Early Dynastic Egypt

by Toby A H Wilkinson

  Regional differences

  Fundamental though it was, urbanism did not take place simultaneously in all regions of Egypt (Kemp 1977:196, 198). It appears to have begun in Upper Egypt, where socio- economic change had been most rapid and where the process of state formation was initiated. Hence, the earliest domestic mudbrick architecture has been found at Hierakonpolis and Naqada (Petrie and Quibell 1896; Weeks 1971–2), the leading centres of Predynastic Upper Egypt. Based upon the available evidence, the settlement pattern in Middle Egypt seems to have been less affected by changes in late Predynastic society. However, this apparent situation may reflect the poor preservation of archaeological sites in Middle Egypt—due to geological factors, encroachment of sand dunes from the western desert, and the movement of the Nile channel—rather than the true extent of urban development in the region. Throughout the Nile valley, the major settlements appear to have been located on the west bank of the river. The apparent absence of significant sites from the west bank in Middle Egypt has undoubtedly influenced our view of the region; it may have been more flourishing in ancient times than the surviving evidence suggests. Indeed, until the dates of foundation of important later centres like Hermopolis and Herakleopolis have been established, we will remain ignorant of early urbanism in Middle Egypt. A reference to Herakleopolis on the Palermo Stone, in an entry dating to the reign of Den, suggests that the town may have been founded before the First Dynasty. On the east bank of the Nile, in the Matmar-Qau region, there is little evidence for the growth of urban centres until the Old Kingdom, when administrative developments connected with the royal court resulted in the growth of el-Etmania

  (O’Connor 1972:93–4). The demography of the Memphite region was undoubtedly dominated by the foundation of Memphis itself, marking the imposition of central authority and control by the new national administration. There is increasing evidence that urbanism was well advanced in the Delta in late Predynastic times (contra Janssen 1978:216). Recent excavations have demonstrated the importance of sites like Buto and Mendes in the Predynastic period (see below), whilst other centres such as Saïs and Bubastis are likely to have been significant before the incorporation of the Delta into a unified kingdom (Kaiser 1986:1071). The appearance of mudbrick architecture in Delta settlements (van den Brink 1989; Wilkinson 1996b: 95) is likely to mark a fundamental change in the structure of Lower Egyptian society (von der Way 1993:96) and probably indicates the incorporation of the region into an expanding Upper Egyptian polity. ‘From this moment the spread of urbanism in the north could well have been closely parallel to that in Upper Egypt’ (Kemp 1995:687). The variable pace of urbanisation in different regions of the country emphasises the importance of local factors in the process of state formation (Wilkinson 1996b: 86–90).

  Topographical and ecological factors

  The most favoured location for settlements in Egypt, in ancient times as today, would have been the floodplain of the Nile. The river provided not only supplies of fresh water but also the most efficient means of transport and communication within the country (O’Connor 1972:79). However, the alluvium was prone to inundation, and it would therefore have been preferable to locate settlements on raised areas of land, beyond the reach of the floodwaters. In Upper Egypt, Predynastic settlements developed on isolated hillocks or abandoned levees within the floodplain, or on the margins of the low desert. The majority of early settlements which were located within the floodplain now lie under deposits of alluvium, and are covered either by fields or by modern towns and villages. As a result, few settlements have been excavated in Egypt, compared to the numerous cemeteries which lie along the desert edge and which are therefore much more accessible to archaeologists. In the earlier phases of the Predynastic period, marginal settlements at a number of sites, notably Hierakonpolis, spread back into the desert, following the edges of major wadis until the limits of cultivation were reached (Hoffman 1980:148). These desert-edge communities would have depended largely upon herding, the savannahs of the now arid low desert providing pasturage for flocks. The desiccation of these pasturages following the end of the Neolithic subpluvial, accompanied by a change to agriculture as the principal subsistence base, probably led to the widespread relocation of settlements to the floodplain. This may account for the demise of Maadi towards the end of the Naqada II period (see Chapter 10). The settlements that remained at the edge of the cultivation are likely to have been ‘functionally rather specialized’ (O’Connor 1972:79; cf. R.Friedman 1994:322), perhaps serving as administrative or symbolic centres, like Naqada South Town. However, with very few exceptions, it is such desert-edge settlements that have been studied in detail. It is important to remember this bias in the evidence when examining early urbanism in Egypt. We must admit that, to date, our picture of urban development is far from complete. Within the general setting of the Nile valley, the first urban centres seem to have developed in locations ‘favored by their overseas trading possibilities and by their economic hinterlands’ (Bietak 1979:129).

  Chapter 10 explores the role of geographical and ecological factors in the growth of important regional centres. A settlement located at a strategic point in the course of the Nile – such as a natural constriction of the valley (for example, Memphis), or an intersection between the river and desert routes (perhaps the early town of This)—would have been in a position to control trade, and to function as an entrepôt for goods.

  FUNCTIONS OF EARLY TOWNS

  The centralising tendencies of the early Egyptian state, especially the redistributive economy which funded state projects, were doubtless important influences on the beginnings of urbanism in the Nile valley. They may also have had a direct effect on the character of early towns. Many of the earliest urban centres were surrounded by a large mudbrick wall, defining and restricting the area of dense habitation (Elephantine, Hierakonpolis and Naqada are all examples). The defensive role of town enclosure walls may have extended beyond protecting the inhabitants from aggressively jealous marauders. Walls may also have been intended to control access to and provide security for the administrative and economic centres located within early towns (Trigger 1985:348). A redistributive economy must have required a network of centralised storage facilities where agricultural produce could be collected for redistribution to the population, a proportion being retained as buffer stocks and some being channelled to the central treasury. These storage facilities would have required adequate protection, and are likely to have been located within towns. The evidence from Naqada South Town points to the settlement having served just such a purpose (see below). It has even been suggested that regional urban centres were not primarily concentrations of population but, rather, state foundations serving as locations for shrines and convenient nodes for the operation of the central administration. If so, the inhabitants of early Egyptian towns may have been principally state officials, craftsmen employed by the royal workshops, and priests: in other words, specialists not engaged in agriculture (Trigger 1985:348). As the Early Dynastic period progressed, the increasing economic demands made by the royal court on the country as a whole—to fund increasingly elaborate building projects— resulted in a widespread process of urbanisation, urban centres eventually functioning as ‘the backbone of Egypt’s political and administrative organisation’ (Seidlmayer 1996b: 127). State interference, if it may be characterised as such, was also manifest in another area: the foundation of planned settlements. These are well attested from the Old and Middle Kingdoms, but state activity was also important in the foundation or growth of earlier towns, such as Elephantine. By contrast, settlements like Hierakonpolis owed their existence more to local and/or regional socio-economic developments (Seidlmayer 1996b: 127).

  THE EVIDENCE FOR EARLY URBANISM

  Comparatively few settlements have been systematically excavated in Egypt. This state of affairs is the result of two main factors. First, the changing aims of archaeology and ancient history have influenced, to a considerable degree, the types of site
investigated.

  Until the latter half of the twentieth century, the primary aim of archaeologists working in Egypt was often the acquisition of artefacts for museums and private collections. These were to be found in abundance in the numerous cemeteries of all ages which lie along the desert edge. Archaeological activity was therefore primarily focused on cemeteries, and on the visible monuments of pharaonic Egypt: royal tombs and temples. An important exception was the work of Myers at Armant, unfortunately cut short by outside circumstances. The excavation of tombs and temples suited an age of scholarship which viewed Egyptian history from the perspective of the royal court. Social and economic history, an attempt to understand the experience of ordinary Egyptians in antiquity, has become a major academic concern only in the last thirty or so years. As a result, interest in Egyptian settlements—which constitute the primary source of evidence for economic and social history, administrative hierarchies, patterns of socio-economic organisation, and the daily life of the general population—has increased dramatically, and excavations are now underway at several settlements from various periods of Egyptian history. Second, the location of settlements in Egypt has hindered their archaeological exploration. As we have seen, the majority of ancient towns and villages will have been located in the floodplain, at sites which are now inaccessible due to modern land-use activities, the accumulation of alluvium, or changes in the course of the Nile. These factors limit the number of settlement sites which are readily accessible to scientific investigation (although the Dutch East Delta Survey revealed a large number of Old Kingdom settlements lying beneath the fields, not far below the surface). Furthermore, the earliest settlement levels of sites in the alluvial floodplain lie close to or beneath the water-table. Excavation of such sites is virtually impossible without pumping equipment (Mendes is a recent exception). This has been used to great effect at Buto in the north- western Delta, and we may expect other settlement sites lying below the water-table to be excavated in the future (for example, the Early Dynastic city of Memphis).

  In the absence of sufficient direct evidence for urbanism, scholars have often turned to the cemetery record (O’Connor 1972:80; Mortensen 1991). The location of a cemetery provides a reasonable, though by no means infallible, guide to the location of its accompanying settlement. Likewise, the size of a cemetery gives an indication of the size of settlement it served; the distribution of cemeteries has been used to reconstruct settlement patterns in various regions and at various periods (for example, Patch 1991; Seidlmayer 1996b: fig. 2). The conspectus of sites presented below draws upon both types of evidence for early urbanism: actual settlement material, most of it excavated in recent years, and Early Dynastic cemeteries for which the accompanying settlement has not yet been located or excavated.

  Elephantine

  Excavations on the island of Elephantine have revealed a continuous picture of urban development from Predynastic times. In the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods, the southern part of the island was divided into two, at least during the annual inundation. The settlement was located in the centre of the eastern island. The earliest habitation is now dated to the end of Naqada II, although a few isolated finds of earlier material out of context may indicate that the settlement had already begun at the beginning of Naqada II (Seidlmayer 1996b: 111). The arrangement of post-holes suggests an open settlement of

  reed huts (cf. Leclant and Clerc 1994:430). The original extent of the Predynastic settlement is hard to gauge, since only limited areas have been excavated. The settlement may have been restricted to the northern part of the island, with a cemetery occupying the southern part; but it is also possible that the early village may have been much larger (Ziermann 1993:14–15; Seidlmayer 1996b: 111). The habitation area certainly extended eastwards towards the river bank, where it overlooked the main navigation route through the First Cataract area. The first mudbrick buildings were constructed on Elephantine at the very end of the Predynastic period (‘Dynasty 0’). Also at this time, industrial activity is attested: an oven with pieces of slag and traces of copper indicates that metalworking took place within the Predynastic settlement (Leclant and Clerc 1994:430).

  The unification of Egypt at the end of the Predynastic period, accompanied by the imposition of a national government apparatus on the whole country, marked a decisive turning-point in the history of Elephantine. At the beginning of the First Dynasty, probably as the direct result of royal policy, a fortress was built on the island. Its strategic location was clearly designed to facilitate control of river traffic on the main river branch and the monitoring of activity in the area of cultivable land on the east bank of the Nile, the site of modern Aswan (Ziermann 1993:32, fig. 12; Seidlmayer 1996b: 112). Moreover, the prominence of the building would have emphasised to the local inhabitants and to passing traffic the omnipotence of the central, royal government. The fortress seems to have been built as part of a change in Egyptian policy towards Nubia, a policy which now became hostile and exploitative. Certainly, the construction did not benefit the local community nor did it take account of local sensibilities. Neither the existing settlement nor its shrine was included within the fortifications; the fortress was erected in the optimum location, with scant regard for the pre-existing buildings (Seidlmayer 1996b:112). When the fortification was strengthened and extended during the first half of the First Dynasty, the new wall ran so close to the forecourt of the local shrine that the shrine’s entrance had to be moved. As the result of a subsequent strengthening of the wall, the shrine forecourt had to be further reduced in size. The adverse impact of the fortification programme on the religious life of the local community paints a none-too- beneficent picture of the early state. The construction of the fortress on Elephantine illustrates the political dominance of the royal court after the unification of Egypt.

  At the beginning of the Second Dynasty the settlement and shrine, which had previously been unenclosed, were fortified by means of a double wall connecting with the bastion of the fortress. This new town wall and the outer section of the fortifications were strengthened several times over the succeeding decades. Eventually, towards the end of the Second Dynasty, the expansion of the town led to the abandonment of the inner fortifications. This allowed the shrine to expand once again, regaining its former extent. Early in the Third Dynasty the walls of the old fortress, now surrounded by habitations, were levelled to form a continuous settlement area. None the less, a sealing of the governor of Elephantine from the reign of Sekhemkhet gives the town the determinative of a fortress, indicating that Elephantine was still viewed as a fortified settlement, at least by the central government who had built the fortifications in the first place (Pätznick, in Kaiser et al. 1995:181; Seidlmayer 1996b: 113).

  Until the middle of the Third Dynasty, settlement activity was confined to the eastern island. This was to change with the construction of a large complex of buildings on the northern granite ridge of the western island some time during or after the reign of

  Netjerikhet (Seidlmayer 1996a, 1996b:120–4). The complex was enlarged and reinforced during a series of building phases. Late in the Third Dynasty, the courtyard area between the northern and southern granite ridges was filled and levelled, to support a new building. This development connected the original building complex on the northern ridge to the small step pyramid constructed on the southern ridge in the reign of Huni. The size and construction of the entire complex distinguish it from other contemporary buildings on Elephantine, and mark it out as an official, state-sponsored project (Seidlmayer 1996b: 120). This is confirmed by the associated finds, especially seal- impressions. Most significant is a sealing from a papyrus roll giving the title of the ‘royal seal-bearer of the pr-nswt’ from the reign of Sanakht. Even if this official was not himself based at Elephantine, the consultation of a court document on the island indicates that the Third Dynasty complex was associated with the royal domain. Other sealings indicate that food distribution operations were carried out on the site, con
firmed by the vast quantities of bread-moulds and beer-jars recovered. The excavator concludes that the building was an administrative centre connected with the royal estate and notes that it was located ‘in a convenient place near the river and in the vicinity of the cultivable alluvial land accumulating to the north’ (Seidlmayer 1996b:121). It is quite likely that the complex on the eastern island at Elephantine was connected with a fundamental restructuring of the administration under the last king(s) of the Third Dynasty, a development which paved the way for the unprecedented harnessing of resources evident in the pyramid-building of the Fourth Dynasty. Elephantine is thus a key site for the rise of the Egyptian state and it bears witness to the changes which marked the transition from the Early Dynastic period to the Old Kingdom.

  Elkab

  The significance of Elkab from the period of state formation onwards is demonstrated both archaeologically and iconographically: by the numerous graves of the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods; and by the adoption, at the very beginning of the Early Dynastic period, of the local deity (Nekhbet) as the tutelary goddess of Upper Egypt and, later, as an element of the royal titulary (Vandersleyen 1971:35).

  Excavations at the turn of the century (Quibell 1898b; Sayce and Clarke 1905; Clarke 1921), and by successive Belgian missions since the 1940s (Vermeersch 1970; Vandersleyen 1971; Huyge 1984; Hendrickx and Huyge 1989; Hendrickx 1993) have revealed several settlement and cemetery areas (Figure 9.1). The ancient site of Elkab is mostly contained within a large rectangular enclosure wall of mudbrick, named the Great Wall by the early excavators. Within this outer enclosure are situated a smaller, walled temple enclosure and the partial remains of a curved, double wall (Hendrickx and Huyge 1989: pl. II) which may have enclosed the early town (Vermeersch 1970:32–3). The double wall must originally have demarcated a roughly circular area, conforming to the hieroglyph for ‘town’. Because of the northward movement of the river channel since ancient times, the south-western half of the ancient town has been eroded and is now lost. However, there is some evidence that the town extended westwards beyond the limits of the Great Wall. At the end of the nineteenth century, there was ‘ample evidence of habitations, outside and west-ward of the western line of the Great Walls’ (Clarke 1921:56). A few years later, a section of the curved double wall and large amounts of