Early Dynastic Egypt

by Toby A H Wilkinson

  Figure 6.6 Hunting the hippopotamus. Evidence for an obscure royal ritual: (1) a fragment of painted linen from a late Predynastic tomb at Gebelein (now in the Egyptian Museum, Turin) showing a male figure harpooning a hippopotamus; this scene occurs in the context of other ritual

  activities (after Galassi 1955:10, fig. 5);

  (2) seal-impression of Den from Abydos showing (a statue of?) the king spearing a hippopotamus (after Kaplony 1963, III: fig. 364); (3) an entry from the third register of the Palermo Stone, referring to a year in the reign of Den as ‘the year of opening the lake “Thrones of the Gods” and hunting the hippopotamus’ (after Schäfer 1902: pl. I). Not to same scale.

  of the forces of disorder, and in later times associated with the god Seth. The ritual spearing of a hippopotamus, a common theme in the decoration of Old Kingdom private tombs, represented an attack on chaos and struck a blow for the preservation of created order. The ritual doubtless emphasised the paramount role of the king to uphold Maat.

  The presentation of tribute

  Another commemorative macehead, from the reign of Narmer, has already been mentioned in connection with the ‘appearance of the king as bỉty’. The scenes on the macehead also depict another ceremony, namely the reception of tribute. Whether this occurred on a regular basis, or only after a military campaign, cannot be established. The Narmer macehead shows three bound captives being presented to the king. Three captives may represent a simple plurality, since the caption below states, ‘captives: 120,000’. The captives appear between the two sets of territorial markers previously encountered in depictions of the Sed-festival. These probably indicate that the ceremony took place in the court of royal appearance, perhaps within the royal palace compound. In addition to the captives, the booty presented to the king comprises 400,000 cattle and 1,422,000 sheep and goats. These figures are scarcely credible, and probably support a symbolic rather than a literal interpretation of the monument as a whole. Be that as it may, it is very likely that the booty of military campaigns was presented to the king in a formal ceremony, which may have resembled, in some respects, the scene on the Narmer macehead.

  SPHERES OF ROYAL AUTHORITY

  The royal monuments from the period of state formation—the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic palettes and maceheads—are, without doubt, ‘crucial sources for early kingship’ (Baines 1995:124). The scenes they carry express and define the role of the king vis-à-vis Egypt and the cosmos.

  The primary duty of the king was to be the arbiter between the gods and the people of Egypt. Within this overarching role of kingship, there were none the less many other duties to be performed by the ruler. Moreover, the exigencies of government— maintaining political and economic control over the newly unified country—necessitated

  a whole range of royal activities. These were intended to ensure the continued loyalty of the populace, the continued prestige and appeal of the institution of kingship, and the smooth running of the central administration. As might be expected, the best indications of such activities are to be found, not on monuments, but in documents more closely associated with the apparatus of government.

  The evidence: year labels and royal annals

  Important insights into early notions of kingship may be gained from a survey of the events considered worthy of record in the royal annals. The annals relating to the Early Dynastic period fall into two groups. First, there are the year labels (Figure 6.7). Second, there are the royal annals, comprising the Palermo Stone and its associated fragments.

  The events shown on First Dynasty year labels can be divided into three broad categories, in order of frequency: religious ceremonies, royal visits and scenes of military activity. Uniquely, year labels of Qaa also record the foundation of a religious building and the collection of various timbers, doubtless as raw materials for the royal workshops (Dreyer 1993b: 10; Dreyer et al. 1996:74–5, pl. 14.e). The last type of activity highlights the administrative purpose of year labels; and it is perhaps no surprise, therefore, that the events depicted convey a rather different impression of early kingship from that given by the surviving monuments from the period of state formation. The ceremonial palettes and maceheads are characterised by scenes of aggression and conquest, presenting a picture of the coercive, military aspect of royal power; this is also emphasised in some of the Horus names from the early First Dynasty. By contrast, the year labels concentrate on other royal activities, primarily the king’s participation in important religious ceremonies and royal visits to important national shrines. As was mentioned in Chapter 3, in connection with the royal annals, the system of naming a particular year after one or more significant royal events requires, on a purely practical level, that each year be so named at the beginning rather than the end of the twelve-month period: otherwise, it would have been impossible to label accurately commodities received and dispatched during the year. The implications of this fact are enormous: the events ‘recorded’ on the year labels must have been pre-planned or at least predictable. Scenes of apparent military conquest must, therefore, record an idealised view of events rather than actual campaigns.

  A greater range of events is recorded on the Palermo Stone. Like the year labels, the annals include references to religious and royal festivals, royal visits and punitive actions against enemies, but other types of event are mentioned much more frequently. Although they cannot be used as objective sources for ancient Egyptian history (contra Weill 1961; Godron 1990), the annals do nevertheless constitute a rich source of information about

  Figure 6.7 Year labels. Three First Dynasty labels, originally attached to commodities to record their contents and date: (1) wooden label of Djet from Saqqara (after Gardiner 1958:38); (2) ivory label of Qaa from Abydos (after Petrie 1901: pl. XII.6); (3) recently discovered label of Qaa from the king’s tomb at Abydos (after Dreyer et al. 1996: pl. 14.e). Not to same scale.

  early kingship, since every event recorded makes a deliberate statement about the king’s role and responsibilities.

  The activities recorded

  The events recorded on year labels and in the annals primarily reflect the concerns of early kingship and the self-image which the institution sought to project. Within this

  overall framework, three interwoven strands are discernible, representing three aspects of the king’s role: his position at the head of the administration, and the overriding concern of the state for effective government, allowing total control of the country’s economic resources; his divine status as the representative of the gods, and his attendant duty to uphold their cults; his role, both ideological and practical, as defender of Egypt from the forces of chaos, real or supernatural.

  The following of Horus

  By far the most common event recorded for the reigns of Early Dynastic kings on the Palermo Stone is the šms-Hr, ‘following of Horus’. From early in the First Dynasty, this activity seems to have taken place in alternate years. Although there appears to have been a temporary break in the tradition, perhaps during the middle of the First Dynasty, the šms-Hr was still recorded as a regular event early in the Third Dynasty. Despite a number of alternative interpretations (for example, Kees 1927; Kaiser 1960:132), the ‘following of Horus’ is most likely to have been a journey undertaken by the king or his officials at regular intervals for the purpose of tax collection: compare a decree of Pepi I, in which the phrase šms-Hr can scarcely mean anything other than an official tax-assessment and tax-collection exercise (Sethe 1903:214; von Beckerath 1980:52).

  It has been suggested that the biennial royal progress allowed the king to exercise his judicial authority, perhaps deciding important legal cases, as well as permitting the detailed assessment and collection of tax revenues. It may be significant that the hieroglyph for šms, ‘following’, used in this context, represents an instrument closely associated with the goddess Mafdet, and which can be interpreted as an executioner’s equipment (von Beckerath 1956:6). The king is likely to have been accompanied by all
the senior members of the court during these royal progresses. Hence, the ‘following of Horus’ would have presented to the Egyptian people their government on a regular basis (von Beckerath 1956:7). The practice may be interpreted as a key element of the mechanisms of rule developed by Egypt’s early kings. It provided a regular forum in which the common people (rh yt) could pay homage, both personal and fiscal, to the ruler and his circle (p t). Moreover, the biennial royal tour of inspection allowed the government to retain tight central control over the country’s economic resources, ensured the regular payment of taxes to the royal treasury—to guarantee the continued functioning of the government apparatus—and reinforced the psychological ties of loyalty felt by the Egyptian populace towards the king.

  Royal visits

  Royal visits are commonly depicted on the surviving First Dynasty year labels. As befits a country where the primary artery of communication has always been the River Nile, these visits were made by boat. Three year labels record journeys undertaken by the king in the royal bark. Two of these, in the reigns of Aha and Djer, seem to have been to the Delta. The destination of the third, shown in abbreviated form on a year label of Semerkhet, is not identified. An entry for the reign of Den on the third register of the Palermo Stone records a royal visit to Herakleopolis to see the sacred lake of the local god Harsaphes (hrỉ-š=f, literally ‘he who is upon his lake’).

  A wooden label of Aha from Abydos gives pride of place in the top register to a royal stop-over at the temple of Neith, a goddess with close connections to the First Dynasty royal family. In later times, the main cult centre of Neith was at Saïs in the north-western Delta. The second register of the label shows the shrine of b wt at Buto, supporting a Lower Egyptian setting for the events depicted. Of course, whether such a visit ever took place, or whether the label merely depicts an activity considered essential for the king to perform, is impossible to establish. However, the excavation of a substantial Early Dynastic building at Buto which yielded at least one official sealing dated to the reign of Aha makes an actual visit by the king a distinct possibility.

  A year label of the following reign seems also to record a royal visit to the same two Delta sites. The right-hand side of the top register shows a cult installation comprising buildings under palm trees either side of a wavy canal. Parallel depictions from later sources confirm Buto as the location for this installation (Bietak 1994). The second register presents a confusing array of signs, but at the right, an oval enclosure containing the red crown may signify a cult centre at Saïs, since the red crown was closely associated with the goddess Neith. The third register clearly shows the royal bark, next to a town identified by a bird. Exactly the same locality may well be depicted in the corresponding register of the Aha year label.

  The fact that two consecutive kings of the early First Dynasty chose to record visits (real or symbolic) to the Delta is significant. The homage paid to Neith of Saïs and Wadjet of Buto by Aha and Djer probably indicates the significance of both sites before the unification of Egypt—in the case of Buto, this is confirmed by recent archaeological evidence—and emphasises one of the primary concerns of the early state: the determination to promote national unity through ideology and theology. The incorporation of Wadjet in the royal titulary—as tutelary goddess of the whole of Lower Egypt—and the pious references to Neith in the names of several Early Dynastic queens can be interpreted as two aspects of this programme. A visit by the king in person to the cult centres of the two goddesses would doubtless have served to strengthen the ideological bonds which held Egypt together.

  Temple building and the dedication of divine images

  A major duty of the king was to construct, beautify and maintain the temples of the gods. He performed this both as their representative and to ensure continued divine favour. In theory, therefore, the king was the ultimate high priest in every temple in the land. Implicitly, all temples were monuments to the king as well as cult centres for the deities to whom they were explicitly dedicated (Quirke 1992:81). Furthermore, the continual celebration of cult in temples throughout the land was vital for the preservation of cosmic order. Royal involvement in the life of temples could take one of two forms: the foundation and construction of a new temple, accompanied by a complex series of rituals; or a visit to an existing temple. We have seen royal visits to the temples at Saïs and Buto depicted on First Dynasty year labels, and a visit to the sacred lake of Herakleopolis recorded on the Palermo Stone. The royal annals contain several references to temple- building projects, as does a recently discovered year label of Qaa from Abydos. Temple foundation in the Early Dynastic period is dealt with in more detail in Chapter 8. An

  important royal activity throughout Egyptian history, the Early Dynastic sources show that temple-building was considered a duty of kingship from the earliest times.

  After the regular, biennial events—the ‘following of Horus’ and the census—one of the most frequent activities mentioned on the Palermo Stone is the fashioning or dedication (ms) of a divine image. A cult image was the dwelling-place for a deity, the physical embodiment of the divine presence. The creation of a new divine image necessitated the involvement of the king, since he was sole intermediary between the people and their deities, the high priest of every cult. The practice of dedicating divine images is considered in detail in Chapter 8. The year labels and annals give us some idea of the diversity of religious activities undertaken by the king. The emphasis placed upon the religious role of the king in the official record reflects its importance in Early Dynastic Egypt.

  Military activity

  Scenes of the king victorious over his enemies are not particularly common on year labels. Only two, one from the reign of Aha and one from the reign of Den, show events of a militaristic nature. The Aha year label, from Abydos, is incomplete, but seems to record (ritual?) military action against Nubia. The ivory label of Den from Abydos, already discussed, bears the legend zp tpỉ sqr ỉ3bt, ‘first time of smiting the east(erners)’. If genuine, the label may record an early punitive raid against Egypt’s troublesome north- eastern neighbours (Godron 1990). Four fragmentary year labels of Den hint at military campaigns against Western Asia, as they seem to record the destruction of enemy strongholds (Petrie 1900: pl. XV.16–18, 1902: pl. XI.8).

  Like the year labels, the annals of the Palermo Stone make only scant reference to military activity. A single entry on the third register refers to sqr Iwntw, ‘smiting the Bedouin’. The nomadic inhabitants of the eastern or western desert were a persistent irritation to the Egyptian authorities, threatening the economy, stability and cohesion of the new state, and punitive raids were probably mounted at intervals to keep them in check. Whether the reference is to an actual event, or to the theoretical subjugation of Egypt’s enemies (a metaphor for containing the forces of chaos), cannot be determined.

  More intriguing are the two instances which seem to refer to attacks on specific towns. The third register records an attack on a locality named wr-k3, determined by the usual town sign, indicating a settlement within Egypt. This is very significant, since it seems to suggest that a military campaign was mounted against an Egyptian town. It is not unlikely that occasional rebellions within the newly unified country would have taken place during the Early Dynastic period, and it is possible that the Palermo Stone records the royal response to just such an uprising. However, given the strong ideological content of the royal annals, a direct correlation between the written record and historical events cannot be assumed. In the fourth register of the Palermo Stone, similar attacks on two towns are mentioned. In this instance, the localities, whose names may be read as šm-r and h3 (‘north’), are shown as rectangular, walled enclosures. It is possible that they represent places outside Egypt, although walled towns are also a feature of Early Dynastic settlement within Egypt. The reign in question is probably that of Ninetjer, and the attack on šm-r and h3 has been associated with the apparent disturbances in the middle of the Second Dynasty.<
br />
  Whether records of real events or expressions of ideal action, the references to military activity on the Palermo Stone emphasise the coercive power of early kingship. They also testify to the role of the ruler as suppresser of dissent and disorder, whether supernatural or human, from outside or inside his realm.

  ARCHITECTURE AS A STATEMENT OF ROYAL POWER

  The serekh and palace-façade

  The serekh, enclosing the king’s primary name and proclaiming his identity as the incarnation of Horus, has been generally interpreted as depicting a section of the facade of the royal palace. The use of empty serekhs during the late Predynastic period shows that the motif alone was a powerful and readily understood symbol of royal authority and ownership. The role of the serekh in the early stages of Egyptian kingship not only emphasises the importance of iconography in establishing and propagating royal power, it also indicates the significant part played by architecture in this process (Figure 6.8).

  In ancient as in modern times, the king’s palace was a powerful symbol of the institution of monarchy and of royal authority. (Compare the use of the term ‘pharaoh’— from pr- 3, ‘great house’ [i.e. the royal palace] – to denote the king himself, from the New Kingdom onwards.) What seems to have made the royal palace a particularly suitable motif for use within the emergent iconography of rule was its distinctive appearance. The architectural style represented in two dimensions by the serekh panel is known to Egyptologists as ‘palace-façade’. The term denotes a mudbrick building with a series of recessed niches on the exterior walls, forming a decorative façade. Although the style is now best attested in Early Dynastic tombs and mortuary complexes, its connection with the royal palace, long assumed, has been confirmed by the excavation of a monumental First Dynasty gateway, presumably belonging to a royal palace, at Hierakonpolis in Upper Egypt (Weeks 1971–2).