THREE EGYPTIAN DYNASTIES (Pt.3)
That Aha possessed a tomb at Abydos as well as another at Nakeda seems peculiar, but it is a phenomenon not unknown in Egypt. Several kings, whose bodies were actually buried elsewhere, had second tombs at Abydos, in order that they might possess last resting places near the tomb of Osiris, although they might not prefer to _use_ them. Usertsen (or Senusret) III is a case in point. He was really buried in a pyramid at Illahun, up in the North, but he had a great rock tomb cut for him in the cliffs at Abydos, which he never occupied, and probably had never intended to occupy. We find exactly the same thing far back at the beginning of Egyptian history, when Aha possessed not only a great mastaba-tomb at Nakeda, but also a tomb chamber in the great necropolis of Abydos. It may be that other kings of the earliest period also had second sepulchres elsewhere. It is noteworthy that in none of the early tombs at Abydos were found any bodies which might be considered those of the kings themselves. M. Amelineau discovered bodies of attendants or slaves (who were in all probability purposely strangled and buried around the royal chamber in order that they should attend the king in the next world), but no royalties. Prof. Petrie found the arm of a female mummy, who may have been of royal blood, though there is nothing to show that she was. And the quaint plait and fringe of false hair,
which were also found, need not have belonged to a royal mummy. It is therefore quite possible that these tombs at Abydos were not the actual last resting-places of the earliest kings, who may really have been buried at Hierakonpolis or elsewhere, as Aha was. Messrs. Newberry and Gtarstang, in their "Short History of Egypt", suppose that Aha was actually buried at Abydos, and that the great tomb with objects bearing his name, found by M. de Morgan at Nakeda, is really not his, but belonged to a royal princess named Neit-hetep, whose name is found in
conjunction with his at Abydos and Nak?da. But the argument is equally valid turned round the other way: the Nakeda tomb might just as well be Aha's and the Abydos one Neit-hetep's. Neit-hetep, who is supposed by Messrs. Newberry and Garstang to have been Narmer's daughter and Aha's wife, was evidently closely connected with Aha, and she may have been
buried with him at Nakeda and commemorated with him at Abydos. It is
probable that the XIXth Dynasty list-makers and Manetho considered the Abydos tombs to have been the real graves of the kings, but it is by no means impossible that they were wrong.
A princess named Bener-ab ("Sweet-heart"), who may have been Aha's daughter, was actually buried beside his tomb at Abydos.
This view of the royal tombs at Abydos tallies to a great extent with that of M. Naville, who has energetically maintained the view that M. Amelineau and Prof. Petrie have not discovered the real tombs of the early kings, but only their contemporary commemorative "tombs" at Abydos. The only real tomb of the Ist Dynasty, therefore, as yet discovered is that of Aha at Nakeda, found by M. de Morgan. The fact that attendant slaves were buried around the Abydos tombs is no bar to the view that the tombs were only the monuments, not the real graves, of the kings. The royal ghosts would naturally visit their commemorative chambers at Abydos, in order to be in the company of the great Osiris, and ghostly servants would be as necessary to their Majesties at Abydos as elsewhere.
It must not be thought that this revised opinion of the Abydos tombs detracts in the slightest degree from the importance of the discovery of M. Amelineau and its subsequent and more detailed investigation by Prof. Petrie. These monuments are as valuable for historical purposes as the real tombs themselves. The actual bodies of these primeval kings themselves we are never likely to find. The tomb of Aha at Nakeda had been completely rifled in ancient times.
