Nitocris › Predynastic Period in Egypt » Ancient origins
Articles and Definitions › Contents
- Nitocris › Who Was
- Predynastic Period in Egypt › Antique Origins
Ancient civilizations › Historical and archaeological sites
Nitocris › Who Was
Definition and Origins
Nitocris (2184-2181 BCE) is the Greek name for Nitiqret, the last monarch of the 6th Dynasty of Egypt which concluded the period of the Old Kingdom (c. 2613-2181 BCE). Nitocris is best known from the story told of her by Herodotus (484-425/413 BCE) in his Histories (Book II.100) in which she murders the assassins of her brother at a banquet.
MORE THAN JUST A NAME?
For the past century the historicity of Nitocris has been questioned by scholars, even though her name appears on the Turin King's List of Egyptian monarchs, is also mentioned by Manetho (3rd century BCE) in his list of 6th century Egyptian monarchs and by Eratosthenes of Cyrene (276-194 BCE) in his Theban List of Egyptian Monarchy. Flavius Josephus (37-100 CE) references Herodotus' story in his Antiquities of the Jews (Book VIII.6.2) calling her Nicaule and does not question the authenticity of the tale. Eratosthenes' mention of Nitocris is known through the work of Apollodorus of Athens (c. 180 BCE) which is cited by Syncellus (c. 810 CE) in his Selection of Chronography. Still, because there is no physical evidence of this queen - no inscriptions, no monuments, no tomb - nor any later reference to her, some scholars have claimed her name is simply a scribal error for that of the last king of the 6th Dynasty, Neitiqerty Siptah.
NITOCRIS IS INCREASINGLY BEING RECOGNIZED AS THE FIRST QUEEN REGNANT OF EGYPT & THE LAST MONARCH OF THE OLD KINGDOM.
Recently, however, an increasing number of Egyptologists and scholars have come to accept that Herodotus' account may have some basis in fact and Nitocris is increasingly being recognized as the first Queen Regnant of Egypt and the last monarch of the Old Kingdom. The underlying reason for this new evaluation of Nitocris is unclear but may have to do with the kind of evidence first presented by the Egyptologist Percy E. Newberry (1869-1949 CE) who argued that Nitocris was an actual Egyptian ruler, not just a character in a fable repeated by Herodotus, and that her historicity should be accepted.
HERODOTUS & OTHER ACCOUNTS
Herodotus' account of Nitocris is often cited as the only evidence of the queen in history. While it is the only source for the story of her revenge, there are, as noted, other sources. Herodotus writes:
After him came three hundred and thirty kings, whose names the priests recited from a papyrus roll. In all these many generations there were eighteen Ethiopian kings, and one queen, native to the country; the rest were all Egyptian men. The name of the queen was the same as that of the Babylonian princess, Nitocris. She, to avenge her brother (he was king of Egypt and was slain by his subjects, who then gave Nitocris the sovereignty) put many of the Egyptians to death by treachery. She built a spacious underground chamber; then, with the pretence of inaugurating it, but with quite another intent in her mind, she gave a great feast, inviting to it those Egyptians whom she knew to have had the most complicity in her brother's murder; and while they feasted, she let the river in upon them by a vast secret channel. This was all that the priests told of her, except that when she had done this she cast herself into a chamber full of hot ashes, to escape vengeance. ( Histories, II.100)
Scholars became suspect of this account when no Egyptian sources were found to corroborate it and even more so when it was considered that Herodotus reported a similar event only a few chapters later. In chapter 107 of the same book he relates the story of the Egyptian king Sesostris who returns home from a campaign and stops near Pelusium where he meets his brother, whom he had left in charge of the country while away. A great banquet is held in honor of the king but, while he and his family are inside, his brother orders the building ringed with wood and set on fire. Sesostris escapes only by sacrificing two of his sons to the flames as a human bridge which enables the others to reach safety. The king later deals with his treasonous brother ( Histories II.107).
Herodotus of Halicarnassos
This story also has no known corroboration in Egyptian history and, further, a number of kings have been associated with Sesostris (among them Senusret III, Amenhotep III, and Ramesses II ). Sesostris has also been cited by a number of ancient historians as the first to conquer the known world or to have conquered Egypt and so is regarded as a mythical figure, an amalgam of different stories of different Egyptian kings, not historical.
Manetho simply lists Nitocris' name and credits her as "braver than any man of her time" and of exceptional beauty (Waddell, 54). He also, however, credits her with "building the third pyramid " which has been rejected completely by Egyptologists because it is well established that the third pyramid was built by Menkaure (2532-2503 BCE).
PERCY E. NEWBERRY ARGUED THAT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR NITOCRIS IN EGYPT WAS AVAILABLE IF ONE KNEW WHAT ONE WAS LOOKING FOR.
Eratosthenes lists her as ruling for six years from Thebes and notes she was the 22nd ruler since Menes, "a queen, not a king, her name means ' Athena the Victorious'" but gives no further details. Josephus mentions her as Nicaule, cites Herodotus, but does not elaborate on the revenge story. Apollodorus of Athens preserved Eratosthenes' table of Egyptian kings and Syncellus later cited it also without any additional information. This lack of any corroboration of Herodotus' account is how Nitocris came to be regarded as mythical. However, Percy E. Newberry, in 1943 CE, argued that these other sources should be taken more seriously in establishing the historicity of Nitocris and, further, that physical evidence in Egypt was available if one knew what one was looking for.
NEWBERRY'S ARGUMENT
Percy E. Newberry is nowhere near as well known as he should be. It was Newberry who first brought Howard Carter to Egypt in 1891 CE and set Carter on the path toward discovering the tomb of Tutankhamun in 1922 CE. Newberry, in fact, would work with Carter on the excavation and evaluation of the contents, being especially knowledgable in botany and able to identify certain organic elements in the tomb.
In The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Volume 29, Newberry presented his case in the article Queen Nitocris of the Sixth Dynasty in which he states how he finds it "remarkable" that his colleagues should consider this woman as either a king or mythical character when a preponderance of evidence exists to establish her authenticity as the first fully attested queen of Egypt (51-52).
Nitocris, according to Newberry, is not only listed on the Turin King's List but the Abydos King's List and, further, her tomb can be identified at Saqqara. He interprets Nitocris' name as " Neith is Excellent" and demonstrates how the name Neith appears on the tomb of one of Pepi II's queens.
Ankhnesmeryre II & Pepi II
He then makes an interesting observation concerning Manetho's repudiated claim that Nitocris built the third pyramid.Newberry points out that the great Egyptologist Flinders Petrie noted some years earlier how Manetho simply says she built the third pyramid and that scholars since have assumed he meant the third at Giza ; but this may not be his meaning at all. It is possible, since Manetho gives no location for this "third pyramid", that he was referring to the third at Saqqara, not at Giza.Newberry then points out that the third pyramid at Saqqara is that of Neith (53).
Even if Manetho does mean the third pyramid at Giza, Newberry observes, this still does not mean one should reject his account since the prenomen (given name) of the woman in the tomb of Neith at Saqqara may have been Menkare which could have been easily confused for Menkaure (54). Nitocris, Newberry claims, may have been the wife of Pepi II who lived so long that all his heirs died long before he did. In such a situation, his wife could have stepped in to rule. This interpretation is in keeping with Eratosthenes' report that Nitocris was "a queen, not a king", a line which can also be interpreted as "a wife, in place of her husband".
SUPPORT FOR HERODOTUS' ACCOUNT
Newberry's evidence regarding the tomb, and the interpretation of Eratosthenes' line, however, do not support Herodotus' account of a queen avenging herself for her king-brother's murder, however, since Pepi II was not her brother and, besides, lived and reigned upwards of sixty years. Arguments that she was the wife of Merenre I (2287-2278 BCE) also fail in that he was not murdered nor did he die young. Further, Pepi II's wife Neith does not fit the time period for the reign of Nitocris nor is her pyramid tomb at Saqqara the third built; Egyptologists have long held that Neith's tomb was the first constructed and the most elaborate after the king's.
Arguments that she was the sister of Merenre Nemtyemsaf II (2184 BCE), Pepi II's son and successor, have been considered - and are still the most likely - but were rejected when it was thought Nitocris was a fictional character. One could argue that her brother was Neitiqerty Siptah (also given as Netjerkare Siptah), usually listed as the last king of the 6th Dynasty and who did have a short reign. This king's time on the throne, however, corresponds exactly to Nitocris' own; which is why Egyptologists came to believe her name was simply a scribal mistake for his.
Cartouche of Merenre Nemtyemsaf II
The most probable explanation is that Nitocris was the sister of Merenre Nemtyemsaf II, who reigned for only a year after Pepi II, and would have been the last king before Nitocris. Egyptologist Jaromir Malek, among others, contends that the chaos which ensued after Pepi II's death resulted in confused and missing records and that the queen Nitiqret (Nitocris) was the last monarch of the 6th Dynasty:
Pepy II was succeeded by Merenra II (Nemtyemsaf), Queen Nitiqret (2184-2181 BC), and some seventeen or more ephemeral kings who represent Manetho's 7th and 8th Dynasties...Most of these rulers are little more than names for us but several of them are known from the protective decrees issued for the temple of Min at Koptos.(Shaw, 107)
The 6th Dynasty had been disintegrating for some time during the reign of Pepi II and his death "provoked a dynastic crisis more serious than anything Egypt had faced since the foundation of the state" (Wilkinson, 103). The Egyptians kept very careful records of everything they did but those from the end of the 6th Dynasty are confused or non-existent. Egyptologists routinely describe the collapse of the Old Kingdom as a time of great social upheaval and political confusion. Wilkinson, writing on Nitocris and the collapse, notes that, "Neitiqerty Siptah was of uncertain descent and we cannot even be certain about gender: the name suggests a man but later tradition identified Neitiquerty as a reigning queen" and that "after Neitiquerty (who left no monuments or even inscriptions), the throne passed from one weak ruler to another" (103).
In the midst of this crisis following Pepi II's death, Merenre II seems to have lacked the skills to maintain order. It is possible that Nitocris was seen as a stronger ruler than her brother - whomever he may have been - and so was elevated to the throne after a coup. This is pure speculation, however, since no evidence - other than Herodotus' report - exists. Still, more scholars now accept the account as valid than probably at any other time in the past. Egyptologist Barbara Watterson writes:
The first Queen Regnant of Egypt was Nitocris (c. 2180 BC), of whom nothing much is known except that she came to the throne at a time of political instability on the death of an aged king, Pepi II, who had reigned for over ninety years. Manetho asserted that she was the 'noblest and loveliest of the women of her time, of fair complexion' and, according to Herodotus, she committed suicide after taking vengeance on the men who had murdered her brother in order to put her on the throne. With the death of Nitocris, the Old Kingdom came to an end. (110)
Malek, Watterson, and Wilkinson, all Egyptologists of high standing, make no concession to the old understanding of Nitocris as a mythical figure or the result of an ancient spelling error. Although Newberry's claims regarding the pyramid tomb at Saqqara are questionable, his argument that Nitocris should be accepted because she is included on two king's lists, as well as accepted without question by the scholar Eratosthenes, holds more weight. There are many rulers, as Malek notes, who are "little more than names" from around the same period and whose historicity goes unquestioned. The queen from Herodotus' account is now recognized as an actual historical figure even though scholars are still working with the same information they had 100 years ago.
CONCLUSION
An interesting detail from the ancient sources is how Manetho lists Nitocris' reign as twelve years total while Eratosthenes gives her reign as six from Thebes (Pritchard, 103). It is possible, following Herodotus' account, that the sister of the king was placed on the throne following a coup at Memphis. She then reigned from the traditional capital while constructing her underground banquet hall at Thebes where she would eventually punish the assassins who had been her supporters. The latter part of her reign, then, would have been from Thebes where she exacted her vengeance and then killed herself.
FEMALE RULERS IN EGYPT WERE RARE BUT THERE CERTAINLY IS PRECEDENT FROM THE EARLY DYNASTICPERIOD.
Herodotus claims she committed suicide to escape retribution but, as an Egyptian queen, could have also done so to atone for the sin of murder. An Egyptian monarch was expected to maintain the value of ma'at (balance and harmony) and the killing of a number of nobles at a party one was hosting would have been considered an offense against ma'at and a serious sin. This, of course, is speculative but probable in such a scenario. Although the 7th and 8th Dynasties continued to rule from Memphis, it would be Herakleopolis and Thebes which would emerge as the the two seats of power in the next era and Thebes was already well established and prosperous when Nitocris would have moved there.
It would also not have been surprising for a woman to take the throne. Female rulers in Egypt were rare but there certainly is precedent from the Early Dynastic Period (c. 3150-c.2613 BCE). The wife of the first king, Narmer (c. 3150 BCE), Neithhotep is thought to have ruled following his death and it is certain that Queen Merneith (c. 2990 BCE) acted as regent for her son Den (c. 2990-2940 BCE), the fifth king of the First Dynasty and may have ruled on her own. According to scholar Francesco Raffaele, "In the reign of the third king of Manetho's 2nd Dynasty, Binothris (Njnetjet), the priest of Sebennytos reports it was decided that the women could eventually reign" (2). Following the time of Nitocris there would be other powerful women such as Sobekneferu (c.1807-1802 BCE) who reigned under her own authority and Queen Ahotep I (c. 1570-1530 BCE) who mobilized the military to put down a rebellion while her son Ahmose I was away on campaign.
Throughout the New Kingdom (c. 1570-1069 BCE) there were many strong women who exerted a powerful influence over Egypt whose names are well known: Hatshepsut, who reigned as pharaoh ; Tiye, wife of Amunhotep III; Nefertiti, wife of Akhenaten ; and Nefertari, wife of Ramesses II not to mention those who exercised power through the position of God's Wife of Amun into the Third Intermediate and Late periods of the culture and others who did the same as King's Mother.Considering all the evidence at one's disposal, it is probable that there did exist a queen known to the Greeks as Nitocris who tried to maintain order in the chaos of the Old Kingdom collapse and died in that attempt.
Predynastic Period in Egypt › Antique Origins
Definition and Origins
The Predynastic Period in Ancient Egypt is the time before recorded history from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic Age and on to the rise of the First Dynasty and is generally recognized as spanning the era from c. 6000-3150 BCE (though physical evidence argues for a longer history). While there are no written records from this period, archaeological excavations throughout Egypt have uncovered artifacts which tell their own story of the development of culture in the Nile River Valley. The periods of the Predynastic Period are named for the regions/ancient city sites in which these artifacts were found and do not reflect the names of the cultures who actually lived in those areas.
The Predynastic Period was given its name in the early days of archaeological expeditions in Egypt before many of the most important finds were discovered and catalogued which has led some scholars to argue over when, precisely, the Predynastic Period begins and, more importantly, ends. These scholars suggest the adoption of another designation, 'Protodynastic Period', for that span of time closer to the Early Dynastic Period (c. 3150-2613 BCE) or 'Zero Dynasty'. These designations are not universally agreed upon and 'Predynastic Period' is the term most commonly accepted for the period prior to the first historical dynasties.
MANETHO'S HISTORY
In charting the history of ancient Egypt, scholars rely on archaeological evidence and ancient works such as the Egyptian dynastic chronology of Manetho, a scribe who wrote the Aegyptiaca, the History of Egypt, in the 3rd century BCE. The scholar Douglas J. Brewer describes the work: "Manetho's history was, in essence, a chronology of events arranged from oldest to most recent, according to the reign of a particular king" (8). Brewer continues on to describe the events which inspired Manetho to write his history:
The origin of the dynastic chronological system dates back to the time of Alexander the Great. After Alexander's death, his empire was divided among his generals, one of whom, Ptolemy, received the richest prize, Egypt.Under his son, Ptolemy II Philadelphus (c. 280 BC), an Egyptian priest named Manetho wrote a condensed history of his native land for the new Greek rulers. Manetho, a native of Sebennytus in the Delta, had been educated in the old scribal traditions. Although Egypt's priests were famous for handing out tidbits of information (often intentionally incorrect) to curious travellers, none had ever attempted to compile a complete history of Egypt, especially for foreigners (8).
Unfortunately, Manetho's original manuscript has been lost and the only record of his chronology is from the works of later historians such as Flavius Josephus (37-100 CE). This has led to some controversy over how accurate Manetho's chronology is but, even so, it is routinely consulted by scholars, archaeologists, and historians in charting the history of ancient Egypt. The following discussion of the Predynastic Period relies on archaeological finds over the past two hundred years and their interpretation by archaeologists and scholars but it should be noted that historical sequences did not seamlessly follow each other, like chapters in a book, as the dates given for these cultures suggest. Cultures overlapped and, according to some interpretations, 'different cultures' in the Predynastic Period can be seen as simply developments of a single culture.
Nile Delta
EARLY HABITATION
The earliest evidence of human habitation in the region is thought by some to go back as far as 700,000 years. The oldest evidence of structures discovered thus far were found in the region of Wadi Halfa, ancient Nubia, in modern-day Sudan. These communities were built by a hunter-gatherer society who constructed mobile homes of flat sandstone floors most likely covered by animal skins or brush and perhaps held up by wooden stakes. The actual structures vanished centuries ago, of course, but man-made depressions in the earth, with stone floors, remained. These depressions were discovered by the Polish archaeologist Waldemar Chmielewski (1929-2004 CE) in the 1980's CE and were designated 'tent rings' in that they provided an area to set up a shelter which could easily be taken down and moved, similar to what one would find at a modern camp site. These rings are dated to the Late Paleolithic Age of approximately the 40th millenium BCE.
Hunter-Gatherer societies continued in the region throughout the periods now designated as those of the Arterian and Khormusan during which stone tools were manufactured with greater skill. The Halfan Culture then flourished c. 30,000 BCE in the region between Egypt and Nubia which gave way to the Qadan and Sebilian Cultures (c. 10,000 BCE) and the Harifan Culture from around the same time. All of these societies are characterized as hunter-gatherers who eventually became more sedentary and settled into more permanent communities centered around agriculture. Brewer writes:
One of the most intriguing mysteries of prehistoric Egypt is the transition from Paleolithic to Neolithic life, represented by the transformation from hunting and gathering to sedentary farming. We know very little about how and why this change occurred.Perhaps nowhere is this cultural transition more accessible than in the Fayyum depression (58).
The Fayyum depression (also known as the Faiyum Oasis) is a natural basin south-east of the Giza Plateau which gave rise to the culture known as Faiyum A (c. 9000-6000 BCE). These people inhabited the area around a large lake and relied on agriculture, hunting, and fishing for their living. Evidence of seasonal migration has been found but, for the most part, the area was continually inhabited. Among the earliest art works discovered from this period are pieces of faience which appears to have already been an industry as early as 5500 BCE at Abydos.
DEVELOPMENT OF CULTURE IN LOWER EGYPT
The people of Faiyum A built reed huts with underground cellars for storage of grains. Cattle, sheep, and goats were domesticated and baskets and pottery making developed. Centralized forms of tribal government began at this period with tribal chieftains assuming positions of power which may have been passed on to the next generation in a family or tribal unit.Communities grew from small tribes which traveled together to extended groups of different tribes living in one area continuously.
THE MA'ADI AND THE TASIAN CULTURES DEVELOPED ABOUT THE SAME TIME AS THE EL-OMARI CHARACTERIZED BY FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN ARCHITECTURE AND TECHNOLOGY.
The Faiym A Culture gave rise to the Merimda (c. 5000-4000 BCE), so-called because of the discovery of artifacts at the site of that name on the western edge of the Nile Delta. According to scholar Margaret Bunson, the reed huts of the Faiyum A period gave way to "pole-framed huts, with wind-breaks, and some used semi-subterranean residences, building the walls high enough to stand above ground. Small, the habitations were laid out in rows, possibly part of a circular pattern. Granaries were composed of clay jars or baskets, buried up to the neck in the ground" (75). These developments were improved upon by the El-Omari Culture (c. 4000 BCE) who built oval huts of greater sophistication with walls of plastered mud. They developed blade tools and woven mats for floors and walls and more sophisticated ceramics. The Ma'adi and the Tasian Cultures developed about the same time as the El-Omari characterized by further developments in architecture and technology. They continued the practice of ceramics without ornamentation begun in the El-Omari period and made use of grindstones. Their greatest advance seems to have been in the area of architecture as they had large buildings constructed in their community with underground chambers, stairs, and hearths. Prior to the Ma'adi Culture, the deceased were buried in or near people's homes for the most part but, around c.4,000 BCE, cemeteries became more widely used. Bunson notes that "three cemeteries were in use during this sequence, as at Wadi Digla, although the remains of some unborn children were found in the settlement" (75). Improvements in storage jars and weaponry is also characteristic of this period.
CULTURES OF UPPER EGYPT
All of these cultures grew and flourished in the region known as Lower Egypt (northern Egypt, closest to the Mediterranean Sea) while civilization in Upper Egypt developed later. The Badarian culture (c. 4500-4000 BCE) seems to have been an outgrowth of the Tasian, though this is disputed. Scholars who support the link between the two point to similarities in ceramics and other evidence such as tool-making while those who dismiss the claim argue that the Badarian was much more advanced and developed independently.
The people of the Badarian Culture lived in tents which were mobile, just like their ancient predecessors, but primarily favored stationary huts. They were farmers who grew wheat, barley, and herbs and supplemented their largely vegetarian diet through hunting. Domesticated animals also provided food and clothing as well as materials for tents. A large number of grave goods have been found from this period including weapons and tools such as throwing sticks, knives, arrowheads, and planes.People were buried in cemeteries and the bodies covered with animal hides and laid on mats of reeds. During this period food offerings and personal belongings were buried with the dead, indicating a shift in the belief structure (or at least in burialpractices) where now the dead were thought to need material goods in their journey to the afterlife. Ceramic work was greatly improved during the Badarian Culture and the pottery they produced was thinner and more finely crafted than earlier periods.
FOLLOWING THE BADARIAN PERIOD CAME THE AMRATIAN (NAQADA I) PERIOD OF C. 4000-3500 BCE WHICH CREATED MORE SOPHISTICATED DWELLINGS.
Following the Badarian Period came the Amratian (also known as Naqada I) Period of c. 4000-3500 BCE which created more sophisticated dwellings which may have had windows and definitely had hearths, walls of wattle and daub, and windbreaks outside the main doorway. Ceramics were highly developed as were other artistic pursuits such as sculpting. The Blacktop Ware ceramics of the Badarian Culture gave way to red ceramics ornamented with images of people and animals. Sometime around 3500 BCE the practice of mummification began and grave goods continued to be left with the deceased. These advances were furthered by the Gerzean Culture (c. 3500-3200 BCE, also known as Naqada II) who initiated trade with other regions which inspired changes in the culture and their art. Bunson comments on this, writing :
Accelerated trade brought advances in the artistic skills of the people of this era, and Palestinian influences are evident in the pottery, which began to include tilted spouts and handles. A light-colored pottery emerged in Naqada II, composed of clay and calcium carbonate. Originally, the vessels had red patterns, changing to scenes of animals, boats, trees, and herds later on. It is probable that such pottery was mass-producred at certain settlements for trading purposes. Copper was evident in weapons and in jewelry, and the people of this sequence used gold foil and silver. Flint blades were sophisticated and beads and amulets were made out of metals and lapis lazuli (76).
Houses were made of sun-baked brick and the more expensive featured courtyards (an addition which would become commonplace in Egyptian homes later). Graves became more ornate with wood used in the graves of the more affluent and niches carved in the sides for votive offerings. The city of Abydos, north of Naqada, became an important burial site and large tombs (one with twelve rooms) were constructed which grew into a necropolis (a city of the dead). These tombs were originally built using mud bricks but, later (during the Third Dynasty) were constructed of large, carefully hewn, limestone; eventually the site would become the burial place for the kings of Egypt.
HEIROGLYPHIC SCRIPT DEVELOPED AT SOME POINT BETWEEN C. 3400-3200 BCE.
Even at this time, however, evidence suggests that people from around the country had their dead buried at Abydos and sent grave goods to honor their memory. The cities of Xois and Hierakonpolis were already considered old by this time and those of Thinis, Naqada, and Nekhen were developing quickly. Heiroglyphic script, developed at some point between c. 3400-3200 BCE, was used for keeping records but no complete sentences from this period have been found. The earliest Egyptian writing discovered thus far comes from Abydos at this time and was found on ceramics, clay seal impressions, and bone and ivory pieces. Evidence of complete sentences does not appear in Egypt until the reign of the king Peribsen in the Second Dynasty (c. 2890-c.2670 BCE).
This period led to that of the Naqada III (3200-3150 BCE) which, as noted above, is also sometimes referred to as Zero Dynasty or the Protodynastic Period. Following Naqada III the Early Dynastic Period, and the written history of Egypt, begins.
Narmer Palette
NAQADA III & THE BEGINNING OF HISTORY
The Naqada III Period shows significant influence of the culture of Mesopotamia whose cities were in contact with the region through trade. The method of baking brick and building, as well as artifacts such as cylinder seals, symbolism on tomb walls, and designs on ceramics, and possibly even the basic form of ancient Egyptian religion can be traced back to Mesopotamian influence. Trade brought new ideas and values to Egypt along with the goods of the traders and an interesting blend of Nubian, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian cultures was most likely the result (although this theory is routinely challenged by scholars of each respective culture). Monumental tombs at Abydos and the city of Hierakonpolis both show signs of Mesopotamian influence. Trade with Canaan resulted in Egyptian colonies sprouting up in what is now southern Israel and Canaanite influences can be determined through the ceramics of this period. Communities grew and flourished with trade and the populations of both Lower and Upper Egypt grew.
ACCORDING TO SOME SCHOLARS, THE LAST THREE KINGS OF THE PROTODYNASTIC PERIOD WERE SCORPION I, SCORPION II, AND KA.
The small communities of brick homes and buildings grew into larger urban centers which soon attacked each other probably over trade goods and water supplies. The three major city-states of Upper Egypt at this time were Thinis, Naqada, and Nekhen. Thinis seems to have conquered Naqada and then absorbed Nekhen. These wars were fought by the Scorpion Kings, whose identity is contested, against others, most likely Ka and Narmer. According to some scholars, the last three kings of the Protodynastic Period were Scorpion I, Scorpion II, and Ka (also known as `Sekhen', which is a title, not a name) before the king Narmer conquered and unified lower and upper Egypt and established the first dynasty.
Narmer is now often identified with the king known as Menes from Manetho's chronology but this claim is not universally accepted. Menes' name is only found in Manetho's and the Turin King List chronology while Narmer has been identified as an actual Egyptian ruler through discovery of the Narmer Palette, a year marker bearing his name, and his tomb. Menes is said to have conquered the two lands of Egypt and built the city of Memphis as his capital while Narmer allegedly united the two lands peacefully. This is a curious conclusion to arrive at, however, since a king definitely identified as Narmer is depicted on the Narmer Palette, a two-foot (64 cm) inscribed slab, as a military leader conquering his enemies and subjugating the land.
No consensus has been reached on which of these claims is the more accurate or whether the two kings were actually the same person but most scholars favor the view that Narmer is the 'Menes' of Manetho's work. It is also claimed that Narmer was the last king of the Predynastic Period and Menes the first of the Early Dynastic and, further, that Menes was actually Hor-Aha, listed by Manetho as Menes' successor. Whichever is the case, once the great king (Narmer or Menes) united the two lands of Egypt, he established a central government and the era known as the Early Dynastic Period was begun which would initiate a culture lasting the next three thousand years.
See other Related Contents ››
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