The Two Powers Appear

   

Khasekhemwy in Limestone courtesy of looklex
encyclopaedia

     Thus far in our journey in Ancient Egypt, we have seen the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt at the hand of Narmer. We have also witnessed the construction of a capital called Memphis strategically situated between Upper and Lower Egypt by Hor-Aha and finally, to which we last eluded, Den who is credited with the reorganization of the Twin Kingdoms into nomes. After a couple more of these phemeral kings, we have now arrived at the end of the First Dynasty. The next few kings are rather obscure, particularly in the Second Dynasty. One built a monument here and another there but in the grand scheme of things, these few kings are simply unknown only with their names found on the Palermo Stone or the Turin King's List. In this endeavour though, it is the goal here to fast-forward a bit to the end of the Second Dynasty with the pharaoh called Khasekhem whose name means, "The Power appears" and focus on the struggle between him and Peribsen.

     Before we can delve into our history of both Khasekhem and Peribsen, it must be noted that in an

Granite Stela of Peribsen courtesy of
the British Museum

earlier blog, the kings of Egypt had their names written in what is called a serekh. You may remember that a serekh is a crest that contains the pharaoh's name with a falcon (Horus) on the top. What is interesting is that with each passing pharaoh, there was always a falcon surmounted on the serekh however with the arrival of Peribsen, whose name means "House of our Heart, his serekh is not surmounted by a falcon but rather a dog which of course is emblematic of Seth. Why would Peribsen replace the falcon with a dog though?
   
     But who was this Peribsen and why was his serekh surmounted with a dog? In order to find these answers, it behooves us to delve into obscurity so to speak. According to Toby Wilkinson of the Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt, Peribsen  was either the 4th or the 6th king to rule in Egypt's Second Dynasty. This decision depends however on one's view of the two pharaohs between our main characters though. It is believed that these two pharaohs are ephemeral that is to say they did not exist for two reasons. One is that we have never found their tombs and secondly there names have not be found anywhere else that is to say on broken pottery shards or vessels. Continuing our narrative though, Wilkinson puts forth the suggestion that the written records point to some sort of turmoil during the Second Dynasty

Mudbrick Fort courtesy of looklex

between the followers of Horus and the followers of Seth. Of course, whilst all of Peribsen's predecessors having chosen Horus atop their serekhs, it is shocking and offensive  to find that Peribsen chose Seth atop his serekh. One can imagine the chaos and violence that must have ensued!

     With this turmoil as Wilkinson suggests, came the rise of Khasekhem who, like Peribsen, is from Upper Egypt. He particularly loved the city of Nekhen because he lavished the city with statues and shrines throughout the city. It is in Nekhen, interestingly, where stands the oldest still-standing fort made of mud brick. It must be noted here that Nekhen was also the centre of the worship of Horus as well. Khasekhem became a rather important figure at this juncture of Ancient Egyptian history because without him, the monarchy would have dissolved thereby eliminating one of history's greatest civilisations. Archaeologists have unearthed two life-sized statues whose bases are inscribed with not his titles but also scenes of the dead which hint at an offensive in Lower Egypt. Stone vessels found near the statues also corroborate his victory over Lower Egypt as well. An inscription reads, "The year of fighting the northern enemy." One can also see the vulture goddess Nekhbet standing on a ring with the word, 'rebel.' It shouldn't surprise the reader what this means.

Serekh of Khasekhemwy with both Horus and Seth atop
courtesy of Wkimedia.

     After his reunification of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khasekhem changed his name to Khasemkhemwy which means, "The Two Powers Appear." He joined both the Horus falcon and the Seth dog atop his serekh thereby ushering in unity and peace throughout the country. Trade began to flourish with the Near East and finally the wealth of Egypt increased once more.

     In conclusion, the struggle between the followers of Horus and Seth seemed to strengthen Egypt after the reunification, it did usher in wealth and power once more for the monarchy. With the combination or consolidation of power and the joining of Horus and Seth in the serekh, Khasekhemwy gained unprecedented power and renown from both the followers of Horus and Seth. He reunified Upper and Lower Egypt, reestablished trade with the Near East and strengthened Egypt. He ended the Second dynasty and left Egypt with wealth and power which left the next king and dynasty in a most advantageous position. Enter Djoser!

References

Wilkinson, Toby. 2012. Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt.

Perry, Dominic. 2015. Ancient Egyptian Podcast. Horus Takes Flight II The War between Horus and      Seth.

Per Djet

     Having discussed a bit of the Pre-dynastic period out of which sprung the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt thereby establishing the first dynasty of Ancient Egypt, it seems that we should move into the culture. But how did the Egyptians think and live during the Pre-dynastic period? What did they believe? The answers to these questions can be found in their literature. According to the Egyptologist and the author of Ancient Egyptian Literature, Miriam Lichtheim, literature was first discovered in the form of a Prayer List. Leichtheim goes on to say that these lists mainly contained food, fabrics, and ointments that were carved on their tomb walls. In the following paragraphs, the literature of the Pre-dynastic and Old Kingdom shall come alive. This will expose us to Ancient Egyptian thought of the time as well giving us a window into their culture and customs.

Offering Formula

     To begin, the above Prayer List gives us a basic list of things that the deceased must have in their travels throughout the Underworld and afterlife. These prayer lists may have already existed however in spoken form until someone finally decided to write this down. This, soon after, led to the establishment of a Prayer for Offerings. This Prayer for Offerings would then become a substitute for the Prayer List which was already lengthy by that point in history. So if you, the reader, would like the author's opinion, it is possible that the first evidences of writing may have appeared in Egypt but that is debatable with the advent of writing found in Mesopotamia. It is imperative to understand as well that both the Prayer Lists and Prayer for Offerings, especially the Prayer Lists, existed during the Pre-dynastic period.

     Getting back to Lichtheim though, it is equally noteworthy to understand that Ancient Egypt employed not only the Prayer Lists and Prayer for Offerings but in addition to these, they used autobiographies and catalogues of virtues. All of these literary devices can be found in the tombs of the Ancient Egyptians, which for our purposes here in the Old Kingdom, are called mastabas. Mastaba is the Arabic word for bench which is exactly what these tombs looked like. Now, it must be said that these autobiographies did not appear in Pre-dynastic tombs but rather in the tombs of the Old Kingdom prior to the Pyramid Age.

Mastaba courtesy of wikipedia.com

     A morbid and ghastly discovery has been made however in the tombs of a Pre-dynastic town called Nubt (Naqada) which existed between 3500 and 3000 bc. Toby Wilkinson, in book entitled The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt, human bones have been found around the walls of tombs. These bodies were buried with the tomb owner. Did their enterrement suggest that they sacrificed themselves? Probably not. However upon further discovery the bodies were found decapitated and some had their throats slit which leads to the conclusion they were killed. Another problem with self-sacrifice however is that these retainer sacrifices (as they are termed) were rather young upon death. It is evidenced as well that these retainer sacrifices were so loyal that upon their owner's or master's deaths they both willingly took their own lives in order to serve him in the next life. Unfortunately, upon even further inspection of these graves, it has been again suggested that strangulation is the proposed cause of death which has led some Egyptologists to believe that the king has phenomenal power over his subjects. The same discoveries occurred  in the cities of Nekhen (Hierokonopolis) and Adaima. This practise, unfortunately, reached its peak with the kings Djer and Djet of the First Dynasty. After these kings however, the practise drew to a close which eventually led to the invention of ushabti figurines found later in tombs of the elite. Wilkinson does put forth a grim question to the abolition of this practise of retainer sacrifices though. Was it an economical or ideological reason that led its stop?

Retainer Sacrifices courtesy of topnetz.com

    Moreover with the royal tomb itself, its goal was rather simple. The tomb was to allow the king to not only reside with his people but preside over the ceremonies for all eternity. Interestingly, the tomb of the kings was called Per Djet which does mean House of Eternity. Dominic Perry of the Ancient Egyptian History Podcast states that the kings of the Pre-dynastic period, with their tombs, prayer lists or offerings for prayers, and retainer sacrifices, had everything needed to enter the West or afterlife but not after traversing the Underworld which is another blog entirely of itself. Throughout the rest of the Pre-dynastic period and the Old Kingdom, it can be seen that, with each mastaba or tomb, that it becomes more and more elaborate. Prayer Lists led to Prayers for Offerings  and then came autobiographies and catalogues of virtues. The tomb itself even become more elaborate with each king adding something else to the tomb which evolved into the colossi that is visible throughout the whole of Egypt today beginning with the king Netjerikhet and his Stepped Pyramid and leading to the pyramids that dominate the Giza plateau today.

     In conclusion, the Pre-dynastic period and the Old Kingdom was a continuation of development in the wake of literature that can be seen in the forms of Prayer Lists, Prayers for Offerings and autobiographies on the tomb walls of the pharaohs. Unfortunately, this development led to the grim and shocking discovery of retainer sacrifices as well. Fortunately, this horrific practise came to an abrupt stop which would later be replaced by ushabti figurines that would serve their owners in the afterlife in later dynasties. Then finally the tomb, itself, served not only to house the king throughout all eternity but also allowed the king to preside over ceremonies. All of these things culminated in the rise of pharaoh not only as a king but as a divine king in later dynasties as well. It is through the development of literature and the tomb that kings began to elevate themselves to godhood as mentioned in the previous sentence and ensuring that they will enter the afterlife in safety.

References

Lichtheim, Miriam. 1973. Ancient Egyptian Literature Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms

Wilkinson, Toby. January 2013. The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt

Perry, Dominic. Ancient Egyptian History Podcast.  http://egyptianhistory.libsyn.com/
 

Horus who Strikes

Pharaoh Den smiting  an enemy that harks back to
the Narmer Palette courtsey of archeometry.org

     Up to this point in Egyptian history, Upper and Lower Egypt have been united under Narmer which was illustrated on the Narmer Palette, Battlefield Palette, and the Narmer Macehead. This was followed by the establishment of the capital situated at Memphis along the Nile River by Hor-Aha/Menes who succeeded Narmer. Now, let's fast forward to the 4th or 6th pharaoh called Hor-Den, Den for short. The reason he is 4th or 6th depends on the supposedly ephemeral kings of Djer, Djet and the possible queen Merneith (described in a later blog) are foggy at best. In the subsequent paragraphs, we shall explore the life of pharaoh Den and delve a little bit into the grand temple of Serabit-el Khadim located in the Sinai Peninsula.

           

Ruins of Serabit el Khadim courtesy of wikipedia

     Pharaoh Den began to reign roughly around the year 2900 bc and he reigned about 30 years. It is noteworthy to say that the the time period discussed, which is the Pre-dynastic Period, was from 3000-2686. This is the timeline ascribed by Ian Shaw of the University of Liverpool which will also be the timeline the author will use throughout this history. It also bears worth mentioning that the 1st and 2nd dynasties are of the Pre-dynastic Period and with the commencement of the 3rd dynasty, we will have arrived at the Old Kingdom.

Tomb of Den courtesy of internationalskeptics.com

     Getting back to Pharaoh Den though, the Egyptologist,Toby Wilkinson, says that his reign marks a milestone with the rise of Ancient Egypt. During Den's three or four decades on the throne, Den re-organised agricultural lands throughout Lower Egypt. There was just one problem however. Den's government was not especially benevolent because he seems to have removed whole communities and labelled it "crown land." Den is also credited with the organisation of the 42 nomes of Egypt thereby gaining even more effective control of the Two Lands (t3wy). Upper Egypt was not a real problem because it on traditional lines but Lower Egypt was a bit of a problem. There were not such lines to divide the Delta so Den made the template himself. It is really interesting that Upper and Lower Egypt, each, had 22 nomes with Memphis (the capital) at the heart of Egypt. All of this, of course, led to tighter and stricter control over the whole country.  There was also an increase in the administration which led to the birth of more high officials. Den also allowed his court officials to build mastabas or mud brick tombs. What is interesting about these tombs, however, is that they were modelled after White Wall at Memphis was an imposing façade in its own right. One such official, Hemaka, was buried in one such mastaba who was chancellor of the treasury.

The goddess Hathor courtsey
of landofthepyramids.org

This however does not compare with his crowning achievement, the great temple of Serabit el Khadim. According to the Historical Dictionary of Ancient Egyptian Warfare, there is evidence that Pharaoh Den was active in the Sinai Peninsula. There is even evidence of military action in the reign of Khasekhemwy of the 2nd dynasty. The above picture of Den smiting an enemy is actually from this region where the temple was built. There is also evidence of other pharaohs sending expeditions to the area in order to construct their own tombs as well. Mentuhotep II, for example, of the 11th dynasty, sent an expedition to the area after his reunification of Egypt. Initially, The temple is dedicated to the goddess Hathor. The reader may remember that Hathor was the goddess who 'consumed' the attributes of the bovine goddess Bat of the 7th nome in Egypt. It is also interesting that Den sent mining expeditions in that region not just for tin and copper (which together make bronze) but for turquoise as well. Unfortunately, there isn't much use for turquoise except that it is a beautiful stone usually worn by the elite in Egypt. In addition to its great worth to the elite, it is also associated with the goddess Hathor.


In conclusion, Pharaoh Den had a great impact on Ancient Egypt that can still be seen to-day.He organised Egypt into 42 nomes, re-organised agricultural lands in the Delta, and successfully built his tomb which is still in tact to this day. His achievement of the Temple to Hathor in Serabit el Khadem, in the Sinai, is a testament to his long, successful reign.

References

Morkot, Robert. January, 2003. Historical Dictionary of Ancient Egyptian Warfare.

Wilkinson, Toby. January, 2013. The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt.

Warrior of Horus

     Switching our attention now from Narmer, we, now, come to a man called Hor-Aha. His name means Warrior or Soldier of Horus and he was the second pharaoh of the First Dynasty. His name may also be associated with Menes (more on him later) about whom Egyptologists know very little other than founding the capital of the Old Kingdom, Memphis or Men-nefer (Enduring and Beautiful). In the following paragraphs, details of Hor-Aha's life and tomb, how do we know that Hor-Aha existed and finally how little is known concerning the First Dynasty.

Serekh of Hor-Aha courtesy of Wikipedia

     There is a matter of some debate that Hor-Aha may have actually been the ephemeral pharaoh, Menes which would greatly enhance the status of Hor-Aha because he would be credited with the foundation of Men-nefer as stated above. What makes this theory interesting is the figure of Neith-hotep who may have been his mother if Hor-Aha is, indeed, Menes. According to this theory, then, Hor-Aha would be the successor and son of Narmer and Neithhotep (his mother) whom we mentioned in the last blog as the founder of the First Dynasty and who is credited with the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt. According to the Palermo Stone, the reign of Hor-Aha was only 7 years and he did have a wife called Khentkap. The Palermo Stone also mentions three other names who may have been sons of his because titles and land were only inherited by family members. His reign did include visits to temples and shrines like succeeding pharaohs of the Old Kingdoms (a precedent?), it is interesting to his tomb is the oldest in the Memphite necropolis which has also led some Egyptologists to believe that he was the founder of the capital, Memphis. Of course like other succeeding pharaohs as well, he did conduct military campaigns (probably the first Thof the kind) into Nubia and his name has even been found in Syria-Palestine where he gained a foothold in trade in the area. But how do we, in fact, know about the First Dynasty with so little information and artefacts? Is this all just speculation?

The Naqada Label courtesy of egyptopia.com

     When we actually compare the First Dynasty with the succeeding dynasties of Egypt, it is the one shrouded most in mystery. Although, Archaeologists have discovered tombs like that of Hor-Aha, they do present difficulty producing a narrative of some sort to piece together the lives of those pharaohs of not just the First Dynasty but the Old Kingdom in general. Taking Hor-Aha as an example, his name is found in several pieces of artefacts not only found in Egypt but in Syria-Palestine and Nubia as well. His name is also mentioned on the Naqada Label. This is particularly noteworthy for Egyptologists is because the Naqada Label not only has his Horus name but also his Nebti name which is Menes which does elicit some explanation on the part of Egyptologists on just who are these figures Menes and Hor-Aha. Are they the same person or is Hor-Aha and if they are the same person are they, then in turn, the son of Narmer and Neithhotep? This brings us back to the beginning however. With so little evidence and artefacts, this presents a problem for Egyptologists to paint a conclusive picture of these seemingly ephemeral figures in Ancient Egyptian history.

Tomb of Hor-Aha courtesy of AncientEgypt 101

     It must be understood though that the First Dynasty is one that is hidden behind a curtain and until Egyptologists can open the curtains, the picture of the First Dynasty will still be hidden. There is good news however. With artefacts such as the Palermo Stone, the Naqada Label and tombs like Hor-Aha's do provide us a glimpse of this First Dynasty of Egypt. In the previous blog, we discussed Narmer and his attempt to unite Upper and Lower Egypt probably through violence. The Narmer Palette, the Battlefield Palette and the Narmer Macehead, all give us vital information into how the Twin Kingdoms were united. All three point to a violent unification resulting in Upper Egypt conquering Lower Egypt thereby establishing Narmer as the founder of the First Dynasty. It seems though, with the violent unification of Upper and Lower Egypt, that Hor-Aha continued to spread Egyptian influence and power not only in Nubia but in Syria-Palestine where his name has been found. It lends support and credit to the theory of unification through violence if Hor-Aha also extends already said influence south and north.

Narmer Macehead courtesy of  ancientegyptonline.co.uk

In conclusion, although the First Dynasty is shrouded in fog given so little evidence of artefacts, names and tombs, Egyptologists have been able to still paint a picture of the First Dynasty albeit not so clear. Hor-Aha, the second pharaoh of this dynasty may also be the ephemeral Menes as well who is credited with the foundation of Men-nefer. It also seems likely that if Narmer were his predecessor that Hor-Aha would continue violence into Nubia and securing trade and trade routes in Syria-Palestine which would further fill the coffers of the Ancient Egyptian treasury. Although there is little evidence of the First Dynasty, it is extremely interesting that artefacts such as Battlefield Palette, the Narmer Palette and the Narmer Macehead all point to a unification through violence which would lead us to believe that Hor-Aha was continuing what his father, Narmer, did. So tell me what you think! Are Hor-Aha and Menes the same person? Was the conquering attitude of Hor-Aha merely a continuation of his father, Narmer, who, through violence united Upper and Lower Egypt or is it just a coincidence? Please leave a comments, questions and feedback

References

http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/early-dynastic-period/1st-dynasty/horus-aha/biography-of-horus-aha.html

http://www.ancient-egypt.org/_v3d/index.html

The Fighting Catfish

     The Old Kingdom is marred in mystery and the unknown. Spanning from the 3rd dynasty to the 6th dynasty, it encompasses the Pyramid Age and the unification of the Two Lands (twy). It is the Old Kingdom that has fueled our imaginations and hearts from the pyramids and Sphinx of Giza to the the Step Pyramid of Netjerikhet (Djoser). It is a timeless age that evokes emotion and awe. Through the next few weeks, we will discuss the rise and fall of the Old Kingdom, its kings and nobility, the Giza Plateau, and finally why, in fact, did the Old Kingdom fall. Was it the unjust acts of weak rulers or natural consequences and disasters that did seem to plague the land at the end of the sixth dynasty or was it a failed economy?

The Narmer Palette Wikipedia images

Before pharaohs, dynasties and Upper and Lower Egypt really, there were three major cultures that surrounded the Nile so if you are really interested in anthropology or pre-history, then you may want to delve further into the cultures but the three cultures are the Gerzian, Amratian and the Predyastic cultures of Upper Egypt. At the same time that these cultures were rising there was another culture rising in the delta region of Egypt known as the Madi Buto culture. These cultures form the springboard from which came Upper and Lower Egypt which then led to the unification of Egypt. Whether these cultures assimilated peacefully or militarily is a matter of debate. The ephemeral figure called Narmer who may have come from a figure called the Scorpion King, is responsible for the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt. How do we know this? The Narmer Palette. In 1898, archaeologists James Quibell and Fredrick Green found this Narmer Palette which has quite a tale. On one side of the palette, one can clearly see a man smiting a enemy from the Delta region while he is holding his head. There is also a figure of a bird and two faces of a cow. The palette also shows Narmer trampling his enemies under his feet all the while wearing the Hedjet or the white crown of Upper Egypt.

Battlefield Palette 

    On the other side of the palette, Narmer is wearing the Deshret or the red crown of Lower Egypt. He is leading a procession with figures of decapitated men preceding him. In the cross or middle section we see two serpents which is probably an idea from Mesopotamia. Again, we see the cows on the top of this side of the palette as well. But how do we know that this man, Narmer, is on the palette? If one looks at the top of the palette (wearing the hedjet crown), we see "nrmr," which means fighting catfish, written in a serekh. What is a serekh? It is a façade of a palace symbolising royalty or kingship. But what do we make of the cows found at the top of the palette though? According to Rutgers University, the cows are representations of the bovine goddess of Bat instead of the more infamous goddess Hathor. The bovine goddess Bat is a lesser known deity of the seventh nome of Egypt symbolising femininity but was later consumed by the goddess Hathor much in a similar way that Osiris consumed the god of Khentiamentiu in a previous blog.


     The reasons to believe that Upper and Lower Egypt were united through violence however is because not only of the Narmer Palette but the what is known as the Battlefield Palette or Vulture's palette. The Battlefield Palette is a rather interesting piece. It is a shard found in the town of Nekhen by the same men James Quibell and Fredrick Green in 1900. This palette is rather a mystery because it seems to depict several bound prisoners sacrificed to some animals. What is rather odd however is the absence of a ruler or conquerer. It simply shows a lion eating a prisoner and vultures pecking at the heads of other prisoners. According to the British Museum, the lion may actually depict the king but nothing more can really be surmised. The British Museum does date this to the time of Narmer which could mean that this was another example of his victory against Lower Egypt which ultimately led to his unification of the Upper and Lower Egypt.

Ramesses II killing his enemies from blog History Interrupted

     Why spend so much time on these two palettes though, you ask? Good question! These palettes tell rather interesting story. They record the unification of Egypt by a figure called Narmer through a bloody and violent campaign. In addition to this unification, The Narmer Palette also depicts the pharaoh in a pose that we shall see time and time again throughout funerary art in which the pharoah will decapitate his enemies heads.  It is an image that exhibits power and establishing him as the sole ruler of Egypt striking fear into the hearts of those who dare protest his reign and authority. They are rather telling pieces of propaganda if the latter palette depicts the lion as the king, Narmer.

References

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=116965&partId=1

http://egypt-grammar.rutgers.edu/Artifacts/Narmer%20Palette.pdf

Origins of a Great Civilisation Part II

The period known as the Naqada phase lasted 800 years, from 4000 bc to 3200 bc (Shaw, 2000). It is a period of consolidation through military conquest and cultural assimilation. From 0 to the 2nd dynasties, we not only saw the development of art and pottery in the Amratian phase but the aggressive expansion and rise of kingship in the Gerzean phase culminating in the Pre-dynastic phase when full unification of Upper and Lower Egypt had been fully achieved (Josephson and Dreyer, 2015). Upper Egypt, or ta shemau in Egyptian, was rather different from Lower Egypt, or ta mehu in Egyptian, in both culture and art so it was only a matter of time before these two cultures conflicted with each other. Feeding off of our previous entry therefore, it becomes necessary to discuss Lower Egypt’s, having discussed Upper Egypt earlier, art and culture, their burial customs and finally the assimilation into Buto and transition into the Pre-dynastic phase.

The Merimda Head courtesy of
Brown University

The Maadian complex or Maadi-Buto culture is located near the modern city of Cairo. It contains a dozen sites or more which include a cemetery and the settlement itself. According to Ian Shaw, the Maadian culture first appeared in the Naqada I phase but soon disappeared in the Naqada II phase through cultural and military expansion (Shaw, 2000). He continues to say the Maadi culture is a descendant of earlier Neolithic sites such as the Faiyum region, Merimda, Beni-Salama, and El-Omari (Shaw, 2000). The culture also differs completely from its Upper Egyptian counterpart as well which is to say that the cemeteries were less prominent and pottery not only was globular but lacked decoration too. The information ascertained therefore comes from the settlements themselves rather than the cemeteries (Shaw, 2000). University College London even says that the pottery was made by hand and had a dark hue to it (UCL, 2000). Additionally, there is however the absence of greywacke palettes that are so prevalent in Upper Egypt as mentioned in the previous entry because of the use of limestone palettes which hints at their luxurious nature of the greywacke.

Arrowhead made of stone
          from the Fayum region courtesy of the Met Museum

There is also evidence of Palestinian influence in the region, particularly in the worked flint, Shaw reports (Shaw, 2000). Discoveries show edged blades known as Canaanite blades, which later developed into razors, were used in funerary rituals in the Old Kingdom. Additionally, catfish darts, dorsal fins and polished ivory and bone have been found in and around the Maadian complex as well (Shaw, 2000). Copper was also of great importance to the Maadian complex too. Both Shaw and the UCL have documented the appearance and use of copper in the form of needles, axes and rods. Whilst other cultures in the area such as Merimda use stone to construct these tools, Maadi used copper ore which was readily available in the nearby regions of Timna and Fenan on the Sinai Peninsula.

Burial sites, as well, in and around the Maadian complex are simple with oval pits with the deceased placed in a foetal position accompanied by a mat and some pottery vessels (Shaw, 2000). The University of College London states as well that the hand was located in the front of the face (UCL, 2000). The cemeteries here are also located some distance from the settlements. Comparing Maadi with other Northern cultures, it is observed that other tombs are better equipped without the luxury that is evinced in Upper Egyptian tombs. Shaw here concludes that, although social stratification is discernible, there is a possibility that the graves contain a mixture of dogs, gazelles and humans which adds to the social change (Shaw, 2000).

simple oval pit of the deceased with pottery courtesy of
Mathilda's Anthropology

As the Maadian culture transitioned into the Pre-dynastic phase, Egyptologists have discovered an increase in Naqada pottery whilst at the same time a decrease in Maadian pottery which is evidence of the cultural assimilation between the cultures of Lower and Upper Egypt (Shaw, 2000). This gives us the impression that the Maadian culture did not abruptly end but rather was a slow process. Another culture around this time was that of Buto which was located nearby. It is in the opinion of the author and Ian Shaw that Buto is the culture that usurped Maadi simply because it developed its own culture, myths, ideology, beliefs and rites whilst at the same time was better suited for trade. Its strategic importance and location allowed the region to supersede that of Maadi which led to its decline and demise. It seems that this change was inevitable for the next phase in Egyptian history that was the Naqada III phase which is where full unification was successfully achieved (Shaw, 2000).

A couple of copper ingots from
Maadi-Buto culture courtesy of
Mathilda Anthropology

Drawing heavily from Ian Shaw’s exhaustive book, what has emerged is another perspective when it comes to Ancient Egypt. Lower Egypt, unlike its rival Upper Egypt, was a descendant of the Faiyum region, Merimda, el-Omari and Beni Salama. Pottery was hand-made and globular with a dark hue but really no geometric shapes or animal forms which explains the lack of art in Lower Egypt. There is Palestinian influence as well in the region with discoveries of edged blades also known as Canaanite blades which were later used in funerary rites of the Old Kingdom. Burial sites contain the deceased in foetal positions with their hand in front of their face accompanied by pottery, mats and/or fabrics or sometimes nothing at all. Finally, the transition or the disappearance of the Maadian complex took a long time rather than abruptly ending but was a slow process achieved through cultural assimilation into the Buto culture. Buto’s strategic and location allowed for Buto to supersede the Maadian culture which seemed necessary and inevitable for the next phase in Egyptian history to take effect, the Naqada III phase.

References

Josephson A. Jackson, Dreyer, Günter. 2015. Naqada IId: The Birth of an Empire. Journal of American Research Center in Egypt. Volume 51. 165-178.

Shaw, Ian. 2000. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press.

“Maadi- Topic Overview.” University College London. 2000. n.p.

Origins of a Great Civilisation Part I

            Drawing on conclusions from a couple of Egyptologists, it is herein endeavoured to discuss the anthropology of sorts on the origins of Ancient Egypt through some rather interesting phases in its history. It is well known that Rome was not built in a day and so it was with Ancient Egypt as well. The history referenced in this essay however are three phases that make up the background of Egypt giving birth to art and written language that would not only dominate Egypt but shape it as well for the next three millennia. Before the Old Kingdom however there were three phases that led to the birth of the Old Kingdom, itself. These phases were the Amratian phase, the Gerzean phase and finally the Predynastic phase. These phases can also be called the Naqada I, II, or III phases respectively too.

Grave from the Naqada III phase in Hierkonpolis (HK 11)

            The Amratian or Naqada I phase is really no different from the Badarian culture which came before the Amratian phase, according to Ian Shaw. The dead in both, the Amratian and Badarian cultures, were buried in oval pits in a contracted position, lying on the left side. There was a mat placed underneath the deceased whilst the head rested on a pillow occasionally (Shaw, 2000).  There were also instances in which animal skins and clothing were found in the graves as well. Shaw also takes note that although single individual burials were popular there are multiple burials which more frequently involved women rather than men.

Hierkonpolis, with its maceheads and palettes, seems to have been a very important site not only in the Amratian phase but Gerzean and later in the Predynastic phase because of this diversity in material and grave goods which inform us that there was also a system of hierarchy (Shaw, 2000). During this phase, pottery began to change was well. Instead of solid colours such as red and black, which reflects how the Egyptians viewed their own land, there were geometric shapes of animals on the wares as well.

Representations of bearded men also began to take shape during the Naqada I phase. This would further be enhanced during the Gerzean phase as well. The first examples of these bearded men appeared on carved ivory and the tips of hippopotami and elephant tusks with triangular beards.

Tomb 100 found in Hierkonpolis

The Gerzean or Naqada II phase is somewhat different when compared to its earlier Naqada I counterpart however in that it was dominated by expansion, (Josephson and Dreyer, 2015). Where we see advancements in art and pottery in the Amratian phase, the Gerzean phase was preoccupied with war and aggression. Josephson and Dreyer state that the emergence of kings, replacing chieftains or headmen, was probably the first major advance of the Naqada II phase which led to ambitious conquests of more territory (Josephson and Dreyer, 2015). The Gebel el-Arak knife, now in the Louvre Museum, is a perfect example. It depicts battle scenes whilst the opposite side depicts naval battles. There are also appearances of early kings wearing the white crown and/or holding a scepter on knives and ivory carvings, including the Gebel el-Arik knife.

Josephson and Dreyer also note negative evidence, though, on our understanding of the rise of kingship in the Naqada II phase with the mention of the Hierkonpolis tomb 100. In this tomb there are painted scenes of battles, boat processions, hunting, and herding which seem to indicate that this idea of kingship was already in place (Josephson and Dreyer, 2015).

Gebel el-Arik now in the Louvre Museum, Paris

Writing also appears during this phase in Egyptian history in the form of pictograms. Josephson and Dreyer state that writing conveyed complex concepts such as elephants trampling snakes which indicate the control of chaos (Josephson and Dreyer, 2015). Ian Shaw adds to this by saying that writing had two purposes which were economic and administrative but puts the invention of writing itself in the Naqada III phase rather than the Naqada II phase (Shaw, 2000). It is in the opinion of the author however to agree with Josephson and Dreyer on this issue simply because the artefacts found like pottery and seals date to the Naqada II phase rather than the Naqada III phase.

Moving on however to the Naqada III or Predynastic phase, Egyptologists credit this phase with the unification of Egypt proper, (Wilkinson, 2010). Ian Shaw supports this as well in his book but he contributes the unification not merely to one king, like Wilkinson, but a series of kings from dynasties 0 to 2 culminating in the birth of the Old Kingdom which began in the 3^rd dynasty. Wilkinson also states that Egypt created the first nation-state in that the city states of Mesopotamia were controlled by the high priests and it was only later when they finally condensed their power into a monarchical system. It was they who wielded such power rather than one king (Wilkinson, 2010).

Scorpion Macehead now in the Cairo Museum

It was during this period that we find palettes and maceheads such as the Narmer Palette, the Dog Palette, Battlefield Palette and the Narmer Macehead which attest to the struggle for unification in Egypt (Wilkinson, 2010). According to William Stevenson Smith, Egypt during this time was trading with the city states of Mesopotamia. This is evinced in the Narmer Palette, now in the Cairo Museum, where we see serpopards (long-necked monsters) which are of Mesopotamian origin (Smith, 1998). He goes on to say that Egypt did not limit herself within her borders or Mesopotamia but traded with Libyan tribes, the Sinai and Lebanon as well (Smith, 1998).

To conclude, it is noteworthy that each phase whether it is Amratian, Gerzean or Naqada III (Predynastic) was distinctly different. We touched upon the development of art and pottery in the Amratian phase and the development of kingship in the Gerzean phase and finally the goal of unification in the Predynastic phase through a series of kings from dynasties 0-2. Drawing from these gold mines of information, it is now possible to piece together at least some form of Egypt before pharaohs and kings that came not only to dominate the country but rule it as a god in the coming Old Kingdom.