World Prehistory S 2000 / Owen: Emergence of civilization in Egypt p. 1
World Prehistory: Class 12
The emergence of civilization in Egypt
© Copyright Bruce Owen 2000
Egypt: The setting
The Nile flows NORTH (up on the map)
Water flows downhill, towards the Mediterranean Sea
so the UPPER Nile is to the SOUTH
and the LOWER Nile is to the NORTH
In the Upper Nile, most of the habitable land is in the narrow floodplain of the river
only 2 to 22 km wide; 3 km wide is typical
but some 1,500 km (900 miles) long!
this tended to keep settlements small, since not much land is available to a settlement at any given point
north of Cairo, the valley suddenly opens up into a wide, triangular, green delta: the Lower Nile, or Nile Delta
criss-crossed by shallow waterways
geographically, ecologically, and culturally distinct from the narrow Upper Nile
In general, the natural resources along the Nile are plentiful
settlements along the Nile did not lack basic resources the way Mesopotamian sites did
Nile provides easy transportation
you can drift north (downriver) with the current
and sail south (upriver) with the reliable prevailing wind
since the valley is so narrow, everyone lives right on the freeway…
or in the Delta, they live essentially on a network of travel routes
facilitates cultural uniformity and political unity
Almost no rainfall - all agriculture depends on river water
the Nile flooded regularly, every year
the floods were convenient for farmers
they covered the farmland with fertile silt
farmers planted in the mud as the water recedes
and kept the fields wet with small-scale systems of ditches, levees, retaining ponds, and shadufs (a simple counterweighted lever for lifting potfuls of water a few feet)
there was no point in building big canal or levee systems
natural flooding plus simple systems were adequate for the entire valley floor, and irrigating outside the entrenched valley was effectively impossible
any big canal or levee project would soon enough be destroyed by a high flood, anyway
so agricultural infrastructure was relatively small-scale
Sources of information:
Archaeological evidence is skewed towards cemeteries
due to obvious monuments and incredible preservation of cool stuff
also due to where cemeteries and towns are located
cemeteries are located in dry, elevated desert outside the valley floor
towns were mostly in or near the floodplain
now often buried under silt and below the water table
often disturbed by millennia of people living on the same spot, digging, rebuilding, etc.
this means we don’t know as much about towns, cities, administration as we would like
Written records provide a chronological framework starting very early
initially mostly lists of kings with a few significant events in each reign
carved on monuments, in temples, on papyrus historical or literary documents, etc.
example: the Palermo stone; we have a fragment that lists kings of the 1st and 2nd dynasties
but these don't say much about life and society until later periods
unlike Mesopotamia, where early documents are accounting records
which initially don't help much with chronology or history
but do shed some light on economic activities and occasionally other aspects of life
Manetho, an Egyptian historian of the 3rd century BC (2,200 years ago!), used documents like these to compile a history of kings and events
Manetho's history started almost 3000 years before his own time, so there it has errors
Yet, an amazing amount stands up to excavated evidence
Chronology
starts with the Predynastic period, which is broken into sub-periods
with the start of dynastic kingship, the chronology is based on a numbered series of 31 dynasties, originally outlined by Manetho
These dynasties are supposed to be literally family lines of kings
when the family line was broken (no heir, palace coup, etc.), a new dynasty started
there was probably some fudging at times for political expedience
the 31 dynasties cover about 3000 years of history.
That is a LONG TIME
Historians have grouped the dynasties into periods
periods of strong, centralized political unity called "Kingdoms" (Old, Middle, and New)
separated by periods of disorder called "Intermediate periods"
Early Dynastic (or Archaic) period (3100-2686 BC)
The first dynasties of kings who ruled a unified Egypt
notice that this is different from Sumer's Early Dynastic period
Old Kingdom (2686-2250 BC)
Building of the great pyramids
First Intermediate period
Dynastic kingship broke down, local rulers fought each other
Middle Kingdom (2035-1668 BC)
A vigorous vizier seized power and rebuilt the strength of the Egyptian kingship
revived the tradition of burials in pyramids (but much smaller than in the Old Kingdom)
Second Intermediate period
A second collapse of centralized rule
Egypt was taken over by foreign nomads called the "Hyksos"
New Kingdom (1552-1070 BC)
the Egyptians drove out the Hyksos and reunited Egypt
for the first time, Egypt expanded out along the Mediterranean coast and the Levant to conquer and control a larger empire
royal and noble burials were in deep, rock-cut tombs, rather than pyramids
King Tutankhamun's is the only one of these known that wasn't looted in antiquity
Late periods (compressed together here) were marked by conflict and decline
Ptolemaic (Greek) period (332-30 BC)
Alexander the Great conquered Egypt, bringing it into the Greek (and later Roman) world
we will focus on the early part of this sequence
up to the building of the great pyramids in the Old Kingdom
"the rest is history"…
The Predynastic period
Lower Egyptian Neolithic:
Example site: Merimda (about 5000 - 4100 BC)
simple, perishable pole and thatch houses
by around 4300 BC
broadly similar to late Natufian and PPNA settlements in the Levant
sites up to 20 ha (8 acres)
site populations up to 1,300 to 2,000 people
simple graves within the village, without goods
Upper Egyptian Neolithic
very different from Lower Egypt
Badarian culture, also started around 5000 BC
as in Lower Egypt, small farming villages, maybe only semi-sedentary
perishable round pole-and-thatch houses, hearths, basketry-lined “silo” pits
similar neolithic (early agricultural) subsistence
but technologically more sophisticated than lower Egypt
pottery much finer, better made than in lower Egypt
burial tradition was quite different from lower Egypt
burials were located in cemeteries separated from the areas where people lived, at the edge of the desert
in shallow oval pits, probably roofed with branches, covered with a pile of gravel
bodies dressed in skins or linen cloth
with varied grave goods
stone tools
strings of shell and stone beads as anklets, bracelets, necklaces
ivory and bone beads, pins, needles, awls, combs; needle cases; animal figurines
ceramic, ivory, and bone female figurines
stone palettes for preparing eye paint (especially malachite green)
Naqada I (Amratian) period 4000 - 3600 BC
contemporary with Early Uruk (3900-3600 BC)
Naqada I in Upper Egypt
no clear break from Badarian, rather a gradual evolutionary change, apparent overlap
villages of 50 to 250 people in pole and thatch houses
material culture gradually changed in minor ways
in pottery style
style of palettes
ceramic, ivory, and bone female figurines
continuation of custom of burying in cemeteries with extensive grave goods
some burials contained disk-shaped stone mace heads
many are too small, or have holes too small, to have been functional
some had impractical ivory or horn handles
apparently were symbols of status or power
based on the idea of force
Naqada I in Lower Egypt continued the patterns of the earlier Neolithic
Naqada II (Gerzean) period 3600 - 3200 BC
This is when things really started to change
Contemporary with Middle Uruk (3600-3400 BC) and Late Uruk (3400-3100 BC)
this is when urbanism, technology, power of the temple, etc. picked up in Sumer, too
maybe not a coincidence?
Naqada II in Upper Egypt (3600-3200 BC)
significant changes in material culture
in general: the development of elaborate, specialized crafts
many changes in pottery style
especially the appearance of pots with painted designs, usually showing boats
the boats often have features thought to be a “standard” or “emblem” similar to the standards that later identified regions
many minor changes in the styles of other artifacts
mace heads changed from disk-shaped to pear-shaped
cosmetic palettes changed shape and size
the "signature" objects of Naqada II: incredibly fine flint knives
blade first ground to shape
then long, parallel flakes chipped off of one face only (“ripple flaking”)
sometimes with carved ivory handles
must be the work of highly skilled specialists
clearly for show, not use
increasing (but still rare) use of copper, very rare silver and gold
again, advancing technological skill suggests full-time specialists
points:
rise of highly skilled specialists making elaborate display goods
implies a high-status clientele able to support this work
elaborated burial practices may have encouraged division and specialization of labor, concentration of wealth, increasing social complexity
or did they just reflect those things?
House style changed from round, semisubterranean, with pole and thatch superstructure, to rectangular, aboveground, mudbrick with walled courtyard as in Mesopotamia
Late Naqada II clay house model illustrates this
similar to houses still used today
some people suggest that rectangular houses are more suited to urban living than are round ones
a few large towns or small cities developed
possibly just two or three in Upper Egypt
the vast bulk of Egyptians were still rural, as they remained throughout Egyptian history
These few large towns were probably the centers of chiefdoms that each controlled a nearby stretch of the Nile farmland and population
Hierakonpolis (also called Nekhen)
went from a few hundred people in Naqada I to 5,000 - 10,000 in mid Naqada II
densely packed rectangular mudbrick houses, similar to Mesopotamia
with a range of sizes, suggesting differences in wealth or status
economy:
apparently already a major pottery production center for Upper Egypt
also produced vases, maceheads, palettes, other stone goods
suggests considerable differentiation, complex division of labor
big constructions were built at Hierakonpolis between 3400 BC and 3200 BC (second half of Naqada II)
a large cobblestone foundation of possible palace, temple, or administrative center
an oval retaining wall of sandstone blocks, almost 50 m across, maybe a platform for a monumental building
a thick mudbrick wall around part of the town, presumably for defense
an extensive cemetery
with some rich burials that suggest wealthy, powerful leaders
Naqada
similar layout of rectangular mud-brick buildings
by the beginning of Naqada II, the town was enclosed by a mudbrick wall
very important cemetery
This (a site called "This")
a poorly known town that was probably the center of another regional chiefdom
pottery from just a few clay sources was traded up and down the Nile, suggesting specialized mass production
burial practices for the highest-status people got increasingly elaborate, suggesting increasing status differences
highest-status burials were in rectangular chambers with mudbrick walls
maybe echoed the shift to rectangular houses
highest-status burials started to have "mastabas", or bench-like rectangular mounds built over them
the “painted tomb” at Hierakonpolis
the largest, most elaborate Naqada II tomb known
presumably the tomb of an Upper Egyptian chief or ruler
unfortunately looted before excavation in 1899, only a few goods remained
walls and floor of brick
the walls are painted (the only known example from this period) and show:
boats similar to the ones on the pots
men thought to be hunting animals and/or fighting each other
one seems to hold three captives tied by a rope
another seems to hold a figure upside down, ready to hit it with a long stick
but these are ambiguous, especially since some of the “victims” are clearly animals
also, one seems to hold two animals, much like the Mesopotamian hero Gilgamesh or Enkidu
suggests two things
first, Mesopotamian influence
second, maybe the painting does not describe real Egyptian events at all…
the tomb itself is evidence for an emerging elite or ruling class
it might be evidence for the elites' connection to warfare -- or it might not…
it might be evidence for the elites' connection to Mesopotamia -- of some sort…
Upper Egypt seems to have been organized in regional chiefdoms with capital cities and obvious rulers
who had to wall their towns for self-defense
Naqada II in Lower Egypt (3600-3200 BC)
As in Upper Egypt, a few large towns developed
But lower Egyptian culture evolved more gradually than in Upper Egypt
town of Maadi (3650 BC - ~2700 [through Early Dynastic])
up to 18 ha (about 1 and 1/2 Çatal Hüyüks)
continued Lower Egyptian traditions
oval houses, some semi-subterranean, pole and thatch roofs
simple burials, both in the town and in cemeteries, with minor variation in richness
but now added extensive trade with Levant and possibly Late Uruk and Jemdet Nasr cities of Mesopotamia
storage was not only in individual houses in town, but also in segregated areas around the edge of the town
one area contained underground, roofed “cellars” for storage of goods
another had large ceramic storage vessels set into the ground
stored goods included large quantities of stone vases, carnelian beads, jars, grains, animal and fish bones, lumps of asphalt, flint tools, spindle whorls, etc.
such large quantities of goods must have been for exchange, rather than the use of any one family or group
this storage was NOT centralized, as at Mesopotamian temples, but dispersed
maybe controlled by various different families or other institutions?
considerable evidence of craft production
copper smelted and worked on site
apparent workshop areas for stone production
specialized craft producers making goods for exchange?
Buto
poorly known due to being deep under water table
but evidently a large town
locally made “clay cones” for wall mosaics - a Mesopotamian architectural style
suggests that Buto was in considerable contact with Sumerian people, or that high-status Sumerians lived there
clear evidence of goods exchanged from Mesopotamia
possibly was a trading seaport...
Social stratification
only minor variation between burials
but with all the specialized production and trade going on, some people and families probably were better off than others
Lower Egypt did not show signs of regional polities, obvious leaders, or militarism
although the absence of evidence in Lower Egypt might be due to poor preservation and little data
Contact between Egypt and Mesopotamia
trade goods from Mesopotamia as mentioned already
Uruk pottery, cylinder seals, etc. found at Buto and elsewhere in Lower Egypt
Mesopotamian style buildings
clay wall cones at Buto (Lower Egypt)
implies at least one important building in Mesopotamian style, probably the presence of Sumerian people, some trade…
Egyptians adopted many artifact types and styles from Mesopotamia
ideas that had a long history in Mesopotamia, but appeared suddenly in Egypt
locally made cylinder seals may be imitations of Mesopotamian models
paneled "palace-façade" mudbrick brick architecture appeared in Egypt in Naqada II
very similar to buttressed architecture of Mesopotamia
no local antecedents in Egypt
The motif of a person dominating two animals
appeared in the Naqada II tomb painting in the Painted tomb at Hierakonpolis
and the ivory knife handle of Gebel-el-Arak
battle scene with Naqada II style boats and Mesopotamian style boat!
suggests that the "influence" may not always have been peaceful
the motif of the "serpo-feline"
slightly later example on the palette of Narmer (Naqada III period)
whether this contact involved a significant number of people, and whether it had any significant effect on Egyptian culture, is highly debated
while Egypt picked up many ideas that had developed in Mesopotamia, Mesopotamia does not seem to have picked up any Egyptian ideas; the influence was one-way
Naqada III (3200 - 3100 BC): the last century of the Predynastic period
Contemporary with the last century of the Late Uruk period (3400-3100 BC)
A brief, eventful transitional period during which Upper and Lower Egypt became culturally and politically unified
Hence sometimes called the "unification era"
Naqada III in Upper Egypt
graves continued to get more elaborate
Cemetery at Abydos
the most elaborate Predynastic tomb at Abydos
12 rooms
9.10 X 7.30 m (27 x 21 feet)
despite looting, contained hundreds of pots, sorted by type
craft goods continued to get even more elaborate and expensive
such as palettes with elaborate carved decoration, many (but not all) with scenes of war
this evidence of increasingly rich and powerful elites, at just a few places in Upper Egypt, probably reflects consolidation of Upper Egyptian chiefdoms into fewer, larger polities
since it would take more surplus and laborers to create the more expensive burials
consolidation was probably at least in part based on military domination
probably culminated with a single Upper Egyptian chiefdom, centered at Hierakonpolis, with its high status cemetery at Abydos
Naqada III in Lower Egypt
Lower Egypt was increasingly influenced by Upper Egypt
excavations at Buto:
bottom levels had only 2% Naqada pottery
by late Naqada II (3300 BC), 40% Upper Egyptian pottery
by Naqada III (3200 BC), 99% Upper Egyptian pottery
by the end of Naqada III, Buto is thought to have been thoroughly “Naqada-ized”
Along with this "Naqada-ization" of material culture came the rise of pronounced social status differences in Lower Egypt