Early Dynastic Egypt (37 page)

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 Giza 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
serekh
s 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 appointed to important positions within the administration.