Abu Rawash (also spelt Abu Roach, Abu Roash), 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) north of Giza, is the site of Egypt’s most northern pyramid, also known as the lost pyramid – the mostly ruined Pyramid of Djedefre, the son and successor of Khufu. Initially, it was thought that this pyramid had never been completed. Still, the current archaeological consensus is that not only was it ended, but it was built about the same size as the Pyramid of Menkaure – the third largest of the Giza pyramids.
Location of Abu Rawash
Abu Rawash is located in the continuation of Gebel el-Ghigiga, the western fringe of the Nile Valley (30°2’N,3l°4’E). The site of Abu Rawash belongs to the very northern part of the necropolis at Memphis. It connects to various sites dating from the Early Dynastic to the Coptic periods.
Abu Rawash Pyramid Boat Pit
Its location adjacent to a major crossroads made it an easy source of stone. Quarrying began in Roman times and has left little apart from a few courses of stone superimposed upon the natural hillock that formed part of the pyramid’s core.
Excavation
8 km northwest of the Gîza plateau, the region of Abu Rawash contains archaeological remains from different periods ranging from the Early Dynastic to the Coptic period. They are almost exclusively funerary features covering all phases of the Pharaonic period and places of worship for the most recent eras.
After K. Lepsius’ survey of the pyramid in the winter of 1842-1843, W.M.F. Petrie studied the pyramid between 1880 and 1882. The Institut Français d’archéologie Orientale undertook the first actual archaeological excavations between 1901 and 1902 at the initiative of its director, É. Chassinat is clearing the eastern side of the pyramid. The discovery of quartzite statue fragments, some inscribed, made it possible to attribute the monument to Radjedef, son of Cheops and third ruler of the 4th Dynasty (around 2580 BCE).
The research was resumed on the pyramid between 1912 and 1913 under the direction of P. Lacau. He was also interested in the area around the monument. As early as 1913, he entrusted P. Montet with excavating a small archaic cemetery to the west of the pyramid named M after his first excavator, Pierre Montet. In 1922, he granted F. Bisson de la Roque to study the neighbouring necropolis of the Old Kingdom. Work on Cemetery M (1913-1914) and the Early Dynastic cemetery at the foot of the hill was continued from 1957 to 1959 by a team from the Leiden Museum led by A. Klasens.
Excavations resumed in 1990-2000 on the Radjedef complex as part of a joint Ifao/University of Geneva project. Work was also carried out on the elite 4th Dynasty cemetery under the direction of M. Baud until 2009. Since then, investigations have resumed on the Early Dynastic cemetery. Forgotten for more than a century, the large tombs of the M cemetery have recently benefited from a new archaeological programme conducted by the French Institute of Oriental Archaeology in Cairo in collaboration with Macquarie University in Sydney (Australia).
Cemetery M is located on a small rocky spur that dominates the north-western plain of the Abu Rawash site from 25 m. Twenty-five mud-brick tombs from the Naqada IIIC2 phase (middle of the 1st Dynasty) have been identified. The discovery of this cemetery was an event in the history of Early Dynastic research: 25 years before the excavation of the Saqqara Necropolis, tombs similar to those previously identified in Abydos were found for the first time in Lower Egypt. Too often and unjustly forgotten, this elite cemetery was an important milestone in the development of the Pharaonic civilisation.
The on-site re-examination provides valuable information for understanding the 1st Dynasty funerary architecture. The comparison with the data from recent excavations of contemporary cemeteries in the Eastern Nile Delta and the Memphite region is already of great importance for understanding the cultural dynamics of the Early Dynastic communities and the integration of Lower Egypt into the emerging sphere of royal power. Finally, the study of material excavated by previous archaeologists must be associated with the resumption of excavations of the tombs. The team has thus conducted several study missions to the Louvre Museum, the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, the Institute of Egyptology of the University of Strasbourg and the Ifao.
The architecture, the quality and the quantity of the funerary material illustrate the rank and splendour of Abu Rawsh’s mastaba owners. With their stone portcullis, subsidiary tombs, walls decorated with niches and redans, and funerary boats – the oldest known in Egypt – the great tombs of Abu Rawash contribute to a more accurate picture of the Egyptian aristocracy at the time when the state was being established on the banks of the Nile.
Geology of Abu Rawash
The sedimentary succession in the Abu Rawash area ranges in age from Late Cretaceous to Quaternary but is punctuated by several unconformity surfaces. Turonian to Coniacian represents the sedimentary succession of the Abu Rawash formation that differentiated into six informal units (members) from younger to older as follows:
- Basal clastic member
- Rudist-bearing limestone-marl member
- Limestone member
- Actaeonella-bearing limestone-marl member
- Flint-bearing chalky limestone member
- Plicatula-bearing marl-limestone member.
The sedimentary depositional environment of the Abu Rawash Formation is characterised by variable conditions and settings ranging from lower mixed to upper intertidal flat and subtidal channels for the clastic facies and calm to agitated open marine inner to the middle platform for the carbonate facies. Vertical sequence or facies hierarchy displays that the facies sequence of the basal clastic member indicates a progradational preitidal sequence. Meanwhile, the rudist-bearing and limestone members represent a cyclic progradation of high energetic/storm facies above open marine low energetic foreshore subtidal facies.
The facies sequence of the Acteonella-bearing member reflects two facies associations comprising open marine subtidal assemblage and shoal or bank facies. The latter facies represent the bank that the robust, thick-shelled Durania arnaudi with the coralline sponge heads accreted local mounds in restricted areas of the El-Hassana dome. The vertical facies hierarchy of the flint-bearing chalky limestone member suggests a renewed shoaling of the depositional accommodation, shifting to an inner-platform setting and a progradation of mobile bioclastic shoals or banks. Stacking the sedimentary facies in the Plicatula-bearing member indicates an open shallow sea (inner platform) accumulation with the intermittent supply of fine terrigenous clastic and clays. (Hanan. S.M. Badawy, Geology Dept., Faculty of Science, Beni Suef, Egypt)
