THE SECOND DYNASTY

The kings who ruled Egypt between the death of Qaa and the accession of Netjerikhet/Djoser are some of the most shadowy figures from the entire span of Egyptian history (cf. Dodson 1996). The inscriptions and monuments from the period record a plethora of royal names, as do the surviving king lists. The names from these two sets of sources bear little relation to each other. It has proved difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the varying lists and sequences, and scholars today are scarcely more confident about the internal history of the Second Dynasty than were their predecessors a generation ago. The identity and order of the first three kings is certain, thanks to an inscribed statue in the Cairo Museum. The contemporary monuments and the later king lists can be reconciled with reasonable certainty for the first five rulers of the dynasty, whilst Khasekhemwy is universally acknowledged as the last king of the dynasty. In contrast, the positions of the intervening rulers—and indeed the extent of their authority—are obscure. Internal tensions during the middle of the Second Dynasty are suggested by the appearance of Seth in the royal titulary under Peribsen, the very different king lists drawn up for the dynasty in later periods (whereas the king lists agree to a notable extent on the composition of the First Dynasty), and the references under Khasekhem to battles against northern enemies (Kaiser 1992:184-5, n. 44). It is possible that, for a period in the middle of the dynasty, power was divided between kings in the north and south of the country. A study of Nile levels recorded on the Palermo Stone (Bell 1970) indicates that there was a significant drop in the average height of the annual inundation after the end of the First Dynasty. Hence, it is possible that ecological factors may have played a part in the apparent tensions (Hoffman 1980:312). With considerable uncertainties surrounding the order and number of rulers, an accurate estimate for the length of the Second Dynasty is impossible. A figure of one hundred and twenty-one years has been proposed (Baines and Malek 1980:36), but this is no more than an educated guess.

Hetepsekhemwy

We cannot be certain why the death of Qaa marked the end of a dynasty. The first king of the Second Dynasty seems to have legitimised his position by overseeing the burial of his predecessor, or at least by honouring his mortuary cult: sealings of Hetepsekhemwy have recently been discovered in the offering chambers nearest the entrance of Qaa’s tomb (Dreyer 1993b: 11; Dreyer et al 1996:71-2, fig. 25, pl. 14.a). For his own burial, Hetepsekhemwy broke with tradition and abandoned the ancestral necropolis of Abydos in favour of a site adjacent to the capital. The relocation of the royal mortuary complex to Saqqara represents a fundamental change, and must have some historical significance, even if we are unable to be more specific. Furthermore, the design of the royal tomb at Saqqara was entirely new, necessitated, at least in part, by the different nature of the rock strata at Saqqara compared with Abydos (see Chapter 7).

The large gallery tomb at Saqqara was identified as Hetepsekhemwy’s on the basis of numerous seal-impressions (Barsanti 1902; Maspero 1902). Apart from these sealings, the tomb was virtually empty. Objects bearing the name of Hetepsekhemwy have, however, come to light elsewhere. The best known is the pink granite statuette of Hetepdief, a priest who evidently served the mortuary cults of Hetepsekhemwy and his two successors (Fischer 1961:46, fig. 1; Malek 1986:32). In addition, an Early Dynastic grave at Badari contained an alabaster vessel fragment inscribed with the serekh of Hetepsekhemwy, the name of an estate, and the title of a mortuary priest (Brunton 1927: pl. XIX.25). A cup of black granite bearing the name of Hetepsekhemwy is unprovenanced (Kaplony 1965:23, pl. IV, fig. 48), while a bone cylinder which probably formed the finial of a shaft or part of a piece of furniture is said to be from Helwan (Needier 1984:375, 379, pl. 84, fig. 44). Two inscribed stone bowls were found in the pyramid complex of Menkaura at Giza (Reisner 1931:102 and 186, fig. 57.37, pl. 70.c). Further examples of ‘heirlooms’ are the stone vessel fragments from the tombs of Peribsen (Petrie 1901: pl. Vni.8-11) and Khasekhemwy (Amelineau 1902: pl. XXI.6), and numerous inscribed stone vessels from the Step Pyramid complex (Lacau and Lauer 1959: pls 10-12). These latter formed part of the accumulated ritual material from the royal magazines, collected together by Netjerikhet to furnish his burial. The inscriptions provide most of our meagre information on the reign of Hetepsekhemwy.

Nebra

Very little is known about Hetepsekhemwy’s successor; there is even some dispute about the reading of his name. It used to be realised as ‘Raneb’, for R°-nb(.i), ‘Ra is (my) lord’ (for example, Baines and Malek 1980:36; Trigger et al. 1983:70); but recently, the favoured reading of the king’s name reverses the two elements to give Nb-r°, ‘lord of the sun’. According to this view, the word r° would simply be the name of the sun, not yet the name of the solar deity (Quirke 1990:23-4).

Sealings of Nebra were found together with those of Hetepsekhemwy in the royal gallery tomb at Saqqara (Barsanti 1902; Maspero 1902), suggesting that Nebra oversaw the burial of his predecessor. Confirmation that Nebra succeeded Hetepsekhemwy is provided by a stone bowl from the Step Pyramid which shows the juxtaposed serekhs of the two kings (Lacau and Lauer 1959: pl. 11 no. 58), and by the statue of Hetepdief mentioned earlier. There is also a flint bowl of Hetepsekhemwy, reinscribed by Nebra, from the Menkaura pyramid complex (Reisner 1931:102, pl. 70.c). The same practice was evidently continued by Nebra’s successor, since a bowl with the serekh of Nebra, reused by Ninetjer, was found in the tomb of Peribsen at Abydos (Petrie 1901: pl. VIII. 12). The most famous artefact created for Nebra is his fine funerary stela of pink granite (Fischer 1961). It is the first royal stela to come from a site other than Abydos, and lacks the raised border typical of First Dynasty funerary stelae. Although found at Mit Rahina, it seems certain that Nebra’s stela once stood in front of his tomb, which must therefore be located at Saqqara. One possibility is that the gallery tomb constructed for Hetepsekhemwy was in fact appropriated by his successor. Alternatively, the galleries beneath the Western Massif and below the North Court of Netjerikhet’s Step Pyramid complex may have been Second Dynasty royal tombs. Nebra is further attested only once: his serekh is cut on a rock at Site 34, behind Armant in the western desert (Winkler 1938, I: pl. XI.4; Emery 1961:93, fig. 56). The site is close to an ancient trade route linking the Nile valley with the western oases, and the inscription suggests that Nebra mounted an expedition outside the Nile valley.

Ninetjer

By far the best attested king of the early Second Dynasty is Ninetjer, Nebra’s successor. The position of his titulary on the Palermo Stone suggests that he must have been on the throne for at least thirty-five years (cf. Helck 1979:128). Three high-status tombs in the elite cemetery at North Saqqara contained sealings of Ninetjer (S2171: Quibell 1923: pl. XV.3; Porter and Moss 1974:436; S2302 (which probably belonged to the Overseer of Sculptors, Ni-rw-3b):. Quibell 1923:30, pl. XVII.3; Porter and Moss 1974:437; S2498: Quibell 1923:44-5; Porter and Moss 1974:440), as did a tomb across the Nile in the Early Dynastic necropolis at Helwan (505 H.4: Saad 1951:17, pls XII. a, b, XIII. a). Five different jar-sealings of the king were discovered in a large mastaba near Giza (Petrie 1907:7, pl. VE). Further sealings of Ninetjer (S. Hassan 1938:521; Porter and Moss 1974:613) led to the identification of the king’s own tomb at Saqqara. Located some 130 metres east of Hetepsekhemwy’s (/Nebra’s?) monument, Ninetjer’s tomb follows a similar design (Kaiser 1992:180, fig. 4d).

Much of what we know about Ninetjer’s reign derives from the annals of the Palermo Stone. The whole of the fourth register of the stone comprises years from the early and middle parts of his reign, namely year 5 or 6 to year 20 or 21 (Schafer 1902:22-6, pl. I). The foundation of a chapel or estate, named Hr-rn, is recorded for year 7; but, otherwise, most of the eponymous events are the regular ritual appearances of the king and various religious festivals. The festival of Sokar seems to have been celebrated at intervals of six years, while the running of the Apis bull is recorded twice, in years 9 and 15. With the exception of a ceremony in year 19 associated with Nekhbet, goddess of the Elkab area, the festivals recorded for Ninetjer’s reign are closely connected with the Memphite region. This may be significant: apart from stone vessels reused for the burials of Peribsen and Khasekhemwy at Abydos (Petrie 1901: pl. VIn.13; and Amelineau 1902: pl. XXI.5, respectively), Ninetjer is not attested outside the Memphite region. It is possible that court activity in the early Second Dynasty was largely, if not entirely, confined to Lower Egypt. This might account for the internal tensions—maybe amounting to civil war - which appear to have engulfed the country towards the end of Ninetjer’s reign. The Palermo Stone hints at possible unrest in Ninetjer’s year 13 (Schafer 1902:24). The entry reads ‘first feast of Dw3-Hr-pt. Attacking the towns of Sm-r° and H3 The name of the second locality means ‘north land’, and some have interpreted this entry as recording the suppression of a rebellion in Lower Egypt (Emery 1961:93). Although the Palermo Stone breaks off after year 19, two further events which probably belong to the latter part of Ninetjer’s reign are known from stone vessel inscriptions. The ‘fourth occasion of the Sokar festival’ (Lacau and Lauer 1965:88, fig. 172 [no. 273]; Helck 1979:128) probably took place in year 24, judging by the periodic nature of its celebration; the ‘seventeenth occasion of the [biennial] census’ (Lacau and Lauer 1965:89, fig. 173 [no. 274]; Helck 1979:128) will have occurred in year 34.

With so long a reign, it is likely that Ninetjer celebrated at least one Sed-festival. No contemporary inscriptions attest such an occasion, although the statuette of the king discussed below is certainly suggestive. The stock of stone vessels found in the Step Pyramid galleries may originally have been prepared for Ninetjer’s Sed-festival (Helck 1979). According to this theory, the vessels remained in the magazine at Saqqara and were never distributed because internal unrest had already broken out, disrupting communications and weakening the authority of the central administration; the vessels were subsequently appropriated by kings of the late Second and early Third Dynasties. This hypothesis is certainly appealing and has received recent support from Buto (Faltings and Kohler 1996:100 and n. 52): an analysis of the pottery from the Early Dynastic level V indicates a date not later than the reign of Peribsen; the same level also yielded seal-impressions naming ly-en-khnum, one of the most prominent officials mentioned on stone vessels from the Step Pyramid galleries, and placed by Helck in the reign of Ninetjer.

The statuette of the mortuary priest Hetepdief indicates continuity between the first three kings of the Second Dynasty, their mortuary cults being served by one and the same individual. Ninetjer certainly maintained the mortuary cult of one predecessor: an inscribed stone vessel from the Step Pyramid juxtaposes the serekh of Ninetjer and the ka-chapel of Hetepsekhemwy (Lacau and Lauer 1959: pl. 15 no. 74). Apart from the numerous inscribed stone vessels (Lacau and Lauer 1959: pls 13-16), only two objects bearing the name of Ninetjer have survived. One is a small ivory vessel from the Saqqara region (Kaplony 1964: fig. 1074). The other is of far greater importance in the history of Egyptian art: an alabaster statuette of the king, enthroned and wearing the close-fitting robe associated with the Sed-festival (Simpson 1956). The statuette represents the earliest complete and identifiable example of three-dimensional royal statuary from Egypt.

Plate 3.2 King Ninetjer. Crude stone statuette of

Unknown provenance, now in the Georges Michailides Collection (photograph courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society).

Weneg

As we have seen, there are indications of a breakdown in central authority at the end of Ninetjer’s reign. Before order was re-established towards the end of the Second Dynasty, the kingship seems to have been held by a number of ephemeral rulers who are only poorly attested in contemporary inscriptions (Figure 3.4). Ninetjer’s immediate successor, at least in the north of Egypt, was a king whose nswt-bity name has been read as Weneg (Grdseloff 1944:288-91). His Horus name remains unknown (cf. Wildung 1969b; Helck 1979:131). An unpublished inscription of Weneg from a mastaba at North Saqqara (S3014: Lacau and Lauer 1959:16, n. 2) is very similar to an inscription of Ninetjer (Lacau and Lauer 1959: no. 68), suggesting that this may be another case of a king recutting one of his predecessor’s

Figure 3.4 Ephemeral rulers, 1: Weneg (1) and Nubnefer (2). Both kings seem to have ruled in the middle of the Second Dynasty.

The royal names were incised on stone vessels found in galleries beneath the Step Pyramid of Netjerikhet at Saqqara (after Lacau and Lauer 1959: planches V.4,

VI.4).

Stone vessels (Helck 1979:124). A second stone vessel from the same Saqqara tomb names the two tutelary goddesses of Upper and Lower Egypt, Nekhbet and Wadjet (Kaplony 1965:7, figs 6 and 8, 16 n. 6; Helck 1979:131). However, Weneg is unattested outside Saqqara and there is no evidence to confirm that his rule extended into the south of the country. Twelve stone bowls from the Step Pyramid complex name Weneg (Lacau and Lauer 1959: pls 19 no. 105, 20 nos 101-7). Weneg’s tomb has not been located. If, as is likely, it followed the pattern of earlier Second Dynasty tombs and comprised a set of subterranean galleries, then it may lie beneath the North Court of Netjerikhet’s Step Pyramid complex. Alternatively, there is a possibility that other Second Dynasty royal tombs once stood to the south of the Hetepsekhemwy and Ninetjer galleries; this would explain the location of Sekhemkhet’s step pyramid enclosure some distance to the west. The whole area was levelled by Unas for the construction of his pyramid and causeway.

Sened

According to later king lists, Ninetjer’s second successor was a king with the nswt-bity name Sened (Helck 1984c). Unfortunately, there are no proven contemporary inscriptions of this ruler. The best piece of evidence is a block, inscribed with the words nswt-bity Snd, reused in the funerary temple of King Khafra at Giza (Steindorff, in U. Holscher

1912:106). It may be Second Dynasty, although the epigraphy of the inscription would tend to suggest a slightly later date. An undisputed Fourth Dynasty inscription, in the tomb of Shery, provides the second mention of a King Sened, and indicates that his mortuary cult was celebrated at Saqqara and was still current over one hundred years after his death (Grdseloff 1944:294; Wildung 1969b: pl. III.2; Kaiser 1991). Shery’s titles suggest a connection between the mortuary cults of Sened and Peribsen, a king of the Second Dynasty who is otherwise only attested in Upper Egypt. If Sened ruled only in the north of Egypt and Peribsen only in the south, the juxta-position of their two mortuary cults at Saqqara may indicate that the territorial division of the country which is proposed after the reign of Ninetjer was amicable at first (Helck 1979:132). The only other occurrence of Sened’s name is on the belt of a Late Period bronze statuette of a king (Wildung 1969b: pl. IV. l). This suggests that, however obscure Sened may be to modern Egyptology, he was still remembered by his countrymen centuries after his death. As with Weneg, Sened’s tomb has not been identified. Given the reference to his mortuary cult in the inscription of Shery, it must have been located somewhere in the Saqqara necropolis. It has been suggested, though without firm evidence, that the galleries beneath the Western Massif of the Step Pyramid complex may have been Sened’s tomb, since the tomb of Shery (overseer of the king’s mortuary priests) probably lay a short distance to the north (Dodson 1996:24).

Nubnefer

This name is attested just twice, on stone vessels from the Step Pyramid (Lacau and Lauer 1959: pl. VI.3-4 [nos 99-100]). By a network of associations, we may conclude that Ninetjer and Nubnefer were near contemporaries (Helck 1979:124). Nubnefer cannot easily be the nswt-bity name of Ninetjer, since this name is known (it is also Ninetjer). Nubnefer may, therefore, have been an ephemeral ruler who held the kingship briefly during the period of unrest which seems to have followed the death of Ninetjer. His exact place in the order of succession cannot be established.

Peribsen

Considerable uncertainty likewise surrounds another king from the middle of the Second Dynasty who, uniquely in Egyptian history, chose to replace the Horus-falcon surmounting the serekh with the Seth-animal. Just why Peribsen chose to break with custom and emphasise the latter god is a mystery. The change may have had ‘real political implications’, perhaps indicating a new development in the ideology of kingship (Hoffman 1980:351). Some scholars have seen a connection between the change of title and two other aspects of Peribsen’s reign: his decision to be buried in the First Dynasty royal cemetery at Abydos, and the fact that he is not attested by contemporary inscriptions outside Upper Egypt. It is possible that Peribsen ruled only in the southern part of the country; he may have been descended from the First Dynasty royal family, hence his decision to be buried at Abydos. Alternatively, if he was an Upper Egyptian usurper, the choice of the Umm el-Qaab as his burial place may have been intended to confer legitimacy, by association in death with the kings of the First Dynasty. The special features of Peribsen’s reign easily lend themselves to speculative historical reconstructions, but caution should be exercised.

To judge from the tomb inscription of Shery, Peribsen’s mortuary cult seems to have been celebrated at Saqqara despite the fact that his tomb (Petrie 1901: pl. LXI) and funerary enclosure (Ayrton et al 1904:1-5, pl. VII; Kemp 1966; sealings: Ayrton et al. 1904: pl. IX. l, 2) are located at Abydos. It is at the latter site that Peribsen is best attested. Some of the sealings from his tomb bear the epithet inw SUt, ‘tribute (or ‘conqueror’?) of Setjet’ (Petrie 1901: pl. XXII.181). The town determinative after Setjet seems to indicate that the locality lay within Egypt, rather than being the land of Syria-Palestine (also called Setjet by the Egyptians). The town has been plausibly identified as Sethroe in the north-eastern Delta (Grdseloff 1944:295-9), known to have been a cult centre of the god Seth in later times. It is possible, though not provable, that the town was incorporated into the Egyptian realm and a cult of Seth established during the reign of Peribsen. However, this would clearly require Peribsen to have ruled Lower Egypt as well as Upper Egypt.

Two funerary stelae were discovered in front of Peribsen’s Abydos tomb (Fischer 1961:52, fig. 7; BM 35597: Spencer 1980:16, pls 8-9 [Cat. 15]). An official’s sealing from the reign of Peribsen was recently discovered on the island of Elephantine, in the settlement area north of the Satet temple (Dreyer, in Kaiser et al. 1987:107-8 and 109, fig. 13 a, pl. 15a). The inscription names the ‘seal(er) of all the things of Upper Egypt’, and thus indicates the existence of state administrative structures on Elephantine from at least the late Second Dynasty (Patznick, in Kaiser et al. 1995:180). Mastaba K1 at Beit Khallaf, dated to the reign of Netjerikhet, none the less yielded a sealing of Peribsen (Garstang 1902: pl. X.8). An unprovenanced cylinder vessel of red limestone is decorated with the serekh of Peribsen in raised relief (Kaplony 1965:24 and 26, fig. 51 [line drawing], pl. V fig. 51 [photograph]). Curiously, the name of Peribsen also occurs on a stone vessel fragment found by Petrie in the First Dynasty tomb of Merneith (Petrie 1900: pl. IV.7). The only possible explanation is that it represents later contamination of the tomb contents, perhaps from Amelineau’s excavations.

Sekhemib-perenmaat

The final king whose identity and place in the succession are uncertain bore the two-part name Sekhemib-perenmaat. There are two main hypotheses concerning Sekhemib-perenmaat (Quirke 1990:45): first, that he is one and the same king as Peribsen, in a different guise (for example, Grdseloff 1944:295; Emery 1961:95; Shaw and Nicholson 1995:220; Dodson 1996:25); second, that he was the successor of Peribsen (Kaplony 1963; Helck 1979:132). For those who hold the first view, the occurrence of sealings bearing the name Sekhemib-perenmaat in both the tomb and funerary enclosure of Peribsen is significant (Petrie 1901: pl. XXI. 164-72; and Ayrton et al. 1904: pl. IX.3, respectively). Moreover, on inscribed stone vessel fragments from the Step Pyramid complex (Lacau and Lauer 1959: pl. 18 nos 87-94), Sekhemib-perenmaat is given the epithet inw hU3st, ‘tribute (or ‘conqueror’) of foreign land(s)’ (Lacau and Lauer 1959: pl. 18 no. 93), reminiscent of the phrase inw SUt, discussed above, which appears on sealings of Peribsen from his Abydos tomb. Those who hold the second view point to the fact that the sealings from Peribsen’s tomb bearing the name of Sekhemib-perenmaat were found in the entrance, a parallel situation to the sealing of Hetepsekhemwy found in the tomb of Qaa. On balance, the evidence seems to weigh slightly in favour of identifying Sekhemib-perenmaat as the same person as Peribsen, perhaps before he made the unusual move of adopting a Seth-name. The similarity of the two names, Sekhemib-perenmaat and Peribsen (both include the elements ib and pr), hint at a close connection. Apart from the instances already cited, the name Sekhemib-perenmaat is attested on a sealing from the debris of the Old Kingdom town at Elephantine (Leclant and Clerc 1993:250), and on the inside of an unprovenanced alabaster bowl (Kaplony 1965:24, pl. V fig. 52).

Khasekhem (wy)

The last king of the Second Dynasty is an important, and in many ways transitional, figure (cf. Hoffman 1980:348-54). More is known about his reign than any other of the dynasty, and his surviving monuments are by far the most impressive of any Early Dynastic ruler before Netjerikhet. At the beginning of his reign, the last king of the Second Dynasty adopted the Horus name Khasekhem, ‘the power has appeared’. Later, however, he added the Seth-animal to the top of his serekh, and changed his name accordingly to the dual form Khasekhemwy, ‘the two powers have appeared’, together with an additional epithet nbwy htp im=f, ‘the two lords are at peace in him’. The new name seems consciously to have been modelled on that of the dynasty’s founder, Hetepsekhemwy. It may therefore have been intended to proclaim national renewal under Khasekhemwy (Kaiser 1992:184-5, n. 44). It used to be thought that the two forms of the name belonged to two different kings (Emery 1961:98); but it is now generally accepted that they were borne at different periods by one and the same monarch (for example, Quirke 1990:46; Shaw and Nicholson 1995:150).

In the early part of his reign, Khasekhem seems to have shown particular interest in, and reverence for, Hierakonpolis, the ancient Predynastic capital in the far south of the country. Indeed, Khasekhem is attested only once outside Hierakonpolis, on an inscribed diorite vessel from the Step Pyramid complex (Lacau and Lauer 1959: pl. 3 no. 18). Travertine and granite vessels of Khasekhem were discovered inside the temple of Horus at Hierakonpolis (Quibell 1900: pl. XXXVI). In all cases, the inscription shows the goddess Nekhbet standing on a ring containing the word bs, ‘rebel’. The accompanying legend describes the scene as ‘the year of fighting the northern enemy’. The Horus-falcon atop the king’s serekh wears only the white crown, associated with Upper Egypt (Quibell 1900: pl. XXXVIII). Unless the scene represents nothing more than a traditional duty of kingship or a ritual, an historical interpretation would seem likely. It is probable that, when he acceded to the kingship, Khasekhem ruled only Upper Egypt. Campaigns against the rebellious north ultimately resulted in Khasekhem’s victory, and he was able to reunite Egypt. To commemorate this achievement, he changed his name to the dual form, to demonstrate that peace and harmony had returned through his actions. In the absence of hard evidence, this reconstruction of events must remain speculative, though it does fit the available data well. In particular, two famous seated statues of Khasekhem from Hierakonpolis, one of limestone (Quibell 1900: pl. XXXIX), the other of siltstone (Quibell 1900: pl. XLI [left]), carry inscriptions which show defeated enemies in contorted positions, labelled as ‘northern enemies 47,209’ (Quibell 1900: pl. XL). These two statues clearly suggest hostile activity undertaken by Khasekhem against a northern foe, though a precise identification of the enemy is not possible. It has been suggested that the gap in the later sources, transmogrified into the name ‘Hudjefa’ by the New Kingdom scribes who compiled the Saqqara and Turin king lists, may once have contained the name of Khasekhem’s opponent(s), later expunged from the record (Dodson 1996:28). If a fragmentary stela from Hierakonpolis is to be interpreted at face value, Khasekhem may have preceded his attacks on the north by a campaign southwards into Nubia. The stela fragment shows part of a kneeling captive resting on a platform which ends in the head of a foreigner. This last is surmounted by a bow, the sign used to write the name applied to Nubia, Ta-Sety. Moreover, an inscription below the scene gives the serekh of Khasekhem and the phrase ‘humbling the foreign land’ (Quibell and Green 1902: pl. LYIII). The other known occurrence of Khasekhem’s serekh is on an unprovenanced copper axe-head in a private collection (Kaplony 1965:24 and 29, fig. 55).

Under the later version of his name, Khasekhemwy, the king is much more widely attested, from Hierakonpolis in the far south of Egypt to Byblos on the Lebanese coast. A fragment of a breccia stone vessel was recovered from the Egyptian temple area at Byblos, incised with the phrase HU°-shUmwi di °nhU, ‘Khasekhemwy, given life’ (Montet 1928:84, fig. 1). Unusually, the Seth-animal on top of the serekh appears to be wearing the red crown, whereas the Horus-falcon wears the usual double crown. This vessel may easily have reached Byblos through trade and/or at a later period. None the less, it seems likely that foreign relations reached a new level under Khasekhemwy, since a seal-impression of his reign gives the first occurrence of the title imi-r3 hOSst, ‘overseer of foreign land(s)’ (Kaplony 1963, III: pl. 72 fig. 269). It strongly suggests the imposition of Egyptian hegemony on foreign territory. This may be confirmed by a damaged stone block with a list of foreign countries from the temple area at Hierakonpolis (Quibell and Green 1902: pl. XXIII [bottom]). The inscription seems originally to have included numerals (some are partially preserved), and may therefore have recorded tribute or enemies slain in battle. Other inscriptions of Khasekhemwy have been found at Saqqara—in a private tomb (S3043: Kaplony 1963, I: 163), and in the Step Pyramid complex (Firth and Quibell 1935,1:141, fig. 22; Lauer 1939:21, pl. XIX.7-8; Lacau and Lauer 1959: pl. 19 no. 95)—and Abydos (Petrie 1901: pls XxIII-XXIY; Amelineau 1902: pls XXI, XXII; Ayrton et al. 1904:3, pl. IX.9).

Khasekhemwy’s mortuary constructions at Abydos are truly impressive. In their design and symbolism they point the way towards the Step Pyramid complex of Netjerikhet a generation later. The burial chamber of Khasekhemwy’s tomb was lined with blocks of dressed limestone (Petrie 1901: pl. LYII.4-6), representing the largest-scale use of dressed stone to that date. His funerary enclosure, known today by its Arabic nickname, the Shunet ez-Zebib, is a mammoth structure of mudbrick (Ayrton et al. 1904:1-5, pl. YI). A ‘fleet’ of funerary boats discovered adjacent to the enclosure may have formed part of the overall building programme (O’Connor 1991, 1995). Buildings inside the court of the enclosure foreshadow some of the elements of the Step Pyramid complex (Kemp 1989:56, fig. 18; O’Connor 1995:7). The Shunet ez-Zebib is still one of the most visible monuments at Abydos, its massively thick walls having withstood forty-five centuries. Despite its vast size and the investment of labour that it represents, the Shunet ez-Zebib is not the only such building attributable to Khasekhemwy. A parallel construction can be found on the northern side of the Great Wadi at Hierakonpolis (see Chapter 7). Why Khasekhemwy should have constructed two such funerary enclosures remains a mystery. In addition to the Tort’, a granite door-jamb from the town site at Hierakonpolis may have belonged to a temple erected by Khasekhemwy (Quibell 1900: pl. II; Engelbach 1934). Two further blocks found nearby (Quibell and Green 1902: pls LIX.8, XXIII [bottom]) suggest a major building programme undertaken by Khasekhemwy at Hierakonpolis. Across the river at Elkab, a granite block with the king’s serekh was discovered within the town enclosure, hinting at another large building (Sayce and Clarke 1905:239). The Palermo Stone may provide further evidence for temple building, if the beginning of the fifth register comprises the last years of Khasekhemwy’s reign. The entry for year 13 records the construction of a stone building called Mn-nUrt (Schafer 1902:26). The reference to stone probably indicates a temple, since secular buildings of the Early Dynastic period were more usually made from mudbrick. If the Early Dynastic relief blocks from the temple of Hathor at Gebelein are also to be dated to the reign of Khasekhemwy (W. S.Smith 1949:137-8), he would emerge as a major patron of temple construction in Upper Egypt, and by far the most prolific builder of the Early Dynastic period as a whole.

The achievements of Khasekhemwy’s reign are not restricted, however, to architecture or administration. The objects from his tomb at Abydos are among the glories of Early Dynastic craftsmanship. They include a sceptre fashioned from the precious stone sard with bands of gold (Petrie 1901: pl. IX. l); dolomite limestone vases with sheet gold covers (Petrie 1901: pl. IX.2, 5-10; Spencer 1993:86, fig. 65); and a ewer and basin of bronze (Petrie 1901: pl. IX.13-15; Spencer 1993:88, fig. 68). Advanced metalworking is also indirectly attested by an entry on the Palermo Stone. The major event of year 15 was the fashioning of a copper statue called ‘high is Khasekhemwy’ (Schafer 1902:27; Sethe 1914). Life-size copper statues which would fit such a description have survived from the late Old Kingdom. The entry for year 15 may also contain a reference to shipbuilding. According to the Palermo Stone, the king whose reign is recorded at the beginning of the fifth register died in his sixteenth or seventeenth regnal year. However, on both the statues of Khasekhem from Hierakonpolis the king wears the close-fitting robe associated with the Sed-festival, usually—though not always—celebrated after a considerable period of time on the throne.

The reign of Khasekhemwy marks a turning point in Egyptian history and culture, linking the early development of dynastic civilisation during the First and Second Dynasties with the full flourishing of that civilisation from the beginning of the Third Dynasty. His mortuary constructions foreshadow the pyramid age, and his political achievements seem to have re-established the internal stability and prosperity needed for the great cultural achievements of his successors. A sealing from Khasekhemwy’s tomb at Abydos demonstrates the family link between him and Netjerikhet. The sealing names the ‘mother of the king’s children, Nimaat-hap’ (Petrie 1901: pl. XXIV.210). This same personage is named, this time as ‘mother of the dual king’, on a sealing from mastaba K1 at Beit Khallaf (Garstang 1902: pl. X.7), dated by other sealings to the reign of Netjerikhet. In other words, Netjerikhet was Nimaathap’s son, either by a second husband or, perhaps more likely (given the phraseology on the sealing from Khasekhemwy’s tomb), by Khasekhemwy himself.