 |
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As already discussed, Early Dynastic Egypt begins with the so-called Unification of Egypt, although the processes and events that led to the establishment of a unified state are by no means clear. Wenke summarizes this most effectively: “The rise of the Egyptian ‘state’ after c.3100 BC is really just a bold reconstruction of what we infer happened. These inferences are based on: (1) the spread over much of Egypt of pottery and architectural styles that suggest close, continuing contacts among people over large areas of the country; (2) the investment of massive amounts of labour and resources in tombs and monumental buildings in such a way as to imply an unequal distribution of wealth, power and prestige; and (3) some equivocal signs, like the Narmer palette that seem to indicate a potentate in the process of exercising kingly authority” (Wenke 1999, p.446). The Early Dynastic period is represented both in royal and elite burial sites, at a small number of urban settlements, and at a number of more rural settlements and cemeteries in the Delta and elsewhere.
The study of the Early Dynastic period, Dynasties I and II, requires the blending of archaeological and historical research projects. Data from both can have benefits and limitations, and will be listed below. The main form of contemporary data is provided from contemporary excavated sites and the artefacts and structures that they produce. From royal and eite contexts these include year lables, palettes, engraved maceheads, royal monuments and funerary goods, inscriptions, and the necropolis sealings of Den and Qaa (Wilkinson 1999). From towns and rural areas these include settlement remains and cemeteries containing tombs of various social grades, and grave goods. Later Data includes the Palermo Stone and the Royal King Lists. The Palermo stone, carved in the 5th Dynasty, is in three parts - one in the Cairo Museum, one in the Palermo Museum and one in the UCL Petrie Museum in London. Of these three, some controversy surrounds the Cairo fragment which has been argued may be a clever forgery (reference). The Palermo Stone comprises annals of each of the kings of the first five dynasties, giving the name of the king and the most important events of each year of his reign - these events can be anything from establishing new temples and holding festivals to military activity in foreign lands. The King Lists also record the names of kings in the order in which they are thought to have ruled, but can date to more than a thousand years after the end of the Early Dynastic period. The two best know are the Abydos King List (a record in stone), and the badly damaged Turin Canon papyrus, both dating to the New Kingdom Wilkinson has pointed out that there are difficulties in aligning information obtained from the King Lists, the Palermo Stone and the contemporary monuments: “The difficulties in correlating the names corded in later King Lists (usually the nbty names) with those attested on the monuments (usually the Horus names) have confused what should be a relatively straightforward picture” (Wilkinson 1999, p.66). Other data from more recent sources include Manetho’s third century BC history of Egypt, “Aegyptiaca”, which is known only from fragments, and from Herodotus’s fifth century BC history of Egypt. Manetho was a priest in Egypt, who had access to archival information: “As a priest, Manetho had access to the original lists and registers compiled by the priests and kept in the temples, which he was able to use as the basis for his book” (David, p.24). However, he was working nearly 3000 years after the beginning of the Early Dynastic period. Herodotus was a visitor to Egypt in 450BC who based his work on what he learned from observations and interviews, capturing them in Book II of his “Histories”. The First Dynasty was presided over by one king, whose territory included Lower and Upper Egypt, and “the foundation of Memphis as the national administrative centre really represents the culmination of the unification process” (Wilkinson 1999, p.58). There were eight First Dynasty kings, the first of whom it is now generally agreed, was Narmer, in spite of the fact that both the Abydos king list and Manetho list names the first king as Menes. Prior to Narmer “it is likely that many of Narmer’s predecessors were no more than regional rulers” (Wilkinson 1996, p.11). Although not much is known about Narmer it is likely that he was the ruler of Abydos, where he was buried. Narmer was followed by a number of kings, including one female regent, over a period of probably between 200 and 250 years before the Second Dynasty was established. The descriptions below of each king in turn, in both First and Second Dynasties owes a considerable debt to Wilkinson’s 1999 Early Dynastic Egypt. Anyone wanting more information about these kings, or indeed about the first three Dynasties of Egypt, should refer to Wilkinson’s text. Although in the late Predynastic period power seems to have been concentrated at Abydos, with the First Dynasty, for the seat of power was relocated to the north, in the Memphis area in a town called “White Walls”. Memphis was not located near particularly good land and seems to have been selected for its position as a communication apex, much as Cairo is today. Tombs of officials found in North Saqqara and Memphis highlight the importance of this region, but Abydos clearly remained important because it was here that the kings of the First Dynasty were buried. The original town of Memphis has not survived, and its existence has been inferred from textual and other data. Surviving settlement sites include Hierakonpolis and Buto. Although the precise order in which the First Dynasty kings reigned is not always clear, it is usually agreed upon that Narmer was the first First Dynasty Ruler. The list of kings below follows the running order suggested by Wilkinson (1999), and outlines each reign in brief. Narmer is thought to have been the first king to have resided at Memphis, although he was buried at Abydos. He is best known from the much-discussed Palette of Narmer in the Cairo Museum, which was discussed in the previous section, and the Narmer Macehead, in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, but his name is present on a number of artefacts and pottery fragments as far north as the Negev and as far south as Hierakonpolis. It is possible that Narmer built upon earlier economic successes and established trading posts in Near Eastern and Upper Egyptian locations. Whether or not Narmer was the first king to establish a residence at Memphis, Hor-Aha, the second king of the First Dynasty, seems to be very well attested to there, and it is to his reigned that the earliest elite mastaba recorded at the northern Saqqara necropolis dates. His name means “the fighter” and there is some indication that he sent a campaign against Nubia, which might tie in with the fact that during the Early Dynastic period the A-Group evidently suffered financial reversals (Takamiya 2004). Innovations during his reign include the skilled use of copper, ivory and faience, but more particularly in establishing new features in the mortuary complex and the establishment of an elite cemetery in northern Saqqara. It is thought that Neith-Hotep, a female buried in some splendour in Naqada may have been the mother of Hor-Aha. Djer, in the tradition of Narmer, was buried at the Umm el-Qaab cemetery at Abydos. His reign appears to have been quite long, and included an expedition which is thought to have been to either western Asia or Sinai. Twelve Levantine vessels found in his tomb indicate that connections with Levant were important at this time. Djer’s tomb at Abydos is of particular interest as has the innovation of a separate funerary enclose. It also contains a number of subsidiary burials, all of women. Metal working continued to demonstrate high skill, and the first royal statuary dates to this time - a small headless blue-glazed statuette found in Elephantine. Djet, or Wadji depending on the reading of his name, appears to have reigned for less than 20 years. Two mastabas from Tarkhan, both with palace facades dating to his reign, and a funerary stela from Abydos, now in the Louvre in Paris are the most notable surviving artefacts. Again, there were imports from Palestine and Syria. Merneith was a female ruler and is believed to have been the mother of the next King, Den. Although she was buried in Umm el-Qaab in a royal mortuary complex and there are two royal-type funerary stelae containing her name, her name is not shown in the royal serekh. She was probably a regent when Den was a child. Den is the king about whom most is known from the First Dynasty and judging from the fact that he had two sed festivals probably had a long reign. As with his predecessors he was buried at Abydos, where a significant innovation was the addition of a stairway which led from the entrance to the burial chamber, improving access both for depositing grave goods and for a funerary procession, a feature that was also adopted in elite tombs as well. The greatest number of elite tombs date to his reign, which is perhaps an indication of an increase in the number of individuals assigned bureaucratic functions in either Den’s or previous reigns. A number of cult-related activities appear to have taken place, with records on the Palermo Stone of visits to shrines and the establishment of a new temple. Anedjib probably had a long reign, judging from the record of a sed festival, but very little is otherwise known about his reign, his name only appearing at Saqqara, Abydos and Helwan. He was buried at Umm el-Qaab, but the most important tomb dating to his reign is Mastaba S3038 in the northern Saqqara necropolis, which was important in the evolution of future funerary architecture, with a hidden stepped tumulus covering the chamber. According to the Palermo Stone, Semerkhet had a very short reign, and no tombs in the northern Saqqara date to this time. Not much is known about his reign, although some fragments of imported pottery indicate that trade with the Near East continued. His tomb sees a change of layout, with with subsidiary burials immediately adjacent to his own, the implication being that they were killed at the same time, as a sacrifice. Qaa was the last clearly represented king of the First Dynasty, and the last king to be buried at Umm el-Qaab in Abydos until the end of the Second Dynasty. A record of two sed festivals indicates that he probably had a long reign. The same form of burial tradition was apparently followed, again suggesting that retainers were sacrificed to accompany the king into the afterlife. Several Year Labels in his tomb record different activities including the collection of timber for royal works, the foundation of a building and the celebration of cult festivals. Again, Levantine imports are found in graves dating to his reign. It is unclear what happened after the end of Qaa’s reign - the names Ba and Sneferka are mentioned, but nothing is known about either individual or their precise role: “The kings who ruled Egypt between the death of Qaa and the accession of Netjerikhet/Djoser are some of the most shadowy figures fromt eh entire span of Egyptian history” (Wilkinson 1999, p.82). The Centralized Administration and the New Elites The establishment of a central administration was accompanied by changes: “With the First Dynasty the focus of development shifted from south to north, and the early Egyptian state was a centrally controlled polity ruled by a (god-) king from the Memphis regions” (Bard 2000, p.62). Titles focus on administrative roles, but appear to have been held by royalty and were apparently hereditary. The adoption of a tiered burial system for royalty at Abydos and bureaucrats at Saqqara is a clear indication of the importance of the bureaucracy in the management of a unified Egypt. The labour invested in some of the First Dynasty non-royal tombs, for example at Tarkhan, is a reflection of how important the burial cult had become. Even poorer individuals were being buried, as Kohler’s excavations at Helwan are demonstrating (Kohler 2003), indicating that even lower echelons in society wished to provide for and be provided for after death. Trigger (1983, p.56) suggests that the funerary practices in the First Dynasty reveal a political organization, consisting of the King, followed by High Officials, with craftsmen and retainers next, and the peasantry at the bottom of the ladder. He says that cemeteries did not see the king differentiated in any very spectacular way – the king’s tomb was bigger than those of lesser individuals, but not conspicuously different: “This suggests either that the power of the kings to appropriate resources for their own use was more limited in the Early Dynastic period than it was later on, or that the kings o this period did not choose to emphasize the differences between themselves and other leading men in this fashion” (Trigger 1983, p.56). Den’s reign is associated with the largest number of elite burials during both First and Second Dynasties, with more burials at Saqqara, a new elite cemetery being established at Abu Rawash and more burials at Helwan (more administrative than elite class) and Abusir. These individuals could have been allocated these roles either during or before Den’s reign, perhaps as part of economic reforms or increasing administrative complexity. The Palermo stone entry for one year records what appears to be a national census. The total of thirty elite burials suggests to Wilkinson (1999, p.76) that “such a dramatic increase in the number of officials able to command a high-status tomb must reflect more than the mere length of Den’s reign: it seems likely that changes were carried out in the structure of government”. “By 3000BC the Early Dynastic state had emerged in Egypt, controlling much of the Nile Valley from the Delta to the first cataract at Aswan, a distance of over 1000km along the Nile (Bard 2000, p.67). A First Dynasty residence appears to have been established at En Besor, and Wilkinson suggests that during the First Dynasty, trade lines were formalized: “a change in the nature of Egypt’s relations with southern Palestine may have been the beginning of a long-term trend which saw reciprocal trade between Egypt and its neighbours ultimately replaced by a more direct Egyptian exploitation of resources via outposts . . . or entrepots” (Wilkinson 1999, p.71). This would certainly not be inconsistent with earlier Predynastic trends which apparently saw the establishment of Palestinian type dwelling and storage structures at Maadi in the Cairo area (Watrin and Blin 2003). The presence of Levantine vessels in a number of First Dynasty tombs also suggests that trade with the Levant was important at this time. Evidence from Kafr Hassan Dawood may indicate that trade was less important after the reign of Narmer. The site had been very prosperous in Naqada III with its most prosperous phase during the reign of Narmer, but becoming less wealthy after the reign of Aha “thus correlating with a reduction of egypt’s prsence in the Southern Levant (EBII) and the disuse of the Sinai coastal route” (Hassan et al 2003, p.44). A rather more forceful approach may have been taken during the reign of the fourth ruler, Den, who appears from records on the Palermo Stone, to have engaged in a number of military campaigns against southern Palestine, desert nomads and an unknown locality. As well as a number of fragments, 76 complete Levantine vessels date to this reign, indicating that whatever the nature of the relationship between Egypt and the Levant at this time, Levantine products continued to be important in Egypt. Mark believes that in the case of the early burial monuments, royal and elite, “such tombs could easily have been supported by a regional economy” (Mark 1997, p.104) and would not have needed to rely on the state finance. However, even though extraordinary wealth and mobilization of manpower may not have been necessary for building some of the early Dynastic tombs (unlike the pyramids from the Third Dynasty onwards) it is possible that state permission may have been needed to build a tomb in one of the elite cemeteries. For “common” people pursuing agriculture, life would probably have gone on in much the same way following unification, with different administrations collecting the same types of taxes that the local rulers formerly collected, but perhaps with the growing requirement for corvee labour, as bigger building projects were required. Unless they were taxed beyond their ability to grow produce for subsistence requirements, the everyday activities and standards of living of agricultural villages would have changed little. For the agriculturalist, continuity, although hidden in the archaeological record, was probably the order of the day. Opportunities, however, would have emerged and provided additional layers and textures in peasant-level society as some left the fields to become specialist craftsmen, while others laboured in quarries and on buildings instead of in the fields. The A-Group of Nubia, who had been very wealthy for most of the Naqadan period, survived into the early First Dynasty, importing Egyptian products contained in marl ware, also called Hard Orange Ware, but began to loose definition by the end of the First Dynasty, at a time when these imports also ceased (Takamiya 2004). The suggestion of Hor-Aha sending a military campaign to Nubia may have something to do with this downturn in A-Group fortunes. Burial Architecture and Traditions As architectural entities, the Early Dynastic tombs are not in any way conspicuous or remarkable, at least when compared to those of Khasekhemwy and the Old Kingdom pyramids. In fact, Grajetzki points out that in the early First Dynasty “the burial customs of the First Dynasty are in general not very different from those already known from the Naqada period. The change lies in the richness of the tombs” (Grajetzki 2003, p.7). This shows some continuity from earlier times, when there is distinct differentiation between rich and less important graves. However, over time First Dynasty tombs showed a a number of design innovations. not only in terms of the monumental construction, often with palace façade architecture, but in terms of the resource and ability needed to create them. This is not confined to royal tombs, but to elite tombs in general. In the reign of Den a staircase from the surface to the burial chamber was added - a significant innovation which continued to be used by following kings. The reign of Anerdjib saw the evolution, in Mastaba S3038 in northern Saqqara, of a hidden step-shaped tumulus which covered the chamber and was in turn completely covered by the tomb’s superstructure. Wilkinson (1999, p.79) describes it as “a landmark in the longer-term development of Egyptian mortuary architecture and symbolism”. First Dynasty mastabas were generally accompanied, in both royal and elite tombs, by funerary stelae to identify the owner and his titles. Most of the First Dynasty tombs were plundered, but sufficient grave goods survive to build a picture. In Royal tombs, part from the coffin (made of wood) grave goods equated very closely to objects from everyday life including furniture, weaponry, jewellery, and vessels containing food and wine. This continues to establish the earlier tradition of supplying resources for the afterlife. As mentioned above, the idea of taking the present life into the afterlife was not restricted to grave goods - two First Dynasty kings, with adjacent burials dating to the same time as their own burials, appear to have seen fit to take their entire households with them into the next life. The burial of Djer was accompanied by nearly 300 subsidiary burials. The standard elite tomb of the First Dynasty consisted of a funerary complex in two parts - an underground chamber for the dead, which started out as a deep shaft and and over ground structure over the shaft and burial chamber. Tombs were constructed of mudbrick and storage chambers contained vessels. The superstructure had a very distinctive sculpted facade with vertical niches of different depths forming a so-called palace-facade, and usually incorporated space for a mortuary cult (Grajetzki 2003). The tomb of the Chancellor Hemaka provides an example of the burial tradition dating to the reign of Den. A wealth of grave-goods included inlaid gaming disks, and a circular wooden box which contained the oldest known papyrus. Towards the end of the First Dynasty, the palace facade was used less. The royal and higher elite graves were not the only ones to survive: “The burials of poorer people offer a dramatic contrast to those of the rich” (Gratjetzki 2003 p.11). Tarkhan cemetery exemplifies how some of the less important individuals were buried. Although there were some very rich graves at Tarkhan, the simplest were shallow pits with a few pottery jars, and occasionally joints of meat as grave goods. Throughout the First Dynasty there is an increased preoccupation with protecting tomb contents: “the substructure was deepened and because the owner now amassed more elaborate and extensive tomb equipment, the superstructure was creased in size and a stairway was built into its east side, which gave direct access to the burial chamber” (David 2002, p.71). Instead of placing grave goods in the superstructure, where they were more vulnerable to theft, they were placed underground. Although it is not possible to extrapolate backwards in time from the Old Kingdom, the Pyramid Texts, but it is more than likely that they capture some of the accumulated religious thinking of previous centuries. Some of this can be detected in early religious iconography. The identification of the King with the divine occurs at least from the Early Dynastic period: “the king was regarded as an absolute monarch who, as ‘god on earth’ was considered to be the embodiment of whichever state god was supreme” (David 2002, p.68). The identification of the king’s name with the Horus falcon in serekhs from some of the the earliest kings suggests that this idea of divine kingship was established at least by the end of the Late Predynastic period. The increasing importance of religion during the First Dynasty is visible both in the increasing importance of funerary architecture and grave goods, which implies an interest in the afterlife, but also the record of the Palermo Stone which for the year of Den records royal visits to important shrines and the foundation of a new temple called “The Thrones of Gods”. The importance of ceremonies is also indicated by mentions of the Running of the Apis Bull and other ritual activities dating to Den’s reign. Just as little is known about what happened at the end of the First Dynasty, not much is known about some of the rulers of the Second Dynasty. This maybe because there were internal problems during the Second Dynasty, which have led to confused records of the sort that is seen during the First Intermediate, where political and economic fragmentation are matched by a breakdown of official records and clearly defined traditions. Just as Hassan (2005) suggests that the end of the Old Kingdom and the onset of the First Intermediate is due to falling Nile levels which destabilized the economy, it is possible that falling Nile levels mentioned on the Palermo stone may have had impacted Egypt at this time. The lack of clear records for the Second Dynasty means that it has been impossible to suggest a duration for the amalgamated reigns of the Second Dynasty Pharaohs. The first three kings seem to be fairly clearly established, as does the last king of the Second Dynasty, but those in between are very poorly understood. The following is again based on Wilkinson’s (1999) and descriptions: Very little is known about Hetepsekhemwy. He abandoned Abydos as a royal burial ground and established a new mortuary complex in Saqqara which, as Wilkinson says “represents a fundamental change and must have some historical significance” (1999, p.83). It featured a new tomb design, which included a large gallery. Items of particular interest dating to his reign include a statuette of the priest Hetepdief and the grave in Badari of a mortuary priest. The name of Nebra has traditionally been written Raneb. Again, not a great deal is known about him. A pink granite funerary Stela was found, which lacks the traditional First Dynasty raised border, was probably the most interesting of the artefacts found. A rock engraving near Armant in the Western Desert (known as Site 34) may indicate that an expedition into the oases took place, but what form this might have taken is unknown. Ninetjer is the best understood of all the Second Dynasty reigns and seems to have reigned for around 35 years, but is not known from outside the Memphis area. His tomb was 130m east of Hetepsekhemwy and similar in design. Most information about the reign of Ninetjer derives from the Palermo Stone, and is very informative. Religious festivals are recorded, focused on early deities - Sokar, Nekhebet and the Apis Bull. Possible unrest is recorded in Year 13: “The entry reads ‘first feast of Dw3-Hr-Pt. Attaching the towns of Sm-r’ and H3’. The name of the second locality means ‘north land’, and some have interpreted this as recording the suppression of a rebellion in Lower Egypt.” (Wilkinson 1999, p.85). There may have been a breakdown of central control at the end of the reign. Weneg was one of a number of poorly understood kings who apparently ruled briefly until the last reign of the Second Dynasty. His Horus name is unknown and this name is his nswt-bity name. No tomb has been found, and he is unknown outside Saqqara. Sened was another king with whom no Horus name is associated, and is only known from King Lists. There has been some suggestion that a period of political disintegration left Sened as a northern ruler and Peribsen as a ruler in the south with Egypt once again divided under more than one king. Peribsen is a king about whom there has been a substantial amount of speculation, partly because of the unique way in which his name is displayed with the Seth-animal replacing the falcon over the serekh. He is only known from Upper Egypt and he was buried in Abydos, unlike any previous king of the Second Dynasty. It is possible that he ruled exclusively in the south, and that the choice of Seth, who was sacred to Naqada in Upper Egypt from early times was chosen to highlight the difference between two states. The name of Nubnefer is known twice on stone vessels from the Saqqara Step Pyramid. Wilkinson suggests that Ninetjer and Nubnefer were probably “near contemporaries” (1999, p.89) and that and that their exact place in the overall sequence is very difficult to establish. There are two theories concerning Sekhemib-Perenmaat, whose name is found on inscribed stone vessels in the Step Pyramid. One is that it is another name for Peribsen, and another is that it is the name of the successor of Peribsen. The last king of the Second Dynasty was Khasekhemwy, about whom rather more is known. His name initially took the form Khasekhem, which means “the power has appeared” but was later changed to Khasekhemwy “the two powers have appeared”. In the later form his name was shown with both the Seth animal and the Horus falcon with an added epiphet which read “nbwy htp im.f ‘the two lords are at peace in him’ ” (Wilkinson 1999, p.91). Early in his reign he is best known from Hierakonpolis, where his name was written in a form with a text that translates as “the year of fighting the northern enemy (Wilkinson 1999, p.91). There are a number of implications here that if the country had been divided into a northern and southern state, Khasekemwy’s early rule was over Upper Egypt alone, but that after military action it may have been reunited at this stage under his rule, at which point he changed his name. After he takes his new name, there is an instance of him being named as the overseer of foreign lands, and evidence of him in Byblos, perhaps implying an extension of military activity into the Lebanon. Shunet ez-Zebib, is mortuary building at Abydos, was made of mudbrick but lined with blocks of dressed limestone, which is the earliest example of this sort of monumental architecture using dressed limestone. The adjacent fleet of buried boats is thought to either predate the enclosure or to be contemporary with it. The Shunet ez-Zebib structure has a parallel at Hierakonpolis known as The Fort, although it is not known why two monuments were required. The grave goods from the Abydos funeral complex include a scepter with bands of gold, dolorite vases with sheet gold, amongst other grave goods that display skilled craftsmanship. Following the end of the Second Dynasty, the Old Kingdom is established with the beginning of the Third Dynasty.
Because so little information is available it is difficult to get a grasp on what happened in terms of government and administration during this phase. However, it does seem very likely that state control broke down and it may be that Egypt divided into two separate states, one in the north and one in the south, before being reunited under Khasekhemwy. As mentioned above, the Palermo Stone makes mention of a fall in Nile levels, and “indicates that there was a significant drop in the average height of the annual inundation after the end of the First Dynasty”. This could well have impacted the Egyptian economy, which could in turn have undermined the entire state mechanism. Burial Architecture and Traditions in the Second Dynasty During the Second Dynasty, the underground component of funerary complexes were developed with many more chambers, apparently copying house layouts. The over-ground structure was more simple, with less chambers than in the First Dynasty, and more of a solid chamber-free monument, functioning as a statement rather than a storage facility. The palace facade motif was used less, and two small chapels were no added at the eastern end of the complex, where a mortuary cult could be serviced (Gratjetzki 2003). A new tradition dating to the Second Dynasty is the addition of text next to the title on a funerary stela, detailing items required in the afterlife. This tradition evolved and was maintained into the New Kingdom and beyond - something that was of fundamental importance for nearly 3000 years. Khasekhemwy’s two funeral structures, The Fort at Hierakonpolis and Shunet ez-Zebib at Abydos mark the first stages of truly monumental funerary architecture: “His mortuary constructions foreshadow the pyramid age, and his political achievements seem to have re-established the internal stability and prosperity needed for the great cultural achievements of his successors” (Wilkinson 1999, p.94). During the Second Dynasty, David (2002, p.71) suggests that “Funerary goods in the royal tombs continued to be elaborate, but in non-royal tombs the standard declined, and instead the owners chose to express their status and wealth in terms of the tomb structure itself rather than in the contents”. Mudbrick continued to be the main construction material, with only Khasekhemwy using dressed limestone in his burial monuments.
By the end of the Early Dynastic period, a number of Gods were clearly established in Egypt, some established probably for many centuries. They include Wadjet, Hekhebet, Seshat, Ptah, Neith, Atum Seth and Horus. Horus appears to have been the supreme god at this stage. Ra was probably also recognized in the Early Dynastic. The earliest reference to a stone-built temple dates to the Second Dynasty, mentioned on the Palermo Stone (David 2002, p.71),
The Early Dynastic of the Nile Delta is well represented, almost exclusively in funerary remains, but it is often difficult to tell to which Dynasty graves and groups of graves belong. This section describes in brief some of the sites that have been discovered in the Delta with Early Dynastic contexts, and what these imply. Minshat Ezzat (El-Baghadi 2003) is located in the northeastern Delta 40km south of Mansoura and 20km southwest of Mendes. It was the subject of SCA investigations in 1989-1999 and 2000-2002. It is a cemetery site with three periods represented - the Protodynastic (10 graves), Early Dynastic (92 graves) and Graeco-Roman. The Early Dynastic tombs were rectangular and lined with mud slabs. Tombs were chambered, with between one and five chambers. Where more than one chamber featured, one chamber was allocated to the burial and the other/s were used for grave goods. Grave goods included a wide variety of components, some very fine, including alabaster and schist vessels, flint knives, stone and copper bracelets, wine jars, cylindrical beads in a necklace, and a 48cm flint knonfe with Den’s serekh (dating to the First Dynasty). A settlement was located directly to the east of the cemetery. Excavations at Minshat Abu Omar (or Tell es-Sabaa Banat) began in 1977 following an exploratory survey in 1966(reference). There were 370 Predynastic and Early Dynastic graves found, some cut into by intrusive Graeco-Roman graves. Most were undisturbed with only a few having been robbed. As a whole, the Early Dynastic period “appears to have been a time of great creativity and inventiveness, in the course of which the elite culture of Pharaonic Egypt can be seen taking shape. While this creativity was to continue into the Third Dynasty, by the end of the Early Dynastic Period most of the principal elements of the court culture of the Old Kingdom were probably in place” (Trigger 1983, p.66). It does not seem, however, to have been entirely plain sailing, with evidence of disruption and political division in the Second Dynasty, perhaps relating to economic difficulties caused by low floods. The Third Dynasty is the beginning of the Old Kingdom.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All text and images on this site are the copyright of Andrea Byrnes andie@easynet.co.uk 2003, 2004, 2005 unless otherwise stated |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
