Long Live the Step Pyramid!

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper under review aims to discus the role of the complex of Djoser at Saqqara in its landscape setting, and consider ritual, cultural, and visual aspects. In the opinion of the reviewer, the author has failed to thoroughly engage with the ever-changing landscape, and possible changes in meaning of the monument (and its environment through time. Somewhat a missed opportunity. 

Instead, this paper is largely descriptive in nature, giving an overview of the Djoser complex (or compound, in the words of the author). To this should be added that the contents might not be crystal clear to non-Egyptologists, for the author uses terms such as Dnbw-markers, jmAxw, and kA without further explanation. Given the broader readership of the Heritage journal, a brief explanation, between brackets, would be desirable. The author may also consider some restructuring of the paper to increase its readability: to the experience of the reviewer, the text is not always logically structured.

The author rarely goes beyond the descriptive, which raises questions about what the article adds to our knowledge about the monument. The relevance of the monument is mainly considered from the perspective of the dead king buried under the pyramid, yet one would presume that the complex also held significance to the living who engaged with the materiality of the structure(s) - not only those contemporary to the king, but also the many generations who engaged with the material remains of the ever-changing complex in later times.

Some statements would perhaps need some more consideration and planation. One example is found on p. 5: '...which suggests that the function of this structure was not restricted to separating the sacred sphere of the royal tomb from profanum, but rather that it was intended to represent netherworld regions to be passed through by the king on his way to the afterlife...' There are a few "problems" with this statement. First, the author makes a distinction here between scared and profane, whereas one could also argue that the complex is already situated in a sacred landscape: after all, the North Saqqara plateau was the abode of the god Sokar, and the dwelling place of a range of deities, also from as early as the 3rd Dynasty. In addition, the interpretation of the dry-moat as a representation of the netherworld regions is interesting, and deserves some more attention in this paper. Its identification is only mentioned, but not further elaborated. This would also open up the possibility of discussing two sorts of "landscape": the physical landscape and the perceived or mythical (built) landscape.

Another, in the opinion of the reviewer, rather dubious statement is found on p. 5: 'From the functional point of view it is less important how to approach the royal tomb than how to leave it, as this is what the deceased king was supposed to do.' I understand the author's thinking, however, it is perhaps useful to also consider the point of view of the living users of the monument (and its monumentality). The highly ritualised and symbolic nature of the complex do not exclude other uses also. (and, out of curiosity: did the monument play a part in the life of the king also?).

On p. 8, the author claims that 'it seems almost obvious that his (i.e. Khaemwaset's) undertakings included also the monument of Netjerykhet'. There is of course material evidence to support this claim, as mentioned e.g. in Allen's 1999 article (Fs Wente), where Lauer found fragments of a "restoration" text that was originally situated against the south face of the pyramid.

As the reviewer was reading the text, one question was raised but not answered in the text: was the dry-moat "constructed" as a result of the quarrying of local limestone to construct the pyramid (and its lengthy temenos wall)?

To conclude, the paper may benefit from some restructuring (think, for example, about separating the purely factual description of architectural elements and landscape setting from the interpretations), keeping in mind the broader readership of the Journal, and elaborate on some of the interpretative sections. The reviewer acknowledges that the Djoser monument is extremely complex and that it is difficult to capture its essence in a brief article. However, in order to enhance the article's relevance and potential impact, a careful reconsideration might be useful. 

 

 

Author Response

The Reviewer's comments and suggestions have been taken into considerations and relevant corrections made.

1. The Egyptian terms that can be not completely clear for  a non-Egyptologist have been explained.
2. The significance of the complex to the living had been already discussed in the paper, but this aspect is more pronounced now.
3. The Dry Moat was already partly discussed in earlier works (quoted in the references) but arguably, as an important aspect, it should be (and it has been) elaborated.
4. The comparison of the perspective (that of the deceased king and that of visitors) has been discussed in the paper, but corrected to be more clear.
5. The unfortunate phrasing of Khaemwaset's interest in the Step Pyramid complex has been changed (but the evidence quoted by the Reviewer was quoted in the further part of the same paragraph).
6. The Reviewer's question concerning the relation between quarrying and creation of the Dry Moat has been answered.
7. The paper has been slightly restructured to make it more clear. However, separating the description from the interpretation does not seem possible, as a pure description of the architecture (which is not self-evident) could be incomprehensible, while the interpretation itself cannot be done without referring to the architecture.

Reviewer 2 Report

You could add something about the linked cults of Djoser and Sekhemkhet (Djoser-Teti) in the 26th Dynasty - and that Cairo JE33258 suggests the link goes back to at least Rameside times.

Author Response

Thank you for the valuable suggestion. The posthumous cult of Djoser and Sekhemkhet (especially considering that Imhotep possibly worked for both kings) is one of many fascinating aspects that have not (deliberately) discussed in the present paper, but will be scrutinise at a later stage of research. Both Saqqara in general and the Step Pyramid complex in particular seem to be research topics not to be completed in the foreseeable future.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper title “Long live the step Pyramid” is very interesting but it does not accurately reflect the content and purpose of the paper. The abstract is very short and unfortunately does not provide the sufficient information. The keywords are adequate. The work is well written in English, but some gaps and typos can be found. The introduction section presents a brief literature review and locates the work within the historical and cultural heritage framework. The article is hindered by the lack of coherent structure in a manuscript to be presented at “Heritage”. Some very important key elements are missing such as: the description of the methodology and research methods; the results’ discussion and a proper conclusion (these are vital parts in a manuscript. The work, as it is, is not publishable. The manuscript lacks some major improvements before being accepted. To improve the quality of the manuscript please consider using figures presenting more definition (to make the manuscript images readable). The corpus of the text should not be divided by the image’s subtitles and then, once again cut off with pertinent information. 

Author Response

The reviewer's suggestions (for which the author is grateful) have been taken into consideration, especially with respect to the methodology, conclusions and illustrations.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has done all the necessary corrections, and improved the manuscript, thus this manuscript can be published as it is.

Author Response

Thank you. I'm glad to hear that.