I was interested to find out that Upper Egypt pretty much took over lower Egypt. I was interested in how the archeologists figured out the Upper Egypt was the dominant culture in the unification of Egypt. I also learned that there were different crowns for pharohs of upper and lower Egypt. The Narmer tablet showed Narmer wearing the white crown of Upper Egypt on one side and the red crown of Lower Egypt on the other side of the tablet. This showed that he, at least at one time, ruled both Upper and Lower Egypt. He is shown about to kill a man from Lower Egypt on the side where he is wearing the crown from Upper Egypt. This shows that he was from Upper Egypt and was dominating Lower Egypt in his take over.
The unification of Upper and Lower Egypt was not just one of military take over. Before they were united Lower Egypt copied the ceramic style of Upper Egypt and after the unification Upper Egyptian pottery was found in Lower Egypt probably becasue of trade. This made me think that Upper Egypt was more advanced culturally than Lower Egypt was. I wonder why this was? Do you think that Upper Egypt was more involved with trade with other nations and so learned more from them? Or was the pottery not actually more advanced but Lower Egypt was the part that was more taken over in the unification? I know that eventually pharhos came from both Upper and Lower Egypt but did the first Pharohs come from Upper Egypt and this was why Upper Egyptian pottery was found in Lower Egypt. Also,I wonder if Lower Egyptian Potter was found in Upper Egypt? Did the spread of culture go both ways or just from Upper to Lower Egypt? And if it was only one directional, why?
I was also interested in learning of Upper Egypt rule over Lower Egypt. The Narmer depiction of the rulers made me assume that they used cohesive acts to force their culture upon the Lower Egyptians. In my blog I highlighted how Namer was drawn as a man of power. With power he violently controlled the others which is shown when he is holding a person by his head getting ready to strike him and also as he looks upon the captives on the back of the palette. As for the crowns, I asked the question “Was he showing his soon succession over Lower Egypt? Was he already ruling both entities?” I believe he didn’t have complete rule over Lower Egypt because they were not yet unified. I believe he was in the process of overtaking that society and maybe used the palette as a scare tactic to show the people what would happen to them if they did not obey his authority. I also believe Upper Egypt had power because of trade. Trade was becoming a major source for advancing and Upper Egypt rulers names were on certain crafts which means Upper Egypt was gaining capital and power through the exchanging of their goods. Upper Egypt success with trading gave them dominion over Lower Egypt.
The reading that I have been doing for my site report has helped me to learn a few of the reasons that Upper Egypt had a larger amount of power than Lower Egypt in these earlier times. The Nile Valley had everything that was needed to survive. Luxury goods were what created an elite. Possessing luxury goods was what made some people stick out from the rest of the population and gave them power.
Upper Egypt had more settlements located in areas that could trade with Nubia. This means that they had more luxury goods. This increase in luxury goods to the south resulted in more power for Upper Egypt. Lower Egypt only had one major settlement that could trade with areas outside of the Nile Valley and so they were not as flush with these luxury trade goods; therefore they lacked the power.
It is very interesting the way that a little gold and other luxury goods can change the course of history for the region; and perhaps in the long run, the world. Once Upper Egypt had the luxury goods, Lower Egypt relied on them for things that they could not get from the Sinai Peninsula and slowly, the south gained more and more power over the north.
~Cristina M. Cao