Early Dynastic Egypt

by Toby A H Wilkinson

  that this vase may have been commissioned to commemorate a campaign by Scorpion against Nubia, represented by the bow (Needier 1967:91).

  Figure 5.3 Campaigns against Nubia. Iconographic evidence for Egyptian aggression (real or ideological) against its southern neighbour: (1) late Predynastic rock-cut inscription from Gebel Sheikh Suleiman near the Second Cataract, recording a

  punitive incursion by Egyptians, perhaps under the command of a ruler from Hierakonpolis (after Needier 1967: pl. I, fig. 3); (2) a second rock-cut inscription from Gebel Sheikh Suleiman, recording a subsequent campaign by an Egyptian king of the late Predynastic period (after Murnane 1987:285, fig. 1A-B); (3) wooden label of Aha from Abydos referring to a campaign against Ta-Sety, the name applied in later periods to Nubia (after Emery 1961:51, fig. 11); (4) fragmentary limestone stela of Khasekhem from the temple at Hierakonpolis, recording the king’s suppression of Nubia; the bow on the head of the prostrate captive identifies him as the representative of subjugated Nubia (the bow was the hieroglyph for (Ta-)Sety, ‘Nubia’) (after Emery 1961:100, fig. 64). Not to same scale.

  EARLY DYNASTIC MILITARY CAMPAIGNS IN LOWER NUBIA

  At the beginning of the First Dynasty the royal cemetery at Qustul was abandoned, indicating that the local rulers had lost power to the invading Egyptians. The virtual extinction of the Lower Nubian A-Group is traditionally linked to the beginning of Egyptian domination in Nubia. The rulers of a newly unified Egypt seem to have adopted an uncompromising attitude towards their southern neighbours, replacing the previous symbiotic relationship that had existed between Egypt and Lower Nubia, a relationship which greatly benefited the rulers of Qustul in their role as middlemen. Egyptian control may have been less than total at first, requiring follow-up action to keep the local population in check (Figure 5.3). The construction of the fortress on Elephantine at the beginning of the First Dynasty seems to have been part of a new, more aggressive Egyptian policy towards Nubia (Seidlmayer 1996b:112). As part of its programme to secure and emphasise national unity—to a large extent through ideology—the central government sought to impose political frontiers based upon territorial control, ‘in place of former, less clearly delimited ethnic border zones’ (Seidlmayer 1996b:113). The Elephantine fortress may have been used as a springboard for raids into Nubia, such as the punitive campaign recorded on a label of Aha (Petrie 1901: pls III.2=XI.l). Further military action is attested at the end of the Second Dynasty, in the reign of the Khasekhem (Quibell and Green 1902: pl. LVIII). The increased Egyptian interest in

  Nubia during the Early Dynastic period may have been connected with changing trade patterns in the Near East. The apparent abandonment of the Egyptian presence in southern Palestine (the ‘residency’ building at En Besor) at the end of the First Dynasty may have resulted from an Egyptian realisation that exotic goods could be obtained more easily from Nubia.

  A permanent Egyptian presence in Lower Nubia

  The next phase of Egyptian policy towards Nubia is marked by the establishment of a permanent garrison at Buhen. It must have become apparent to the Egyptians that political control was difficult to maintain without a permanent presence in the conquered territory. It is difficult to establish precisely when the Egyptian settlement at Buhen was founded. Certainly it was in use by the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty. Sneferu used the fortress as a base to launch strikes against Upper Nubia. However, the large size of the mudbricks employed in the lowest courses of the town at Buhen led its excavator to believe that the town was founded in the Second Dynasty (Emery 1963:117). It is therefore possible that Buhen may have been established as part of Khasekhem’s concerted campaign to restore and reinforce Egyptian control over Lower Nubia.

  An important piece of evidence may support this interpretation. A rock-cut hieroglyphic inscription on the south face of ‘Hill B’, behind the Old Kingdom town of Buhen, has been dated to the Early Dynastic period (H.S.Smith 1972). The translation of the inscription presents a number of difficulties. Nevertheless, the large scale of the inscription and its prominent position close to the settlement at Buhen (less than 300 metres from the town enclosure wall) indicate that the inscription is dedicatory in character. It may be no coincidence that the text apparently refers to the two deities later associated with Buhen, namely Horus and Isis. Perhaps it was carved to commemorate the foundation of the Egyptian settlement at Buhen. It provides further evidence for early Egyptian activity in the Second Cataract region: Hill B is only nine kilometres from Gebel Sheikh Suleiman with its early inscriptions.

  Relations with Upper Nubia

  The status of Upper Nubia in early times and Egypt’s relationship with the area south of the Second Cataract are less well-known. Archaeological investigation has been less intensive than in Lower Nubia, and it is to be hoped that future excavations will reveal much more about the early history of the region. Judging by the occasional references in Egyptian texts, Upper Nubia seems to have supported a substantial population during the Old Kingdom, and probably during the preceding Early Dynastic period as well (O’Connor 1993:27). If the extinction of the indigenous A-Group indicates that Egypt exercised effective control of Lower Nubia from the beginning of the Early Dynastic period, then the raids into Nubia mounted by Early Dynastic kings may have been directed against Upper Nubia in order to maintain Egyptian access to lucrative trade routes (O’Connor 1993:25). It would certainly have been in Egypt’s interests to safeguard its relations with Upper Nubia, since this region was the principal source of many prestige commodities (O’Connor 1993:27).

  Two isolated pieces of evidence suggest a measure of direct contact between Egypt and Upper Nubia towards the end of the Early Dynastic period. The first is an inscribed stone slab from Helwan, dedicated to a man called Sisi (Saad 1957:46, fig. 32, pl. 27; Fischer 1963:35, fig. 1). Stylistically, the piece may be dated to the late Second Dynasty or early Third Dynasty. Sisi is shown wearing a series of armlets, a feature which is unknown amongst contemporary representations of the Egyptian male, but which seems to have been a characteristic of Nubians: compare, for example, a scene from the causeway of Sahura’s mortuary temple (Fischer 1963:35, fig. 2). Moreover, Sisi’s hair is arranged in a distinctive style, with a series of four twisted locks hanging below shoulder level; a comparable style is found in later representations of Nubians and inhabitants of Punt, for example in the Hatshepsut reliefs at Deir el-Bahri (Fischer 1963:36, fig. 3). Taken together, these two characteristics strongly suggest that Sisi was a Nubian, most probably from Upper Nubia.

  The second piece of evidence argues more convincingly for direct trade relations between Egypt and Upper Nubia. It consists of a peripheral burial in Cemetery 7 at Shellal, just south of Elephantine, on the Egyptian-Nubian border (Fischer 1963; O’Connor 1993:27). Although the majority of the graves in this cemetery belonged to the A-Group, dating at the very latest to the early First Dynasty, one burial, isolated from the main group, was dated to a later period, probably the Second or Third Dynasty (Fischer 1963:37). The burial was unquestionably that of a Nubian (O’Connor 1993:27), and the deceased was clearly a man of some status: he was interred holding two valuable copper objects, and wearing an elaborate gold necklace. Each arm was adorned with a v-shaped armlet of ivory, and in addition he wore a series of smaller bracelets on one wrist. The distinctive v-shaped armlet is of a type never encountered in Lower Nubia, but a very similar object is worn by the (Upper) Nubian represented on the Sahura causeway relief mentioned above (O’Connor 1993:27). It has been suggested that the individual buried at Shellal was an Upper Nubian trade envoy who died unexpectedly whilst visiting Egypt (O’Connor 1993:27).

  CHAPTER SIX KINGSHIP‌

  ‘From before “history” began, Egyptian society centered on kingship’ (Baines 1995:147). As this quotation makes clear, the central position of kingship in ancient Egyptian culture has long been recognised and acknowledged by Egyptologists (for example, Hoffman 1980:257). Whilst the enduring achievements of the early Old Kingdom (the G
iza pyramids and sphinx) symbolise for many the apogee of royal power, it has become increasingly clear that the roots of Egyptian kingship go back much further, into the Predynastic period. The evidence for growing social stratification and political centralisation during the Predynastic period has been discussed in Chapter 2. The origins of royal iconography, already evident in the Painted Tomb at Hierakonpolis (dating to Naqada II) have now been pushed even further back with the discovery of a painted vessel in a late Naqada I tomb at Abydos. Inasmuch as iconography is the artistic expression of ideology, we can assume that the Upper Egyptian rulers of late Naqada I were already beginning to formulate an ideology of rule. This was developed and elaborated by the Predynastic kings of This, Naqada and Hierakonpolis, and their successors of the period of state formation. The earliest royal monuments, which date from this time, indicate that the late Predynastic kings were already ‘charged with the power of divinity’ (Frankfort 1948:34).

  By the time Egypt was unified in c. 3100 BC, divine kingship had emerged as a coherent and powerful ideology. Indeed, ‘the unification increased the significance of kingship’ (Frankfort 1948:34), promoting the institution from a regional to a national position. The king no longer exercised merely regional authority, shared with a number of other rulers. He was now at the pinnacle of a national government, responsible for the entire land of Egypt and its people. As the sole source of authority, the king symbolised Egypt itself, and was responsible for maintaining and defending the Egyptian way of life. He acted as intermediary between the population and their gods, and was himself the embodiment of the supreme celestial deity, Horus. The ideology of kingship emphasised the power of the king to intercede on his people’s behalf, including his ability ‘to dominate and further natural processes, especially the inundation’ (Frankfort 1948:58). At its most fundamental, ‘kingship in Egypt remained the channel through which the powers of nature flowed into the body politic to bring human endeavor to fruition’ (Frankfort 1948:34).

  It fell to the rulers of the Early Dynastic period to exploit this ideology for their own ends: to secure and maintain political and economic control of the country and its resources, to promote kingship as the fulfilment of a divinely ordained model for society (cf. Frankfort 1948:101), and hence to ensure the survival of kingship as the only acceptable form of government. The ideology of divine kingship was reinforced and promoted by many means, including the king’s regalia and titulary, depictions of the ruler and his actions (iconography), and the rituals and ceremonies of the court. By exploring these different aspects of early kingship, we can begin to shed some light on the early development of an institution central to Egyptian civilisation, the nature of the institution

  itself, the ideology which surrounded it, and the methods by which the Early Dynastic kings successfully utilised this ideology to reinforce their grip on power.

  THE FRAMEWORK OF KINGSHIP IN EARLY EGYPT

  The king as Horus

  The most fundamental aspect of kingship was the ruler’s embodiment of Horus, the supreme celestial deity. The king’s principal title was the Horus title, ‘the simplest and most direct statement regarding the king’s nature’ (Frankfort 1948:46). It expressed the notion that Horus was incarnate in the reigning monarch, and the Horus name articulated the particular aspect of Horus that the king wished to stress. Although each new reign might highlight a different facet of the supreme deity, the divine essence of the god which inhabited the body of the reigning king remained unchanged.

  The identification of the ruler with Horus, represented by a falcon, is apparent from late Predynastic times, and is given expression on royal monuments and in the serekhs of kings from the period of state formation. It is possible that the worship of a celestial falcon god was widespread in Predynastic Egypt since there is evidence for the existence of several falcon cults. As a universal deity, Horus would have been a natural choice to associate with the kingship, since the connection would necessarily have had greater resonance and significance.

  The concept of Horus as ‘Great(est) god, lord of heaven’ is given unique artistic expression in the ivory comb of Djet, from the early First Dynasty. Here, Horus is represented in three forms: the celestial falcon, whose outspread wings form the vault of the sky; the solar deity, a falcon which traverses the sky in the celestial boat; and incarnate in the person of the king (the falcon atop the king’s serekh). This exceptional work of art is one of the earliest and most concise theological expositions. It expresses the essential elements of the king’s association with Horus and the role of Horus as the supreme deity. Moreover, it ‘presents concisely and clearly the central tenet binding together ancient Egyptian civilisation, the notion that the king fulfils a role on earth under the protective wings of the celestial falcon in heaven’ (Quirke 1992:21–2).

  The dual monarchy

  One of the most extraordinary intellectual achievements of Egypt’s first kings was the concept of the dual monarchy. From the very beginning of the Egyptian state, official ideology and iconography presented the realm as a union of two halves, the Two Lands. The pervasiveness of such imagery in the ancient Egyptian sources highlights the imagination and creativity of Egypt’s early élite. The kings who crafted the Egyptian state from the competing powers of the Predynastic period succeeded in formulating a concept of rule which guaranteed an absolutely pivotal role for the monarchy. The institution of kingship was projected as the sole force which held the country together, and the dual nature of the monarchy was expressed in the king’s regalia, in his titulary, and in royal rituals and festivals. This concept—the harmony of opposites, a totality embracing paired contrasts – chimed so effectively with the Egyptian world-view that the

  institution of kingship acquired what has been called a ‘transcendent significance’ (Frankfort 1948:19). This helps to explain the centrality of the institution to Egyptian culture, and its longevity (Frankfort 1948:15–16). Even when central authority broke down, as it did during the Intermediate Periods, the Egyptians returned unfailingly to the established model of government. The promulgation of such a powerful ideological concept from the very beginning of the Egyptian state effectively masked the political realities of the state formation process, and made a return to the fragmentation of the Predynastic period ideologically inconceivable (cf. Frankfort 1948:20).

  The royal family and the ruling class

  The uppermost register of the Scorpion macehead shows a series of standards with a dejected lapwing hanging by a rope from each one. In the hieroglyphic script, the lapwing represented the rh yt, the common people of Egypt. Hence, the symbolism of this part of the Scorpion macehead seems clear, if a little uncomfortable to the modern mind: the populace of Egypt is quite literally subject to the divine authority of the king. The significance of the scene may go further, and may illuminate an aspect of ancient Egyptian society which is only barely attested. This is its division into two separate groups, the mass of the populace (rh yt) and the ruling class (p t) (Malek 1986:34; Baines 1995:133).

  The composition of the rh yt is fairly clear from the contexts in which the word is used; it refers to the general population. The significance of the term p t is less obvious, though it must refer to the élite, the members of the king’s entourage. A high-ranking title borne by officials from the First Dynasty onwards is ỉrỉ-p t, which seems to indicate a ‘member of the p t’. Although it later became merely an honorific title, marking an individual’s illustrious rank within the royal administration, in origin the title seems to have had a more specific sense, designating a member of the ruling class. It is quite likely that the p t originally comprised the royal kinsmen who, by virtue of their blood ties to the king, however distant, shared something of the supernatural authority vested in the ruler (Frankfort 1948:53). The evidence suggests that in early times all the high officials of the central government were royal relations (Malek 1986:35). This system seems to have broken down during the Old Kingdom when persons of non-royal birth were appoi
nted to important positions within the administration.

  The distinction between the populace and the royal kinsmen must have been an important one, dictating how authority was exercised in the Early Dynastic court. The formal separation of the ruling class from the rest of the population provides a valuable insight into the mechanisms of early royal government in Egypt. It appears that access to political power was carefully restricted, to enhance the absolute authority of the kingship and emphasise its supernatural remoteness from the general populace.

  ICONOGRAPHY: SYMBOLS OF ROYALTY

  Royal regalia

  In the Early Dynastic period as in later times, the crowns, sceptres and other elements of royal regalia had a dual role: power and protection. At the most basic level, they served to identify the king and to set him apart from the rest of humanity (Quirke 1990:10). Moreover, they conveyed his authority, both supernatural (as the gods’ representative) and earthly (as head of state and supreme military commander), just as crowns and sceptres do in modern monarchies. They also had an amuletic function, to protect the king from danger and from the malign forces which were believed to threaten the cosmos.

  Comparatively little has been written about the various items of royal insignia. None the less, it is clear that each object had its own significance and origins. Whilst some of the characteristic royal attributes pre-date the foundation of the Egyptian state, others were added to the developing iconography of divine kingship during the course of the First Dynasty. By the end of the Second Dynasty, royal iconography had been formalised and changed little during the succeeding millennium.