What do you think?
Rate this book
Abydos: Egypt's First Pharaohs and the Cult of Osiris
“O’Connor presents the rich fruits of his long labors in this volume certain to appeal to scholars and Egyptophiles alike.”― KMT The ancient site of Abydos lies between the towering cliffs of the Egyptian high desert and the lush green floodplain of the Nile. As both the burial place of the first kings of Egypt and a cult center for Osiris, god of the dead, this sacred area has long tantalized archaeologists with incredible finds.
With over forty years’ experience of excavation and research at Abydos, David O’Connor is in an unrivaled position to provide the most authoritative and up-to-date account of this unique Egyptian site. Here, for the first time, Professor O’Connor not only explains the complex history of Abydos but also vividly evokes the power that the sacred landscape held for contemporary Egyptians. This beautifully illustrated book will be of interest to anyone who has ever wondered about the origins of one of the greatest civilizations in world history. 11 color and 102 black-and-white illustrations
With over forty years’ experience of excavation and research at Abydos, David O’Connor is in an unrivaled position to provide the most authoritative and up-to-date account of this unique Egyptian site. Here, for the first time, Professor O’Connor not only explains the complex history of Abydos but also vividly evokes the power that the sacred landscape held for contemporary Egyptians. This beautifully illustrated book will be of interest to anyone who has ever wondered about the origins of one of the greatest civilizations in world history. 11 color and 102 black-and-white illustrations
216 pages, Paperback
First published July 7, 2009
3 people are currently reading
92 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
September 4, 2020
After the necessary introductions, this book really steamrolls into a wealth of rich information on not only Abydos, but Egyptian culture as a whole. Connor comments on previous excavations and their insights, but does not dwell on them, which keeps the development of Abydos in the mind of the reader moving forward. The print is of high quality and the illustrations and photographs complement the source material well. (I will paraphrase quotes to make them more readable and less jarring, and where I discuss facts in my own writing, they are mostly taken directly from the book).
“The Egyptians interpreted every form of landscape as appropriately scaled down microcosms of the macrocosmos. This cosmos incorporated heaven, earth, and netherworld, and can be envisaged as a kind of ‘bubble’ of air and light within the otherwise unbroken infinity of dark waters.”
Concerning the writing style, the sentence structures throughout the book could have been better organised to make the text more readable, whilst at the same time being able to not forgo its academic lingo. There are a few typos, but these are negligible.
“Evidence of writing in Abydos discovered in Tomb U-J is 150 years older than any previously found in Egypt. This pushes back the date of writing in Egypt back towards the appearance of fully developed writing in Mesopotamia” – amazing!
As someone new to Abydos’ history, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that it is a cradle for the origins of Egyptian civilisation, guarding the very first dynastic, and pre-dynastic, tombs. A total of 17 proto-kings have been discovered! The boat burials are also an insightful topic.
“As early as Ramesside times, the vast cemetery field was personified as Hapetnebes, ‘She who hides her lord’. This endless, open desert plain was imagined to be a goddess, generated by and embodied in the landscape itself. This landscape hid and protected Osiris, but also gave him revitalisation. Egyptians identified with Osiris believed they would also receive this from the goddess. (Unbeknownst to the Egyptians, the tomb of Osiris is in fact that of a 1st Dynasty king, Djer). A decree once inscribed upon the cliff faces at Abydos, forbade the quarrying of stone from the cliffs or desert valleys, indicating that they sought to maintain its sacred character. The decree refers to the ‘holy mountain’ (the high desert plateau above Abydos) as ‘She who hides her lord’ and that it is protected by the ‘two falcons’, which is reminiscent of a popular type of wooden coffin that had a falcon at each corner. Also, Nut was depicted on the inner face of the coffin’s lid.”
It is interesting to note that before the first Pyramid, that of Djoser’s, (designed and built by Imhotep, whom is not mentioned in the book) was built, the earlier royal tombs (out in the desert at Umm el Qa’ab) were capped with a mound made of the material that was removed to create the tomb. A chapel was built at the southeast corner so the cult could continue to carry out the rituals (such as incense burning) for their deceased king. Two steles flanked the entrance to this chapel, and those fragments helped archaeologists to identify the owners of the tombs. Each king had their own enclosure (the purposes of which are speculated on) which was built at the town/floodplain edge, far from its respective tomb, they did this later because they imitated the tomb of Osiris being in the desert, and its temple/enclosure being at the floodplain; they did this earlier because of unknown reasons, but before there were any royal burials at Abydos, it did have cemeteries that were not of a royal nature. Each enclosure was razed at the end of a king’s reign, and the next king’s was built. The enclosure of the last king of the 2nd Dynasty still stands, and is the largest monument to survive from Early Dynastic Egypt.
It is speculated that the idea of the pyramid came about (through Imhotep) because, once enclosure and tomb were combined in the 3rd dynasty, the stone mound of Djoser, at 8m high, could not be seen over the 10m enclosure wall. Either out of a desire to make the mound more visible, or larger, the initial surface mound of stone was overlaid by a four-stepped pyramid which, in a third stage of development, was transformed into a six-stepped one. It is also speculated that the pyramid form came about naturally due to it being the most structurally stable way to build upwards, because the pressures exerted on the lower blocks from the upper blocks would be destructively unstable, especially over time.
“Osiris’ tomb is set far out in the desert because the Early Dynastic royal cemetery and its predecessors were so located. Why was this the case? Recent commentators (Egyptologists) suggest a deep desert valley about 1km south of Umm el Qa’ab was seen by the Egyptians as an entrance to the netherworld. However, no text from Abydos or elsewhere supports the idea.”
Of course, I do not have the privilege of having nearly 40 years of experience studying Abydos, but there is one topic in particular I have doubts about, and that concerns the lightly touched upon Osireion. The Abydos complexes were symbolically modelled on the separation (and axial and cultic relationship) between Osiris’ tomb and Osiris’ temple at Umm el Qa’ab. The author states on page 110 that it is clear that the Osireion and Seti temple are contemporary to each other. If it is true that they are contemporary, then the Osireion would be the only cenotaph constructed so close to its associated temple. The only reason the author gives for this is that if the Osireion was set far back in the desert, on the axis of the Seti temple, it would have been placed inappropriately close to Osiris’ own. Looking at the map of the monuments of Abydos on page 25, this idea is clearly unrealistic; the cenotaph could have been constructed along the cliff line, or in a space between the cliff line and the temple. The tombs of Ahmose and Senwosret III were situated in this way, and there is plenty of room for Seti to have done the same without it being “inappropriately close to Osiris’ tomb”.
If the Osireion were a cenotaph, it would have been marked with a mound of the material out of which the pit was dug. However, there is only evidence for a grove of trees at ground level, as the author states on page 48. This information also contradicts the illustration of a reconstruction of the Osireion found on page 51, which depicts the Osireion being capped by a mound.
“The platform of the Osireion surrounded by a trench of water is unique in all of Egypt.”
The author cites that the Seti Temple and the Osireion are linked because of their L-shaped plan. Looking at the map on page 47, I’d like to humbly point out some arguments for this seemingly not being the case. 1) The entrance to the Osireion is coming from the corner of the “L”, but the entrance to the Seti temple is coming from the top of the “L”. 2) The annexe and Osireion are similar in size, but not the same. 3) The Seti temple’s hypostyle columns are papyrus-shaped columns, but the Osireion’s are purely rectangular and are of single blocks of granite and not assembled blocks. 4) The proportions and geometry of each temple are vastly different and bear little similarities. Their stonework and masonry are also very different in style and design.
I’d like to suggest that it is equally possible that the Seti temple was inspired by the Osireion, and that that could be the reason they are so closely and symmetrically aligned and have some similarities in their topography.
The hieroglyphic scenes in the tunnel of the Osireion were added by Seti’s grandson, Merenptah, and I’d say it’s likely that all of the hieroglyphs of the Osireion were added by Seti or his descendants. The other hieroglyphs of the Osireion are not – as I remember – commented on by the author, nor are the markings of the flower of life – and other markings – depicted in red ochre paint on the sides of two of the in-tact columned blocks. Evidence shows that they are possibly to be dated to the 1st Century AD, due to the Greek inscription graffitied nearby.
That being said, without alternative evidence being available to provide other theories regarding the origin of the Osireion, the reasonable conclusion to be made here would be that the Osireion and Seti temple are contemporary, though I find the evidence for this conclusion unsatisfactory and poorly founded; but there is nothing else. It would be interesting to hear from the author and other archaeologists involved in Abydos how they might visualise the logistical construction of the Osireion.
“The earliest temple of North Abydos has not yet been archeologically defined. However, one of its cult objects survived: a stone statue of the goddess Heqat embodied as a frog.”
The last chapter reasons that the pyramid does not symbolise a celestial stairway or means of ascent for the deceased pharaoh, but that it symbolises the primeval hill on which creation is initiated by Atum high on the height (the primeval mound), and that the king’s essence is in that primeval hill. This is because in the Pyramid texts, nothing relating to a pyramid is used to describe the king’s ascent. The interpretation of the pyramid representing the primeval mound, is based on Utterance 600 and 601, no other written evidence gives light to the pyramid’s meaning, or function. I am yet to read the Pyramid Texts myself, so cannot comment on this.
It’s pleasing to hear the author’s admission that “grand theories are proposed about early culture and kingship in Egypt, but are based on heterogeneous and random archaeological data… So far, these data are an inadequate foundation for the complex speculations built upon them, for the evidence still has substantial ambiguities and gaps.” And “it is especially important to recognise that the available data are often open to equally valid, if sometimes contradictory, interpretations, although scholars sometimes arbitrarily reject one in favour of another in order to support a specific theory. In such cases, with different but equally valid options, each interpretation should be assigned equal value until debate or new discoveries resolve the issue one way or the other.” This goes to show, I believe, that O’Connor is a source that can be trusted in his work, and is not dogmatic or rigid in his Archaeological views.
I have underlined only some of the many positive points – and things that I have learned – from this book. There would simply be too many and this is long enough as it is, I needed much of the space to raise my concerns about how the Osireion is covered in the book. Despite this concern, and the one regarding the writing style (even for an academic book), I thoroughly enjoyed this enlightening read from David O’Connor.
“The Egyptians interpreted every form of landscape as appropriately scaled down microcosms of the macrocosmos. This cosmos incorporated heaven, earth, and netherworld, and can be envisaged as a kind of ‘bubble’ of air and light within the otherwise unbroken infinity of dark waters.”
Concerning the writing style, the sentence structures throughout the book could have been better organised to make the text more readable, whilst at the same time being able to not forgo its academic lingo. There are a few typos, but these are negligible.
“Evidence of writing in Abydos discovered in Tomb U-J is 150 years older than any previously found in Egypt. This pushes back the date of writing in Egypt back towards the appearance of fully developed writing in Mesopotamia” – amazing!
As someone new to Abydos’ history, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that it is a cradle for the origins of Egyptian civilisation, guarding the very first dynastic, and pre-dynastic, tombs. A total of 17 proto-kings have been discovered! The boat burials are also an insightful topic.
“As early as Ramesside times, the vast cemetery field was personified as Hapetnebes, ‘She who hides her lord’. This endless, open desert plain was imagined to be a goddess, generated by and embodied in the landscape itself. This landscape hid and protected Osiris, but also gave him revitalisation. Egyptians identified with Osiris believed they would also receive this from the goddess. (Unbeknownst to the Egyptians, the tomb of Osiris is in fact that of a 1st Dynasty king, Djer). A decree once inscribed upon the cliff faces at Abydos, forbade the quarrying of stone from the cliffs or desert valleys, indicating that they sought to maintain its sacred character. The decree refers to the ‘holy mountain’ (the high desert plateau above Abydos) as ‘She who hides her lord’ and that it is protected by the ‘two falcons’, which is reminiscent of a popular type of wooden coffin that had a falcon at each corner. Also, Nut was depicted on the inner face of the coffin’s lid.”
It is interesting to note that before the first Pyramid, that of Djoser’s, (designed and built by Imhotep, whom is not mentioned in the book) was built, the earlier royal tombs (out in the desert at Umm el Qa’ab) were capped with a mound made of the material that was removed to create the tomb. A chapel was built at the southeast corner so the cult could continue to carry out the rituals (such as incense burning) for their deceased king. Two steles flanked the entrance to this chapel, and those fragments helped archaeologists to identify the owners of the tombs. Each king had their own enclosure (the purposes of which are speculated on) which was built at the town/floodplain edge, far from its respective tomb, they did this later because they imitated the tomb of Osiris being in the desert, and its temple/enclosure being at the floodplain; they did this earlier because of unknown reasons, but before there were any royal burials at Abydos, it did have cemeteries that were not of a royal nature. Each enclosure was razed at the end of a king’s reign, and the next king’s was built. The enclosure of the last king of the 2nd Dynasty still stands, and is the largest monument to survive from Early Dynastic Egypt.
It is speculated that the idea of the pyramid came about (through Imhotep) because, once enclosure and tomb were combined in the 3rd dynasty, the stone mound of Djoser, at 8m high, could not be seen over the 10m enclosure wall. Either out of a desire to make the mound more visible, or larger, the initial surface mound of stone was overlaid by a four-stepped pyramid which, in a third stage of development, was transformed into a six-stepped one. It is also speculated that the pyramid form came about naturally due to it being the most structurally stable way to build upwards, because the pressures exerted on the lower blocks from the upper blocks would be destructively unstable, especially over time.
“Osiris’ tomb is set far out in the desert because the Early Dynastic royal cemetery and its predecessors were so located. Why was this the case? Recent commentators (Egyptologists) suggest a deep desert valley about 1km south of Umm el Qa’ab was seen by the Egyptians as an entrance to the netherworld. However, no text from Abydos or elsewhere supports the idea.”
Of course, I do not have the privilege of having nearly 40 years of experience studying Abydos, but there is one topic in particular I have doubts about, and that concerns the lightly touched upon Osireion. The Abydos complexes were symbolically modelled on the separation (and axial and cultic relationship) between Osiris’ tomb and Osiris’ temple at Umm el Qa’ab. The author states on page 110 that it is clear that the Osireion and Seti temple are contemporary to each other. If it is true that they are contemporary, then the Osireion would be the only cenotaph constructed so close to its associated temple. The only reason the author gives for this is that if the Osireion was set far back in the desert, on the axis of the Seti temple, it would have been placed inappropriately close to Osiris’ own. Looking at the map of the monuments of Abydos on page 25, this idea is clearly unrealistic; the cenotaph could have been constructed along the cliff line, or in a space between the cliff line and the temple. The tombs of Ahmose and Senwosret III were situated in this way, and there is plenty of room for Seti to have done the same without it being “inappropriately close to Osiris’ tomb”.
If the Osireion were a cenotaph, it would have been marked with a mound of the material out of which the pit was dug. However, there is only evidence for a grove of trees at ground level, as the author states on page 48. This information also contradicts the illustration of a reconstruction of the Osireion found on page 51, which depicts the Osireion being capped by a mound.
“The platform of the Osireion surrounded by a trench of water is unique in all of Egypt.”
The author cites that the Seti Temple and the Osireion are linked because of their L-shaped plan. Looking at the map on page 47, I’d like to humbly point out some arguments for this seemingly not being the case. 1) The entrance to the Osireion is coming from the corner of the “L”, but the entrance to the Seti temple is coming from the top of the “L”. 2) The annexe and Osireion are similar in size, but not the same. 3) The Seti temple’s hypostyle columns are papyrus-shaped columns, but the Osireion’s are purely rectangular and are of single blocks of granite and not assembled blocks. 4) The proportions and geometry of each temple are vastly different and bear little similarities. Their stonework and masonry are also very different in style and design.
I’d like to suggest that it is equally possible that the Seti temple was inspired by the Osireion, and that that could be the reason they are so closely and symmetrically aligned and have some similarities in their topography.
The hieroglyphic scenes in the tunnel of the Osireion were added by Seti’s grandson, Merenptah, and I’d say it’s likely that all of the hieroglyphs of the Osireion were added by Seti or his descendants. The other hieroglyphs of the Osireion are not – as I remember – commented on by the author, nor are the markings of the flower of life – and other markings – depicted in red ochre paint on the sides of two of the in-tact columned blocks. Evidence shows that they are possibly to be dated to the 1st Century AD, due to the Greek inscription graffitied nearby.
That being said, without alternative evidence being available to provide other theories regarding the origin of the Osireion, the reasonable conclusion to be made here would be that the Osireion and Seti temple are contemporary, though I find the evidence for this conclusion unsatisfactory and poorly founded; but there is nothing else. It would be interesting to hear from the author and other archaeologists involved in Abydos how they might visualise the logistical construction of the Osireion.
“The earliest temple of North Abydos has not yet been archeologically defined. However, one of its cult objects survived: a stone statue of the goddess Heqat embodied as a frog.”
The last chapter reasons that the pyramid does not symbolise a celestial stairway or means of ascent for the deceased pharaoh, but that it symbolises the primeval hill on which creation is initiated by Atum high on the height (the primeval mound), and that the king’s essence is in that primeval hill. This is because in the Pyramid texts, nothing relating to a pyramid is used to describe the king’s ascent. The interpretation of the pyramid representing the primeval mound, is based on Utterance 600 and 601, no other written evidence gives light to the pyramid’s meaning, or function. I am yet to read the Pyramid Texts myself, so cannot comment on this.
It’s pleasing to hear the author’s admission that “grand theories are proposed about early culture and kingship in Egypt, but are based on heterogeneous and random archaeological data… So far, these data are an inadequate foundation for the complex speculations built upon them, for the evidence still has substantial ambiguities and gaps.” And “it is especially important to recognise that the available data are often open to equally valid, if sometimes contradictory, interpretations, although scholars sometimes arbitrarily reject one in favour of another in order to support a specific theory. In such cases, with different but equally valid options, each interpretation should be assigned equal value until debate or new discoveries resolve the issue one way or the other.” This goes to show, I believe, that O’Connor is a source that can be trusted in his work, and is not dogmatic or rigid in his Archaeological views.
I have underlined only some of the many positive points – and things that I have learned – from this book. There would simply be too many and this is long enough as it is, I needed much of the space to raise my concerns about how the Osireion is covered in the book. Despite this concern, and the one regarding the writing style (even for an academic book), I thoroughly enjoyed this enlightening read from David O’Connor.
March 3, 2010
David O'Connor has been excavating at Abydos for the last 40 years, and this book represents his updating of what that research has uncovered. It is subtitled, "Egypt's First Pharaohs and the Cult of Osiris." Professor O'Connor writes of the site itself and what it was like down through the ages, as the Osiris cult grew to become one of the preeminent cults of Ancient Egypt. He has made unique discoveries, such as 14 of the earliest built boats ever discovered. It's a complex history of a complex site, and very well illustrated. I enjoyed it enormously.
May 23, 2011
Excellent summary of archaeological work at Abydos, and the key sites. A bit too detailed for a popular audience, but if you're looking for a really complete look at all the tombs, cemeteries, mortuary temples and other monuments at Abydos, this is well done and thorough.
July 15, 2012
A very good and detailed look at one of the most famous of Egypt's Historical Sites.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews