Early Dynastic Egypt (20 page)

Sekhemib-perenmaat

The final king whose identity and place in the succession are uncertain bore the two-part name Sekhemib-perenmaat. There are two main hypotheses concerning Sekhemib- perenmaat (Quirke 1990:45): first, that he is one and the same king as Peribsen, in a different guise (for example, Grdseloff 1944:295; Emery 1961:95; Shaw and Nicholson 1995:220; Dodson 1996:25); second, that he was the successor of Peribsen (Kaplony 1963; Helck 1979:132). For those who hold the first view, the occurrence of sealings bearing the name Sekhemib-perenmaat in both the tomb and funerary enclosure of Peribsen is significant (Petrie 1901: pl. XXI.164–72; and Ayrton
et al.
1904: pl. IX.3, respectively). Moreover, on inscribed stone vessel fragments from the Step Pyramid complex (Lacau and Lauer 1959: pl. 18 nos 87–94), Sekhemib-perenmaat is given the epithet
ỉnw h 3st,
‘tribute (or ‘conqueror’) of foreign land(s)’ (Lacau and Lauer 1959: pl.

18 no. 93), reminiscent of the phrase
ỉnw S t,
discussed above, which appears on sealings of Peribsen from his Abydos tomb. Those who hold the second view point to the fact that the sealings from Peribsen’s tomb bearing the name of Sekhemib-perenmaat

were found in the entrance, a parallel situation to the sealing of Hetepsekhemwy found in the tomb of Qaa. On balance, the evidence seems to weigh slightly in favour of identifying Sekhemib-perenmaat as the same person as Peribsen, perhaps before he made the unusual move of adopting a Seth-name. The similarity of the two names, Sekhemib- perenmaat and Peribsen (both include the elements
ỉb
and
pr
), hint at a close connection. Apart from the instances already cited, the name Sekhemib-perenmaat is attested on a sealing from the debris of the Old Kingdom town at Elephantine (Leclant and Clerc 1993:250), and on the inside of an unprovenanced alabaster bowl (Kaplony 1965:24, pl. V fig. 52).

Khasekhem (wy)

The last king of the Second Dynasty is an important, and in many ways transitional, figure (cf. Hoffman 1980:348–54). More is known about his reign than any other of the dynasty, and his surviving monuments are by far the most impressive of any Early Dynastic ruler before Netjerikhet. At the beginning of his reign, the last king of the Second Dynasty adopted the Horus name Khasekhem, ‘the power has appeared’. Later, however, he added the Seth-animal to the top of his
serekh,
and changed his name accordingly to the dual form Khasekhemwy, ‘the two powers have appeared’, together with an additional epithet
nbwy htp im=f,
‘the two lords are at peace in him’. The new name seems consciously to have been modelled on that of the dynasty’s founder, Hetepsekhemwy. It may therefore have been intended to proclaim national renewal under Khasekhemwy (Kaiser 1992:184–5, n. 44). It used to be thought that the two forms of the name belonged to two different kings (Emery 1961:98); but it is now generally accepted that they were borne at different periods by one and the same monarch (for example, Quirke 1990:46; Shaw and Nicholson 1995:150).

In the early part of his reign, Khasekhem seems to have shown particular interest in, and reverence for, Hierakonpolis, the ancient Predynastic capital in the far south of the country. Indeed, Khasekhem is attested only once outside Hierakonpolis, on an inscribed diorite vessel from the Step Pyramid complex (Lacau and Lauer 1959: pl. 3 no. 18). Travertine and granite vessels of Khasekhem were discovered inside the temple of Horus at Hierakonpolis (Quibell 1900: pl. XXXVI). In all cases, the inscription shows the goddess Nekhbet standing on a ring containing the word
bš,
‘rebel’. The accompanying legend describes the scene as ‘the year of fighting the northern enemy’. The Horus-falcon atop the king’s
serekh
wears only the white crown, associated with Upper Egypt (Quibell 1900: pl. XXXVIII). Unless the scene represents nothing more than a traditional duty of kingship or a ritual, an historical interpretation would seem likely. It is probable that, when he acceded to the kingship, Khasekhem ruled only Upper Egypt. Campaigns against the rebellious north ultimately resulted in Khasekhem’s victory, and he was able to reunite Egypt. To commemorate this achievement, he changed his name to the dual form, to demonstrate that peace and harmony had returned through his actions. In the absence of hard evidence, this reconstruction of events must remain speculative, though it does fit the available data well. In particular, two famous seated statues of Khasekhem from Hierakonpolis, one of limestone (Quibell 1900: pl. XXXIX), the other of siltstone (Quibell 1900: pl. XLI [left]), carry inscriptions which show defeated enemies in contorted positions, labelled as ‘northern enemies 47,209’ (Quibell 1900: pl. XL). These

two statues clearly suggest hostile activity undertaken by Khasekhem against a northern foe, though a precise identification of the enemy is not possible. It has been suggested that the gap in the later sources, transmogrified into the name ‘Hudjefa’ by the New Kingdom scribes who compiled the Saqqara and Turin king lists, may once have contained the name of Khasekhem’s opponent(s), later expunged from the record (Dodson 1996:28). If a fragmentary stela from Hierakonpolis is to be interpreted at face value, Khasekhem may have preceded his attacks on the north by a campaign southwards into Nubia. The stela fragment shows part of a kneeling captive resting on a platform which ends in the head of a foreigner. This last is surmounted by a bow, the sign used to write the name applied to Nubia, Ta-Sety. Moreover, an inscription below the scene gives the
serekh
of Khasekhem and the phrase ‘humbling the foreign land’ (Quibell and Green 1902: pl. LVIII). The other known occurrence of Khasekhem’s
serekh
is on an unprovenanced copper axe-head in a private collection (Kaplony 1965:24 and 29, fig. 55).

Under the later version of his name, Khasekhemwy, the king is much more widely attested, from Hierakonpolis in the far south of Egypt to Byblos on the Lebanese coast. A fragment of a
breccia
stone vessel was recovered from the Egyptian temple area at Byblos, incised with the phrase
H -sh mwỉ dỉ nh ,
‘Khasekhemwy, given life’ (Montet 1928:84, fig. 1). Unusually, the Seth-animal on top of the
serekh
appears to be wearing the red crown, whereas the Horus-falcon wears the usual double crown. This vessel may easily have reached Byblos through trade and/or at a later period. None the less, it seems likely that foreign relations reached a new level under Khasekhemwy, since a seal-impression of his reign gives the first occurrence of the title
ỉmỉ-r3 h 3st,
‘overseer of foreign land(s)’ (Kaplony 1963, III: pl. 72 fig. 269). It strongly suggests the imposition of Egyptian hegemony on foreign territory. This may be confirmed by a damaged stone block with a list of foreign countries from the temple area at Hierakonpolis (Quibell and Green 1902: pl. XXIII [bottom]). The inscription seems originally to have included numerals (some are partially preserved), and may therefore have recorded tribute or enemies slain in battle. Other inscriptions of Khasekhemwy have been found at Saqqara—in a private tomb (S3043: Kaplony 1963, I: 163), and in the Step Pyramid complex (Firth and Quibell 1935,1:141, fig. 22; Lauer 1939:21, pl. XIX.7–8; Lacau and Lauer 1959: pl. 19 no. 95)—and Abydos (Petrie 1901: pls XXIII-XXIV; Amélineau 1902: pls XXI, XXII; Ayrton
et al.
1904:3, pl. IX.9).

Khasekhemwy’s mortuary constructions at Abydos are truly impressive. In their design and symbolism they point the way towards the Step Pyramid complex of Netjerikhet a generation later. The burial chamber of Khasekhemwy’s tomb was lined with blocks of dressed limestone (Petrie 1901: pl. LVII.4–6), representing the largest- scale use of dressed stone to that date. His funerary enclosure, known today by its Arabic nickname, the Shunet ez-Zebib, is a mammoth structure of mudbrick (Ayrton
et al.
1904:1–5, pl. VI). A ‘fleet’ of funerary boats discovered adjacent to the enclosure may have formed part of the overall building programme (O’Connor 1991, 1995). Buildings inside the court of the enclosure foreshadow some of the elements of the Step Pyramid complex (Kemp 1989:56, fig. 18; O’Connor 1995:7). The Shunet ez-Zebib is still one of the most visible monuments at Abydos, its massively thick walls having withstood forty- five centuries. Despite its vast size and the investment of labour that it represents, the Shunet ez-Zebib is not the only such building attributable to Khasekhemwy. A parallel

construction can be found on the northern side of the Great Wadi at Hierakonpolis (see Chapter 7). Why Khasekhemwy should have constructed two such funerary enclosures remains a mystery. In addition to the Tort’, a granite door-jamb from the town site at Hierakonpolis may have belonged to a temple erected by Khasekhemwy (Quibell 1900: pl. II; Engelbach 1934). Two further blocks found nearby (Quibell and Green 1902: pls LIX.8, XXIII [bottom]) suggest a major building programme undertaken by Khasekhemwy at Hierakonpolis. Across the river at Elkab, a granite block with the king’s
serekh
was discovered within the town enclosure, hinting at another large building (Sayce and Clarke 1905:239). The Palermo Stone may provide further evidence for temple building, if the beginning of the fifth register comprises the last years of Khasekhemwy’s reign. The entry for year 13 records the construction of a stone building called
Mn-n rt
(Schäfer 1902:26). The reference to stone probably indicates a temple, since secular buildings of the Early Dynastic period were more usually made from mudbrick. If the Early Dynastic relief blocks from the temple of Hathor at Gebelein are also to be dated to the reign of Khasekhemwy (W.S.Smith 1949:137–8), he would emerge as a major patron of temple construction in Upper Egypt, and by far the most prolific builder of the Early Dynastic period as a whole.

The achievements of Khasekhemwy’s reign are not restricted, however, to architecture or administration. The objects from his tomb at Abydos are among the glories of Early Dynastic craftsmanship. They include a sceptre fashioned from the precious stone sard with bands of gold (Petrie 1901: pl. IX.l);
dolomite
limestone vases with sheet gold covers (Petrie 1901: pl. IX.2, 5–10; Spencer 1993:86, fig. 65); and a ewer and basin of bronze (Petrie 1901: pl. IX.13–15; Spencer 1993:88, fig. 68). Advanced metalworking is also indirectly attested by an entry on the Palermo Stone. The major event of year 15 was the fashioning of a copper statue called ‘high is Khasekhemwy’ (Schäfer 1902:27; Sethe 1914). Life-size copper statues which would fit such a description have survived from the late Old Kingdom. The entry for year 15 may also contain a reference to shipbuilding. According to the Palermo Stone, the king whose reign is recorded at the beginning of the fifth register died in his sixteenth or seventeenth regnal year. However, on both the statues of Khasekhem from Hierakonpolis the king wears the close-fitting robe associated with the Sed-festival, usually—though not always—celebrated after a considerable period of time on the throne.

The reign of Khasekhemwy marks a turning point in Egyptian history and culture, linking the early development of dynastic civilisation during the First and Second Dynasties with the full flourishing of that civilisation from the beginning of the Third Dynasty. His mortuary constructions foreshadow the pyramid age, and his political achievements seem to have re-established the internal stability and prosperity needed for the great cultural achievements of his successors. A sealing from Khasekhemwy’s tomb at Abydos demonstrates the family link between him and Netjerikhet. The sealing names the ‘mother of the king’s children, Nimaat-hap’ (Petrie 1901: pl. XXIV.210). This same personage is named, this time as ‘mother of the dual king’, on a sealing from mastaba K1 at Beit Khallaf (Garstang 1902: pl. X.7), dated by other sealings to the reign of Netjerikhet. In other words, Netjerikhet was Nimaathap’s son, either by a second husband or, perhaps more likely (given the phraseology on the sealing from Khasekhemwy’s tomb), by Khasekhemwy himself.

THE THIRD DYNASTY

The later king lists and the contemporary monuments are in rare agreement concerning the number of Third Dynasty kings. Both the Abydos king list and the Turin Canon record five rulers, whilst five Horus names are attested in Third Dynasty inscriptions. Unfortunately, the history of the dynasty is not without its problems. There remain difficulties in correlating the different royal names, and the order of the five kings is far from clear, as is the attribution of the royal funerary monuments at Zawiyet el-Aryan and Maidum. The archaeological evidence contradicts the Abydos and Turin lists by indicating that Netjerikhet succeeded Khasekhemwy directly. By contrast, the archaeological and historical sources agree concerning Netjerikhet’s successor, now that the
nbty
name Djeserty has been irrefutably linked with the Horus Sekhemkhet. There is no doubt that the king known by his
nswt-bỉty
name Huni was the last ruler of the Third Dynasty, but the ordering of the remaining three Horus names (Sanakht, Khaba and Qahedjet) and one
nswt-bỉty
name (Nebka) is open to differing reconstructions. The duration of the Third Dynasty is also a matter of conjecture. The figures given for the five kings in the Turin Canon total seventy-four years, a comparatively short period. There is no independent means of checking these figures; we can only gauge how likely a particular reign-length is for a particular ruler, given the scale of his monuments or other known achievements. The end of the Third Dynasty has been plausibly placed at 2575 BC (Baines and Málek 1980:36).

Netjerikhet

The weight of archaeological evidence favours Netjerikhet as Khasekhemwy’s successor and thus the first king of the Third Dynasty. The sealings of Nimaathap, already mentioned, probably indicate that Netjerikhet was Khasekhemwy’s son. Sealings of Netjerikhet found in the tomb of Khasekhemwy at Abydos (Petrie 1901: pl. XXIV.211; Kaplony 1963, II: 1187,1190; III: figs 768, 798; Giddy 1996:30,1997:29), and further examples from the Shunet ez-Zebib (Newberry 1909: pl. XXIII; Kaplony 1963, I: 164; III: pl. 131, figs 800–1), suggest that Netjerikhet, as son and heir, oversaw the burial of his predecessor. Moreover, the architectural and symbolic parallels between the funerary enclosure of Khasekhemwy (the Shunet ez-Zebib) and the Step Pyramid enclosure of Netjerikhet argue in favour of the close proximity of the two reigns (O’Connor 1991, 1995). The same store of ritual stone vessels seems to have supplied both kings’ tombs, since both contained fragments with identical ink drawings of the god Min, clearly drawn from the same collection (Petrie 1901: pl. III.48; Lacau and Lauer 1965: pl. 15.1–5). Two sealings from mastaba K1 at Beit Khallaf bear an identical inscription—referring to the ‘house of provisioning of the vineyards of Memphis’—except for the
serekh,
which is that of Khasekhemwy in one case (Weill 1908:83) and that of Netjerikhet in the other (Weill 1908:101). A plausible conclusion is that, after the death of Khasekhemwy, the original cylinder-seal was simply re-cut with the name of the new king. The archaeological evidence is supported by at least one historical source: the Saqqara king list names Djoser (Netjerikhet) as the immediate successor of Beby (a misreading of the name Khasekhemwy) (Weill 1908:13).