Early Dynastic Egypt (9 page)

TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIAL CHANGE

As well as illustrating developments in iconography and ideology, decorated ware is an important indicator of another sphere where profound changes were taking place in the courts of Upper Egypt: technology. The rise of local élites, attested from early Predynastic times, accompanied increasing
social stratification
and craft specialisation. Elites require prestige objects with which to display their social and economic status, which in turn requires dedicated, full-time specialists to make such objects. As the economic influence of certain individuals within a community increased, so did their power of patronage. A local ruler, with more agricultural produce at his disposal than was necessary for mere subsistence, could afford to employ craftsmen on a permanent basis, providing for them out of his surplus income. The release of a growing number of people from agricultural production and their engagement in specialist production brought with it major technological advances, as new skills were developed and old ones passed down from generation to generation. The development of early metalworking and the unsurpassed ability of the early Egyptians to fashion elaborate vessels from some of the hardest stones were the result of Predynastic socio-economic trends which facilitated craft specialisation.

Pottery is abundant in Predynastic contexts. Hence, the technological development which is the easiest to trace in the archaeological record is the one that occurred in the sphere of ceramic production. During the transition from Naqada I to Naqada II (
c.
3550-

1. 3450 BC), hand-made pottery with a high degree of variation was swiftly replaced in Upper Egyptian settlements by Petrie’s rough ware, its greater uniformity and rapid domination of the ceramic repertoire being signs of mass production (R.Friedman 1992:204, n. 8 and 1994; Adams and Friedman 1992:327). This fundamental change marks the beginning of a process that was eventually to take hold throughout Egypt, bringing with it important socio-economic developments. Until the beginning of the Naqada II period, pottery in the Nile valley was made exclusively from alluvial clays. These have the advantage of being easy to work, shape and fire, requiring only primitive technology available at the household level. Most of the pottery from Badarian and Naqada I sites was probably made in this small-scale way. There is evidence from Hierakonpolis of specialist pottery production as early as the Naqada I period (R.Friedman 1994:401), but this is unusual, reflecting the advanced state of social stratification and craft specialisation at Hierakonpolis. The output of the Hierakonpolis kilns seems to have been intended primarily for funerary consumption, probably grave goods for the local élite buried in large tombs at Locality 6 (Hoffman 1982; B.Adams 1996). This type of specialist workshop became much more common from the beginning of Naqada II, and was marked by the advent of a more complex ceramic technology, producing vessels of a new and distinctive type. Pots made from desert or marl clays require much more controlled firing conditions than vessels made from alluvial clays. The kiln must also reach a far higher temperature for the process to be successful. The appearance of decorated ware—made from marl clay-in the ceramic repertoire of Upper Egypt represents a major technological advance, one which seems to have been made possible by the increasing activity of specialist potters.
   

   The production of pottery for a market by professional workshops had a profound impact upon methods of distribution and exchange in Predynastic Egypt. In the archaeological record, one of the most striking phenomena is the spread of Upper Egyptian ceramic technology northwards during the latter part of the Naqada II period (Kaiser 1956, 1990; Kemp 1995:682). By Naqada IIc (
   c.
   3400-c. 3300 BC), pottery made in classic Upper Egyptian fashion appears in graves at sites such as Haraga and Girza, near the entrance to the Fayum; whilst by Naqada IId2 (
   c.
   3300-c. 3200 BC) it has spread to sites in the extremities of the Delta like Buto and Minshat Abu Omar. This phenomenon has been interpreted as a broader ‘cultural superposition’, reflecting a northward expansion of Upper Egyptian cultural characteristics, if not people (von der Way 1991). However, this may be an over-ambitious reading of the evidence, which merely attests the gradual displacement of indigenous, Lower Egyptian patterns of ceramic production, distribution and exchange by patterns developed in Upper Egypt (Köhler 1993:253–4 and 1995; cf. Kemp 1995:683). Three factors may be at work in this process. First, the technological superiority of Upper Egyptian pottery, which must have made it attractive to the inhabitants of Lower Egypt. Second, the marl clays used to make decorated ware and other specialist ceramics, such as the class of wavy-handled jars imitating imported Palestinian forms, were probably restricted to Upper Egypt where the advanced firing technology required to make marl pottery was first developed. Third, we may speculate that the specialist pottery workshops of Upper Egypt were keen to seek out new markets for their products, and the thriving communities of the Delta seem to have provided them. Certainly, the Predynastic graves at Minshat Abu Omar in the north- eastern Delta were furnished with pottery almost entirely in the Upper Egyptian style, giving rise to the theory that Minshat was an Upper Egyptian ‘colony site’ (Kemp 1995:687; cf. Kaiser 1987), perhaps established to conduct trade with Palestine. Vessels made from marl clay probably represent imports from Upper Egypt.
   

   The spread of Upper Egyptian patterns of ceramic production, distribution and exchange northwards during late Naqada II accompanied other socio-economic developments which fundamentally changed the character of Lower Egyptian society. For the whole of the Predynastic period prior to late Naqada II, Lower Egypt seems to have been characterised by a generally egalitarian social structure. From the period before the advent of Upper Egyptian cultural characteristics, four substantial cemeteries have been excavated in Lower Egypt: at Heliopolis south (Debono and Mortensen 1988), Maadi and Wadi Digla (Rizkana and Seeher 1990), and es-Saff (Habachi and Kaiser 1985). The individual burials vary little in their size or wealth, and in general were furnished with few grave goods. There are certainly none of the prestige artefacts commonly found in contemporary Upper Egyptian graves. From the beginning of Naqada III (
   c.
   3200 BC), however, this picture changes. At Minshat Abu Omar, the orientation of burials alters, bodies being laid on their left side rather than their right side (Kroeper 1988:12–13). A simultaneous change in the pottery repertoire reinforces the division between earlier and later phases, indicating perhaps a change in the nature of funerary beliefs. Settlements excavated in the Delta also show a marked change, lightweight structures of timber and matting giving way to mudbrick architecture (van den Brink 1989). In Upper Egypt, the appearance of mudbrick architecture—in both domestic and funerary contexts—seems to be connected with the rise of élites, and it may indicate a similar process in Lower Egypt at the beginning of Naqada III (Wilkinson 1996b: 95).
   

   Several prestige artefacts, notably carved stone palettes, have been found at sites in the north-eastern Delta (Leclant 1952; Fischer 1958, 1963; Kroeper 1989), apparently confirming the existence of local élites in the area during the last phase of the Predynastic period. All the evidence seems to point towards the incorporation of the Delta into the socio-economic pattern characteristic of Predynastic Upper Egypt: local élites enjoying differential access to resources, expressing their status in the conspicuous consumption of prestige materials and in the wealth of their burials. In short, by the beginning of the Naqada III period, Upper and Lower Egypt shared the same material culture, and were increasingly characterised by the same social structure (von der Way 1993:96). The stage was set for the process of state formation to begin in earnest.
   

   EARLY CENTRES OF KINGSHIP
   

   The heartland of the technological, social, ideological, economic and political changes that led Egypt to statehood was the southern part of the Nile valley. Here, in the narrow floodplain of Upper Egypt, the conditions seem to have been most favourable for the rise of early élites (Bard 1987). Basin irrigation could be practised with little difficulty, the fertile alluvial land producing more food than was necessary for mere subsistence. At a number of key locations,
   wadi
   s gave access to the mineral resources of the western and eastern deserts, providing communities with the prestige materials required by their leaders for conspicuous consumption. Control of trade routes, whether overland or by river, gave certain sites a further advantage, allowing local élites to dominate economic exchange over a wider area than their immediate hinterlands. The combined effect of these factors was to give rise to a number of flourishing Predynastic communities ruled by highly developed élites displaying some of the features later associated with kingship (Kaiser and Dreyer 1982:242–5). Four sites in particular seem to have played a major part in the concentration of political and economic power that was to characterise the formation of the Egyptian state (Figure 2.1).
   

   The site of Naqada has given its name to the Predynastic material culture of Upper Egypt as a whole, and to the chronological divisions which modern archaeologists impose on the development of that culture. On the west bank of the Nile, opposite the entrance to the Wadi Hammamat that gives access to the mineral-rich Red Sea Hills, a large settlement grew up in early Predynastic times, accompanied by extensive cemeteries on the desert edge (Kemp 1989:36, fig. 9). Since the name for Naqada in historic times was Nubt, ‘city of gold’, it is possible that the site’s early prosperity was founded on this precious commodity, available at various sites in the eastern desert and no doubt traded throughout Predynastic Egypt (Trigger
   et al.
   1983:39). Certainly, by the Naqada II period, the local ruling class had grown wealthy and differentiated themselves increasingly from the general population. This is most noticeable in the mortuary sphere, élite burials being located in a separate cemetery (which, however, continued to include less wealthy interments as well). Cemetery T, as it is known, contained a number of large brick-lined tombs, furnished with abundant grave goods, many of them in prestige materials (Kemp 1973:38–43, 1989:35–7, esp. 36, fig. 9). Judging from the size and splendour of their burials, the Predynastic rulers of Naqada seem to have controlled a territory of some size, perhaps amounting to a ‘kingdom’. The importance of Naqada and
   

   its ruling family in the process of state formation is highlighted by the construction of two royal tombs to the south of the Predynastic necropolis at the very beginning of the First Dynasty (Kemp 1967:24–5, footnote). One of these belonged to Queen Neith-hotep (de Morgan 1897), probably the wife of Narmer, who may have been a descendant of the Predynastic rulers of Naqada. Moreover, the local god of Naqada, Seth, was closely associated with the kingship in Early Dynastic times, being one of the two deities embodied in the person of the king. Hence, a title borne
   

   

   Figure 2.1
   Early centres of kingship. Tombs of late Predynastic rulers: (1) Abydos tomb U-j (after Dreyer 1993:33, fig. 4); (2) Naqada
   

   tomb T5 (after Kemp 1989:36, fig. 9); (3)
   

   Hierakonpolis Locality 6 tomb 1 (after
   

   Hoffman 1982:44, fig. 1.13); (4) Qustul tomb L24 (after Williams 1986:358, fig. 170).
   

   by First Dynasty queens was ‘she who sees Horus-and-Seth’, whilst the Second Dynasty king Peribsen chose to emphasise Seth as his protector deity in preference to Horus. As we shall see, Naqada may have played a key role in the political consolidation of Upper Egypt that preceded the unification of the whole country (Kemp 1989:35–7).
   

   A large Predynastic settlement, extensive cemeteries and a concentration of élite burials in one cemetery are also features of another Upper Egyptian site, Hierakonpolis (B.Adams 1987, 1995, 1996; Hoffman 1982; Kemp 1989:37–41, esp. 40, fig. 11). The area covered by the Predynastic town exceeds any other contemporary settlement in Egypt, marking Hierakonpolis out as perhaps the dominant centre in the fourth millennium BC (Kemp 1989:44). Like Naqada, Hierakonpolis benefited from access to the mineral resources of the eastern desert, via the Wadi Abbad. Close contacts with Lower Nubia may have given the rulers of Hierakonpolis control of, or at least access to, lucrative trade routes connecting Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa, whilst a broad expanse of cultivable land provided the necessary base for a growing population and an expanding sector of non-productive specialists. As early as Naqada I, members of the local élite were buried in a remote spot out in the desert, designated Locality 6 (B.Adams 1996). Their successors of the Naqada II period chose a cemetery closer to the cultivation, and it was here that the famous painted tomb was discovered. During the final phase of the Predynastic period, Naqada III, the local élite moved its burial ground back to Locality 6, constructing massive rock-cut tombs with offering places. Tombs are not the only sign of the important role played by Hierakonpolis in the late Predynastic period. A large ceremonial centre excavated on the low desert and dating back to the early Naqada II period has been interpreted as a temple, closely resembling shrines depicted on First Dynasty seal-impressions (R.Friedman 1996). At the end of Naqada II, the main focus of local religious activity was apparently relocated to the walled town of Nekhen, where a circular stone revetment and an adjoining paved area represent the earliest temple on the town mound (Quibell and Green 1902: pls LXV, LXXII; Hoffman 1980:131–2). It was here that Egypt’s first historic kings (‘Scorpion’ and Narmer) dedicated votive palettes and maceheads, to honour the local god, Horus of Nekhen. Although Narmer was probably descended from the Predynastic rulers of This, King ‘Scorpion’ may have been a member of the ruling family of Hierakonpolis (Trigger, in Trigger
   et al.
   1983:50). In common with Seth of Naqada, the close identification of Horus of Nekhen with divine kingship emphasises the important role played by Hierakonpolis and its rulers in the process of state formation, and in the formulation of kingship ideology (R.Friedman 1994:17), a role already attested in the decoration of the painted tomb.