The relationship between dynastic affinity and a royal necropolis, and the connection of the latter with a possible change of residence are a complex subject. Whilst the Third Dynasty, with its founder Djoser, marks the end for Abydos as a royal necropolis, the use of Saqqara North is neither new (the ditch dug by Djoser blocks the entrances to the galleries of Hetepsekhemwy and of Ninetjer, sovereigns of the Second Dynasty), nor would it remain a dynastic constant. While his successor Sekhemkhet also located his complex at Saqqara, king Khaba chose a new site further to the north at Zawiyet el-Aryan. The tombs of the two other kings of the dynasty, Sanakht Nebka and Kahedjet Huni, have not been located. There is no compelling argument to connect the pyramid at Meidum with the latter king who brings the Third Dynasty to an end, while there are indicators to suggest a burial at Dahshur, in particular, the presence of an alabaster sarcophagus near the pyramid of Senwosret III (Arnold 2002: 107-8). A large anonymous enclosure at Saqqara West, the Gisr el-Mudir, could belong to this period, but its funerary purpose is not established (Mathieson & Tavares 1997).
The first half of the Fourth Dynasty shows a systematic taste for migration, each monarch having chosen a different pyramid site and moving in a northerly progression (Valloggia 1994): Snefru, founder of the Fourth Dynasty, built his three (!) pyramids at Meidum and Dahshur (the ‘‘Bent’’ Pyramid of Dahshur South and the ‘‘Red’’ Pyramid of Dahshur North); Khufu installed himself at Giza, then Djedefre at Abu Rawash. Another, poorly known, king, who must have reigned before or after Djedefre and the reading of whose name remains uncertain (Nebkare? Bikka? - probably the Bicheris of tradition) returned to the site of Zawiyet el-Aryan; his pyramid, left unfinished, is known to Egyptologists under the name ‘‘The Great Excavation.’’ Thus the policy from the middle of the Third Dynasty to the middle of the Fourth of systematically building on a new site contrasts markedly with the Thinite practice of oscillating between Abydos and Saqqara. However, with Khafre, son and second successor of Khufu, then Menkaure and the queen-mother Khentkawes I,
Giza acquires the status of a quasi-dynastic necropolis. Moreover, the tombs of private people from these various reigns are assembled around the pyramid of Khufu, in three vast groups (East Field, South Field and, above all, the West Field), articulating the importance of this sovereign through the scale of the site (janosi 2005) (plate 3). In the same way, after a highly symbolic pyramid location by the first king of the Fifth Dynasty, Userkaf, between the dry moat and the enclosure wall of the complex of Djoser at Saqqara North, his successors Sahure, Neferirkare, Neferefre, Niuserre, and probably the shadowy Shepseskare, developed a dedicated dynastic royal cemetery just to the north at Abusir, this site being separated from Saqqara only by a large valley (Barta 2006). Whilst Unis at the end of the Fifth Dynasty and Teti at the beginning of the Sixth Dynasty elected for proximity to the complex of Djoser, which remained a reference point throughout the Old Kingdom, the other kings of the Sixth Dynasty, Pepi I, Merenre, and Pepi II built in Saqqara South. We can see, therefore, that, while the sites of Saqqara North, Giza, Abusir, and Saqqara South are each in turn emblematic of the four dynasties of the Old Kingdom, the reasons behind the location of their pyramids are generally complex with, at certain periods, a systematic migration of the royal necropolis.
World History
