posted
Not rivals but culturally united Sensational discoveries by a Polish mission in the Nile Delta have revealed that far from being hostile regions as previously supposed, Upper and Lower Egypt were politically united in predynastic times, says Jill Kamil
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clockwise from top left: golden plate fragments have been reconstructed into figurines of exceptional beauty; numerous objects were carved of hippopotamus tusks (boys and cobras); the excavation site --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent discoveries by a Polish archaeological mission at Tel Al-Farkha (literally "the chicken hill") in the north-eastern Delta about 120 kilometres north-east of Cairo are remarkable and sensational. Remarkable in that they reveal that the "Two Lands" of Upper and Lower Egypt were not rivals in predynastic times but culturally united. Sensational in the material objects discovered. They include numerous statuettes and amulets carved of hippopotamus tusk, and several dozen golden plate fragments came to light, the latter arduously reconstructed into figurines of exceptional beauty. Although a mere 60 centimetres in height, these naked standing men have eyes made of lapis lazuli, while various details such as sticking out ears, large phalluses, and detailed fingers and toes reveal characteristics of later Pharaonic art.
"From almost the very beginning of our work it became obvious that the scientific value of the site was tremendous, and might lead to a completely different view on the processes resulting in the emergence of the pharaonic civilization," wrote M. Chlodnicki and K. Cialowicz in Ivory and Gold, a photo-documentation of the Polish excavation of the site in the 2006 and 2007 archaeological seasons. The mission uncovered an extensive settlement and they were thrilled to find, in a large pottery vessel, the above objects "which have no counterparts in finds from the other sites with early Egyptian architecture and art". They have been dated to the time of Dynasty "O" and the beginning of the First Dynasty (c. 3100 to 3000 BC).
One figurine of a man is noteworthy because he is wearing a cloak which might be the earliest representation of a leader wrapped in a long robe associated with the Heb Sed festival, one of the very oldest ceremonies, alluded to in many of the inscriptions at Abydos dating to the First and Second dynasties. This was a festival during which the leader or king would prove his vigour and competence to rule the nation. Another figurine has one foot forward in a pose that is almost identical to that of later high royal officials. Also found were beautifully carved but curious looking dwarfs in realistic poses that have their counterparts in predynastic discoveries made at Aswan, as well as seated figurines with the finger to mouth pose -- which indicates childhood.
The deposit included miniature vessels of faience, pottery and stone, and the Polish mission gave special attention to representations of baboons, cobras, and a figurine depicting a prostrate man (probably a captive) wearing nothing by a penis sheath; his hair and beard are long and his facial features clearly archaic. Worth mentioning also were the discoveries of pottery rattles, decorated rattles, pear-shaped mace-heads, miniature vessels, faience beads and gaming pieces.
The discovery is important, because one of the key issues of modern archaeology, and indeed one that is central to an understanding of the political and social development of ancient Egypt, is the formative period of the ancient Egyptian civilisation and the origin of the concept of the "Two Lands" -- a term used by the ancients themselves to describe their own country. Until relatively recently it was believed that the predynastic communities in Upper and Lower Egypt gradually coalesced until two independent kingdoms emerged, Nekhen in Upper Egypt and Pe [Buto] in Lower Egypt, and that the formation of these federations was a step towards unification.
Subsequent discoveries changed this concept, and scholars in the latter part of the 20th century hypothesised that the two "kingdoms" were actually parallel institutions, artificially created by the early kings who wanted to establish a single, unified state in a country that did not easily lend itself to unification. Consequently they gave each part of the country a distinctive name, thereafter treating Nekhen in Upper Egypt, and Pe in the Delta, as though they were once independent kingdoms. The learned pre-historians admitted that the period just before the crucial political unification was still clouded in mystery because unification was accompanied by the establishment of a strong centralised government, a new approach to the perennial problems of river-control and irrigation, and Egyptian artists developing new ways of depicting things -- all apparently appearing out of the blue.
Now, thanks to the Polish discoveries, it is fairly certain that there were indeed two predynastic capitals of Upper and Lower Egypt, but that far from being rival and hostile regions as suggested in mythological tradition they may have been culturally and politically united for a long period of time. Also significant is that the incentive behind unification may have been trade .
The question of a predynastic union between the Two Lands remains a hotly debated issue because there are no written records to confirm such a union. However, archaeologists excavating at Abydos have found historical proof of the order of succession of the earliest kings of Pharaonic Egypt (inscribed on a clay seal), and also, in a predynastic and already heavily excavated cemetery, evidence of a possible 15 kings before Narmer (Menes/Aha), who stands at the beginning of recorded dynastic history.
During the long predynastic era, different settlements (identified with totems) appear to have expanded their boundaries and begun to coalesce. Maybe some tribal groups gravitated towards larger ones and started to trade and barter with them. A process of assimilation took place. They became more dependent on one another, and there was a natural fusion into larger social units. Gradually the affairs of various villagers became tied to a major settlement, which undoubtedly represented the richest and most powerful of them. This is especially apparent at Nekhen near the modern town of Edfu, where there are five unusually large graves among the burials, and, as we now know, at Buto in the Delta.
The thrust for expansion, and ultimate unification, came from the south. About 3400 BC, when Egypt entered the last stage of its pre-dynastic experience, there is evidence of the late stage of what is known as the Naqada culture (Naqada III), which has been identified at numerous sites in Upper Egypt. In contrast to the slow pace of earlier development, rapid advances were made. The Naqada III people were skilled in the execution of slate palettes for grinding paint, which were carved in the shape of decorative fish, birds and animal designs. Amulets were produced in larger assorted stones and in different designs. Ivory statuettes were carved with exaggerated sexual characteristics. And toys like small stone balls, game pieces, and a kind of chessboard were sometimes found buried with children. Decorated ware included small boxes of ivory or wood inlaid with ivory to hold a woman's possessions, and at the more practical level tools such as axe-heads, adzes, hoes, daggers and knives of beaten metal were produced. As for pottery, vases were produced from a variety of hard and brightly-coloured stone: basalt and alabaster, white limestone, red breccia, marble, diorite and granite, the stone shaped by skilled artisans using stone drills.
These objects were made to serve a burgeoning Upper Egyptian elite, whose tombs were lined with matting, wood or mud-brick, with extra chambers added to accommodate grave goods. As a result of the rapidly developing upper class, there was a demand for imported raw materials for the development of industries and an acceleration of trade -- not only along the river but also overland. The movement of Upper Egyptians northwards can be traced to settlements at Omari (north of Helwan at the mouth of the Wadi Hof in the Eastern Desert, which gave on to mineral rich areas), and various sites in the eastern and central Delta, including Tell Ibrahim Awad, Tell Samara, Tell Al-Kabirm and Tel Al-Farkha, where there is evidence of early trade with the Levant and the Far East.
When the Upper Egyptians arrived on the Delta scene they were anxious to trade further, and archaeological evidence at Tel Al-Farkha indicates that they were at first accommodated by the local inhabitants, to their mutual advantage. The authors of Ivory and Gold, point out that "there are no traces of war or destruction" at the site, but rather "assimilation and acculturation". The Delta inhabitants appear to have accepted the southerners, and only when the latter slowly gained an advantage did a process of colonisation, the south of the north, take place.
Based on the present state of research, the stages towards establishing a unified state was much more complex than hitherto supposed. Cialowcz points out that before Upper Egyptians entered the Delta, there were at least two centres that rivalled them in every field. "Cultural unification [which is observed in archaeological materials all over Egypt, from Elephantine to the Mediterranean] was not equal to political union. Contemporary rulers using the same language, writing or tools, competed for power and influence, and important in this struggle was the desire to conquer the Delta and its vital trade routes to the east."
In other words, high-ranking officials of the leading elite in Upper Egypt, desirous of obtaining luxurious imported material objects from the Levant, moved inexorably northwards. And the inhabitants of the Buto, at first attracted by the more advanced and modern "southerners", accepted them. Over time, this enabled the latter to control trade between the Delta and the Near East in addition to Upper Egypt and Nubia.
Tel Al-Farkha by no means supplies all the answers. Nevertheless, it now seems certain that several kings were rivals in trade, and culturally united long before Narmer ascended the throne. New avenues of research have been opened up.
Important clues in Delta sites THE REASON why the important site at Tel Al-Farkha was not excavated earlier was that, until the second half of the 20th century, the Delta was largely unchartered territory. One reason was that there were not many monuments visible above the surface. Another was because traces of the oldest settlements and cemeteries, if any, were covered with a thick layer of alluvial soil and it was concluded that any archaeological remains would have been adversely affected, if not totally destroyed, by underground seepage.
The introduction of modern archaeological techniques following the Nubian Salvage Operation in the 1960s changed all that. Complex geophysical prospection and geological drilling techniques have enabled serious investigation of Delta sites, and there was an upsurge of interest following a symposium at the Netherlands Institute in Cairo in 1986 when several papers described rewarding excavations at various Delta sites.
One of the sites was Tel Al-Farkha. An Italian archaeological mission worked there for over four seasons between 1988 and 1990, excavating mud-brick buildings which enabled them to make important scientific observations. But when they failed to come up with any spectacular discoveries -- and like it or not it is difficult to raise funds for continued work at an "unproductive" site -- they moved on to other areas. Too bad for them that they abandoned the site too soon, because when work was resumed by the Poles they dug wider and deeper and made the above-described spectacular discoveries on the "eastern kom". The lowest (i.e. oldest) strata revealed that people lived there from about 3600 to 3300 BC, which confirmed earlier assumptions that the site was Pe (Buto), the traditional counterpart of Nekhen (Greek Hierakonpolis near the modern town of Edfu), the predynastic capital in Upper Egypt.
posted
Not sure how much of this "revelation" about unification of pre-dynastic complexes is new, after all, from my own postings back in 2005, the following was raised:
There is no question within academia, about the creation of a unified Egyptian nation state, the first central nation state, being the initiative of the Upper Egyptian establishment. However, there seem to have been differences in viewpoints as to how this came about. For instance, was it the culmination of military conquest of the Lower Nile Valley polity by the Upper Nile Valley polity...OR, was it a more peaceful and gradual process of Upper Egyptians moving northward, as a result of trade initiatives, resulting in the relations between the regions to grow into a unified state, with the more socio-economically developed Upper Egypt, and hence, its more powerful leadership having the advantage to rule over all lands?
Perhaps interesting questions for one to ponder!
Djehuti replied:
It is possible that it was a combination of both, but the war and violence part we definitely have evidence of.
Even the formation of each of the Two Lands had some sort of violence involved. Look at the glyphs of King Scorpion. There appeared to be conflict between Nekhen and Nakada as well as other city-states.
In response, I wrote:
Agreed. Here is what Professor Kathryn Bard; Trustees of Boston University and the Journal of Field Archaeology, put together:
I have run into people who argue strenuously for a unified Lower/northern Egypt (aided by mysterious Mediterraneans or Near easterners) that went on to mingle and unite with the elites of the south. But you rightly cast doubt on that theory above. As the Cambridge Encyc of Africa notes: (The Cambridge History of Africa: Volume 1, From the Earliest Times to c. 500 BC, (Cambridge University Press: 1982), Edited by J. Desmond Clark pp. 500-509)
While not attempting to underestimate the contribution that Deltaic political and religious institutions made to those of a united Egypt, many Egyptologists now discount the idea that a united prehistoric kingdom of Lower Egypt ever existed."
and
"While communities such as Ma'adi appear to have played an important role in entrepots through which goods and ideas form south-west Asia filtered into the Nile Valley in later prehistoric times, the main cultural and political tradition that gave rise to the cultural pattern of Early Dynastic Egypt is to be found not in the north but in the south."
In response, I wrote:
It would make sense that one of the factors that contributed to "southern" ruling elites extending their authority over to lower Egyptian regions, is the relatively quicker consolidation of political power in the "south" than those in the northern and delta regions of Egyptian territory, prior to any potential campaign to either militarily and/or political consolidate entire Egyptian regions from the northern sections through to the southern counterparts under a central political authority. Upper Egyptian polities would have been in a better position to consolidate possibly due to common ancestries and/or through politically expedient unions, and/or due to relative wealth they amassed from being strategically positioned geographically in between the more northerly Egyptian regions that had better access to extra-Nile Valley regions near the Mediterranean sea and across the Red Sea, as well as the resource-rich complexes further south, beyond what would become Dynatic Egypt's southern "Ta-Seti" nome.
"anonymous" poster wrote:
I think what you say here gives a more complete picture, including the matter of shared ancestries. If the PN2 clades you mention elsewhere, combined with the skeletal evidence, plus the cultural links are viewed as a whole, then you have a solid indigenous basis for more efficient consolidation of the south.
In response, I wrote:
It is fairly safe to say that economics -- exercising control over strategic trade routes and flow of strategic resources -- had an influential role to play in the desire to unify 'Lower Egyptian' and 'Upper Egyptian' territories under one central authority. Please know that when I say "shared ancestries" [above post], I'm referring to fairly recent [perhaps just a few] generational close family connections, as opposed to relatively distant common recent ancestry [dating to the thousands]. PN2 clade still appears to be predominant even in today's northern Egyptians, performing the function of representing relics of the original northern Egyptian populations. In this respect, they still show close relationship with their southern Egyptian brethren, notwithstanding greater infusion of foreign migration brought to bear on them.
And raised, was:
Considering that there was an inter-trade network along the Nile Valley long before unification, another possibility is the idea of a 'trade language' being developed, and then developing into what would become Egyptic of Pharaonic Egypt.
Source: Link!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Not sure how much of this "revelation" about unification of pre-dynastic complexes is new, after all, from my own postings back in 2005, the following was raised:
There is no question within academia, about the creation of a unified Egyptian nation state, the first central nation state, being the initiative of the Upper Egyptian establishment. However, there seem to have been differences in viewpoints as to how this came about. For instance, was it the culmination of military conquest of the Lower Nile Valley polity by the Upper Nile Valley polity...OR, was it a more peaceful and gradual process of Upper Egyptians moving northward, as a result of trade initiatives, resulting in the relations between the regions to grow into a unified state, with the more socio-economically developed Upper Egypt, and hence, its more powerful leadership having the advantage to rule over all lands?
Indeed, and you and other ES veterans have provided a massive amount of scholarship on the issue and made it accessible. It could be a mix of trade or conquest, spread over time and local fields of battle, and/or centers of trade.
It bears pointing out again as you have done elsewhere that the peoples of said northern zone were INDIGENOUS Africans and did not materialize from the Mediterranean or "Middle East". This point seems to be hard for many to grasp. THere may have been minor movement associated with trade, etc but insignificant as regards the native characterof the peoples. Recapping your quote from Shaw on another thread:
"..the early cultures of Merimde, the Fayum, Badari Naqada I and II are essentially African and early African social customs and religious beliefs were the root and foundation of the ancient Egyptian way of life." (Source: Shaw, Thurston (1976) Changes in AfricanArchaeology in the Last Forty Years in African Studies since 1945. p. 156-68. London.)
Which is in turn backed up by Kemp, "..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 54
which is in turn backed up by the recent limb proportion studies using far northern samples which, link closer to tropically adapted US Blacks that American whites, southern Europeans, or Northern Europeans. These samples however, are for the most part Old Kingdom, not pre-dynastic, showing the continuity in the Egyptian population of the ‘tropical’ types or pattern so often airbrushed out of the picture.
Based on what you post this new study really isnt saying anything new per se. We already knew that the north and the south were closely related. Physically they were, and culturally too. For example, a special type of vessel supported by four modelled human feet is also found in the Amratian culture of the south. Burial customs also show some similarity with practices in Upper Egypt, (bodies for example were generally laid on their left side, head south, in the sites surrounding Merimda, similar to Upper Egyptian practice. (Cambridge History of Africa 1982) THis new excavation adds more to the material side of the ledger.
There seems to be some contradiction in the article though. Quote:
"Cialowcz points out that before Upper Egyptians entered the Delta, there were at least two centres that rivalled them in every field. "Cultural unification [which is observed in archaeological materials all over Egypt, from Elephantine to the Mediterranean] was not equal to political union."
But later on the article says:
"And the inhabitants of the Buto, at first attracted by the more advanced and modern "southerners", accepted them. Over time, this enabled the latter to control trade between the Delta and the Near East in addition to Upper Egypt and Nubia.
If the northern centers "rivalled them in every field" why would they need to look up to the "more advanced and modern southerners?" I can see goods being amassed at a local center, and some unique craftsmanship, but not in terms of the vast production associated with the southern Naqada culture over time. Perhaps there is more noted in the official reports.
I also don't see where there were TWO capitals, as the article claims: "Now, thanks to the Polish discoveries, it is fairly certain that there were indeed two predynastic capitals of Upper and Lower Egypt."
Fairly certain? Where? I see a well endowed northern location, flush with many material goods, but how does this make a "capital" or "state" of Lower Egypt? Am I missing something here? Indeed, it seems that several objects found relate to similar things inthe south like the carved dwarfs. And the Hed-Sed festival is very ancient, no doubt found south as well.
I don't see anything to contradict the 1982 Encyclopedia of Africa statement that:
"While communities such as Ma'adi appear to have played an important role in entrepots through which goods and ideas form south-west Asia filtered into the Nile Valley in later prehistoric times, the main cultural and political tradition that gave rise to the cultural pattern of Early Dynastic Egypt is to be found not in the north but in the south."
and
"While not attempting to underestimate the contribution that Deltaic political and religious institutions made to those of a united Egypt, many Egyptologists now discount the idea that a united prehistoric kingdom of Lower Egypt ever existed.""
Indeed your quotes from K. Bard shows a steady SOUTHERN expansion:
"The eventual replacement of Maadi artifacts in the north by a material culture originating in the south may represent military exploits, while colonization by southerner may have occurred in northern regions where there were less well-developed local polities, as at Gerza or Minshat Abu Omar. Guksch (1991: 41) suggests that the Nagada IId.. etc etc"
So I still don't see how they arrive at the "two capitals" claim. The debate seems to be about HOW the southern union and/or ascendancy took place, (peaceful trade versus war, or both or other mixes) and whether there was unification on the ground before the "official" dyansties (Dreyer & Keiser 1982 and their 10 precursor kings, etc. etc).
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
There seems to be some contradiction in the article though. Quote:
"Cialowcz points out that before Upper Egyptians entered the Delta, there were at least two centres that rivalled them in every field. "Cultural unification [which is observed in archaeological materials all over Egypt, from Elephantine to the Mediterranean] was not equal to political union."
But later on the article says:
"And the inhabitants of the Buto, at first attracted by the more advanced and modern "southerners", accepted them. Over time, this enabled the latter to control trade between the Delta and the Near East in addition to Upper Egypt and Nubia.
If the northern centers "rivalled them in every field" why would they need to look up to the "more advanced and modern southerners?" I can see goods being amassed at a local center, and some unique craftsmanship, but not in terms of the vast production associated with the southern Naqada culture over time. Perhaps there is more noted in the official reports.
I guess what the authors of the present article were driving at, is that Upper Egyptian and Delta polities competed with one another [as many nations still do -- regardless of 'socioeconomic-military' status, i.e. even between the stronger and the weaker states] over gaining the upper hand in access to not just in situ Nile Valley [including as far as where Kush lay] natural resources and trade, but also strategic corridors to accessing trade and resources in the "Near East", while also gaining the upper hand in political clout. In the process, so reckons the article, there were cultural fusions that culturally unified the regions involved to some extent or another before actual conquest endeavors [primarily from the south] and political unification under a central authority, but that Upper Egyptian polities were more advantaged when it came to the socio-economic situation and political clout.
quote:
I also don't see where there were TWO capitals, as the article claims: "Now, thanks to the Polish discoveries, it is fairly certain that there were indeed two predynastic capitals of Upper and Lower Egypt."
Fairly certain? Where? I see a well endowed northern location, flush with many material goods, but how does this make a "capital" or "state" of Lower Egypt? Am I missing something here? Indeed, it seems that several objects found relate to similar things inthe south like the carved dwarfs. And the Hed-Sed festival is very ancient, no doubt found south as well.
I don't see anything to contradict the 1982 Encyclopedia of Africa statement that:
"While communities such as Ma'adi appear to have played an important role in entrepots through which goods and ideas form south-west Asia filtered into the Nile Valley in later prehistoric times, the main cultural and political tradition that gave rise to the cultural pattern of Early Dynastic Egypt is to be found not in the north but in the south."
and
"While not attempting to underestimate the contribution that Deltaic political and religious institutions made to those of a united Egypt, many Egyptologists now discount the idea that a united prehistoric kingdom of Lower Egypt ever existed.""
Indeed your quotes from K. Bard shows a steady SOUTHERN expansion:
"The eventual replacement of Maadi artifacts in the north by a material culture originating in the south may represent military exploits, while colonization by southerner may have occurred in northern regions where there were less well-developed local polities, as at Gerza or Minshat Abu Omar. Guksch (1991: 41) suggests that the Nagada IId.. etc etc"
So I still don't see how they arrive at the "two capitals" claim.
Indeed, your point about the so-called "certainty" about two "capitals" is noted, as there no specific mention of anything, to my knowledge, that directly bespeak centralized local state authority. It looks like the authors of the present article were alluding to the "leading urban" centers that they gleaned from their archaeological material findings; they figured that these centers must have had local authority respective to each and note, with attention to emphasis:
During the long predynastic era, different settlements (identified with totems) appear to have expanded their boundaries and begun to coalesce. Maybe some tribal groups gravitated towards larger ones and started to trade and barter with them. A process of assimilation took place. They became more dependent on one another, and there was a natural fusion into larger social units. Gradually the affairs of various villagers became **tied to a major settlement, which undoubtedly represented the richest and most powerful of them**. This is especially apparent at Nekhen near the modern town of Edfu, where there are five unusually large graves among the burials, and, as we now know, at Buto in the Delta.
Even so, as you've already cited yourself, they note:
Cialowcz points out that before Upper Egyptians entered the Delta, there were at least two centres that rivalled them in every field. "Cultural unification [which is observed in archaeological materials all over Egypt, from Elephantine to the Mediterranean] was not equal to political union.
And:
The thrust for expansion, and ultimate unification, came from the south.
...meaning that "the south" was more socio-economically advanced, giving it the upper hand to unite the general territory under a single centralized authority.
quote:
The debate seems to be about HOW the southern union and/or ascendancy took place, (peaceful trade versus war, or both or other mixes) and whether there was unification on the ground before the "official" dyansties (Dreyer & Keiser 1982 and their 10 precursor kings, etc. etc).
And there is no reason to suggest that all the above [highlighted] did not apply at some stage or the other. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I also don't see where there were TWO capitals, as the article claims: "Now, thanks to the Polish discoveries, it is fairly certain that there were indeed two predynastic capitals of Upper and Lower Egypt."
Fairly certain? Where? I see a well endowed northern location, flush with many material goods, but how does this make a "capital" or "state" of Lower Egypt? Am I missing something here? Indeed, it seems that several objects found relate to similar things inthe south like the carved dwarfs. And the Hed-Sed festival is very ancient, no doubt found south as well.
I don't see anything to contradict the 1982 Encyclopedia of Africa statement that:
"While communities such as Ma'adi appear to have played an important role in entrepots through which goods and ideas form south-west Asia filtered into the Nile Valley in later prehistoric times, the main cultural and political tradition that gave rise to the cultural pattern of Early Dynastic Egypt is to be found not in the north but in the south."
and
"While not attempting to underestimate the contribution that Deltaic political and religious institutions made to those of a united Egypt, many Egyptologists now discount the idea that a united prehistoric kingdom of Lower Egypt ever existed.""
Indeed your quotes from K. Bard shows a steady SOUTHERN expansion:
"The eventual replacement of Maadi artifacts in the north by a material culture originating in the south may represent military exploits, while colonization by southerner may have occurred in northern regions where there were less well-developed local polities, as at Gerza or Minshat Abu Omar. Guksch (1991: 41) suggests that the Nagada IId.. etc etc"
So I still don't see how they arrive at the "two capitals" claim.
Indeed, your point about the so-called "certainty" about two "capitals" is noted, as there no specific mention of anything, to my knowledge, that directly bespeak centralized local state authority. It looks like the authors of the present article were alluding to the "leading urban" centers that they gleaned from their archaeological material findings; they figured that these centers must have had local authority respective to each and note, with attention to emphasis:
During the long predynastic era, different settlements (identified with totems) appear to have expanded their boundaries and begun to coalesce. Maybe some tribal groups gravitated towards larger ones and started to trade and barter with them. A process of assimilation took place. They became more dependent on one another, and there was a natural fusion into larger social units. Gradually the affairs of various villagers became **tied to a major settlement, which undoubtedly represented the richest and most powerful of them**. This is especially apparent at Nekhen near the modern town of Edfu, where there are five unusually large graves among the burials, and, as we now know, at Buto in the Delta.
Couldn't edit it into the original post, but for clarification, the above should read:
Your point about the so-called "certainty" about two "capitals" is noted, as there no specific mention of anything, to my knowledge, that directly bespeak centralized local state authority in the Delta, as we see in the Upper Egyptian areas.
For instance, we don't see record like this, as noted by the authors below, in the Delta areas prior to "unification":
However, archaeologists excavating at Abydos have found historical proof of the order of succession of the earliest kings of Pharaonic Egypt (inscribed on a clay seal), and also, in a predynastic and already heavily excavated cemetery, evidence of a possible 15 kings before Narmer (Menes/Aha), who stands at the beginning of recorded dynastic history.Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Explorer: Your point about the so-called "certainty" about two "capitals" is noted, as there no specific mention of anything, to my knowledge, that directly bespeak centralized local state authority in the Delta, as we see in the Upper Egyptian areas.
Exactly. You have fine tuned the analysis as usual to open up more detail. I can see your point about multiple centers becoming local points of local power but nothing centralized as for the Delta. Hence the 2 capitals in the sense of that centralization look off-base for the north.
The web blurb below mentions Buto not in any political admin centralized sense but as a possible religious cult center. So religion and other symbolic functions to go with local prominence may be another dimension but not any centralized capital of regional admin.
Buto, or Pe, was the northern counterpart cult center in Lower Egypt to Nekhen (Hierakonpolis) in Upper Egypt, which was the southern one. These cult centers are believed to have acted as national shrines with a political function of unifying the two areas Upper and Lower Egypt. .. At first, the scarcity of finds from Buto led egyptologists to doubt the site had been peopled at all during the earlyiest times, and not until excavations since 1985 by the German Archaeological Institite in Cairo, have evidence been found from both the Predynastic, Early Dynastic and the early Old Kingdom period. ... The finds indicate that the Predynastic period here was replaced with the Naqada II/III culture of Upper Egypt, which supports the old theory that Lower Egypt at one point was subjugated by Upper Egypt, and that this might have led to the unufication of the Two Lands.
.. The symbolic importance of Buto in ancient times is more reflected in titulary and ceremony of kingship and the complementary character of the two lands Upper and Lower Egypt, as it comes down to us in texts and mythology, than in finds from the area. .”
It gives as refs: Early Dynastic Egypt - Toby A. Wilkinson Chronicles of the Pharaohs - Peter A. Clayton Cultural Atlas of Ancient Egypt - John Baines & Jaromir Malek
w ww.philae.nu/akhet/FirstCities.html
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Originally posted by Explorer: Your point about the so-called "certainty" about two "capitals" is noted, as there no specific mention of anything, to my knowledge, that directly bespeak centralized local state authority in the Delta, as we see in the Upper Egyptian areas.
Exactly. You have fine tuned the analysis as usual to open up more detail. I can see your point about multiple centers becoming local points of local power but nothing centralized as for the Delta. Hence the 2 capitals in the sense of that centralization look off-base for the north.
Thanks for the response. Actually, I was just trying to re-emphasize the article's viewpoint about small settlement communities coalescing, while villages assimilated with larger settlement centers, as they put it; this is how the article justifies the two "capitals" scenario. I have come across no specifics about Delta Kings, their kings' list and large tombs, as noted, that we see in the case of upper Egypt. In other words, you make a good point about the article's characterization of two rivaling "capitals" being potentially misleading.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting article. If Lower and Upper Egypt were more or less united before dynastic times, that still does not rule out the depictions of conflict such as those we see in the Narmer Palette and others. For all we know, this could just depict battles between rival factions both of which could be from the same region.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
up for Dje
Printer-friendly view of this topic