Rev_State Formation in Egypt_Chronology and Society_TOBY a. H. WILKINSON_Hendrickx_1999_JEA

8/22/2019 Rev_State Formation in Egypt_Chronology and Society_TOBY a. H. WILKINSON_Hendrickx_1999_JEA

1/5

241

REVIEWSState Formation in Egypt. Chronology and Society. By TOBY A. H. WILKINSON. CambridgeMonographs in African Archaeology 40, British Archaeological Reports International Series651. 210 x 296 mm. Pp. v + 122, figs. 18, diagrams in text, and 58 unnumbered pages ofdrawings. Oxford, Tempus Reparatum, 1996. ISBN 0 86054 838 4. Price ?32.

This book is a revised and updated version of Wilkinson's doctoral dissertation, presented in1993 at the University of Cambridge. The general aim of the work is to investigate the formationof the Egyptian state through the published archaeological data.In his first section, Wilkinson discusses the recent evidence concerning cultural developmentand state formation in Egypt, and provides an overview of present knowledge on the chronology ofthe Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods. With regard to cultural development, the emphasis is,of course, placed on the increased information on Lower Egypt which has become available duringrecent years. This is then used for a summary of current ideas concerning the relationship betweenUpper and Lower Egypt. It is, however, very difficult to judge the value of this summary, becauseit is apparently strongly influenced by the doctoral dissertation of Christiana Kohler (Tellel-Fara'in-Buto: Die Keramikder SchichtenIII bis VI. Untersuchungen ur Topfereiproduktioninerfriihen Siedlung des Nildeltas, Heidelberg, 1993).1 Kohler's notion that the predynastic cultureconsisted of three regional variants of a single cultural tradition (E. C. Kohler, GM 147 (1995),79-92), is, however, not seriously criticised in the light of Kaiser's objections (GM 149 (1995),5-11). The summary of the political development is less problematic. The emergence of localelites, and consequently of developing kingship, can be seen at several sites from late Naqada Itimes onwards. In this respect, the most fundamental recent information comes from cemetery Uat Abydos, showing a local development of rulership, which ultimately gained control over thewhole country.With regard to the chronology of Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, Wilkinson focusesmainly on the Naqada III Period, which, of course, is of fundamental importance for understand-ing the origin of the Egyptian state. The historical development of the relative chronology ispresented in a very clear manner, indicating both the merits and the weak points of the studies byPetrie, Kantor, Kaiser, Kemp and Hendrickx.2 In his overview of the political chronology of thelate Predynastic to Early Dynastic transition, Wilkinson discusses the reading of the early royalnames. He rightly states that the period of unification seems to have been relatively short, and thatthis is one of the reasons why one should be cautious about adding new kings on limited evidence.However, his rejection of Iry-Hor is not supported by the archaeological data. Although thereading of the name can indeed be questioned, there seems to be no doubt about the existence ofthis king or his chronological position. Indeed, the location of tomb B 1-2 clearly indicates theroyal status of its owner and the sequence Iry-Hor - Ka - Narmer. This sequence is alsoconfirmed by the pottery from these tombs. Contrary to Wilkinson's opinion (p. 13), there is noevidence that serekhswere used for writing royal names prior to Iry-Hor. It seems obvious that theserekhdeveloped as an independent symbol, as is shown by the examples from tomb U-s at Abydos(G. Dreyer, MDAIK 46 (1990), fig. 3 a-b), referring to the 'royal palace' and only afterwards wascombined with the royal name. That being the case, Iry-Hor would have been the last king whosename was not written in a serekh.The first part of the work concludes with the correlation between the relative and absolutechronology on the one hand, and the cultural and political sequence on the other.1Recently published as E. C. Kohler, Tell el-Fara'in-Buto III. Die Keramikvon der spdtenNagada-Kulturbis zumfriihen Alten Reich (Schicten III bis VI) (AV 94; Mainz, 1998).2 The missing correspondence between the cultural phases and kings' reigns during Dynasties 0 and 1,mentioned by Wilkinson, has since been published: S. Hendrickx, 'The Relative Chronology of the NaqadaCulture: Problems and Possibilities', in A. J. Spencer, (ed.), Aspects of Early Egypt, (London, 1996), 36-69.


2/5

242 REVIEWS JEA 85The core of the study is the seriation of seven cemeteries representing different types ofcommunities in various regions along the Egyptian Nile Valley. The second part of the workdiscusses the techniques used for these seriations. After presenting an overview of the possibilitiesof the seriation technique, the author tackles the difficult problem of the Predynastic and Early

Dynastic pottery typologies, defined originally by W. M. E Petrie. In recent years, it has beenstated repeatedly that the study of the cemeteries of the Naqada culture is seriously hampered bythe fact that nearly all of the relevant sites were excavated before the Second World War, andconsequently published according to the standards of that time. After presenting the manyproblems arising from the definition and the utilisation of Petrie's typologies, Wilkinson rightlyconcludes that types should be grouped. The difficulty here is to determine to what extent this canbe done. Wilkinson reduces Petrie's original 1420 pottery types to 141 new types. This approach,of course, carries the risk of producing strongly heterogeneous 'types', and as the author himselfadmits, some of his categories 'bring together types with broad similarities but some significantdifferences' (p. 23). Here, indeed, lies the main problem with the work under discussion. Anexamination of the plates which illustrate the manner in which Petrie's types have been regroupedreveals problems with nearly every one of the newly defined types, especially in the case of theplates, cups and bowls (P 001, P 004, P 033, P 034 etc.). It is impossible to list all of theseproblems in this review. Evidently, when defining his types, the author had little experience withthe actual objects. Among the most notable difficulties is the grouping of Nile silt and marl claybowls and even the very characteristic Nile silt bread moulds in the types P 094, P 095 and P 103.One can also question the validity of distinguishing two types of wine jars (P 107 and P 108) bythe broadness of their shoulders, while very distinctive elements such as the applied ridges and thewavy decorations are completely ignored. It should be noted that type P 044 is defined in acompletely different manner from the other groups because it brings together all the WhiteCross-line ware. Furthermore, it is difficult to understand why in type P 052 cylindrical jars bothwith and without incised decoration have been grouped. This is all the more disturbing becausethe author should have been aware that this element has been used as a chronological indicator byKaiser (Archaeologia Geographica6 (1957), 69-77; MDAIK 46 (1990), 287-99) for the develop-ment of his Stufen chronology. The same applies to type P 069, where the smaller types R 84 andR 84 a, characteristic of Kaiser's Stufe IId2, are grouped with the broader types such as R 84 e,characteristic of Stufe lIc. It is obvious that Wilkinson's method of grouping Petrie's types makesit impossible to arriveat the same results as those which Kaiser obtained for his Stufen chronology.Another disturbing factor is that the reader is not made aware of the relative frequency ofPetrie's original types within the newly defined groupings. It is, for example, obvious that type P070 is quantitatively completely dominated by R 81, which is the most frequently occurringPredynastic type of pot, while the remaining Petrie types grouped as P 070 only occur occasionally.The inevitable conclusion is that when Petrie's types are grouped into only 141 new categories,these become heterogeneous to a degree no longer consistent with the concept 'type'. While thisdoes not render Wilkinson's seriations totally meaningless, the many anomlies involved introduce adisturbing element of uncertainty into the results. The author is fully aware of the problemsassociated with his typology, but the manner in which the grouping of Petrie types is defended byreference to the results of the seriation is methodologically unsound. Furthermore, it should benoted that only pottery vessels have been used for seriation. Stone vessels, which becomeincreasingly important towards the end of the Naqada III Period, are not included, and neither arepalettes which are quite numerous throughout the Naqada Period.The discussion of the techniques used concludes with a very well-documented overview of thestatistical analysis of early Egyptian mortuary data.The third part of the work deals with the actual seriations. Details can be found in threeappendices, where all the data employed are presented in a very thorough manner. The cemeterieschosen have been selected mainly because they cover the period of state formation and aredistributed throughout Egypt, with the notable exception of the Delta, for which no cemetery hasyet been published completely. For Lower Egypt, which is here restricted to the Memphis area,the cemeteries at Turah and Tarkhan are included, and for Middle Egypt three cemeteries atMatmar and one at Mostagedda. These cemeteries do indeed offer the greatest potential for


3/5

1999 REVIEWS 243analysis, but it is unclear why the Tarkhan Valley Cemetery, which is far better published than theHill cemeteries of the same site, is not used for seriation. For Upper Egypt, the cemeteries atMahasna and Armant and the Hierakonpolis Fort Cemetery have been chosen. Although thisselection is defensible, one wonders why cemetery E at Abydos or the cemetery at Salmany nearAbydos is not included. As control seriations, the cemetery of Turah is used again, but this timeusing Junker's original typology and Petrie's equivalent types, and the Naqada III cemetery atElkab.Whenever possible, the result of the seriations has also been plotted on a plan of the cemetery, tofacilitate discussion of the chronological development of the cemeteries involved. It remains,however, a basic problem that the horizontal distribution of graves and pottery types is not used asa source of information, but only as a method of control.It is impossible to discuss each of the seriations individually. Therefore only a few strikingphenomena will be mentioned here. Particular attention will be given to those cemeteries for whicha plan has been published, and which therefore permit one to compare the results of the seriationwith the horizontal distribution patterns.For the Turah seriation, it is noteworthy that two very heterogeneous types have been used forthe delimitation of both phase I (types P 105 and P 125) and phase II (types P 94, P 99 and P 115).The horizontal distribution of the different types of cylindrical jars shows a particularlyclear chronological pattern at this site (W. Kaiser, ZAS 91 (1964), 107-9; Hendrickx, Aspects ofEarly Egypt, 59, fig. 2), as can also be seen though in a less explicit manner, when the result ofWilkinson's seriation is plotted on the cemetery plan (fig. 5). The possibility of comparing theseriation with the horizontal distribution patterns offered by the Tarkhan Hill cemeteries is clearlyvery limited. Wilkinson's conclusions seem to overestimate the potential of the evidence in seekingchronological developments spanning several generations on the basis of a very few graves in eachof these small cemeteries.The control seriations for Turah, using respectively Junker's and Petrie's typologies, aimprincipally at evaluating the effect of the grouping of types, a point of great concern throughoutthe whole of Wilkinson's work. The fact that both seriations show strong similarities is obviouslyto be expected because Petrie's reworking of Junker's typology is actually hardly anything morethan a renaming.I made a particularly close examination of the seriations for the Elkab cemetery, because theydeal with my own work. First, Wilkinson seriates the cemetery according to his own typology, andcompares the result with the chronology proposed by me. Because he does not include the stonevessels (over 10 per cent of the vessels at Elkab), which are especially characteristic for the mostrecent group of tombs (Naqada IIID), this group disappears completely from Wilkinson's study.For the remaining group, Wilkinson regards the result as 'very encouraging', which seemssomewhat exaggerated. Indeed, although the seriation groups certainly show a progression fromearlier to later dates when compared with the chronology proposed in the original publication,there is also a confusion between the first two groups distinguished by Wilkinson and the tombsattributed by me to Naqada IIIA1 and IIIA2.

The Elkab cemetery is then seriated using the typology according to which it was published.3When this is compared with the original seriation, there seems to be very little correspondence. Asa further test, the results of this second seriation are compared with the chronology originallyproposed. The resulting correspondance is less close than was the case for the first seriation. Fromthis, Wilkinson concludes that 'seriation of Elkab employing some grouping of pottery typesyielded a chronologically more accurate result than seriation conducted without such grouping'.This is certainly so at first sight, but there are several problems involved. In general, the two largegroups, attributed respectively to Naqada IIIA1 and IIIA2, stand out far more clearly than inWilkinson's original seriation, but they are separated by a group of burials among which are allfour tombs attributed to Naqada IIIB and three tombs for both Naqada IIIA1 and IIIB. This3An analytical ypology largely ollowingthe methodused by H. A. Nordstr6m,NeolithicandA-GroupSites (SJE 3; Copenhagen, 1972), and R. Holthoer, New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites. The Pottery (SJE 5:1;Stockholm, 1977).


4/5

244 REVIEWS JEA 85chronologically invalid order is clearly the result of the limited number of tombs at the Elkabcemetery combined with the fact that there are two tombs (93 and, especially, 85) containing anexceptionally large number of objects. These tombs can be easily distinguished chronologicallythrough their cylindrical jars, but they also contain a number of identical pottery types. Because ofthis, the seriation creates a middle group for reasons which have only limited chronologicalrelevance. A minor detail is that the two most recent tombs (76 and 77, dating to Naqada IIIC1)show up at the very beginning of the seriation, making them among the oldest in the cemetery.This is simply the result of the fact that the most characteristic vessel types have not been includedbecause they are unique types (the cylindrical jar M 248 for tomb 77, the cylindrical beaker M 226,and the restricted beakers M 218 and M 224 for tomb 76) or stone vessels (among others theremarkable stone cylindrical jar M 229 for tomb 76). The fact that these two tombs occur in theseriation matrix among tombs from which they should be distinguished on the evidence of theirburial goods, illustrates one of the weak points of seriation. Furthermore, it is illogical that theoriginal chronological attribution of the tombs at Elkab is used as the 'ideal' chronology, withwhich the author's seriations are compared, but is at the same time criticised.In conclusion, Wilkinson's seriations do confirm the existing view of the chronologicaldevelopment of the Naqada culture, but the picture is blurred by the heterogeneity by whichPetrie's types have been grouped. It is therefore possible to agree with Wilkinson's statement (p.59): 'Grouping of pottery types undoubtedly causes a certain loss of detail in the seriation result.But the efficacy of the seriation procedure for identifying broad cultural/ chronological phases isnot impaired'.

Among the chronological implications presented by Wilkinson, the warning that great cautionshould be exercised in using pottery to date graves to individual reigns of late Predynastic or EarlyDynastic kings is certainly valid. Particular attention is paid to the dating of Turah, because theearliest tombs in that cemetery were used as evidence by Kaiser for dating the unification of Egyptabout 150 years before the reign of Narmer. Wilkinson convincingly demonstrates that thecemetery at Turah probably came into use only a few decades before the time of Narmer.Obviously this does not rule out Kaiser's suggestion, which can be substantiated by, for example,the earlier date at which the Tarkhan cemetery came in to use, and especially by the recent finds atAbydos.Part 4 deals with the socio-economic effects of state formation. Here Wilkinson links hischronological framework with two socio-economic elements, namely grave size, expressed insquare metres, and grave wealth, expressed by the number of pots in the graves. With respect tothe latter, it is particularly disturbing that the stone vessels have not been included. Neverthe-less, the chronological phases distinguished for each cemetery are broad enough to contain asufficient number of tombs to justify this kind of investigation. Possible trends of socio-economic evolution are discussed for each of the seriated cemeteries. The individual sites showvaried patterns of development. As a general observation, however, the mid-Naqada II Periodseems to be characterised by increasing social stratification. By the end of the PredynasticPeriod, the importance of most communities in Middle and Upper Egypt declined, with theexception of the main centres at Abydos and Hierakonpolis. This, of course, illustrates theincreasing importance of regional states focused on those sites, and originally also at Naqada.Evidence from elite tombs not included in the seriations confirms the drastic impact of stateformation at several sites.

The socio-economic changes related to state formation recognised in the mortuary evidence areconsidered by the author in the light of changes in settlement patterns. A number of smallcommunities seem to have disappeared, as is illustrated by the abandonment of small living sitesand a number of cemeteries during the early Naqada III Period, while at the same time largersettlements became increasing important. These developed urban characteristics, which once againcan easily be associated with state formation.In his concluding remarks, Wilkinson rightly stresses the importance of local factors, such asagricultural productivity or access to resources, for early state formation. By the beginning of theEarly Dynastic Period, differences in regional developments had ended the uniform socio-economic development which had been characteristic for Predynastic times.


5/5

1999 REVIEWS 245In a final part of the study, the author discusses briefly the impact of state formation on theDelta. At Buto and Tell Ibrahim Awad, changes in architecture occur at the beginning of the

Naqada III Period, while at about the same moment, changes in burial practices are attested atMinshat Abu Omar. This, together with the replacement of the Lower Egyptian ceramictechnology by the superior Upper Egyptian pottery, reflects the integration of the Delta into aunited Egypt. The main motivation for the Upper Egyptian policy may well have been the wishfor direct access to prestige commodities, such as wine and oils from Syria-Palestine.

Despite the problems arising from the seriations, Wilkinson presents stimulating ideas whichprovide a basis for further investigations into the motives and consequences of state formation inEgypt. The discussion of the socio-economic dynamics of Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egyptis particularly relevant in this respect.

STAN HENDRICKX

Chronologie des pharaonischenAgypten. Die Zeitbestimmungder dgyptischen Geschichte von derVorzeit bis 332 v. Chr. By JURGEN VON BECKERATH. Munchner Agyptologische Studien, Band46. 302 x 213 mm. Pp. xix + 244, figs. 20, pls. 8. Mainz, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1997. ISBN3 8053 2310 7. Price not stated.Establishing an accurate chronology for the history of ancient Egypt through three millenniadown to Graeco-Roman times remains a perennial challenge, especially as new data and newmethods of interpreting data emerge. No detailed modern monograph au fait with Egyptian andrelevant Near Eastern data has appeared since the long-gone days of Meyer or Borchardt, andtherefore this new book bids fair to fill the gap in good measure. The author finished his work inmid-1995, hence he could not know of, or take account of, works issued in the three to four years

elapsed since that date. An altogether briefer overall survey by this reviewer (mainly up-to-date to1996/97) was issued in mid-1997 (as 'The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a CurrentAssessment', in G. Randsborg (ed.), Absolute Chronology, Archaeological Europe 2500-500 BC,Acta Archaeologica Supplementa, I (Copenhagen 1996 [1997]), 1-13, appearing simultaneously asActa Archaeologica 67 (1996 [1997]), 1-13). Likewise, there appeared in 1996 the revised update ofthe second edition of my Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 BC); both works are moreup-to-date than von Beckerath's in certain particulars, while the new work (1997) by Ryholt citedbelow brings some drastic new advances in our understanding of the Turin Papyrus of Kings; cf.also remarks on that document (covering Helck, von Beckerath, Ryholt and others) in K. A.Kitchen, RamessideInscriptions, Translated and Annotated: Notes & Comments,II (Oxford 1999),53-48, ??993-1010c, Section 288. Such is the unending flow of work in this field.This present book falls into three main divisions. Part I (pp. 3-76) surveys Egyptian modes oftime-reckoning and the calendar, then the nature and extent of the direct, written sources forEgyptian chronology (Turin king-list, other tabulations of kings, private biographies and genealo-gies, Manetho and other classical data). Then it considers possible astronomical data (Sothic,lunar, seasonal dates), and Carbon-14, before turning to synchronisms with foreign states,returning finally to jubilees, co-regencies and Apis-burials. Part II (pp. 79-184) is the heart of thework. Here, von B. deals with all the successive periods of Egyptian history - and in the onlysound and solid way, i.e., by moving backwards from the solid base of the Saite and PersianPeriods (664-332 BC) into earlier epochs to just before the First Dynasty. Part III (pp. 187-231,plus indexes, pp. 232-44) consists of a long series of 15 Appendices (A to 0) covering variousitems of detail, and beginning with his suggested Tables of Dates for dynasties and kings (SectionA), tables to turn Julian into Gregorian dates and to show the Egyptian civil calendar's progressthrough the sequence of Julian years (B, C), and accession-dates of New Kingdom rulers (D).Then comes another reconstruction of the Palermo Stone annals, a translation of the Turinking-list, drawings of the sets of kings' names at Medinet Habu, Abydos (Sethos I), Saqqara(Tjunuroy), and on 0. Cairo CG 25646, and the versions of Manetho in translation (E to K).

1999 REVIEWS 245In a final part of the study, the author discusses briefly the impact of state formation on theDelta. At Buto and Tell Ibrahim Awad, changes in architecture occur at the beginning of the

Naqada III Period, while at about the same moment, changes in burial practices are attested atMinshat Abu Omar. This, together with the replacement of the Lower Egyptian ceramictechnology by the superior Upper Egyptian pottery, reflects the integration of the Delta into aunited Egypt. The main motivation for the Upper Egyptian policy may well have been the wishfor direct access to prestige commodities, such as wine and oils from Syria-Palestine.

Despite the problems arising from the seriations, Wilkinson presents stimulating ideas whichprovide a basis for further investigations into the motives and consequences of state formation inEgypt. The discussion of the socio-economic dynamics of Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egyptis particularly relevant in this respect.

STAN HENDRICKX

Chronologie des pharaonischenAgypten. Die Zeitbestimmungder dgyptischen Geschichte von derVorzeit bis 332 v. Chr. By JURGEN VON BECKERATH. Munchner Agyptologische Studien, Band46. 302 x 213 mm. Pp. xix + 244, figs. 20, pls. 8. Mainz, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1997. ISBN3 8053 2310 7. Price not stated.Establishing an accurate chronology for the history of ancient Egypt through three millenniadown to Graeco-Roman times remains a perennial challenge, especially as new data and newmethods of interpreting data emerge. No detailed modern monograph au fait with Egyptian andrelevant Near Eastern data has appeared since the long-gone days of Meyer or Borchardt, andtherefore this new book bids fair to fill the gap in good measure. The author finished his work inmid-1995, hence he could not know of, or take account of, works issued in the three to four years

elapsed since that date. An altogether briefer overall survey by this reviewer (mainly up-to-date to1996/97) was issued in mid-1997 (as 'The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a CurrentAssessment', in G. Randsborg (ed.), Absolute Chronology, Archaeological Europe 2500-500 BC,Acta Archaeologica Supplementa, I (Copenhagen 1996 [1997]), 1-13, appearing simultaneously asActa Archaeologica 67 (1996 [1997]), 1-13). Likewise, there appeared in 1996 the revised update ofthe second edition of my Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 BC); both works are moreup-to-date than von Beckerath's in certain particulars, while the new work (1997) by Ryholt citedbelow brings some drastic new advances in our understanding of the Turin Papyrus of Kings; cf.also remarks on that document (covering Helck, von Beckerath, Ryholt and others) in K. A.Kitchen, RamessideInscriptions, Translated and Annotated: Notes & Comments,II (Oxford 1999),53-48, ??993-1010c, Section 288. Such is the unending flow of work in this field.This present book falls into three main divisions. Part I (pp. 3-76) surveys Egyptian modes oftime-reckoning and the calendar, then the nature and extent of the direct, written sources forEgyptian chronology (Turin king-list, other tabulations of kings, private biographies and genealo-gies, Manetho and other classical data). Then it considers possible astronomical data (Sothic,lunar, seasonal dates), and Carbon-14, before turning to synchronisms with foreign states,returning finally to jubilees, co-regencies and Apis-burials. Part II (pp. 79-184) is the heart of thework. Here, von B. deals with all the successive periods of Egyptian history - and in the onlysound and solid way, i.e., by moving backwards from the solid base of the Saite and PersianPeriods (664-332 BC) into earlier epochs to just before the First Dynasty. Part III (pp. 187-231,plus indexes, pp. 232-44) consists of a long series of 15 Appendices (A to 0) covering variousitems of detail, and beginning with his suggested Tables of Dates for dynasties and kings (SectionA), tables to turn Julian into Gregorian dates and to show the Egyptian civil calendar's progressthrough the sequence of Julian years (B, C), and accession-dates of New Kingdom rulers (D).Then comes another reconstruction of the Palermo Stone annals, a translation of the Turinking-list, drawings of the sets of kings' names at Medinet Habu, Abydos (Sethos I), Saqqara(Tjunuroy), and on 0. Cairo CG 25646, and the versions of Manetho in translation (E to K).

Rev_State Formation in Egypt_Chronology and Society_TOBY a. H. WILKINSON_Hendrickx_1999_JEA

Documents