Early Dynastic Egypt

Home > Other > Early Dynastic Egypt > Page 11
Early Dynastic Egypt Page 11

by Toby A H Wilkinson

found his new capital. However, it is noteworthy that, to date, no monument of Narmer has been found at Saqqara, the élite necropolis serving Memphis.

  One of the most heated and protracted debates in Egyptology has raged over the identification of Menes: Narmer, Aha, a conflation of the two, or a mythical figure representing several rulers involved in the process of state formation? Dependent upon this argument is also the proper placement of Narmer: at the end of so-called ‘Dynasty 0’ or at the beginning of the First Dynasty? Although there is perhaps stronger evidence for the latter view (and for the identification of Menes as Narmer), the entire debate is actually rather anachronistic, since the dynasties were not invented until some two-and-a- half-thousand years after Narmer’s lifetime. Nor did the Egyptians have the same sense of history as ourselves. What is of significance is the position held by Narmer in the eyes of his immediate successors, the kings of the First Dynasty. For at least two of them, Den and Qaa, Narmer seems to have been regarded as a founder figure, at least in the context of the royal burial ground at Abydos. In this context, it may also be significant that the earliest inscribed stone vessel from the hoard of thousands buried under the Step Pyramid at Saqqara dates from the reign of Narmer (Lacau and Lauer 1959:9, pl. 1 no. 1). It has been suggested that the inscribed ‘heirlooms’ collected together by Netjerikhet to furnish his burial may have represented an attempt to harness the authority and legitimacy of the king’s predecessors (F.D.Friedman 1995:10).

  It is tempting to interpret the significance of Narmer’s reign in the light of his most famous monument, the ceremonial palette from the ‘Main Deposit’ at Hierakonpolis (Quibell 1898a: pls XII-XIII, 1900: pl. XXIX; Petrie 1953: pls J-K; Kemp 1989:42, fig. 12). The scenes carved on this object are probably the best-known and most intensively studied from early Egypt. Whilst the symbolism of the scenes is clear—they convey Narmer’s triumph and dominion over both Upper and Lower Egypt, particularly the latter—the occasion for which they were carved will never be known. A straightforward historical interpretation of the monument is now generally considered to be unsophisticated and old-fashioned. Instead, it is argued, the palette may commemorate the ritual re-enactment of an earlier military victory (the ‘Unification of the Two Lands’ was an integral component of early coronation rituals), or may belong entirely within the realm of myth and symbol, conveying the omnipotence of the king without alluding to any specific historical incident. However, a partially preserved year label of Narmer, found during the recent German excavations on the Umm el-Qaab, may offer support for the older, historical interpretation of the Narmer palette. The label apparently records the same event as the palette: it shows the catfish of the king’s name smiting a bearded captive, identified by the papyrus plant on his head as an inhabitant (and leader?) of Lower Egypt.

  Another important monument of Narmer’s reign is the decorated macehead, also from the Hierakonpolis ‘Main Deposit’. Like the palette, themacehead has been variously interpreted. An earlier generation of scholars believed it to commemorate Narmer’s wedding to a northern princess. However, the (female?) figure in a carrying-chair shown before the enthroned king may represent a deity, and given the likely southern origin of Queen Neith-hotep there is no corroborative evidence that Narmer sealed the political unification of Egypt by marrying a northern heiress. None the less, a Lower Egyptian setting for whatever ceremony is depicted seems to be confirmed by the depiction of a shrine with a pitched roof, surmounted by a heron: this was the shrine of Djebaut, a

  district of Buto in the north-western Delta. A complicating factor is the wavy-walled enclosure shown beneath this shrine, which has been compared with the ceremonial centre recently excavated at Hierakonpolis (R.Friedman 1996:33).

  Compared to his known predecessors, Narmer is much more widely attested in archaeological contexts. His name has been found on sherds as far afield as Tel Erani (Ward 1969:216, fig. 2), Tell Arad (Amiran 1974,1976) and Nahal Tillah in Israel’s northern Negev (Levy et al. 1995). Similar sherds have been excavated in the north- eastern Nile Delta (for example, van den Brink 1992b: 52, fig. 8.3; in preparation), suggesting active trade between Egypt and southern Palestine in Narmer’s reign. It has been suggested that the Narmer Palette records a military campaign against Palestine (Yadin 1955; Weill 1961:20), although this interpretation is disputed (Ward 1969). More convincing evidence for direct contact between Egyptians and Asiatics during the reign of Narmer is provided by a fragment of inscribed ivory from Narmer’s tomb (B17) at Abydos. It shows a bearded man of Asiatic appearance in a stooping posture, perhaps paying homage to the Egyptian king (Petrie 1901: pl. IV.4–5). In the Delta, a complete vessel bearing Narmer’s serekh was found in a grave at Minshat Abu Omar (Kroeper 1988: fig. 141) and a sherd incised with a damaged serekh which may be the name of Narmer was excavated at Buto (von der Way 1989:293, fig. 11.7). Further objects bearing the name of Narmer have come to light at Zawiyet el-Aryan (Kaplony 1963,1:65–6; II: nn. 252–3, 255; III: pl. 120, no. 721; Dunham 1978:26, pl. XVIa), Tura

  (Junker 1912:47, fig. 57.3–4; Fischer 1963:46, fig. 3c-d, 47) and Helwan (Saad 1947:165, fig. 13a) in the Memphite region; Tarkhan, near the entrance to the Fayum (Petrie et al. 1913: pl. LXI; Petrie 1914: pls VI, XX.l, XXXVIII; Fischer 1963:44 and 45, fig. 2;

  Kaplony 1964: figs 1061–2); and Abydos (Petrie 1900:5, pl. IV.2; 1901: pls II.3, 4, 6, 7,

  X.I, XIII.91–3, LII.359), Naqada (Spencer 1980:64, pls 47, 52 [Cat. 454]) and

  Hierakonpolis (Quibell 1900: pl. XV.7=Kaplony 1963, III: pl. 5, fig. 5; Garstang 1907: pl. III.l=B. Adams 1995:123–4) in Upper Egypt. Finally, there is a rock-cut inscription comprising the serekh of Narmer and a second, empty serekh at Site 18 in the Wadi Qash, half-way between the Nile valley and the Red Sea coast in the eastern desert (Winkler 1938: 10, pl. XI.l). Activity in Egypt’s desert border regions is attested from Predynastic times, and the attractions of the eastern desert (principally its stone and mineral resources) clearly encouraged state-sponsored expeditions from the beginning of the First Dynasty.

  Aha

  There is little doubt that Narmer was succeeded by a king whose name is rendered as Hor-Aha, or more simply as Aha (‘the fighter’). One of the most impressive monuments from the early First Dynasty was the royal tomb at Naqada (de Morgan 1897), now sadly lost through erosion. Identified originally as the tomb of Menes, it is now generally acknowledged to have been the burial place of a senior female member of the First Dynasty royal family named Neith-hotep (see de Morgan 1897:167, figs 550–5; Spencer 1980:63, pls 46 and 51 [Cats. 449, 450]; 1993:61, fig. 41). The occurrence of several labels and sealings of Aha in the tomb probably indicates that the occupant died during the king’s lifetime, and that he oversaw the burial. In this case, Neith-hotep is most plausibly identified as the mother of Aha. The location chosen for her tomb may indicate

  her provincial origins. Naqada is known to have been a major centre of political and economic influence in the Predynastic period, and it is not unlikely that Narmer—a member of the Thinite royal family – would have taken as his wife a member (perhaps the heiress?) of the ancient Naqada ruling family, to cement an important political alliance between two of the key centres of Upper Egyptian authority.

  Aha seems to have made a decisive choice in favour of Memphis as the principal centre of government: the earliest élite mastaba tomb on the escarpment at North Saqqara—overlooking the site of ancient Memphis—dates to his reign (Emery 1939), and belonged to a senior figure in the national administration, perhaps a brother or other male relative of the king’s. Aha himself maintained the tradition of his forebears, and was buried in the ancestral necropolis at Abydos (Petrie 1901). One of the accompanying subsidiary burials yielded objects bearing the name Benerib (Petrie 1901: pls III.l, IIIA.13; Spencer 1993:79, fig. 57)—literally ‘sweet of heart’—and this may have been the name of Aha’s wife. The design of the king’s mortuary complex shows important new features; taken together with the Naqada and North Saqqara tombs, it marks ou
t Aha’s reign as a period of architectural innovation and sophistication. Craftsmanship, too, seems to have flourished under Aha. A few inscribed objects have survived to attest the skills which the king could command: two copper axe-heads; a fragment of an ivory box bearing the king’s name and that of Benerib (Emery 1961:53, fig. 13; Spencer 1993:79, fig. 57); a fragment of a large vessel of glazed composition (faience), with the king’s serekh inlaid in a darker glaze (Petrie 1903:23, pls IV, V.32; Spencer 1993: 73); and two immaculately inscribed white marbles (Kaplony 1965:6 and 7, fig. 4).

  Although Aha’s name has been found at several sites—Abu Rawash (Klasens 1959:57, fig. 8, pl. XXVII.l), Zawiyet el-Aryan (Kaplony 1963, I: 66; II: n. 1592;

  Dunham 1978:1, figs 1, 1a), Saqqara (Emery 1939:20–5, figs 13–20; 1949:76, fig. 38 and

  78, fig. 39; Kaplony 1965:9, pl. I fig. 14, pl. II fig. 15), Helwan (Kaplony 1965:8 and 7, fig. 11), Abydos (Petrie 1901: pls III.2, 6, IIIA.5–6, XI.1–2, XIV) and Naqada (Emery 1961:50, fig. 10)—he is not as widely attested as his predecessor, nor yet has his name been found outside the Nile valley. It is difficult to gain an accurate impression from the limited evidence, but 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 more direct Egyptian exploitation of resources via outposts (such as the First Dynasty ‘residency’ at En Besor in southern Israel) or entrepôts (principally Byblos on the Lebanese coast). To date, only one fragment of Syro-Palestinian pottery has been found in a context datable to the reign of Aha: a sherd of combed ware from Abydos tomb B19 (Adams and Friedman 1992:328, n. 9 [Ashmolean E4029]). Two ebony labels of Aha may record royal visits to the Delta (Petrie 1901: pl. IIIA.5–6), while another label from Abydos depicts a campaign against Ta-Sety (Petrie 1901: pl. III.2), the name given in later periods to Nubia. Whether the label records a real event or a symbolic activity, in a way the message remains the same: Egypt was now looking south with hostile intent, its eyes perhaps fixed on the lucrative trade in exotic goods which passed through the Nubian Nile valley.

  Djer

  Aha was succeeded by King Djer who, if the various reconstructions of the Palermo Stone are to be believed, must have reigned for a considerable period. Nine years from Djer’s reign are recorded on the main Cairo fragment of the royal annals. Apart from recording the biennial royal progress, ‘the following of Horus’, and the fashioning and/or dedication of a variety of cult statues, the Cairo fragment also mentions an expedition to a land named S t. This is the name given later to Western Asia generally, and it is difficult to be more precise about which locality is intended. The En Besor ‘residency’ seems to have been maintained well into the First Dynasty, and it is possible that the Cairo fragment refers to a trade or punitive expedition to southern Palestine. Other authors, however, have interpreted S t as referring to the Sinai, and this must be a strong possibility. Either way, the royal annals seem to indicate renewed Egyptian interest or activity beyond Egypt’s borders to the north-east. Fragments of at least a dozen vessels of Syro-Palestinian origin were found in Djer’s tomb, demonstrating trade between Egypt and the Near East (Petrie 1902, pl. 8.2, 4–6; Bourriau 1981:128 [Catalogue 253]; Serpico

  and White 1996).

  It used to be thought that a rock-cut inscription at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman in Lower Nubia, recording a punitive expedition by Egyptian forces against the local inhabitants, bore the serekh of Djer (for example, Emery 1961:60). It has been conclusively shown that this is not in fact the case; the serekh is anonymous, and the inscription dates to the late Predynastic period (Murnane 1987, following Helck 1970:85; cf. Baines 1995:102; Shaw and Nicholson 1995:86).

  Djer’s burial on the Umm el-Qaab at Abydos (Petrie 1901) was accompanied by numerous subsidiary burials, some of which accommodated women of the royal harem. The short inscriptions—restricted to names and a few titles—on the private funerary stelae from these subsidiary burials provide some evidence for the composition of the royal court in the early First Dynasty, although some of the inscriptions are not easily understood (Amélineau 1899: pls XXXIV-XXXVII, 1904: pl. XVIII; Petrie 1901: pls XXVI-XXIXB). The layout of the royal mortuary complex shows important innovations, and for the first time the tomb on the Umm el-Qaab was accompanied by a separate funerary enclosure, itself surrounded by further subsidiary burials, on the low desert nearer the town and cultivation (Petrie 1925: pl. XVI; Kemp 1966; O’Connor 1989).

  As in the previous reign, craftsmanship of a high quality was maintained under Djer. Among the most impressive artefacts to survive is a flint knife, the handle of which is covered in gold leaf embossed with the king’s serekh (Needier 1956). Metalworking reached new levels of excellence, as attested by an impressive hoard of copper tools, weapons and vessels found in mastaba S3471 at North Saqqara, dated by inscriptions to the reign of Djer (Emery 1949). Even one of the subsidiary graves around the king’s Abydos funerary enclosure yielded a copper adze incised with the royal serekh (Petrie 1925:4, pls III.l, IV.8). Marbles similar to those of Aha have survived from Djer’s reign (Kaplony 1965:6 and 7, fig. 5), whilst another artefact probably represents the oldest known example of three dimensional royal statuary: a headless statuette of light-blue glazed composition from the Satet temple at Elephantine, showing a figure seated on a throne, bears a sign on one side which has been read as r (Dreyer 1981). Further objects bearing the name of Djer have been found at four sites: Saqqara (Quibell 1923: pls VIII.5, XI.2–3, 5, top; Emery 1938:35, fig. 8, pls 17A, 18A; 1961:59, fig. 21; 1939:31,

  fig. 31; 1949:13; 1954:169, figs 225–7; 1958:66, pl. 78.1; 1961:60, fig. 23; Lacau and

  Lauer 1959:9, pl. 1 nos 2–3, pl. 2 nos 4, 14), Tura (Kaiser 1964:103, fig. 3), Helwan (Saad 1947:165, fig. 13b), and Abydos (Petrie 1901: pls V.l-2, XV; 1925:4, pls II.8, 14– 15, XII.l; Spencer 1980:64, pls 47, 53 [cat. 458]). An ivory label of Djer from Abydos seems to record a royal visit to Buto and Saïs in the Delta (Amélineau 1904: pl. XV.19; Emery 1961:59, fig. 20), suggesting that Djer may have maintained his predecessor’s policy of honouring important shrines. The institution of the biennial royal progress, first recorded in Djer’s reign, may have been initiated for the same reason. Djer is not attested from outside Egypt, despite the tantalising reference to Setjet on the Cairo fragment of the royal annals.

  Djet

  The name of Djer’s successor is rendered by modern scholars in a variety of forms: Djet is the most common, but Zet, Wadji and Uadji are also used by some authors. In fact, there is good evidence for an initial ‘W having formed part of the ancient pronunciation: a rock-cut inscription of the king in the western desert south of Edfu preserves a unique writing of the king’s name, the w3 sign accompanying the usual t sign in the serekh (Legrain 1903:221, fig. 7; Porter and Moss 1937:207). Wadjet or Wadji may, therefore, be a more accurate realisation of the king’s name; but, as the most frequently used form, Djet will be retained here. The Horus-falcon in the rock-cut inscription just mentioned was reported as wearing the double crown. If so, it would be the earliest attested occurrence of this element of royal iconography, pre-dating the more famous Abydos label of Den by a generation.

  The indications are that Djet did not enjoy a long reign. Sealings from the royal tombs at Abydos suggest that the career of one high official, Amka, began in the reign of Djer, spanned the entire reign of his successor and continued into the early part of Den’s reign, when the country was under the regency of Queen Merneith (Petrie 1900: pls XIX.10, XX.12–15, 18; 1901: pl. XVI.121, 123). The implication is that Djet occupied the throne for a comparatively short period, probably less than twenty years. None the less, his reign has furnished us with one of the masterpieces of ancient Egyptian art, the king’s magnificent funerary stela from Abydos, now in the Louvre (Vigneau 1935:4; Emery 1961:70, pl. 2b; Kemp 1989:38, fig. 10).

  In his mortuary provision, Djet followed the pattern established by his predecessor (Petrie 1900, 1901, 1925: pl. XVII; Ke
mp 1966). Other major funerary monuments dating from the reign of Djet include two large mastabas at Tarkhan, decorated with niches in the so-called ‘palace facade’ style (Petrie et al. 1913; Petrie 1914). They probably belonged to regional governors who were keen to demonstrate, by the architecture of their tombs, their functional and ideological proximity to the royal court (Wilkinson 1993a: 211). A niched mastaba of even larger proportions, labelled by its excavators mastaba V, was excavated near the village of Nazlet Batran, just south of Giza (Petrie 1907). Sealings of Djet (Petrie 1907:5, pl. IIIA) have given rise to the suggestion that it was constructed for Djet’s queen. An alternative explanation is that it belonged to Djet’s mother, and therefore a wife of Djer’s. Like the Naqada royal tomb, mastaba V may represent a lavish burial for the king’s mother, constructed in the lifetime of her son.

  The name of the occupant is unknown, as are the reasons for the novel location of the tomb.

  In addition to the fine funerary stela, other artefacts from Djet’s reign include an ivory comb, engraved with the king’s serekh and symbols with probable cosmological meaning (Petrie 1925:4, pls II.6, XII.5; Malek 1986:35; Quirke 1992:21–2). Metalworking is represented by a massive copper axe and a large, copper adze, both from a subsidiary burial surrounding Djet’s tomb at Abydos (Petrie 1925: pl. V.5, 7). A fragmentary limestone base from the town enclosure at Hierakonpolis may once have supported a statue of King Djet (Quibell and Green 1902:48, pl. LIX.l). Trade with Syria-Palestine is attested by the pottery vessels of foreign origin found in tombs of Djet’s reign at Saqqara (Emery 1954:75), Tarkhan (Petrie et al. 1913:16, pls XVI.l, XIX.24) and Abydos (Petrie 1925: pl. IV.9–10).

  Merneith

  One of the royal tombs excavated by Petrie at Abydos clearly belonged to an individual called Merneith (Petrie 1900): two large funerary stelae with this name in raised relief were discovered near the tomb (Petrie 1900: pl. LXIV.6; Emery 1961:65, fig. 29; Spencer 1993:82, fig. 60). Despite the fact that the name is not written in the customary serekh, Petrie at first believed Merneith to be a king, like the owners of the other tombs on the Umm el-Qaab. It has since been realised that the name belonged to a queen, more properly realised as Mer(t)neith, ‘beloved of Neith’. From the many sealings of Den found in Merneith’s tomb, Egyptologists surmised that Merneith must have been the king’s mother. This has been confirmed by the recently discovered necropolis sealing from the tomb of Den, which ends with the signs denoting ‘king’s mother Mer(t)neith’. It is clear that Merneith must have occupied an unusually important position for her to have been granted the privilege of a tomb on the Umm el-Qaab. (Interestingly, the necropolis seal of Qaa, modelled closely on Den’s, omits Merneith from the list of First Dynasty rulers; this may indicate that, after the reign of Den himself, Merneith was no longer accorded equal status to the de jure kings of the First Dynasty.) It seems virtually certain that Merneith acted as regent during Den’s minority; Djet must therefore have died while Den was still a child. Merneith may have been the senior royal wife of Djet, although her influence seems to have derived from her position as the mother of the next king. Certainly, Den’s name features prominently on the sealings from her tomb, even those which are thought to date to her own regency. One Egyptologist has speculated that she was also the daughter and heiress of Djer, and thus connected with three consecutive kings of Egypt (Lauer 1966:175–7). This is an attractive theory, but one which cannot, at present, be proven.

 

‹ Prev