The readings for this week give a detailed progression of growth in predynastic Egypt to the first and second dynasty. There is also mention of the third dynasty when it comes to the details of specific areas, like that of Elephantine becoming a fortified city. Including these future or forward glances of the culmination of what the different polities become as unified piece is very interesting. To start with a small plot of land containing a basic house and then to grow into a administrative center, then a fortress, then a city that would eventually become the southern border of the state. This shows a mass adaptation for the different polities for them to ultimately become a unified state that we come to know as Egypt. With in these mass adaptations the growth of a political head is described through the mortuary practices and evolving interactions of kinships settling together and assimilating in an area. We can be certain of these connections due to the idea of Horus. Many polities and political heads have various forms of Horus in their tombs signifying that they were the rulers of their area.This displays the sharing of culture and religion among the societies and allowing one another to slowly assimilate together.
As the state expanded, we also see a growth in mortuary customs for the elite. The tombs become larger, containing more valuable possessions, like pottery, animals, statues, etc… We also see evidence of written language and hieroglyphs stating who the person was and their position within the elite. Whether they were of royal blood and the ruling family or maybe someone in a high position working for the leading family. Where as lower class individuals, who were craftsmen, farmers, etc… are buried in mass graves or tiny family graves with no written record and very few items in general or of value or if any at all. These small details are interesting to me because it segways a almost natural and wholly accepted process of defining head of state and the territory of state itself. Through the later adapted processes of mortuary rituals we are able to learn so much about the unified state of Egypt and just before in Dynasty 0. In these readings I found a lot of information that peaked my interest but what I found most interesting is that Koehler mentions the fact that when it comes to earlier time frames there is not much archaeological evidence to tell a complete story of origin and developments. She states that this matter is still strongly discussed throughout the field.
I like how you brought the study of mortuary practices in to your blog post. It is such a huge part of history and how historians have been able to understand a group of people and determine time lines and culture. Egypt is no exception. Egypt is a massive shrine to the dead — the importance of the afterlife is reflected all over the nation.
Your comments on how social hierarchy can be determined through analyzing a person’s grave is very interesting. In fact, I wrote about this in my blog post. I believe that in Egypt, this is quite accurate. Pyramids, temples, and/or massive statues were built as burials for some of the highest members of society – pharaohs, for example.
However, it is important to note that social hierarchy cannot always be assumed from graves. Bard challenged that the specific culture and religious beliefs of a region need to be taken into account before assuming wealth or status from grave goods (or the lack of grave goods). In some cultures, material goods are not as important. Therefore, in some places, finding a grave of a person who had little to no items in their grave would not necessarily mean that they were the lowest level of society. This is why it is important that when excavating and evaluating archaeological sites that historians (hopefully) have a way of determining culture and some beliefs before jumping to conclusions. However, I know that this is not always possible.
In Egypt though is has been proven that grave goods and mortuary practices can determine wealth and social status.