cemetery of the early First Dynasty, Cemetery M, undoubtedly served the early town (Petrie 1902:14–15). The fact that the graves lie within the inhabited area suggests that the settlement may not have been walled at the beginning of the First Dynasty. A town wall was constructed at some subsequent period, perhaps during the Second Dynasty, although an accurate dating is difficult (Kemp 1977:189).
With the exception of the élite Cemetery U, the Predynastic cemeteries at Abydos are rather limited in extent, and this suggests that a substantial town was not founded until the very end of the Predynastic period (Kemp 1975b:30). The earliest occupation level can be dated to the period of state formation (Naqada IIIa2) (Petrie 1902:22; Kemp 1977:189; Wilkinson 1993a:218–19), contemporary with the royal burial in tomb U-j.
The early settlement at Abydos has been the focus of recent archaeological activity. A preliminary survey of the town in 1976 (Kemp 1977) was followed three years later by test excavations, carried out by the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition. These greatly increased the available data, indicating that the Early Dynastic-Old Kingdom settlement extended over an area of at least 5.6 hectares, probably more (O’Connor 1990:7). In the southern part of the site, excavation revealed the corner of a massive mudbrick enclosure of the Early Dynastic period. It may have surrounded an early palace or temple, perhaps comparable to the Early Dynastic palace gateway excavated at Hierakonpolis (Weeks 1971–2), but in the Old Kingdom it was incorporated into a residential complex (O’Connor 1990:8, map 8:8, figs 6–7, pl. 3). Once again, this seems to emphasise the close connection between Abydos and the royal court in the Early Dynastic period.
Memphis
According to later Egyptian tradition, the city of Memphis was founded by Menes, legendary unifier and first king of Egypt, when he diverted the course of the Nile (Lloyd 1988:6–13). If we identify Menes as the historical Narmer (or his successor Aha), the earliest settlement at Memphis should date to the beginning of the First Dynasty. However, as we shall see in the next chapter, it is possible that the settlement was founded rather earlier, towards the end of the Naqada II period. Certainly, the earliest graves at Helwan—the necropolis which served Early Dynastic Memphis as its main burial ground—pre-date the beginning of the First Dynasty (Wilkinson 1993a: 209–10; cf. Saad 1947:111–12, pl. LX), suggesting that the city, too, was founded before the reign of Narmer. Recent survey work and an extensive series of drill cores carried out by the Egypt Exploration Society’s Survey of Memphis have revealed the position of the Nile channel in Predynastic/Early Dynastic times, and have pin-pointed the most likely location for the early city of Memphis (Giddy and Jeffreys 1991:6; Jeffreys and Tavares 1994). Drill cores taken in 1996 yielded cultural material from this location—at the foot of the North Saqqara escarpment, immediately to the east of the First Dynasty élite cemetery – including pottery sherds, shell fragments and a piece of blue frit. The material is concentrated in a layer between 4.5 and 5.5 metres below the surface. Preliminary examination of the pottery sherds suggests an Early Dynastic date, and it is hoped that future seasons of excavation will be successful in revealing areas of Early Dynastic Memphis.
Giza
Excavations around the Menkaura pyramid complex uncovered settlement material, including flints and pottery, dating to the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods. It seems that a small settlement which had stood on the site was removed to allow the construction of the pyramid complex, and that the debris from this settlement was then dumped in the area of desert to the south (Bietak 1979:114, 142, n. 35).
The eastern Delta
Recent surveys in the eastern Delta have revealed numerous sites with late Predynastic and/or Early Dynastic material (Kroeper 1989). Although most of the evidence is funerary, the settlement pattern can be deduced from the distribution of cemeteries. It seems to have been characterised by small villages occupying sites elevated above the floodplain, particularly geziras or ‘turtle-backs’. The importance of foreign trade during the period of state formation is shown by the large number of sites in the north-eastern Delta, along the trade route to southern Palestine. Interestingly, there is very little evidence for settlement in this area from the early Old Kingdom. It may be that when foreign trade became a monopoly of the royal court after the foundation of the Egyptian state, the settlements which had grown up along the major trade route were suddenly deprived of their economic role. With all foreign trade now organised centrally, there may have been little incentive to settle an otherwise marginal area such as the north- eastern Delta (Bietak 1979). However, elsewhere in the Delta, settlements with Old Kingdom material are comparatively widespread, suggesting that the Delta was probably quite densely settled from the very beginning of Egyptian history (Wenke 1989). The ongoing excavations at Tell el-Fara‘in (Buto) and Tell er-Ruba (Mendes) have revealed significant activity at both sites during the Predynastic period. It is therefore quite likely that most, if not all, of the major Old Kingdom population centres in the Delta had been inhabited at an earlier period.
Bubastis
A single Early Dynastic tomb was discovered at Tell Basta, indicating that there was a settlement in this area from early times. The importance of Bubastis in the Old Kingdom already suggested that the site was a much earlier foundation. The prominence of the goddess Bastet in inscriptions of the early Second Dynasty may provide additional evidence for this. A further inscription may indicate that Bubastis was already an important settlement at the end of the Predynastic period: a bone label from tomb U-j at Abydos (Dreyer 1993a: pl. 7.i) is incised with two hieroglyphs, the saddlebill stork b3 (Houlihan 1986:23–4) and the throne st. This may represent an early writing of the place- name B3st, ‘Bubastis’ (cf. Sethe 1906:432; Gauthier 1925:5).
Tell el-Iswid
Two soundings made at Tell el-Iswid (south) revealed settlement material dating from the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods. The Early Dynastic material is characterised by mudbrick architecture. A silo, querns and stone pounders indicate that the settlement
was probably a farming community. The site seems to have been abandoned at some point in the Early Dynastic period (van den Brink 1989). This development may have been part of a wider change in the settlement pattern of the Delta, perhaps connected with the establishment of royal and temple estates in Lower Egypt towards the end of the Third Dynasty.
Minshat Abu Omar
Excavations at Minshat Abu Omar, in the north-eastern corner of the Delta, have revealed an extensive cemetery spanning the late Predynastic period and First Dynasty (Kroeper and Wildung 1985, 1994; Kroeper 1988). Soundings produced evidence of settlement in the area from early Neolithic times, although the later Predynastic and Early Dynastic settlement has not been securely located. The importance of the site in the late Predynastic period appears to have been the result of its strategic geographical location. It lay near the coast, on the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, and at the Egyptian end of the principal overland trade route to southern Palestine. It was thus ideally located for both maritime and overland trade with the Near East, an activity which flourished during the late Predynastic period. Imported Palestinian pottery in some of the burials bears witness to the active trade engaged in by the Predynastic and Early Dynastic inhabitants of the Minshat area. The reasons for the abandonment of the site are unclear. Perhaps a change in the position of the Pelusiac branch removed the strategic benefits of the site. Alternatively, a rise in sea level may have made the low-lying area uninhabitable (Kroeper and Wildung 1985:98). The creation of a royal monopoly in foreign trade may also have played a part, denying the inhabitants of Minshat Abu Omar their principal livelihood.
Mendes
The two mounds of Tell er-Ruba and Tell Timai comprise the ancient site of Mendes (Brewer and Wenke 1992:193); the earliest settlement seems to have been restricted to Tell er-Ruba (Wenke and Brewer 1996:267, fig. 2). In Early Dynastic times the site almost certainly lay on a major Nile branch, providing efficient communication both with the rest of
Egypt and with the Mediterranean Sea (Bietak 1975:110). It is possible that Mendes was a major trading-post in the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods, connecting Egypt with the eastern Mediterranean littoral and southern Palestine via both sea and land routes (Brewer and Wenke 1992:193). Mendes is first attested in an inscription dating to the reign of Djer, when it was known under the name npt (Brewer and Wenke 1992:193).
Excavations in the 1960s revealed Early Dynastic levels in a limited area within the temple enclosure. A number of Early Dynastic graves were uncovered, and although grave goods were scarce, the pottery from the surrounding stratum was dated to the First or Second Dynasty. Similar early pottery was also encountered to the north of a nearby tomb. An Early Dynastic vessel was found at the level of the ground water, in the earliest stratum excavated (Hansen 1967:16).
During recent fieldwork two trial trenches revealed Early Dynastic remains (Brewer and Wenke 1992), including a vaulted brick structure which may be the remains of a
tomb, and a mudbrick structure and hearths, possibly the remains of domestic buildings. Further excavation uncovered ‘a series of compacted clay living floors’ (R.Friedman 1992:204). The deepest levels, sampled by means of an auger, yielded crude chaff- tempered pottery of simple shapes, perhaps comparable to the Predynastic domestic pottery from Buto (Brewer and Wenke 1992:194). This evidence indicates that Mendes, too, was already inhabited in the Predynastic period. From the evidence gained thus far, the excavators conclude that Mendes ‘was an extensive community’ in the Early Dynastic period. They estimate that at this time the settlement covered much of the later temple area (Brewer and Wenke 1992:196).
Buto
The site of Buto (modern Tell el-Fara‘in) probably owed its importance in Predynastic and Early Dynastic times to a strategic location. Geological surveys of the region have shown that the town lay not only on a major Nile branch, but also on or near the coast (Wunderlich 1988). Buto may have served as a major port and entrepôt for trade between Predynastic Egypt and the eastern Mediterranean basin (Wenke and Brewer 1996:270). Excavations at Tell el-Fara‘in/Buto since 1985 have revealed a continuous settlement sequence from late Naqada I to the end of the Early Dynastic period (von der Way 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992; Faltings and Köhler 1996). The earliest levels lack any mudbrick architecture; buildings seem to have been matting and post structures, of which only the post-holes have survived (Faltings and Köhler 1996). The period of state formation (Naqada III) is marked at Buto by the adoption of a new ceramic repertoire, signalling a change in technology, production and distribution (Köhler 1992). This coincides with the appearance of the first mudbrick buildings. The special nature of the Early Dynastic complex (see Chapter 8) may also be reflected in some of the unusual forms of pottery found within its walls. These include small, rough pots and bag-shaped jars pierced after firing with one or two holes (Köhler 1992:19, fig. 7). The original function of both types is far from clear. The importance of Buto in the Early Dynastic period is also apparent from contemporary inscriptions. First Dynasty year labels suggest that more than one Early Dynastic king visited Buto. The town later came to symbolise Lower Egypt as a whole, just as Hierakonpolis came to represent Upper Egypt (Wilson 1955). The involvement of officials from the central administration is attested by clay seal-impressions found within the Early Dynastic building (Kaplony 1992). These give the names of various administrative departments, and the titles of officials, including Iy- en-khnum, also named on inscribed stone vessels from beneath the Step Pyramid at Saqqara.
CHAPTER TEN
THE REGIONS OF EGYPT
As we have seen, the scale and pace of urban development in Early Dynastic Egypt depended to a large extent on local factors, economic, political, ecological and topographic. To appreciate the full complexity of local variation, it is important to consider the evidence from a regional perspective. The geographic location of settlement sites, their hinterlands and economic resources, and their relationships with neighbouring settlements all provide valuable evidence for the nature of provincial life in ancient Egypt (cf. Bietak 1979:133). The dominance not only of particular sites but also of certain regions during the period of state formation and the following Early Dynastic period can be understood by looking at the distribution of natural resources along the Nile valley.
‘Nature may often set the stage for history’ (Seidlmayer 1996b: 108), and the regions with an advantageous resource base—ideally a combination of agricultural potential, access to minerals, and a strategic position allowing control of trade or transport routes— emerged as the main centres of power in the late Predynastic period. The foundation of the Egyptian state brought overtly political factors into play, occasionally overriding local conditions—as in the case of Elephantine—to promote the development of a particular location as an outpost of central government control. The foundation of the new national capital at Memphis propelled the surrounding region to prominence far beyond that which it had enjoyed before the First Dynasty. As the Early Dynastic period progressed and the court established ever more effective mechanisms for controlling the national economy, some of the older centres of influence lost out to newer state foundations. The history of the regions of Egypt during the late fourth and early third millenniums BC therefore reflects the complex interplay of a host of factors, local, regional and national. As Egypt headed towards the centralised state characteristic of the Old Kingdom, the success or failure of a particular region in attaining or maintaining prominence depended to an ever greater degree on the priorities of the court. In the Early Dynastic period, as in later phases of Egyptian history, regional development is thus an instructive barometer of central authority.
THE FIRST CATARACT REGION
Southernmost Upper Egypt was always a border zone, separating the Egyptian and Nubian spheres of political and cultural influence. In the late Predynastic period, settlements of the Nubian A-Group are attested as far north as Kubania, some 18 kilometres north of Aswan. Moreover, pottery of Nubian origin, or made by potters working in the Nubian tradition, seems to have been relatively common in late
Predynastic Egyptian contexts in southernmost Upper Egypt, suggesting close cultural links between the First Cataract region and Nubia (Needier 1984:224). The earliest pottery assemblage from the settlement on Elephantine is predominantly Egyptian, but does include some A-Group Nubian material (Seidlmayer 1996b: 111). Trade between Egypt and Nubia is well attested in the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods (Takamiya 1994), and there is also evidence—in the cattle burials at Hierakonpolis (Hoffman 1982; B.Adams 1996) and Qustul, and the shared iconography of early kingship at both sites (Williams 1986, 1987)—for deeper cultural exchange between the late Predynastic polities of Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia.
Regional settlement and the resource base
Although occupying an important strategic position at Egypt’s southern boundary, and able to control the lucrative trade with Nubia and sub-Saharan Africa, the First Cataract region lacked the agricultural base associated with other important Upper Egyptian centres. The strip of cultivable land is extremely narrow in this part of the Nile valley, and early settlers took advantage of slight broadenings of the valley in desert embayments and wadi mouths. The distribution of late Predynastic cemeteries indicates that the region was characterised by a series of small villages, strung out along the river’s edge at intervals of about 6 kilometres (Seidlmayer 1996b: 113, plus references, 114, fig. 2). This pattern of settlement seems to have been seriously disrupted by the activities of the state on Elephantine at the very beginning of the Early Dynastic period, especially the construction of a fortress to guard Egypt’s southern frontier (Seidlmayer 1996b:113). Hence, it was Elephantine that dominated the region both economically and politically from the early First Dynasty. It is probably no coincidence that Elephantine lies close to the largest area of cultivable land in the region. This lay on the east bank, in the area now occupied by the modern city of Aswan. The islands of the
First Cataract could have supported limited cultivation, but other sources of food seem to have been more important in the local subsistence economy. Hunting in the adjacent desert areas would have provided game, whilst animal bones from the settlement on Elephantine indicate that fish formed a significant element in the local diet (von den Driesch 1986; Katzmann 1990).
The riches of the First Cataract region ‘did not lie in bread but in stone’ (Seidlmayer 1996b:111). The granite outcrops which form such a prominent feature of the local topography were exploited in early times; the earliest monumental use of pink granite is the lining of Den’s burial chamber at Abydos. Various other crystalline rocks are available in the vicinity, and these were valued for stone vessel manufacture, an important craft activity in late Predynastic times. Stone vessels played a key part in the conspicuous consumption favoured by growing élites, and as the source of the necessary raw materials the First Cataract region must have been important. The combination of this factor and Elephantine’s strategic location for trade and defence guaranteed central interest—and interference—in the region from the very beginning of the Egyptian state.
Elephantine and the early state
An easily defended location, together with the factors outlined above, made Elephantine a natural focus for early settlement. Probably from Predynastic times, the island served as an entrepôt for prestige goods coming from sub-Saharan Africa via Nubia (Seidlmayer 1996b:111). Because Egyptian access to these trade routes was reinforced by sporadic punitive campaigns against indigenous groups (Needier 1967; Murnane 1987), Elephantine acquired a strategic importance as well (Seidlmayer 1996b:111). The site ‘gained its character as a town through the functions it took over on the national level’ (Seidlmayer 1996b:127). The construction of a fortress on the island at the beginning of the First Dynasty must have had a profound effect on the local community. The foundation, in the Third Dynasty, of an administrative complex tied to the royal estate probably had a significant impact on the local economy. However, despite heavy-handed state interference, ‘the local community retained the informal layout of the village and remained devoted to its temple as its ideological and organisational nucleus’ (Seidlmayer 1996b:127).
Early Dynastic Egypt Page 47
