Early Dynastic Egypt (18 page)

Qaa was the builder of the last tomb and funerary enclosure at Abydos until the site was re-adopted as the royal burial ground towards the end of the Second Dynasty. Qaa’s tomb on the Umm el-Qaab (Petrie 1900) follows the same plan as his predecessor’s, suggesting a continuation of the practice of retainer sacrifice. The accompanying funerary enclosure has not been positively identified, but it is likely that the walled Coptic village of Deir Sitt Damiana incorporates the monument (Kaiser 1969:2). Several large mastabas at North Saqqara are dated to the reign of Qaa, suggesting that it may have been a long one. This view is supported by a fragment of a
siltstone
bowl from Saqqara which mentions the king’s second Sed-festival (Lacau and Lauer 1959:12, pl. 8 no. 41). Moreover, the different building phases of his tomb at Abydos seem to have been separated by a significant period of time (Engel, in Dreyer
et al.
1996:57–71). The first year of his reign is recorded on the main Cairo fragment of the royal annals; the compartment lists the usual ceremonies associated with the accession of a new king. Several year labels discovered in the king’s tomb at Abydos record events ranging from the royal progress (‘the following of Horus’) to the collection of timber for the royal workshops, from the foundation of a religious building (named
q3w-n rw)
to the celebration of various cultic festivals. The running of the Apis bull and the festival of Sokar seem to have been celebrated periodically during Qaa’s reign, whilst an obscure festival involving a divine or royal
bark
is also recorded (see Chapter 8).

In addition to sealings and labels from the three major Early Dynastic cemeteries— Saqqara (Emery 1949:116 and 123, fig. 67B, 1954:107, figs 123 and 127, fig. 200,

1958:33, 97, 109, pls 28e, g, 37.1–5, 106.11, 124.1–2; Lacau and Lauer 1959:12, pls 8

nos 40–1, 9 nos 44–6) and its northward extension at Abusir (Leclant and Clerc 1992: pl. XVI, figs 17, 18), Helwan (Saad 1951:29 and 30, fig. 11, pl. XXIXa; Kaplony 1963, I:

149) and Abydos—Qaa is also attested in the deep south of Egypt, near Elkab. A rock-cut inscription in the Wadi Hellal shows the
serekh
of Qaa facing a figure of the local goddess, Nekhbet. In between are some less easily identifiable signs, perhaps an
ankh
and a
was
-sceptre. A similar rock-cut inscription, though without the additional signs, occurs near the small hamlet of Naga el-Oqbiya, about ten kilometres north of Elkab (Huyge 1984; Hendrickx, personal communication, has pointed out that Huyge erroneously located the inscription at es-Sibâ’îya). The nature of Qaa’s activity in this region is unknown, but an expedition to exploit the desert’s resources is a plausible suggestion. Contacts further afield are hinted at by an ivory gaming rod from the king’s tomb (Petrie 1900: pl. XII.12–13, pl. XVII.30). One side shows the figure of a bound Asiatic captive, identified by the hieroglyph above his head as an inhabitant of
S t.
The figure probably stands for Egypt’s enemies in general, and cannot be taken as proof of punitive raids against southern Palestine in the reign of Qaa. None the less, the gaming rod does demonstrate Egyptian acquaintance with the inhabitants of Western Asia, and 18 imported Syro-Palestinian vessels from tombs at North Saqqara dating to the reign of Qaa point to continued trade between Egypt and its north-eastern neighbours. Craftsmanship from the reign of Qaa is represented by three copper bowls from his tomb at Abydos (Dreyer
et al.
1996:75–6, pl. 15.b). Two of them are inscribed with the king’s
serekh
and an accompanying text mentioning court institutions including the royal palace.

‘Ba’ and Sneferka

The change of dynasty after the reign of Qaa is likely to have had a political ingredient. It may be no coincidence that two ephemeral Horus names are attested from the period. The first of these, written with a bird and possibly read as ‘Ba’, occurs only once, on a stone vessel fragment from the Step Pyramid (Lacau and Lauer 1959: pl. IV.7). The similarity of the accompanying text to known inscriptions of Qaa suggest that the vessel may originally have been inscribed for Qaa, and usurped by the Horus ‘Ba’ (Helck 1979:124). The second name associated with the end of Qaa’s reign is the Horus Sneferka. The name is attested twice: once on a fragment of a siltstone plate found in the surface debris of the North Saqqara élite cemetery (Emery 1958: pls 28a, 38.1); and once on a similar plate from the Step Pyramid galleries (Lacau and Lauer 1959:15, pl. 17 no. 86). In both cases, the other sign groups in the inscription are associated elsewhere with the
serekh
of Qaa (Emery 1958:31). On the plate from the Step Pyramid, the name Sneferka seems to be a later addition within the
serekh.
Neither ‘Ba’ nor Sneferka appears in later king lists. If they were usurpers, they are likely to have been viewed as illegitimate by their successors, and expunged from the historical record. Perhaps more plausible, at least in the case of Sneferka, is the suggestion that this was an alternative Horus name, adopted by Qaa for a short period. The discovery of sealings of Hetepsekhemwy in the tomb of Qaa seems to prove that there was a smooth transition between the First and Second Dynasties (see below).

THE SECOND DYNASTY

The kings who ruled Egypt between the death of Qaa and the accession of Netjerikhet/Djoser are some of the most shadowy figures from the entire span of Egyptian history (cf. Dodson 1996). The inscriptions and monuments from the period record a plethora of royal names, as do the surviving king lists. The names from these two sets of sources bear little relation to each other. It has proved difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the varying lists and sequences, and scholars today are scarcely more confident about the internal history of the Second Dynasty than were their predecessors a generation ago. The identity and order of the first three kings is certain, thanks to an inscribed statue in the Cairo Museum. The contemporary monuments and the later king lists can be reconciled with reasonable certainty for the first five rulers of the dynasty, whilst Khasekhemwy is universally acknowledged as the last king of the dynasty. In contrast, the positions of the intervening rulers—and indeed the extent of their authority—are obscure. Internal tensions during the middle of the Second Dynasty are suggested by the appearance of Seth in the royal titulary under Peribsen, the very different king lists drawn up for the dynasty in later periods (whereas the king lists agree to a notable extent on the composition of the First Dynasty), and the references under Khasekhem to battles against northern enemies (Kaiser 1992:184–5, n. 44). It is possible that, for a period in the middle of the dynasty, power was divided between kings in the north and south of the country. A study of Nile levels recorded on the Palermo Stone (Bell 1970) indicates that there was a significant drop in the average height of the annual inundation after the end of the First Dynasty. Hence, it is possible that ecological factors may have played a part in the apparent tensions (Hoffman 1980:312). With considerable

uncertainties surrounding the order and number of rulers, an accurate estimate for the length of the Second Dynasty is impossible. A figure of one hundred and twenty-one years has been proposed (Baines and Málek 1980:36), but this is no more than an educated guess.

Hetepsekhemwy

We cannot be certain why the death of Qaa marked the end of a dynasty. The first king of the Second Dynasty seems to have legitimised his position by overseeing the burial of his predecessor, or at least by honouring his mortuary cult: sealings of Hetepsekhemwy have recently been discovered in the offering chambers nearest the entrance of Qaa’s tomb (Dreyer 1993b: 11; Dreyer
et al
1996:71–2, fig. 25, pl. 14.a). For his own burial, Hetepsekhemwy broke with tradition and abandoned the ancestral necropolis of Abydos in favour of a site adjacent to the capital. The relocation of the royal mortuary complex to Saqqara represents a fundamental change, and must have some historical significance, even if we are unable to be more specific. Furthermore, the design of the royal tomb at Saqqara was entirely new, necessitated, at least in part, by the different nature of the rock strata at Saqqara compared with Abydos (see Chapter 7).

The large gallery tomb at Saqqara was identified as Hetepsekhemwy’s on the basis of numerous seal-impressions (Barsanti 1902; Maspero 1902). Apart from these sealings, the tomb was virtually empty. Objects bearing the name of Hetepsekhemwy have, however, come to light elsewhere. The best known is the pink granite statuette of Hetepdief, a priest who evidently served the mortuary cults of Hetepsekhemwy and his two successors (Fischer 1961:46, fig. 1; Malek 1986:32). In addition, an Early Dynastic grave at Badari contained an alabaster vessel fragment inscribed with the
serekh
of Hetepsekhemwy, the name of an estate, and the title of a mortuary priest (Brunton 1927: pl. XIX.25). A cup of black granite bearing the name of Hetepsekhemwy is unprovenanced (Kaplony 1965:23, pl. IV, fig. 48), while a bone cylinder which probably formed the finial of a shaft or part of a piece of furniture is said to be from Helwan (Needier 1984:375, 379, pl. 84, fig. 44). Two inscribed stone bowls were found in the pyramid complex of Menkaura at Giza (Reisner 1931:102 and 186, fig. 57.37, pl. 70.c). Further examples of ‘heirlooms’ are the stone vessel fragments from the tombs of Peribsen (Petrie 1901: pl. VIII.8–11) and Khasekhemwy (Amélineau 1902: pl. XXI.6), and numerous inscribed stone vessels from the Step Pyramid complex (Lacau and Lauer 1959: pls 10–12). These latter formed part of the accumulated ritual material from the royal
magazine
s, collected together by Netjerikhet to furnish his burial. The inscriptions provide most of our meagre information on the reign of Hetepsekhemwy.

Nebra

Very little is known about Hetepsekhemwy’s successor; there is even some dispute about the reading of his name. It used to be realised as ‘Raneb’, for
R -nb(.ỉ),
‘Ra is (my) lord’ (for example, Baines and Málek 1980:36; Trigger
et al.
1983:70); but recently, the favoured reading of the king’s name reverses the two elements to give
Nb-r ,
‘lord of the sun’. According to this view, the word
r
would simply be the name of the sun, not yet the name of the solar deity (Quirke 1990:23–4).

Sealings of Nebra were found together with those of Hetepsekhemwy in the royal gallery tomb at Saqqara (Barsanti 1902; Maspero 1902), suggesting that Nebra oversaw the burial of his predecessor. Confirmation that Nebra succeeded Hetepsekhemwy is provided by a stone bowl from the Step Pyramid which shows the juxtaposed
serekh
s of the two kings (Lacau and Lauer 1959: pl. 11 no. 58), and by the statue of Hetepdief mentioned earlier. There is also a flint bowl of Hetepsekhemwy, reinscribed by Nebra, from the Menkaura pyramid complex (Reisner 1931:102, pl. 70.c). The same practice was evidently continued by Nebra’s successor, since a bowl with the
serekh
of Nebra, reused by Ninetjer, was found in the tomb of Peribsen at Abydos (Petrie 1901: pl. VIII.12). The most famous artefact created for Nebra is his fine funerary stela of pink granite (Fischer 1961). It is the first royal stela to come from a site other than Abydos, and lacks the raised border typical of First Dynasty funerary stelae. Although found at Mit Rahina, it seems certain that Nebra’s stela once stood in front of his tomb, which must therefore be located at Saqqara. One possibility is that the gallery tomb constructed for Hetepsekhemwy was in fact appropriated by his successor. Alternatively, the galleries beneath the Western Massif and below the North Court of Netjerikhet’s Step Pyramid complex may have been Second Dynasty royal tombs. Nebra is further attested only once: his
serekh
is cut on a rock at Site 34, behind Armant in the western desert (Winkler 1938, I: pl. XI.4; Emery 1961:93, fig. 56). The site is close to an ancient trade route linking the Nile valley with the western oases, and the inscription suggests that Nebra mounted an expedition outside the Nile valley.

Ninetjer

By far the best attested king of the early Second Dynasty is Ninetjer, Nebra’s successor. The position of his titulary on the Palermo Stone suggests that he must have been on the throne for at least thirty-five years (cf. Helck 1979:128). Three high-status tombs in the élite cemetery at North Saqqara contained sealings of Ninetjer (S2171: Quibell 1923: pl. XV.3; Porter and Moss 1974:436; S2302 (which probably belonged to the Overseer of Sculptors,
Nỉ-rw-3b
): Quibell 1923:30, pl. XVII.3; Porter and Moss 1974:437; S2498: Quibell 1923:44–5; Porter and Moss 1974:440), as did a tomb across the Nile in the Early Dynastic necropolis at Helwan (505 H.4: Saad 1951:17, pls XII.a, b, XIII.a). Five different jar-sealings of the king were discovered in a large mastaba near Giza (Petrie 1907:7, pl. VE). Further sealings of Ninetjer (S.Hassan 1938:521; Porter and Moss 1974:613) led to the identification of the king’s own tomb at Saqqara. Located some 130 metres east of Hetepsekhemwy’s (/Nebra’s?) monument, Ninetjer’s tomb follows a similar design (Kaiser 1992:180, fig. 4d).

Much of what we know about Ninetjer’s reign derives from the annals of the Palermo Stone. The whole of the fourth register of the stone comprises years from the early and middle parts of his reign, namely year 5 or 6 to year 20 or 21 (Schäfer 1902:22–6, pl. I). The foundation of a chapel or estate, named
Hr-rn,
is recorded for year 7; but, otherwise, most of the eponymous events are the regular ritual appearances of the king and various religious festivals. The festival of Sokar seems to have been celebrated at intervals of six years, while the running of the Apis bull is recorded twice, in years 9 and 15. With the exception of a ceremony in year 19 associated with Nekhbet, goddess of the Elkab area, the festivals recorded for Ninetjer’s reign are closely connected with the Memphite