Early Dynastic Egypt

by Toby A H Wilkinson

  Although the characteristics of early states are broadly similar for different regions of the ancient world, the factors involved in state formation are likely to have varied according to particular circumstances (Cohen 1978). Different authors have postulated different ‘prime movers’, that is principal factors, for the emergence of the Egyptian state (Bard 1994:1–5). These include population pressure (Carneiro 1970; Bard and Carneiro 1989), prompting Upper Egyptian rulers to annex the fertile fields of the Delta to support a growing population (F.A.Hassan 1988:165–6); the influence of irrigation in the concentration of power (Wittfogel 1957); trade (Bard 1987); and ideology (Bard 1992; cf. Kemp 1989:32 and 35). Although all these factors are likely to have played a part in the

  concentration of political and economic power, some can be rejected decisively as ‘prime movers’.

  For example, given the carrying capacity of agricultural land in Upper Egypt and the probable size of the ancient population, it seems unlikely that population pressure was a significant factor in the formation of the Egyptian state (F.A.Hassan 1988:165; Kemp 1989:31; contra Hoffman 1980:309). Even though the strip of cultivable land is often very narrow in Upper Egypt, it seems always to have been sufficient to support the ancient population. None the less, the end of the Neolithic subpluvial and the accompanying desiccation of the savannahs probably caused an influx of desert pastoralists into the Nile valley in the late Predynastic period. Such a phenomenon seems to be attested at Hierakonpolis (Hoffman et al. 1986), and it may have played a part in the social processes which led to the formation of the state. The Scorpion macehead is an exception amongst early royal iconography which generally makes no reference to irrigation works. It is also unlikely that water management in the Nile valley was organised on a national scale in Early Dynastic times. The evidence from later periods of Egyptian history indicates that irrigation was not centrally controlled, nor would central control have been practicable: basin irrigation was the most efficient way of harnessing the floodwaters of the Nile, and this would have been most effectively managed at the local or regional level by communities, perhaps overseen by local governors. Hence, the control of irrigation on a nation-wide basis can probably be discounted as a major factor in Egyptian state formation (Janssen 1978:217; Lamberg-Karlovsky and Sabloff 1979:129; F.A. Hassan 1988:165; cf. Hoffman 1980:315–16). It has been argued that the need for ever more complex information processing was a key factor in Mesopotamian state formation (Wright and Johnson 1975). In Egypt, too, there is little doubt that the increasing centralisation of political and economic authority required sophisticated forms of administration – notably record-keeping and the invention of writing (Postgate et al. 1995). However, this seems to be a correlate or effect of state formation rather than a primary cause.

  It is now generally accepted that a combination of factors was responsible in the Egyptian case (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Sabloff 1979:207–11, 329–30; F.A.Hassan 1988:164–6; Wilkinson 1996b: 90). The archaeological and iconographic record emphasises two factors, trade and ideology. In discussing them, an obvious danger arises: because these two factors were clearly at work in late Predynastic Egypt (more clearly, perhaps, than other factors mentioned above), it is all too easy to overstate their influence on the process of state formation as a whole. The emergence of the Egyptian state is best understood as having a ‘multiplicity of causes’ (F.A.Hassan 1988:165).

  Recent excavations at Abydos and in the Delta—at sites such as Buto and Minshat Abu Omar—have highlighted the important part played by foreign trade in the dynamics of state formation (contra Kemp 1989:31). Of course, the increasing demand for prestige goods acquired by trade was a consequence, not a cause, of social inequality (F.A.Hassan 1988:165). None the less, a strategic location for trade seems to have been the common factor in the rise of particular Predynastic centres. From Buto and Minshat Abu Omar in the Delta to This, Naqada and Hierakonpolis in Upper Egypt, and Qustul in Lower Nubia: all seem to have gained importance and power through access to, or control of, trade routes. The vast numbers of imported vessels buried in tomb U-j at Abydos demonstrate the importance of foreign commodities to the late Predynastic rulers of Upper Egypt, and

  the active part they played in long-distance trade. It is probably no coincidence that the territory conquered by the kings of Upper Egypt to achieve political unification was that which gave them direct access to Near Eastern trade routes, via land and sea. The rapid demise of the indigenous Lower Nubian A-Group at the beginning of the First Dynasty can also be attributed to Egyptian expansionism, as the early kings sought to eliminate the middlemen in their trade with sub-Saharan Africa. The desire for direct access to foreign commodities is manifested in the phenomenon of ‘core and periphery’, attested for other early civilisations (Rowlands et al. 1987; Algaze 1993). In the process of political and economic consolidation, the kings of the late Predynastic period and early First Dynasty temporarily extended their power beyond the natural borders of Egypt, mounting raids into Lower Nubia to subdue the local population and establishing outposts in southern Palestine to exploit the local resources directly. The character of the Egyptian presence in southern Palestine has been understood only recently, and it underscores the central importance of trade in the state formation process.

  A factor which must have played a part in the unification of Egypt is the ‘generative power that works from the top downwards and from the centre outwards’ (Kemp 1989:7) or, to put it another way, political ambition and the charisma of particular rulers (Service 1975:291; Wilkinson 1996b: 89). Although Hierakonpolis and its rulers appear to have been at the heart of the unification process, it was the royal family of This that ultimately seized the prize of kingship. The reasons behind this are not clear, but perhaps the character of the competing rulers played a part in the final outcome. Once a unified state had been forged, Egypt’s early kings lost no time in promulgating an ideology of kingship which presented the unification of the country as the fulfilment of a predestined order. We cannot hope to know if a similar belief in the divine ordination of Egyptian unity inspired the late Predynastic rulers of Upper Egypt with the missionary zeal to annex the north and make Egyptian unity a political reality (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Sabloff 1979:133; cf. Kemp 1989:35). However, ideology is a powerful force for historical change and, as one leading scholar has pointed out, ‘states are…built on the urge to rule and on visions of order’ (Kemp 1989:9; cf. Wenke 1991:283–4). We must now examine the process of conquest and annexation that resulted in Egyptian unification, and attempt to reconstruct the course of events that led to the birth of Egypt as a nation state.

  POLITICAL UNIFICATION: A HYPOTHESIS

  The archaeological evidence makes it clear that, by the end of Naqada II (c. 3200 BC), the most powerful centres were This, Naqada and Hierakonpolis in Upper Egypt (Kemp 1989:34, fig. 8). The regional traditions of pottery manufacture identified in Naqada I Upper Egypt may hint at the existence of incipient territories even earlier (R.Friedman 1994:4–5); these ‘social regions’ may have formed the basis for the later political divisions (R.Friedman 1994:569). There is an unbroken sequence of élite/royal tombs at Hierakonpolis from the Naqada I period to the very threshold of the First Dynasty. At Naqada, there is a slight hiatus between the sequence of élite tombs in Cemetery T—the latest of which (T36) dates to early Naqada III, even though a relatively poor grave (T33) in the same cemetery dates to the threshold of the First Dynasty (Hendrickx 1993; cf.

  Baumgartel 1970: LXIX)—and the royal tombs of the early First Dynasty. This break is probably significant, and suggests that Naqada was eclipsed by one of its neighbouring territories (either Abydos to the north or Hierakonpolis to the south) during the final stages of the state formation process. At Abydos, the First Dynasty royal tombs on the Umm el-Qaab are the direct successors of the Predynastic élite burials in Cemetery U which span the period between late Naqada I and the end of the Predynastic period, with an apparent, unexplained gap during the middle of N
aqada II. Moreover, the size of tomb U-j may indicate that its occupant already ruled much of Egypt as early as Naqada III (c. 3150 BC). The process of political unification seems to have been well under way, if not already complete, by the time tomb U-j was constructed. Indeed, the wide geographic distribution of similar types of pottery by the end of Naqada II may suggest that a degree of political unity already existed several generations before tomb U-j was built (R. Friedman 1994:435). The royal cemetery at Qustul attests the short-lived existence of a powerful Lower Nubian polity during the Naqada III period. The largest grave in Cemetery L—which contained the decorated incense burner mentioned earlier—is roughly contemporary with Abydos tomb U-j. Rock-cut inscriptions in the vicinity of the Second Cataract seem to record punitive expeditions mounted by Egyptian rulers against Lower Nubia, leading to the extirpation of the indigenous A-Group and the demise of the Qustul kingdom by the beginning of the First Dynasty. Hence, the evidence of tombs provides some clues about the dominant players in the final centuries of state formation.

  Iconography and ideology may also be of some help. The later importance of Horus and Seth in the doctrine of divine kingship points to the significance of Hierakonpolis and Naqada in the process of unification (Kemp 1989:37). The two crowns associated with the king from the very beginning of the First Dynasty may have originated at these two places. The red crown is shown in relief on a sherd from a large black-topped red ware vessel from Naqada (Payne 1993:94, fig. 34.774; Baines 1995:149, fig. 3.1). The vessel probably dates to late Naqada I (c. 3600 BC), making this by far the earliest occurrence of the red crown and suggesting that this item of royal regalia may have originated at Naqada, perhaps as the headgear worn by the local ruler. The white crown is first attested on two royal artefacts from the late Predynastic period, the carved ivory handle of a flint knife (Williams and Logan 1987, esp. 273, fig. 1) and the decorated incense burner from Qustul Cemetery L. The knife handle is unprovenanced but is likely to have come from somewhere in Upper Egypt. Given the evidence for cultural contacts between Qustul and Hierakonpolis in Naqada III, it is tempting to locate the origins of the white crown at Hierakonpolis. In this case, the red crown would have symbolised a northern power to the Predynastic kings of Hierakonpolis, just as in the historic period the red crown was transferred to symbolise Lower Egypt (cf. F.A.Hassan 1988:174). The so-called ‘monuments of unification’—the decorated ceremonial palettes and maceheads commissioned by rulers of the late Predynastic period and early First Dynasty—were traditionally interpreted as records of actual events in the process of state formation. The Narmer palette, in particular, was thought to represent the king’s victory over a Lower Egyptian ruler. Even recently, it has been suggested that this latter ruler may have been based at Buto, and that he controlled a territory which may have included Memphis and Tarkhan. This line of argument leads to the romantic suggestion that Buto was the last, northernmost refuge of a Lower Egyptian dynasty contemporary with the late Predynastic kings of Upper Egypt, giving rise to the later myth about two competing kingdoms (von

  der Way 1993:96). The argument against such hypotheses centres around the purpose and interpretation of artefacts like the Narmer palette. They may just as easily depict symbolic or ritual activities as actual events in the political consolidation of Egypt (Millet 1990; Fairservis 1991; Baines 1995:117). Literal interpretations of the scenes are now generally regarded as old-fashioned (Shaw and Nicholson 1995:197), and it is perhaps safer to ignore the palettes and maceheads as potential historical sources. (Note, however, that an historical interpretation of the Narmer palette may be given new weight by the recent discovery of a label of the same king which names the event depicted on his palette.)

  Taking into account all the evidence, it is possible to suggest the following hypothetical reconstruction of events leading to the political unification of Egypt. As early as Naqada I, powerful centres had developed at This, Naqada and Hierakonpolis in Upper Egypt, whilst local élites at other sites exercised varying degrees of economic and political control over their respective territories. During the course of Naqada II (c. 3400 BC), powerful local rulers are attested at Abadiya (Kaiser and Dreyer 1982:244; Williams 1986:173) and Gebelein, but it was the three major centres and their ruling families that continued to dominate the processes associated with state formation. Towards the end of Naqada II, a flourishing polity arose in Lower Nubia, ruled by kings who shared the emergent iconography of rule with their counterparts in Upper Egypt. At some point early in Naqada III, the Predynastic kingdom of Naqada was probably incorporated—whether by political agreement or by military force cannot be established—into the territory of a neighbouring kingdom. The amalgamation of these two polities would then have preceded the unification of Upper Egypt as a whole (F.A.Hassan 1988:165). The Cairo fragment of the Palermo Stone shows, in the top register, a line of kings wearing the double crown (hand copy by I.E.S.Edwards in the library of the Faculty of Oriental Studies, Cambridge University; cf. Trigger et al. 1983:44 and 70). If the red and white crowns originated at Naqada and Hierakonpolis respectively, then these figures—often interpreted as kings of a united Egypt before the beginning of the First Dynasty—may represent rulers of an Upper Egyptian polity comprising the territories of Hierakonpolis and Naqada. Furthermore, the adoption of the local god of Hierakonpolis, Horus of Nekhen, as the supreme deity of kingship, and the special attention paid to the temple of Horus by early kings, suggests that it was the rulers of Hierakonpolis who made the first move in the game of power-play that was ultimately to lead to the unification of Egypt. The annexation of Naqada would explain the gap in the sequence of élite burials at the site at the end of Naqada III, a period which is marked at Hierakonpolis by the large tombs at Locality 6. Alternatively, Naqada may have been eclipsed by its northern rival: despite the undoubted importance of Hierakonpolis, the unparalleled size of Abydos tomb U-j (slightly earlier in date than the élite tombs at Hierakonpolis Locality 6) suggests that the kingdom of This was already dominant by early Naqada III, at least in the northern part of the Nile valley. Perhaps the ruler of This also exercised hegemony over Lower Egypt by this time, giving him access to the foreign trade which is so dramatically attested in the imported vessels buried in his tomb. Nevertheless, it is still possible that several rulers, each with his own regional power- base, continued to co-exist and to claim royal titles. This may account for a number of the royal names attested at the end of the Predynastic period.

  It is not clear how politically advanced the Delta was in late Predynastic times. A more hierarchical social structure may have developed rapidly in the wake of Upper Egyptian cultural influences which permeated Lower Egypt in late Naqada II (von der Way 1993:96). There were probably powerful local élites at several sites, notably Buto and Saïs. Some Lower Egyptian rulers may have adopted elements of early royal iconography, particularly the serekh, since many of the vessels incised with serekh marks have a Lower Egyptian provenance (Kaiser and Dreyer 1982: figs 14 and 15). It is quite likely that the Upper Egyptians who spearheaded the drive toward political unification had to overcome or accommodate local Lower Egyptian rulers. None the less, we cannot discount the possibility that the Delta had been incorporated into a larger polity centred on This by the Naqada III period (c. 3200 BC). Certainly it was the rulers of This who ultimately triumphed in the contest for political power and claimed the prize of kingship over the whole country, even though Hierakonpolis seems to have remained important until the very end of the Predynastic period. Control of Lower Egypt would undoubtedly have given the Thinite rulers a major advantage over their southern rivals.

  Given that King ‘Scorpion’ dedicated his ceremonial macehead in the temple at Hierakonpolis, and that he is not attested at Abydos, the theory that he belonged to the royal house of Hierakonpolis is an attractive one. If this was the case, there may have been two rival polities governed from This and Hierakonpolis up to the very threshold of the First Dynasty. The reverence shown to Hierakonpolis by the
Early Dynastic kings may reflect the site’s importance during the final stages of state formation. The end of Scorpion’s reign may have marked a decisive turning-point, the moment at which the king of This assumed an uncontested position as sovereign of all Egypt. During the peak of activity that accompanied political unification, Egyptian control was extended beyond the borders of Egypt proper into Lower Nubia, crushing the local kingdom centred at Qustul and leading to the rapid disappearance of the indigenous A-Group culture. Military raids by early Egyptian rulers are commemorated in two rock-cut inscriptions at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman in the Second Cataract region (Needier 1967; Murnane 1987). Egyptian ‘colony sites’ also seem to have been established in southern Palestine, suggesting a degree of political control, or at least influence, in the region. The final stages of state formation may have been accomplished quite quickly, within two or three generations, and Narmer may, after all, have been the first king to exercise authority throughout the country unchallenged. He seems to have been regarded by at least two of his successors as something of a founder figure (Shaw and Nicholson 1995:18). It remains impossible to define the moment at which a single king ruled Egypt for the first time. From the evidence, this must have occurred at some point between the lifetime of the owner of Abydos tomb U-j (c. 3150 BC) and the reign of Narmer (c. 3000 BC) (cf. Malek 1986:26). Many scholars favour an earlier rather than a later date for political unification, but the evidence is by no means unanimous.

  The actual means by which the rulers of This ultimately gained control over the whole country is not known. Annexation of neighbouring territories must have involved negotiation and accommodation at the very least. It is not unlikely that more forceful tactics were required, and the possibility of military action cannot be ruled out, despite the difficulties involved in interpreting monuments like the Narmer Palette. The ‘Libyan Palette’ depicts attacks on a number of fortified cities (Petrie 1953: pl. G; Kemp 1989:50, fig. 16; Spencer 1993:53, fig. 33), but again the symbolism of the decoration may not be