Early Dynastic Egypt (62 page)

In a radical reinterpretation of the early monumental architecture at Nekhen, the large rectangular enclosure has been dated to the First Dynasty by its architecture and comparisons with the funerary enclosures at Abydos (O’Connor 1992:85). Despite stratigraphic evidence that the circular revetment supporting the temple mound pre-dates

the enclosure wall by a considerable period of time, O’Connor prefers to see the two structures as roughly contemporary. He interprets the enclosure as a royal cult complex (cf. Roth 1993:39) and the Early Dynastic palace gateway as the entrance to a second, adjacent enclosure. A mound of sand is reconstructed within this second, purely hypothetical enclosure, based upon traces of sand found during the course of very limited test excavations (O’Connor 1992:87). Despite the lack of supporting evidence, O’Connor’s arguments do emphasise two important points: the similarity in layout between the temple of Hierakonpolis and a royal ritual precinct (Seidlmayer 1996b: 117), and the way in which royal interest in the temple of Horus at Nekhen at the end of the Second Dynasty changed the nature of the temple, and in all probability the nature of worship at Hierakonpolis. The construction of an enclosure wall around the early temple probably served to exclude persons of insufficient status. The Early Dynastic state embellished the shrine of the god of kingship with new stone buildings, but the price was restricted access. The temple-building activity attested for the reign of Khasekhemwy at Gebelein, Elkab and Hierakonpolis clearly indicates considerable royal interest in the provincial temples of Upper Egypt. This development may be connected with the beginning of the nome system of provincial administration, and perhaps reflects a programme to consolidate central government control of the national economy through the institution of local temples. Seal-impressions of the Second or Third Dynasty from the temple precinct at Elkab mention an ‘inspector of the granary of Elkab’ (van de Walle 1954) and illustrate the economic importance of local temples in the Early Dynastic period as storage centres for agricultural produce (Seidlmayer 1996b: 118). The fruits of increased state control of the economy can be seen in the reign of Khasekhemwy’s successor: the construction of Netjerikhet’s Step Pyramid complex represents an unprecedented marshalling of the country’s resources, channelled into a project of the royal court.

On the low desert to the west of the town of Nekhen, the large ceremonial centre dating back to early Naqada II (R.Friedman 1996) apparently remained in use up to the beginning of the First Dynasty.

Gebelein

A limestone block with relief decoration from the temple of Hathor at Gebelein indicates the existence of an Early Dynastic shrine at the site (Curto 1953; Galassi 1955:64–85). The block, now in Turin, was found during Schiaparelli’s excavations in 1910 (Curto 1953:105; Donadoni Roveri 1990:24). An unprovenanced companion piece in the Cairo Museum has been attributed to the Gebelein temple, in view of the close similarity of the limestone as well as the style of the relief (W.S.Smith 1949:137, pl. 30).

The temple of Hathor was situated on the northern edge of the southern hill at Gebelein (Donadoni Roveri 1990:23, fig. 3.1). Unfortunately, Schiaparelli’s excavations were very poorly documented, so further information about the early Hathor temple or the exact circumstances in which the decorated block was discovered is lacking (Donadoni Roveri 1990:23–4).

The Gebelein reliefs undoubtedly date to the late Second or early Third Dynasty, although a more exact dating is difficult. Similarities to the Heliopolis reliefs from the reign of Netjerikhet suggest an early Third Dynasty date (W.S.Smith 1949:137).

However, the Turin block shows slight peculiarities in style, which may simply reflect its provincial origin or may indicate an earlier, Second Dynasty date (W.S.Smith 1949:137– 8; cf. Seidlmayer 1996b: 116). Both blocks apparently depict a temple foundation ceremony, perhaps the foundation of the Hathor temple itself. On the Turin block the striding figure of the king carries a bundle of four staves in his right hand. On the Cairo companion piece he is shown driving these stakes into the ground. The closest parallel for this subject matter is the granite block of Khasekhemwy from Hierakonpolis, suggesting that the Gebelein blocks, too, date from the late Second Dynasty. In common with the surviving fragments of relief decoration from Khasekhemwy’s other buildings in Upper Egypt, the Gebelein block in Turin alludes to the festivals and ritual activities of divine kingship. A figure below the king wears a curious wig and holds the tail of the king’s leopard-skin garment, details which are paralleled in Fifth Dynasty scenes of the Sed- festival (W.S.Smith 1949:137). A boat associated with the ceremonial progress of the king, the
šms-Hr,
is also depicted.

The reason why a king of the late Second Dynasty should have founded or re-founded a temple at Gebelein remains something of a mystery. The site clearly supported a flourishing community in the late Predynastic period, but it does not seem to have played a particularly important part in the process of state formation, neither does it emerge as a major Early Dynastic centre. The temple at Gebelein was dedicated, at least in later times, to Hathor, one of the mythical divine ancestors of the king, and this connection with the royal cult has been suggested to account for court interest in the site (Seidlmayer 1996b: 116). However, as we have seen, Hathor—as distinct from Bat—is not directly attested until the Fourth Dynasty and, in any case, there were probably other early cult centres of Hathor besides Gebelein. Rather, Khasekhemwy’s involvement at Gebelein seems to be part of a pattern of royal building at provincial shrines in southern Upper Egypt.

Armant

A temple foundation deposit dating to the threshold of the Early Dynastic period was discovered during excavations in the west forecourt of the later temple at Armant (McEuen and Myers 1940:29). The deposit comprised the remains of two large Early Dynastic pottery vessels, some sand and squeezes of mud. These last may be accounted for by the fact that an early temple would almost certainly have been constructed of mudbrick (McEuen and Myers 1940:29). However, no walls were discovered, indicating that the early temple was probably swept away during later building activity.

Coptos

The temple at Coptos was excavated by Petrie at the end of the nineteenth century (Petrie 1896). From the published report, it is difficult to establish the size or relative location of the earliest building. Nevertheless, several large-scale stone sculptures, including the famous Coptos colossi (Payne 1993:12–13, pls I-IV, V.a, b; Dreyer 1995b), indicate that a temple probably stood at the site from the late Predynastic period. The three colossi themselves ‘lay beneath the thick sand bed of the Ptolemaic temple’ (Petrie 1896:7). It was not possible to date them precisely by stratigraphic means, but on art historical

grounds they have been assigned to the late Predynastic period or early First Dynasty. The carvings on the side of the colossi include the saws of sawfish—an alternative suggestion interprets these motifs as branches or fronds of foliage (Dreyer 1995b: 51)— and
Pteroceras (Lambis)
shells, emphasising the close connection between Coptos and the Red Sea. The early importance of Coptos derived from its strategic location at the head of the Wadi Hammamat, which served as the principal route between the Nile valley and the Red Sea coast.

Other large stone sculptures found by Petrie at Coptos confirm the existence of a late Predynastic temple at the site. These included the figure of a bird, probably an archaic falcon (Petrie 1896: pl. V.6), and three lions (Petrie 1896: pl. V). Particularly significant for the dating of the animal sculptures is the mention of ‘New Race’ (in other words, Predynastic) pottery which was found at the same level (Petrie 1896:7). The bird and lions were crudely finished by hammering (Petrie 1896:8) and belong to a class of large- scale animal sculpture from the period of state formation. They seem to confirm that the Egyptians of the late Predynastic period already worshipped deities as large cult statues erected in temples.

Abydos

Excavations at the beginning of the twentieth century uncovered substantial material from an early shrine within the later temple of Osiris at Abydos (Petrie 1902). Two aspects of the archaeological evidence are worth discussing separately: the architectural remains of the shrine itself, and the deposits of votive objects, many of which may date to the Early Dynastic period.

THE EARLY TEMPLE BUILDINGS

Petrie’s excavations revealed a jumble of walls, representing numerous building phases of the early temple, dedicated to the local jackal god Khentiamentiu. The lowest walls probably belonged to temple buildings of the Early Dynastic period (Kemp 1975b: 30). Royal patronage of the temple can certainly be traced back to the beginning of the First Dynasty. A fragment from a vase of glazed composition decorated with the
serekh
of Aha was found by Petrie adjacent to a pit of votive objects. It is also possible that several of the large ceremonial palettes from the late Predynastic period—including the so-called Battlefield, Libyan, Hunters’ and Bull palettes—were found in the temple area at Abydos, and this would take royal patronage of the site even further back (Sayce 1898:99; Legge 1900:130, 133, footnote).

Petrie published plans of the temple buildings over the course of the first three dynasties and he offered a reconstruction of the temple’s development (Petrie 1903:7–9 and pls L-LI). The early history of the Abydos temple area was re-examined in detail by Kemp (1968). He found that the effect of Petrie’s stratigraphic assumptions had been to date many of the walls too early. Furthermore, the complex mass of isolated wall fragments poses great problems for reconstructing complete buildings and for establishing the relative date of the numerous building phases. The earliest temple building (Kemp’s building H) seems to date to the Old Kingdom, although it overlay walls and sand beds which probably belonged to an earlier building, one perhaps as old as

the First Dynasty (Kemp 1968:150). The discovery of small twists of burnt clay beneath building H supports its identification as the early temple, since similar objects were discovered in an apparently Early Dynastic deposit beneath the New Kingdom temple at Armant (Mond and Myers 1940:29). Based upon comparisons with the large rectangular enclosure at Nekhen, the existence of a royal cult enclosure at Abydos has been proposed (O’Connor 1992:89). However, it is hard to see why a complex of this kind would have been located within the early town when the immediately adjacent area of low desert was the chosen location for several such enclosures.

DEPOSITS OF VOTIVE MATERIAL

Three deposits of Early Dynastic votive objects were found by Petrie in the temple area at Abydos. The most important collection of votive material came from a pit designated chamber M69. The floor of chamber M69 was covered with a thick mat of organic matter; embedded within this layer were the votive objects, comprising ivory and faience figurines, and numerous beads (Petrie 1903:23). Two further deposits of discarded votive objects (M64, M65 and M89) were discovered nearby (Petrie 1903:26–7). The majority of the material from these pits was dated to the early First Dynasty on the basis of similar material from the Hierakonpolis ‘Main Deposit’.

However, a re-examination of the complex stratigraphy in the Abydos temple area has shown that chamber M64 probably dates to the early New Kingdom, while chamber M69 could have been dug at any time from the Old Kingdom to the Eighteenth Dynasty (Kemp 1968:153). However, while not all the objects are necessarily Early Dynastic, some of the votive material discarded in these pits is clearly early in style, such as the ivory lion ‘gaming pieces’.

Similar votive material was found scattered within the temple area itself (Petrie 1903:28). Particularly important is the group of human heads, modelled in clay. One of the pottery heads looks distinctly Asiatic (Petrie 1903: pl. XI.257), whilst the appearance of another (Petrie 1903: pl. XI.260) has attracted comment from several scholars (for example, Rice 1990). It is very un-Egyptian in style, and the head-dress, in the form of a turban, is reminiscent of depictions of Sumerian deities. The figure has been identified as a Mesopotamian, but whether human or divine is not known. The presence of such an object in the early temple at Abydos raises fundamental questions about Egypt’s early relations with its eastern neighbours, and the extent to which early religious iconography was influenced from abroad.

Badari

There is some evidence for the existence of an Early Dynastic shrine at Badari, on a finger of low desert called Spur 3. Underneath mudbrick walls of the Old or Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom, identified as successive phases of a small local temple, there was a stratum of Early Dynastic debris which itself overlay some unidentified late Predynastic or Early Dynastic mudbrick structures (Brunton 1927:18–19). Four objects found
in situ
provide the best indications that an Early Dynastic shrine did exist on the site of the later temple. A finely finished cup of deep blue glazed composition, very similar in form to a copper example found in the tomb of Khasekhemwy at Abydos, may

have been donated as a votive object at an Early Dynastic shrine (Brunton 1927: pl. XX.61). The temple area also yielded the upper part of a pottery figurine, depicting a bearded man with a broad face and a curious, shoulder-length wig (Brunton 1927: pl. XXI.3). In general style, the figurine is reminiscent of similar objects found in the Early Dynastic temple at Hierakonpolis. A siltstone falcon of archaic appearance (Brunton 1927: pl. XX.63) quite possibly represents an Early Dynastic cult object (cf. Brunton 1927:17). Anti, the local god of the Badari region—who is attested from at least the Second Dynasty—was worshipped in the form of a falcon, and it is possible that the siltstone statue was an image of the god. Finally, a bird’s head, in pink pottery with ‘little lumps of pottery added to represent the eyes’ (Brunton 1927:17), was also found in the temple area (Brunton 1927: pl. XX.62). Although difficult to date, it may be Early Dynastic and can also be interpreted as a votive offering to the local falcon god.