Ancient Egypt
Elements of its Cultural History

  by Sjef Willockx

  
 


An outline of Egypt's early history: from Early Dynastic till First Intermediate Period


The Early Dynastic Period
 The beginning of ancient Egyptian history, as opposed to its prehistory, is conveniently equated with the beginning of the 1st dynasty. At this point in time, about 2950 BC, Egypt was the largest nation the world had ever seen. It spanned at least from the area of Memphis (near modern Cairo) to the first cataract (modern Aswan): a distance of some 700 km (as the crow flies). The total population at that time is estimated between 600.000 and 1.000.000 (Butzer 85).

The period of the 1st and 2nd dynasty is called the Early Dynastic Period. Although technically speaking the Early Dynastic Period is part of history - meaning, that by then the script had been invented - we might, for the scarcity of surviving texts, just as well apportion it to prehistory.
The most important finds from this period are series of large tombs at Abydos and Saqqara. There is little doubt now that those at Abydos were the actual graves of all of the kings of the 1st, and some of the 2nd dynasty. The significance of the large mastaba's from the same period at Saqqara is however still far from clear; perhaps a careful re-excavation, such as has recently been undertaken at the Abydos tombs, can shed more light on this.
These tombs and what is left of their contents, provide us with a lot of information about the material culture of the times, but with respect to cultural processes, they are essentially mute. We know little more about the actual course of events during this period then the names of its kings. This makes it easy to forget about what size of a period we are actually talking. It is estimated to span about 300 years: quite an appreciable chunk of time.
The heart of the matter is then, that we lack any direct knowledge about the dynamics of this highly significant period.

If we compare the periods just before and after the Early Dynastic Period with each other, we can however infer some of the things that must have transpired here. In the Predynastic Period, we find a land that is not yet unified, populated with ferociously competing units. These units already had much in common though on the cultural level, as can be seen from their uniform material culture - exemplified mostly by burial goods. (Perhaps we may compare this period to some extent with that of the warring ancient Greek city states). Then, at the very beginning of the Old Kingdom (in the 3rd dynasty), we encounter a state that is already capable of marshalling all the resources of the nation for major building projects that take a dozen or more years to complete.
This implies then, that the Early Dynastic Period must have been a time of stability, during which a major pacification of the country could take place. It must have seen the emergence of an excellent, albeit highly centralized administrative system. On the cultural level, a lot of genuine loyalty and togetherness must have sprung up, resulting in that mysterious feeling of "us": we belong together, we are one nation, with one destiny, under the rule of one god-king.
If we then relate these inferred happenings to the few things that we actually do know about the period, we come across the annual (later biennial) tour of inspection that was called "the following of Horus". These tours are among the items listed in the annals on the so-called Palermo Stone. Horus is a customary designation of the king, so this was a royal tour, probably including the complete royal court  – and in a country just unified: a substantial portion of the army.

The usual interpretation of this phenomenon is, that is was a tax collecting tour, since it involved a detailed counting of all livestock. If however the main result of this period was the forging of a nation, then it seems logical that a major recurring event, involving the king himself, was instrumental in this.
As already mentioned, the country spanned, at the beginning of the Early Dynastic Period, at least 700 kilometers. If we assume an original pattern of small, independent states, strung like beads along the Nile, then keeping this newly unified nation together must have been no easy task. Having an army travel continuously up and down the Nile would be a great help. In the guise of "royal escort", this would be less provocative.
Over time, the tour gradually became biennial, with intermittent relapses of annual occurrence. Perhaps this reflects periods of relative unrest, requiring a more vigorous patrolling of the army.
During the later phases of ancient Egyptian history, personal relationships between the king and his chief magistrates played an essential role. The future king was raised together with the sons of the nobility, so that later they could all rely on old bonds of allegiance and affection. As a precursor to this system, the Early Dynastic kings may well have used their inspection tours for the same purpose: fraternizing with the local nobles, and seeing to it that their own sons would meet their sons as much as possible – all under the "friendly protection" of a well-trained army.


The Old Kingdom
 There is some disagreement as to whether the 3rd dynasty should be treated as first part of the Old Kingdom, or as last part of the Early Dynastic Period. On account of the major building activities in stone that are starting now (the Step Pyramid complexes of Zoser and his immediate successors), I consider it part of the Old Kingdom. Building projects like this could not have been executed without the support of a well-organized, national administration. Even if the arts were not yet fully mature in this period, the Egyptian state was. 
The Old Kingdom was an unparalleled era of peace and stability: five whole centuries in a row. I doubt if any culturally developed nation has ever witnessed such a long period of uninterrupted, undisturbed wellbeing and prosperity. It must have been pure bliss.
For an historian though, it is about the dullest period ever. The family ties at the royal court are just about the most hotly debated issues - except of course the matter of how exactly the pyramids were build.
The pyramids are the main physical produce of this period. At first glance, it may seem that the three giant pyramids of Gizeh suddenly appear out of nowhere, but nothing could be further from the truth. From the Early Dynastic Period through the third dynasty, a steady line of ever increasing ambition and competence can be traced, right up to Cheops and Chefren of the fourth dynasty. This slow but continuous growth in daring and skill over 400 years (from 2950 to 2550 BC) makes it absolutely clear that the ancient Egyptians could have build these stunning structures very well themselves, without the aid of any lost culture or extra-terrestrials. (For a more detailed account, see "Where to look for Aliens").

On the spiritual level, noteworthy achievements were the Pyramid Texts, the placid, well-balanced pictorial arts, and the so-called Instructions.
As mirror of the times, the Instructions speak to us with a clear voice. They were lists of precepts, rules of conduct for the administrative class. Confidence is the key word: confidence in nature to provide sustenance, in oneself to build a house, and in the wisdom of the Instructions as the perfect guide to a long and successful career. In addition, the inscriptions in the tombs of the nobility voice confidence in the king for advancement and favors, in this life and the next. The king is the guarantor of Maat (Order and Justice), and all is well.
The Pyramid Texts were originally for personal use by the king only. Although they are the oldest religious texts of any length that we posses (not just of ancient Egypt, but of any culture) they already show signs of a long and complex evolution. Alternately, the king is guided to the stars, or to the solar bark of the sun god, to the kingdom of Osiris in the Netherworld, or to the Field of Rushes. But wherever he goes, he will continue to look after his people, and provide for them, in death as he did in life. They can calmly and peacefully "walk on the beautiful roads of the West", receiving "a boon that the king gives".


First Intermediate Period
 After the 6th dynasty, the Old Kingdom collapsed. We know nothing about the collapse itself: not why, not how - and as a result, we are certainly not lacking in speculations. But all we can tell for sure is, that at some point the unified state of the Old Kingdom has been replaced by many much smaller units.
According to Manetho, the 7th dynasty consisted of "70 kings that ruled [in total] for 70 days". Most Egyptologists now believe that this "dynasty" never existed, but a short and frantic period, such as Manetho seems to suggest here, would fit in extremely well at the commencement of the First Intermediate Period.
After this, a line of kings from Memphis (the 8th dynasty) for some time still posed as rulers of the Two Lands, but their claim to national power was fictitious. Finally, after one or two generations of de facto independence, some of the local monarchs (provincial governors) dared style themselves king. Those of the Middle Egyptian town of Heracleopolis became the 9th and 10th dynasty, those of Thebes in the south are known as the 11th dynasty. After about a century of intermittent warfare, the Thebans won the prize: they were able to re-unite the whole country, thereby inaugurating the Middle Kingdom.

The collapse of the Old Kingdom was not "just" another downfall of some regime. For those who lived through it, it seemed the end of the world. It was the origin for a whole new type of writings. We know the works of this "pessimistic literature" now under such names as "The prophecies of Neferti", "The complaints of Khakheperre-sonb" and "The admonitions of Ipuwer". A few examples from the last:

Towns are ravaged, Upper Egypt became wasteland.
Lo, crocodiles gorge on their catch,
People go to them of their own will [to commit suicide].

Lo, gold, lapis lazuli, silver, and turquoise,
Carnelian, amethyst, ibht-stone and ----
Are strung on the necks of female slaves.
Noblewomen roam the land,
Ladies say: "We want to eat!" (AEL-I, 151-153)

In the archeological evidence however, nothing really drastic shows. What we are aware of, is a decrease in the quality of the arts, and the disappearance of the phenomenon of a large, central necropolis, associated with the capital. But we see no signs of massive depopulation, no foreign invasions, no widespread pillage, plunder and looting.
This remarkable discrepancy between the physical evidence and its reflection in literature has been variously interpreted (see e.g. AEL-I, 134-135). It seems however highly significant that this kind of literature did not - in fact: could not - develop during the Old Kingdom.

We can not truly enter into the state of mind of a people that has just experienced five full centuries of peace and stability. Turmoil, chaos and upheaval were not things of the past: they were things of another world altogether. The "catastrophes" of this period may seem inconsequential to us, they were catastrophic, even apocalyptic, for a society unaware of even the possibility of change.
Yet the people eventually came to terms with it. From the inscriptions of the First Intermediate Period, we can see how they adapted to the new circumstances. The picture that emerges shows us a landscape of independent nomes ("provinces"), vigorously fighting amongst themselves for supremacy. (Perhaps this constituted a partial re-enactment of the dynamics of the Predynastic Period). The atmosphere of the texts has changed profoundly. During the Old Kingdom, the Instructions speak confidently of the virtues of the Silent Man, who will just naturally prevail over the Hot-tempered Man. Now, we hear completely different sounds.
In the tomb of Ankhtifi, ruler of two Upper Egyptian nomes in this period, we read in his autobiography:

I am the vanguard of men and the rearguard of men. One who finds the solution where it is lacking. A leader of the land through active conduct. (AEL-I, 86).

And a simple soldier says on his mortuary stele:

I was a worthy citizen who acted with his arm, the foremost of his whole troop. I acquired oxen and goats. I acquired granaries of Upper Egyptian barley. I acquired title to a great field. (...)
I surpassed this whole town in swiftness – its Nubians and its Upper Egyptians. (AEL-I, 90).

The merits of correct conduct have given way to those of a strong arm.

An interesting and recurring theme in Egypt’s history, is that of centralistic versus centrifugal tendencies. During the Predynastic Period, the unification of the country probably came about through conflict. The Early Dynastic Period seems to have been the period during which the resulting unison was secured by a conscious centralization. The Old Kingdom then was the period during which the benefits of unison were thoroughly "imprinted" on the collective Egyptian mind. As a result of this imprinting, later re-unifications (during the 11th and 17th dynasties) could be immediately successful.
 On the other hand, the inclination of nomarchs (the title we now give to those who administered a nome) to act as independently as they could get away with must not be negated. The unification-process of the Predynastic Period took quite some time. Subsequently, it may have taken all of the Early Dynastic's 300 or so years to finally overcome the aspiration for independence. And again, during the initial part of the MK, it took several generations before the power of the nomarchs was effectively curbed anew.

Interesting to see is also the genuine allegiance that the people felt towards their nome. This is something already present during the Old Kingdom proper, as can be seen in many autobiographies (on stelae and in tombs). Court or provincial officials often refer to the beginning of their professional life as follows:

I have come from my town
I have descended from my nome
I have done justice for its lord [the patron god of either the town or the nome]
I have satisfied him with what he loves (AEL-I, 17)

In this fashion, their whole career is dedicated to the god of one's "homeland".

The persistency of the nome structure throughout Egyptian history reflects a pattern that may well descend from strong, Predynastic roots. So when central rule vanished, people could just naturally fall back on the next best thing: their nome.

It remains to be seen what exactly the dynamics were of the collapse of central power at the end of the Old Kingdom. Maybe the nomarchs had just been waiting for an opportunity to free themselves from the grip of a weakening central government; in that case, they may have actively contributed to the collapse.
On the other hand, it may also be that the collapse came about without much help from the nomarchs. In this case, their assuming power may primarily have been designed to protect their dependents against the effects of unrule and chaos. This is certainly the drift of many of their autobiographies – although we can of course not take self-laudatory texts as evidence.


Back to: Introduction to ancient Egypt


 

Home

Culture and language

History and Kingship

Religion

Temples, Tombs and Building Techniques

Miscellaneous

Sitemap

    

All materials on this site are protected by copyright. All copyrights by Sjef Willockx, unless otherwise indicated. Unauthorized use will be prosecuted with all available means. (See also the section on copyright policy).