Table of contents New Kingdom royal tombs outside Thebes ...................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 2

New Kingdom royal families ......................................................................................................................... 3

Comparison of number of burials inside and outside KV .......................................................................... 3

New Kingdom tombs .................................................................................................................................... 4

Private tombs ........................................................................................................................................... 4

Royal tombs ............................................................................................................................................ 14

Gurob ..................................................................................................................................................... 19

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 22

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................... 23

Figures ............................................................................................................................................................ 25

Petitum for Art and Architecture................................................................. Fejl! Bogmærke er ikke defineret.

New Kingdom royal tombs outside Thebes

Introduction The Egyptian tomb is what catches the eye of many people when they either read

books about ancient Egypt or when they visit exhibitions at museums and the sheer amount of tomb

elements found across the world points towards large quantities of tombs, which is proved when

looking at maps of cemeteries and necropoli all across Egypt.

For the average Egyptian, from commoner to royal, preparation for the afterlife was

an important part of life and the afterlife was a continuation of mortal life once the mortal shell had

been shed (Dodson; 2008 p8). This led to a strong focus on tomb construction and on funerary

preparations, be they the funerary goods added to the tomb, the decorations within the tomb and, for

royalty, what kind of tomb they built.

The Egyptian royal tomb could have several shapes, depending on where and when it

was built. In the Old Kingdom before the time of Djoser, tombs were built of mudbrick and were

often extravagant versions of the noble mastaba tomb. After Djoser, the pyramids were the tomb of

choice for kings, queens and heirs and continued to be so up through the Middle Kingdom. In the

New Kingdom, the tomb of choice changed from being the pyramid to be a rock-cut tomb in the

Valley of the Kings located behind a pyramid-shaped mountain (Reeves & Wilkinson; 2008 p14-

15).

For the nobles though, it generally was the mastaba tomb that was chosen. A superstructure built on

top of a shaft-tomb.

This leaves a group of people with no specific tomb category. In what kind of tomb were princes

and princesses buried?

This essay will attempt to answer the question and will do so by examining the tomb

of Paramasses-Nebweben of the 19th

dynasty discovered at Gurob by Engelbach and Brunton in

1927 during Flinders Petrie’s excavations at the Fayum. The superstructure and tomb will be

examined and although it is only one tomb, it is the only tomb that we know of for a princely burial.

This brings the risk of any proposed answer to the question stated above easily being incorrect but

until other tombs are found, it is impossible to tell whether the tomb is “standard” or if it deviates

from the norm. The entire tomb will then be compared with both royal and private tombs from the

same period. Initially, the essay will also look at the amount of princely burials in the Valley of the

Kings compared to outside it, to see if it actually was typical to give princes their own tombs.

The essay will stand on the shoulders of the work done by D. Polz, A. Dodson,

Engelbach and Brunton. The work done by Brunton and Engelbach in 1918 - 1927 is paramount for

this essay as without their work, the tomb of Ramesses-Meryamun-Nebweben might still be lost. A.

Dodson has worked on tombs and genealogy for most of his career and most of my research is owed

to him. Finally, D. Polz investigated the matter of Nebweben back in 1986 and placed him as a son

of Ramesses II instead of a brother.

New Kingdom royal families The royal families in question will be the ruling families from the beginning of the

18th

dynasty up until the end of the 20th

dynasty and the end of the Ramesside period. The complete

royal families of Egypt by Aidan Dodson will be the foundation and source for the comparison of

royal burials inside and outside the Valley of the Kings and the Valley of the Queens.

Comparison of number of burials inside and outside KV In regards to this section, the evidence is rather clear (Dodson; 2010 p122-194). The

tomb of Paramesses-Nebweben is the only tomb of its kind found outside the Valleys and within the

two Valleys, there is a great number of tombs, 23 to be exact, 13 royal daughters and ten royal sons.

When comparing this with the amount of children with no tomb listed for them, it becomes almost

insignificant. There are 155 royal children with no tomb, either their own, a parent’s or, for the 81

royal daughters, their husband’s.

The overall amount of burials inside the Theban area comes to 23 tombs and outside

there is only one within the given time-period, so, is the tomb of Paramesses-Nebweben a unique

phenomenon or could one of the 155 tomb-less royal children have their own somewhere in Egypt?

Only time may answer this question. One thing is for certain though: Out of 24 tombs, one was built

outside Thebes and away from any of the major settlements, be it Thebes, Memphis or Pi-

Ramesses.

New Kingdom tombs According to Dodson (Dodson; 1990 p89), princely tombs predating Ramesses III are

virtually unknown and this is further documented in his 2010 chronicle of Egyptian royal families,

where the 20th

dynasty has a total six tombs (Dodson; 2010 p192-194) compared to five princess

tombs of the early 19th

dynasty (Dodson; 2010 p154-157). These five tombs date to the reign of

Akhenaton and may be a special case as no other period has as many princely tombs compared to

the amount of children listed.

Only one non-ruler tomb for members of the royal family has been discovered, inside

the Valley of the Kings, before the reign of Ramesses III and that is the tomb of the sons of

Ramesses II; KV5. If this indeed is the case, it begs the question of “What happened to the royal

sons and daughters who did not outlive their fathers?” Dodson does give an answer to this; the case

of Amenemhat B and Webensenu, who were buried in their fathers’ tombs (Dodson; 1990 p90). If

the tomb of pharaoh was done, or completed to a certain extent, any children who passed away

would be buried inside the tomb or at least so goes the theory.

The theory may be supported by skeletal remains found in the various tombs. These

bones may belong to sons and/or daughters of the king, potentially even the wife, if the queen did

not yet have a tomb made for her in the Valley of the Queens. If most kings chose to bury their

children in their tombs, it would explain why so few are found today. Another possibility is that

most survived their father, as is to be expected and no longer were “sau-nesut” and became regular

officials, even though they were related to the new king and that their tombs therefore are to be

found among the tombs of officials instead. To answer these speculations, genealogy has to be

taken into consideration to see if official A is related to king B and should be listed as “brother of

the king” or if official A is a mere official. This, however, is not the aim of this essay.

Private tombs For this section, focus will lie purely on tombs built in the New Kingdom from

dynasty 18 and 19 in order to have the same timeline as the tomb of Ramesses-Meryamun-

Nebweben. The references will primarily be from the works of Dodson and Manniche with other

select inputs. The tombs will be divided into tomb chapel (superstructure) and burial (substructure)

in order to make a more structured analysis. The tombs and chapels of Thebes built around the

beginning of the New Kingdom was the primary burial site for nobles, as explained below and

therefore it makes sense to look into these tombs up until the Amarna period and briefly in the

Ramesside period before Pi-Ramesses was founded.

Superstructure

There exist two overall construction methods for private tombs, both of which are

divided into multiple sub-types. The rock-cut tomb and the built tomb depend on the area they are

built in and often tombs will consist of both types of construction. The rock-cut ones are found in

great quantity at Thebes on the Sheikh Abd el-Qurna hill, which became the principal noble

necropolis of the 18th

dynasty (Dodson; 2008 p214-215). The tombs around Sheikh Abd el-Qurna

are converted from Middle Kingdom saff-tombs as exemplified by the tomb of Ineni (TT81), where

the gaps between the pillars have been bricked up, leaving only an entrance instead of an open,

pillared front leading to a single entrance or hall into the tomb chapel proper. This type of tomb is

referred to as the T-tomb, based on their T-like shape.

The former saff-entrance, in the case of tombs taken over, is a combination of

brickwork and rock-cutting. For most of the 18th

dynasty, but also occasionally on tombs ranging

from the 11th

to the 26th

dynasty (Dodson; 2008 p216), tombs found at Thebes have funerary cones

(Baines & Malek; 2000 p104); circular ceramic items impressed on the flat end with the name and

titles of the tomb owner. These were places in a line above the tomb entrance with the writing

facing outwards, making it visible for all who could read who was buried there. This would also

mean though, that these tombs were not hidden from tomb robbers. It should be said however that

these chapels were not hidden. They were supposed to be seen and entered to offer up prayers to the

gods for the sake of the deceased.

The tomb chapels of New Kingdom Thebes started out small and simple (Dodson;

2008 p214) (See figure two). Given the time they were built at, this fact is not really surprising. The

18th

dynasty had just reclaimed all of Egypt from the Hyksos and Egypt, as a result, needed to

recover and this meant that tombs were built small and simple as that was all the nobles could

afford. Later however, as Egypt’s wealth grew, so did the size and decoration of the tombs. The

growth in size and wealth of the tombs began roughly around the time of Amenhotep II (Dodson;

2008 p214) where Egypt entered a rich and stable period after the Tuthmosid conquests in Syria-

Palestine and Nubia.

The chapels, as stated, started out small with nothing more than a simple chamber as

was the style of the Second Intermediate Period. The I, IIa, IIb, IVa, IVb, Va and IX tombs are all

fairly unremarkable (Dodson; 2008 p214) with the exception of IVb and IX tombs. IVb tomb

chapels appears to be saff-tombs claimed by new owners as described above and only appear from

the Second Intermediate Period until the middle of the 18th

dynasty and is of similar design as the

IVa chapel with the exception of the saff-tomb front, showing, potentially, a difference in wealth.

The work required to make the saff-tomb front in IVb chapels would have been more

expensive than the simple entrance to IVa tombs and therefore signals and increased wealth among

the nobles, even in the 16th

and 17th

dynasty and certainly a difference between the I, IIa and IIb

chapels. As stated above, the IX and IVb tombs both stand out when compared to the other, early

tombs and in particular the IX tomb chapel stands out with its pillared chamber and shrine at the

back. The IX however, is only used in the Second Intermediate Period and then briefly in the 19th

dynasty, losing out to other, more grand examples from the middle of the 18th

dynasty.

The pillared tombs, as exemplified in the IX and VIII versions are not built in the

early 18th

dynasty and the reason for this might very well be linked with the overall wealth of the

Egyptian state. Pillars and columns were status symbols (Meskell; 1998 p229) in houses and as

tombs and chapels are also known as “houses of eternity” it is reasonable to believe that columns in

tombs and chapels also indicated status and wealth. If saying that columns are signs of wealth it

would certainly explain their absence during the early 18th

dynasty where Egypt was almost

constantly at war and rebuilding itself and columns do not reappear until, roughly, the reign of

Hatshepsut in the tomb of Senenmut (Dodson; 2008 p215). The reign of Hatshepsut was a peaceful

one (Shaw; 2000 p242-243) only dealing with rebels and focusing mainly on trade and internal

stability which would have increased the wealth of the nobles as they could rely on a stable state

and maintain good relations with trade partners.

With the reign of Tuthmosis III, Egypt returned to the aggressive foreign policy with

an enriched nobility and spoils of war from the many conquests of Tuthmosis III. With the tributes

sent back to Egypt, both private and royal tombs increased in size and splendour as seen in the Via,

VIb, VIIa, VIIb, VIIc, X and in particular the VIII tomb chapels (Dodson; 2008 p214) appear

during the reigns of Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep II and III where the transverse hall, the broad

hall after the entrance, slowly resembled the hypostyle court usually found at temples (Dodson;

2008 p217) and the inner chamber was broadened and equipped with two rows of pillars with the

largest of its type (VIII), the tomb of Amenhotep-Surero (TT48) having four chambers with a total

of 70 pillars, divided between the four rooms with 24, 20, 20 and six respectively, indicating that he

was of high status and wealth.

During the later reign of Amenhotep III, space at the Sheikh became sparse and

people either had to move or use the lower slopes, bringing in a new type of tomb chapel with an

outer courtyard instead of the transverse hall which led to the decoration of the tomb façade

however, the thin layer of rock also meant that the tomb chapels were prone to collapsing (Dodson;

2008 p217).

At Deir el-Medina private tomb chapels consisted of a single room surmounted by a

small pyramid, mostly just an enlarged pyramidion (Dodson; 2008 p218) and this form was kept

until the settlement was abandoned in the 20th

dynasty.

The decorations of the tomb chapels around Egypt had a variety of motifs. The desert

hunting scenes appear from the reign of Tuthmosis I to Amenhotep II, with the largest concentration

during the reigns of Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep II who both often partook in such hunts

(Dodson; 2008 p219). During the reign of Tuthmosis III the tomb owners partook in hunting

hippopotami. This scene however, would become obsolete afterwards. Throughout the 18th

dynasty,

the wall decorations become more lively and detailed, having things going on in the background

and not just the actual focal point of the wall decoration. The offering scenes however, take

somewhat of a backseat compared to their place in the Middle Kingdom, as they are reduced in both

size and importance.

In the first half of the 18th

dynasty, the funeral is depicted on the walls in the

traditional ways but during the reign of Tuthmosis IV, the more archaic scenes disappear and only a

single scene remain (Dodson; 2008 p219). During the reign of Amenhotep III, the tomb chapel

itself, capped with a pyramid, appear in great quantities.

A typical scene found in most chapels is the feast scene. Here men and women eat and

drink to such extremes that they vomit from excess and, during the reign of Amenhotep II, they also

interact with one another in various settings. The scene is very loaded with symbolism as the food

and drink feed the deceased in the afterlife and promise an afterlife of feasting. Fertility is also

portrayed in this scene, as well as dancers and musicians (Dodson; 2008 p220).

A new scene found at Thebes celebrates the “festival of the Valley” which is a festival

for Hathor and Amun and people would visit the tombs of their ancestors and celebrate life. It can,

somewhat, be compared to the Mexican Day of the Dead. The king would be positioned at the

door/hall leading from the transverse hall into the rest of the tomb chapel, placing the festival

scenes in the transverse hall. The deceased would be offering gifts to the king. This would not

change until the Amarna period, where the roles were reversed (Dodson; 2008 p221).

The stelae were painted/sculpted onto the walls of the chapel on the end walls in the

transverse hall/chamber, and on the opposite wall is, usually, a false-door to complete the

decoration scheme.

In the Amarna years the tomb chapels changed from the Theban T-shaped tomb into a

square fore-hall with rounded pillars and sometimes with a pillared inner hall as well. The

innermost part of the chapel would contain a statue of the deceased. However, as so many of the

tombs never were completed, it is not certain that they would all have had such a statue nor is it

certain that they would all feature the same decorations. The decorations, put simply, feature the

royal family as opposed to earlier scenes due to the change in religious belief (Dodson; 2008 p230).

The royal family dominated the tomb chapels and very little was shown of the tomb owner.

In the last part of the 18th

dynasty, from Tutankhamun to Horemheb, the burial site of

choice changed from Thebes to Saqqara and the tomb chapels were mainly brick built with a few of

them being rock-cut. The mudbrick chapels comprised mudbrick walls faced with stone and

generally consisted of a single room, maybe with a few columns at the front. Tomb chapels for key

officials also contained a small pyramid-top and additional rooms and columns, for instance that of

Horemheb (See example further down) (Dodson; 2008 p242-243)

The decoration of the tomb chapels are more naturalistic than the Amarna period and

also show hardly any signs of the king or any royalty.

In the 19th

dynasty, Saqqara was still the primary site for private tombs (Baines &

Malek; 2000 p148). The key change was from mudbrick tomb chapels to actual stone for the

structure and the chapels began to resemble small temples with pylons and colonnaded courts and,

more often than not, topped by a small pyramid (Dodson; 2008 p250-251).

The rock-cut tomb chapels however, were simpler. They consisted of a simple cross-

hall with four pillars and behind this hall was the offering place. The T-shaped tombs at Thebes

began to be somewhat monumental with large courtyards and topped by a small pyramid. The

Theban tombs generally reverted back to Va and Vb type tombs with the occasional statue cut into

the cross-hall and topped by a pyramid on the hillside above (Dodson; 2008 p252).

The decorations of the Ramesside period went from pictures of the deceased to images

of the gods. Agricultural scenes went out of style as well and were replaced by funerary scenes

instead. The following scenes became standard during the 19th

dynasty; the tomb owner and Hathor

drinking from a t-shaped pool, shaped like the owner’s tomb, Hathor dispensing food for the

deceased and his ba, several funerary scenes with the deceased worshipping the gods, lists of

funerary prayers. These things would be painted on a yellow background suggesting sunlight and

the body turning into gold (Dodson; 2008 p251). Overall the funerary aspects of the inscriptions

appear to have transformed the tomb chapel into a mortuary temple for the noble/official. The royal

tomb decorations of the 18th

dynasty had slowly become standard style for private tombs of the 19th

dynasty.

The developments following the reign of Merneptah are, as far as this essay is

concerned, irrelevant as the tomb of Ramesses-Meryamun-Nebweben was built no later than that

reign. See the chapter further down for an explanation.

Substructure

During the first half of the 18th

dynasty the most common way to enter a tomb

(substructure) was via a shaft dug out in the tomb chapel itself, normally found in the forecourt but

sometimes within the chapel proper. A tomb chapel for an official would most often also contain

the remains of his family in separate substructures dug within the chapel or forecourt (Dodson;

2008 p225). The forms vary in shape and size but are generally quite simple, which again could be

explained by a low wealth overall among the nobility. A common feature in all though, would be

niches with protective magic bricks inscribed with spells from the Book of the Dead, chapter 151

and these would be equipped with amulets to ward off danger coming from the four cardinal points;

north, south, east and west. A select few tombs had decorated walls, indicating that parts of the

nobility had enough wealth to enhance their tombs with a few scenes for the afterlife.

As stated above, most of the tombs are to be found within the chapel but in some cases

the shaft is located some distance away and even in some of these cases the tomb is located inside

the Valley of the Kings instead of Sheikh Abd el-Qurna. This is only the case of very important

members of state (Dodson; 2008 p225). The tombs in question are KV36, 45, 46, 48 and are

potentially tombs for viziers who have performed well in their careers or married into the royal

family. These four tombs are generally simple in design with either a shallow shaft or a stairway

and descending passage leading into a single room. In the case of KV46, the tomb of Yuya and

Tjuiu, a second staircase had been added before the chamber. This could, however, have had

something to do with the rock instead of status. In KV21, another official’s tomb, a column and a

store-room had been added to the burial chamber. The owner of KV21 must have been of a higher

social standing or been significantly richer than the owners of tomb 36, 45, 46 and 48 as stated

above and in the article by Meskell. A single private tomb was usurped by royalty and that was

KV62, the future tomb of Tutankhamun.

It was not only the few lucky officials to be buried at the Valley of the Kings who had

tombs away from their chapels. Senenmut, the steward of Hatshepsut, was buried at Deir el-Bahri.

This substructure (TT353) is incredibly detailed and stands out from any other private tomb built in

the 18th

dynasty (Dodson; 2008 p226) with a series of three stairways and passages leading towards

the intended burial chamber. In the antechamber is found perhaps the earliest New Kingdom

example of a decorated private tomb, being decorated with texts from the Book of the Dead

supplemented by an astronomical ceiling, it being potentially the prototype for later tomb ceilings.

Other images show Senenmut praising the cartouches of Hatshepsut, while others show Anubis and

the Bull and Seven Cows motifs from the Book of the Dead the one which supplied the dead with

nourishment in the afterlife.

The tomb of Senenmut was among the first to have the substructure approached by a

sloping passageway rather than a shaft (Dodson; 2008 p226) making access to the burial chamber

much easier but may also have been an imitation of royal tombs since the private tombs also

became more elaborate after this time and even started to contain pillared halls. Two tombs show

this development well, the tombs of Mayor Sennefer under Tuthmosis III (TT96) and the steward

Qenamun under Amenhotep II (TT93). The tomb of Sennefer had the entrance in the forecourt and

the tomb of Qenamun had the entrance in the columned fore-hall. The latter was to be the most

common location following the reigns of Amenhotep II (Dodson; 2008 p226).

Only eight Theban tombs of the 18th

dynasty have a decorated substructure (TT71,

353, 61, 82, 87, 96, 201 and 383) although there may be more in the area as it is poorly recorded

(Dodson; 2008 p227). In the case of TT61, the tomb of Vizier User, it contains images of the

Amduat, a typically royal decoration scheme up until the 21st dynasty. In tomb TT82 the walls are

covered with Book of the Dead inscriptions as well as ancient pyramid texts along with images of

the deceased receiving offerings from his children. The Book of the Dead inscriptions are also

found in TT87 and 383, the latter only fragments remain the text columns.

TT96, the tomb of Sennefer, displays a completely different approach, being decorated entirely in

figurative imagery; the deceased and his wife sitting before tables of different offerings, images of

offering bearers, various funerary divinities (including Osiris, Hathor and Anubis), the funeral

procession, selections from the Book of the Dead and the Abydos pilgrimage. The ceiling is a most

remarkable example as well as it is painted and any rock cropping in the tomb, which was of fairly

poor quality, was plastered over and painted to resemble grape arbours. Finally, a winged vulture,

typically a royal symbol and rare in non-royal tombs, spreads its protective wings over the tomb

from its lofty perch (Dodson; 2008 p227).

Tomb TT201 is so far unique and belongs to an official named Re. It is painted in

yellow on a black background, probably meant to imitate the “black” coffins of the 18th

dynasty.

The decoration gives the burial chamber its orientation with the images of Isis on the south (the

feet) and Nephthys to the north (at the head) (Dodson; 2008 p228).

At the workmen’s village of Deir el-Medina, the tomb of Kha (TT8), who died during

the reign of Amenhotep III, the substructure lies in the rock face opposite the pyramid (see above)

and is approached by a steep stairway. At the bottom of this stairway is a horizontal corridor leading

to the burial chamber. The corridor contained the funerary goods while the burial chamber was

secured by a wooden door with a mechanical lock (Dodson; 2008 p228)

Generally among the Theban tombs the shaft approach steadily decreased as the 18th

dynasty progressed with an equal increase in descending passages. By the beginning of the Amarna

years, the descending passage is the “generic” type. During the Amarna years, the substructures

found at Thebes and Amarna are identical or so the unfinished substructures at Amarna seem to

indicate (Dodson; 2008 p241).

Following the Amarna years, and until then beginning of the 19th

dynasty,

substructures were generally taken over from Old Kingdom tombs and made deeper. Most were

then given a pillared hall and an extended burial chamber (Dodson; 2008 p246). Only one or two

tombs had any decoration in them, however, given the short timespan between the Amarna years

and the 19th

dynasty, it is hardly surprising that only few tombs have been made.

In the 19th

dynasty the substructures were either rock-cut or built with brick. The rock-

cut substructures at Thebes had completed the shift from shaft entrances to sloped entrances

(Dodson; 2008 p265). This change is illustrated perfectly in the tomb of Setau, the viceroy of

Nubia during the reign of Ramesses II (TT288/9). The superstructure, a simple four pillared chapel,

originally had a shaft dug out in its north-western corner but this was replaced by a sloping

passageway in the forecourt instead. The passageway lead to a complex of 12 chambers, somewhat

resembling that of contemporary royal tombs (Dodson; 2008 p265) and Setau’s substructure was

also decorated.

However, not all substructures had a straight axis as the one found in the tomb of

Setau. Others had a more complex axis, like the tomb of Djehutymose (TT32) which is somewhat

reminiscent of a descending spiral. The gallery turns a full 360 degrees through a single turn before

heading down into the decorated burial chamber, making the gallery into a somewhat spiral

“staircase”, in some ways similar to the spiralling of Copenhagen’s Round Tower (Dodson; 2008

p265 image c). It may be blamed on the rock or maybe it was experimentation with the descent in

order to save space, because other tombs had other designs. TT106, the tomb of Paser, has a

stairway that descends the four sides of the rectangle before exiting in a columned antechamber

with four stone chambers - again resembling royal burial chambers – and an innermost burial

chamber.

Most tombs of the Ramesside period had the entrance to the substructure placed in the

side-wall of the rear part of the chapel only hidden behind a wooden door, similar to how royal

tombs were hidden in the Valley of the Kings, although the latter were not connected to a chapel.

See more in the next chapter.

At Deir el-Medina many tomb-chambers were built with brick vaults applied with

plaster and painted decoration. This seems to be the direct result of the tomb owners’ professions;

sculptors, artists and general tomb builders (Dodson; 2008 p266) leaving the conception and

execution identical, a somewhat expected result as the two set of tombs were built by the same

people. Most of the decorated substructures from Deir el-Medina date to the 19th

dynasty with a few

examples from the 20th

. The tomb of Sennedjem (TT1) is a good example of how tombs were

decorated at Deir el-Medina. His substructure contains a single room with the western wall fixed

literally to the West and is decorated with scenes related to the netherworld. The eastern wall

contains a sunrise and a “farmer’s paradise” in the Fields of Iaru (Dodson; 2008 p266), which is

taken from chapter 110 of the Book of the Dead. The remaining scenes depict mummification by

Anubis, Osiris and other netherworldly deities. Other tombs at Deir el-Medina contain various

spells from the Book of the Dead as well as funerary divinities, demons and the deceased’s ba

(TT290, 292). Other images found include traditional views of family members engaged in various

activities and poses, offerings, the voyage to Abydos and the Opening-of-the-mouth scene and in

some tombs the deceased is shown receiving the adoration of the “Lords of the West” headed by

Amenhotep I and Ahmes-Nefertiry, the lords being members of the 17th

/18th

dynasties and includes

some additional members, like Mentuhotep II of the 11th

dynasty (Dodson; 2008 p268).

Finally there are the built substructures. Brick-built substructures were primarily built

in the Delta where cliffs and large rocky hills were not to be found, making rock-cut substructures

impossible. Most of the tombs built here contained baked brick, a rather uncommon material in

pharaonic Egypt, probably used to keep out the damp and potential water from running into the

tomb. The baked brick was used for floors and walls, leaving the roof and upper sections of the

walls to be made from regular unbaked mudbrick. An example to such a tomb would be that of Hori

iii at Bubastis. His tomb contains a brick built corridor flanked on each side by three vaulted

chambers. In four of the rooms sarcophagi have been found, probably containing the remains of

family (Dodson; 2008 p268). Similar tombs can be found at Abydos, where they appear to have

been topped by mastabas instead of contemporary tomb chapels.

This concludes the section on private tombs and as can be seen in the section, the

development went from small one-room superstructures to extravagant multi-roomed chapels

reminiscent of royal mortuary temples and the substructures developed from small shaft tombs to

almost royal tombs in appearance, indicating that the private tombs were inspired by royal tombs

and often sought to copy the style of the royal graves.

What also can be seen is that the workmen’s village of Deir el-Medina kept the

pyramid alive in their superstructures and had their chapels and substructures decorated in a similar

style to the royal tombs, probably even using left-over materials from the royal tombs to decorate

their own.

Royal tombs When it comes to New Kingdom royal tombs most are to be found at the Valley of the

Kings and in the area surrounding Thebes. For this section focus will lie on the whole of the 18th

dynasty and up until the tomb of Merneptah in the 19th

dynasty. This again follows the time that the

tomb of Ramesses-Meryamun-Nebweben at Gurob and will provide the last piece of the puzzle as

to whether the tomb is royal or private in its building style and decoration.

Superstructure

Beginning again with the superstructure, the first thing people will see. Starting with

the superstructure of Ahmose I, the first ruler of the 18th

dynasty, located at Abydos (O’Connor;

2011 p105-110). The entire complex consisted of a pyramid, a cenotaph for his grandmother, two

temples and an additional pyramid with a substructure spread out along a distance of just under a

mile (Dodson; 2008 p209). One temple was a terraced structure against the cliff, the other built

against the pyramid, sending symbolic comparisons to the old pyramid complexes and it would be

the last of the royal superstructures to be an actual pyramid ending a tradition begun by Djoser back

in the third dynasty.

The 17th

dynasty necropolis at Dra Abu’l-Naga (Baines & Malek; 2000 p99)

continued to be used in the early part of the 18th

dynasty ending with the rise of the Tuthmosid

kings. Several members of the 18th

dynasty royal family had been buried there. At some point

between the start of Ahmose I’s reign and the end of Amenhotep I’s reign the superstructure and the

substructure were separated (Dodson; 2008 p209) because by the reign of Tuthmosis I, the

substructure was built at the Valley of the Kings.

The superstructures themselves were simple to begin with, like the private tombs

listed above. The tomb chapel of Amenhotep I (K93.11) and possibly the tomb chapel of Ahmose I

(K93.10) share the same overall structure type; a simple passage leading into a four-pillared hall

with a shaft leading to the burial chamber. This is much in line with contemporary private tombs as

listed in the previous chapter. Main important difference being the pillars as they indicate a slight

wealth or status difference although not a great one at the beginning of the New Kingdom. Later,

the superstructures would be grandiose structures taking up large tracts of land.

The reasoning for abandoning the pyramid as a superstructure may be linked with

tomb security simply because pyramids are easy to spot from a distance and so would most, if not

all, tomb chapels. Something to consider though! It probably was not a religious change that

brought the end of the pyramid, nor a financial one. Had it been an ideological change that saw the

end of pyramid construction the Valley of the Kings may not have been chosen as the site for royal

burial. It is believed that the mountain of El-Qurn is the primary reason for the location as it is

pyramid shaped and then the added distance between large residential areas and the substructures

would make them safer and, ideally, less susceptible to robberies.

No superstructure is known for Tuthmosis I but two are known from his sons;

Wadjmose and the later Tuthmosis II. They are both simple in design and located at Medinet Habu,

placing them firmly within the Theban area (Dodson; 2008 p210). The reigns of Tuthmosis III to

IV saw the first freestanding superstructures built to such a large scale that the Old Kingdom term

“mortuary temple” hardly fits anymore and they should probably be called by their Egyptian term

“Mansion of Millions of Years” instead or a simpler “memorial temple” instead as they no longer

just served the ba and kha of the king. The complex offered up worship to the Theban triad of

Amun, Mut and Khonsu (Dodson; 2008 p210) as well as the dead king and the royal cult as a

whole. The superstructure as a whole takes on a grand scale and did initially have a terraced design.

The best example of such a superstructure is the memorial temple of Hatshepsut at

Deir el-Bahri (Weeks & De Luca; 2011 p68). The complex begins at the edge of cultivation in a

valley building with two levels and a colonnade of square pillars. From this temple a sphinx-lined

causeway led for about 2/3 of a mile up to the main temple. A decorated colonnade, the second of

which had chapels to Hathor and Anubis, front each terrace. The ramp leading up to the second

court (Bard; 2008 p217-218) gave access to the inner part of the temple again fronted by a pair of

colonnades, the pillars made into Osirid figures of Hatshepsut, a common element in the New

Kingdom as a whole (Dodson; 2008 p211). Beyond the colonnades lies the peristyle court and at

the back of this is the main sanctuary of the temple, which was dedicated to the local version of

Amun; Amun of Djeser-djeseru (Weeks & De Luca; 2011 p69). Djeser-djeseru being the name of

Hatshepsut’s memorial temple.

Temples built in the same style as Djeser-djeseru had four cult-foci. One for the local

version of Amun, one for the cult of the king now made secondary in importance, a solar court with

an altar linking old rites with new ideology; the sun temples with new religious ideals. Finally, a

chapel dedicated to the father of the temple owner (Dodson; 2008 p211 and Bard; 2008 p218-

219).

The decoration for these temples moved from the profane to the sacred the closer to

the inner sanctuary one comes (Weeks & De Luca; 2011 p54-95). At the lower terraces military

and naval engagements are shown, maybe inspired by the monument of Mentuhotep II. Further up

images of obelisk carving appear. On the northern colonnade the typical fowling and hunting scenes

appear (Dodson; 2008 p211) as well as offerings to the gods; everything one would expect to find

in private superstructures as well. In the case of Hatshepsut’s temple, the middle terrace has

displays of her famous Punt expedition and to the north of the ramp is the birth scenes, claiming the

ruler to be of divine birth and are found at the cult of Amenhotep III and Ramesses II. At the top-

most terrace a full scene depicting the beautiful festival of the valley appear. Later found in private

tombs.

The remaining 18th

dynasty temples are destroyed leaving only the temple of

Amenhotep III remained but, based on the layouts still in existence it appears that the missing

temples continued the trend begun by Mentuhotep II and picked up by Hatshepsut. Only difference

being a front of bricked pylons at the first courtyard, making it resemble a temple proper (Dodson;

2008 p212).

Amenhotep III had a small superstructure initially and this was greatly increased upon

his 30th

regnal year and his Jubilee. It contained hundreds if not thousands of statues of various

material, yet all that remains of the great temple are two statues, the “colossi of Memnon”. The

focus for this temple however, was not Amun as had been the norm for the dynasty. Instead, it was

the king’s cult and solar worship (Dodson; 2008 p212). The temple had even been built to mimic

the myth of creation. The temple would flood during the inundation and would appear out of the

waters like the primeval mound at creation.

No superstructure has been located from the Amarna years and the safest option is that

the great temple at Amarna served both as royal and divine temple, with the Atenist faith being

linked to the Sun and the king (Dodson; 2008 p229).

After the Amarna years and the reintroduction of polytheism, temples were built once

again, however only one has been found covering the reigns of Tutankhamun, Ay and Horemheb. It

may have been begun by “king Tut” and finished by Horemheb and used as his temple. The final

form of the temple was fronted by three pylons and had a massive gateway leading into the great

court. A palace was built between the third pylon and the gateway, a feature made generic in

Ramesside temples. Behind the court was a broad hypostyle hall, two columns deep and ten wide,

giving access to additional pillared halls and a three-fold cult complex beyond. This is based on the

foundation only; as the temple was razed to the ground, leaving no decoration visible, save for a

few fragments, which show a return to conventional decorations (Dodson; 2008 p242).

Entering the 19th

dynasty and the remaining four rulers that this essay will focus on

and only three of these managed to build a temple. Ramesses I is only worshipped in the temple of

Seti I. His reign was short, so it is not a surprise that he did not manage to have one built (Dodson;

2008 p247). The temple of Seti I was built in front of Dra Abu’l-Naga at Qurna at the opposite end

of the 18th

dynasty temples. The building was finished by Ramesses II and was fronted by two

courts and pylons. A ten-columned portico gives access to the three sets of rooms described above.

The decoration of Seti I’s temple contains a mix of relief types. One by Ramesses II and one by Seti

I. The latter being of higher quality than the former (Dodson; 2008 p247).

The temple of Ramesses is much larger and much grander than that of Seti I, as can be

expected of a ruler ruling for more than 60 years. Inside the enclosure is the temple itself but also a

chapel to his mother and to his wife (Weeks & De Luca; 2011 p89) as well as a large number of

brick-vaulted storehouses, used for burial during the Third Intermediate Period. The temple is fully

built of stone instead of the usual brick, making it a much more expensive undertaking. The overall

plan of the temple however, is the same as before with the three set of rooms and columned halls,

just with a great increase in columns; some halls having more than 48 pillars in them (Dodson;

2008 p248). The superstructure of Merneptah is of similar design of that of Seti I, simple compared

to the Ramesseum.

Decoration became somewhat standardized during the Ramesside period. Military

matters depicted on the exterior pylons and walls as well as on the walls of the open courtyards.

Scenes of hunting became obsolete. Osirid statues are generally located in the piers in the open

courtyard. In the interior, walls and pillars shows the king interacting with the various gods. The

festival of the valley is also present as well (Dodson; 2008 p250).

Substructure

Ahmose I had a vast complex dug out at Abydos. It is dug just a few feet below

ground level and descends via a pit entrance to a twisting passageway which eventually ends in a

great, roofed hall containing 18 columns. Below the hall is a seemingly unfinished passage

(Dodson; 2008 p224). This pattern was followed in KV20, the tomb of Hatshepsut; though it may

have been begun by Tuthmosis I. Five successive galleries descend into the mountain at a steep

angle, slowly turning to the south, maybe in search of better rock. At the end of these chambers, a

final room was put. The “tunnel” had limestone added to it for decoration purposes.

Later rulers would abandon the tunnel for a short set of stairs and a corridor giving

access to an antechamber and finally a pillared burial hall. In KV34, 38 and 42 the burial chamber

had an oval shape. KV20 and 34 were the first royal tombs since the end of the Old Kingdom to be

decorated (Dodson; 2008 p224) and was primarily from the Amduat.

After the reign of Tuthmosis III the pillars and outer rooms received imagery of the

gods, linking the substructure to the underworld. This meant that the tomb had, at least, a decorative

east-west orientation if not a proper east-west one. The well-room was added by Amenhotep I and

became a permanent feature from the reign of Tuthmosis III. All substructures had a “bent” axis,

breaking off at the antechamber.

During the early Amarna years, partly including the end of Amenhotep III’s reign, the

tomb was expanded to contain an additional antechamber and chambers for the royal family, mainly

sons and daughters (Dodson; 2008 p232) and this was expanded upon by Akhenaton.

With the tomb of Horemheb, the bend in the tomb is cancelled (Dodson; 2008 p245)

and the Amduat is shown in abbreviated form. A new scene, in the substructure, is the heir serving

as the funerary priest at the burial. This had only been shown in the superstructure up until this

point.

The final four substructures that this essay will focus on are all found in the Valley of

the Kings. They belong to the first four rulers of the 19th

dynasty (Dodson; 2008 p259). The tombs

of Ramesses I and Seti I, follow that of Horemheb and no real changes occur until the reign of

Ramesses II, who replaced the simple stairs with a ramp, flanked by stairs and the bent axis is

cancelled in favour of a more straight axis at the opposite corner of the antechamber from where the

initial part of the axis begins. Tombs generally had a straighter axis after this time

The decoration pointed further towards funerary beliefs than before. The eastern side

of the tomb was dedicated to the litany of Re (Dodson; 2008 p260) while the western side is

dedicated to Osiris. The ceiling was decorated in the tomb of Seti I and Merneptah with an

astronomical ceiling, depicting the sun’s journey across the sky. Outside the tomb, Ramesses II

implemented a solar disc on the lintel. The tomb also contains a full frontal, rock-cut image of

Osiris to indicate that the tomb was his realm.

Gurob The tomb in question is Tomb W5 at Gurob (see figure one), located and excavated by

Engelbach and Brunton in 1918 and published in 1927. They were part of Petrie’s expedition to the

Fayum and had heard rumours of a tomb in the area. Some grave robbers had attempted to take the

inscribed sarcophagus lid 28 years earlier but they had been stopped by the Inspector of Antiquities.

The lid would later serve as the sole identification of the tomb owner (Brunton & Engelbach;

1927 p19).

The tomb belonged to Paramesses-(Meryamun)-Nebweben, son of Ramesses II and

may originally have been built for Ramesses I when he was vizier serving Horemheb (Dodson;

2008 p173-174). The sarcophagus was intended for Ramesses I and the inscriptions on it are neatly

cut, given that it is cut in pink granite which tends to crumble easily, with the exception of the

additions of “Nebweben” later on (Engelbach & Brunton; 1927 p20). With such alterations it is

not surprising that Engelbach and Brunton made the assumption that the owner of the sarcophagus

was a brother of Ramesses II and likely even his older brother based on the fact that Paramesses-

Meryamun is written in a cartouche. As this happens to be the same as Ramesses II, they believed it

was a way of separating himself from his brother by adding “Nebweben” to his brother’s name in

an attempt to have no one else have his name while alive. In this very same conclusion, they closed

the door on Ramesses-Nebweben being a son of Ramesses II as well based on the logic that “If he

did not allow his brother to have the same name, why would he allow any of his sons to carry the

name?” (Brunton & Engelbach; 1927 p21). Later, it was discovered that Ramesses-Nebweben

was the son of Ramesses II. Nebweben is only known from the inscriptions on the sarcophagus lid

(Dodson; 2008 p173) and he does not appear among the children of Ramesses II listed in the Wadi

el-Sebua procession of sons or any other in existence meaning that he was born after the final list

was made, putting him at the end of Ramesses II’s lifetime.

Judging on where he was buried, it is possible that he may have survived Ramesses II

and was buried during the reign of Merneptah which also explains why he is not buried in KV5

with his brothers. With him being buried in the Fayum in the harem-town of Mer-Wer (Gurob) it

would imply that (1) his mother lived there and he died young and, based on his skeletal remains,

somewhat infirm (Brunton & Engelbach; 1927 p24) and suffering tuberculosis which may have

been cause of death as well, (2) he was in charge of the harem, lived there and was finally buried

there. Regardless, he must have lived close-by for a while for him to be buried there and not closer

to the capitol of Pi-Ramesses.

Finally there are the titles written on his sarcophagus. It is uncertain how many of

them belong to Ramesses-Nebweben and how many of them belong to Ramesses I, however as

there seems to be no replacement of names in various places (Brunton & Engelbach; 1927 p21)

the titles may belong to Ramesses-Nebweben and out of all these titles, the most curious one is that

of hereditary prince. According to Brunton and Engelbach, (1927 p22) this title is only given to

heirs and this would also help explain the cartouche which also only is given to rulers and heirs. It is

possible that Paramesses-Nebweben may have been the heir of Merneptah or, which may be more

plausible, that the titles belong to Ramesses I before he became king and that Ramesses-

Nebweben’s name was written in instead of Ramesses-Menpehtyre.

Regardless, the tomb where Ramesses-Nebweben was buried will be examined and

the speculation will be continued in the conclusion based on the type of tomb he was buried in,

from superstructure to substructure, as explained below.

Superstructure

As little of the tomb chapel has survived it will serve as an indication of build-date

and nothing more. The superstructure was very damaged and stood, at its highest, 27 inches (68cm)

and the entrance was only four inches high (10cm)(Brunton & Engelbach; 1927 pl XIX). There

were traces of brickwork on the walls but no inscriptions found in the superstructure. Judging on the

shape alone, it appears to be a tomb chapel and would have contained the standard scenes of the 19th

dynasty; the tomb owner and Hathor drinking from a t-shaped pool, shaped like the owner’s tomb,

Hathor dispensing food for the deceased and his ba, several funerary scenes with the deceased

worshipping the gods, lists of funerary prayers. These things would be painted on a yellow

background suggesting sunlight and the body turning into gold (Dodson; 2008 p251). Overall the

funerary aspects of the inscriptions appear to have transformed the tomb chapel into a mortuary

temple for the noble/official.

Based on what remains of the tomb chapel it would either be a IIb or IX layout. The

IIB layout features a relatively short entrance and a long court with no pillars at all and is of very

simple design. Sadly, due to nothing more than brickwork left and no decoration it is not possible to

say anything about the decorations and if they have been there at all. Then there is the layout of the

IX tomb. It features an entrance roughly 1/3 of the court’s size and contains two to six pillars, set in

three rows starting at the back. The pillars at the back are a feature of several tomb-types (Dodson;

2008 p214-222). When looking at Dodson’s table of tombs it becomes apparent, based on pl XIX of

Engelbach & Brunton that the most likely type of tomb is the IX type with its pillars at the back of

the court, its elongated entrance and the shape of the chapel itself. It also fits perfectly with a tomb

built around the reign of Ramesses II, that is, the early-to-middle part of the 19th

dynasty.

Finally, there is the shaft leading into the substructure. It is located on the left hand

side of the room and placed between the entrance and the pillars, leaving the actual burial chamber

on the outside of the visible complex.

Overall, the remains of the tomb chapel are not enough to indicate whether it was a

private tomb or a royal tomb. Given the location and size of the tomb however, it is plausible that

royal children, who were not the heir-apparent until their older siblings had died, were buried in

private tombs or at the very least were not given the same importance as heirs, queens and kings

were. It seems to be the tomb built for a somewhat poor and/or low status noble instead of one

befitting an heir to the throne.

Substructure

Based on the family-relations of the tomb owner the tomb was built either shortly

before or during the reign of Ramesses II, making it a 19th

dynasty tomb with the slight off-chance

that it is a late 18th

dynasty tomb if it was built for Ramesses I when he was a vizier and heir-

apparent, provided that the tomb chapel had additional construction done to it. As mentioned above,

the superstructure or tomb chapel only gives little in way of decoration or even building style as so

little of it survived. The substructure will then be used as a more accurate attempt to date the tomb

and will also help in revealing if the tomb was originally built for a member of the royal family or if

it was built for an official.

Overall, the substructure contains no decorations but may have been designed to,

based on the limestone walls found (Brunton & Engelbach; 1927 p20).

It appears that the tomb was built for a private person instead of a member of the royal

family, so perhaps the title of heir was not bestowed until very late in Nebweben’s life or perhaps

just before he died and they had to reuse a tomb in the family’s possession. The substructure is very

similar to an 18th

dynasty noble’s, as it is entered via a shaft, which is followed by a corridor before

another descending passage appears. After the second passage the burial chamber appears in a

rather simple state.

Conclusion As has been seen in the process of this essay, the tomb of Ramesses-Meryamun-

Nebweben is a private tomb acquired for a member of the royal family and may in the end not even

give a clear picture of where actual members of the royal family were buried, as his tomb contains a

special case. He was made heir to the throne but died before he became king and this seems to have

been shortly after him becoming the heir. For all members of the royal family who died before their

father, except heirs and queens, they were buried in their father’s tomb, with the exception of the

children of Ramesses II, whose children were buried in KV5.

The problem with the tomb of Ramesses-Meryamun-Nebweben is however, that it is

unique. It is simply too small a sample to make definitive statements from, though not too small to

base a potential claim on. The claim I dare to make is that all heirs were buried in a separate tomb,

even if they were made heirs just a few months before they died. This is most likely the case of

Nebweben.

Bibliography

Baines, J. & Malek, J

2000 Cultural Atlas of Ancient Egypt; Revised Edition, New York, Checkmark Books.

Bard, K.

2008 An Introduction to the archaeology of Ancient Egypt, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing

Brunton, G. & Engelbach, R.

1927 Gurob; British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account -

Twenty-Fourth Year, 1918. London, British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

Dodson, A.

1990 Crown prince Djhutmose and the royal sons of the eighteenth dynasty, The Journal of

Egyptian Archaeology vol. 76, London, Egypt Exploration Society.

2008 The tomb in Ancient Egypt, London, Thames & Hudson.

2010 The complete royal families of Ancient Egypt, London, Thames & Hudson.

Meskell, L.

1998 An archaeology of social relations in an Egyptian village, Journal of archaeological

method and theory vol. 5, New York, Springer.

O’Connor, D.

2011 Abydos: Egypt’s first pharaohs and the cult of Osiris, London, Thames & Hudson.

Polz, D.

1986 Die Särge des (Pa-)Ramessu, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts,

Abteilung Kairo vol. 42, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.

Reeves, N. and Wilkinson, H. R.

2008 The complete Valley of the Kings, London, Thames & Hudson

Shaw, I

2000 The Oxford history of ancient Egypt, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Weeks, K. R. and De Luca, A.

2011 Valley of the Kings: The tombs and funerary temples of Thebes West, Vercelli,

Whitestar Publishers

Figures

Figure one; tomb of Paramesses-Meryamun-Nebweben. Taken from Brunton & Engelbach 1927.

Figure two; list of tomb types at Thebes.

Taken from Dodson 2008.