EarlyDynastic-OldKingdom

The earliest period of Egyptian history is the predynastic, when Egypt was still divided into multiple states. In the north, the Delta of Lower Egypt played host to a unique sub-culture, now known as Maadi, which apparently had close connections with the 

Levant. In the rest of the country, the Nile Valley of Upper Egypt, there were three sub-cultures: at Thinis-Abydos in the north, Naqada-Nubt in the middle, and Nekhen-Hierakonpolis in the south. These gradually consolidated into a single kingdom, apparently a development of the Naqada culture, with a capital at Nekhen and a burial ground at Abydos (in the centre). These early kingdoms had much in common with the later kingdom of Egypt, but they were in every way smaller in scale – their kings seem to have been closely identified with the forces of nature, often being depicted in animal form. Shortly before 3000 BC, the Upper Egyptian kingdom took control of the Delta (The region does not seem to have been unified prior to this). This unification usually attributed to Nar-mer Meni, but debate rages as to whether he was a single individual, and, if he was, whether the union (usually presumed to be by conquest), was actually his doing. The question of when exactly the unification occurred perhaps obscures more interesting questions – How did it occur? Why did it occur? One answer argues that the Nile was at a particularly low ebb for a couple of centuries around the time of unification. Particularly where the floodplain is narrow, this meant that floods were less reliable and that the crop yield of the land was limited. Nekhen was one such place, and, it has been suggested, this may have motivated the local chieftains to seek to absorb lands further afield. Others see an attempt, also, to take control of the northern trade routes – especially the supply of Lebanese wood, which allowed the construction of the boats necessary for controlling the Nile. Still others propose a relatively peaceful process that was only depicted as a war-like one for propaganda purposes - the vagaries of the Nile floods called for central organisation to store food in preperation for bad years and transport it to hard-hit areas. All of these arguments probably hold some part of the truth. Under all of these analyses, this was a multi-generational process, not the doing of any single king.

Once Egypt had been united, it was have been the largest state in the world. Keeping it united was thus a challenge. Under the First Dynasty, a massive policy of melding of the two cultures begun. The king united the institutions of Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt in his person, using both titles, wearing both crowns, and patronising the cults of both kingdoms. The focus of the kingdom increasingly shifted to the town of Memphis, which, located at the very base of the Delta, was right on the border between Lower and Upper Egypt – the perfect seat for a king of both. Royal burials, in flat bench-like structures of mud-brick, called mastabas. shifted from Abydos to Saqqara (opposite Memphis), though empty tombs continued to be prepared at Abydos, also, surrounded by the tombs of officials and servants who would serve the king in the afterlife. In many ways the two cultures had already been growing together for some time, and nigh on every aspect of the Pharaonic model of kingship which they developed at this time had its roots in the hunting, fishing, and herding culture of the predynastic chieftains. Nevertheless, the scale was vastly increased, the kingdom was wealthier, and more powerful. Expeditions set out to Sinai, the Levant, Libya, Nubia, and the Desert oases – some peaceful, some less so. The Second Dynasty was much like the first, but is far less well known. The prime focus of studies on the period is an apparent conflict between followers of Seth (god of the desert and, in later times of chaos) and followers of Horus (already the sky-god), which was resolved (somehow) by the king Kha-sekhemwy, who is immediately followed by the beginning of the Third dynasty. Perhaps part of the problem was that the kings of these first two dynasties presided over a regime which was essentially a massively overstretched chieftainship, desperately in need of state apparatus which had yet to be invented.

With the Third Dynasty, systems of organisation seem to have finally started to catch up. The kingdom was clearly increasingly prosperous, and organised. The kings were in command of resources well-beyond that of anyone before them. And, with all this power, they went a bit nuts, building tombs on a scale never before seen. Djoser erected the Step Pyramid at Saqqara, among the very first buildings to be made entirely out of stone, and still one of the largest. The later kings of the dynasty are very obscure, seem to have short reigns and, by and large, left their step pyramids unfinished. The Kings of the Fourth Dynasty mark a resurgence. The dynasty’s founder, Snefru built the first true pyramid – after two failed attempts. Three of his successors, Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure erected the famous Pyramids at Giza. Every year, when the Nile flooded, farmers came from all over the country to work on their king's tombs. Though not the intention, throwing the populace together in this way had the effect of decreasing regional differences, of forcing the development of a complex and efficient administration, and of creating relationships between the king and his people - everyone had a family member who had worked for the glory of the king, who had been fed and clothed by the king. Thus these construction projects were a great boon for the kingdom, but they were also a heavy burden which produced no direct profit to the populace and were not intended to. They were the kings' tombs, the path for them and their families alone to eternal life and essentially the entire excess wealth, resources, and labour of the kingdom were spent on them. It might seem unimaginably tyrannical and oppressive to us today, that the kingdom's profit was not expended on something intended to provide tangible or intangible benefits to the people: irrigation works, tombs for all the people, amphitheatres, or whatever. We might wonder why the people happily toiled for royal glory, but Egyptian society worked differently. Sovereignty did not come from the people, and the king did not justify his power by reference to them. He was king because he was the son of Horus, and the only one who could perform the rituals necessary for the perpetuation of order – the vast majority of events recorded from this period are the performance of rituals, particularly those which infused life into statues of the gods. The pyramids only reinforced this - massive and permanent, where all else in Egypt was small-scale construction in temporary mudbrick. The king controlled the permanent. Without him, all would eventually just be washed away. The people of the moment did not really enter into the ideology of the state. Increasingly, they had no opportunity for involvement in government at all – the upper echelons of the administration were occupied largely by members of the royal family.  

Over the course of the dynasty, however, things began to change. The kings increasingly began to emphasise themselves as benefactors – the degree to which they were good for the people, not just the gods. By the Fifth Dynasty, the kings were identifying themselves closely with the Sun, the god Ra. This was the final major piece of the ideology of Pharaonic kingship, which would endure (with a great deal of variation) for the rest of Egyptian civilization. It was a powerful metaphor – like the Sun, the King was the creator of life & order and necessary for its continuation on Earth, his presence felt at all times, and his power unbounded.  Without him, all would be darkness and chaos. By means of the proper tomb, he would rise again, and the people, if they stuck with him – and helped build his tomb – might follow him in death to the blessed Field of Reeds. The royal tombs were still pyramids, but smaller ones, erected at Abu Sir, to the south of Giza – they have not survived in good condition. Multiple miniature tombs were scattered throughout the realm as local reminders of the king. In this period, increasing amounts of information are available to us – writing ceases to be merely labels and short notes and starts to tell whole stories, the first spells of the Book of the Dead appear in tombs, and some papyrus records even survive. The Sixth Dynasty, which follows, is in every way a continuation of the fifth, apparently marked by increasing prosperity and greater contacts (militaristic and mercantile) abroad. Some have discerned the rise of a provincial nobility, counter to the royal court, but the evidence is rather slim and the kingdom seems to have remained fairly dynamic. The dynasty culminated in the reign of Pepi II, which may have lasted over ninety years, after which things suddenly become very hazy indeed and Egypt lapses into the First Intermediate Period.

 SOURCES

The Palermo Stone Annals, originally in Egyptian, as interpreted in Wilkinson, Toby A.H. Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt: The Palermo Stone & its Associated Fragments. London & New York: Kegan Paul International, 2000.

Westcar Papyrus, originally in Egyptian, translation by Mark-Jan Nederhof: http://www.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~mjn/egyptian/texts/corpus/pdf/Westcar.pdf

Assman, Jan. The Mind of Egypt: History & Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs, translated by Andrew Jenkins. New York: Metropolitan Books. 2002.

Perry, Dominic. The Egyptian History Podcast. 2012-13. http://egyptianhistory.typepad.com/podcast/

Smith, W. Stevenson. “The Old Kingdom in Egypt & the Beginning of the First Intermediate Period,” in The Cambridge Ancient History Vol.1 Part.2, I.E.S. Edwards, C.J. Gadd & N.G.L. Hammond (ed.s). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974: 1-70.

Amiran, Ruth. “An Egyptian Jar Fragment with the Name of Narmer from Arad” Israel Exploration Journal, Vol.24 No.1 (1974): 4-12.

Bard, Kathryn A. “The Egyptian Predynastic: A Review of the Evidence.” Journal of Field Archaeology Vol.21 No.3 (Autumn, 1994): 265-288.

Callender, V.G. “Princess Inti of the Ancient Egyptian Sixth Dynasty.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol.61 No.4 (Oct., 2002): 267-274.

Dodson, Aidan. “The Layer Pyramid of Zawiyet el-Aryan: Its Layout and Context" Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 37 (2000): 81-90.

Edwards, I.E.S. “The Early Dynastic Period in Egypt” in The Cambridge Ancient History Vol.1 Part.2, I.E.S. Edwards, C.J. Gadd & N.G.L. Hammond (ed.s). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974: 1-70.

Fischer, Henry G. “An Egyptian Royal Stela of the Second Dynasty” Artibus Asiae Vol.24 No.1 (1961): 45-56.

Friedman, Florence Dunn. “The Underground Relief Panels of King Djoser at the Step Pyramid Complex.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt Vol.32 (1995): 1-42.

Goedicke, Hans. "An Approximate Date for the Harem Investigation under Pepy I" Journal of the American Oriental Society Vol. 74, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1954): 88-89.

Hassan, Fekri A. “The Predynastic of Egypt.” Journal of World Prehistory Vol.2 No.2 (June 1988): 135-185.

Millet, N.B. “The Narmer Macedhead & Related Objects” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol.27 (1990): 53-59.

Newberry, Percy. "Queen Nitocris of the Sixth Dynasty." The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 29 (Dec., 1943): 51-54.

Nims, "Some Notes on the Family of Mereruka." Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Dec., 1938): 638-647.

Reisner, "The Tomb of Meresankh, a Great-Granddaughter of Queen Hetep-Heres I and Sneferuw" Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts, Vol. 25, No. 151 (Oct., 1927): 64-79.

Savage, Stephen H. “Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt.” Journal of Archaeological Research Vol.9 No.2 (June 2001): 101-155.

Spalinger, Anthony. "Dated Texts of the Old Kingdom." Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, Bd. 21 (1994): 275-319.

Wilkinson, Toby A.H. “The Identification of Tomb B1 at Abydos: Refuting the Existence of a King Ro/Iry-Hor” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol.79 (1993): 241-243.

——— “What a King is This: Narmer and the Concept of the Ruler.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Vol.86 (2000): 23-32.