MAIN PAGE Dynasty © Ist Dynasty 2nd Dynasty rd Dynasty Palettes Stone Vessel Labels Articles Image "Dynasty 00" ‘Nagada Tle (IIC) - Ha2 (IITA2) by Franeosco Ratfacle INDEX NOTA BENE INTRODUCTION RULERS Related pages DYNASTY 0 PREDYNASTIC IMAGES ‘Cracow 2002 Conference: Ocigin ofthe State in Bey ‘You cam find an authorized Spanish Translation ofthe present page® inthe website Evintomania com (Cas ite in 28 November 2002 and with some diferenes inthe images) PART 0- PRELIMINARY NOTE (On the Terms "Dynasty 0" and "Dynasty 00" - Cr also txt below) "Dynasty 09" isa term which has not gained general asseptance in Egyptology (see bslow); some authors use ito indicate the rulers of the peiod before ‘Dynasty 0; but, alike for this later term, there isnt aay family relation among. macy of the rulers within "Dynesty 00, because they are local chiefs of ‘iferent centers ané they didnot consider themselves as being pat ofthe same ruling family exeept a the single loal levels Although unproper (but this aso applies to most of the later “true” dynasties), the term provides useful subdivision of or dstintion between the soversigns ‘or chiefs of the period wien Egypt was in the process of cultural unification (late Nagaéa T- early IT and the kings of Nagada TMB (Dynasty 0}, when the politcal usification of the whole Egypt was accomplished In the former period Upper Egyptian independent regional chiefdoms, then proto-states (Hierakonpolis, Nageda, Abydos) shared similar cultural tats, and probably had some kindof relations (rade, marriages, warfare) among each others “The period covered starts with th ruler (?) buried withthe Gebelein cloth kept at present in Turin Museum (early Nagada I), the owner of HKC tomb 100, (loc. 33, NagadaIIC peri), thos of some (possibly royal) tombs in Nagada cem. T (Kemp, JEA 59, 1973, 36-43 ; Wilkinson, 1999p. $2) and finally those buried in Abydos oem. U (Combs of local chieftains in late Nageda IED- to late IIA, especially some of the mudhrick ones of Naqada Illa) and the ‘contemporary ones fom Hierskonpois loc. (tomb 11; ofthe end ofthis period should be als the tomb 124 at Qustul and 137,1 at S "Nagada il? fr B. Williams; bu these have been recenly considered slighily later, in Nagada IIB), ‘A far more conect terminology would be one involving the period end geographical designation ofthe ruling lines: eg. Scorpion 1a late Nagada THA (endl stte Mla in Kase’ chronology ruler of Abydos (., bared in tomb Uj, Umm el-Qaab, Abydos), [A new series of posible royal names has been recently evidenced and reconstructed by Gunter Dreyer from inscriptions an some bone tags and ceramic vestls driving from the U cemetery of Abydos, oa cerain Nagada Id-Ia2 sealings, on the Tehenu Palette, and on the eral incised onthe Capios Colossi ‘The complete (till provisional list and discussion of Dreyer (Umm el Qaab I, 1998 p. 173-180) includes the fllowing probable royal names or rules indicators (loc. itp. 178; also see TABLE 1, below): Orpx. Shell, Fish, Elephant, Bul Stork, Cand (2), Catte-head standard. Scorpion I. Faeon 1, Min standard ~ plant, ?, Falcon If), Lion, Double Falcon, le-Hor, Ka, Scorpion I Narmer. More local rales (mostly of dynasty 0, Nagada Ul pari) ere Nb (or, Hedjw(Hor, Pe ~ Elephant, N-Hor Hat-Hor. Crocodile (the Subduor, Falcon + Mer (Tarkhan, also read as PN. "Mer Djchvety), and Qustal L2 ‘Pe-Hor The last ones (from Double Falcon on) are discussed in Dynasty 0 peg; the older ones will be dealt with below. Within the time interval covered by "Dynasty 00" there are enormous dfferencics the socio-political situation in which did live the mentioned chits of Gebelein and Hierakonpolst, 100 on one hand, and that of the Nagade IIIA2 Abydene kings of cemetery U on the other one, i somewhet lege); we are considering a period of e300 years; eoranly further findings and stuies will bring into this phase more order and new eriteries of ehrone-gce-politial subdivision are going tobe provided The fist serious use of the term "Dynasty 00", hy van den Brink (in id. ed "The Nile Delain Transition’ 1992 p. vin. 1) was related tothe members of the ruling class Buried in cemetery U at byuos Uinm el Qaab’ who wee ‘possibly the predecessors ofthe Dynasty 0 Kings. {G, Dreyer had already jokingly used the term to india the rulers earlier than Nageda ITB Dyrasty 0. Also "Dynasty 0” ether used to designate only the Abydos dynasty buried in cemetery B, or the whole Egypt Nagada ITB kings; moreover others apply this term tal the rulers of the Late Predynastic period (= “Dynasty 00 + “There i no need to further remark that these terms are both nearly ridiculous (although Dynasty 0 is rather more accepted by scholars than "Dynasty 00", yet ‘equally misleading) and applied hee only ina distinction, temporary () and Internet search-engines purpose easons. Summarizing, ‘Dynasty 00" (less misleading would be «DYNASTIES 00») is henceforth used here as a descriptive term which indicates a period in the protodynastic, not a single line of rulers from a specific place; the period covered is Naqada IIC- TITA2 (Kaiser's stufen Te, d1-2 and IHal-2). A discussion on the term ‘Dynasty 0" will appear on the EEE archives (October 2002 zip fie). See also the Synthesis page in this site, the discussion below and the Table 2 atthe bottom of this page."Dynasties 00": The proto-states of Naqada IIC-IIIA2 period (c. 3500-3220 BC) PART I -INTRODUCTION T have already introduced the main chronological subdivisions and problems of the Nagada culture (Petrie's Sequence Dates -SD-, Kaiser's and Hendrickx’s improvements), which I won't rehearse here. (cf. F. Raffaele, Dynasty 0, in: AegHlelvet 2002; the Dynasty 0 page ; also see this synthesis of earlier predynastic eultuses as Fayyum, Merimde, Badarian). In a very summary way, Nagada I (formerly 'Amvratian’) was characterized by some diagnostic pottery types and by a large production of crafts-objects like human figurines, amulets, decorated ivory combs, animal shaped cosmetic palettes; to this ‘figurative’ repertory we must add stone vessels, flint blades, weapons and other tools which suggest a transparent progress in technology (division of labour, advanced food production, artifacts masterpieces) and, above all, in the broader ambit of thought. Its important to precise that Naqada I TI are main phases of the same cultural Unit (further divided into more subphases): therefore the elements of continuity between respectively phase Ill, IF and I1l-Early Dynastic (= Nagada IICI/D) are to be considered much more retevant than the detected breaks between contiguous phases; and the ‘cold’ terms Nagada I-III are actually mote apt to render the idea of one civilization in evolution than Petrie's terminology. ‘The Nagada civilization developed in @ core-area stretching, during Nagada I, from the Abydos to the Hierakonopolis regions, having its heart in the eponymous site of Nagada (Nubt, Ombos). In the following phase II (Petrie's Gerzean) the impact of the Nagadian influence had already reached the Upper Nubia, the East Fayum region (Gerzeh) and the Delta (Buto); the period IID-IILA marks the culmination of the cultural superimposition of this southern civilization into the Delta, where it definitively replaced the local (Maadi-Buto) tradition; the following phases (IIIA2-IIIB) are an age of political contrasts, a long series (about two centuries) of struggles and alliances which led to the supremacy of the Thinite regional (proto-) state that finally realized the Unification of Egypt. But we have only sketchy fragments of the complicate puzzle; and we must not disregard the fact that ‘the unequal knowledge of the main sites of that period is a heavy bias onto our reconstructions; furthermore the evidence for violent competition amongst the early ULE. chiefdoms or proto-states is, for now, almost entirely based on the artifacts iconography. There is not yet a univoque terminology (ef. above, Preliminary note) for the Late Predynastic phases; "Protodynastic" is employed as a synonym for Dynasty 00 and 0, which are in turn not true dynastic lines as those of Manetho, but rather designations of periods or of the contemporary local ruling lineages thereof; for distinction purposes I will provisionally follow the (playful) indication of Dreyer, labelling the Nagada IIC-IIA2 sovereigns as "Dynasty 00" and the Naqada IIIB ones as "Dynasty (but note that most ofthe Egyptologist means ‘Dynasty 0" as either all the late predynastic kings or only the Abydos line buried in cemetery B and -eventually- U). The denomination of "Dynasty 00" is however still very rarely adopted in Egyptology. ‘The emergence of the earliest rulers is only one aspect of the State formation in Egypt; kingship has its roots in the archaic African folklore substratum, although some accessory elements of the Dynasty 00-0 sovereignty and culture were borrowed from ancient Uruk and Susa civilizations. Scholars have individuated two main periods of Near Easter influence on the emerging Egyptian proto-state(s) cone during Dynasty 0 (e. 3200-3050 BC) culminating with Narmer and Aha's reigns, and an older one around 3500/3400 BC, thus in the middle-late Nagada IL However the reception of Near Eastern influences was only in terms of some forms (Iigurative motifs, palace fagade device) and practices (use of cylinder seals, writing ?), but these elements were always re-elaborated according to the Egyptian own culture, beliefs and ideological needs: these external influences were never a decisive input onto the Egyptian state formation and evolution; I've already shown (F. Raffaele, TM 2, 2002, 27) that the origin of the state is a multi-faced complex process which involves several causal components and thus entails a polimorphic explanation based on the analysis of different factors (population, territory /environment resources, war, trade, technology, belicfs/thoughts) and the multiplicatory effect oftheir interaction. In this period we can draw the development of the basic components of the future State mechanism, namely an homogencous set of beliefs concerning the afterlife and the origin of the chiefS’ power: a series of mythical and material corollaries to these subsystems fumished the justification and legitimisation of the inner inequalities of a society with an already deep fault between the ruler and the ruled: the construction of monumental buildings in the towns and of richer tombs on holy grounds (conspicuous consumption), the availability of luxury and exotic materials (display) through the monopoly of long distance trade, the production of artifacts symbolizing and reinforcing their status, the possibility to dominate large masses of populations with violent coercive methods and with subtle mythological’ religious strategies, were some of the devices adopted by the élite to proof, motivate, confirm and strengthen their superiority and supremacy. ‘The divine kingship and its ideological background was one of the pillars of the Egyptian state, and the union of secular and supernatural power within a sinole individhal was a decisive factor for its sucess‘The other key innovation was specialization: to build up the imponent state-machine and make it work, it was necessary to subtract parts of the population from the food production and destine them to other full-time activities: administration, army, religion and cult, building of tombs and temples (and their decoration), crafts, trade, mining. These unproductive classes and the royal court were sustained by the large mass of the population which practised agriculture; the yield was in fact coercively gathered by the State as taxes, then stored and unequally redistributed. Ina State-system, specialization spans all the scctors of the socicty and its structural components: labour, food and crafts production, war, technologies, religion, perhaps even ideas (see I. Takamiya 2002), Artefacts were status symbols which conveyed a coded message the élite could comprehend; but they have also an external aspect, visual impact which the masses are subjugated with (think about monumentality of structures oF splendour of art masterpieces) and which contributes to the creation, definition and persistence of the roles of the masters and servants. Someone has tried to compare on a general level, early Nagada III polities with Archaic Greece or classic Maya city-states; both the Greek as well as the Maya situations are better known than the Late Predynastic Egyptian one. Certainly there must have been a hierarchy in the cities around each Egyptian proto-nome capital, and some interrelation among the different regional states. At one point some of them (especially those with ordering territories) must have been engaged into military competition, for territorial exploitment, trade monopoly or further reasons, while others possibly united through allianees stipulated by gifts exchanges, cross-martiages, construction of monuments, celebration of public ceremonies and feasts In Egypt there's evidence of an organization in form of city-states or archaic regional proto-states as early as late Nagada II: one sealing possibly dates Nagada I and further ones from Naqada LIB,C are known, Most of the oldest Egyptian seals (Nagada, Naga ed-Der) have ‘been considered as possible imports from (rather than copies of) ancient Uruk (VI-V) examples. Writing did emerge in carly Nagada II mainly within two spheres: Royal display (particularly kingship-symbolism, kings’ names and properties) and Administrative practices (seals, labels and other systems to count, control and recognize incomes, stored and forwarded 004). Cross-comparison among different cultures of the World ata similar phase of development are certainly helpful and welcome; however these are often limited to the general features of the paralleled subjects, because, actualy, itis very difficult for one and the same person to have an in-depth knowledge of two proio- or advanced- State cultures. Yet, also on a general level, it has been shown that there ae interesting comparisons to be further researched [Tvggs, 1995. PART Il - EVIDENCE OF EARLY RULERS ‘One of the earliest representations of an Egyptian ruler is to be found in the scene painted on the wall of a Nagada IIC tomb (in Locality 133) at Hicrakonpolis, the famous tomb 100. he scene is constituted by two processions with large boats and various subsidiary motifs (animals taming and entrapment, chief smiting captives and other isolated hunting and elashing scenes). ‘The interpretations attempted have been manifold, ranging from actual reports of warfare victories with related ceremonies, to ritual and symbolical generic evocations of triumph; Williams and Logan proposed to integrate most of the scenes, like the present one and those carved on ivory knife handles, into a broader cycle of representation of the (proto-) Heb Sed royal ritual [But ef, Hendriekx, CdE 74, 1998, 203ff. esp. p. 220-224, for an alternative interpretation of a part of the painting], A similar depiction with boats processions, struggles, hippo hunting and fishing scenes is found on the painted ® fragments of a textile from Gebelein (Turin Mus., suppl. 17138) dated to Nagada Ie-IIb (fig. >). os » Nagada I and 11 witness the origin of many beliefS connected with the later Dynastic era: in particular the first signs diagnostic of a coherent (?) tradition of the Kingship seem to remount to these two phases: a recently found C-ware vessel from Abydos tomb U-239 (Naqads [e-Ia) shows a ruler smiting groups of enemies (the same pictorial symbol present -more than a century later in tomb 100 and -nearly half a millennium later- on Narmer palette; a B-ware sherd with a red crown in relief was found by Petre in tomb 1610 at Nagada; whole series of traits, emblems, attributes and ritual actions of the ruler as the false tail, penis sheath, erowns, maces, reed, sceptcs, ritual race, gazelle- and hippopotamus-hunt and further ones have been since long time identified [Fatovic, ia: RSO 4S, 197, 1534189}; these are the Affican-log backbone ofthe divine kingship institution Therefore we know a good number of constitutive elements of the Pharaonic state which were inherited from late prehistory; one could try to excerpt similar patterns of developments of kingship, administration and iconography into other sectors of the archaic Egyptian civilization as mortuary beliefs and practices, culUreligion/myths, ‘ar’, technology, economy and trade, subsistence. Among the most important recent achievements in our knowledge of the ‘history’ of the early Nagada III period ("Dynasty 00") there are Dreyer’s excavation and publication of king Scorpion I's tomb U-j at Abydos and the Damells' discovery of some graffiti of the Gebel ‘Tjauty, in the Desert west of Thebes (recently discussed by Friedman and Hendrick). VD The impressive amount of funerary goods gathered in the Abydos tomb U-j (mid Nein ict = ne Nada Hin, Seng" ahi meaty ery mended Daiaoae | . imported jars, plus few thousand wine and beer jars (many Wavy-handled jars are Ss ime ah famed sro an Heke saper tn Be N some of he tea abonbsr), scores of bonelivory labels (173) with short inscriptions (the earliest written evidence presently known from Egypt), some fine artefacts (obsidian hands-bowl, pieces of furniture, very fragmentary ivories with animal reliefs) and the same size of the tomb, have caused some scholars to suggest the possibility that Egypt would have been politically unified since Nagada Illa2/A1. One needs to be very cautious in these statements for it often happens (as with Dreyer's discovery or also with Williams’ publication of the excavations at Qustul cemetery L in Nubia) that the astonishing character of new finds can lead to underestimate other eventualities.In case of Egypt, there is no further evidence of a Royal cemetery of Early Naqada III period except at Hierakonpolis (loc, 6) (Nagada com. T declines in that period) [ef. Wilkinson, MDAIK 56, 2000]; therefore the possibility that the owner of tomb U-j, Scorpion I, might have already reigned over a united Egypt has only the strength of the lack of similar attestations from other sites. 14 Indeed, despite the cultural uniformity which enveloped the whole country already in late Nagada I, ‘and the shared belief in an early beginning and long lasting process of political unification, the present data suggest that the final transformation of the Egyptian Nile Valley, from a land with different regional polities into one ruled by the same sovereign, was only accomplished in late Nagada IB; probably by Narmer and/or by one of his nearest predecessors (Ka, Iry Hor) of the same Abydene ruling, Tine buried in Abydos cemetery B; this necropolis is the continuation ofthe few northerly cemetery U, and thus we ean affirm that Narmer was alate successor of Scorpion T and thatthe Thinte ite had @ | major role in the development and completion ofthe Unification This is in part also based on a negative evidence, namely the lack of attestations of Naqada IIIA ("Dynasty 00") rulers outside the Thinis/Abydos teritory. Only since Nagada IIIB ("Dynasties 0") there are the first royal serekhs [1] from various zones of Egypt as Double Falcon (whether this was a single king's name; cf. below) and, later, Ka and Narmer (see F. Raffaele, op ct; also ef. Dynasty 0 page) j == |An important point about the tomb U-j is the fact that the substructure plainly reproduces @ model uy [7 palace (et Dreyer, Uni el-Qasb Ip. 6, Hg. 5-6); some slits provide the access to the various chambers of the Cy Te reer iis sateen ont ser al pey anton * 1 false doors in later tombs); near the top of cach slit two holes supported a wooden stick on which a (FFs U rotted mat was wrapped; at least six more mudbrick tombs in the cemetery U had their chambers PST” Veonnected by lists leafy) | Recently S. Hendrickx has proposed a possible explanation for the marked difference in the size of the 24." \ comp Us compared to almost all the others in the cemetery: it might be though that soon afer the reign cof Scorpion I the separation between the tomb and its funerary enclosure did happen; an offering court (Opferplatz) is located just south of tomb U-j and U-k (vessels found in it dated from Nagada Il to early Ist Dynasty); on the other hand the earliest funerary enclosures (c. | and 1/2 Km North of Umm el Qaab) are known only from the time of Djer (or Aba); but these were built in mudbrick, whereas it ean be supposed thatthe older ones were simple palisades made with perishable materials as wooden poles, which would be disappeared with the passing of time. At Hierakonpolis the roughly contemporary (élite or royal) tomb 11 in Locality 6 ‘was also provided with a fence (as did the late-Dynasty 0 tomb 1, which Hoffmann tentatively attributed to Scorpion ID) Certainly it can be supposed that Scorpion | had a prosperous reign: tomb U-j (dated just later than U-k and earlier than U-i) had its substructure builtin two phases: to the first one the W burial chamber (Uj 1) and the nine E magazines (U-j 2-10) do belong (¢. 10 x 20 cubits in size); ina later period the two $ chambers (U-j 11-12) were added and the tomb came to measure 10 x 16 cubits; however no large span of time must have separated the two building phases (same size of bricks). The sheer size and the amout and kind of gravegoods indicates that the owner of this burial, Scorpion 1, must have been a relevant personality ofthat time, and certainly responsible of major achievements Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab 1 (1998) Bt it must be rehcarsed that (in my opinoion) the political Unification was really brought to completion only with Narmer, when the sparse and relatively few regional powers were probably subjugated or annihilated by the Thinite family; however the incipit of this process is undoubtedly to be found in the so called ‘Dynasty 00,‘A preliminary report ofthe Exploration of Lunor-Farst oad in the ABZU site(OL) In this respect it assumes a great value the evidence of the Gebel Tjauty graffiti, with their possible narration of a military victory by Scorpion I over the ruler of a nearby regional state (Nagada 2) whom he captured (the defeated personal name or region/city name was possibly written with a Bull head over a standard, an emblem also recurring on tomb U-ink inscribed jars). Before the captured person (who's followed by the victorious ruler with a mace) there is the figure of a wading- (or seretary 2) bird pecking a serpent (a symbolographic label for "victory" or an emblem of a nomeiregion 2) which is also found on Davis comb, Brooklyn and Pitt-Rivers knils-handles und on a painted vessel from Qustul tomb L23. Beyond the bird there’ a figure carrying a staff preceded by a standard (?) and further on the right a falcon over a scorpion (royal name?; ef. fig. above). The defeated chief on the left side has his hands bound behind his back and held with a rope by the winner; the later is pictured at higher level (and scale) on the extreme left of the ‘The interesting character of the graflito is, in my opinion, in its evenemential narrative; on the same level as the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman arafito, near Wadi Halfa in Nubia the scene appear to represent the celebration ofa real vietory. The scenes on Late Predynastic objects (originally destined to temples and tombs) are mostly considered to be ritual or symbolic in character (Lomb 100, decorated ceremonial palettes) whereas the scenes carved on the rocks ofthe Gebel Tjauty and Gebel Sheikh Suleiman may instead have been true "reports" of historical event. In particular the Tjauty one has been speculatively related by Wilkinson [op. cit, 386] as possibly signifying the victory of the Thinite ruling line over the one of the decadent polity of Nagada. Gebel Tjauty was perhaps a short-cut for the Thinite traders and armies to double the Nagada tervitory on the way towards the Hierakonpolis or the Lower Nubia regions (Sayala and Qustul are A-Group capital centres which had their apogee in that period and slightly later; when late Dynasty 0/ early Dyn. 1 kings aimed at the direct exploitation of the Nubian territory, the A-group culture disappeared; see the Dynasty Zero page; a similat pattern might be hypothesized in relation withthe demise of the Maadi-Buto cultural complex in the Delta) lll this tells us relatively few on the organization of the proto-states previously to the 'Unification’; perhaps a pattern of rough correspondence between the Nile Valley macro-regions in Nagada III and the later subdivision into Nomes could reasonably be followed (the emblems of many of the later nomes already appear in the late Ilird Dyn early IVth oldest "Biographies" as those in the tombs of Motion and Pehemefor: some af the D-ware vessels standards an the hnats and same af those on the Hunters. Rattlefield Rull- Narmer-palettes and Scorpion- and Narmer-Maceheads have been tentatively interpreted as proto-nomes or ruling lineages’ emblems), This would depend on the strategic location of the early settlements which can be explained by the presence of easily accessible resources (minerals in the Desert widian as at Nubt and Nekhen, wide flood-plain as at Abydos), factors that we can assume to have continued to be relevant in the following periods; the religious/cultual importance of settlements and cemeteries of ancient local chiefs would be another reason. for the later (Nome-) capitals to arise nearby or upon the old ones. ‘The scarcity of data from protodynastic urban centers in the Nile Valley is indced an important and often stressed lack in our knowledge of this period (as also in the dynastic age); but during these last decades the situation is getting better (Delta sites). The reconstruction provided by Dreyer [in: Umum el-Qasb I, 1998, 173-180; i, ia: SDAIK 28, 1995] of a possible line of about 15 rulers from early Nagada IIIA1 to late IILA2 (nine kings before and five after Scorpion I; ef. below, table 1) is still tentative and to be checked with/against further evidence; this argument is a central one for the history of this period and is the object of the following discussion. For a different view and in particular a possible total of only 2 or 3 reigns between Scorpion I and Iry-Hor ef. A. Jimene7-Serrano, Los reyes del predinastico Tardio, in: BAEDE 10, 2000, 33-52. Dreyer’s theory is based on the interpretation of two main sources: the reliefs on the three fragmentary statues known as 'Koptos Colossi’ and the hieroglyphs on the Tehenu palette; further confirmation of the royal names would be some of the inscriptions on vessels and labels from tomb U5. hammering technique (no chislling) and represented the god standing with erected phallus; only the torso and part ofthe legs was preserved andthe head of one ofthe sates in Oxford, although almost ent sre ssnoted on the statues showing animals, plants, shells and standards FEE on etc pablacbed is 1988 [Anes of at] B, Wilhaes seegested the presence of « agmentary trae ofthe name of eT 4} Narmer on the Cairo slate; this gave an important elue about the long disputed question ofthe date ofthe status (which in 8 © “ne past had ranged from Predynastie (o 1% Intermediate Period according tothe opinions of different Egyptologsts). (For sonst fh cls nd temples hs she Pete Mac webste: Dil Es : a: colossal limestone statues of Min were found by Petrie in the temple of Koptos in 1894; they had been fashioned with effaced; some signs in relief were In 1995 Dreyer (loc, cit. above) proposed that the graffiti on the statues were the names of older rulers, and Narmer had been the last one to make his name be carved on those statues; therefore the colossi probably dated well before his reign, down to Nagada Illa, and the signs carved onto them would be perhaps something similar to a king list. I must notice that the Nar-fish and the Mer-chisel are very fragmentary -only the left end preserved- and, as suggested by Kemp, the upper sign is rather the tail of @ bird than that of the Nar cat fish, thus suggesting a falcon on a perch or on a standard [ef B.. Kemp, CA! 102, 2000, 211-24, fig. 10;H. Goedicke, MDAIK 58, 2002, 253] Basing on the reciprocal placement and superimposition of the signs on the colossi, Dreyer seems to have found a possible sequence of the stages in which the graffiti were incised (cf. table): Animal-head standard, Shell, Elephant, Bull, Stork, Canid, Min-standard, Plant, Lion and Narmer (for the Tehenu palette, see below). ABLE 1 ~ Abydos succession "Dynasty 004 (according to G. Dreyer) ons ony sunde (Cuca senda Sarai andar crn tnd) Sanam tnd) Mn ad lt sonst sin sandal pln yor (B12) Iry-Hor Kare) Ka Scornion II Scorpion meeeheadSeornion I‘Narmer ‘Narmer (B17/18)_— Narmer List of Nagada HTAL-early THCI rulers of Thinis/Abydos* reconstructed by G. Dreyer (ef. above) in Umm el-Qaab 1, 1998, p. 178 * this table only considers the Nageda Il Thinite/Abydene ruling line; the kings whore serch have been found only elsewhere (es Hed-Hor, Hat Hor, Ny-Hlor, Per, Ny-Neith, jehwry-MevFalcon-chsel, Crocodile and few oters) are thus excluded. In ths respect is Dreyer’ opinion (one on which ‘otal! the scholars doagees) hat Seorpion II was also origina ofthe Thinte nome. CF. BYNASTY 0 page for derailed informations on these Nagaéa THR iT 1-2) atrs, For lexico-grammatical-conographical approach to these inscriptions se A CCoptos, in CCUE 2, 2001, 115-136 ‘Downloadable in BDF format in this ite). Fora linguistic and morphological analysis ofthe structure of hieroglyphic writing inthis petod, ef. J. Kak, Hieroglyphic Writing During the Fourth Millenium BC: an Analysis of Systems, in: Archéo-Nil[1, 2001, 102-134; far a rie tothe reading of the snimals-signs as predynastc sovereigns’ names, ef: A K, Breyer, Die Schritzeugnsse des Pridynastischen ‘Kanigsgrabes Us in Umm el-Qaab: Versuch einer Neuinlerpretation, in: JEA 88, 2002, 3-65, el "Notes pour une lecture des inseriptions des Colosses de Min de For the main contra-opinion to Dreyer's reconstruction (presented in: "Die Datierung der Min-Statuen aus Koptos", in: Kunst es = SDAIK 28, 1995, 49-56, Pl. 9-13; and in "Umm el-Quab I, Mainz 1998, p. 173-180), see: BL Kemp's (etal): "The Colossi from the Early Shrine at Coptos in Egypt" in: CAJ 10/2, 2000, 211-242; J. Kahl, in: Archéo-Nil Il, 2001, 102-134; id, in: GM 192, 2003, 47-54 Note that in Kaht's (rather convincing) hypothesis, also the hieroglyph of the Scorpion, drawn on wavy-handled jars' painted marks and incised bone and ivory tags from Abydos tomb U-j and recently found at Djebel Tjauti, could represent a god (ora place where it was worshipped, likely Hierakonpolis) instead of the name of the owner of the tomb and the victorious, sovereign of the Tjauti tableau 1 ‘Also other symbois such as those on Coptos Colossi and Towns palette should not be related to royal names but probably indicate centres or regions of religiousipolitical importance, or religious emblems, most probably gods' names. In my opinion, it scems that before Nagada IIIB, territorial designations (on decorated artifacts, jars, rock inscriptions and other documents of either political or economical relevance) where far more important than the specifical names of the leaders commanding these polities ‘There are various sources that more or less clearly attest this aspect. It is open to mistakes the fact that early place-names could have been indicated with the main divinity which was worshipped there, but also kings’ names have always been theophorous or someway related to gods. Cf. now LD. Morenz, Bild-Buchstaben und symbolische Zeichen (2004, passim) for a discussion of this question, ‘The number of rulers who would have reigned, in Dreyer’s reconstruction, between Scorpion I and Iry-Hor could be object of criticism: ef. A. Jimenez-Serrano, in: BAEDE 10, 2000, 33-52 (in which only 3 reigns are postulated for this lapse of time) I would consider a time span of c. 150-200 years between the owner of Abydos tomb U-j and Narmer: this should allow for about 9-12 kings in the only ruling line of Thinis/ Abydos, Whether and where more proto-kingdoms have to be located, and until which period would have their kings competed with those of Hierakonpolis and Abydos, itis still difficult to tell. For now the latter two centres appear to have been where the two most powerful Upper Egyptians élites of Late Predynastic resided, the main powers of carly Nagada III that started the long process of political unification which was (probably) definitively accomplished only by Narmer. We are not yet provided with sufficient informations and details to describe with scientific certainty the last steps which made of the whole Egyptian Nile valley a state. Despite the evidence for some struggles, it scems clear that a good part of the| violence and of the expressions of hostility frozen’ on Late Predynastic sources could concern "foreign peoples andor have a different sense than that of purely “historical accounts" On the other hand there are good proofs for similar proto-states to have existed in Lower Nubia (Seyala, Afich, Qustul) luring a period (classical and terminal A-group) corresponding with Nagada IIIA1-CI in Egypt (c. 3350-2950BC).. Possibly other local proto-states had developed in Late Predynastic, contemporatily with the Abydos Dynasty 00-0 kings, elsewhere in the North, as in the Fayyum, Memphite and Delta regions (Abusir el-Meleq, Tarkhan, Fayyum sites, Tura, Helwan, Sais, Buto, East-Delta) but itis still impossible to establish the cultural and especially the political relations of these "nities with both the contemporary Upper Egyptian ones and with the precedent ones which predominated in those areas. In the earlier part of the period in object, other iconographic devices were adopted to convey the idea of sovereignty, but we are still ‘unable to detect them with full confidence. Surely one of these symbols was the scepter: Heka-scepters have been found at Abydos in cem. U (tomb U-S47, U-j) and a Nagada IID palette from cl-Amrah tomb B62 (in London, BM 35501) was decorated with a "Min-cmblem" over a Heka-scepter in relief: perhaps the name of a local chief ? [Another element which preceded the serekh (and in part coexisted with it, as in Lower Nubia) was the rosette; this symbol appears since late Nagada II on seal impressions [sem. U: Dreyer, p. cit, 1998, fg. 72s], gold and ivory knife-handles, an ivory comb, the Scorpion II mace-head and the Qustul tomb 24 incensc bummer [ef he authors website page on Dynasty 0 ‘The rosetteMower/star has been linked by ILS. Smith to the concept of (divine) kingship and to the Sumerie and especially Elamite glyptic [id in: Friedman-Adams eds, The Followers of Hors, 1992, 235-246] /B. Kemp [op. cit, 2334] has also individuated other "control signs" (at the end of animals rows on some knife-handles) with possible relations to kingship or to other social institutions and groups. ‘of several proto-hieroglyphs like those carved or painted on tomb U-j labels and jars, on seal impressions,on the Koptos Colossi, on the decorated knife handles and palettes is still a riddle; but as the number of finds is increasing with new discoveries, more clues to their real purpose and meaning are hoped to be achieved. I must once again stress the central role of the royal cemetery U of Abydos (especially for the importance of the in-situ finds which can provide useful means of datation of already known unprovenanced and thus undated objects) [ef.G. Dreyer, in: C. Ziegler (ed) "L’ Art de VAncien Empire Sayptien..” 1999, 195.226; H. Whitchous, in: MDAIK 58, 2002]; cemetery U was started in Nagada I but it became the local élite burial ‘ground only by late Nagada Id; the first (anonymous or plain) serekhs known in Egypt come from the early Nagada Ia tombs U-s and U+t, which are located 40-50m N.E. of Iry-Hor's chambers B1-2:; also the modem excavations in the Delta sites and those at Hierakonpolis have a key role, as well as the revisions, systematizations and publications of old unpublished excavations and materia, The Tehenu palette (or Towns palette) in Cairo (C.G. 14238) is named after a sign on its verso: this shows three rogisters with domestic animals files and a fourth lower one with plants (trees) and the hieroglyph of the throwing| stick on an oval (which means ‘region, ‘pace, ‘sland’, thus a toponym of Libya or Westem Delta (THnw, Tjchenw). The reoto of the palette is of great importance, showing the feet of some persons and, below the register line, two rows of four and three groups respectively; each group is constituted by an animal grasping the Mer-hoe on the crenellated| wall of town; the name of each town isis written within the wall [se my Comus of Late Predynastic Decorated Paletes) Since the publication of the palette (unprovenanced but said to be from Abydos) the action of the animals (interpreted as numinose aspects of the kingship or as rue kings) was said to be a destructive one; but, comparing the use of the hoe by king Scorpion II on his macehead, Nibbi (1977) and Wildung (1981) moved the first criticism to this generally followed interpretation, proposing that constructive action was implied, namely the foundation of the named towns (indeed the same interpretation of Scorpion's Macehead ritual as the foundation ofa temple or the inauguration of a channel's excavation is still debated), Barta, and more recently Dreyer, have rejected this view; Dreyer interprets the names over the walled towns as Dynasty 00/0 kings! names: Lion, Scorpion (II) and Double Falcon (right to left, lower row) and Falcon, [Seth ?], Falcon (2), (lot] (upper row) The German archaeologist correctly emphasized that, being the palette very similar in character (relief style, register lines, hieroglyphs) to the Narmer Palette, it was possibly from the reign of King Scorpion UJ, a near predecessor of Narmer (whose name in fact doesn't appear on the palette); the Scorpion king appears in a prominent position at the center of the lower row; the other rulers were ancient predecessors of Scorpion II in the Dynasty 00-0 (Abydos ”) royal line Falcon (see table above) was possibly the follower of the owner of tomb Uj, Scorpion I; Dreyer hypothesized that Faleon's name also appears on the Metropolitan Museum palette serekh (MMA 28.9.8; ef. TM 3, fig. pag. 28). The relief on an alabaster vessel from Hierakonpolis showing a frieze of falcons and scorpions was pethaps a tribute of King Faleon to his own father Scorpion I [Quibell- Green, Hierakonpolis , pl. 19.1] King Lion is, in Dreyers opinion, named on a seal impression from Mahasna; Dreyer thinks that many of the royal names of that period (since king Elephant), do appear in the names of royal properties/domains: thus a tree beside a lion would be ‘King Lion's plantation’ (or property; in the Dynastic period there are plenty of examples of places named after kings' names or after royal domains names). The same author advanced that the lion on the Battlefield (or Vultures) palette was just this Lion king, by the same way as the Bull palette must show a (later) king Bull (Bull II, distint from the Bull 1 identified on the Koptos colossus). Tae two falcons on standards would relate to Double Falcon: this is one of the first attestations of serekhs known, early in Nagada IIIB (Dynasty 0); he's known from Southern Palestine, Sinai, East Delta, Memphite region (Tura) and Upper Egypt (Abydos, ‘Adaima); not all the seholars do agree in the interpretation of his serekis (with different graphical variants fF, Rafe, op. i, Dynasy Si, TM 2, i. pag. 29,812) a a single rulers royal ttle Dreyer has postulated that, given the mentioned late-Dynasty 0’ manufacture of the Tehenu palette (which in my opinion is in fact later than the Battlefield and Bull palettes but earlier than the Plover and Narmer palettes), it could never neither celebrate nor narrate the foundation of the towns by those kings: the town of the Heron (Djebawty), probably Buto, which is currently being excavated by T. Von der Way, was founded much carlier than Nagada LILA. Therefore the action performed by the royal entitics on the palette could eventually be the foundation of fortresses in the respective centers (ef. the example from Elephantine), or more probably it was the (symbolic ?) destruction of the centers after their defeat by the Southern Kings; this progressive military expansionism and submission of the Delta by the Thinite sovereigns, which is echoed in the scenes of battle and of their aftermath represented on Nagada II palettes and ivories, was probably a relatively common scenario until the country unification (cf. M. Campagno 2002). As quoted above, and always with the due cautions, it can be supposed that a parallel warfare-pattern should have been followed by the Dynasty 00-0 kings in respect of the Nubian antagonists; perhaps also in the Delta the Maadi-Buto decline hadn't happened (Nagada IIC-D) without some conflict; the EB 1 Canaan colonization is instead a different matter (although some scholars hypothesized, in the past, massive military interventions of the Egyptians there): the difference between Egypt and Canaan at that time was too large to favour the assumption of any possible competition between them; Egyptians must have found no resistance in their infiltration into those territories, contributing to their evolution towards the EB Il Urbanization [ct the intresting and still valid synthesis ‘The relations between Early Bronze I age Canasnites and Upper Egyptians’ by Branislav Andelkovi, 1995] PART III - CONCLUSIONS, The amount of data on predynastic regional-states is rapidly increasing in the last decades, Tam sure that our knowledge on many aspects of this phase of Egyptian proto-history is going to further augment in the next years. Once it was the Thinite period (Dynasty I-Il) to be considered the egg from which the Dynastic Egypt Civilization sprang out; but indeed, as ‘we have seen, also and already during the late Gerzean (Naqada IID) and Naqada III (Petrie's Semainean) we can find clear signs of the outset of the future Dynastic state peculiarities,We have rapidly passed by some of the “faces” of the Egyptian Predynastic and through the ages of the most ancient kings of Egypt and of the whole humanity. I have tried to outline in this paper the way in which the Neolithic villages acquired more and more ©) aspects diagnostic of a progress towards complex associative units to finally become regional states governed by the paramount leaders of Dynasty 00, on which I've focussed the discussion, Many factors contributed to the constitution of the Dynastic Eeypt tradition, The kingship and ‘arts! canons (the rules of J, Baines’ concept of decorum), religious, philosophical and funerary beliefs, first appeared before, during and few after the Dynasty 00; carly Nagada III provides the link between i the more egalitarian and less developed societies of the previous periods and the rise of the warrior kings that opened up the @path leading to the State of Dynasties 0-2. ‘The civilization which developed since this period, through the reign of "Menes" and up to the time of the great pyramids, saw heavy transformations and achievements, obscure ages of crisis, brilliant reprises; but along these phases the underlying continuity and the “archetypal” elements of the "Dynastic culture" can be followed as I have tried to do in this article; Dynasty "00" and "0" are metaphorically the foundation stones of that magnificient monument which Ancient Egypt was; maybe they are for most part hidden beneath the sands, not as apparent as the Old and New Kingdom ‘constructions’ above them, but at least as much fascinating and mysterious, ‘They are the precious keys to understand where, why and how it all began! ‘Most ofthis page was (orginally) part of my article in print - Prench translation) in: TM 7, 2002 However this page has been (and willbe) updated, enlarged, modified. Francesco Raffaele, 2002 [NOTA BENE: the copyright ofthe images is ofthe respective publishers and authors, ores 1-Ithas been hypothesized that he serekh device might have originte from some ofthe representations on the tags from cem. Uo that they had the same referent et Dreyer, Umm el-Qaah I, tags 127,128,129, X188), The earliest ones known ae from tombs Us, Ut, but sone motifs which resemble serekhs are much older (as the one ited on a C-ware shed ftom Histakonpolis loc. 6 ef. B. Adams, in CCAR. 14, 2002, p. 8, fg; tis one has boon considered asa proto-serekh by the late Adams nd some dated patter beside it as fences; butt shard IMO to edit hers more than one ofthe possible interpretations). For sere in general: Wighal, in: GM 162: O'Brien, in: SARCE 33, 1996, 123-138; also ef Dreyer, in: MDAIK 55, 199, 4; for important considerations on the Deis origin of Serkh and muadbrick architecture (palace-fagade eatres possibly reflecting the existence f relevaot Maadi-Buto lites: Jmenez-Serano in GM 183, 2001, ‘I, interestingly commented on by van de Brink, in: GM 183, 2001, end disputed hy Hendricks, who proposes arguments for an independent Upper Egyptian agin ‘ot both the ieanographical and architectral devices, in: GM 184, 85-110, 2001, For study of pottery incised sere in relation tothe je types ef. van den Brink in Spencer ed. 1996; i, Archéo-Nil phy recent studies). 4. Baines, Origin of Exyptien Kingship, i: D. "Connor D. Silverman (eds), Ancient Egyptian Kingship 1995, 95-156 K. Bard, The Egyptian Predynastic: A review ofthe Evidence, JEA 213, 1994, 265-288 K, Cialowiez, La naissance dun royaume, Krakow 2001 G. Dreyer, Umm Qa I, Man 198 F Hassan, The Predynastic of Egypt, WP 2, 1988, 135-185 S. Hendricks, Arguments far an Upper Eaypisn Orin of th Palac-Pacade andthe Src ring Lat. GM 184, 2001, 85-110 -M, Hofisn,Eaypt before the Pharos, New York 1979 (1990%) A. Simnca Semano, Chronology and local mations: the Representations of Power andthe Royal name in the Late Predyastic Perio, in: Archéo-Nil 12, 205, in pes 1W. Kaiser, Fnige Bemerkungen zur dgypischen Frit, ZAS 91,1964, 86-125 Sd, Zur Raischung des gesamtigyps en Sates, MDAIK 46,1990, 287-299 LAD. Moen, Bild-Buchsiaben und symbolische Zechen. Die Hereusildung der Sehr in der oben Kultur Altgyptens,Frbourg/Gattingen, 2008 F Rall, Early Dynastic Rept (niet it) hp oumar iciliaiancetcoral! Si, La fin de la période pré-dynastique etl Dynastic 0, TM 1, 2001, 20-28; TM 2, 2002, 26-28; 1M 3, 26.28 ‘Ad. Spencer (el), Aspects of Early Hyp, London 1996 4. Vercouter, LEaypte ta vllé Nil, ol, Paris 1992 S. Vinci a Nascita dello stato nell Amico Epi: La Dinastia "Zor", Bologna 2002 ‘TAL, Wilkinson, Faly Dyastc Egypt, Londoa/New York 1999 Id. Potties Unification: towards a reconstuction. MBAIK 56, 2000. 377-395,TABLE 2 - Nagada L-early Ile Chronology ‘Text © Francesco Raffaele, 2002 Images © of the respective authors Period - years Phase (Kaiser) Tombs - objects types- Rulers Palettes “Abydos tomb U-239 Amratian ada labe, Ila Hicrakonpolis Loc. 6, tombs 3, 6 Early shomboidal palettes, (€. 3900) Nagada labe, I B., P-, C-class pottery lundecorated or with incised drawings| Gebelein painted textile (Turin Museum) Irrom rhomboidal shapes to fusiform, Decorated Pottery (D-class) Nagada lle Sede wonbe 140174 ith ereno an anna ed on G D Wavy handled pottery (Weclass) jerzean Hiierakonpolis tomb 100 ‘oomorphous palette: (e300) fy Brooklyo, Camarvon knife handles (Nagada | ¢qcpomermnes Pe lic-lllay _, i) Naadantett2 | orn zsian cao cin en arch pete s ‘knife-hanal, dates early Nagada Nn role as T |Abydos t U-g, U-547; knife handle int. U-503 fin palette | and fragments from U-127 ° Hicrakonpolis Loc. 6, tomb 11 Louvre palette G) Nagada ttat,2 Abydos U-cemetery kings (cf. TABLE 1) Oxford palette ‘Abydos tomb U-j (Seorpion 12) Hunters palette sate Ped Seyala tomb 137-1; Qustul tomb L24 ic Predynas Horizon A 3300) Anonymous Serekhs, Double Falcon, Metropolitan Mus. palette NX} Nagada tb Ny-Hor, Pe-Hor, Hat-Hor, Hedj-Hor; (Iry- | Battlefield (Valtures) palette N Hor) Bull palette ‘ Gebel Sheikh Suleiman graffito Tehenu palette : Hierakonpolis Loe. 6, tomb 10 Plover palete iY Horizon B Narmer Palette Protodynastie Nagada utbaver | Tae Crocodile ik?) Scorpion (ID), Abyéo:| (end of Narme’s reign ¢.3000) (©3150-3000) |g) Neaada ttb2/c iy Hor, Ka, Narmer Hicrakonpotis Loc. 6, tomb | MAIN PAGE