Early Dynastic Egypt (22 page)

Khaba may be most plausibly identified as Sekhemkhet’s immediate successor, and thus the third king of the dynasty.

Sanakht and Nebka

The position of these two names in the order of succession remains to be firmly established (Seidlmayer 1996a: 198, n. 14). With a single exception, Sanakht is attested on contemporary monuments by his Horus name. His other names are not known for certain, although a fragmentary sealing from mastaba K2 at Beit Khallaf shows the king’s
serekh
facing the lower portion of a cartouche (Garstang 1902: pl. XIX.7; Seidlmayer 1996b: pl. 23). Since the sign in the bottom of the cartouche resembles an archaic
ka
- sign, the name has been restored as Nebka, and this has been taken as the
nswt-bỉty
name of the Horus Sanakht. The fact that the
nswt-bíty
name written in a cartouche did not come into regular use until the late Third Dynasty clearly argues in favour of Sanakht having reigned towards the end of the dynasty. Although the Abydos and Turin king lists record a King Nebka at the beginning of the Third Dynasty, between Khasekhemwy and Netjerikhet, this is contradicted by the archaeological evidence.

A number of further sealings from mastaba K2 at Beit Khallaf bear the Horus name of Sanakht (Garstang 1902: pl. XIX.2–6, 8). A seal-impression with the king’s name was found in an Early Dynastic building on the island of Elephantine (Seidlmayer, in Kaiser
et al.
1982:303–6 and 304, fig. 15, pl. 65b; Pätznick, in Kaiser
et al.
1995:180; Seidlmayer 1996b: 121). The sealing gives a string of titles, translated as ‘royal seal- bearer and judicial official connected with the royal estate’. The inscription suggests that an administrative building connected to a royal
domain
or estate was once located on the island, attached to the small step pyramid nearby. This monument, one of several similar structures throughout Egypt, has been dated to the last reign of the Third Dynasty (Seidlmayer 1996a, 1996b: 119–20). For this reason, the Elephantine sealing tends to favour a date for Sanakht towards the end of the dynasty. Seal-impressions of Sanakht from the Step Pyramid complex of Netjerikhet (Firth and Quibell 1935:141, fig. 18; Lauer 1936:5, fig. 3) do not help to resolve Sanakht’s place in the Third Dynasty since they were found in a room in the north-east corner of the North Temple, a structure which post-dates the Step Pyramid itself. In the absence of any direct evidence to link the so- called ‘brick pyramid’ at Abu Rawash with Sanakht (Dodson 1996:30, after Swelim), it must be admitted that no royal tomb can be assigned to this king. Although it is perhaps unlikely that Sanakht would have failed to start work on a funerary monument, it is possible that a fundamental reorganisation of economic and administrative structures in the late Third Dynasty disrupted temporarily the sequence of imposing royal tombs (Seidlmayer 1996a: 210–12).

The most significant monument attributable without doubt to the reign of Sanakht is a pair of rock-cut inscriptions in the Wadi Maghara, Sinai (Gardiner and Peet 1952: pls I, IV). One scene shows the king wearing the white crown, preceded by the standard of Wepwawet and a shrine surmounted by a falcon. In the other scene (BM 691: Spencer 1980:16, pls 8–9 [Cat. 18], 1993:101, fig. 77), the king wears the red crown and is shown in the pose of smiting a captive (now lost). A fragment of vertical inscription accompanying the scene contains the oldest known reference to turquoise
(mfk3t),
making clear the reason for the Egyptians’ interest in the region.

The combination of sealings in mastaba K2 at Beit Khallaf suggests that Sanakht succeeded Netjerikhet (Sethe, in Garstang 1902:25). However, it seems certain that Netjerikhet’s immediate successor was Sekhemkhet, builder of the second step pyramid complex at Saqqara. Sanakht may therefore have been Netjerikhet’s second successor, and he has been identified as such by a number of scholars (for example, Helck 1984a: 375). If this theory is correct, then the rock-cut inscriptions in the Wadi Maghara would have been made in three successive reigns, marking a period of intense Egyptian activity in the turquoise mining region. In the Turin Canon, Djeserty/Sekhemkhet’s successor is named as Hudjefa; but, rather than being a name, this word probably indicates no more than a gap in the records from which the list was compiled (Goedicke 1956a). Given the epigraphy of the Beit Khallaf sealing, Sanakht was probably Huni’s immediate predecessor, and thus the penultimate king of the dynasty. An unnamed king in this position is given just six years by the Turin Canon. This figure seems quite plausible, in view of the fact that Sanakht is so sparsely attested.

On the basis of the Beit Khallaf seal-impression, Sanakht is almost certainly to be identified with the king whose
nswt-bỉty
name, written in a cartouche, was Nebka (Seidlmayer 1996b: 121, pl. 23). Nebka is attested only indirectly: in the tomb of a late Third Dynasty priest at Saqqara (Weill 1908:262–73, pls VI-VII; Porter and Moss 1974:500) and in the Middle Kingdom Tales of Wonder’ preserved in Papyrus Westcar (Erman 1890:7). The earlier reference occurs in the autobiographical inscription from the tomb of Akhetaa, an official who, amongst other positions, was ‘priest of King Nebka’. The position of Nebka within the Third Dynasty depends upon the precise interpretation of Akhetaa’s title. If he was a priest serving the cult of the reigning king, then Nebka must be placed at the end of the Third Dynasty. However, if Akhetaa was a priest in the mortuary cult of Nebka, this king would probably have reigned somewhat earlier in the dynasty. The reference to Nebka in Papyrus Westcar may help to resolve the problem. The tale of wonder set in his reign comes after the tale set in the reign of Netjerikhet/Djoser and before a tale set in the reign of Huni. If the order of the tales is chronological then, as suggested here, Nebka will have reigned after Netjerikhet and preceded Huni on the throne. The Turin Canon places a King Nebka—with a reign of nineteen years—before Netjerikhet, but this is flatly contradicted by the archaeological evidence. The conclusion must be that Nebka reigned towards the end of the Third Dynasty, and this agrees with the available evidence for Sanakht.

Huni and Qahedjet

With the last king of the Third Dynasty, we stand on the threshold of the Old Kingdom. Just as the reign of Khasekhemwy at the end of the Second Dynasty marks something of a turning-point, so does the reign of Huni at the end of the Third Dynasty. Substantial construction projects and the possible restructuring of regional administration paved the way for the frenzy of pyramid building characteristic of the Fourth Dynasty. However, we still know comparatively little about the king who presided over these achievements. The Turin Canon records a reign-length of twenty-four years for Huni. A shorter reign would seem unlikely, given the scale of his completed building projects.

Huni is attested on contemporary monuments by his
nswt-bỉty
name, written in a cartouche. Alternative readings have been suggested (for example, Goedicke 1956b); but

in the absence of an agreed
transliteration,
the name recorded in the later king lists, Huni, has been adopted by Egyptologists, even though it probably represents a corruption of the original. Huni’s position as last king of the Third Dynasty and Sneferu’s immediate predecessor is confirmed both by Papyrus Prisse (Jéquier 1911; Gardiner 1946) and by the autobiographical inscription in the tomb of Metjen at Saqqara (Goedicke 1966).

The most impressive monument which can be attributed to Huni directly is the small granite step pyramid on the island of Elephantine. This is now recognised as the provenance of a granite cone, bearing the inscription
sšd Hwnỉ,
‘Diadem of Huni’, followed by the determinative of a palace. The cone suggests that Huni built a palace or building associated with the royal cult on the island (Seidlmayer 1996a, 1996b). Other small step pyramids, similar in size and construction to the Elephantine monument, have been identified at sites throughout Egypt (Dreyer and Kaiser 1980; Edwards 1993): Seila in the Fayum (Lesko 1988); Zawiyet el-Meitin in Middle Egypt; south Abydos (Dreyer and Swelim 1982); Tukh near Naqada; el-Kula near Hierakonpolis; and south Edfu. On the basis of the Elephantine monument, all but the Seila pyramid have been dated to the reign of Huni; excavations have shown that the Seila pyramid was built by his successor, Sneferu (Edwards 1993:69). The function of the small step pyramids has been hotly debated (Seidlmayer 1996a). It is probable that stone was reserved for royal building projects at this period, and the pyramids may have served as territorial markers, perhaps associated with cult places of the king or royal estates (there was an administrative building attached to the pyramid at Elephantine). The distribution of the monuments suggests that there was one pyramid for each nome, at least in southern Upper Egypt; and it is tempting to link their construction with the reorganisation of provincial government posited for Huni’s reign.

The pyramid at Maidum has been attributed to Huni, despite Middle and New Kingdom graffiti from the site which credit Sneferu with its construction. It is possible that Sneferu only finished the monument, converting it into a true pyramid (but note Edwards 1993:93). If the initial stage of the Maidum pyramid was not intended as Huni’s funerary monument the location of his tomb remains a mystery. It may have been at Saqqara, but the only obvious location—the unexcavated Ptahhotep enclosure to the west of the Netjerikhet complex—lacks any substructure, making it highly unlikely that it represents an unfinished step pyramid complex. One suggestion is that the construction of a series of small step pyramids may, in some way, have lessened the importance attached to the principal royal monument, the king’s tomb. According to this view, the absence of a pyramid securely datable to the reign of Huni may be no coincidence (Seidlmayer 1996a: 210–11). An estate of Huni is listed on the Palermo Stone in the reign of the Fifth Dynasty King Neferirkara (Schäfer 1902:40); this indicates that the memory of Huni was still revered, and at least one of his foundations still in existence, a century-and-a-half after his death.

Until some thirty years ago, the four Horus names discussed above (Netjerikhet, Sekhemkhet, Sanakht and Khaba) were the only ones attested on monuments of the Third Dynasty. Then, in the late 1960s, an unprovenanced limestone stela was purchased by the Louvre, inscribed for a king with the previously unknown Horus name Qahedjet (Vandier 1968). The iconography of the stela is of great significance for Egyptian art history, since it shows the earliest representation of a god (in this case Horus) embracing the king. The style is very reminiscent of the relief panels from the Step Pyramid of Netjerikhet; on

stylistic grounds, therefore, the stela may be placed close in time to the reign of Netjerikhet. However, the execution of the carving is superior to the Netjerikhet relief panels, and the more developed iconography of the Qahedjet stela tends to favour a date towards the end of the Third Dynasty. The precise identification of the Horus Qahedjet is impossible without further epigraphic evidence, but the scholar who published the Louvre stela favours Huni in preference to the shadowy Nebka (especially if the latter is equated with the Horus Sanakht).

Irrespective of whether the Qahedjet stela was carved for Huni or for one of his predecessors, the achievements of Huni’s reign are impressive, and clearly set the scene for the great flourishing of Egyptian court culture in the Old Kingdom. The structure of provincial government recorded in the tomb of Metjen probably marks a decisive break from the Early Dynastic past, and presages the absolute central control of manpower and resources reflected in the pyramid building of the Fourth Dynasty. Thus, with the reign of Huni, the formative period of Egyptian civilisation comes to an end.

PART II

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AUTHORITY

CHAPTER FOUR ADMINISTRATION‌

INTRODUCTION

An analysis of Early Dynastic administration highlights the achievement of Egypt’s early kings in fashioning a system of rule that was to survive for three thousand years. The word ‘administration’ can be used in two senses: the entirety of the state apparatus of government, and the more detailed system of recording and distribution employed by it (Husson and Valbelle 1992:44). This chapter will seek to investigate both aspects, presenting the evidence for the various institutions of government, their organisation, operations and personnel. The section at the end of the chapter gives outlines of some individual careers of Early Dynastic high officials, in order to illustrate the possibilities of advancement within the ranks of the government.

While several authors have written about the administrative apparatus of the Old Kingdom and later periods (for example, Helck 1954; Strudwick 1985), to date ‘no systematic analysis of the political organization of the Early Dynastic period has yet been attempted’ (Trigger
et al.
1983:56). There are several reasons for this, primarily the difficulties in deciphering the earliest stage of the Egyptian script (Kahl 1994), coupled with the paucity and imbalance of the available evidence. Important contributions have been made to our understanding of early seal-impressions and the institutions and offices to which they refer (Kaplony 1963); autobiographical tomb inscriptions from the late Third Dynasty have likewise been analysed, shedding light on administrative organisation at the end of the Early Dynastic period (Junker 1939; Goedicke 1966); and individual studies have examined the origins of particular administrative mechanisms, such as
phyle
s (Roth 1991) and the nome system (Martin-Pardey 1976). But it seems no attempt has been made to combine all the evidence from the first three dynasties in a coherent account of the early development of Egyptian administration. As we shall see, the evidence is patchy and partial; but the administration itself may not have been thorough or all-embracing (Malek 1986:35). By taking an inclusive approach to all the potential sources, something of the nature of Early Dynastic government, its structure and priorities, can be discerned. This is an important goal, for it was under the kings of the first three dynasties that the administrative mechanisms that were to characterise the Old Kingdom were first developed. The solutions adopted by Egypt’s early rulers to the problems of political and economic control laid the foundations for the governmental apparatus of the mature Egyptian state.