Gades › Gaiseric › The Five Great Kings of Egypt's Early Dynastic Period » Origins and History
Articles and Definitions › Contents
- Gades › Ancient History
- Gaiseric › Who Was
- The Five Great Kings of Egypt's Early Dynastic Period › Antique Origins
Ancient civilizations › Historical places, and their characters
Gades › Ancient History
Definition and Origins
Gades (modern-day Cadiz, Spain) was an ancient city located on the island of Erytheia, northwest of Gibraltar at the tip of the Iberian Peninsula and is believed to be one of the most ancient cities still standing in Western Europe. Although some sources place its founding by the Phoenicians of Tyre in the eighth century BCE, other historical records claim that the city was established earlier, around 1100 BCE, as a seasonal trading post, providing the Phoenicians with access to the vast mineral wealth of the area. While historians accept the Phoenician settlement as fact, the ancient Greeks and Romans consider another possibility, believing the site to have been founded as a result of one of the twelve labours of the mythological son of Zeus, Hercules.
According to the legend, based upon the writings of the Greek lyric poet Pindar, Hercules murdered his wife and children during an insane rage brought about by the jealous goddess Hera. He appealed to the god Apollo and was made to atone for his misdeeds by performing twelve nearly impossible labours. Among these labours (the tenth) was one calling for him to capture the cattle of the three-headed monster Geryon and take them to Eurystheus, the king of Mycenae. This labour would take Hercules to the ends of the known world where he would eventually erect what became known as the Pillars of Hercules, the Gates of Cadiz or Gades. During the capture of the cattle, or so the legend says, Hercules built a huge mountain and when he split it apart he brought about the separation of the continents of Europe and Africa, thereby connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the Atlantic Ocean via the Strait of Gibraltar.
GADES BECAME A BATTLEGROUND FOR CONTROL OF THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN SEA BETWEEN THE PHOENICIANS AND CARTHAGINIANS.
In actuality the city became a battleground for control of the western Mediterranean Sea. With the decline of the Phoenicians in the east and the rise of Carthage in the west, the status of Gadir (as it was originally called) shifted, and in 500 BCE, the city was captured by Carthage and made part of their growing empire. During the Second Punic War between Carthage and Rome (218 -202 BCE), Hamilcar Barca, brother of the Carthaginian general Hannibal, understood the benefits of the city's location and made it his first Spanish base. Carthage plundered the surrounding area for its resources in their futile attempt to repel Rome. As with its sister city ( Carthago Nova ) to the east, the city was relieved when, in 206 BCE, it was captured by Roman legions under the leadership of Scipio Africanus.
After the end of the war and the removal of the Carthaginian threat, the newly acquired city prospered under Roman rule. Its location was both beneficial economically (with its production of fish sauce) as well as strategically in its role as a naval base, as the city had a long history of shipbuilding. Since the city had supported Julius Caesar against his nemesis Pompey, he granted the city municipal status in 49 BCE and changed its name to Gades, (this was later reaffirmed by Augustus ); the city's new colony became Urba Iulia Gaditana.
However, as the Roman Empire declined, so did the importance and commercial value of the city and little else is mentioned in later Roman Empire records except for the fact that Emperor Hadrian ’s mother was born there. With the eventual fall of the Empire, the city was overrun and much of it was destroyed by the Visigoths in 410 CE. Although it was later conquered by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian in 550 CE in his attempt to reunite the Old Roman Empire, his successors failed to maintain influence and the Visigoths retook the city in 572 CE. They, too, were unable to keep control and from 711 to 1262 CE the city came under the jurisdiction of the Moors.
Gaiseric › Who Was
Definition and Origins
Gaiseric (reigned 428-478 CE, also known as Genseric and Geiseric) was the greatest king of the Vandals who remained undefeated from the time he took the throne until his death. He was probably born in 389 CE near Lake Balaton (present day Hungary), though this is uncertain. Ancient sources report that he was the illegitimate son of the Vandal king Godigisel who raised him as the equal of his legitimate sons. He was known for his cunning and brilliant military tactics that defeated the armies of Rome in every engagement. He became king of the Vandals in Spain upon the death of his half-brother Gunderic and led his people to North Africa, where he established a Vandal kingdom -- so powerful it effectively controlled the Mediterranean Sea from 439-533 CE, seizing ships and plundering coastal towns and villages. After his death, the kingdom passed to his son who ruled poorly, as did his other successors, until Gelimer, the last of the Vandal kings, was defeated by the Roman general Belisarius in 533 CE, and the Vandals ceased to exist as a cohesive political and cultural entity.
THE VANDALS IN SPAIN & GAISERIC'S RISE TO POWER
The Vandals migrated from Scandinavia to the region now known as Poland sometime around 130 BCE and then migrated further south, coming into contact with the Roman Empire. By c. 166 CE they were alternately allied to, or antagonists of, Rome and by 270 CE were actively hostile to the empire. The Hunnic invasions of the late 4th and early 5th centuries CE forced many so-called "barbarian tribes" from their traditional homelands across the borders into Roman territory, seeking safety. The Vandals were denied entrance but, in the winter of 406 CE, they crossed the frozen Rhine River and invaded Gaul. From Gaul they spread to Hispania (modern day Spain), where they came into conflict with the Visigoths already living there.Further complicating the Vandals' situation was the presence of Romans in Hispania, and so they found themselves fighting against two enemies on separate fronts. Under the leadership of Gunderic, the Vandals were able to keep both enemies at bay and took control of the coastal cities with many of the most important ports. Still, the Vandals were constantly threatened with attacks either by the Romans or the Visigoths. While Gunderic was a capable leader, claiming kingship over the Vandals and the Alans (and so possessed of a fairly large army), there was nothing he could do to conquer and hold Hispania as a whole.Gunderic died in 428 CE and was succeeded by the 39-year-old Gaiseric who recognized he needed to find a solution to his people's problem by leaving Spain and establishing a Vandal kingdom elsewhere.
GAISERIC SEEMED TO BE ABLE TO GUESS AT WHAT THE ROMANS WOULD DO BEFORE THEY KNEW THEMSELVES.AND CONSISTENTLY THWARTED THEIR PLANS TO DRIVE HIM FROM HIS KINGDOM.
THE INVASION OF NORTH AFRICA
The problem, of course, was where to go, but this was resolved for him by his Roman enemies. While the Vandals were fighting off the Visigoths, the Roman Empire was suffering its usual problems with court intrigue. The emperor in the west was Valentinian III, who was only a child, and actual power lay with his mother, Galla Placidia, and the general Flavius Aetius.Romans generally favored either Aetius or Galla, and the two were almost constantly at work trying to devise plans to thwart the hopes of the other. In c. 428 CE, Aetius devised a scheme whereby a rival of his, Boniface (who ruled in North Africa), was charged with treason against Valentinian III and Galla Placidia. Aetius requested that Galla send for Boniface to come from North Africa and answer the charges while, at the same time, sending word to Boniface that Galla was planning to execute him when he arrived. When Boniface sent word to Galla that he would not come, Aetius declared this was proof of his treason.
At this point, the ancient historian Procopius claims, Boniface invited the Vandals of Spain to North Africa as allies against a Roman invasion. Boniface, as Galla would soon recognize, was innocent of the charges and, as he controlled six provinces in North Africa and the military might to defend them, would have had no need for an agreement with the Vandals. Still, as Aetius and Galla were formidable enemies, Boniface could have sent the invitation to Gaiseric in order to muster as many men as he could. Another account of the Vandals' invasion of North Africa suggests that Gaiseric had been injured in a fall from a horse and was lame and so decided to henceforth wage war by sea which led him to invade in order to establish a naval base at Carthage. Historians have argued for and against both of these claims and continue to do so. Most likely, Gaiseric simply wanted a homeland for his people that was rich in resources and free of Visigoths and so took advantage of the confused situation of the Romans and invaded when he felt Boniface could do nothing about it (or he simply accepted Boniface's invitation with a plan in mind to take the province). North Africa was the major grain supplier for the Roman Empire and, if Gaiseric controlled it, he would be able to effectively negotiate with the Romans to his advantage.
Whatever his reasons, Gaiseric led 80,000 of his people from Spain to North Africa in 429 CE. Historians continue to debate whether the number was 80,000 or 20,000, but the historian Goffart (citing others) writes, "That Geiseric led 80,000 Vandals and associated peoples from Spain to Africa in 429 has been called the one piece of certain information we have about the size of barbarian groups in the age of the invasions. The certainty arises from its being vouched for by apparently independent informants, one Latin, the other Greek " (231). Once in Africa, if the claim that Boniface invited him is accepted, he turned on his host and led his forces against the imperial army. He took the city of Hippo (where St. Augustine, who died at this time, was bishop) after a siege of fourteen months and overran the territories of present day Morocco and Algeria.
Gaiseric took hundreds of Roman prisoners captive, many of them high-profile citizens, but treated them well and offered them freedom if they would swear never to take up arms against the Vandals again. Many of them accepted his offer and, among them, was a Roman officer named Marcian who would later become emperor and would honor his oath. Valentinian III, meanwhile, had no choice but to recognize Gaiseric's victories and abandon the North African provinces except for Carthage.Gaiseric steadily built up his power base, conquering other cities and, in 439 CE, he took Carthage. He then continued on with a string of victories, conquering cities until he was master of North Africa and the Vandals had their own homeland, much to the dismay of Rome. Historian Roger Collins writes, "The determination to regain Africa dominated western imperial policy for the next fifteen years" (90). The Romans would be unsuccessful in this, however, until after Gaiseric's death.
PERSECUTIONS OF THE CATHOLICS
With the Romans defeated, Gaiseric went about the business of ruling his kingdom. The Vandals were Arian Christians, while the Romans were Trinitarians (later known as Catholics). The historian Victor of Vita described the persecutions of Catholics under Gaiseric's reign in his History of the Persecution of the African Province (c. 484 CE). The Arian Vandals rejected the concept of the Trinity as polytheistic heresy, while the Roman Catholics condemned Arianism as a threat to the true faith. The Cambridge Ancient History describes the situation after Gaiseric was fully in control of North Africa:
Geiseric and the Vandals had regarded the African provincials, especially the Roman nobility, with considerable suspicion. Members of many leading families were exiled and had their lands expropriated. Similarly, the religious conflict between Arian Vandals and Catholic Romans was unusually savage. Many Catholic bishops and priests were subjected to internal exile, and their churches and landed endowments given to Arians instead (XIV, 125).
The Vandal king also taxed the Catholics more heavily than the Arians with special attention paid to Catholic churches. The vehemence with which Gaiseric regarded the Trinitarian Christians sprang from their antagonism toward the Vandal form of Arian Christianity which had incorporated aspects of Christianity into the old Germanic paganism of the tribe. In the elder belief structure, Odin was king of the gods and all others were below him and so, in the Vandal form of Christianity, there was only one supreme God and Jesus fulfilled the same role that Thor had previously. The concept of three equally powerful deities reigning as one God was totally unacceptable to Gaiseric, as it violated everything he believed concerning the divine.No Catholics were allowed to serve in his government, and every government official had to be a loyal Arian who believed in precisely what Gaiseric believed. These persecutions, however, did not interfere with his rule, and the Vandal Kingdom flourished.
THE SACK OF ROME
From their port at Carthage the Vandals now launched their fleet at will and controlled the Mediterranean Sea, which formerly had been Rome's. Gaiseric's navy plundered whatever ships crossed their path and raided coastlines. Plans and attempts by the Romans to drive him and his people from North Africa came to nothing and so, in 442 CE, the Romans acknowledged the Vandal Kingdom as a legitimate political entity, and a treaty was signed between Gaiseric and Valentinian III. In 455 CE, Valentinian assassinated Aetius and was then murdered shortly afterwards by conspirators under Petronius Maximus, who then declared himself emperor. Gaiseric claimed that this nullified the treaty of 442 CE, which had been only valid between himself and Valentinian. He sailed for Italy with his fleet, landed unopposed at Ostia, and marched on Rome. The Romans recognized that their military force was inadequate to meet the Vandals and so put their trust in the diplomatic skills of Pope Leo I and sent him out to meet Gaiseric and plead for mercy.
Leo told Gaiseric he was free to plunder the city but asked him not to destroy it nor harm the inhabitants - and Gaiseric agreed.This was greatly to Gaiseric's advantage on many points but, mainly, because Italy was suffering a famine and, when he landed at Ostia, Gaiseric recognized that his army would be unable to affect a prolonged siege of the city because they would have nothing to eat and Rome's walls were formidable. His assent to Leo's request, then, was more an act of expediency and prudence than mercy. Anything of value, from personal treasures to ornaments on buildings and statues, was taken by the Vandals, but they did not destroy the city, and few people were harmed other than Petronius Maximus who was killed by a Roman mob when he tried to flee and was caught outside the walls. The Vandals looted the city and then marched back to their ships and sailed home, taking with them a number of high-profile hostages including Valentinian III's widow and her daughters. Collins writes:
The sack of Rome of 455 had the immediate effect of making the Vandal threat to Italy seem far more menacing than [other threats]. Despite the Vandals immediately returning to Africa with their loot, the whole episode brought home in a way that seems not to have been previously appreciated just how vulnerable Italy, and Rome in particular, was to sea-borne raiding (88).
Realizing they could no longer afford to tolerate the Vandals in North Africa, the Romans gathered their strength to launch an attack in c.460 CE. Hoping to win a decisive battle, they enlisted the aid of the Vandals' old enemies, the Visigoths, as allies.The fleet gathered in Spain for an invasion of North Africa but Gaiseric, who was always vigilant of Roman militarymovements, launched a pre-emptive strike and destroyed or captured most of the Roman fleet in 461 CE.
Vandal Migration
THE BATTLE OF CAPE BON
For the next seven years the Vandals continued to command the Mediterranean Sea and terrorize the coastal settlements.Finally, in 468 CE, Rome decided to try again to rid North Africa of the Vandals and take back their provinces. The eastern and western halves of the empire united against the Vandals and sent the whole of their fleet against them. This campaign might have been successful except for the incompetence of the Roman general Basiliscus and the cleverness of Gaiseric. Basiliscus anchored his fleet at Cape Bon instead of driving on to take Carthage directly. Gaiseric, who already knew the invasion was coming, feigned surprise and sent Basiliscus a message asking for a five day truce so that he could prepare to negotiate a peace and surrender. Basiliscus granted him the five days and then remained in the port at Cape Bon to await the Vandal emissaries with their surrender.
Gaiseric, meanwhile, ordered all the old ships in port at Carthage to be loaded with dried brush, wood, and jars of oil. On the evening of the fifth day, while Basiliscus was still waiting for the Vandal emissaries to arrive with their surrender, Gaiseric had the old ships towed slowly toward the Roman fleet. The Vandals waited until the night was fully dark and then fired the ships and sent them toward the Roman galleys. The Roman fleet was packed closely together in the port at Cape Bon and had no room to maneuver to escape the flaming ships of the Vandals. Fire leapt from ship to ship and, as it was a windy night, the flames spread faster. Amidst the smoke and flames, the Vandal fleet emerged, rammed the Roman ships, and boarded them, killing anyone on board who resisted. When the Vandals were certain there was no fleet left worth worrying about, they withdrew; the Roman ships continued to burn throughout the night, and those ships that could still sail retreated back toward Rome with a loss of over 600 ships and countless lives. The Romans were forced to ask for peace, and the present emperor in the west, Ricimer, had to accept Gaiseric's terms, which were simply a restatement of the treaty of 442 CE allowing the Vandals to do whatever they wanted whenever they pleased.
THE DEATH OF GAISERIC & FALL OF THE VANDAL KINGDOM
Following this devastating Roman defeat, which had crippled the western empire, Gaiseric mounted a full-scale assault on the eastern empire as retribution. These attacks continued from c. 469 - 475 CE with more Vandal victories than defeats. The Vandals raided the territories of the eastern empire from Alexandria, Egypt up through Anatolia. When the emperor Leo I died, he was succeeded by Zeno who almost instantly opened negotiations for peace. Gaiseric, with his customary fairness, asked for no exorbitant terms; he only demanded that Rome recognize his kingdom as legitimate and leave him alone. He granted freedom of religion to the Catholics living in North Africa, agreed to keep his ships from raiding the Anatolian coastline, and freed whatever Roman prisoners he had taken. He remained the uncontested lord of the Mediterranean Sea and of North Africa until his death, by natural causes, at Carthage in 478 CE.
Gaiseric was succeeded by his son Huneric who persecuted the Catholics (Trinitarian Christians) at the expense of other, more profitable, pursuits. Unlike Gaiseric's persecutions, Huneric's were particularly intense and took time and effort away from the actual administration of the kingdom. Huneric was followed by other kings who ruled more, or less, successfully than he but who never approached the greatness of Gaiseric. The last king of the Vandals was Gelimer who was defeated by Belisarius at the Battles of Ad Decium and Tricameron in 533 CE. Gelimer fled the field and was hunted down and captured in March 534; afterwards he was brought in chains to Constantinople, where he was featured in Belisarius' triumphal parade through the streets and then released. The eastern empire regained control of North Africa, and the Vandals ceased to exist as a cultural entity. King Gaiseric defeated the Romans in almost every engagement and won more battles against Rome than any other military leader in history. He seemed to be able to guess at what the Romans would do before they even knew and consistently thwarted their plans to drive him from his kingdom. He is remembered in the present day as one of the greatest military strategists in history and the most successful ruler of the Germanic tribes of Late Antiquity.
The Five Great Kings of Egypt's Early Dynastic Period › Antique Origins
Ancient Civilizations
Egypt 's Early Dynastic Period (3150-2613 BCE) lay the foundation of what would become one of the most impressive civilizations of the ancient world. The kings of this era, except for Narmer and Djoser, are often overlooked but were responsible for some of the most defining aspects of Egyptian culture. This is not to say that the Early Dynastic Period has been completely neglected; only that it does not receive the kind of attention given to later eras in Egyptian history. One major reason for this is the problem of source material. The Early Dynastic Period is prehistoric - any written records pertaining to it come from centuries later - and so it is difficult, especially during the Second Dynasty (c. 2890-2670 BCE), to determine who ruled when and what exactly their contributions were. Written records such as Manetho's chronology, the Turin King List, the Palermo Stone, and others were created much later and also, as egyptologist James Henry Breasted writes:
Comparatively speaking, but very little of the rich and productive civilization, which flourished for at least five milleniums before Christ on the banks of the lower Nile, has survived in written documents for our enlightenment (43).
IDENTIFYING CONTRIBUTIONS IN PREHISTORIC TIMES
The contemporary records of the Early Dynastic Period consist of images and, later, inscriptions on stone monuments.Statuary and other building projects may give the name of the monarch or can, at least, be dated to a certain time period but, for the most part, such dates must be approximations. Even so, there is enough evidence available that one may safely list the most important kings of this period in regard to the most significant developments in culture and civilization. These rulers were known as kings, not pharaohs; the title ' pharaoh ' would not appear in Egypt until the period known as the New Kingdom(1570-1076 BCE).
Den
The most significant rulers of this era were Narmer, Den (First Dynasty), Raneb and Peribsen (Second Dynasty), and Djoser (Third Dynasty). One could also list Merneith, the first female ruler of Egypt during the First Dynasty who provided her son Den with a stable country when he took the throne; but no details of her reign are available and it is uncertain in what capacity she ruled. One might also list Nynetjer of the Second Dynasty who is thought to have decreed equal rights for women to rule and may have saved the country from famine by dividing it into two, but these claims are contested and the evidence is unclear.
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT RULERS OF THE EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD WERE NARMER, DEN, RANEB, PERIBSEN, AND DJOSER.
All four kings of the Third Dynasty could be included as making lasting contributions if one could be sure who, exactly, did what. Sekhemket, the second ruler of the Third Dynasty, has long been credited with construction of his Buried Pyramid, and Khaba, the third king, with the Layer Pyramid but the latter has also been attributed to Huni, the last king, and Sekhemkhet's pyramid is no longer considered to have been built for him but for his wife. This distinction of which royal personage the pyramid was built for may seem trivial but is not; each tomb in ancient Egypt was custom built for a particular individual and so determining which person a pyramid was built for positively identifies that structure and its significance. Djoser, then, is chosen as the most important ruler of the Third Dynasty because his Step Pyramid at Saqqara is the first known pyramid built in ancient Egypt and was definitely built for this king as his final home.
The other kings are included in this list because of equally significant contributions to Egyptian culture: Narmer united Upper and Lower Egypt, Den is the first ruler depicted wearing the dual crown of both kingdoms, Raneb linked the position of the king to the gods (a practice well known from pharaonic times), and Peribsen encouraged literacy. The first complete sentence from ancient Egypt found thus far, in fact, comes from Peribsen's tomb.
According to Manetho's chronology, the first king of Egypt was Menes who united Upper and Lower Egypt. Menes has come to be identified with the king Narmer (c. 3150 BCE) and also with Narmer's successor Hor-Aha (c. 3100 BCE). It is likely that 'Menes' was a title (an honorific meaning 'He Who Endures'), not a personal name, and so Narmer has been generally accepted as the founder of the First Dynasty of Egypt ever since egyptologist Flinders Petrie (1853-1942 CE) concluded that Menes and Narmer were the same person.
NARMER
Narmer (probably from Thinis) married the princess Neithhotep of Naqada in an alliance to strengthen ties between the two cities. He led military expeditions through Lower Egypt to put down rebellions and expanded his territory into Canaan and Nubia. He initiated large building projects, and under his rule urbanization increased. The cities of Egypt never reached the magnitude of those in Mesopotamia, perhaps owing to the Egyptians' recognition of the threats such development posed.Mesopotamian cities were largely abandoned due to overuse of the land and pollution of the water supply while Egyptian cities, such as Xois (to choose a random example), existed for millennia. Although later developments in urban development ensured the cities' continuation, the early efforts of kings like Narmer would have provided the model.
Narmer
Narmer was succeeded by his son Hor-Aha c. 3100 BCE (though some claim the two are the same person) who continued his father's military expansion and increased trade. He was especially interested in religion and the concept of the afterlife and the mastaba tomb (a house for the deceased) was developed under his reign. Hor-Aha was succeeded by his son Djer in c.3050 BCE and continued the same policies as his predecessors. His son, Djet (c. 3000) married the princess Merneith and, upon his death, she is thought to have assumed control of the country. It is unclear whether she reigned as regent for her young son Den or ruled as queen but, either way, her reign marks the first time a woman ruled in ancient Egypt.
DEN
Her son, Den (c. 2990 BCE) was the sixth king of the First Dynasty and considered the greatest. He ruled for 50 years, during which time the country prospered. His reputation as an effective king comes from his improvements to the country's economy, military conquests, and the stability of his reign as evidenced by lavish building projects and intricate works of art. Den is the first king to be depicted wearing the crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt, clearly indicating a united nation under his rule. Den was followed by two other kings, Anedjib and then Semerkhet, who experienced difficult reigns marked by insurrection. The dynasty ended with the reign of Qa'a whose successors fought for the throne and were subdued by Hotepsekhmenwy who founded the Second Dynasty.
RANEB
Raneb (also known as Nebra, Greek Name: Kaiechos) was the second king of the Second Dynasty and possibly the brother of Hotepsekhmenwy. He ruled for approximately 15 years and may have seized power in a coup. He is the first Egyptian king to add the name of the sun god Ra to his name and thereby directly link himself and the title of the king to the gods (a practice which would continue throughout Egypt's history and would come to define the office of the ruler of Egypt). The ruler as a living divinity, not a mere man, elevated the status of the office and linked the ruler to the cultural understanding of earthly life mirroring eternity. This link would have profound consequences for the culture of Egypt in that the supreme leader was not thought to have been merely chosen by the gods but was divine himself and so his edicts were necessarily good and just, simply by definition. Religious practices developed further under Raneb than they had since the reign of Hor-Aha. Images of the goddess Bastet (depicted as a cat or a woman with a cat's head) first appear under his reign and other religious iconography became more widespread, arguing for a more peaceful and productive rule than his predecessor; though this is by no means certain and there is evidence the country continued to experience civil unrest and rebellion.
Bastet
PERIBSEN
Peribsen (also known as Seth-Peribsen) was the sixth king of the Second Dynasty and is considered an important ruler for the cultural changes which took place under his reign as well as for his name which replaced the god Horus with his rival Set.Horus the Younger was the son of the god Osiris who defeated Osiris' brother (and murderer) Set to restore balance to Egypt.It has been suggested that Peribsen's adoption of Set's name indicates a significant change in the religious orientation of Egypt at this time. Since Peribsen's name does not appear on any records of Lower Egypt, however, it has also been claimed that he ruled over a divided country and opted to distance himself from the Cult of Horus for political reasons. It has further been suggested that Peribsen was the first monotheist (predating Akhenaten by centuries) but this claim has been largely discredited as there is evidence of many different gods under his reign. Peribsen re-organized the bureaucracy of Egypt and encouraged literacy and religious practice. The first complete sentence in Egyptian history dates from his reign and was found in his tomb. The sentence reads, "The golden one, he of Ombos, hath unified and handed over the two realms to his son, the king of Lower and Upper Egypt, Peribsen". According to scholar Marc Van de Mieroop, "Earlier inscriptions, often found on seals that were impressed on clay, were terse and provided little beyond people's names and titles (30)." The sentence found in Peribsen's tomb, on the other hand, clearly states how the god Set ("he of Ombos") legitimized the rule of Peribsen. The pharaoh Khasekhemwy, last king of the Second Dynasty and father of Djoser, followed Peribsen.
DJOSER
Djoser (c. 2670 BCE; Greek Name: Tosorthros) was the first king of the Third Dynasty and reigned for over twenty years. He ruled over a stable country as evidenced by the luxury of being able to engage in a number of building projects. Djoser built so many monuments, tombs, and temples, in fact, that scholars have claimed he must have reigned for closer to 30 years.Military expansion into the Sinai region took place under his reign and industry and technology flourished as did the arts. His vizier, Imhotep, designed his burial place at Saqqara; the great Step Pyramid he is most famous for in the present day. His reign was followed by Sekhemket, Khaba, and Huni, the last king of the Early Dynastic Period.
Step Pyramid of Saqqara
The Step Pyramid began as a simple mastaba tomb with a flat roof and sloping sides, along the lines of many such tombs from earlier dynasties. The architect Imhotep, however, had a grander scheme in mind for the eternal home of his monarch. The Step Pyramid is a series of mastabas stacked on top of each other, each level a little smaller than the one beneath, to form the shape of a pyramid. Earlier mastabas were constructed of clay brick but the Step Pyramid was made of stone blocks on which were carved images of trees (sacred to the gods of Egypt) and reeds (possibly symbolizing The Field of Reeds, the Egyptian afterlife). When completed, the Step Pyramid rose 204 feet (62 meters) high and was the tallest structure of its time. The pyramid complex included a temple, courtyards, shrines, and living quarters for the priests covering an area of 40 acres (16 hectares) and surrounded by a wall 30 feet (10.5 meters) high. The actual chambers of the tomb were dug beneath the base as a maze of tunnels with rooms off the corridors to discourage robbers and protect the body and grave goods of the king. The Step Pyramid is the first known attempt of the Egyptians to create the type of monumental tombs the culture has become synonymous with. It was a very popular tourist attraction in its day and continues to draw visitors from all over the world 4,000 years later.
LEGACY
These five kings lay the groundwork for future generations of rulers who added their own contributions and flourishes to Egypt's grand culture. The concept of the city originated in Mesopotamia but became refined in Egypt, religion and religious art did likewise, and architecture followed suit. All of Egyptian architecture, in fact, was inspired by their understanding of the cosmos and their place in it. The most obvious example of this is the great eternal homes of the pharaohs, the pyramids, but every temple, palace, or administrative building was also constructed with a focus on eternity. Raneb's decision to link the office of Egypt's ruler to the gods proceeded naturally from the cultural belief that the gods were close at hand and that every Egyptian life was only one part of an eternal journey. As a divine ruler, the king was responsible for making the earthly part of that journey as pleasant as possible. The degree to which these five rulers succeeded in that has been debated but there is no doubt that Narmer, Den, Raneb, Peribsen, and Djoser set a standard which later Egyptian monarchs would then need to meet or exceed.
LICENSE:
Article based on information obtained from these sources:with permission from the Website Ancient History Encyclopedia
Content is available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. CC-BY-NC-SA License