An Introduction to the Ancient Monumental Tombs Of Alexandria, Egypt

(Part I)
In our own time and only in recent years, one of the greatest cities the world has
ever known is seeing, for the first time since its decline and ultimately during the
Middle Ages, its near demise, an unprecedented resurrection. Alexandria was a
center of the ancient world known for its trade and intellectualism, but like the
dualism of Egypt itself, this grand metropolis became at one point one of the
worlds least cities, before making an unsteady climb back to its present status.
Prior to the Roman conquest of Egypt, Alexandria has been shown to have been
overwhelmingly Greek in nature. The greatest number of architectural elements
recovered in Alexandria follow Greek models, and even the tombs initially present
themselves as Hellenic, only slowly integrating overtly Egyptian motifs. In fact,
Alexandria was a Macedonian foundation established on the shores of Egypt.

It was in Egypt but it was not of Egypt and during antiquity it was called
Alexandria ad Aegyptum, meaning Alexandria by or near Egypt. Even
during Roman times, the prefect's title, "Prefect of Alexandria and Egypt",
continues to show this separation. Back in its heyday, Alexandria was visited by
the most prominent of world leaders, intellectuals and ancient travelers, but in the
modern era, it has, up until very recently, been almost completely avoided by
foreign tourists. This was mostly because almost nothing is left of the fabled
monuments so well known to us from its magnificent past. Hence, late eighteenth
and nineteenth century travelers who were obliged to travel by sea to Egypt
sojourned there as briefly as possible before traveling south to see the fabled Egypt
of the pharaohs. James Bruce, who came to Alexandria on June 20th, 1768 on his
way to seek the source of the Nile, tells us that: "Indeed, from afar Alexandria
promised a spectacle deserving of attention. The view of the ancient monuments,
 among which one distinguishes the column of Pompey, with the high towers and
the bells constructed by the Moors, give hope of a great number of beautiful
buildings or superb ruins. But at the moment that one enters the port, the illusion
vanishes and one perceives no more than a very small number of these monuments
of colossal grandeur and majesty which are distinguished and which are found
embroiled with buildings as poorly designed as they are constructed that have been
raised by the conquerors who possessed Alexandria in the last centuries. ...and now
we can say of it, as of Carthage, periere ruinae. Even its ruins have disappeared."
More recently, as air travel came into its own, Alexandria could be, and was
ignored altogether as most tourists to Egypt now arrive in Cairo. For many of the
same reasons, even archaeologists, save for a few specialists, avoided Alexandria
for the richer fields associated with the earlier pharaonic era. During the early
years of Egyptology, even the Egyptian government ignored the city's
archaeological potential. As Dr Tassos D. Neroutos, a resident of the city and a
father of modern archaeological scholarship on Alexandria wrote in 1875:
"Whereas Egyptian archaeology enjoys the eminent protection of His Highness the
Khedive in all that regards pharaonic monuments, and while the Museum at
Boulaq is enriched every day by veritable treasures drawn from excavations
undertaken under the auspices of the Government, the city of Alexandria and of the
Ptolemies, on the contrary, is not the object of the same solicitude; and no thought
is given at all to the few monuments that remain still standing, nor to the
undertaking of excavations in order to discover other remains of antiquity that
perhaps still lie interred beneath the earth, nor that the modern city, with its new
construction, is going to bury them forever." In reality, this may have been a
blessing. The early explorers of Egypt were little more than treasure hunters who
applied none of the science of modern archaeology to their explorations.
 While they devastated many ancient ruins in Egypt, they mostly
avoided Alexandria, leaving many of its ruins for their more articulate, modern
followers. This is not to say that there has not been, for many years, excavations
and scholarly work undertaken in Alexandria, but we can pinpoint almost precisely
Alexandria's renewed interest to the underwater excavations during the 1990s
(which continue today). Beneath the sea on Alexandria's coast lies an impressive
array of antiquities, some perhaps tossed there to block the waters from attack, but
probably most toppled into the sea by massive earthquakes that plagued the area
for many hundreds of years. Here are the remains of famous palaces and many
other structures, including the Pharos Lighthouse. Whether these ruins spurred
the revival of the Ancient Library of Alexandria by the Egyptian Government is
unknown to us, but its recreation in Alexandria has likewise helped spawn a
renewed interest in the city, creating a certain momentum in its rediscovery. On
land, by far the most numerous archaeological sites are below ground, and mostly
consist of tombs. Many of these have, more or less quietly, been excavated over
many years and in fact numerous of them were done so prior to World War II. The
greatest advance in the knowledge of the material remains of
 ancient Alexandria actually took place under the direction of Achille Adriani
between 1932 and 1940 and again between 1948 and 1952. Yet, until the finds of
the harbor and the building of the library, there was little interest outside of
specific circles in this work, and while there has been considerable public and
scholarly interest in the underwater excavations, the tombs are just now earning
some expanded interest. Perhaps one reason for this lack of interest in the tombs is
that there are no royal tombs left, save for one known as the Alabaster Tomb. Even
that is uncertain, but it has all of the attributes of a royal tomb, and it has even been
suggested and argued that it was in fact a tomb where Alexander himself was
interred. If so, it would have been his second resting place. Uncovered in 1907, it is
constructed in an area that might very well have been in the Sema, the cemetery
associated with Alexandria's royalty.
It is notable for its formal divergence from other Alexandrian tombs. Unlike other
tombs in Alexandria, it seems to follow a Macedonian architectural model as well,
and is constructed of monolithic slabs of alabaster. However, not much remains of
this tomb and its actual ownership may never be known. Later private tombs
in Alexandria draw more upon elements from Greece and Egypt, with the Egyptian
style growing over time. The earliest known tombs were modest, with multiple
burials cut into soft limestone to the east of the city. They soon evolved into multi-
chambered complexes conceived as collective burial places centered on spaces for
enactment of the funeral cult drama (ritual ceremony), as tombs spread to the west
of the city along the Mediterranean coast. Architecturally, the monumental private
tombs of Alexandria have no identifiable forerunners in the Hellenic world, despite
the fact that the city was so very Greek. Like Egyptian tombs, those at Alexandria
are rock cut, but they are also unlike Egyptian tombs outside of Alexandria. In
1919, Rudolf Pagenstecher categorized two types of Alexandrian monumental
 tombs as Oirkos, with rooms distributed on a linear axis, and peristyle, having
rooms distributed around a peristyle or psuedo-peristyle court. However, in her
book, Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria, Marjorie Susan Venit tells us
that: "... although the terms are useful as descriptors and although this division has
remained the basis of the discussion of Alexandrian tomb architecture, the
differentiation does not seem conceptually, ethnically, or chronologically
significant - and in a recent article, Wiktor Daszewski has argued that it is not
descriptively valid either. Yet Pagenstecher's divisions pervade scholarly literature,
and his terms, at least, are still worth applying when they are appropriate."
Irregardless, Alexandrian monumental tombs do share common elements no matter
what date. Ptolemaic Period tombs are similar at the beginning and at the end of
the period and even Roman period tombs are grounded in their Ptolemaic
prototypes, though there are a number of important differences between those of
the two politically distinct period. These private tombs all differ from
theMacedonian modelMacedonian model.
 They are cut vertically into the rock and are accessed by a covered rock-cut
staircase. They are centered on a court open to the sky, which was probably
surrounded by a parapet, though none are preserved in Alexandria itself. About this
court was a series of rooms with their main focus on a burial chamber furnished
with a rock-cut kline on which the body of the deceased must have been laid out.
In addition, there were other burial rooms containing loculi (long, narrow shelves
or niches) cut into the walls when needed to serve as burial slots and closed with
loculus slabs. Though Alexandria had a diverse population from many
nationalities, even cultural distinctions seem to have collapsed in these tombs. In
the Roman Period tombs, the arrangement was similar, though they did away with
the kline chamber and broadened the range of elements to incorporate the specific
needs of the Roman Funerary ritual. For the disposition of the great majority of the
dead, Roman Period tombs retian loculi, although these were normally precut in
contrast to their ad hoc opening in the Ptolemaic period. For the those of means, a
freestanding limestone sarcophagi or rock-cut sarcophagi set into trabeated or
arctuated niches (arcosolia) were used.

These tombs could also incorporate a funerary building on the surface and
triclinium dining rooms for memorial feasts. Despite some differences in Roman
tombs, three elements consisting of the loculi, klinai and sarcophagus niches are
characteristic of Alexandrian tombs. While the Klinai was utilized almost
 exclusively in Ptolemaic tombs and sarcophagus niches are strictly of the Roman
period, loculi, the long, narrow, often gabled or vaulted depositories for the dead
continue throughout the history of Alexandrian tombs. A number of scholars have
suggested that the loculi were borrowed from other cultures such as the
Phoenicians, but in fact pre-Ptolemaic Egypt has plenty of examples from which
these may have more likely been modeled. They are a feature of Late
Period necropolises of deified animals at Saqqara and the necropolis of Memphis.

In Alexandria, these loculi niches were not necessarily limited to a single burial,
nor were they subject to a specific type of internment. Loculi even held cremations,
and as many as a dozen interred bodies. While the loculi were rarely painted on the
inside, they were sealed over by a slab which was decorated by paint usually in
the Ptolemaic Period and inscribed during the Roman Period. By far, the large
majority of these were, during the Greek Period, painted to portray a Doric portal,
or door. However, it should be noted that these doors probably had nothing in
common with the symbolism of false doors of the earlier pharaonic periods which
were incorporated into tombs. The Klinai, which were couches, were present in
most all early and middle Hellenistic Alexandrian tombs. These were used during
life for resting upon, and likewise to ret the dead during death. While Loculi could
very well be modeled on earlier Egyptian examples, the Kline probably originated
in Anatolia, where funerary beds especially fabricated to furnish tombs are known
as early as the sixth century BC. By far the most common type found in
Alexandrian tombs is a single kline carved from the long back wall of small
chamber filling the room. Two types of funerary klinai are known from Egypt. One
functioned as a sarcophagus, while the more common type did not. Of these, the
sarcophagus style kline was probably the earliest form. Both actually look similar
and were cut from the rock, projecting out from the wall as would a real couch. Of
course, there are some exceptions to these rules, as well as later reuses of many
tombs which altered some of their elements.
by Jimmy Dunn

Resources:

Reference
Title Author Date Publisher
Number

ISBN 0-7432-
Alexandria, City of the Western Mind Vrettos, Theodore 2001 Free Press, The
0569-3

Alexander to Actium (The Historical University of California ISBN 0-520-

Green, Peter 1990
Evolution of the Hellenistic Age) Press 05611-6

Empereur, Jean- ISBN 0-7141-

Alexandria Rediscovered 1998 British Museum Press
Yves 1921-0

Baines, John;
Atlas of Ancient Egypt 1980 Les Livres De France None Stated
Malek, Jaromir

Monumental Tombs of Ancient Venit, Marjorie Cambridge University ISBN 0 521

2002
Alexandria: The Theater of the Dead Susan Press 80659 3

Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Redford, Donald B. American University in ISBN 977 424
2001
The (Editor) Cairo Press, The 581 4
 Monumental Tombs of Alexandria, Part II

Though monumental tombs in Alexandria appear almost concurrently with the

foundation of the city, the very earliest burials were unpretentious. Many of the
first settlers were consigned to simple pits or shafts. The dead were sometimes
cremated, but this seems not to have much affected the type of tomb in which they
were interred.
Rectangular or bitrapezoidal graves were cut vertically into the bedrock from forty
centimeters to a meter and a half in depth. They were sealed with flat stones or, in
some rare cases, with terracotta slabs set horizontally on ledges cut in the walls of
the tomb, so that they remained level with the surface. In normal burials, that is,
those not involving cremation, the tomb usually held only a single burial, with the
dead laid directly into the limestone pits, often accompanied by one or more
funerary vessels or other objects.
There were a small number of these pit burials that were somewhat more elaborate,
with a flight of three or four steps that entered the tomb on its short wall, rather
than directly from the top. This type of tomb included a small vestibule between
the staircase and the tomb itself which, after the burial, was filled in with sand and
rubble. A vertical slab was used to seal the tomb. This type of tomb was a
forerunner of the latter chamber tomb.
Frequently, funerary monuments such as stelai, altars or columns were placed
either above the tomb or near them, though many more were simply covered by a
low tumulus of earth. Rarely is one grave found superimposed over another, so the
plots must have been clearly differentiated and kept up during the life of the
cemetery. Even though more elaborate burials soon appear in Alexandria, these
early pit and shaft grave continued to be used for less prominent Alexandrians
through much of the city's history.
Very quickly after the founding of Alexandria, gallery and chamber tombs also
make their appearance and they too continue to be used throughout much of the
city's early history. They differ from pit and shaft tombs in three important aspects
that are clearly evolutionary steps towards Alexandria's monumental burials. They
contain multiple burials, they utilize loculi to hold the burials and they are
constructed to be entered and to act as the site of the funerary rites.
The gallery or corridor tomb is the simplest of these two intermediate types of
burial. They consist of a short, rock-cut staircase that leads down from the surface
into a long narrow room that can be up to forty meters in length. This type of tomb
is characterized by their walls that are completely devoted to loculi. During the
Ptolemaic period, the loculi were cut when the necessity arose, and are therefore
irregular, while in Roman times, they were precut into neat tiers. Interestingly, one
Ezbet el-Makhlouf gallery tomb contained Egyptian motifs, which were rare in
early tombs. It is possible that this burial may have held culturally conservative
ethnic Egyptians.

Though chamber tombs appear to be contemporaneous with gallery tombs, they

seem conceptually to be their successor. Similar to gallery tombs in most respects,
they add a small vestibule as an intermediary space between the entry stair and the
burial room for the performance of the funerary ritual. Chamber tombs are thus the
immediate predecessors of Alexandria's monumental tombs.
A fine example of a chamber tomb can be found at Hadra, which was dated by
Adriani to the "high Hellenistic period", a few generations after the death of
Alexander the Great. It consists of a short stairway leading to a small vestibule that
opened onto a small rectangular room measuring about two and a half meters long
and tall and slightly less in width, with a roof in the form of a half-vault. In this
tomb, the vestibule contained two loculi cut into the rock at floor level, and in the
rectangular chamber, a beach cut about a meter high in the rock provided a surface
for exposition of the body and may be considered an early form of a kline. There
was also a rock-cut shelf to the left of the doorway leading into the rectangular
chamber that was used to deposit devotional offerings or to set a lamp to provide
light during the funeral service. This type of shelf was also later integrated into
monumental tombs.

Another tomb at Hadra, dated to the third century, adds two more elements that
became characteristic of monumental Alexandria hypogea. These included a court
open to the sky and a funerary couch painted to simulate alabaster or marble set on
the short wall of the funerary chamber opposite the entrance doorway. In this tomb,
the entrance consisted of a stairway with two flights, the upper level of which led
 to a small landing, while the lower level turned in a ninety degree angle before
leading to the corner of the square court. At the far end of the court, a doorway
opened into a rectangular funerary chamber in which a funerary bench occupied
the entire far wall. Loculi were cut into the lateral walls and even behind the
funerary bed.
These tombs therefore grew into the simplest form of monumental tombs.
However, compared with later Alexandrian monumental tombs, they are small in
both vision and scale, and at most, moderately decorated. They were apparently
intended to accommodate a single family in most instances.

Above: Hypogeum A just after it was discovered

Below: Hypogeum A Today
Two of the earliest monumental tombs in Alexandria are designated Hypogeum A
and B, that sit side by side in the ancient cemetery of Chatby. Unfortunately,
Hypogeum B is no longer extant. Also, Hypogeum A was only in fair condition
when it was discovered, and today has suffered further deterioration due to weather
conditions on the cost. It serves as the earliest extant example of the elaborately
conceived monumental tombs of Alexandria. It has elements of both
Pagenstecher's peristyle and oikos tombs, and can be considered a predecessor of
both types.
This is a multi-chambered tomb accessed by a stairway that was cut down through
the rock. It mimics a monumental building with a court open to the sky around
which the burial chambers and subsidiary rooms are arranged. The burial rooms
within the tomb incorporate architecturally elaborate loculi and two klinai for
burial, while its court accommodated an altar for sacrifice. The only feature that is
lacking is a well or cistern, which was incorporated into later Ptolemaic period
tombs.
The earliest tombs, including those classified as monumental at Alexandria, are
found in the eastern cemetery, and particularly at Chatby. The cemetery at Chatby
probably dates to the period almost immediately following the foundation of the
city. It begins immediately east of the conjectured line of the city walls near the sea
at Chatby. Perhaps simultaneously, or at a slightly later date, a second cemetery
developed in the southern area beyond the eastern wall in the quarter of ancient
Eleusis, which, during the nineteenth century, corresponded to a village called
Hadra. This area is now incorporated into the city. However, during its use as a
cemetery, it began to develop northwards towards Chatby, encompassing the
regions of el-Manara, Ezbet el-Makhlouf and the rue d'Aboukir. At the same time
this cemetery was expanding, a necropolis also developed to the west of the city in
a quarter now called Gabbari.
However, as the eastern cemetery grew, it spread farther east along the sea, taking
in areas that bear the Arabic names of Ibrahimieh, Sidi Gabr and Moustapha Pasha
(recently renamed to Moustapha Kamel). Because many of the excavations of
these cemeteries were of an emergency nature due to the expanding city, we do not
know if this eastern necropolis stretched continuously along the length of the
eastern wall, or whether it comprised a series of separate and distinct necropolises,
though the former is probable.
These cemeteries embraced Alexandria's diverse population, and in fact it is often
difficult to recognize the ethnic character of the owners. Only in the cases where
people intentionally set themselves apart, mainly Jews and Christians, are the
ethnicity or cultural backgrounds of dead distinguishable, and even then some are
difficult to identify. Though, during the Ptolemaic period, the more elaborate
tombs line the seashore, the social and economic status of those buried in the
tombs is also difficult to ascertain. Certainly the disposition of the dead would
have been hierarchically determined, but many other factors entered into play.
 One reason for this is that while, initially, monumental tombs were probably
constructed for families, by the mid-third century BC, many tombs were planned
as communal burial places for members of professional guilds, religious
associations and other fellowship societies. For example, one burial, known as the
Soldiers' Tomb, was built for Gauls who died in Alexandria. From inscriptions,
other tombs indicate that people of all ethnic origins could generally share the
same tombs, and clearly, the size and number of loculus in the monumental tombs
of ancient Alexandria argue for a collective undertaking and collective burial.