Naqada III: Dynasty 0

Naqada III Dynasty 0

by Jimmy Dunn

Scholars designate the Predynastic Period in Egypt as a time when Egyptian culture was beginning to resemble what would later become Dynastic Egypt, but Egypt itself was not yet unified. However, scholars generally divide this period further into four periods known as the Chalcolithic or Primitive Predynastic Period !beginning around ""## $C%, the &a'ada ( or )ld Predynastic Period !also known as the *mratian Period, beginning around +### $C%, the &a'ada (( Period !also known as the ,er-ean Period, beginning around ."## $C%, and &a'ada (((, which has been labeled by a number of scholars as Dynasty #. (t should be noted, however, that respected scholars appear to differ on these e/act dates. 0he &a'ada ((( period, or Dynasty #, is a particularly interesting segment of Predynastic Egypt because it is the real formative years 1ust prior to the unification of Egypt, when we can begin to identify various rulers and some specific events. (t is a period in which rulers appear to have controlled large segments of Egypt, even though they may not have controlled the whole. (n fact, there is convincing evidence for the emergence of at least three 2pper !southern% Egyptian states, centered at 0his !0he city for which *bydos was a necropolis%, &a'ada and Hierakonpolis. 0here may have been a smaller, fourth territory ruled by an individual buried at ,ebelein. 0hese rulers used recogni-able royal iconography to e/press the ideological basis of their power, and may therefore 1ustifiably be called kings.

3e traditionally place the advent of writing and the unification of Egypt at the beginning of the 4st Dynasty at the same point, though the reality of this is somewhat confused. Egyptian writing clearly evolved, and in fact, one must 'uestion e/actly what constitutes writing . Clearly, very early predynastic kings left behind primitive styli-ed symbols and signs that conveyed more information than simply a picture image. (n fact, some left evidence of short phrases, though we currently cannot completely translate their meaning. 5or e/ample, bone and pottery vessels from tomb 261 at *bydos were inscribed, some in ink with the figure of a scorpion and this has been interpreted as the owner7s name !not to be confused with the later 8ing Scorpion who commissioned the ceremonial macehead found atHierakonpolis%. )ther vessels from this tomb bear short ink inscriptions consisting of a combination of two signs. Some of these inscriptions have common signs. 0he real problem with calling this period Dynasty # is that the term dynastic is not consistent with the words later use. Egyptian dynasties attempt to group either a family of rulers, or at least those who ruled from a specific place. However, the &a'ada ((( Period takes none of this into account. 3e cannot establish family lines during this period, and the term Dynasty # attempts to take in rulers in different locations ruling different territories. &evertheless, the term Dynasty # has come into general use and is unlikely to be discarded. * number of these &a'ada ((( kings are individually known, even though we may not be able to e/actly decipher their real names. However, we also know a number of other specific individuals from this period, and there is great uncertainty as to which of these individuals were actually rulers, and in what se'uence they ruled.

5or e/ample, several tall vessels from 0ura and el6$eda are cut with the motif of a serekh surmounted by two falcons, and some scholars have suggested that this represents the name

of a late Predynastic ruler, probably from southern Egypt. However, it is also very possible that this mark refers to royal ownership without specifying the specific ruler. *nother e/ample is a famous rock6cut inscription at ,ebel Sheikh Suleiman in &ubia, which shows an early serekh presiding over a scene which seems to record an Egyptian raid into &ubia at the end of the Predynastic Period. 0his serekh is empty, but it is very probable that the individual who ordered the inscription to be cut was a Southern Egyptian king, perhaps based at Hierakonpolis.

* combination of evidence is fre'uently used in an attempt to identify specific kings !though we still may not be certain of their names%. 5or e/ample, vessels and shards from tomb $49: and the ad1acent pit $# at *bydos are inscribed with a mark consisting of a falcon perching on a mouth6sign. 0his has been read as (ry6Hor and it has been suggested that he was both a king and the owner of this tomb. However, this name is never found in a serekh, despite the fact that this device was already in use for royal names prior to the construction of this tomb. However, this multi6chambered tomb closely resembles the later tombs of &armer and a known predynastic king named 8a, who preceded &armer. Perhaps even more compelling is its location, which suggests that the owner of the comple/ should be placed immediately before 8a, though some would have him earlier because of the lack of the serekh. ;ore certain is the royal nature of two other individuals, who are nevertheless referred to as 8ing * and 8ing $. 8ing * is possibly known from a vessel from the eastern Delta, with an inscription consisting of a falcon above a serekh, with three hd signs !maces% in its upper part. 0wo similar serekhs were found on vessels from 0ura, though both lack the Horus falcon, and the hd signs appear in the lower part of the inscription, replacing the more usual palace facade, and three circles are shown below the serekh. Hence, though this individual was certainly a king, the 0ura serekhs may not represent the ruler whose mark appears on the 1ar from the eastern Delta. 8ing $ is attested by rock6cut inscriptions in the western desert near *rmant. *n Epigraphy study of the inscriptions indicate that he ruled near the very end of the Predynastic Period, though the difficulties in reading early Egyptian script have so far rendered his name unreadable. ,iven the location in which the inscription was found, he may have been a member of the royal family at Hierakonpolis. He may also be attested by a serekh, though without the falcon, on a rock cut inscription in the eastern desert found on the ancient <ena to <useir rout to the =ed Sea coast. )ne of the best known artifacts from the period immediately preceding the 4st Dynasty is the macehead of a king generally referred to as the Scorpion king. 0he Predynastic Period was a time when man had not yet established, at least in his own mind, his superiority over various animals. 0here is good evidence to suggest that animal skins or masks may have been worn not only for various ceremonies, but even in battle, and many of the earliest kings appear to

have associated their names with animals. Hence, scorpion may have been this king7s true name, since it has been convincingly demonstrated that the rosette9palmette sign above the scorpion on this macehead signified the ruler. 0hough the style of the Scorpion macehead and a similar ob1ect belonging to &armer are stylistically similar, the Scorpion king7s reign has traditionally been perceived to be prior to that of &armer, one of the candidates for ;enes who founded the 4st Dynasty. However, no evidence of Scorpion has been found at *bydos for his burial, though a completely uninscribed tomb with four chambers has been suggested as belonging to him. Hence, he may not have been a 0hinite ruler at all. His macehead was discovered at Hierakonpolis, perhaps indicating that he was a member of that royal line. 0herefore, he may have even been at least partly contemporary with &armer. 0here are also a few other inscriptions that are thought to have possibly belonged to Scorpion, including two serekhs written in ink on pottery vessels from 0arkhan.

However, one recent hypothesis suggests that the 0arkhan inscriptions may belong to another proposed Predynastic king who we refer to as Horus 7Crocodile7, which is based upon new infra6red photographs of the inscriptions and their comparison with a seal impression from another tomb at 0arkhan which has been dated to the reign of &armer. 0he sealing, which may have belonged to a governor of the 0arkhan region, depicts a series of crocodiles above coils that probably represent water. $ased on the inscribed vessels themselves and the form of the serekhs, the Horus 7Crocodile7 may have either been an usurper of the throne, or perhaps a king reigning concurrently with the main 0hinite royal family, possibly early in the reign of a king 78a7. However, the e/istence of a 8ing 7Crocodile is not universally accepted by all Egyptologists, while the Scorpion macehead presents a strong argument for his e/istence as a late Predynastic king.

5rom hori-ontal stratigraphy of the royal tombs at *bydos and various ceramic evidence, we are fairly certain that &armer7s immediate predecessor as ruler at *bydos !0his% was probably a king by the name of 8a. His Horus name shows a pair of arms. He was buried in a double tomb !$>9?% which lies between the graves of his Predynastic predecessors in Cemetery 2 and the tombs of his successors. 0here was a theory that this was actually the 7ka7 tomb of &armer, but this has been invalidated by the occurrence of his name at sites other than *bydos. Prior to &armer, he is the best attested king and it is conceivable that he may have even ruled over a united 2pper and @ower Egypt. His name has been found in both 2pper and @ower Egypt, including grave sites at Helwan, which was a necropolis that served ;emphis. )f course, this suggests that ;emphis perhaps preceded &armer and *ha, who are both candidates for the traditional founder of ;emphis and the 4st Dynasty, ;enes. However, this does not rule out the possibility that ;emphis, or a predecessor village did not e/ist prior to &armer or *ha making an e/isting village into his capital. 3ith whom the Predynastic Period ends and the 4st Dynasty begins is a matter of speculation, with &armer either being the first king of the 4st Dynasty, or the last king of the Predynastic period. 0his is an argument that has never really been settled. However, it is very interesting that king 8a is attested in the Helwan necropolis, which was ;emphis7 second necropolis after Sa''ara. Some scholars believe that the legendary ;enes may have been more of a composite of early kings than a specific individual, and indeed, if ;emphis was founded prior to &armer, this might be the case. (rregardless, our dividing point between the Predynastic Period and the 4st Dynasty is almost certainly arbitrary. 3e would wish to place the invention of writing in Egypt, the founding of ;emphis and the unification of 2pper and @ower Egypt upon the shoulders of one individual who would theoretically have established a new family line, or at least ruled Egypt from a new capital !and thus a new Dynasty%, but this is surely not the reality of the situation. *s a final note, beware of Dynasty # kings7 lists. ;any such e/ample e/ist, particularly on the internet, that definitively arrange these very early kings in some sort of order, such Crocodile, (ry6Hor, 8a, Scorpion and &armer. $oth the name and the order of these kings is only fairly certain to any degree for the very last king !(f &armer is considered a 4st Dynasty 8ing% or kings of this period. !8a and &armer%.