To first assess the differences and similarities between the tombs of the pharaohs and those of their subjects, it is perhaps fitting to discuss why tombs were such a focal point of ancient Egyptian life. It was not uncommon to spend a good proportion of one's life preparing the place where you would be buried; the ancient Egyptians had relatively short life spans, and especially amongst women fatality rates were high. Thus it made sense to prepare one's tomb early on to avoid being caught out by death. The tomb was seen by all, king or peasant, as a home for eternity; life did not end with death.This is a very contrasting view to the one many of us hold today, which is why it is at first perhaps hard to grasp, but it was believed wholeheartedly that one passed into the afterlife after dying, where you would continue to live for evermore.
A person was considered a split entity, comprising of at least three parts; the body, the soul and what was known as the ka, or the double. The ka was of grave importance, being considered as a spiritual being that was present at all times with a person. It was thought that a person's activities were actually those of one's ka, thus it was important to do that which would please the ka.This spiritual ghost remained in the tomb after death, living in a statue of the likeness of the deceased. It was extremely important that the quality of life after death matched or even exceeded that of life of earth. Therefore food, drink and other offerings were regularly made to sustain the ka, and to maintain its happiness.
The home for the body and the ka varied a great deal over time, with passing fashions and changing religious thought. Social class also played an important part in how one was buried.The poor, up until the New Kingdom, and even then the majority of peasants, were buried in unassuming graves in the sand of the desert, perhaps three feet deep, accompanied by food and drink for the ka. Due to the high mortality rates it was not uncommon to find infant bones laid to rest under floors in houses, as a cheap means of burial. In times of greater wealth, small tombs may have been built by the middle classes, such as miniature versions of the pyramids, plastered with Nile mud and whitened.
Even so, these would still have been extremely simple and definitely not long lasting.Occasionally there would be a small porch outside which would act as a funerary chapel, or offerings would be made in the open air in front of the tomb, on a funerary stela1. It was the privilege then of the upper classes and royalty to be buried in tombs of notability. It makes sense for the purpose of this discussion to assume that the 'subjects' of the king are limited to those with the financial means to build a tomb and to begin with the mastabas of the early dynasties.
A mastaba was a stone structure, rectangular in shape with bricks sloping inwards.They usually contained a single burial chamber but often had a complex superstructure, with numerous rooms for offerings, intensely decorated in bas-reliefs depicting every day life with a funerary theme, such as hunting or agricultural scenes. Separated only by a wall from the chapel was the serdab, Arabic for cellar, where the statue of the deceased was kept concealed. It was this statue that the ka was said to inhabit. In this manner, the ka would be nearby during times of offerings or recitation of funerary formulae. Before the advent of the pyramid, both kings and nobles would inhabit mastabas, which is where the similarities begin.
In fact, it is fair to say that for most cases, throughout the years, there are many similarities between the tombs of the kings and their subjects; it seems that the king sets the fashion, followed on a simpler and smaller scale by his aristocracy. Perhaps the greatest difference lies in the Old kingdom, with the beginning of the pyramids. The step pyramid of Saqqara was designed by the architect Imhotep, who was later deified, for the pharaoh most commonly known as Djoser during the Third Dynasty, who was the first to introduce the idea of connecting the tomb with the divinity of the king.The step pyramid was merely a mastaba with a series of superimposed smaller mastabas ascending into the sky to a point. The function of the step design was as a stairway reaching up to heaven to permit the ascent of the pharaoh into the next world. The serdab was also introduced during this period.
By the Fourth dynasty, under the reign of Suferu, the pyramid took on its final form, known as the true pyramid, that is, one with smooth sides ascending directly upwards. By this time, changes in religious thinking deemed this an acceptable design, still aiding the rise of the king to heaven.The pyramids of the fourth dynasty are to the highest level of architectural skill that is ever seen in such design in ancient Egypt, distinguished by their gigantic scale, built with vast and carefully cut blocks of rock. They also have fully developed adjoining structures; the funerary temple, satellite temples for the Queens of the deceased kings, the processional ramp and the valley temple are all part of the burial complex. There are fundamental differences which arise here between the step and true pyramid designs.Whereas the step pyramid symbolises a stairway to heaven, the true pyramid was an expression in rock of the rays of the sun.
They were built on three axes; the vertical axis joined heaven and earth, and the pharaoh to his divine father Ra; the polar axis, running parallel with the Nile, relates to the function and responsibilities of the king and the celestial axis runs parallel to the daily course of the sun. This relates to the concept of rebirth. Furthermore, in a step pyramid the body was buried in a shaft covered by the structure itself. This was developed into the burial chamber of the true pyramid.These ideas seem to be a natural progression in thinking and arguably the true pyramids show a positive move forward in style as well.
The pyramids of the 5th dynasty however, such as that if Userkaf at Saqqara, became smaller and were built relatively hastily and with inexpensive materials such as the local limestone. This perhaps not only reflects the dwindling power of the king towards the end of the Old Kingdom, but also economical changes, which lead to a necessary reduction in public spending. During the Middle Kingdom, pyramids began to grow again in size, but never rivalling those of the fourth dynasty, such as that of Khufu at Giza.Interestingly, the funerary chambers became a lot more complex, perhaps due to fears of looting; the introduction of optical illusions of fake corridors and other such tricks were no doubt to confuse would-be grave robbers. Following this only very small pyramids were built, with the next radical change appearing in the 13th dynasty with the popularisation of the rock tomb. However, even a small pyramid would have been more impressive than a mastaba of a vizier.
It is important to understand why this was, and had to be, so.The role of the pharaoh is one perhaps lost to us today with our jaded and tired view of the monarchy. In ancient Egypt in contrast the king was seen that which held society together. Romer discusses this role very clearly; "The king was vital to ancient Egypt, an essential element in the maintenance of the position of society in the order of creation2". It was felt that the king was not a mere mortal but descended from the lines of the gods and that they were even "animate in death, and contained in their tombs were the powers of germination and fertility, of resurrection and the constancy of the world order3".
Therefore, although it was important for anyone to reach the afterlife correctly and live there successfully, it was vital for the king to do so. His reunion with his forefathers in the heavens was crucial to maintaining the rhythms of the economy. A new king would have to ensure the proper ceremonies and preparations had been performed and made to achieve this smooth transition of his predecessor before he could be sworn into power. With the explanation of this special position of the king it is understandable that only the best materials and the finest craftsmanship could be used to build the royal tomb.
Logically it would naturally need to be of a grandiose scale, due to the sheer amount of offerings that would accumulate, and the various rituals and ceremonies that would need to be carried out. Here lies probably the biggest difference between the royal tombs and those of lesser citizens. The scale of the complex of the grand pyramids is unrivalled by anything else. The Djoser complex at Saqqara is a superb example; the wall surrounds an area of 15 hectares, with the pyramid in the centre.
Subsidiary structures such as the entrance colonnade, the Heb-sed courtyard where the Heb-sed festival would take place, the South and North houses, the South tomb, the Cobra wall and Serdab courtyard all surround the main pyramid, giving an idea of the complexity of the funerary practises. It is thought that the South tomb was built to house the viscera of the king. This alone shows great levels of extravagance; it is extremely doubtful that a courtier or a member of the aristocracy would have a separate tomb merely for the viscera; it is much more likely that the four jars would be placed in the burial chamber with the mummy.The pyramid itself is based on an original mastaba covering a 28m deep shaft containing the burial chamber. This shaft was also attached to a system of tunnels used to house the funerary trappings, and to another system constituting the funerary apartment, the home of the royal Ka. On the east side eleven shafts were dug 32m deep to house, eventually, the tombs of the queen and the king's children.
In stark comparison, the mastaba of Queen Meresankh III, located in the necropolis of Giza, is very simple.Clearly the main difference lies in the outer architectural structure, but the inside of the latter contains only two public rooms. The main room runs from north to south with a false door stela facing to west. The walls are covered with intricate and very well preserved scenes of mostly agricultural and hunting scenes. An extension of the room to the north holds ten statues of women, generally thought to be the Queen, her mother, sister and her daughters.
A smaller room off to the west contains another false door stela, the shaft to the mummy itself, and niches with more statues, presumably of the Queen and her mother.The rock tombs that become so popular in the New Kingdom, in contrast were used by both royalty and their subjects. Of course, as with the early mastabas, the size and elaborate design would differ from king to nobleman, and within the aristocracy depending on one's financial status. Interestingly there were official cemeteries to where the king would allocate a subject worthy of a burial there a plot of a certain size. The Valley of the Kings for example is misleading in its name; courtiers are buried in the vicinity of their kings, though on lower levels, and in smaller plots.Some were given the tombs of previously disgraced courtiers.
Others however were fully provided for by the king; "Debehni and Merkhufu of Giza... had the cost of constructing their own tombs totally provided by King Menkaure of Dynasty 4.
These were exceptional cases... Weni received two entrance jambs, a false door, an offering slab and a sarcophagus cut from the limestone quarry of Tura as a gift from King Pepy I of Dynasty 64".
In this way the pharaoh could control the relative scale and design of his courtiers' tombs.Of course no one but the king would have the funds or the manpower, or the permission, to erect a pyramid for his own burial; naturally his walls should be the most elaborate, his corridors the most intricate and his design the most desirable. The tomb of Ramose for example shows how the pillar support structure of the temple of Luxor translated onto a smaller scale, in a rock tomb, with the hall supported by 32 pillars in papyrus form. Thus it is fitting that there should be differences in the respective tombs. However, the underlying similarities stay true throughout changes of style and regal power.
The ancient Egyptians' firm belief in the nature of life after death, and the passage into the west to the hidden land, where the suns sets and is then reborn in the east the following day, ensures that regardless of to whom a tomb belongs, stelae will face to the west, there will often be a serdab for the statue containing the ka, and if not a special niche will be carved. There will always be the need for spoken, or written, funerary formulae, on varying scales, and the nourishment of the ka to ensure a happy afterlife.The embracing of death is extremely admirable, in fact there is not even an indication of a mortuary theme in the equivalent Egyptian vocabulary. "A term frequently used for the tomb is 'is', which could equally mean 'council chamber'. Even the burial chamber itself 'khenet' is close in its writing to 'khenu' which means 'Residence'5".
This notion of consulting the dead, where no one is ever really gone but is merely in a higher place, is rather refreshing and positive and it is a very successful way of combining art, memories of life and hopes for the next life in a place of worship.
