for a new inundation by July. The cycles of the river and the crops were in perfect harmony. The only concern was the height of the flood, which dictated how much land received water. The ideal flood was somewhat more than 8 meters above the lowest river level. If the river rose too much, villages and farms would be submerged; if it rose too little, not enough land would be irrigated.
People could help the river by leading water in canals and building dykes around fields in order to regulate when the water reached the crops. Some of the earliest representations of kings from around 3000 may show such work (Figure 1.8), but they do not constitute major projects to extend agricultural zones substantially. Artificial irrigation that used canals and basins to store and guide the water into areas that the river could not reach only appeared later in Egyptian history, and scholars debate when exactly it started. Probably the increased aridity in the later 3rd millennium pushed people into controlling the water more. Most important was the management of water in the Fayyum depression; during the Middle Kingdom and especially in Greek and Roman times, the state dug extensive canals to drain excess water and lead it to otherwise infertile sectors. Irrigation practices throughout Egypt basically remained the same for most of ancient history until the Romans introduced the waterwheel.
Figure 1.8 A 25‐cm‐high ceremonial mace head carved in limestone depicts a king, identified as Scorpion by the sign in front of his face, apparently digging an irrigation canal with a hoe, surrounded by attendants. On top of the image are standards that symbolize various regions of Egypt, with its inhabitants symbolized by birds dangling from a noose as a sign of subjection. The object dates to ca. 3000 bc and was excavated in Hierakonpolis. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Drawing by Richard Parkinson.
Source: Almendron
Naqada I and II periods
The most extensive remains of the 4th millennium are cemeteries, including a massive one with some 3000 tombs at the site of Naqada in Upper Egypt. This site gave its name to the archaeological culture that characterizes the last centuries of Egyptian prehistory. Scholars subdivide the Naqada period into I (3800–3550), II (3550–3200), and III (3200–2900), with further subdivisions (IIIA, IIIB, etc.) to acknowledge changes in the material culture. The changes were gradual and the period divisions do not necessarily reflect major cultural differences. The archaeological periodization is thus a chronological framework within which historical processes need to be situated, not a principle by which to understand the processes.
The earliest Naqada burials show the beginnings of later Egyptian practices. The dead are facing west and gifts are set beside them. The manner of burial and the quality and quantity of grave goods demonstrate the changes in Egyptian society best. At first corpses were just placed in shallow pits, but over time the treatment of some bodies became much more elaborate. In Naqada II the first evidence of wrapping them with linen appears, which would ultimately lead to full mummification by the 4th dynasty. Tomb structures came to signal social distinction. While the majority of people remained buried in simple pits, some tombs became large and complex and after 3200 would develop into major constructions with multiple chambers and, for some, a superstructure that marked them clearly in the landscape. The larger tombs were surrounded by smaller and simpler ones, probably in which to bury people who had served the central tomb’s owner in life. The grave goods accompanying the dead most clearly show how people’s wealth started to differ substantially. While the majority received a few pots, next to the bodies of some individuals were placed objects such as stone mace heads and palettes (flat slabs seemingly used to mix cosmetic paints) carved in the shapes of birds and animals. The distinctions between burials increased over time, which must reflect differences in wealth and status of the living. These processes of social differentiation would culminate in late prehistory and lead to the development of the Egyptian state.
While Naqada I was a regional culture, Naqada II remains appeared throughout Upper Egypt. It is clear that larger settlements existed near the cemeteries, and those at Naqada, Hierakonpolis, and Abydos were the most prominent. One tomb in Hierakonpolis, tomb 100, was especially impressive because of its painted wall decoration, which displayed boats, animals, and fighting men. A man is depicted holding two lions with his bare hands, an artistic motif that scholars interpret as a sign that the buried person was a leader of the community. Archaeological assemblages show that the inhabitants of the Delta still adhered to a different culture, which we call Ma’adi, although they exchanged goods with Upper Egypt. They had close contacts with Palestine and imported copper from there as well as highly prized goods from farther afield, such as lapis lazuli from Afghanistan. They traded some of these commodities on to Upper Egypt.
Special Topic 1.2 Egyptian city names
Thebes, Hierakonpolis, Memphis … We do not refer to cities with their ancient Egyptian names, but mostly with Greek designations. The Greeks used several ways to formulate the names of places in Egypt. When a city was most famous as the center of worship of an Egyptian god, they regularly named it after a manifestation of that god, often the animal form. Hierakonpolis meant “the city of the falcon” because it was a cult center of the god Horus, who was represented as a falcon. The Egyptian name was Nekhen. Heliopolis was “the city of the sun,” after the sun god; its Egyptian name was Iunu.
The Greeks could base their names on ancient Egyptian designations of an entire city or an important structure within it, and they tried to imitate the original sound. Such names sometimes replicated those of cities in Greece itself. Egyptian Abedju became Abydos, a city name also found in northern Greece. Memphis, the city near the pyramids in the north, derived its name from Mennufer, King Pepy I’s pyramid at Saqqara (a modern Arabic name that derives from Sokar, the god of the necropolis). In late Egyptian language Mennufer became Memfe, which the Greeks rendered as Memphis. The Egyptians also referred to the city as Ankh‐tawy, “The Life of the Two Lands,” because of its location at the junction of Upper and Lower Egypt.
At times, we do not know why the Greeks choose a name. The Egyptians called the religious center of the Middle and New Kingdoms Waset. The Greeks referred to the place as Thebes, which is also the name of one of the most important cities in central Greece. Although some scholars suggest that the Egyptian name of a district of Waset inspired the Greeks, it is possible that the city’s leading status was at the basis of the selection.
Sometimes we use the modern Arabic designation of a site as the primary name to refer to a place. Thus scholars most often speak of el‐Kab and el‐Amarna, which are the names of archaeological sites that contain the remains of the ancient cities of Nekheb and Akhetaten respectively. The modern Arabic name can contain traces of the ancient Egyptian one. For example, modern Qift derives its name from ancient Egyptian Gebtu, which became Kebto or Keft in Coptic. Other names show what impressed the later inhabitants in the ancient remains. The city Luxor derives its name from Arabic al‐Uqsur, which means “the palaces.”
Our modern designations are thus a mixed bag that we tend to use indiscriminately, and we mostly ignore their source. The ancient Egyptians often tried to indicate what they thought to be a city’s most important characteristic. For example, Naqada was near the city Nubt, which means gold, and it was called so because of its location across the Nile from the entrance of a wadi leading to gold mines. That may explain the area’s wealth in late prehistory, but our modern term conceals that fact.
By 3400 then, all of the elements of later Egyptian culture were in place. People knew how to farm relying on the Nile, they lived in settlements in the valley, and they buried the dead nearby. Their material remains show that Upper and Lower Egypt were distinct and that in Upper Egypt there was increased social differentiation,