Figure 8.8 Early Dynastic shrines and temples. The map shows the sites at which Early Dynastic religious buildings are known to
have existed, based upon archaeological and/or inscriptional evidence. Capitals denote ancient place names.
A large collection of votive material was recovered from the floor of the shrine. Many of the pieces may be dated to the Early Dynastic period (Dreyer 1986:59–153; Kemp 1989:72, 73 fig. 24). Figurines of animals and humans in glazed composition form the most numerous group of objects. Animals represented include baboons, frogs and crocodiles. A particularly common type of votive offering consists of an oval-shaped faience plaque with the stylised head of a hedgehog at one end; 41 examples of this strange object have been recovered from the shrine. None of the objects gives an indication of the deity worshipped in the shrine. In later times, the sanctuary is known to have been dedicated to Satet, local goddess of Elephantine, but it is possible that the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods witnessed cultic practices of a more general nature. These may have focused in particular on the phenomenon of the annual inundation (Husson and Valbelle 1992:94) since, according to later beliefs, the waters of the inundation were believed to well up from a subterranean cavern beneath Elephantine.
Elkab
The temple at Elkab, presumably dedicated to the local goddess Nekhbet, received royal patronage at the end of the Second Dynasty, in the form of a stone building erected by Khasekhemwy. A carved granite block bearing the king’s name was found during excavations at the beginning of the twentieth century but was subsequently lost (Sayce and Clarke 1905:239). Two additional fragments showing human figures in low relief were found at the same time, but their present whereabouts are also unknown. Further, uninscribed granite blocks still standing in the same spot, just inside the northern corner of the Great Wall, confirm the location of the building (Hendrickx and Huyge 1989:13), in all probability a small shrine or temple.
The results of archaeological investigation in the main temple area indicate that a sacred building stood there from Early Dynastic times. On the site of the existing temple ruins, excavations failed to reveal any domestic settlement material later than the Early Dynastic period, suggesting that the site was demarcated as a sacred area prior to the Old Kingdom (Sayce and Clarke 1905:262). Being on a slight elevation, the temple site would have been prominent above the surrounding area (Sayce and Clarke 1905:262), and therefore ideally suited to a sacred role.
Hierakonpolis
The early twentieth-century excavators of Hierakonpolis found the remains of a circular mound in the centre of the large rectangular enclosure within the walled town of Nekhen (Quibell 1900:6, pl. IV; Quibell and Green 1902: pl. LXXII). A revetment of rough sandstone blocks enclosed a mound of clean desert sand. This structure has been dated to the Early Dynastic period (Hoffman 1980:131; Kemp 1989:75) and probably served as the foundation for a temple, which, like its predecessor on the low desert plain, is likely
to have been a reed-and-post shrine. The revetment itself probably symbolised the primeval mound, upon which, according to Egyptian mythology, the falcon Horus had first alighted. A pavement of compacted earth, reinforced by rough sandstone blocks in the areas of greatest wear, extended from the base of the mound on all sides, but especially to the south-east (Quibell and Green 1902:7). There were also the remains of rough limestone column bases or pedestals for statues, the exact function of which is not clear (Quibell and Green 1902:8; cf. B.Adams 1977). Excavations in 1969 confirmed that the stone revetment enclosing the mound of clean sand and the associated paved area date to the period of state formation. The remains of a door socket suggested that ‘access to the platform had been controlled by a gate or door’ (Hoffman 1980:131). Two parallel wall trenches and three post-holes indicated the existence of a building some 2 metres by
1.5 metres, either contemporary with the pavement or slightly earlier. It is tempting to identify the building as an early shrine made of posts and reed matting, perhaps even the pr-wr, the archetypal shrine of Upper Egypt (Hoffman 1980:132).
The temple of Horus was the location of the famous ‘Main Deposit’, a collection of votive objects probably buried some time in the New Kingdom: not only did the deposit lie immediately beneath an early New Kingdom temple, it even contained an Eighteenth Dynasty scarab and sherd (Kemp 1968:155). This makes accurate dating of uninscribed objects from the ‘Main Deposit’ extremely difficult (cf. B.Adams 1977). The most important early objects, the commemorative palettes and maceheads, bear witness to the patronage bestowed on the cult of Horus by the first kings of Egypt. The fact that kings like ‘Scorpion’ and Narmer dedicated such important artefacts in the temple emphasises the pre-eminence of the local god, Horus of Nekhen, as the deity intimately associated with divine kingship. Long after Hierakonpolis had lost its status as a centre of political importance, the presence of a temple to the supreme god of kingship ensured continued royal patronage: a number of stone elements with the name of Khasekhem(wy) probably derive from a temple or shrine, perhaps situated on the circular mound. One block shows a temple foundation scene (Engelbach 1934). The construction of houses during the Second and Third Dynasties apparently encroached upon the earlier temple, ‘leaving the mound rising above the new accumulation’ (Quibell and Green 1902:8).
Outside the rectangular enclosure, Green found a large limestone statue, much worn and damaged, but recognisably early in style and comparable to the colossi from Coptos (Quibell and Green 1902:15). The statue is cylindrical in form and represents a man wearing a long, off-the-shoulder cloak. The figure’s left arm is held horizontally across the chest, while the right arm, greatly elongated, hangs close to the side of the body. The right fist was perforated, perhaps to hold a mace or other object, as seems to have been the case with the Coptos colossi (Kemp 1989:81, fig. 28). The figure was evidently shown in the characteristic semi-striding position typical of later representations, with the left leg slightly advanced. The knees are crudely indicated, again a feature found in the Coptos colossi. An identification of the statue has not been established, but the piece clearly indicates the importance of the temple at Hierakonpolis at the very beginning of Egyptian history.
In a radical reinterpretation of the early monumental architecture at Nekhen, the large rectangular enclosure has been dated to the First Dynasty by its architecture and comparisons with the funerary enclosures at Abydos (O’Connor 1992:85). Despite stratigraphic evidence that the circular revetment supporting the temple mound pre-dates
the enclosure wall by a considerable period of time, O’Connor prefers to see the two structures as roughly contemporary. He interprets the enclosure as a royal cult complex (cf. Roth 1993:39) and the Early Dynastic palace gateway as the entrance to a second, adjacent enclosure. A mound of sand is reconstructed within this second, purely hypothetical enclosure, based upon traces of sand found during the course of very limited test excavations (O’Connor 1992:87). Despite the lack of supporting evidence, O’Connor’s arguments do emphasise two important points: the similarity in layout between the temple of Hierakonpolis and a royal ritual precinct (Seidlmayer 1996b: 117), and the way in which royal interest in the temple of Horus at Nekhen at the end of the Second Dynasty changed the nature of the temple, and in all probability the nature of worship at Hierakonpolis. The construction of an enclosure wall around the early temple probably served to exclude persons of insufficient status. The Early Dynastic state embellished the shrine of the god of kingship with new stone buildings, but the price was restricted access. The temple-building activity attested for the reign of Khasekhemwy at Gebelein, Elkab and Hierakonpolis clearly indicates considerable royal interest in the provincial temples of Upper Egypt. This development may be connected with the beginning of the nome system of provincial administration, and perhaps reflects a programme to consolidate central government control of the national economy through the institution of local temples. Seal-impressions of the Second or Third Dynasty from the temple precinct at Elk
ab mention an ‘inspector of the granary of Elkab’ (van de Walle 1954) and illustrate the economic importance of local temples in the Early Dynastic period as storage centres for agricultural produce (Seidlmayer 1996b: 118). The fruits of increased state control of the economy can be seen in the reign of Khasekhemwy’s successor: the construction of Netjerikhet’s Step Pyramid complex represents an unprecedented marshalling of the country’s resources, channelled into a project of the royal court.
On the low desert to the west of the town of Nekhen, the large ceremonial centre dating back to early Naqada II (R.Friedman 1996) apparently remained in use up to the beginning of the First Dynasty.
Gebelein
A limestone block with relief decoration from the temple of Hathor at Gebelein indicates the existence of an Early Dynastic shrine at the site (Curto 1953; Galassi 1955:64–85). The block, now in Turin, was found during Schiaparelli’s excavations in 1910 (Curto 1953:105; Donadoni Roveri 1990:24). An unprovenanced companion piece in the Cairo Museum has been attributed to the Gebelein temple, in view of the close similarity of the limestone as well as the style of the relief (W.S.Smith 1949:137, pl. 30).
The temple of Hathor was situated on the northern edge of the southern hill at Gebelein (Donadoni Roveri 1990:23, fig. 3.1). Unfortunately, Schiaparelli’s excavations were very poorly documented, so further information about the early Hathor temple or the exact circumstances in which the decorated block was discovered is lacking (Donadoni Roveri 1990:23–4).
The Gebelein reliefs undoubtedly date to the late Second or early Third Dynasty, although a more exact dating is difficult. Similarities to the Heliopolis reliefs from the reign of Netjerikhet suggest an early Third Dynasty date (W.S.Smith 1949:137).
However, the Turin block shows slight peculiarities in style, which may simply reflect its provincial origin or may indicate an earlier, Second Dynasty date (W.S.Smith 1949:137– 8; cf. Seidlmayer 1996b: 116). Both blocks apparently depict a temple foundation ceremony, perhaps the foundation of the Hathor temple itself. On the Turin block the striding figure of the king carries a bundle of four staves in his right hand. On the Cairo companion piece he is shown driving these stakes into the ground. The closest parallel for this subject matter is the granite block of Khasekhemwy from Hierakonpolis, suggesting that the Gebelein blocks, too, date from the late Second Dynasty. In common with the surviving fragments of relief decoration from Khasekhemwy’s other buildings in Upper Egypt, the Gebelein block in Turin alludes to the festivals and ritual activities of divine kingship. A figure below the king wears a curious wig and holds the tail of the king’s leopard-skin garment, details which are paralleled in Fifth Dynasty scenes of the Sed- festival (W.S.Smith 1949:137). A boat associated with the ceremonial progress of the king, the šms-Hr, is also depicted.
The reason why a king of the late Second Dynasty should have founded or re-founded a temple at Gebelein remains something of a mystery. The site clearly supported a flourishing community in the late Predynastic period, but it does not seem to have played a particularly important part in the process of state formation, neither does it emerge as a major Early Dynastic centre. The temple at Gebelein was dedicated, at least in later times, to Hathor, one of the mythical divine ancestors of the king, and this connection with the royal cult has been suggested to account for court interest in the site (Seidlmayer 1996b: 116). However, as we have seen, Hathor—as distinct from Bat—is not directly attested until the Fourth Dynasty and, in any case, there were probably other early cult centres of Hathor besides Gebelein. Rather, Khasekhemwy’s involvement at Gebelein seems to be part of a pattern of royal building at provincial shrines in southern Upper Egypt.
Armant
A temple foundation deposit dating to the threshold of the Early Dynastic period was discovered during excavations in the west forecourt of the later temple at Armant (McEuen and Myers 1940:29). The deposit comprised the remains of two large Early Dynastic pottery vessels, some sand and squeezes of mud. These last may be accounted for by the fact that an early temple would almost certainly have been constructed of mudbrick (McEuen and Myers 1940:29). However, no walls were discovered, indicating that the early temple was probably swept away during later building activity.
Coptos
The temple at Coptos was excavated by Petrie at the end of the nineteenth century (Petrie 1896). From the published report, it is difficult to establish the size or relative location of the earliest building. Nevertheless, several large-scale stone sculptures, including the famous Coptos colossi (Payne 1993:12–13, pls I-IV, V.a, b; Dreyer 1995b), indicate that a temple probably stood at the site from the late Predynastic period. The three colossi themselves ‘lay beneath the thick sand bed of the Ptolemaic temple’ (Petrie 1896:7). It was not possible to date them precisely by stratigraphic means, but on art historical
grounds they have been assigned to the late Predynastic period or early First Dynasty. The carvings on the side of the colossi include the saws of sawfish—an alternative suggestion interprets these motifs as branches or fronds of foliage (Dreyer 1995b: 51)— and Pteroceras (Lambis) shells, emphasising the close connection between Coptos and the Red Sea. The early importance of Coptos derived from its strategic location at the head of the Wadi Hammamat, which served as the principal route between the Nile valley and the Red Sea coast.
Other large stone sculptures found by Petrie at Coptos confirm the existence of a late Predynastic temple at the site. These included the figure of a bird, probably an archaic falcon (Petrie 1896: pl. V.6), and three lions (Petrie 1896: pl. V). Particularly significant for the dating of the animal sculptures is the mention of ‘New Race’ (in other words, Predynastic) pottery which was found at the same level (Petrie 1896:7). The bird and lions were crudely finished by hammering (Petrie 1896:8) and belong to a class of large- scale animal sculpture from the period of state formation. They seem to confirm that the Egyptians of the late Predynastic period already worshipped deities as large cult statues erected in temples.
Abydos
Excavations at the beginning of the twentieth century uncovered substantial material from an early shrine within the later temple of Osiris at Abydos (Petrie 1902). Two aspects of the archaeological evidence are worth discussing separately: the architectural remains of the shrine itself, and the deposits of votive objects, many of which may date to the Early Dynastic period.
THE EARLY TEMPLE BUILDINGS
Petrie’s excavations revealed a jumble of walls, representing numerous building phases of the early temple, dedicated to the local jackal god Khentiamentiu. The lowest walls probably belonged to temple buildings of the Early Dynastic period (Kemp 1975b: 30). Royal patronage of the temple can certainly be traced back to the beginning of the First Dynasty. A fragment from a vase of glazed composition decorated with the serekh of Aha was found by Petrie adjacent to a pit of votive objects. It is also possible that several of the large ceremonial palettes from the late Predynastic period—including the so-called Battlefield, Libyan, Hunters’ and Bull palettes—were found in the temple area at Abydos, and this would take royal patronage of the site even further back (Sayce 1898:99; Legge 1900:130, 133, footnote).
Petrie published plans of the temple buildings over the course of the first three dynasties and he offered a reconstruction of the temple’s development (Petrie 1903:7–9 and pls L-LI). The early history of the Abydos temple area was re-examined in detail by Kemp (1968). He found that the effect of Petrie’s stratigraphic assumptions had been to date many of the walls too early. Furthermore, the complex mass of isolated wall fragments poses great problems for reconstructing complete buildings and for establishing the relative date of the numerous building phases. The earliest temple building (Kemp’s building H) seems to date to the Old Kingdom, although it overlay walls and sand beds which probably belonged to an earlier building, one perhaps as old as
the First Dynasty (Kemp 1968:150). The discovery of small twists of burnt clay beneath building H supports its identification as the early tem
ple, since similar objects were discovered in an apparently Early Dynastic deposit beneath the New Kingdom temple at Armant (Mond and Myers 1940:29). Based upon comparisons with the large rectangular enclosure at Nekhen, the existence of a royal cult enclosure at Abydos has been proposed (O’Connor 1992:89). However, it is hard to see why a complex of this kind would have been located within the early town when the immediately adjacent area of low desert was the chosen location for several such enclosures.
DEPOSITS OF VOTIVE MATERIAL
Three deposits of Early Dynastic votive objects were found by Petrie in the temple area at Abydos. The most important collection of votive material came from a pit designated chamber M69. The floor of chamber M69 was covered with a thick mat of organic matter; embedded within this layer were the votive objects, comprising ivory and faience figurines, and numerous beads (Petrie 1903:23). Two further deposits of discarded votive objects (M64, M65 and M89) were discovered nearby (Petrie 1903:26–7). The majority of the material from these pits was dated to the early First Dynasty on the basis of similar material from the Hierakonpolis ‘Main Deposit’.
Early Dynastic Egypt Page 43
