Early Dynastic Egypt (40 page)

The king smites his enemies

The aforementioned ivory label of Den depicts one of the most characteristic actions of the Egyptian ruler: with his arm upraised, he smites a bound captive cowering at his feet. The instrument of subjugation is the
piriform
mace, a weapon attested archaeologically from the Naqada I period. The mace was a potent symbol of royal power, and could be carried by the king in other situations as part of his insignia of office, as on the fragmentary ivory label of Den mentioned above. None the less, it is in smiting scenes that the mace features most commonly as an attribute of kingship. The motif of the ruler smiting his enemies is of great antiquity. A recently discovered late Naqada I painted pottery vessel from Cemetery U at Abydos shows a royal (?) figure smiting a group of bound captives. This vessel is the very earliest iconographic evidence to date for Egyptian kingship, yet it already presents the motif that characterises depictions of the ruler throughout the succeeding three-and-a-half thousand years. The king smiting his enemies may be regarded as the quintessential royal activity shown in Egyptian iconography. The action emphasised the king’s primary duty: to safeguard created order by attacking the forces of disorder (Hall 1986). Just as the barren and hostile deserts which surrounded Egypt represented the antithesis of the fertile Nile valley, so the peoples to the south, west and east of Egypt were cast as embodying the forces that opposed and threatened the Egyptians and their way of life.

Standards on early royal monuments

On many royal monuments from the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods, groups of standards are shown accompanying the ruler. The Scorpion and Narmer maceheads and the Narmer Palette each shows a similar group of standards in attendance on the king. Further standards, in other contexts, are depicted on four ceremonial palettes from the period of state formation (the so-called Hunters’, Louvre, Battlefield and Libyan palettes).

Forms and contexts

Altogether, ten different standards are attested: an east-sign; the Min (thunderbolt?) symbol; a canine with the
šdšd
-device
; a second unidentified canine; an ibis; a single or double falcon; a falcon perched on a crescent; the Seth-animal; a curious bag-shaped object; and the desert hieroglyph (Figure 6.4).

Much debate has surrounded the proper identification of the standards, their origins and symbolism. The canine with the
šdšd
-device has been identified as Wepwawet (Kaiser 1960:122–3), and this would seem to be confirmed by a Third Dynasty sealing from Beit Khallaf which shows an identical canine standard labelled as Wepwawet (Garstang 1902: pl. VIII.l). The ibis standard may be connected with the god Thoth, although this is by no means certain (Kaiser 1960:126).

Figure 6.4
Standards on early royal monuments. The ten different types of standard depicted on ceremonial palettes and maceheads of the late Predynastic period and early First Dynasty: (1) placenta; (2) canine and šdšd- device; (3) falcon (after Kemp 1989:42,

fig. 12); (4) mountain-sign; (5) Seth- animal; (6) Min-sign (after Spencer 1993:56, fig. 36); (7) east-sign (after Davis

1992:94, fig. 28); (8) falcon on crescent

(after Spencer 1993:56, fig. 36); (9)

canine; (10) ibis (after Davis 1992:144, fig. 37). Not to same scale.

The falcon very probably represents the god Horus; the twin falcons, Horus and Seth (Kaiser 1960:123–4). The falcon on a crescent may represent Anti, the local god of the twelfth Upper Egyptian nome; a similar motif occurs on an elaborate alabaster vessel from the ‘Main Deposit’ at Hierakonpolis. The bag-shaped sign, later associated with the god Khonsu, was first explained as the royal placenta (Seligman and Murray 1911; Blackman 1916; Frankfort 1948). Other scholars have hesitated to accept this identification (Kaiser 1960:127), suggesting instead a throne cushion (Helck 1954:27 n. 99, 37; F.D.Friedman 1995:4–5) or a variant of the emblem of Nekhen (Posener 1965). However, ethnographic parallels from other
Hamitic
African cultures provide support for the possible deification of the royal placenta in ancient Egypt, and there are convincing etymological reasons for linking Khonsu with the royal placenta. It is possible that the royal placenta was regarded as the king’s stillborn twin; it may have been associated with the royal
ka,
the divine essence passed from ruler to ruler which played an important part in Egyptian kingship ideology from the earliest times (Frankfort 1948:78).

Symbolism and significance

Two separate groups of standards can be distinguished. Those depicted on the late Predynastic palettes and on the upper register of the Scorpion macehead probably represent the most important divine symbols of the period of state formation (Kaiser 1959:130–1). A second—and for the present study, more informative—group comprises those standards which accompany the person of the king on the Scorpion and Narmer monuments. These are clearly more than a collection of the most important Upper Egyptian deities, since several notable gods and goddesses are missing from the group (for example, Seth, Min and Hathor) (Kaiser 1960:127). On all three monuments the collection of standards is strikingly similar, suggesting that these particular emblems were closely connected with the king (cf. Frankfort 1948:92). The following same four standards appear on both monuments of Narmer: two falcons, Wepwawet with the
šdšd
- device, and the royal placenta. Early Dynastic royal monuments after the reign of Narmer show only Wepwawet and the royal placenta. They accompany the figure of a king on a relief block in the Cairo Museum, thought to be from the Early Dynastic temple at Gebelein (W.S.Smith 1949: pl. 30.d), on a relief fragment from the Heliopolis shrine of Netjerikhet (W.S.Smith 1949: fig. 52), and on the same king’s relief panels from the Step Pyramid complex (Firth and Quibell 1935: pls 15–17, 40–2).

For the interpretation of these standards later parallels are revealing. In scenes of the Sed-festival from the solar temple of Niuserra (Fifth Dynasty), similar standards are named the
šmsw Hr,
‘followers of Horus’ (cf. Kaiser 1959:130), a term also applied to the semi-legendary pre-unification kings in the Turin Canon. For this reason, the standards have been linked with the royal ancestors, and it is true that the worship of ancestors was an important element of kingship from the earliest times (Frankfort 1948:91). An alternative suggestion is that the group of four standards on the Narmer Palette and macehead were symbols of the Thinite royal house (Frankfort 1948:93). If the precise origin of the standards eludes us, it none the less seems likely that each symbolised a particular aspect of kingship.

TITLES AND NAMES: EXPRESSIONS OF DIVINE KINGSHIP

One of the most accessible sources for Early Dynastic kingship is the names of the kings themselves (cf. Weill 1961, chapter 18). As in many ancient (and modern) societies, so in ancient Egypt names were full of meaning. They were often selected to express particular beliefs or concerns. This was indeed the case with the kings’ names and titles, which were naturally imbued with added religious and/or political significance. Certain concepts are frequently expressed in royal names, such as strength, skill and fecundity (Husson and Valbelle 1992:20). The king’s official titulary may be considered as ‘an elaborate statement regarding his divine nature’ (Frankfort 1948:46). Hence, if we can ‘translate’ or at least interpret Early Dynastic royal names, we should gain important insights into how the early Egyptians regarded the office of kingship, and which aspects of his role a particular king chose to emphasise in the titulary he adopted at his accession (Shaw and Nicholson 1995:153). As we shall see, two ideas in particular are stressed in the royal titulary: the fact that the king presides over a dual monarchy, and the divine status of the king as the incarnation of Horus (Quirke 1990:10).

Prior to the development of the fivefold titulary common in later times, kings in the Early Dynastic period bore up to three different names or titles. One of these is attested from the late Predynastic period, others were added during the First Dynasty. The Horus name, written in a rectangular frame or
serekh,
expressed an aspect of the king’s nature in his role as the earthly manifestation of the sky god Horus. Many Early Dynastic kings are attested solely by their Horus name, which was the element of the royal titulary most commonly used on monuments and in inscriptions. A second royal title was added in the middle of the First Dynasty. This was
nswt-bỉty,
‘he of the sedge and bee’, a title which expressed the many dualities over which the king exercised rule: Upper and Lower Egypt, the Black Land (cultivation) and the Red Land (desert), the realms of day and night, the natural and the supernatural, and so on (cf. Quirke 1990:11). The later king lists often referred to rulers by the name that followed this
nswt-bỉty
title. Towards the end of the First Dynasty, a third title was introduced, first as part of the
nswt-bỉty
name, and later as a separate title in its own right:
nbty,
the
‘Two Ladies’
, referring to the patron deities of Upper and Lower Egypt, the vulture goddess Nekhbet of Elkab and the cobra goddess Wadjet of Buto. The
nbty
title expressed the king’s dual role as king of Upper and Lower Egypt. Comparatively few
nbty
names are preserved in contemporary Early Dynastic sources. The origins of a fourth title, the poorly understood ‘Golden Horus name’, may be traced in royal inscriptions of the First and Third Dynasties, and in the annals of the Palermo Stone. The cartouche, an oval frame which enclosed the king’s birth name, first appears at the end of the Third Dynasty.

Attempts to read meaning into the varying use of different titles may be misguided. The composition of the royal titulary seems to have been rather fluid in the Early Dynastic period and early Old Kingdom, not necessarily following the strict rules that modern scholars have tried to discern or even impose (cf. S.Schott 1956). A certain flexibility in practice—even as late as the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty—is indicated by inscriptions of Netjerikhet and Sneferu. For example, a relief fragment from the Heliopolis shrine of Netjerikhet gives the sequence
nswt-bỉty N rỉ-h t
written within the panels of the king’s
serekh,
the upper part of which encloses the Horus name, also
N rỉ- h t
(S.Schott 1956:66, fig. 3); whilst a rock-cut inscription of Sneferu from the Wadi

Maghara shows the king’s
nswt-bỉty nbty
name (here the same as his Horus name,
Nb- m3 t)
and ‘Golden Horus’ name
(Snfrw)
both enclosed within a cartouche, reserved in later times for the
nswt-bỉty
name (S. Schott 1956:64, fig. 1). Clearly, early in the development of the royal titulary, the various elements were, to some extent, interchangeable and could be combined in several different ways. The message that the titulary as a whole conveyed may have been more important than the precise combination or ordering of the various names and epithets.

The Horus title

The primary title was the Horus title. This was adopted by the king at his accession and subsequently used throughout his reign. A modern parallel is the
nengo,
the name adopted at the accession of a Japanese emperor and by which he is always known after his death. Thus, the emperor known in the West by his personal name Hirohito is referred to in Japan as Showa (‘radiant harmony’). In much the same way, the personal names of the Early Dynastic Egyptian kings were apparently used very rarely. Instead, contemporary monuments recorded the king’s Horus name. This comprised three elements: a phrase or epithet, written within a rectangular panel—representing a section of the palace façade – surmounted by a falcon symbolising the god Horus (cf. Dreyer 1995b: 54, n. 19). The name expressed the close relationship between the king and the celestial deity he embodied. As a celestial deity, Horus was remote yet all-seeing, enfolding within his wings the entire cosmos. A god with such qualities evidently provided Egypt’s early kings with a powerful symbol and metaphor for their own earthly rule (Quirke 1990:21). The
serekh
surmounted by a figure of the god was adopted as a potent symbol of kingship during late Predynastic times. The earliest
serekh
s were empty, the symbol alone conveying the necessary message of royal power. Towards the culmination of the unification process, the king began to write an epithet within the
serekh
(cf. Barta 1990). This epithet expressed a particular aspect of the god Horus immanent in his earthly incarnation, the king (cf. Frankfort 1948:46). It is likely that the name of the god himself was intended to be read as part of the name as a whole (S.Schott 1956:56).