Early Dynastic Egypt

by Toby A H Wilkinson

  its ruling family in the process of state formation is highlighted by the construction of two royal tombs to the south of the Predynastic necropolis at the very beginning of the First Dynasty (Kemp 1967:24–5, footnote). One of these belonged to Queen Neith-hotep (de Morgan 1897), probably the wife of Narmer, who may have been a descendant of the Predynastic rulers of Naqada. Moreover, the local god of Naqada, Seth, was closely associated with the kingship in Early Dynastic times, being one of the two deities embodied in the person of the king. Hence, a title borne

  Figure 2.1 Early centres of kingship. Tombs of late Predynastic rulers: (1) Abydos tomb U-j (after Dreyer 1993:33, fig. 4); (2) Naqada

  tomb T5 (after Kemp 1989:36, fig. 9); (3)

  Hierakonpolis Locality 6 tomb 1 (after

  Hoffman 1982:44, fig. 1.13); (4) Qustul tomb L24 (after Williams 1986:358, fig. 170).

  by First Dynasty queens was ‘she who sees Horus-and-Seth’, whilst the Second Dynasty king Peribsen chose to emphasise Seth as his protector deity in preference to Horus. As we shall see, Naqada may have played a key role in the political consolidation of Upper Egypt that preceded the unification of the whole country (Kemp 1989:35–7).

  A large Predynastic settlement, extensive cemeteries and a concentration of élite burials in one cemetery are also features of another Upper Egyptian site, Hierakonpolis (B.Adams 1987, 1995, 1996; Hoffman 1982; Kemp 1989:37–41, esp. 40, fig. 11). The area covered by the Predynastic town exceeds any other contemporary settlement in Egypt, marking Hierakonpolis out as perhaps the dominant centre in the fourth millennium BC (Kemp 1989:44). Like Naqada, Hierakonpolis benefited from access to the mineral resources of the eastern desert, via the Wadi Abbad. Close contacts with Lower Nubia may have given the rulers of Hierakonpolis control of, or at least access to, lucrative trade routes connecting Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa, whilst a broad expanse of cultivable land provided the necessary base for a growing population and an expanding sector of non-productive specialists. As early as Naqada I, members of the local élite were buried in a remote spot out in the desert, designated Locality 6 (B.Adams 1996). Their successors of the Naqada II period chose a cemetery closer to the cultivation, and it was here that the famous painted tomb was discovered. During the final phase of the Predynastic period, Naqada III, the local élite moved its burial ground back to Locality 6, constructing massive rock-cut tombs with offering places. Tombs are not the only sign of the important role played by Hierakonpolis in the late Predynastic period. A large ceremonial centre excavated on the low desert and dating back to the early Naqada II period has been interpreted as a temple, closely resembling shrines depicted on First Dynasty seal-impressions (R.Friedman 1996). At the end of Naqada II, the main focus of local religious activity was apparently relocated to the walled town of Nekhen, where a circular stone revetment and an adjoining paved area represent the earliest temple on the town mound (Quibell and Green 1902: pls LXV, LXXII; Hoffman 1980:131–2). It was here that Egypt’s first historic kings (‘Scorpion’ and Narmer) dedicated votive palettes and maceheads, to honour the local god, Horus of Nekhen. Although Narmer was probably descended from the Predynastic rulers of This, King ‘Scorpion’ may have been a member of the ruling family of Hierakonpolis (Trigger, in Trigger et al. 1983:50). In common with Seth of Naqada, the close identification of Horus of Nekhen with divine kingship emphasises the important role played by Hierakonpolis and its rulers in the process of state formation, and in the formulation of kingship ideology (R.Friedman 1994:17), a role already attested in the decoration of the painted tomb.

  One of the earliest examples of classic kingship iconography is a decorated incense burner from the Naqada III royal cemetery at Qustul in Lower Nubia (Williams 1986: pls 34 and 38). So many motifs are presented together—including the ruler wearing the white crown, the god Horus, and a niched building similar to early serekhs—that the cemetery’s excavator argued in favour of a Lower Nubian origin for Egyptian kingship (Williams 1986:163–90, 1987). Whilst earlier Egyptian examples of royal iconography (for example, the Abydos vessel and the Hierakonpolis painted tomb) make such a theory unlikely (W.Y.Adams 1985; Baines 1995:104–5), there is no doubt that the rulers buried in Qustul Cemetery L had adopted much of the symbolism of rule developed by their Upper Egyptian counterparts. Cattle burials are a feature of the Qustul royal cemetery and are also attested at Hierakonpolis Locality 6 (Hoffman 1982:55–6; Williams 1986:176).

  Together with the iconographic evidence, this seems to indicate significant cultural exchange between these two late Predynastic kingdoms on the Upper Nile. The size and wealth of the Qustul royal tombs make it likely that their owners were powerful rulers, perhaps exercising authority over much, if not all, of Lower Nubia. The basis of their economic and political power seems to have been the trade between Egypt and sub- Saharan Africa in which the rulers of Qustul would have acted as middlemen. As we shall see, access to and control of trade routes were key factors in the process of state formation.

  The fourth centre of early kingship is the site where that institution is first attested iconographically, Abydos. Cemetery U, the site of high-status burials since Naqada I, continued to be used by the local rulers and their associates throughout the Predynastic period, although graves dating to Naqada II are rather scarce, perhaps suggesting that high-status tombs were located elsewhere in this period. In the final phase of the Predynastic, Cemetery U clearly underwent a transformation into a burial ground reserved for the rulers of the Thinite region. Whereas in Naqada I élite burials were intermingled with simple sand-cut pits, the Naqada III tombs are exclusively high status (cf. Dreyer 1993a; Dreyer et al. 1996). This demarcation of a separate élite cemetery, paralleled at the other three sites discussed above, is one of the key indications of political consolidation and incipient kingship (Baines 1995:109). The earliest town levels at Abydos also date to the Naqada III period (Petrie 1902:22; Kemp 1977:189; Wilkinson 1993a: 218–19), demonstrating a link between the concentration of political power and the beginnings of urbanism. If some of the votive objects from three deposits are to be dated to the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods, as seems plausible, then Abydos, like Hierakonpolis, appears to have been the site of an early shrine (for further examples, at less prestigious sites, see Chapter 8). Unlike the situation at Naqada and Hierakonpolis, there is no evidence at Abydos for significant Predynastic settlement. The regional capital—and presumably the residence of the rulers buried at Abydos—was This, an ancient site which has not been located but which probably lies beneath the modern city of Girga. As at Naqada and Hierakonpolis, we would expect evidence of substantial late Predynastic construction at This as well. In the absence of such evidence, it is impossible to compare the three Upper Egyptian sites directly, but the mortuary record certainly indicates the primacy of This/Abydos towards the very end of the Predynastic period. The Naqada III tombs in Cemetery U are large, brick-lined structures, several of them with multiple chambers (Dreyer 1993a: 32–6, pls 4.d and 5). The most lavish burial, tomb U-j (c. 3150 BC), comprises eight chambers, some of them linked by small slits which probably symbolise doorways. The tomb as a whole may represent the royal palace in microcosm (Dreyer 1992b: 295), in which case it would be the earliest example of palace symbolism in Early Dynastic mortuary architecture (Baines 1995:107). The provision of an arena for the ritual of kingship, modelled on the courts and buildings of the royal residence, was a key component of the royal mortuary complex in the first three dynasties. Tomb U-j may allow us to trace this aspect of royal mortuary architecture and ideology back into the Naqada III period, once again emphasising the Predynastic origins of Egyptian kingship. One of the objects recovered from tomb U-j was an ivory heqa-sceptre in the form of a shepherd’s crook (Dreyer 1993a: pl. 7.a, 1993b: 11). This remained one of the essential elements of royal regalia throughout Egyptian history, and its presence among the grave goods of tomb U-j leaves no doubt as to the royal status of

  the occupant. Moreover, the tomb is by far the
largest of its date anywhere in Egypt, suggesting the strong possibility that its owner exercised rule or at least hegemony over much, if not all, of the Nile valley. The extent of his influence is highlighted by the other grave goods with which tomb U-j was furnished.

  TRADE, OWNERSHIP AND POWER

  Perhaps the most striking categories of object from Abydos tomb U-j are those which illustrate the economic and administrative apparatus at the ruler’s command (Figure 2.2). Dozens of inscribed bone labels constitute the earliest corpus of writing yet found in Egypt (Dreyer 1992b: pls 6.1–4, 1993a: pl. 7.c-j). The short inscriptions, comprising no more than two or three individual signs, refer to places which presumably supplied the ruler’s court with commodities. The labels themselves would originally have been attached to these consignments, recording their quantity and provenance. Localities mentioned on the labels include Delta towns such as Bubastis (Dreyer 1992b: 297, pl. 6.4, 1993a: pl. 7.i). Either the Thinite king already ruled Lower Egypt or he possessed sufficient status to command supplies from the Delta. There is no doubt that his court engaged in large-scale trade with the Near East: the tomb contained over 400 imported vessels from Syria-Palestine (Hartung, in Dreyer 1993a: 49–56, pl. 9). (Note that the word ‘trade’ as used here refers to the exchange of commodities without the profit motive that characterises trade in the modern world.) Many types are previously unattested in Egypt, and petrographic analyses have led to the conclusion that some of the vessels may have come from as far afield as northern Israel and the Lebanon (van den Brink, personal communication). The closed forms indicate that the pots were used as containers for liquids; the residues which have survived inside some vessels suggest wine as one of the principal commodities (Dreyer 1992b: 297). We do not know what Egyptian products passed in the other direction, but the sheer number of pots illustrates the scale of trade conducted between Upper Egypt and the Near East in the late Predynastic period.

  Long-distance trade in high-status goods had been practised by Egyptians from early Predynastic times. Lapis lazuli from the mountains of Badakhshan (present-day Afghanistan) is attested in graves of the Naqada I period (Matmar 3005: Brunton 1948: pl. LXX); imported vessels from Syria-Palestine and even Mesopotamia turn up sporadically in burials from this time onwards (Kantor 1965:6–14, figures 3–4), whilst Nubian hand-made bowls are a rare, but characteristic, type of pottery in graves of early Naqada II. As the élites of Upper Egypt grew increasingly powerful during the second half of the fourth millennium BC, they came to require prestige goods to demonstrate and reinforce their exalted social status. A particular type of Palestinian vessel—a jar with wavy ledge handles—was evidently so sought after that it inspired Egyptian potters to copy it, giving rise to a whole class of Naqada II Egyptian pottery known as wavy- handled jars (Bourriau 1981:130–3; Needier 1984:212–17). Demand for genuine imports

  Figure 2.2 Trade, ownership and power. Objects from Abydos tomb U-j: (1) Bone labels (enlarged), originally attached to commodities. The short inscriptions record the quantity or provenance of the goods:

  the number eight; (b) Bubastis (ancient Egypt B3st) in the north-eastern Delta (after Dreyer 1993: pl. 7.d, i). (2) Some of the hundreds of imported vessels found in the tomb; petrographic analysis suggests

  many of the vessels were manufactured in northern Israel, and may have contained wine (author’s photograph).

  grew, and with it the intensity of foreign trade practised by middlemen such as the Predynastic inhabitants of Minshat Abu Omar. The frequency of Palestinian pottery in the Predynastic graves at Minshat indicates that the community maintained close contacts with its neighbours to the north-east (Kroeper and Wildung 1985:97–8). At the other end of the Nile valley, the Lower Nubian rulers buried at Qustul undoubtedly derived their power and influence from their ability to control Egyptian access to goods from sub- Saharan Africa, such as ebony, ivory and ostrich eggs. Qustul seems to have been at the hub of an extensive long-distance trade network, since some of the royal tombs were furnished with imported vessels from both Upper Egypt and Syria-Palestine (Williams 1986: pls 17–24 and pl. 25, respectively). With communities (and their rulers) on the frontiers of Egypt growing rich and powerful from trade, it is perhaps not surprising that the jealous eyes of the most influential Upper Egyptian rulers should have turned to trade routes. As we shall see, gaining direct access to imported commodities seems to have been one of the main motives behind the process of political unification.

  The mass of foreign vessels from Abydos tomb U-j illustrates the commodities imported by Egypt from the Near East, but the other side of the trading relationship is less well attested. Gold may have been an important export for Predynastic Egypt; it was highly valued throughout the ancient world and, as we have seen, the early importance of at least one major Upper Egyptian centre, Naqada, may have been based upon exploitation of this precious metal. Egypt may also have exported cereal crops, its fertility and agricultural potential the envy of other, less fortunate lands. Such exports would be difficult, if not impossible, to detect in the archaeological record, but a few indications of trade with Egypt have been found in the Near East. Pottery storage vessels (or sherds from vessels), made in Egypt and incised before firing with marks of the royal treasury, have turned up throughout northern Sinai and southern Palestine, at sites such as el-Beda, Rafiah, Tell Arad and Nahal Tillah (van den Brink, in preparation). Some of these sites may have been Egyptian ‘colonies’, established to exploit local economic resources directly (Brandl 1992; Porat 1992). Others, notably Tell Arad, are known to have been flourishing centres of the indigenous late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age Palestinian civilisation (Amiran 1978), and it comes as little surprise that they maintained active trade links with Egypt.

  The identification of commodity consignments—both those destined for foreign markets and those traded within Egypt—by means of pot marks illustrates the growing obsession of the Upper Egyptian rulers with ownership, accounting and the detailed management of economic resources. The very development of Egyptian writing can be seen in this context (Postgate et al. 1995), and the bone labels from tomb U-j emphasise the link between economic activity (especially long-distance trade) and bureaucratic sophistication. Since their control of resources gave the rulers of Predynastic Upper Egypt their political authority, it was clearly of great importance to ensure that accurate records were kept of receipts and deliveries, and that property was easily identified. The serekh—a panelled rectangle representing a section of the facade of the royal palace— seems to have been chosen as a mark of royal ownership. A serekh incised or painted in

  ink on a vessel denoted that the contents were the produce and/or property of the royal court. At first, a simple serekh was enough to convey this message; later, the individual ruler incorporated his name within the panel to specify ownership more precisely (Müller 1938:13–17; cf. Kaiser and Dreyer 1982: fig. 14). Serekhs incised or painted on pottery vessels for this purpose constitute our earliest corpus of royal names. The distribution of particular royal names gives an indication, albeit a rough one, of the extent of a king’s economic influence or political power. Hence, it is possible in some degree to trace the rise of the Egyptian state. Whereas vessels bearing the names of some kings (such as ‘Ka’) are attested rather rarely, Narmer’s name has been found incised on vessels from sites throughout Egypt and southern Palestine, emphasising that his rule probably extended over the entire Nile valley and beyond.

  THE DYNAMICS OF STATE FORMATION

  As we have seen, the various trends which led to the formation of the Egyptian state were gradual processes which began in the early Predynastic period. Increasing social stratification, the development and expression of an ideology of rule, the spread of Upper Egyptian technology and other cultural attributes throughout the country, the concentration of economic and political power in the hands of a few ruling families, the intensification of foreign trade, the invention of writing and the emergence of a literate bureaucracy: these were no
t sudden developments, although the pace of change seems to have accelerated during the last quarter of the fourth millennium BC. What is clear is that these processes did not affect all regions of the country to the same extent. Local and regional factors such as the economic resource base, topography, communications and distance from the centres of power affected to a considerable extent the pace of developments at individual sites (Malek 1986:26; Wilkinson 1996b: 89–90). Those localities which already enjoyed economic and political influence continued to develop rapidly, whilst the quieter backwaters (for example, Middle Egypt) participated hardly at all in the momentous changes sweeping the country. Indeed, it is likely that many smaller farming communities were relatively unaffected by Egyptian unification and the advent of a national government, except that they now paid taxes to the central treasury rather than to local or regional élites. When considering state formation in Egypt, it is important to recognise this pattern of regional variation, and of local variation within regions. The process was not a monolithic one, and although its ultimate effects were felt throughout Egypt, certain localities played a much greater role in determining the outcome.