“Territorial Appropriation during the Old Kingdom (XXVIIIth-XXIIIrd Centuries B.C.): the Royal Necropolises and the Pyramid Towns in Egypt"

SILVIA LUPO

Archaeopress

Lugar: Oxford; Año: 2007 p. 296

978 1 4073 0011 5

Territorial Appropriation in Egypt during the Old Kingdom (XXVIIIth-XXIIIrdth Centuries BC) Royal Necropolises and Pyramid Towns in Egypt The concepts of “territory” and “territoriality” are analyzed on the basis of anthropological and archaeological data. It is assumed that “territory” and “territoriality” are more complex concepts than simple space occupation. For the case of Egypt in the Old Kingdom, we considered different variables related to the ideology and to the socio-political and economic system of the Egyptian state. Its consolidation, the royal power legitimization and that of the elite, and the socio-political and economic system are considered from their unification in the Early Dynastic period, to the Old Kingdom when the state expanded and its political and ideological maturity was achieved. The concepts of “territory” and “territoriality” have not been investigated in Egyptology as they were in other disciplines, among them, archaeology and anthropology. Nevertheless, some Egyptologists have worked on the question of the territoriality exerted by the Egyptian state in its borders, the systems of territorial control, imperialism and its relation with the foreigners. Although there have been attempts to analyze settlement patterns and the way in which “urbanism” occurred in Egypt, there is no research that specifically refers to internal territorial policy or strategy and/or to the way in which the Egyptian state conformed its nuclear territory during the Old Kingdom. However, investigations about territory and territoriality have been developed by the anthropologists in the scope of prehistoric and historical groups as much for societies considered simple as for those called “intermediate” and the most complex. This made it possible to recognize territorial behavior with respect to space and the resources available within it. The lack of investigations in Egyptology on this topic is undoubtedly because this discipline develops habitually like a separate science within the studies of the old complex societies. The large amount of epigraphic sources found in the archaeological sites seemed to solve for a long time many of the problems that, for other societies, were left unsolved because of the paucity of evidence. So our aim was to explore and study the archaeological and textual evidence in order to recognize settlement patterns, territorial behavior and the way the Egyptians expressed in their language the concepts and attitudes related to the nuclear territory and its peripheries. We analyzed also the role the Egyptian state played in shaping the nuclear territory by means of its control on people and resources, and the foundation of new settlements. We analyzed the new settlements in Upper and Lower Egypt from the Predynastic Period to the Old Kingdom according to their layout. The very existence of differentiated sectors in the residential and funerary areas is eloquent with respect to the social stratification and the degree of complexity developed. Abydos, Hierakonpolis and Nagada in Upper Egypt and Maadi, Helwan, and Saqqara in Lower Egypt were selected for our study in the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods. Of special interest was the case of the Memphite necropolises (Meidum, Dahshur, Giza, and Abusir) in the Early Dynastic period and Old Kingdom. The settlement patterns shows the existence of a royal policy intended to create new structures aimed at consolidating the Egyptian monarchy and the royal power through them before the final institutionalization of the state. The existence of differentiated burials, a more organized necropolis with sectors for the royal family and the officials, the development of funerary temples, the construction of pyramids and solar temples and the creation of the pyramid towns point to this royal policy. In Nagada, Hierakonpolis and Abydos the emergent elite becomes evident in the structuring of the cemeteries, the design of the tombs and the use of powerfacts, the handling of the surplus as well as the workforce employed for the construction of the elite tombs. The elite tombs were located in well-differentiated sectors in the necropolis and were sharply separated from the egalitarian burials, marking the status of the owner. With the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt and the consequent emergence of the state there is a shift of the political centres of Upper Egypt towards the Memphite region. There, new ceremonial centres were founded surrounded by an enclosure which comprised burial sectors for the king, the royal family and the officials (Saqqara, Meidum, Dahshur, Giza, Abusir). Memphis is thus transformed into the capital of the unified Egypt. The archaeological data allowed us to determine the cemetery organization and the spatial distribution of the funerary constructions and the buildings related to them; the differential funerary areas where the king, the royal family and the officials were buried; and the new buildings and refurbishing suffered by the structures of the necropolis, in particular the foundation of the pyramid towns. The Egyptian territorial concept is not abstract: The Egyptian hieroglyphics use signs that point to the material expression of its meaning, like “earth”, “desert”. In order to express “territoriality” they did it through expressions like “extending the border” (wsx tAS) which explicit the idea of the territorial control and the  incorporation of new territories. It was also said: “to extend the cord” to talk about the foundations of a temple or a building. Iconography also reveals the taking of a territorial possession: For example the depiction of King Scorpion opening an irrigation canal; and of the “Circuit around the Wall,” a ritual carried out during the coronation of a new king, who would exert his government and royal sovereignty from the Egyptian capital, Memphis. The creation of the Hwwt and niwwt as part of the state policy of territorial control reflects, without any doubt, the royal dominion on resources and workforce. These centres played an important role in the maintenance of the royal funerary cult. We analyzed the settlement patterns in the Memphite royal necropolises and we determined that: 1) From the Third Dynasty onwards there is a deliberate policy to demarcate the Egyptian territory through the foundation of royal cemeteries in the neighbourhood of Memphis. The royal burial place legitimized and turned sacred the site where the king was buried and those who were buried around him shared a part of that sacredness. 2) The shifting of the necropolises´ location reflects the ups and downs of the consolidation stage during the Old Kingdom that the great funerary constructions try to conceal. Although we do not know the dynastic problems that could have occurred, the shifting from the Fourth to the Fifth Dynasty must have not been without troubles. The funerary topography allows us to recognize as well the correlation between the social structure and the spatial configuration of the human settlements, and the relationship between the king and his family, the officials and the royal funerary priests. Since the foundation of the Meidum necropolis attempts have been made to organize it internally according to certain rules. Mastabas M17 and M16 show the role that the royal sons played in the Fourth Dynasty and the existence of differentiated sectors. Dahshur shows some structural changes with respect to Meidum. It is a cemetery with two pyramids and differentiated sectors for burials, and it is governed by a greater ordering, possibly because this was the place where Sneferu was buried. Together with this more complex organization, the mortuary temple begins to be greatly developed. From the Valley temple the pyramid town develops. In the Valley temple the estates of Sneferu are represented in the porch and in the rear. After the death of the king, they served to maintain his cult, in which the royal family and his functionaries were involved. These estates were scattered throughout all Egypt, and they show the power of Sneferu on them and, therefore, over all the Egyptian territory. After the death of the king, his family inhabited the pyramid town. But not all the royal children played a role on behalf of the royal funerary cult. At Dahshur we have found the tomb of Netjer-‘aperef whose fragmentary statue was found in the Valley temple. Netjer-‘aperef was a son of Sneferu and he was the only Hm-nTr xnt ¤nfrw (“priest of the porch of the Sneferu pyramid”). The relationship of a royal son with the pyramid can be observed with the two royal sons, Kay-nefer and Kay-khaf, who are imy-r ¢a-¤nfrw “overseer of the pyramid of Sneferu”, which would allow inferring that, like Netjer-‘aperef, they could dwell in the pyramid town. Yet only Kay-nefer is vizier which allows supposing, without it being the rule, that the royal sons who were also high officials had functions related to their ancestor. Especially at Giza there is a deliberate policy of status accommodation and differentiation that is not so clearly glimpsed in the former royal necropolises. Even though at Dahshur there exists a separation between the royal family and the royal officials, at Giza emerges a territorial appropriation based on the very developed architectural features and, on the other hand, on the development of a funerary topography in which the royal family occupies a very important position since it is not only the basis of the Old Kingdom administration but also the king´s court retinue after his death. The fact that the first pyramid towns have the same name of the royal pyramid is relevant. It allows asserting that this town was part of the royal policy to reinforce and to consolidate the Egyptian state and the royal ideology. What is the reason why this centre enjoyed the privilege of having the same name as the pyramidal structure? In the case of the estates their names included that of the king, indicating his property in this way, but it does not explain at all the denomination of the pyramid towns. Names such as +d-¤nfrw (“Sneferu endures”) for Meidum and ¢a-¤nfrw (“Sneferu appears in glory”) for Dahshur, have a very strong ideological connotation. In Egyptian the verb “to endure” is related to the time of the gods and to the monarchy stability, with which Sneferu is identified. The verb xay (“to appear in glory”) is applied to the stars and to the king in reference to appearing in his entire splendour. The epigraphic sources introduce us to: 1) the titles and epithets related to the royal kinship by biological filiation, assimilation (through marriages to royal sons or daughters), affection, being akin at all; 2) the titles and epithets related to the royal funerary cult and the pyramid towns; 3) the titles related to the royal funerary cult of those officials coming from outside the royal family but close to the king, from the middle of the Fifth Dynasty onwards and 4) the administrative titles they hold. Until the end of Fourth Dynasty or the beginning of the Fifth –despite the construction of the biggest pyramidal complexes- the Egyptian state had not reached its institutional consolidation. This situation can be seen through the analysis of the titles that the royal sons and officials hold between the Fourth and the Sixth Dynasties. It is agreed by scholars that the most important administrative offices, such as the vizierate, during the Fourth Dynasty were carried out by royal children. Baer affirms that since the middle of the Fifth Dynasty the rank of the titles is well established, hierarchical standardization having taken place. He agrees with Helck that royal children who were related to the royal funerary cult did not belong to the line of first-born sons but to the second-born and the administrative functions they fulfilled were low ranked. However, Strudwick asserts that the royal priesthoods were reserved in the Fourth Dynasty for privileged officials or members of the royal family, and in the later Fifth Dynasty and later, they were confined to officials. Baer and Helck suppose that the royal children who held royal priestly titles related to the king or to the pyramid were low ranked officials, according to the other titles they hold during Fourth Dynasty and the beginnings of the Fifth. This supposition is based on the fact that many of them do not perform the highest administrative offices. The correlation between a high ranked office and the quality of being s3 nswt (“royal son”) is only demonstrated for the vizierate during this period. Notwithstanding these objections we have to suppose that in the different hierarchical levels of rules, in its diverse spheres, and specifically in the administration, not all its members should accomplish tasks in the same areas. Within a state in process of institutional consolidation as was the case during the Fourth Dynasty, besides the high administrative offices such as the vizierate there are others that are developed in the scope of laws, religion, work, court, etc. In the beginning the necessity that the different spheres of the state activities could be carefully carried out influenced the appearance of a series of titles, which would be held by the royal members, by consanguinity or by members integrated to the royal family by assimilation. In this sense, the royal children fulfilled an important aim: to keep the cohesion of the monarchic system to avoid collapse that the development of palatial intrigues and succession disorders would cause. This is clearly the main role of the royal family in a state which has not reached its definitive institutionalization until the middle of the Fifth Dynasty. When the organization of the state is consolidated many of these functions lose their meaning or are carried out by officials from outside the royal family, as might have been the case of the scribe and even the vizier. This supposed lack of rank of some royal son’s titles is based upon an incorrect assumption: during the Old Kingdom the royal kinship played an important role in consolidating the Egyptian state. It lacks the characteristic bureaucratisation typical of a more mature state, so it filled its administrative system with members coming from outside the royal family. Baer and Helck do state that the royal children who were involved in the royal funerary cult were second born sons because they do not hold high ranked offices or directly do not have any function at all. This incorrect statement is based on the belief that during the Old Kingdom, already in the Fourth Dynasty, the Egyptian state is an autocratic state with different levels of power delegation. The royal family occupied undoubtedly an outstanding place in the process of consolidation of the state. Confident individuals from the royal family as guarantors of the social order held the highest administrative offices, were related to the royal funerary cult and inhabited the pyramid towns. These became the residence of the dead king family and the ideological support for the dynastic cohesion. Possibly centripetal and centrifugal forces helped to the royal family to be separated from the government activities relegating them to court offices. Like the Hwt and niwt, the niwt mr had no longer reason to be when the definitive institutionalization of the state took place. The pyramid towns gave solutions to the question of the divided inheritance. Not only the royal family inherited the resources coming from the estates of the dead king to their support, but it also inherited a new residence. There the royal family was at the service of the royal funerary cult. As the Hwwt and niwwt proved to be, the niwwt mr were created to diminish the effects of dynastic troubles, ensuring the royal family of the dead king to be support by the redistributive system of the Egyptian state. Later this residence was no longer the place of living of his consanguineous relatives but a place occupied by functionaries and the xntyw-S. When time passed by the pyramid towns and the royal lineage that inhabited them lost their politically strategic value. It is interesting to observe that after the royal family of the dead king died the new inhabitants of these towns tried to perpetuate the numerous privileges they had enjoyed. This explains the restorations and modifications that the towns suffered during the Sixth Dynasty. Some of royal descendants of the Fourth Dynasty tried to benefit by receiving some estates from the Fifth Dynasty kings. The “pyramid town” was a residential centre that contributed to the dynastic cohesion. Inhabited by the royal sons and by officials related to the royal funerary cult in the Old Kingdom, it was a new element within the settlement patterns. It was part of the ceremonial centres characteristic from the Fourth Dynasty onwards. Its declination coincides with the definitive institutionalisation of the state, when the royal family disappeared as part of the state administration.