Egypt: Archaic
Period
1.
PARALLEL DYNASTIES
W.
Budge has an interesting observation in his *History of Egypt* with respect to
the Egyptian Book of the Dead:
"[I]n
a medical papyrus at Berlin further information is added to the effect that
after Hesepti was dead the book was taken to his Majesty Sent; now Sent was the
fifth king of the II Dynasty and reigned many years after Semti [i.e.,
Hesepti-VC], and we must therefore understand that Sent came into possession of
a medical work which had once belonged to his great predecessor Semti"
(Vol. 1, pp. 199-200).
This
means there may be a possible temporal correlation between first dynasty Semti
(aka: Den, #5 below) and Sent (aka: #6). The correlation between the first and
second dynasties of Egypt would then be something like this (as a rough
approximation):
1st
Dyn (South)------2nd Dyn------------3rd Dyn (North)
1.Menes
2.Athothis---------2.Hotepsekhemwy
3.Djer-------------3.Nebre
4.Merneith/Djet----4.Ninetjer
5.Den
(aka:Semti)--5.Weneg,Peribsen-----5.Khasekhemwy
6.-----------------6.Sent---------------6.Djoser
7.Miebis-----------7.-------------------7.Djoser-Teti
8.-----------------8.Aka----------------8.Aches
9.Semempses,Hu-----9.Nephercheres-------9.Neferkare,Hu
10.Qaa
In
other words, Egyptian chronology would need to bring 2nd dyn Sent in line so
that he follows 1st dyn Den. This has the effect of causing the 2nd
dyn to overlap the 1st dyn, which sends Ninetjer way up next to Queen Merneith.
Also, Ninetjer was the father of Khasekhemwy, the father of Djoser, so Khasekhemwy
would have to be removed from the end of the 2nd dyn (as Courville argued) and
placed at the beginning of the 3rd dyn.
This
both falsifies and confirms part of Courville's reconstruction. He believed
that the 2nd dyn was *consecutive* after the 1st, but that the 3rd was
*parallel* with the first. If we follow the Berlin papyrus, however, the 2nd
dyn is not consecutive but is parallel to, or at least overlaps, the 1st dyn.
Thus
Courville is falsified on that front. But at the same time, if the papyrus
falsifies the notion that the 2nd dyn is consecutive after the
first, it also confirms
Courville's
other belief that the 3rd dynasty was parallel to the 1st dynasty.
2.
ANACHRONISMS
Having
said that, one of Manetho's anachronisms is cleared up by this arrangement. He
had said that it was in the reign of Ninetjer that women were
first
given kingship. On the basis of the above chronology, he was entirely correct.
It was indeed in the third 2nd dyn king's reign that women were first given the
kingship. As Manetho says of Binothris (aka Ninetjer):
"In
his reign it was decided that women might hold the kingly office."
We
can now say that the woman he was talking about was none other than the woman
who may have been Egypt's first queen, Queen Merneith.
Another
anachronism is also cleared up concerning when worship of the Apis bull and
Mendesian goat was first introduced. They were introduced under Nebre's reign,
which is anachronistic in terms of traditional chronology, but is entirely
correct if the above arrangement is accepted.
3.
MERNEITH & PERIBSEN
I've
argued that Courville might have been right to place the 3rd dynasty of Egypt
as at least partially parallel with the 1st. I am modifying Courville's claim
by arguing that the 2nd dynasty *also* partially overlaps these two dynasties.
On
my little chart of dynastic overlap above, I have Queen Merneith as number 4,
followed by Peribsen at number 5.
T.A.H.
Wilkinson in his book *Early Dynastic Egypt* [1999] says, "Curiously, the
name of Peribsen also occurs on a stone vessel fragment found by Petrie
in
the First Dynasty tomb of Merneith....The only possible [sic] explanation is
that it represents later contamination of the tomb contents, perhaps from
Amelineau's excavations" (p. 90).
Certainly,
it's *an* explanation, but what evidence does Wilkinson present to prove this?
None. What seems more plausible is that Peribsen may have been
related
to Merneith (a son?), or may have succeeded her as a king of Egypt.
If
the contamination theory doesn't hold any water, and no evidence was presented
that it does, then the above Merneith-Peribsen connection appears to be a major
support for the above arrangement, but also a 0major anachronism for
traditional chronology if a consecutive view of the earliest dynasties is assumed.
4.
QA'A-HEDGET
Qa'a-hedget
is one of the last kings of the first dynasty, (cf. Peter Clayton, *Chronicle
of the Pharaohs*, p. 25.) Kings by the names of Sneferka and Ba are thought to
have followed Qa'a-hedget (cf. Francesco Raffaele's essay on the Second
Dynasty), illustrated as follows:
First
Dynasty...last three kings:
a.
Qa'a-hedget
b.
Sneferka
c.
Ba
Now
it turns out that some believe a Qa'a-hedget is a king of the *third* dynasty.
Raffaele says, "A stela of unknown provenance bought by the Louvre
Museum
at the end of the '60s, bears the Horus name of this King; it is the only
attestation of Qa Hedget ....The style of the relief and the skillness of its lines
are the reasons for the widespread conviction that we have to do with a IIIrd
dyn. datable piece, not with one of Qa'a (Ist dyn. ending) as was formerly advanced"
(cf. his essay on Qa-hedget).
I
have Nephercheres of the 2nd dynasty as identical to Neferkare of the 3rd
dynasty. Both were numbered as 9 on my reconstruction, and Qa'a was numbered as
10. Raffaele points out:
"Lacking
the evidences for a Horus name of the predecessor of Qa Hedget, Neferkara, it
could be hypothezed these these names belonged to the same sovereign; the few
traces they left make it possible that both these kings could have been
immediate predecessors of Huni" (Essay on Qa-Hedget).
So
Neferkara is considered the predecessor of Qa Hedget, just as my reconstruction
had it.
The
fourth dynasty starts (in my view) right after the end of the 1st and 3rd
dynasties, and Snofru is the first king of the 4th dynasty. Now that name Snofru
(who follows close behind Raffaele's Qa Hedget) bears a remarkable resemblance
to the Sneferka who followed Qa'a, both sharing four consonants (S,n,f,r), both
sharing a predecessor with the same name.
The
only thing that I can see as being a possible counter-instance to dynastic
overlap in the Archaic Period of Egypt is that German excavators found a seal-impression
on the entrance of Qa'a's tomb, and "this has been taken as a proof of the
presence of Hotepsekhemwy at the funerary ceremony of the Horus Qa'a...."
(Raffaele, Essay on Hotepsekhemwy).
The
possibility remains however, that Qa'a may have been the one who put the
impression on his tomb entrance, thus identifying himself with a famous predecessor
(for sacral or political prestige). For instance, a seal impression of Ninetjer
was found in a tomb of Khasekhemwy, but this is not taken to mean that
Khasekhemwy preceeded his father Ninetjer.
A
lot more research and digging needs to be done to test whether more kings of
the third dynasty share the names of the kings of the first or second dynasty.
I think it would be a good investment of time to test out the theory of
dynastic overlap for the Archaic Period.
Vern
No comments:
Post a Comment