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 2nddyn 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