The part of the reading that I found to be most interesting this week was the State Formation and Unification section in the second reading.  This section of the reading discusses the unification of Egypt, from the Delta to the First Cataract.  Although, archaeologists are not 100% sure how this unification occurred, it is estimated that it was completed by the late Naqada II or late Naqada III times.  However, it has been determined by evidence found in burial sites that were excavated that Naqada culture expansion northward did take place during the Naqada II times.

Two aspects of the unification of Egypt that I would like to discuss in this blog post are socio-political processes and warfare.  The socio-political process behind the Naqada culture expansion is one aspect of the unification process that can not be explained by the evidence found at burial sites.  It is clear that the “highly differentiated Naqada II graves at cemeteries in Upper Egypt, and not in Lower Egypt, are probably symbolic of an increasingly hierarchical society” (105).  This means that the differentiated Naqada II graves found in cemeteries such as, Cemetery T at Naqada, may be an example of competition between members of this society as a result of the emergence of socio-political processes.

Warfare is thought to have played a significant role in the final stages of Egypt’s unification process. Carved artifacts that have been dated back to the late Predynastic era present scenes of warfare and/or its aftermath.  The most famous of these artifacts is the Narmer Palette, which illustrates a “victorious king, dead enemies, and vanquished peoples or towns” (106).  It is alliance building associated with warfare is what is thought to have assisted in the unification process.  Evidence of alliance building can be seen by the lack of high status burials at Naqada in Naqada III times which suggests that Naqada’s power “waned” which formed some kind of alliance.  In conclusion, archaeological evidence suggests that both socio-political process and warfare played a part in the unification of Egypt.

Learning about the evidence of Political Control has led me to believe that military conquest plays a bigger role in the unification of Egypt then it is portrayed. The carved evidence of scenes of warfare is what sparked my opinion on the matter. The Narmer Pallete scene has various underlying images that show the rulers dominion. The lecture explains how the person in the middle of the front of the Namer Pallette is Namer. I noticed that he is relatively bigger in size than everything and everyone else on the palette showing his power. His name also appears on the palette which highlights that his presence needed to be made known and that he was properly identified.  The fact that he was upraising the mace further showed possible the use of cohesion and military power to overtake the “little people”. I consider them “little people” because the person who Namer is preparing to smite is relatively smaller in size, he is on the ground, and is being held by his head. This image shows the weakness and degradation of the other people. The lecture also explained how his name appeared on other vessels and on goods. This could possibly mean that Namer had capital because the process of trading was gradually increasing; Weather it was the need for his goods or the economic revenue he received from the goods he would have power. Namer is also wearing a crown, and a crown represents his sovereignty. What is very interesting about the Namer Pallet though is that on the front Namers crown represents control only over Upper Egypt, then on the back his crown represents control over Lower Egypt. Was he showing his soon succession over Lower Egypt? Was he already ruling both entities? I believe that depends on the time in which this plallete was created.

This topic comes from “Theories of State Formation”.

This week, one idea that struck me as interesting was the idea of a large urban center spreading out and assimilating smaller polities. The first thing this made me think of was some of the boroughs in New York City that used to be their own city before being consolidated with New York City (Brooklyn). I find it interesting that the same process that happens today (large urban center sprouts up, starts to grow, and eventually “swallows” smaller, surrounding cities) was also happening thousands of years ago. And just like today, where the major city is near a strategically important area (in the case of New York or Los Angeles, a major harbor), so the important points in Ancient Egypt started around important areas (the chapter lists (on page 47) the apex of The Nile Delta, near the Mediterranean coast, near the Fayum, etc.)

Mention is also made of the Abydene polity slowly emerging as the dominant polity during the Predynastic period, first in the south, then in the north. This would seem to suggest that this polity was now absorbing and influencing other polities that might have, until that time, functioned as their own separate polity/city. It is also mentioned that, it was the more elite, non-farmer people who lived in the urban center. This also seems to hearken to our modern day, when so many important and influential people (who aren’t farmers) live in major cities (New York City, Los Angeles, Washington D.C.), and major metropolitan areas.

I guess that this is just one interesting example of how something that we may consider to be a result of our more modern time (or perhaps not) actually had it’s origin in another society, in another time, thousands of years before ours.

The discussion of social stratification, and the archaeological evidence for such stratification, was something that I found especially interesting about this weeks readings and lectures

Most of the archaeological evidence for social stratification comes from the material remains of mortuary practices. Highly differentiated Naqada II graves at cemeteries in Upper Egypt, but not in Lower Egypt, probably symbolize an increasingly hierarchical society. Competition and the aggrandizement of rulers is represented by high-status burials, such as Cemetery T at Naqada, whose graves were even larger, contained more grave goods and had larger, internally divided rooms. Unequal distribution of wealth is also often an indicator of social inequality. This is observable among late Neolithic Badarian burials where a small number of the graves (8 percent) display greater material wealth than the vast majority (92 percent). This difference in wealth distribution suggests an early form of social distinction and a two-tiered society, possibly reflecting inequality in access to resources. When social development in Egypt reached the stage of specialized, full-time craft industries, a redistributive economy, and centralization, high-status elites were now in firm control of the access and distribution of resources. Separation between elites and commoners grew, particularly in the South, where an abundance of well-documented mortuary data shows that elites were clearly distinguished with larger, more architecturally elaborate graves containing large quantities of grave goods, including pottery and stone vessels containing food, drink, tools, weapons, ornaments and personal belongings.

While mortuary evidence and data is useful, I would agree with Kohler’s assessment that the socio-political processes of Naqada expansion is difficult to characterize from evidence that is almost solely mortuary in nature. The limited quantity of archaeological evidence from other aspects of material culture, as well as from different regions of Egypt limits the usefulness of examinations of social and political processes. Even among mortuary data, southern Egypt is overrepresented, limiting successful explanations of social and economic development to that region. Such limitations to the known archaeological record mean that socio-political changes evidenced outside the arena of mortuary custom, or outside the southern region of Egypt, cannot be reliably accounted for.

In order to remedy these problems, Kohler calls for a reexamination of existing evidence from southern Egypt and further exploration of the North. I would suggest reexamination and further exploration of both areas, and I think that something that could be useful is an examination of non-funerary material culture from a framework of investigating socio-political differences. Additionally, perhaps information regarding nutrition could be gained from human remains. Differences in nutrition and in general health may be another way to learn what kinds of differences existed between social strata.

The problem with gaining an understanding of the Predynastic comes from the lack of written records to produce factual knowledge of that time period. We all know that it’s difficult to understand the form and use of objects of prehistoric times because of their lack of abundance and because the user of that time is not present to explain its use.So Anthropologist came up with a method to relatively place culture in a chronological order. Is the Predynastic culture misrepresented or is sequence dating accurately representing the history of that time. Flinders Petrie came up with the sequence dating method which relatively dated material.The lecture led me to discuss how Petrie came up with his method. What Petrie did was ” take pots, grouped, and ordered them in what he PERCIEVED to be in sequence by style; looking at decoration and form” (according to the lecture).

Continue reading →

The aspect of interest that I would like to discuss from this week’s reading is the differences between the Buto-Ma’adi culture in Lower Egypt and the Naqadi culture in Upper Egypt during the Predynastic Period.  Because I am specifically interested cultural anthropology, this aspect of the reading was most fascinating to me.

During the Predynastic Period, the Buto-Ma’adi culture inhabited the prehistoric site of Ma’adi, which is located in a suburb south of Cairo and was considered to be part of Lower Egypt.  After excavations were completed between 1930 and 1953, archaeologists from Cairo University found evidence suggesting some interesting things.  Although the settlement occupied a large area, it was never completely occupied at any one time.

Continue reading →

A few questions or discussion points that came to my mind while I was watching some of the lecture videos were, 1). What causes a people group to move from being a hunting and gathering society to being an agrarian society? 2). Why did they start out as a hunting and gathering society? As far as the first question goes, my theory is, the people groups eventually realized that planting and harvesting food was a more reliable way to sustain themselves than hunting for their food. Plus, harvesting crops is a lot safer than say, trying to kill a wild boar with a bow and arrow or spear. I’d also bet that population size has something to do with the switch.

Continue reading →