A GIS-based study of the cemetery En Echelon

Abstract

The study was concerned with the spatial analysis of the 2382 tombs of the entire Giza cemetery concentrating the socio-economic analysis on the 427 tombs which are located in CEE. Conclusions can be framed into several major points. Since the beginning of planning of the WCE it was intended to lay the cores as close as possible to the pyramid. As soon as a piece of land had been cleared from the construction materials, it was used as a building ground for tombs. The same principle might have governed the direction of building in each stage. In the case of cemeteries G 1200 and G 2100 the direction was east to west, apparently because the bordering western lands were still occupied by building materials. The construction direction in G 4000 was from west to east, the first lines having been set initially in the middle of the cemetery to allow more lines of tombs to be constructed. In the ECE the building was initiated at a distance of about 200 meters to the east of the pyramid by G 7510 and G 7650. The degree of visibility enjoyed by each tomb was a leading factor in setting the relative arrangement of tombs to each other. The original plan for the WCE was to arrange cores of equal sizes in regularly in parallel streets but at some point during the construction of that cemetery, maybe after the area to the west of the pyramid had been made accessible to more visitors, it was considered a privilege that passersby had a view of the tombs chapel. It was then that the En Echelon principle was introduced. Whether that innovation took place first in the western cores of G 2100 or in CEE, is hard to determine. The royal complex influenced the planning of the cemetery by determining the initial positions of the nucleus cemeteries. The influence of the pyramid complex demonstrates itself in the general lines which constrain the early plans of the ECE and WCE as has been demonstrated in chapter one. The so called leading mastabas (G 1201, G 2100, G 4000) were not the first mastabas built in their nucleus cemeteries. On the contrary it seems that such large mastabas were built after the construction of their cemeteries had been well advanced. The owners of those mastabas might have wanted to stress their social privileges, or financial capacities more than the regular inhabitants of the cemetery, as already attested in G 1200. Secondary cemeteries tended to have a higher density as they grow, but this factor alone cannot be used to determine the chronological development of the necropolis. Local factors such as 246 topographical features and the existence of larger earlier mastabas had also an influence on the final shape of the necropolis. Access to earlier structures was preserved as long as possible, and only blocked when building land in each cemetery became scarce. To answer the question whether the preservation of access was due to conventional morality or because of genealogical ties, more detailed research for each case would be required. Higher areas of density should in general be interpreted as later parts of the cemetery, and often as a meeting area between two simultaneously growing cemeteries. Striving for the best visibility conditions influenced the expansion direction of secondary cemeteries and the competition to see and to be seen was no less fierce than the competition for a space of land. Results from a seriation attempt confirmed the concepts of Reisner and Junker concerning the development and growth of CEE. The mastabas of the three En Echelon lines showed homogeneity in their features and distinction from the other mastabas in the cemetery to suggest that they formed the earliest construction phase of CEE. The spatial analysis of the seriation outcome suggested that the smaller tombs between the three En Echelon lines followed the large mastabas by a short interval of time. The CEES seems in general earlier than the CEEN so that the growth trend in CEE was from south to north. A number of tombs in the southeast corner of CEES seems however to be more or less contemporary with the snDm-ib complex. The tombs in CEEN showed little homogeneity in their features giving the impression that their building extended over a longer time. Several statistical methods were performed to trace any recognisable trend concerning the spatial distribution of tombs classified according to several combinations of the titles of their owners. In all tested cases results obtained were however either dispersed or random. No clustering of tombs according to their owners' occupation could thus be traced neither in the nucleus cemeteries nor in CEE so that assumptions in this direction should remain speculative. It seems that the decision of tomb site selection was rather a matter of personal preference which was in turn influenced mainly by three factors: the chronology, the kinship ties and the service relationships between tomb owners. Chronology expressed itself in the simple fact that owners of later tombs had less freedom to choose their tomb locations because more and more of the ground of the cemetery was already occupied. The proximity to the pyramid of Khufu was not an attraction factor for the tomb site selection. On the contrary tombs extended in that direction only at the pressure of the decrease in the available space in the cemetery. Kinship ties were perhaps the strongest factor which shaped the CEE as 45 pieces of evidence of kinship ties between tomb owners in this cemetery were collected. Even when a considerable 247 number of these indications could not be proved, three family lines could be traced demonstrating the tendency of members of the same family to be buried in the vicinity of each other in CEE. In two instances, this behavior led to the concentration of family tombs in one location so that a family complex was created in these two cases (kA-n-nswt and snDm-ib families). Tombs of the members of the sSm-nfr family showed less spatial concentration, but were still located at short distances from each other, the maximum distance recorded between two tombs ( G 4940- G 4970) being no more than 70 m. Service relationship played a considerable role in tomb site selection as well. It seems evident that the proximity to the served tombs was an important factor in determining the position of the tombs of their cult personnel. In the case of the snDm-ib family there is an evident concentration of cult personnel tombs around the complex of the family. For the cases of the sSm-nfr and kA-n-nswt families and the royal family of ECE, no such concentration can be traced since only one certain example of assured cult personnel exist for each. Yet the distance between the served tomb and the tomb of the cult personnel is small in each case. For instance, G 5210 lies next to G 5110 and the distance between the G 2197 and G 5170 is no more than 60 m. The maximum recorded distance between served tombs and those of their cult personnel is between G 5210 and the tombs of the royal family in the ECE ( ca. 500 m). This long distance can probably be justified by the wish of xm-nw to place his tomb near to the most recent member of the family which he served, who happened to be buried in CEE ( G 5110). The correlation between title and tomb wealth outlined in the current study agrees with Kanawati’s and Roth's conclusions and supports their assumption that the land of tombs within OK cemeteries was allocated by the state. Finds concerning the mastaba area suggest a land rationing of some type which correlates with the rank of owners. However the 13 categories of a very fine classification of titles failed to fulfill this correlation. Combining several titles, based on a nearest neighbor analysis, produced more consistent results showing that tomb sizes of owners with similar groups of titles were more homogenous in comparison to those of diverse title groups. This outcome probably implies that the interference of the cemetery authority demonstrated itself better in determining the size of the tomb rather than its location. An examination of the architectural elements of tombs revealed that the consideration of the availability of space affected the choice of their types. The use of certain chapel types became more limited as the cemetery grew because they required unoccupied land in front of the mastaba.

Die Studie beschäftigte sich mit der räumlichen Analyse von 2.382 Gräbern des gesamten Friedhofs Gizeh, wobei sich die sozio-ökonomische Analyse auf die 427 Gräber konzentrierte, die in CEE lagen. Das erste Kapitel unter dem Titel "Eine räumliche Studie des Friedhofs Gizeh" versuchte, einige der wichtigen Fragen in Bezug auf das Terretorium in einem dicht bebauten Friedhof wie Gizeh zu beantworten: wurden Einzelne nur nach Kriterien von Raum und Wohlstand platziert oder gab es andere Gesetze, die vom Staat erlassen wurden, um die räumliche Belegung zu regeln. Gab es andere Beschränkungen wie Familie, Pflege älterer Gräber und Beruf, die eine Rolle in der Formierung der Gräbergruppen bildeten? Das zweite Kapitel unter dem Titel "Bekannte Besitzer in CEE" war der Wiedergabe sämtlicher zugänglicher Informationen über die bekannten Grabbesitzer in CEE in Tabellenform gewidmet: Ihre Namen, Titel, ihre Familienmitglieder und Nachkommen, ob sie Grabtempel (funeral states) hatten sowie alle weiteren Besonderheiten ihrer Gräber. Kapitel drei unter dem Titel "Datierung und Entwicklung von CEE" beschäftigte sich mit der Datierung der CEE-Gräber, die sich grob in zwei Phasen unterteilen lässt: der Bau von Kernen und die Belegung von Mastabas für die drei Original-Linien von CEE. Für die sekundären Gräber wurde angenommen, dass der Bau und die Belegung jedes Grabes nicht durch eine lange Zeitspanne getrennt waren und daher wurden sie in jeweils eine Periode datiert. Die Reihenfolge des Baus des Friedhofs wurde zusammengefasst wie vorgeschlagen von Reisner und Junker, wobei die Entwicklung des Friedhofs in jedem Fall durch karten illustriert wurde. Kapitel vier unter dem Titel "Familien- und Dienstleistungsbeziehungen auf CEE" versuchte, die Beziehungen zwischen den Grabbesitzern auf CEE nachzuvollziehen, wobei solcherlei Verbindungen in zwei grobe Kategorien unterteilt wurden: Verwandtschaftsbindungen und Dienstleistungsbeziehungen. Stammbäume von drei Familien auf CEE wurden rekonstruiert. Es wurde versucht, auch die Gräber des kultischen Personals auf CEE zu identifizieren und ihre Besitzer der kultischen Pflege größerer Gräber auf dem selben Friedhof zuzuordnen. Kapitel fünf unter dem Titel "Eine prospographische Studie der Grabbesitzer auf CEE" beschäftigte sich mit der Klassifizierung der bekannten Besitzer auf CEE nach ihren Titeln und Berufen, um einen möglichen räumlichen oder zeitlichen Trend in der Verteilung ihrer Gräber aufzeigen zu können. Kapitel sechs unter dem Titel "Schätzung des Reichtums der CEE-Gräber" benutzte mehrere Punkte, um Muster der Verteilung von Reichtum auf CEE nachvollziehen zu können: die Verteilung architektonischer Elemente und von Grabgütern, die in die Aushebung der Substruktur und den Bau der Superstruktur gesteckten Bemühungen, und, in begrenztem Umfang, die Gegenwart von Grabtempeln und nicht-familiären Hinterbliebenen in den Grabreliefs. Kapitel sieben unter dem Titel "Ein GIS-gestütztes Transportmodel auf CEE" versuchte, ein Netzwerk von Routen für das Plateau von Gizeh zu modellieren, um den Aufwand zum Transport von Steinen von einem optimalen Steinbruch zu Baustellen auf CEE zu schätzen und um die Zugänglichkeit von Gräbern auf CEE während des Wachstums des Friedhofs zu messen.