The complex and evolving relationship between the center and the provinces is a key theme in the study of the Early Dynastic Period. Archaeological evidence from the period of state formation indicates a series of competing territorial units in Upper Egypt, based around the early urban centers of This (near Abydos), Naqada, and Hierakonpolis, together with a more diffuse pattern of prominent trading centers in Lower Egypt, including Buto, Mendes, and Minshat Abu Omar, plus sites as yet unexcavated such as Sais and Chois (Wilkinson 1999: 36-41; 2000a; Kemp 2006: fig. 22). After the political unification of Egypt, the victorious kings, probably from This, had to find ways of keeping their disparate realm together. This was no easy task: the periodic fragmentation of Egypt along regional lines during the Intermediate Periods demonstrates the deep-seated nature of local identities and the precariousness of centralized authority, whatever the artistic and written records might suggest. To assert and sustain their supra-regional authority Egypt’s early rulers used a variety of means, psychological as well as physical, symbolic as well as economic.
First, there was a naked display of power. The early Egyptian state seems to have erected imposing architectural symbols of its supreme authority the length and breadth of the country, akin to the Norman castles in England. In many places these monuments took the form of impressive mud-brick tombs for new, centrally appointed governors. They were decorated in the palace-facade style that was both exotic and inextricably associated with royal power (Wilkinson 1999: 224-9). We can imagine the impact on the local population, at places like Armant and Gebelein in Upper Egypt and Tarkhan near the apex of the Delta, of seeing such strange and looming edifices built in their traditional burial-grounds. In any settled community the local cemetery links the current inhabitants with their ancestors and hence underpins the population’s territorial claim. For a new regime to appropriate such sensitive and symbolically laden pieces of ground must have delivered a powerful message. A new authority in the land had not only taken charge of peoples’ lives and livelihoods but also, it must have seemed, of their very identities.
At Buto in the Delta and Hierakonpolis in Upper Egypt - not coincidentally two of the most important and prosperous communities from Predynastic times, and flourishing centers of political and economic activity that were symbolic of the two halves of the newly united realm - the state erected colossal palace compounds to serve the king on his frequent travels, but also, just as importantly, to announce his subjugation of the Two Lands. To the same end, the theologians of the royal court set about forging a national ideology, centered on kingship and the person of the ruler, that absorbed diverse local cults and religious emblems (especially those connected with places that were important politically, economically, or symbolically). Hence Horus of Hierakonpolis became the god of kingship par excellence, while the goddesses Nekh-bet of Elkab and Wadjet of Buto became guardians of the king and symbols of his authority over Upper and Lower Egypt respectively. Min of Coptos was adopted as the patron deity of virile and fecund kingship, while Neith of Sais seems to have been given the role of protectress of royal women, to judge from the frequency of First Dynasty theophorous names compounded with Neith (Neithhotep was the mother of Aha, Herneith the wife of Djer, and Meri(t)neith the mother of Den). The red crown, associated in Predynastic times with Naqada, and the white crown, whose origins lay in deepest Upper Egypt or even Lower Nubia, were appropriated to stand for the two halves of the king’s new territory, the Delta and the Nile Valley, respectively (Wilkinson 1999: 192-5). In such a way, the populations of Egypt’s most influential towns and cities could feel themselves integral parts of the new national power-structure; each community could bask in the reflected glory of kingship, proud that its patron deity or ancient symbol of rule enjoyed a special relationship with the monarchy. It was a quite brilliant display of psychological conquest, the equal of any military victory that may have brought the First Dynasty to power in the first place.
However, not all communities shared in this royal embrace. A broad stretch of the Nile Valley in Middle Egypt, which had always been somewhat distant from the centers of political and economic power, remained relatively impoverished and largely immune from state interference (Wilkinson 1999: 356-7). By contrast, the island of Elephantine on Egypt’s southern border felt the rougher side of central control. Here, the government’s principal concern was economic: the regulation and control of goods and people across the border with Nubia. To that end, one of the first actions of the state, shortly after unification, was to order the construction of a massive fortress on the eastern side of Elephantine, overlooking the main shipping channel (Ziermann 1993; Seidlmayer 1996a). Later in the Early Dynastic Period the curtain wall of the fortress was further enlarged and strengthened, to make this symbol of royal power impregnable. The fact that these extensions effectively barred access to the local village shrine does not seem to have concerned the national authorities; their mastery of the economy was apparently more important than local sensibilities.
In any case, the religion of ordinary provincial communities had little, if anything, in common with the cult of kingship being promulgated by the state. The small, informal shrines at Elephantine, Abydos, and Tell Ibrahim Awad reflect a very different set of beliefs and practices (Kemp 2006: 112-35), focused on fertility, childbirth, and protection from harmful forces, the stuff of everyday concerns far removed from the cosmic ambitions of the king. One of the towering achievements of the Early Dynastic state was to raise the artificial construct of state religion to a position of pre-eminence, while local religious traditions gradually faded away through lack of support (or deliberate neglect). The complete absence of state-sponsored temples to local cults (except those closely associated with kingship) is a notable feature of Early Dynastic society. The only ‘‘temples’’ worthy of the name built during the first three dynasties were monuments to kingship. In many ways the king was god. Ancient Egyptian religion, as we know and recognize it today, with its emphasis on a divine monarchy, was the brilliant and lasting creation of Egypt’s early rulers and their willing priests.
Yet, in case we should think of the Early Dynastic Period as the epitome of authoritatian rule and centralized control, there are indications that the state did not have things all its own way. The very fact that the king and his entourage felt it necessary to travel the country on the biennial Followings of Horus suggests that national cohesion could not be taken for granted. The appearance of palace-facade monuments in key provincial cemeteries demonstrates the continued importance of those same communities, and it is noticeable that many of the traditional burial-grounds remained in use from Predynastic to Early Dynastic times (Bard 1994; Wilkinson 1996). Naga ed-Deir and Mahasna in northern Upper Egypt, Matmar in Middle Egypt, Tura and Helwan at the apex of the Delta, Kafr Hassan Dawood and Minshat Abu Omar in Lower Egypt: all display considerable continuity in use and burial practices during the period of state formation and into the Early Dynastic Period. Material culture did not change markedly following political unification, even if the country as a whole grew more prosperous and society became increasingly polarized between rich and poor. The location of Neithhotep’s tomb at Naqada and an even more impressive mud brick tomb at Beit Khallaf (perhaps belonging to Netjerikhet-Djoser’s mother, Nimaathap (Wilkinson 1999: 97)) may suggest continuing royal connections with the provinces throughout the Early Dynastic Period. It is possible that strong local families merely cemented their influence by marrying into the main royal line, and that the monarchy was dependent upon the backing of local dynasts to keep it in power. This was certainly the pattern of domestic politics in later periods of Egyptian history, and it may just be possible to glimpse it in the meagre archaeological evidence surviving from the earliest dynasties.
World History
