early State elite cemeteries on the other side
present a radical discontinuity inasmuch as their space is
arranged after the kings monumental tombs around
which are grouped the infinitely smaller graves of followers and servants. So, alongside the increasing complexity of funerary offerings and the larger dimensions
of the tombs, a new principle radically different from
that of pre-State times, seems to underlie the way funerary space is distributed in early State elite cemeteries.
And that principle is compatible with the new way society would be structured since State practice emerges and
consolidates.

Cemetery B in Abydos] reproduced the structure of the

most sophisticated houses of the time.27 Throughout
pharaonic times, that strong link between the residential
domains of the dead and the living will never disappear.
Thus, for instance, during the Old Kingdom, prince
Hardjedef recommends to his son: Furnish your house
in the graveyard and enrich your place in the West
The house of the death is for life. In effect, in Ancient
Egypt the tomb was always a house for eternity.28
Now then, if the conception of the tomb as the deceaseds dwelling is still current in State times, that
conception as far as the kings tomb and those of his
entourage are concerned exhibits a change: it would
no longer be associated to the belief about the deceaseds
permanence within his or her community of origin, as a
full-fledged member thereof, in his or her condition of
relative of the living members of that community. Rather,
early State elite tombs would be directly related to a new
kind of abodes: the first royal palaces, the new places
where the social pole capable of imposing its will as a
consequence of its monopoly of coercion would be concentrated.
Thus, in Abydos, the royal mastabas of the First Dynasty seem to combine two symbolic principles: the inner mound could be related to the cosmogonic primordial hill out of which the primeval god created the
universe; and the shape of the perimetral superstructure,
on the other hand, would remind of the houses, thus
reproducing the earthly abode as an abode for the eternity (Figs. 9; 10).29 As to funerary palaces whose peri-

3-b Tomb shapes

If we now consider the shape of the early State elite
tombs in Abydos and Saqqara, the total contrast with
pre-State graves could not be more striking. In effect,
both by their dimensions and architectural complexity,
the new elite graves acquire shapes and magnitudes unknown before State emergence. Now then, if the symbolic principles underlying the building of elite graves
as well as the ideological effects their aspect had in society are considered, such tombs imply, in comparison
with pre-State graves, both a continuity and a deep
change.
On one side, the kings tomb and those of his entourage reiterate the direct link between tomb and house,
as it happened in pre-State times. As Cervell points
out: in Egypt, the oldest royal mastabas [those built in
M. Campagno, Space and Shape

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).

21

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).

meter was also surrounded by mudbrick walls, they incorporated an important architectural innovation: the
so-called niched walls, such as, it seems, was already the
norm for the building of royal palaces. And, although
there is no direct evidence of those palaces (probably
constructed in light materials), there is a group of serekhs
the identifying symbol of each king representing the
royal palace structure from Dynasty 0 onwards. In effect, the serekh consisted of a rectangle with the kings
name written on its upper part, some vertical lines evocative of the palace niched walls on its lower part, and a
falcon (Horus) perched on top.30 Thus, the funerary
complexes of Abydos would reflect this relationship between tomb and dwelling place twofold: the big but
plain-walled mastabas would still remember the houses
of ancestral tradition, linked to the creation and dwelling-places of the forbears; funerary palaces, on the other hand, would not only exhibit rooms of dimensions
previously unknown, but also an architectural style directly linked to the specific shape royal residences of the
living pharaohs would take on.31
Besides, the external appearance of funerary palaces
in Abydos coincides with the aspect of the tombs that
started to be built in Saqqara from the beginnings of the
22

First Dynasty. As a matter of fact, as Cervell proposes:

the mastabas from Saqqara are the result of the conjugation of the two buildings in Abydos: the mastaba and
the funerary niched palace, which thus results in a niched
mastaba. If the southern ancestral tradition had required
respect for the plain mastaba, and the newly created
building the funerary palace had been kept topographically apart from it, the new tomb in Saqqara, also
a new creation, could incorporate unhindered the functional and decorative innovation (Figs. 11; 12).32
Now then, both royal palaces and their funerary
correlations showed dimensions without precedents in
pre-State buildings. According to what was indicated
before, those graves reached truly monumental dimensions with the beginning of the First Dynasty. In effect,
both the mastabas and the funerary palaces in Abydos
and Saqqara but also some other tombs in different
sites along the Nile Valley and linked to the State elite
are large-scale constructions, built thanks to the control
over a wide range of resources (labour-force, raw materials, different skills of craftsmanship) which only the
emerging State was capable of mustering. Thus, the
Egyptian State was introducing a kind of construction
that represented an explicit testimony of its creating capability. In Triggers words: the solidity and material
permanence of structures [help to] convince the spectator of the reality of the power that brought them into existence. [] The splendour of such buildings may proclaim, and by doing so reinforce, the status of rulers, of

30

Certainly, the serekh, as a royal symbol par excellence, combines

in its image the monarchs name, his condition of Horus and his
narrow link with the palace he resides in. About the serekh
meaning, see Spencer, Early Egypt, 5961, Baines, in: OConnor/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).

M. Campagno, Space and Shape

their protective gods, and of the State. [] Furthermore, by participating in erecting monuments that glorify the power of the upper classes, peasant labourers are
made to acknowledge their subordinate status and their
sense of their own inferiority is reinforced.33
Thus, as from the First Dynasty, the elites tombs
would represent a direct indicator of the State might.
Without abandoning the ancestral concept that linked
the dead to the living, the new graves, however, not only had radically changed their aspect but also the ideological effects those constructions could induce in society. Unlike pre-State burials, those of the early State elite,
far from testifying the essential membership of the dead
to the community as kinsmen of the living, were indicators of the new State power; a power that burst into villages when the time arrived for the paying of tributes
in kind but also in labour force to carry out its program
of monumental constructions and that left behind,
with each and every one of those qualitatively new buildings, a permanent material trace of its domination.

3-c Contrasts
Of course, with the State advent, the funerary pattern
based on kinship was not totally substituted by the new
State pattern. In effect, only the elite directly linked to
the State pole must have had access to those tombs of
monumental aspect. The largest part of society, on the
contrary, would still be grouped in village communities
and carry out their funerary practices according to traditional kinship principles. It is precisely in that contrast
of burial ways that root one of the main modes of testifying the radical splitting that characterizes the new type
of society: on the one side, a small group of big and
complex tombs, representative of the State power; on
the other, a multitude of small and simple tombs, similar to those of pre-State times and representative of a
predominantly peasant social majority.
If, apart from Abydos and Saqqara, we consider other cemeteries from the early State period, the magnitude
of that contrast can be fully appreciated. In Tarkhan, a
site 60 km south of the newly founded Memphis, the
burials of the Early Dynastic Period are grouped in two
distinct areas: the so-called Hill Cemeteries, where the
more complex tombs were found including objects
with serekhs and niche architecture and the Valley
Cemetery, with most of the small tombs with simple funerary goods. As Wilkinson points out, this pattern
suggests the existence of a distinct lite class within the
society at Tarkhan, a class which emphasized its distinctiveness from the general population by means of a separate cemetery. Hill Cemetery A may have served a yet
more rarefied lite. Within this cemetery the two most
elaborate burials [] may have belonged to provincial
governors.34 Now then, it is significant that in the ValM. Campagno, Space and Shape

ley Cemetery, where the largest part of Tarkhan population would concentrate, Elliss analysis indicates, on the
western side of the necropolis, the presence of a tomb
cluster among which are six little mastabas that contains certain objects stone vases, rectangular cosmetic
palettes, ivory needles, beads and whose goods volume
is somewhat bigger and could constitute a special area
for a specific corporate group.35 Thus, the Valley Cemetery presents a space organization that reminds that of
other cemeteries from pre-State times. Consequently, in
Tarkhan, we would not only find documented the contrast between two burial areas segregated according to
membership to the State pole of society, but also, at the
same time, the existence of funerary criteria similar to
those used in pre-State times, based on kinship, for the
distribution of the funerary space accessible to the greatest group of population.36
That contrast between burial characteristics of early
State elite and those of the rest of society also appears in
other regions, such as that of Armant and Nagada, both
already considered with reference to pre-State funerary
patterns. In these sites, the testimony consists in the
sudden occurrence of tombs of a State style, which was
not prefigured in the previous funerary pattern. In Armant, Cemetery 1200, some 9 km from Cemetery 14001500 already mentioned, presents, for the Nagada IIIb
phase, two big tombs of 24 and 30.45 m, with mudbrick walls and several chambers. Although the location
of the bulk of contemporary tombs is unknown (Cemetery 1400-1500 had already been abandoned), Bard
concludes that as there is nothing in the development
of grave types in Cemetery 1400-1500 that anticipates
Tombs 1207 and 1208, a reasonable hypothesis is that
these tomb types developed elsewhere and were introduced by forces outside the existing social order at Armant.37 In relation to Nagada, for the beginnings of the
period starting with the First Dynasty, two big royal
tombs have also been documented, next to a necropolis
with a great quantity of common people tombs, some
6.8 km from the above mentioned Cemetery N.38 Al-

33 Trigger, in: World Archaeology 22, 1990, 122; 125. See also Endrdi, in: GM 125, 1991, 25, who highlights the creation of a
new discourse in monumentalism that is typical of the building
practices 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 as
the Cemetery of middle class in Saqqara, whose space distribution shows a pattern of six clearly different groupings. See
Macramallah, Cimetire.
37 Bard, Farmers, 74; see also ibid., 54; 57.
38 de Morgan, Recherches, 159; Bard, Farmers, 80.

23

though no information about that necropolis excavated

over a century ago is actually available, it surely must
have been in sharp contrast with the two big royal
tombs, similar in dimensions and architectural design to
the mastabas of Saqqara, one of which (some 1425 m)
could have been Narmers wifes the queen Neithhotep
perhaps representing a post-unification alliance between Nagada and the newly established powers in the
north, where such elaborate palace-faade tombs []
are more common: then, the purpose of the tomb would
have been to help cement control of the newly unified
State.39 It should be remarked that, like in Armant,
such tombs located outside the pre-existent cemeteries
and with dimensions and architectural design diverging
from those known in these places represented a sharp
contrast with the funerary pattern previously in force,
thus symbolizing the profound split that separated the
State pole from the rest of society.

4. Final considerations
After this survey, it can be seen that State emergence
deeply modifies previous funerary practices, introducing
funerary criteria that diverge from those available in preState communities. In these communities, in which kinship can be suspected to be in force as the social articulator par excellence, funerary practices seem to have been
carried out according to that organizer principle: consequently, both space distribution within cemeteries and
tomb shapes refer to that pattern of social organization.
In other words, they are expressed in terms of the idiom of kinship. In contradistinction, funerary practices
of the emerging State describe a remarkably different
space organization, centred around each royal tomb,
which, although still keeping the traditional link between tomb and house, now reflect the architectural
and symbolic characteristics of the royal palace, the
material core from which emanate the decisions of a
new social power, capable of imposing its will, thanks to
the possession of the legitimate monopoly of coercion.
Now then, in the face of such a verification, the
question arises again about the reason for the prevalence
of statements, so common in studies about pre- and
proto-State funerary world in Ancient Egypt, claiming
the existence of a gradual and in crescendo evolutive continuum. Of course, this does not mean to question the
sequence itself, showing comparatively bigger dimensions and richer funerary goods in tombs the nearer they
get to the times when the State emerged in the Nile Valley. What is being questioned instead is the broad prevalence of that kind of statements over any other kind of
considerations concerning the same evidence. Why does
24

that prevalence occur? From our viewpoint, this is directly related to the current dominant position of evolutionism in social studies. Since social processes in particular, processes such as the one implying the State
advent are conceived in terms of growth, expansion,
development of what was potential in a previous stage,
the researchers spontaneous eye tends to focus on
those sequences that best seem to confirm transhistorical evolution laws from societies with a lower level of
civilization to other more developed.
Inasmuch as the State emergence is conceived as
one of the ascending steps in the evolutive scale, the evolutionist reading tends to organize the available information according to the dictum that postulates a transition from a simpler society to a more complex one. And
the funerary evidence in the Nile Valley seems to fit well
in such a reading. In effect, given the smallerbigger,
poorerricher sequence of tombs, and correlated in a
rather irreflexive way with the simplicitycomplexity axis of the evolutionist theory, the slow evolution towards
the State appears as an intrinsic datum of the register,
rather than an interpretation privileging that sequence
over other modes of thinking those same testimonies.
This is not the place to propose in extenso the objections
to the evolutionist strategy. Suffice it to say that, as far as
the process in which the State emerges is concerned, and
beyond the strongly ethnocentric connotations behind
that perspective, the evolutionist strategy tends to overlook, to dissolve the radical difference that separates one
period from the other, a difference basically dictated by
the introduction of the legitimate monopoly of coercion
as a resource for the making of social decisions.40
Thus, the analysis of pre- and proto-State funerary
practices in the Nile Valley that emphasize size and richness of tombs have indicated the existence of a tomb sequence that, as a general rule, present bigger and richer
graves the more we advance in the chronology. Such sequences are a relevant aspect about the Egyptian funerary world. However, they are perhaps only one of the
relevant aspects that group of evidence may offer. In effect, the consideration of other aspects such as funerary space distribution and tomb shapes may provide
us with other perspective to look into what would continue, what would change, and what would be a radical
break in relation to that remote process that would result in the organization of one of the most ancient State
societies of the world.

39

Bard, Farmers, 109. In relation to queen Neithhoteps probable

tomb, see also Vandier, Manuel, 634637; Emery, Archaic Egypt,
4749; Kemp, in: JEA 59, 1973, 43; Hoffman, Egypt before
Pharaohs, 322324.
40 To this respect, see Campagno, in: Boletn de Antropologa
Americana 33, 1998, 102105.

M. Campagno, Space and Shape

Bibliography
Adams/Cialowicz, Protodynastic Egypt
Barbara Adams/Krzysztof M. Cialowicz, Protodynastic
Egypt, Buckinghamshire 1997.
Anderson, in: JARCE 29, 1992
Wendy Anderson, Badarian Burials: Evidence of Social
Inequality in Middle Egypt During the Early Predynastic
Era, in: JARCE 29, 1992, 5166.
Badawy, Architecture
Alexandre Badawy, Architecture in Ancient Egypt and
the Near East, Massachusetts 1966.
Baines, in: OConnor/Silverman (Eds.), Egyptian Kingship
John Baines, Origins of Egyptian Kingship, in: OConnor/Silverman (Eds.), Egyptian Kingship, 95156.
Bard, Farmers
Kathryn A. Bard, From Farmers to Pharaohs. Mortuary
Evidence for the Rise of Complex Society in Egypt,
Sheffield 1994.
Bard, in: JEA 74, 1988
Kathryn A. Bard, A Quantitative Analysis of the Predynastic Burials in Armant Cemetery 1400-1500, in: JEA
74, 1988, 3955.
Bard, in: Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2, 1989
Kathryn A. Bard, The Evolution of Social Complexity in
Predynastic Egypt: An Analysis of the Naqada Cemeteries, in: Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2, 1989,
223248.
Binford, in: Binford (Ed.), Archaeological Perspective
Louis Binford, Mortuary Practices: Their Study and their
Potential, in: Binford (Ed.), Archaeological Perspective,
208243.
Binford (Ed.), Archaeological Perspective
Louis Binford, An Archaeological Perspective, NewYork
1972.
Campagno, in: Boletn de Antropologa Americana 33, 1998
Marcelo Campagno, Pierre Clastres y el surgimiento del
Estado. Veinte aos despus, in: Boletn de Antropologa
Americana 33, 1998, 101113.
Carr, in: Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2, 1995
Christopher Carr, Mortuary practices: Their Social, Philosophical-Religious, Circumstantial, and Physical Determinants, in: Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2, 1995, 105200.
Castillos, in: JSSEA 12, 1982
Juan Jos Castillos, Analyses of Egyptian Predynastic and
Early Dynastic Cemeteries. Final Conclusions, in: JSSEA
12, 1982, 2953.
Cervell, Egipto y frica
Josep Cervell Autuori, Egipto y frica. Origen de la civilizacin y la monarqua faranicas en su contexto africano, Sabadell 1996.
Delrue, in: Willems (Ed.), Social Aspects
Parsival Delrue, The Predynastic Cemetery N7000 at
Naga ed-Dr. A Re-evaluation, in: Willems (Ed.), Social
Aspects, 2166.
de Morgan, Recherches
Jacques de Morgan, Recherches sur les Origines de lEgypte.
Ethnographie prhistorique et Tombeau royal de Ngadah, Paris 1897.
Dreyer, in: van den Brink (Ed.), Nile Delta
Gnter Dreyer, Recent Discoveries in the U-Cemetery at
Abydos, in: van den Brink (Ed.), Nile Delta, 293300.
M. Campagno, Space and Shape

Dreyer et al., in: MDAIK 46, 1990

Gnter Dreyer et al., Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof. 3./4. Vorbericht,
in: MDAIK 46, 1990, 5390.
Dreyer et al., in: MDAIK 49, 1993
Gnter Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen
im frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof. 5./6. Vorbericht, in:
MDAIK 49, 1993, 2362.
Edwards, in: CAH, Vol. 2, 1971
I. E. S. Edwards, The Early Dynastic Period in Egypt, in:
CAH, Vol. 2, 1971, 170.
Ellis, in: van den Brink (Ed.), Nile Delta
Chris Ellis, A Statistical Analysis of the Protodynastic
Burials in the Valley Cemetery of Kafr Tarkhan, in: van
den Brink (Ed.), Nile Delta, 241248.
Emery, Archaic Egypt
Walter B. Emery, Archaic Egypt, Harmondsworth 1961.
Endrdi, in: GM 125, 1991
Julia Endrdi, Figurative discourse and Communication in the Emerging State of Egypt, in: GM 125, 1991,
2136.
Friedman et al., in: JARCE 36, 1999
Rene Friedman et. al., Preliminary Report on Field Work
at Hierakonpolis, in: JARCE 36, 1999, 135.
Friedman/Adams (Eds.), Followers
Rene Friedman/Barbara Adams (Eds.), The Followers of
Horus. Studies dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman,
Egyptian Studies Association Publication No. 2, Oxford
1992.
Godelier, Cuerpo
Maurice Godelier, Cuerpo, parentesco y poder. Perspectivas antropolgicas y crticas, Quito 2000.
Godelier, Economa
Maurice Godelier, Economa, fetichismo y religin en las
sociedades primitivas, Mxico 1974.
Griswold, in: Friedman/Adams (Eds.), Followers
William A. Griswold, Measuring Social Inequality at Armant, in: Friedman/Adams (Eds.), Followers, 193198.
Hassan, in: Friedman/Adams (Eds.), Followers
Fekri Hassan, Primeval Goddess to Divine King. The
Mythogenesis of Power in the Early Egyptian State, in:
Friedman/Adams (Eds.), Followers, 307322.
Hassan, in: Journal of World Prehistory 2, 1988
Fekri Hassan, The Predynastic of Egypt, in: Journal of
World Prehistory 2, 1988, 135185.
Hendrickx, Elkab V
Stan Hendrickx, Elkab V. The Naqada III Cemetery,
Bruxelles 1994.
Hodder, Symbols
Ian Hodder, Symbols in Action. Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture, Cambridge 1982.
Hoffman, Egypt before Pharaohs
Michael A. Hoffman, Egypt before the Pharaohs, New
York 1993.
Kaiser/Dreyer, in: MDAIK 38, 1982
Werner Kaiser/Gnter Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof. 2. Vorbericht, in: MDAIK 38, 1982, 211269.
Kanawati, Tomb
Naguib Kanawati, The Tomb and its Significance in Ancient Egypt, Guizeh 1987.
Kemp, Anatomy
Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt. Anatomy of a Civilization, London 1989.

25

Kemp, in: JEA 52, 1966

Barry J. Kemp, Abydos and the Royal Tombs of the First
Dynasty, in: JEA 52, 1966, 1322.
Kemp, in: JEA 59, 1973
Barry J. Kemp, Photographs of the Decorated Tomb at
Hierakonpolis, in: JEA 59, 1973, 3643.
Lauer, in: BIFAO 55, 1956
Jean-Philippe Lauer, Sur le dualisme de la monarquie
gyptienne et son expression architecturale sous les premires dynasties, in: BIFAO 55, 1956, 153171.
Lauer, in: BIFAO 79, 1979
Jean-Philippe Lauer, Le developpement des complexes
funeraires royaux en Egypte, in: BIFAO 79, 1979, 355
394.
Lichtheim, Egyptian Literature
Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. 1,
Berkeley 1973.
Macramallah, Cimetire
R. Macramallah, Un Cimetire Archaque de la Classe
Moyenne du Peuple Saqqarah, Le Caire 1940.
Midant-Reynes, Prhistoire
Beatrix Midant-Reynes, Prhistoire de lEgypte. Des premiers hommes aux premiers pharaons, Paris 1992.
Murray, in: JEA 42, 1956
Margaret Murray, Burial Customs and Beliefs in the Hereafter in Predynastic Egypt, in: JEA 42, 1956, 8696.
OBrien, in: JARCE 33, 1996
Alexandra A. OBrien, The Serekh as an Aspect of the
Iconography of Early Egyptian Kingship, in: JARCE 33,
1996, 123138.
OConnor, in: JARCE 26, 1989
David OConnor, New Funerary Enclosures (Talbezirke)
of the Early Dynastic Period at Abydos, in: JARCE 26,
1989, 5186.
OConnor/Silverman (Eds.), Egyptian Kingship
David OConnor/David P. Silverman (Eds.), Ancient
Egyptian Kingship, Leiden 1995.
OShea, Variability
John OShea, Mortuary Variability, New York 1984.
Peebles/Kus, in: Am. Ant. 42, 1977
Christopher S. Peebles/Susan M. Kus, Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies, in: Am. Ant. 42,
1977, 421448.
Porta, Architettura
Gabriella Porta, Larchitettura egizia delle origini in legno
e materiali leggeri, Milano 1989.
Sahlins, Stone Age
Marshall Sahlins, Stone Age Economics, Chicago 1974.
Savage, in: Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16, 1997
Stephen H. Savage, Descent Group Competition and
Economic Strategies in Predynastic Egypt, in: Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 16, 1997, 226268.

26

Schiffer (Ed.), Advances

Michael B. Schiffer (Ed.), Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory Vol. 1, 1978.
Spencer, Early Egypt
A. J. Spencer, Early Egypt, London 1993.
Tainter, in: Schiffer (Ed.), Advances 1
Joseph A. Tainter, Mortuary Practices and the Study of
Prehistoric Social Systems, in: Schiffer (Ed.), Advances 1,
105141.
Tefnin, in: Archo-Nil 3, 1993
Roland Tefnin, Limage et son cadre. Rflexions sur la
structure du champ figuratif en Egypte prdynastique, in:
Archo-Nil 3, 1993, 722.
Trigger, in: World Archaeology 22, 1990
Bruce G. Trigger, Monumental Architecture: A Thermodynamic Explanation of Symbolic Behaviour, in: World
Archaeology 22, 1990, 119132.
Uphill, Towns
Eric P. Uphill, Egyptian Towns and Cities, Aylesbury
1988.
van den Brink (Ed.), Nile Delta
Edwin C. M. van den Brink (Ed.), The Nile Delta in
Transition. 4th.3rd. Millennium B.C., Tel Aviv 1992.
Vandier, Manuel
Jacques Vandier, Manuel dArcheologie Egyptienne, Vol.
1, Paris 1952.
Vercoutter, Egypte
Jean Vercoutter, LEgypte et la valle du Nil. Tome I: Des
origines la fin de lAncien Empire 120002000 av. J.-C.,
Paris 1992.
Webster, in: Am. Ant. 40, 1975
David Webster, Warfare and the Evolution of the State: A
Reconsideration, in: Am. Ant. 40, 1975, 464470.
Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt
Toby A. H. Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, London
1999.
Wilkinson, State Formation
Toby A. H. Wilkinson, State Formation in Egypt. Chronology and society, Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology, vol. 40, BAR International Series 651, Oxford
1996.
Willems (Ed.), Social Aspects
Harco Willems (Ed.), Social Aspects of Funerary Culture
in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms. Proceedings
of the international symposium held at Leiden University 67 June, 1996, Leuven 2001.

M. Campagno, Space and Shape