Early Dynastic Egypt Page 5
Hierakonpolis
Archaeological work resumed at Hierakonpolis in 1978 with the excavation of the temple area of the early town. The complex stratigraphy of the temple, published in a rather confusing manner by Quibell and Green, was clarified, proving beyond doubt that the circular stone revetment identified as the early temple platform did indeed date back to the beginning of the Early Dynastic period. Fairservis returned to Hierakonpolis in 1981 for a final season of excavation as director, concentrating on the Early Dynastic buildings east of the niched gateway. Other commitments forced him to hand over direction of the entire project to Michael Hoffman (1944–90), who subsequently followed his own particular interests and sought to illuminate the diverse Predynastic activity in the Hierakonpolis region. One of the most important sites investigated by Hoffman’s Predynastic Research Team is the élite cemetery at Locality 6. Between 1979 and 1985, excavations revealed high-status burials from Naqada I and the period of state formation. Hoffman even speculated that the largest tomb, numbered 1, may have been the burial of King ‘Scorpion’, whose ceremonial macehead was found in the ‘Main Deposit’ at Hierakonpolis at the turn of the century.
Elephantine
Excavations at Elephantine from 1981 to 1988 revealed the extent and development of the Early Dynastic town, providing an important picture of provincial life early in the history of the Egyptian state. Equally significant was the discovery of a substantial fortress, built on the eastern edge of the island at the very beginning of the First Dynasty (Ziermann 1993). The fortress clearly represents a state-sponsored project to secure Egypt’s southern frontier and provide a base from which to launch punitive expeditions against Lower Nubia. The construction and subsequent strengthening of the fortress had a major impact on the life of the local community and provides a striking illustration of the realities of power in the Early Dynastic period: namely, the absolute authority of the central government from the earliest times, and its blatant disregard for local sensibilities if these threatened to impede court initiatives (Seidlmayer 1996b).
AN INTERNATIONAL EFFORT: THE 1990s AND BEYOND
A century after the discovery of Early Dynastic Egypt, scholarly interest in the formative period of Egyptian civilisation is probably stronger than at any time over the last one hundred years. An unprecedented number of archaeological missions from a wide variety of countries are excavating throughout Egypt at sites with Predynastic and/or Early Dynastic material. Following the success of the missions to Minshat Abu Omar and Buto, a particular focus in the late 1980s and 1990s has been the archaeology of the Delta. This interest was reflected in an international conference held at the Netherlands Institute in Cairo in 1990, devoted specifically to the topic of the Nile Delta during the period of state formation. The published proceedings (van den Brink 1992) included reports from excavations conducted some time ago, such as the Egyptian Antiquities Organisation excavations at Beni Amir carried out in the late 1960s and the 1970s, as well as the results of recent or ongoing missions. Thus, a large body of new and important information concerning Lower Egypt in the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods has been made available to scholars. A particular focus of the meeting and published proceedings was the evidence for connections between Egypt and southern Palestine. The results of Israeli excavations at sites such as Tel Erani and En Besor indicate substantial Egyptian activity in southern Palestine during the late Predynastic to Early Dynastic transition, possibly extending to an Egyptian presence at the two sites. This evidence has necessitated a reassessment of Egypt’s early foreign relations, and suggests that the phenomenon of core and periphery associated with the rise of other early states was also a feature of state formation in Egypt. Excavations at Early Bronze Age sites in southern Palestine, particularly in the Negev Desert, continue to yield evidence for contacts with Egypt, as illustrated by the discovery of a sherd bearing the serekh of Narmer at Nahal Tillah in 1995 (Levy et al. 1995).
The growing interest in early Egypt was also marked in 1993 by the opening of a new gallery at the British Museum in London especially dedicated to the formative period of Egyptian civilisation (Spencer 1993), and by the holding of an international conference there on the same theme (Spencer 1996). As archaeological missions in Egypt make increasing use of specialist expertise—from ceramicists to archaeo-botanists, geologists to palaeo-pathologists—the level of detailed information gained from excavations
increases accordingly. Specific aspects of early Egyptian culture and society are now far more amenable to investigation than ever before. Yet some major problems remain to be solved, not least the chronology of the Second and Third Dynasties. As the study of Early Dynastic Egypt enters its second century, excavations both long-established and new continue to yield exciting new information. The most significant of these projects are described briefly below.
Two separate missions promise to shed new light on Egypt’s first capital, Memphis, and its main cemetery, Saqqara, in the Early Dynastic period. The Egypt Exploration Society’s ongoing Survey of Memphis, directed by David Jeffreys, has established the probable course of the Nile in the Early Dynastic period, considerably further west than its present course. Extensive drill cores have succeeded in pin-pointing the most probable location for the Early Dynastic city which, it is hoped, may be revealed by future excavations. The National Museums of Scotland Saqqara Survey Project, directed by Ian Mathieson, has used sophisticated remote sensing techniques, including magnetometry and resistivity, to map structures on the Saqqara plateau which lie hidden beneath deep accumulations of drift sand. A survey of this type and limited test excavations have been conducted at the mysterious ‘Great Enclosure’, or Gisr el-Mudir, in the desert to the west of the Step Pyramid complex. They have confirmed that the enclosure is not an unfinished step pyramid complex of the Third Dynasty, but rather a structure reminiscent of the First Dynasty funerary enclosures at Abydos. Furthermore, the construction of the Great Enclosure suggests that it pre-dates the Step Pyramid complex, and is probably the oldest substantial stone building in Egypt. The identity of its owner is still a mystery, but may be solved by future excavation.
Further important and unexpected discoveries have been made in the vicinity of the Abydos funerary enclosures. Clearance of the area adjacent to Khasekhemwy’s enclosure (the Shunet ez-Zebib) in 1991 revealed a fleet of twelve boat burials, moored alongside the western wall of the enclosure. The date of these unparalleled structures remains uncertain: their location would suggest a date contemporary with the Shunet ez-Zebib, but they may be earlier (O’Connor 1995). First Dynasty élite burials at Abu Rawash, Saqqara and Helwan were occasionally accompanied by boat burials, but such features have not previously been found in association with the mortuary complexes of kings. Once again, new material has forced a rethink of Early Dynastic beliefs and practices.
A short distance away on the Umm el-Qaab, the re-excavation of Khasekhemwy’s tomb promises to clarify the design of the royal tomb at the end of the Second Dynasty, on the threshold of the pyramid age. Seal-impressions from the tomb entrance, discovered in 1996, seem to indicate that Netjerikhet/Djoser was Khasekhemwy’s immediate successor, confirming previous suspicions and solving one of the principal problems of Early Dynastic chronology. Another important contribution was made by discoveries in the tomb of Qaa, cleared in 1991 and 1992. An impression from the necropolis seal of Qaa lists all eight kings of the First Dynasty in their expected order, confirming the results of painstaking research over decades, and emphasising Narmer’s position at the head of the First Dynasty. Seal-impressions of Hetepsekhemwy from chambers near the tomb entrance clarify the succession at the end of the First Dynasty, but do not explain why the kings of the Second Dynasty chose to move the royal necropolis north to Saqqara. Finally, the sifting of Petrie’s spoil-dumps from the tombs in Cemetery B has
yielded some significant finds, including a year label of Narmer identified by the same event as is depicted on the king’s famous palette.
<
br /> With these latest results from the royal tombs at Abydos, the discovery of Early Dynastic Egypt has come full circle. Archaeologists working at the end of the twentieth century at a site first excavated a century before continue to shed new light on the earliest period of Egyptian history. The chapters that follow seek to make sense of the wealth of evidence about early Egypt now available to scholars, and to present it in a coherent and accessible fashion. Whilst the most recent discoveries from the Nile valley have been utilised in this exploration of Early Dynastic Egypt, there is little doubt that our understanding of early Egyptian society will continue to develop in the light of fresh evidence.
Chronological chart of the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods.
CHAPTER TWO BIRTH OF A NATION STATE
INEQUALITY IN LIFE AND DEATH
Ancient Egypt gives the impression of having been obsessed with status. From the hierarchical scaling seen in relief decoration to the sentiments expressed in ‘wisdom literature’, Egyptian civilisation made constant reference to rank, and the inhabitants of the Nile valley seem to have been acutely conscious of their relative position within the pyramidal structure of society. The formation of the Egyptian state at the end of the fourth millennium BC crystallised social distinctions in a particularly marked way, placing the king at the apex of the pyramid, almost removed from the human sphere. Beneath him the ruling élite, minor officials and peasant farmers occupied progressively lower and larger tiers. Above all, therefore, it was the socio-economic dynamic within Predynastic Egyptian society which led ultimately to the birth of Egypt as a nation state. The structure of Egyptian society in the historic period may be seen as an extreme manifestation of inequality, but the roots of the phenomenon go back to the earliest settled cultures of the Nile valley.
For most of the Predynastic period, society in Lower Egypt seems to have been relatively egalitarian. There is little mortuary evidence for status differentiation (Rizkana and Seeher 1989:80) so if social hierarchies did exist they were not reflected in burial practices. An exception to this general picture is a grave (A35) from the site of el-Omari, dated by radiocarbon to c. 4600–4400 BC (Debono and Mortensen 1990:81), but perhaps somewhat later, closer to c. 4100 BC (F.A.Hassan 1995:674). The burial of an adult male contained a carved wooden staff (Debono and Mortensen 1990:67, pls 28.1 and 43.2) which is generally interpreted as a symbol of office (Hoffman 1980:196; F.A.Hassan 1995:674; for a more cautious view see Debono and Mortensen 1990:75), although the other grave goods do not seem to indicate particular wealth or status. However, despite the greater propensity for display at el-Omari than in other Lower Egyptian communities (reflected in the frequency of imported ornaments), the settlement material indicates an egalitarian social structure based on the family unit (Hoffman 1980:195). It is likely that the man buried with a staff was someone with special power and prestige, though not necessarily of a political or economic nature.
In contrast to Lower Egypt, Upper Egyptian society seems to have been characterised by hierarchies as far back as the Badarian period (c. 4500-c. 3800 BC). Badarian graves show variation in their size and wealth, indicating that different levels of status were accorded to the deceased (Anderson 1992). Mortuary practices generally reflect aspects of living society (but note the reservations expressed by R.Friedman 1994:2), and we may assume that within Badarian communities certain individuals enjoyed greater status and the preferential access to resources which went with it. The presence of local élites is even more apparent in the mortuary record of the Naqada I period. The differentiation of graves in terms of size and number of grave goods is marked, and some graves were
furnished with luxury or imported items. For example, a Naqada I grave at Matmar (number 3075) contained no less than 18 pottery vessels, the largest number of any contemporary burial in the local cemetery (Wilkinson 1996b: 75). In addition, the contents included an ivory tag, bracelets and an ostrich eggshell (Brunton 1948: pl. X). At several sites in Upper Egypt, particular graves were furnished with distinctive artefacts which may be termed ‘badges of status’. Most common are maceheads, found in five Naqada I graves at Mahasna (numbers 6, 23, 29, 39 and 41) and one at el-Amra (number 144); but a grave of the same date at Matmar (number 3131) contained a fine axe, one of the earliest examples of advanced metalworking from Egypt (Brunton 1948: pl. XVI.47). Such a rare object would undoubtedly have conferred great prestige and reflects the status of its owner within the local Predynastic community. The stratified nature of Upper Egyptian society in the Naqada I period is also highlighted by the presence, in certain graves, of objects which seem to indicate a special role for the tomb owner, though not necessarily a position of political power. Two burials at Mahasna (numbers 33 and 42) each contained a female figurine made from clay (Ayrton and Loat 1911:13–14). These almost certainly possessed some magical or religious significance, and their inclusion amongst a deceased person’s grave goods probably indicates special status. Significantly, one of the graves (number 33) also yielded a vessel of Petrie’s black-incised ware, a rare class of pottery probably imported from Nubia (Needier 1984:224; but cf. Bourriau 1981:23).
Within any community, élite status may be conferred on an individual in one of two ways. It may either be achieved—that is, gained by an individual as a result of his or her actions—or inherited, that is ascribed from birth as a result of descent (Renfrew and Bahn 1991:176). In general, inherited status is considered to be a characteristic of more complex societies in which the heredity principle operates to the benefit of a restricted élite (Bard 1988:52). The change from achieved to inherited status as the primary means of distinguishing a privileged class marks an important stage in socio-economic development. In the Egyptian case, kingship—that hallmark of Egyptian civilisation— would not have existed without the heredity principle. If the Predynastic period is seen as a precursor to dynastic Egypt, a long trajectory with the end-point being the codification of certain cultural traits, then the earliest evidence of inherited status is an important milestone. Burials of the Badarian period show no signs of inherited status, in marked contrast to the mortuary record of the following Naqada I period. A grave at Mahasna (number 41) belonged to a family group, consisting of a man, a woman and a child. The whole family obviously enjoyed a privileged position in the local community, since the grave goods included a female figurine, several ivory objects, gold and silver beads, and a diorite macehead (Ayrton and Loat 1911:16). Elaborate child burials are the clearest evidence of inherited status, since for there to be greater expenditure of time and resources on the burial of a child than of an adult must indicate that the child occupied an exalted position within the local community, and this could only have come about through descent. The largest Naqada I grave at Armant (number 1461) was identified as belonging to a child (Mond and Myers 1937:28), and the status of the deceased is also reflected in the grave goods, which included two ivory wands. The Predynastic community buried at Armant seems to have been a small, undistinguished farming village, removed from the growing centres of political power at sites like Hierakonpolis
and This/Abydos. None the less, status was clearly inherited by some members of the community, as early as the Naqada I period.
In the following Naqada II period (c. 3500-c. 3200 BC), social differentiation becomes even more apparent in the mortuary record of Upper Egypt. Badges of status continued to be buried with important individuals. For example, a large grave of Naqada IIb (c. 3500-
c. 3400 BC) at Matmar (number 3129) contained a macehead made from travertine as well as two stone vessels (Brunton 1948: pls X, XIII.31–2), rare at such an early date. A contemporary burial at Armant (number 1466) was furnished with a number of unusual artefacts, including a gazelle skull, three painted objects made of plaster and a bed. A second grave in the same cemetery also contained a bed and it has been suggested that both burials may have belonged to leaders of the local village (Bard 1988:52). Country- wide, the wealth of burials increases in the Naqada II per
iod, both in terms of the number of objects interred with the deceased and their costliness (Bard 1988; Seidlmayer 1988; Wilkinson 1996b). Thus, in the Predynastic cemetery at el-Amra south of Abydos (Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902), graves of Naqada II were commonly furnished with palettes, jewellery and items made from prestige materials such as ivory, lapis lazuli, copper, silver and gold (Wilkinson 1993a: 183). Again, elaborate child burials point to a ranked society with inherited status. The wealthiest early grave (number 66) in the Tort’ cemetery at Hierakonpolis—a cemetery representing the local population from which the élite had already been separated, to be buried in discrete areas—was identified as belonging to a child. The artefacts in the grave included 24 pottery vessels, palettes and copper objects (B.Adams 1987:67–8). As Egypt progressed on the path to statehood, social distinctions became greater and these became increasingly explicit in the mortuary record. By the end of the Predynastic period, local élites—now royal families in every sense—had successfully monopolised the economic resources in their territories to such an extent that they were able to command sufficient labour to construct monumental tombs. Moreover, they could call upon the services of professional administrators to obtain prestige goods from abroad by long-distance trade, and employed skilled craftsmen to manufacture further elaborate grave goods. The birth of the Egyptian state with its rigid hierarchies can therefore be charted in the growing differentiation and elaboration of mortuary provision.