Strongly related to the more recent decorated palettes are the scenic decorated mace heads, all found at Hierakonpolis. Only one of them, the Narmer mace head (figure 37.11) is completely preserved; of the three other examples, two are reduced to rather small fragments (UC.14859, 14898), while a larger part is preserved of the third one, the Scorpion mace head (figure 37.10). Although the historical position of Scorpion is difficult to determine, and his mere existence can even be doubted (Midant-Reynes 2000: 249; Menu 2003: 324), among others because there is no tomb for this king among the continuous line of royal tombs at Umm el-Qaab, the Scorpion mace head predates the Narmer mace head and palette for stylistic reasons. The formal style of the Scorpion mace-head is nevertheless obvious, and the figure of the king as the most important element of the decoration is here for the first time shown on a larger scale compared to the rest of the representation, a feature which will become a basic principle of dynastic art that equates relative size with relative importance. However, the decoration of the Scorpion mace head is less clearly structured than that of the Narmer mace head and palette, as can be seen by the partial absence of base lines, which is especially clear in the lowermost register where some elements are orientated at different angles. The Scorpion mace head (figure 37.10) shows the king holding a hoe in a ritual scene related to water, which has been a subject of discussion. For a long time it was considered clear evidence for the ruler as organizer of artificial irrigation, but it is now well known that artificial irrigation on a large scale hardly occurred before the end of the Old Kingdom. Gautier and Midant-Reynes (1995) convincingly showed that the Scorpion mace head was decorated with two independent but related scenes, presumably representing the king respectively in the context of Upper and Lower Egypt; the latter, however, has been largely destroyed. The possible interpretations of the preserved scene can in broad lines be seen as the choice between an agricultural ceremony and the foundation of a sacred area, or even of Memphis, the future capital of the united country (cf. Cialowicz 1987: 32-8; Gautier and Midant-Reynes 1995). However, the first two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It would be most remarkable if no ceremonies took place at the occasion of the beginning of the inundation or other decisive moments of the agricultural year. Evidence of such was probably found at the temple site HK29A at Hierakonpolis, dating to the early Naqada II period (Friedman 1996). The scene on the Scorpion mace head might, therefore, very well represent an agricultural ceremony in a sacred environment. Most researchers based the idea for the latter on the presence of two partially preserved dome-covered buildings, generally accepted as religious buildings and often considered as the pr nw of Lower Egypt as known from later sources. This specific identification is, however, highly questionable for this early period and illogical if the preserved scene refers to Upper Egypt. A similar building occurs on the ‘‘Hunter’s palette’’ (figure 37.7) and is usually identified as religious because of the presence of a ‘‘double bull’’ next to it, but there is no reason at all why the decoration of the ‘‘Hunter’s palette’’ should be placed in a Lower Egyptian context. On the contrary, the theme of desert hunting seems rather related to Upper Egypt. Ifwe return to the Scorpion mace head, the palm tree between the water branches has generally only been considered as testimony of agricultural productivity. However, in view of the importance of palm trees on the decorated palettes mentioned above, this is not very likely. The palm tree is apparently shown behind a reed (?) fence and is to be regarded as indicating a sacred precinct, probably being even more important than the two buildings, given its position in the composition.
The Narmer mace-head (figure 37.11) also shows the king in a religious context, but this time the interpretation is less problematic as compared to the Scorpion mace-head, although not entirely trouble-free. The decoration can be regarded as an entity,
Figure 37.10 Hierakonpolis, Main Deposit. Scorpion mace-head. Oxford, AM E.3632 (Gautier and Midant-Reynes 1995: fig. 1). Copyright the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.
Figure 37.11 Hierakonpolis, Main Deposit. Narmer mace-head. Oxford, AM E.3631 (Friedman 1996: fig. 12). Copyright the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.
Although it consists of different parts. The only part of the decoration occupying the entire height of the decorated surface is the enthroned king, which is, therefore, the central element of the scene. There can be no doubt of the identification of the king as Narmer because his name is mentioned above his retinue. The throne of Narmer stands below a canopy on a high dais with a flight of stairs. Right in front of the king is a palanquin, most likely carrying the queen, followed by three prisoners between two sets of three territorial marker cairns. The whole setting is that of the Sed-festival (cf. Wilkinson 1999: 212-15; Kemp 2006: 103-7), but the main topic is the presentation of prisoners and captured livestock, the numbers of which are very high, mentioning 120,000 prisoners and 1,822,000 bulls and goats. Narmer wears the red crown of Lower Egypt but above his canopy flies the vulture Nekhbet, tutelary goddess of Upper Egypt. This duality, essential for the Sed-festival, might well be confirmed by the two buildings which are depicted in a separated part of the scene. The upper one is beyond doubt a temple, the round-topped sanctuary of which is surmounted by a long-beaked bird, probably a heron. This has convincingly been identified as a sacred area at Buto in the western Delta (cf. Wilkinson 1999: 317-20). Below the temple representation, an oval enclosure with three desert animals, apparently hartebeests, is depicted. Such a construction is only known from the early temple site HK29A at Hierakonpolis, where furthermore the remains of wild animals were identified that must have been part of the meals served during religious festivals (Linseele and Van Neer in press). The two buildings might, therefore, represent most important and characteristic religious settings for Lower and Upper Egypt respectively. This interpretation is, of course, highly tentative but might to some extend be corroborated by the opposition of the Nekhbet vulture and two bovids in an enclosure directly in front of her. The bovids have been considered as (predecessors of) Hathor or the Apis bull (cf. Cialowicz 1987: 39-40), but Hathor especially is unlikely because this goddess is not attested for the Early Dynastic Period. A bull cult is, however, known at Buto (Wilkinson 1999: 317-18), and the combination vulture - bovids might, therefore, express the same idea as the two buildings. The geographic duality would, in any case, make sense in the context of the Sed festival. Whatever the location of the scene on the Narmer mace head may be, the religious setting is beyond doubt and presents another example of the entanglement of religion and (military) politics expressed in Pre - and Early Dynastic representations.
The Narmer palette itselfis, ofcourse, to be placed in the tradition ofthe decorated palettes as is already shown by its primary theme, military victory, a theme that, for example, also occurs on the earlier Battlefield palette (London BM EA.20791). This connection is also visible in several aspects of its decoration such as the Bat heads, depicted twice at the top of each side of the palette as well as four times en miniature on the king’s belt, and the control-over-chaotic forces motif symbolized by two ‘‘hunters’’ lassoing long-necked mythological creatures known as serpopards. On the other hand, however, the Narmer palette is decorated in a style that differs considerably from the earlier palettes and other relief decoration. This is especially obvious from the use of baselines and the fact that the shape of the palette hardly influences the organization of its decoration, unlike the manner in which, for example, the Lycaon pictus ‘‘framed’’ several palettes, paralleled by the hunters on the ‘‘Hunters palette’’ (figure 37.7). The fact that the palette as an object becomes less important is shown by its disappearance immediately after the time of Narmer, when not only the practice of making decorated palettes as votive objects and carriers of visual messages seems to have ceased, but even the actual use of cosmetic palettes, known throughout the Predynastic Period, strongly diminished. The reason for the unusual organization of the Narmer palette’s decoration must have been that the latter was not originally conceived for the particular shape of a palette, but rather for a rectangular surface, such as would be expected at a time when writing developed. Proof of this are the Early Dynastic bone and ivory labels recording, among other things, historical events (cf. Wilkinson 1999: 218-23). A label for the delivery of oil found only a fewyears ago at Abydos (Dreyer 2005: Abb. 2) apparently mentions the same event as the Narmer palette and, although much smaller than the Narmer palette, this type of document might well reflect the origin of the palette, as is, for example, also indicated by the fact that most of the palette’s decoration is to be read from right to left, as is normally the case for writing. The labels themselves can, in turn, be supposed to have been copied from other official documents written on perishable materials such as papyrus. The earliest known example of papyrus is from the mastaba of Hemaka (S.3035) at Saqqara dating to the reign of Den. A roll of papyrus has been found preserved in a wooden box (Cairo JdE 70104) and, although not inscribed, it clearly illustrates the importance that writing on this material must have had. Although it cannot be proven for certain, one can easily imagine that writing and artistic composition developed in close association and with influences going both ways.
The meaning of the Narmer palette’s decoration is certainly the most discussed topic for Early Dynastic times. The first and pre-eminent question is whether it is a largely symbolic expression of royal power (Kohler 2002) or refers to actual historic events. The recent discovery, already mentioned, of a year label apparently attesting the same victory as on palette seems to confirm a historical interpretation, although the rendering is done in a uniform, highly symbolic style. Over the years, the historic interpretation of the Narmer palette has changed considerably since its discovery in the ‘‘Main Deposit’’ at Hierakonpolis in 1898. The original interpretation that it is evidence of the unification of Egypt - based, among others things, on the representation of the king wearing the crowns of both Upper and Lower Egypt which is not attested before - has been abandoned for some time once it became clear that this was not a single military event. Several attempts have been made to link the victory mentioned on the Narmer palette with the Egyptian expansion in the southern Levant during Narmer’s time, but this has never been generally accepted. The location of the enemy defeated by Narmer in the western Delta, as proposed by Dreyer (2005), is at present certainly the most compelling interpretation. He furthermore considers the roughly contemporaneous ‘‘City palette’’ (or ‘‘Libyan palette,’’ Cairo CG 14238) to supply further information on the conquest of the Delta, mentioning several places that were destroyed by the Egyptians. This would have happened under several predecessors of Narmer, over a considerable period of time (Dreyer 2005: 260). The localities are indicated by the depiction of fortifications, each of which is destroyed with a hoe hold by different animals or animal standards. However, although the interpretation of the hoe as an instrument of destruction is most convincing (Dreyer 2005: 258-60), the interpretation of the animals and animal standards as royal names is far less so. The latter has already been heavily criticized by several scholars (Kemp 2000; Kahl 2003; Breyer 2002) and indeed seems unlikely. The traditional interpretation as royal forces or symbols is much more plausible, and the picture of the historical development of the Delta conquest proposed by Dreyer has, therefore, to be questioned.
Predynastic and Early Dynastic art is, of course, not restricted to flat surfaces. Life-size sculpture was for a long time considered to have originated not long before the onset of the Early Dynastic Period, with the Koptos colossi (Kemp 2000; Baque Manzano 2002) as the earliest known examples (although these are far over life-size, measuring originally around 4 m in height). Recently, this situation has radically changed with the remarkable discovery of a large number of fragments of a life-size statue that originally must have stood in the ‘‘chapel’’ of tomb 23 at Hierakonpolis’ elite cemetery HK6, dating probably to Naqada IIB (Harrington 2004; Jaeschke 2004). Although the stylistic characteristics of the statue cannot be identified in detail, it seems, nevertheless, that it differed considerably from Pharaonic imagery and probably showed more resemblances with the Koptos colossi (Harrington 2004: fig. 32). These statues (figure 37.12) were found at Koptos by W. M.F. Petrie during the winter 1893-4, before the main excavation of the Predynastic and Early Dynastic sites that started only a few years later. Petrie, therefore, had great difficulty in dating the statues, and, although their stratigraphic position remained unclear, they are now generally accepted to date to the beginning of the Naqada III period (cf. Kemp 2000: 223-6). The pillar-like shape of the Koptos colossi and the long beard on the only preserved head clearly distinguish them from the dynastic style, but, on the other hand, they represent the fertility god Min and in this respect are an element of a continuous tradition from Predynastic times onwards. Through comparison with finds from Hierakonpolis, Kemp (2000: 228-30, fig. 13) reconstructed the Koptos colossi as pillar-statues delimiting a mound with a shrine, which differs strongly from more recent Egyptian shrines and even from depictions of Early Dynastic shrines. Although the reconstruction certainly uses the available information as thoroughly as possible, it nevertheless remains highly hypothetical.
The transition to the formal, dynastic style is illustrated by a torso found at Hierakonpolis (figure 37.14), presumably roughly contemporaneous with the Kop-tos colossi. The original statue must have been about 2 m high and shows a striding male figure, a posture that will become fundamental for Egyptian sculpture. Although the head is missing, it can, nevertheless, be ascertained that the figure had a long beard, which links it to the Koptos colossi, as does the elongated shape of the body. The right hand was pierced for holding a sceptre or the like, indicating the high status of the entity depicted, presumably a god or king. Certain royal sculpture has only been preserved in smaller dimensions, but no doubt this is a case of the accidents of discovery. Furthermore, the preserved examples of statuary date to the end of the Second Dynasty and depict Ninetjer (Michailidis collection) and Khase-khemwy (Cairo JdE 32613; Oxford AM E.517) (figure 37.15). Earlier statues must have existed, and a head of unknown provenance is tentatively attributed to Narmer (UC.15989). A copper statue of Khasekhemwy of a little over 1,50 m high (2 cubits, 6 palms and two-and-a-half fingers) is mentioned on the Palermo stone (Wilkinson 2000: 133-4), and, although it is not stated whether the king was represented standing or seated, this is not far from life-size. But even the manufacture of metal statues has recently been pushed back into Predynastic times by the discovery at Tell el-Farkha of two statuettes made of gold sheet, the larger measuring c. 60 cm (Chiodnicki and Ciaiowicz 2007) (figure 37.13).
Figure 37.12 Koptos. ‘‘Koptos colossus’’ Oxford, AM 1894.105e (Kemp 2001: fig. 1). Courtesy the Cambridge Archaeological Journal.
Some of the statues of the early Naqada III period seem to have been made of composite materials. This may already have been the case for the early Naqada II statue from Hierakonpolis mentioned above (Jaeschke 2004: 57-62). Among the numerous small fragments found, none seems to come from the hair, while fingers and toes are remarkably also missing. This allows the suggestion that it was a composite statue. A wooden face, probably from Abydos and dating to the First Dynasty (Boston 60.1181), must have been part of a composite statue. The eyes were once inlaid, and the hair is rendered as a series of cylindrical curls. The part of the hair now lost may well have consisted of faience curls, which are attested as parts of wigs for statues (Lacovara in F. D. Friedman 1998: 178-9). There is also evidence for large-size wooden statues in the formal Egyptian style. The earliest examples are the scanty remains of two statues, 2/3 life size, found at Saqqara mastaba S.3505 (Emery 1958: pl. 27), dating to the time of Qaa.
Figure 37.13 Tell el-Farkha. Gold-foil statuette. Cairo, Egyptian Museum (Chlodnicki and Cialowicz 2007: fig. 4). Courtesy the Tell el-Farkha Expedition, drawing Anna Longa.
During the early years of the nineteenth century, Saqqara was among the most favored places for searching out objects for the antiquities market. In those days, a number of statues dating to the Second and Third Dynasties found their way into important collections in Europe. Although their exact provenance remains unknown, Saqqara is mentioned for several of them and the statues can only come from the mastabas of the Second and Third Dynasties. Several of them seem to have been easily accessible during the early nineteenth century. These statues show all the characteristics of dynastic sculpture and must have been intended as ka-statues. Compared to the evolution of artistic representations throughout the Predynastic Period and into the Early Dynastic Period, it is much easier to follow the transition from the Early Dynastic Period into the Old Kingdom (see Sourouzian, ch. 10). The basic stylistic characteristics are fully developed by the onset of the Old Kingdom, although some details will still be subject to change, such as the very short necks of the statues.
A particular type of statue is prisoner representations, used as door-sockets and statue bases. One of them was found at Hierakonpolis (Philadelphia E.3959) and shows a bound, prostrate captive while another one of unknown provenance is decorated with the heads of foreign enemies (Munich AAS 6300). The importance of prisoner images is also shown by their regular occurrence as statuettes and on decorated ivories (e. g., Kohler 2002: 500-1; Droux 2005-2007). This provides
Figure 37.14 Hierakonpolis. Male torso. Oxford, AM E.3925. Courtesy the Ashmolean Museum Oxford.
Another example of a theme that can already be found on the Naqada I White Crosslined vessels with victory scenes (cf. p. 827) and which also occurs in the ‘‘Decorated Tomb’’ at Hierakonpolis (cf. p. 832).
An important source for Early Dynastic representations is the figurines found in votive deposits from the earliest temples at Elephantine (Dreyer 1986), Hierakonpolis (Quibell 1900; Quibell and Green 1902), Abydos (Petrie 1902; 1903; Muller 1964: 10-46), Saqqara (Yoshimura et al. 2005: 369-74), Tell el-Farkha (Cialowicz 2007) and Tell Ibrahim Awad (Belova and Sherkova 2002). The figurines are mainly made from ivory/bone and faience, with a few stone examples. The chronological position of the deposits often lacks precision, in the case of the older excavations because of insufficient stratigraphic observations, but especially because the deposits seem to consist of objects from different periods, dating from the late Predynastic and/or Early Dynastic Period, probably up to the end of the Old Kingdom. The date of an individual object is often estimated on the basis of internal stylistic criteria, but this involves the risk of circular reasoning. The astonishing discovery made in 2006 by the Polish excavations at Tell el-Farkha of about 62 small objects, among them a large number of ivory figures, exceptionally offers possibilities for dating (Cialowicz 2007). The find was made in an early First Dynasty context, and all of the objects were stuffed in a pottery jar with incised decoration.
Figure 37.15 Hierakonpolis, Main Deposit. Statue of Khasekhemwy. Oxford, AM E.517. Courtesy the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.
Although, strictly speaking, not a temple deposit, the Tell el-Farkha find was made in a building the function of which is not yet established but which was certainly not a simple dwelling.
The votive figurines from the early temple sites at Elephantine, Abydos, and Tell Ibrahim Awad show a wide variety of representations, including both humans and animals. The variety itself already indicates that the different types of figurine had specific meanings. The human figurines include a large number of children, about 50% at Elephantine. These could obviously be related to the desire to have or protect children. A similar interpretation is most unlikely for representations of dwarfs, which make up the largest group of human figurines at Tell el-Farkha. Their image was essentially positive in Ancient Egypt, and they were ascribed regenerative powers, especially for women and children (cf. Dasen 1993). The figurines from the temple deposits may already have been early images of fertility and family guardians (Dasen 1993: 105). The religious context of the figurines is confirmed by a few hybrid creatures from Tell el-Farkha (Cialowicz 2007: fig. 19-20).
The largest animal group is made up of baboon representations. These have convincingly been identified as representations of ancestors derived from the ‘‘Great White One’’ (Hedj-wer), a baboon deity apparently representing the royal ancestors (Dreyer 1986: 69; Wilkinson 1999: 285-6). Other animal representations, such as falcons, cobra snakes, scorpions, or lions are directly linked with royal symbolism. But a site such as Tell el-Farkha, although important, was not a royal center and it, therefore, seems likely that the votive offerings were made by the local elite, confirming their own status through reference to royal iconography. It can, therefore, be suggested that the temple deposits also illustrate the popularization of the royal iconography which itself had developed during the early Naqada III period. Besides the reference to royal power and authority as such, the reason for using royal iconography outside its ‘‘proper’’ context must be seen in the context of its religious connotations and attendant positive powers. The iconography and symbolism of the votive offerings are, therefore, not the expression of a local ‘‘folk culture,’’ which is confirmed, to some extent, by the fact that the deposits are rather similar all over Egypt.
The type of representations known from the temple deposits is exceptionally also attested on a much larger scale, as is shown, for example, by the calcite statue of a baboon, the base of which is inscribed with the name of Narmer (Berlin 22607), and another one with that of Meritneith on his chest (Kaplony 1966: pls 20-23). Lion sculptures exist also on a large scale, as is shown by two stone lion statues (UC.35294) found at Koptos that may even predate the time of Narmer.
The Early Dynastic Period is also a time of experiment. This can, for example, be illustrated by stone-vessel production. The diversity of stones used was never again as great as during Early Dynastic times (De Putter et al. 2000: 60), a fact indicating that the Egyptians at that time had very good knowledge of, and access to, the natural resources available. But also the quantity (as well as quality) of stone vessels and their diversity of shape increase enormously. Stone vessels become a frequently occurring type of objects in Early Dynastic tombs, where they tend to replace the pottery vessels. For the royal tombs at Abydos, and also for the tombs of the highest officials at Saqqara, huge quantities of stone vessels were produced. A great deal of them show no traces of use at all and must have been made on purpose for funerary use. The production must have taken place in specialized workshops, which most probably were under direct governmental control. Cosmetic vessels such as cylindrical jars for oil are extremely popular among the stone vessels, corroborating their luxury context. The royal tombs at Abydos must have contained tens of thousands of stone vessels (cf. De Putter et al. 2000).
A specific category of stone vessels consists of vessels imitating basketry and other perishable materials (Adams in press). They are almost exclusively known from the royal tombs at Abydos and the elite tombs at Saqqara, but the greatest diversity occurs at Abydos. Nearly all of them are only preserved in fragments, but, even so, it is easy to detect the exceptional craftsmanship, never surpassed in later Pharaonic times, of the artisans who produced them. Among the most remarkable is a dish, perhaps intended to be used for libations, in which the representation of two click beetles (Lanelater notodonta) appears (UC.37001-2). The occurrence of the click beetle is not limited to this dish but also appears on another stone plate from Abydos (figure 37.16) and a number of other objects (Hendrickx 1996) and represents one of the religious elements that attracted specific attention during the Early Dynastic Period. Although the insect, as a symbol of the goddess Neith, does not entirely disappear from the religious record afterwards, it does lose its earlier position in iconography (cf. Hendrickx 1996).
Figure 37.16 Abydos, tomb of Den. Decorated stone plate (Hendrickx 1996: fig. 1). Courtesy the Royal Museums for Art and History, Brussels, drawing Francoise Roloux.
In Early Dynastic times representational art was a central resource for the organization and display of the newly formed state and its elite, closely interlinked with administration and writing. As evidenced by inscribed tags and pottery vessels found in tomb U-j at Abydos/Umm el-Qaab, dating about 3300 bc (Naqada IIIA1), the beginnings of Hieroglyphic writing predate the earliest formally organized scenes on the Scorpion and Narmer mace-heads and the Narmer palette by 150-200 years (Dreyer 1998; cf. Kahl 2001; 2003). The importance of this observation cannot be overestimated. Writing must have developed within the context of the highest elite of late predynastic times, i. e. within the direct environment of the ruler himself. The limited number of people involved and the direct impact of their decisions explain why Hieroglyphic writing came into being - probably for economic as well as political reasons - in what looks from our perspective like a comparatively short space of time. The evolution of the Hieroglyphic writing system was, however, a process that apparently lasted up to the late Second/early Third Dynasty when continuous written language is first recorded (cf. Kahl 2001: 124-5; Baines 2007: 118-42). No doubt the stylistic characteristics of royal representation developed in the same sphere of authority, but apparently slightly later than writing. But, of course, the link between pictorial representation and Hieroglyphic writing was always very close in Ancient Egypt, as can already be seen by the early occurrence of hieroglyphs or symbols to which arms are attached to indicate actions (cf. Baines 2007: 117-45, 281-97 [esp. 285, fig. 31]).
A clear example of standardization in both writing and artistic rendering is that of the falcon and its combination with the serekh (cf. Jimenez-Serrano 2003). Both elements originally occur independently. The early Naqada II falcon figurines from Hierakonpolis mentioned above (p. 830) can already be considered as royal symbols, but the first king whose name is certainly written in a serekh surmounted by a falcon is Ka/Sekhen, the predecessor of Narmer. At that stage the falcon is shown with a horizontal tail and pronounced chest, although this is not the case for the few examples known for the Naqada IIC period. The horizontal position of the falcon, in both two - and three-dimensional representations, is the only one occurring during the reigns of Ka/Sekhen and Narmer. Only a centralized control over the development of both writing and figurative representation can explain such full standardization. The large majority of the serekhs of Aha still show this ‘‘horizontal’’ type, but during his reign the first examples of a new type of falcon representation occur, which will become the classic shape of the Horus falcon. These are characterized by an obliquely placed body and less pronounced chest. This change of style and its chronological implications were already noted a long time ago by Muller (1938: 13-25). During the reign of Djer, only a few ‘‘old style’’ falcons on serekhs are found on seal impressions, but artists were certainly aware of the palaeographic evolution that had taken place, as can be seen from the decorative manner in which the two types of falcons are used alternating in a bracelet from the king’s tomb at Abydos (Cairo CG 52008). The artistically most impressive rendering of a serekh occurs on the funerary stela of Djet (figure 37.17), found near that king’s tomb at Abydos. In this masterpiece the shape of the falcon has been taken into consideration for the composition of the representation. If the serekh had been placed exactly in the middle of the space available within the borderlines of the stela, the center of gravity of the falcon would have been too much to the right because of the large tail of the bird. Instead, the artist chose to use the left leg of the falcon as center line for his composition, resulting in the serekh being placed somewhat to the left and a very convincing balance of the falcon itself. The artistic craftsmanship of the Djet stela, as shown also in the detailed rendering of the palace facade, is one of the best examples of the level attained by Early Dynastic artists. But this detailed rendering finds its precursors already in the later Predynastic Period, for example in a number of amazingly small but very detailed ivory carvings from Abydos (Dreyer 1999).
Near Eastern influence has often been accepted for the late Predynastic Period, especially for the origin of sealing (Boehmer 1974) and writing, a number of iconographic elements, and the palace facade. Direct Mesopotamian influence is, however, most unlikely, ifonly for the reason that not a single Mesopotamian sherd has ever been identified on a Predynastic or Early Dynastic site in Egypt. All of the imported pottery, which is, in any case, very limited in quantity before the Naqada III period (cf. Hartung 2001; Hendrickx and Bavay 2002), comes from the southern Levant. Therefore, direct contacts with Mesopotamia can be excluded (cf. Joffe 2000). Nevertheless, for the palace facade a Mesopotamian origin was, and still is, strongly advocated and this brings with it the claim that it was first introduced in Lower Egypt before
Figure 37.17 Abydos, tomb of Djet. Stela of Djet (Louvre E.11007). © 2002 Musee du Louvre/Christian Decamps.
Reaching Upper Egypt. The palace facade is also part of the serekh, and the origin of the latter has, therefore, also been heavily debated. It has been sought in the Delta, with influence from the Near East, but this is highly unlikely because the earliest (empty) serekhsknown are from tomb U-s at Abydos (Dreyer 1998: 88-89), dating to Naqada IIIA2. Certainly the waters are somewhat muddied by the frequent later occurrence of serekhs in the Delta and the southern Levant, but this is most probably just a consequence of the shift of the power-center of the kingdom from the south (Abydos) to the north (Memphis) at the very beginning of the First Dynasty.
A few iconographic motifs for which an (indirect) south Mesopotamian influence could have existed need to be mentioned. The ‘‘Master of the Beasts,’’ a hero figure standing between and reconciling two opposing wild animals, usually lions, is first attested in the ‘‘Decorated Tomb’’ at Hierakonpolis, but the example on the Gebel el-Arak knife handle (Louvre E.11517) presents a specially strong case for arguing that it is a copy after a Mesopotamian prototype. Furthermore, the motif of entwined snakes, and representations of mythological/fabulous creatures such as the serpopard and the griffon with comb-like wings that can be found on several of the decorated palettes have parallels on Mesopotamian seals. The mode of transferring these motifs, which are notably mostly restricted to strange/dangerous animals and their containment, may have been via seals or seal impressions (Boehmer 1974) on imported
Goods coming from the southern Levant, but it must be stressed that the material used for all objects with possible Mesopotamian influence shows that they were made in Egypt.
Although foreign stimuli may have played a minor role, Early Dynastic iconography is deeply rooted in indigenous Predynastic traditions. As mentioned before, themes such as violence and conflict expressed through warfare and hunting continued throughout the fourth millennium. But most of the stylistic characteristics of the Early Dynastic representations are not attested for the Predynastic Period. The classic royal iconography, for instance, is only represented on the most recent palettes and mace heads dating to the time of Narmer and possibly just before him. The earlier decorated palettes deal with the same topics, but in a visual language representing a direct continuation from Predynastic times. It shows a chaotic world of animals, both real and imagined, to be controlled by positive forces. This has often been considered an allegory for the maintenance of order and containment of disorder. Kemp (2006: 93) regards the representations as ‘‘an ultimate, attainable harmonious framework to a turbulent world.’’ Narmer has the same role on his palette and mace-head, but this is shown in a more direct manner with the (violent) role of the king as central element. The old tradition of animal symbolism survives, however, in the use of animals, such as the catfish, as royal symbols which can be represented holding, for example, a mace or a prisoner. However, the continued use of iconographic elements over a long period of time can be found both in the full meaning of certain scenes and in particular iconographic details. For example, the ‘‘ruler’’ holding a mace in the classic smiting pose of later royal iconography is first employed on White Cross-lined pottery (cf. p. 826) and approaches a formal style in the Hierakonpolis ‘‘Decorated Tomb,’’ which is fully developed on the Narmer palette (figure 37.1). This icon of royal supremacy will remain a basic standard of Pharaoh’s self-portrayal throughout Ancient Egyptian history.
The origins and development of formal iconography, as defined by Kemp (2006), are intimately linked to the emergence of kingship and the elite surrounding the ruler. Although some formal elements can be traced over an extended period of time, the definitive establishment of the formal principles that are fundamental for Early Dynastic (and later) art and iconography must have happened over a relatively short period. Accepting that formal art is largely established by the time of Narmer, we can see that even a highly important royal symbol such as the serekh has not yet taken its classic form during the time of Irj-Hor, only two reigns before Narmer (cf. Jimenez-Serrano 2003). Although a transitional phase in the development of formal art cannot (yet) be recognized as such, this image of a rather swift process is, nevertheless, enhanced by the limited amount of documentation available. A recently rediscovered rock art tableau at Naq’ el-Hamdulab, just north of Aswan, showing a royal ceremony, has characteristics of both traditional rock art and the new, formal style (Hendrickx and Gatto 2009) (plate 8). It is certainly no coincidence that the latter is especially obvious in the royal representation itself. The topic of royal ritual power, on the other hand, can already be found in, for example, the rock art of the Theban Western Desert before the formal style came into being (Darnell 2009).
The development of, and control over, a formal iconography and its syntax must have been of fundamental importance for the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic elite that had every reason to stimulate a strictly uniform iconographic language, confirming their own privileged position. Writing became an essential part of this, opening up entirely new possibilities.
FURTHER READING
A recent synthesis of Predynastic and Early Dynastic art is not available. The (very) old works by Capart (1905), Vandier (1952), Baumgartel (1955; 1960) and Asselberghs (1962) were outstanding in their time, presenting a huge documentation and are still of interest for specific topics but can no longer be considered a relevant approach. Art representations are only discussed to a certain extent in the general overview by Wilkinson on Early Dynastic Egypt (Wilkinson 1999) or Midant-Reynes’ (2000) and Cialowicz’ (2001) syntheses of the whole Egyptian prehistory, including the Early Dynastic Period. Very stimulating, and to some extent provocative, for the analysis of art representations are the recent books by Midant-Reynes (2003) and Wengrow (2006) and the somewhat older study by Davis (1992).
There are several recent articles on specific aspects of Predynastic and Early Dynastic art. At first, a number of discussions on individual animal representations, such as bovines (Hendrickx 2002), dogs (Hendrickx 2006) and hippopotami (Hendrickx and Depraetere 2004) are to be mentioned. White Cross-lined and Decorated pottery was most recently discussed in an innovative manner by Graff (2009). The late Predynastic decorated palettes and especially the Narmer palette have been extensively discussed and the literature on them is huge (cf. Hendrickx 1995: 299-300). A full bibliography of Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt can be found in Hendrickx 1995, with yearly updates in Archeo-Nil.
World History
