Egypt

World Prehistory: Class 12

The emergence of civilization in Egypt

Egypt: The setting

The Nile flows NORTH (up on the map)

Water flows downhill, towards the Mediterranean Sea
so the UPPER Nile is to the SOUTH
and the LOWER Nile is to the NORTH

In the Upper Nile, most of the habitable land is in the narrow floodplain of the river

only 2 to 22 km wide; 3 km wide is typical
but some 1,500 km (900 miles) long!
this tended to keep settlements small, since not much land is available to a settlement at any given point

north of Cairo, the valley suddenly opens up into a wide, triangular, green delta: the Lower Nile, or Nile Delta

criss-crossed by shallow waterways
geographically, ecologically, and culturally distinct from the narrow Upper Nile

In general, the natural resources along the Nile are plentiful

settlements along the Nile did not lack basic resources the way Mesopotamian sites did

Nile provides easy transportation

you can drift north (downriver) with the current
and sail south (upriver) with the reliable prevailing wind
since the valley is so narrow, everyone lives right on the freeway...

or in the Delta, they live essentially on a network of travel routes

facilitates cultural uniformity and political unity

Almost no rainfall - all agriculture depends on river water
the Nile flooded regularly, every year

the floods were convenient for farmers

they covered the farmland with fertile silt
farmers planted in the mud as the water recedes
and kept the fields wet with small-scale systems of ditches, levees, retaining ponds, and shadufs (a simple counterweighted lever for lifting potfuls of water a few feet)

there was no point in building big canal or levee systems

natural flooding plus simple systems were adequate for the entire valley floor, and irrigating outside the entrenched valley was effectively impossible
any big canal or levee project would soon enough be destroyed by a high flood, anyway
so agricultural infrastructure was relatively small-scale

Sources of information:

Archaeological evidence is skewed towards cemeteries

due to obvious monuments and incredible preservation of cool stuff
also due to where cemeteries and towns are located

cemeteries are located in dry, elevated desert outside the valley floor
towns were mostly in or near the floodplain

now often buried under silt and below the water table
often disturbed by millennia of people living on the same spot, digging, rebuilding, etc.

this means we don't know as much about towns, cities, administration as we would like

Written records provide a chronological framework starting very early

initially mostly lists of kings with a few significant events in each reign

carved on monuments, in temples, on papyrus historical or literary documents, etc.
example: the Palermo stone; we have a fragment that lists kings of the 1^st and 2^nd dynasties

but these don't say much about life and society until later periods
unlike Mesopotamia, where early documents are accounting records

which initially don't help much with chronology or history
but do shed some light on economic activities and occasionally other aspects of life

Manetho, an Egyptian historian of the 3rd century BC (2,200 years ago!), used documents like these to compile a history of kings and events

Manetho's history started almost 3000 years before his own time, so there it has errors
Yet, an amazing amount stands up to excavated evidence

Chronology

starts with the Predynastic period, which is broken into sub-periods
with the start of dynastic kingship, the chronology is based on a numbered series of 31 dynasties, originally outlined by Manetho

These dynasties are supposed to be literally family lines of kings
when the family line was broken (no heir, palace coup, etc.), a new dynasty started
there was probably some fudging at times for political expedience
the 31 dynasties cover about 3000 years of history.

That is a LONG TIME

Historians have grouped the dynasties into periods

periods of strong, centralized political unity called "Kingdoms" (Old, Middle, and New)
separated by periods of disorder called "Intermediate periods"

Early Dynastic (or Archaic) period (3100-2686 BC)

The first dynasties of kings who ruled a unified Egypt
notice that this is different from Sumer's Early Dynastic period

Old Kingdom (2686-2250 BC)

Building of the great pyramids

First Intermediate period

Dynastic kingship broke down, local rulers fought each other

Middle Kingdom (2035-1668 BC)

A vigorous vizier seized power and rebuilt the strength of the Egyptian kingship
revived the tradition of burials in pyramids (but much smaller than in the Old Kingdom)

Second Intermediate period

A second collapse of centralized rule
Egypt was taken over by foreign nomads called the "Hyksos"

New Kingdom (1552-1070 BC)

the Egyptians drove out the Hyksos and reunited Egypt
for the first time, Egypt expanded out along the Mediterranean coast and the Levant to conquer and control a larger empire
royal and noble burials were in deep, rock-cut tombs, rather than pyramids

King Tutankhamun's is the only one of these known that wasn't looted in antiquity

Late periods (compressed together here) were marked by conflict and decline
Ptolemaic (Greek) period (332-30 BC)

Alexander the Great conquered Egypt, bringing it into the Greek (and later Roman) world

we will focus on the early part of this sequence

up to the building of the great pyramids in the Old Kingdom
"the rest is history"...

The Predynastic period

Lower Egyptian Neolithic:

Example site: Merimda (about 5000 - 4100 BC)

simple, perishable pole and thatch houses
by around 4300 BC

broadly similar to late Natufian and PPNA settlements in the Levant
sites up to 20 ha (8 acres)
site populations up to 1,300 to 2,000 people

simple graves within the village, without goods

Upper Egyptian Neolithic

very different from Lower Egypt
Badarian culture, also started around 5000 BC
as in Lower Egypt, small farming villages, maybe only semi-sedentary

perishable round pole-and-thatch houses, hearths, basketry-lined "silo" pits
similar neolithic (early agricultural) subsistence

but technologically more sophisticated than lower Egypt

pottery much finer, better made than in lower Egypt

burial tradition was quite different from lower Egypt

burials were located in cemeteries separated from the areas where people lived, at the edge of the desert
in shallow oval pits, probably roofed with branches, covered with a pile of gravel
bodies dressed in skins or linen cloth
with varied grave goods

stone tools
strings of shell and stone beads as anklets, bracelets, necklaces
ivory and bone beads, pins, needles, awls, combs; needle cases; animal figurines
ceramic, ivory, and bone female figurines
stone palettes for preparing eye paint (especially malachite green)

Naqada I (Amratian) period 4000 - 3600 BC

contemporary with Early Uruk (3900-3600 BC)
Naqada I in Upper Egypt

no clear break from Badarian, rather a gradual evolutionary change, apparent overlap
villages of 50 to 250 people in pole and thatch houses
material culture gradually changed in minor ways

in pottery style
style of palettes
ceramic, ivory, and bone female figurines

continuation of custom of burying in cemeteries with extensive grave goods

some burials contained disk-shaped stone mace heads
many are too small, or have holes too small, to have been functional
some had impractical ivory or horn handles
apparently were symbols of status or power

based on the idea of force

Naqada I in Lower Egypt continued the patterns of the earlier Neolithic

Naqada II (Gerzean) period 3600 - 3200 BC

This is when things really started to change
Contemporary with Middle Uruk (3600-3400 BC) and Late Uruk (3400-3100 BC)

this is when urbanism, technology, power of the temple, etc. picked up in Sumer, too
maybe not a coincidence?

Naqada II in Upper Egypt (3600-3200 BC)

significant changes in material culture

in general: the development of elaborate, specialized crafts
many changes in pottery style

especially the appearance of pots with painted designs, usually showing boats
the boats often have features thought to be a "standard" or "emblem" similar to the standards that later identified regions

many minor changes in the styles of other artifacts

mace heads changed from disk-shaped to pear-shaped
cosmetic palettes changed shape and size

the "signature" objects of Naqada II: incredibly fine flint knives

blade first ground to shape
then long, parallel flakes chipped off of one face only ("ripple flaking")
sometimes with carved ivory handles
must be the work of highly skilled specialists
clearly for show, not use

increasing (but still rare) use of copper, very rare silver and gold

again, advancing technological skill suggests full-time specialists

points:

rise of highly skilled specialists making elaborate display goods
implies a high-status clientele able to support this work
elaborated burial practices may have encouraged division and specialization of labor, concentration of wealth, increasing social complexity
or did they just reflect those things?

House style changed from round, semisubterranean, with pole and thatch superstructure, to rectangular, aboveground, mudbrick with walled courtyard as in Mesopotamia

Late Naqada II clay house model illustrates this
similar to houses still used today
some people suggest that rectangular houses are more suited to urban living than are round ones

a few large towns or small cities developed

possibly just two or three in Upper Egypt
the vast bulk of Egyptians were still rural, as they remained throughout Egyptian history
These few large towns were probably the centers of chiefdoms that each controlled a nearby stretch of the Nile farmland and population
Hierakonpolis (also called Nekhen)

went from a few hundred people in Naqada I to 5,000 - 10,000 in mid Naqada II
densely packed rectangular mudbrick houses, similar to Mesopotamia

with a range of sizes, suggesting differences in wealth or status

economy:

apparently already a major pottery production center for Upper Egypt
also produced vases, maceheads, palettes, other stone goods
suggests considerable differentiation, complex division of labor

big constructions were built at Hierakonpolis between 3400 BC and 3200 BC (second half of Naqada II)

a large cobblestone foundation of possible palace, temple, or administrative center
an oval retaining wall of sandstone blocks, almost 50 m across, maybe a platform for a monumental building
a thick mudbrick wall around part of the town, presumably for defense

an extensive cemetery

with some rich burials that suggest wealthy, powerful leaders

Naqada

similar layout of rectangular mud-brick buildings
by the beginning of Naqada II, the town was enclosed by a mudbrick wall
very important cemetery

This (a site called "This")

a poorly known town that was probably the center of another regional chiefdom

pottery from just a few clay sources was traded up and down the Nile, suggesting specialized mass production
burial practices for the highest-status people got increasingly elaborate, suggesting increasing status differences

highest-status burials were in rectangular chambers with mudbrick walls

maybe echoed the shift to rectangular houses

highest-status burials started to have "mastabas", or bench-like rectangular mounds built over them
the "painted tomb" at Hierakonpolis

the largest, most elaborate Naqada II tomb known
presumably the tomb of an Upper Egyptian chief or ruler
unfortunately looted before excavation in 1899, only a few goods remained
walls and floor of brick
the walls are painted (the only known example from this period) and show:

boats similar to the ones on the pots
men thought to be hunting animals and/or fighting each other
one seems to hold three captives tied by a rope
another seems to hold a figure upside down, ready to hit it with a long stick
but these are ambiguous, especially since some of the "victims" are clearly animals
also, one seems to hold two animals, much like the Mesopotamian hero Gilgamesh or Enkidu

suggests two things
first, Mesopotamian influence
second, maybe the painting does not describe real Egyptian events at all...

the tomb itself is evidence for an emerging elite or ruling class
it might be evidence for the elites' connection to warfare -- or it might not...
it might be evidence for the elites' connection to Mesopotamia -- of some sort...

Upper Egypt seems to have been organized in regional chiefdoms with capital cities and obvious rulers

who had to wall their towns for self-defense

Naqada II in Lower Egypt (3600-3200 BC)

As in Upper Egypt, a few large towns developed
But lower Egyptian culture evolved more gradually than in Upper Egypt
town of Maadi (3650 BC - ~2700 [through Early Dynastic])

up to 18 ha (about 1 and 1/2 Çatal Hüyüks)
continued Lower Egyptian traditions

oval houses, some semi-subterranean, pole and thatch roofs
simple burials, both in the town and in cemeteries, with minor variation in richness

but now added extensive trade with Levant and possibly Late Uruk and Jemdet Nasr cities of Mesopotamia
storage was not only in individual houses in town, but also in segregated areas around the edge of the town

one area contained underground, roofed "cellars" for storage of goods
another had large ceramic storage vessels set into the ground
stored goods included large quantities of stone vases, carnelian beads, jars, grains, animal and fish bones, lumps of asphalt, flint tools, spindle whorls, etc.
such large quantities of goods must have been for exchange, rather than the use of any one family or group
this storage was NOT centralized, as at Mesopotamian temples, but dispersed
maybe controlled by various different families or other institutions?

considerable evidence of craft production

copper smelted and worked on site
apparent workshop areas for stone production
specialized craft producers making goods for exchange?

Buto

poorly known due to being deep under water table

but evidently a large town

locally made "clay cones" for wall mosaics - a Mesopotamian architectural style

suggests that Buto was in considerable contact with Sumerian people, or that high-status Sumerians lived there

clear evidence of goods exchanged from Mesopotamia
possibly was a trading seaport...

Social stratification

only minor variation between burials
but with all the specialized production and trade going on, some people and families probably were better off than others

Lower Egypt did not show signs of regional polities, obvious leaders, or militarism

although the absence of evidence in Lower Egypt might be due to poor preservation and little data

Contact between Egypt and Mesopotamia

trade goods from Mesopotamia as mentioned already

Uruk pottery, cylinder seals, etc. found at Buto and elsewhere in Lower Egypt

Mesopotamian style buildings

clay wall cones at Buto (Lower Egypt)

implies at least one important building in Mesopotamian style, probably the presence of Sumerian people, some trade...

Egyptians adopted many artifact types and styles from Mesopotamia

ideas that had a long history in Mesopotamia, but appeared suddenly in Egypt
locally made cylinder seals may be imitations of Mesopotamian models
paneled "palace-façade" mudbrick brick architecture appeared in Egypt in Naqada II

very similar to buttressed architecture of Mesopotamia
no local antecedents in Egypt

The motif of a person dominating two animals

appeared in the Naqada II tomb painting in the Painted tomb at Hierakonpolis
and the ivory knife handle of Gebel-el-Arak

battle scene with Naqada II style boats and Mesopotamian style boat!
suggests that the "influence" may not always have been peaceful

the motif of the "serpo-feline"

slightly later example on the palette of Narmer (Naqada III period)

whether this contact involved a significant number of people, and whether it had any significant effect on Egyptian culture, is highly debated

while Egypt picked up many ideas that had developed in Mesopotamia, Mesopotamia does not seem to have picked up any Egyptian ideas; the influence was one-way

Naqada III (3200 - 3100 BC): the last century of the Predynastic period

Contemporary with the last century of the Late Uruk period (3400-3100 BC)
A brief, eventful transitional period during which Upper and Lower Egypt became culturally and politically unified
Hence sometimes called the "unification era"
Naqada III in Upper Egypt

graves continued to get more elaborate
Cemetery at Abydos

the most elaborate Predynastic tomb at Abydos

12 rooms
9.10 X 7.30 m (27 x 21 feet)
despite looting, contained hundreds of pots, sorted by type

craft goods continued to get even more elaborate and expensive

such as palettes with elaborate carved decoration, many (but not all) with scenes of war

this evidence of increasingly rich and powerful elites, at just a few places in Upper Egypt, probably reflects consolidation of Upper Egyptian chiefdoms into fewer, larger polities

since it would take more surplus and laborers to create the more expensive burials
consolidation was probably at least in part based on military domination
probably culminated with a single Upper Egyptian chiefdom, centered at Hierakonpolis, with its high status cemetery at Abydos

Naqada III in Lower Egypt

Lower Egypt was increasingly influenced by Upper Egypt

excavations at Buto:

bottom levels had only 2% Naqada pottery
by late Naqada II (3300 BC), 40% Upper Egyptian pottery
by Naqada III (3200 BC), 99% Upper Egyptian pottery

by the end of Naqada III, Buto is thought to have been thoroughly "Naqada-ized"

Along with this "Naqada-ization" of material culture came the rise of pronounced social status differences in Lower Egypt

evidence: wide variation in grave goods at Minshat Abu Omar

The cultural "Naqada-ization" of Lower Egypt was accompanied by a lot of warfare

at least, there is a lot of warfare depicted on Upper Egyptian palettes and maceheads

Battlefield palette
Towns palette - animals breaking into walled towns with agricultural digging tools

The Egyptian historian Manetho, writing around 300 BC, said that a king of Upper Egypt named Menes conquered Lower Egypt and founded the united kingdom of Egypt

We don't know if either region was really that formally organized, but it is possible
Menes supposedly established a new city, Memphis, to be its capital

archaeological evidence suggests that Memphis did indeed either begin or grow dramatically at about the end of the predynastic period

Whether or not it happened as a single, dramatic military campaign, the Naqada III period did end with the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under a single king (pharaoh)

archaeological support for the military unification story is based mostly on a few decorated palettes and maceheads

these may reflect propaganda as much as literal history

Palette of Narmer

found in a cache in the temple at Hierakonpolis, probably the capital of Upper Egypt
Narmer's name is given by early hieroglyphs
one side shows Narmer with the white crown of Upper Egypt ("bowling pin")
and the other shows him with the red crown of Lower Egypt ("chair and spiral")
the identification of the crowns is based on later, better documented use of them
Narmer is shown smiting a named victim
As hawk-headed Horus stands on top of a personified papyrus marsh, maybe representing Lower Egypt, with a rope through its nose

Hierakonpolis was the "city of the Hawk"
since Hierakonpolis was the probable capital of Upper Egypt, that makes Horus a symbol of Upper Egypt, too
so the image seems to depict Upper Egypt dominating Lower Egypt

on the other side, Narmer is the largest in a row of people carrying standards, probably representing divisions of his territory or army
Narmer is shown reviewing decapitated victims, named as a group
below, a bull breaks into a walled town and tramples a victim -- a siege?

The bull may be associated with Narmer, since bull heads flank his name at the top

All this suggests a victory by Narmer of Upper Egypt over part or all of Lower Egypt
so Narmer was probably Menes, a military leader who unified Egypt
even so, this would have been just be the last step in a process that probably took up to 200 years during Naqada II and Naqada III

Egyptian Early Dynastic (First and Second Dynasties) 3100 - 2686 BC

Also called "Archaic Period"
Contemporary with Jemdet Nasr (3100-2900 BC) and first half of Sumerian Early Dynastic (2900-2373 BC)

not the same period as Mesopotamian Early Dynastic!
while Sumer was more urbanized, it was not regionally unified at this point
Egypt was much less urban, and possibly economically and socially less complex, but it was already an enormous region united under one military leader

the Egyptian Early Dynastic began with the political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt
Foreign influences from Mesopotamia faded away by late in the Egyptian Early Dynastic
writing came into wider use for royal purposes (more on this later)
Cities in Early Dynastic Egypt

Egypt is often said to have been a civilization without cities
Partially true: the great bulk of the population was rural
But there were some major cities, too, even if not as gigantic as the Mesopotamian ones

Buto (Lower Egypt)
Memphis (at the boundary between Lower and Upper Egypt)
Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt)
Elephantine (Upper Egypt)
and probably others under large towns or cities of the following Old Kingdom

Warfare

the newly consolidated kingdom would probably have had to use or threaten force at times to keep provinces from breaking away, enforce payments of tribute, etc.
Clearly important in art

Early Dynastic kings are often shown clubbing victims
probably reflects both some real military activity and some propaganda

Palermo stone and other inscriptions record a variety of First Dynasty expeditions or campaigns to the south and east

Royal palaces came into use

they may have existed earlier, but we don't have any evidence
increasing administrative activities on behalf of the king would have to have been managed from some appropriately impressive setting
the existence and appearance of early royal palaces is suggested by the practice of writing the king's name inside a "serekh" that apparently represented a "palace-facade" building
one paneled wall with a monumental doorway is known from a First Dynasty context at Hierakonpolis; this may be part of an early palace

But no spectacular temples, ziggurats, etc. in the Early Dynastic

there was no obvious, separate religious institution as in Mesopotamia
instead, there was a clear religious aspect to the king, who combined both ritual and the secular functions in one person

Burial customs got ever more stratified, and much more elaborate for the highest classes

for the top nobility, there were now two places to be buried: Abydos in Upper Egypt, and Saqqara in Lower Egypt

kings and important nobles had burial structures in both places
one was a "cenotaph", or empty tomb

Royal tombs at Abydos

each king had a royal tomb, plus a royal enclosure for rituals some distance away
tombs continued to be basically brick-lined holes in the surface of the desert, but

larger, more masonry dividing walls forming more rooms, wood floors and paneling

roofed with wooden beams and reeds
largest had up to 40 rooms, with a wood-lined central chamber for the body
rooms were reserved for specific kinds of goods, like wine, ivory, grain, meat, etc.

many objects in the tombs were labeled with ceramic or ivory tags

indicating things like the number of beads in a necklace, or identifying them as "the royal sandals", etc.
usually showed where they came from
maybe a way of assuring credit for the nobles who provided the offerings

high status burials increasingly had a "palace-façade mastaba" built on top

first the tomb was built, filled with goods, and roofed over
then they built a solid mound over the tomb that was faced with brick to look like a building or a platform
initially, all this had to be built after filling the tomb and building the roof over it
later tombs had a stairway to enter the tomb after the roofing was put on
presumably so the king could oversee the completion of his monument before he died

the tomb and the enclosure were surrounded by subsidiary graves ("retainer burials")

apparently of servants or members of the court, sacrificed for the burial of the king
example: tomb of King Aha (Narmer's successor, second ruler of the 1st dynasty)
34 subsidiary burial pits
all were looted in antiquity
human bones scattered by the looters were uniformly of people 25 years old and younger

that is, at least some of these people did not die of natural causes

both men and women; officials, dwarfs, artisans
some were identified with inscribed limestone stelae with the name of the occupant
the subsidiary burials were furnished with copper tools, stone vessels, ivory carvings

retainer burials peaked early in the First dynasty

with the burial of King Djer, 3rd of the 8 first dynasty kings
buried roughly 3060 BC

only about a century after the unification of Egypt!

King Djer was buried with over 580 retainers

the practice of retainer burials tapered off quickly, and by the end of the First dynasty, kings were buried with just a few retainers

so maybe this kind of conspicuous consumption had something to do with the earliest functioning or legitimization of Dynastic rule
once people got accustomed to powerful kings, it was less necessary?

"the enigmatic Merneith", possibly a queen regent, had a tomb at Abydos and Saqqara

Saqqara

the other high-status cemetery for royalty and nobles, located in Lower Egypt

Social hierarchy during Early Dynastic (3100-2686 BC)

Wide variation in burial richness, from huge, rich mastaba tombs of kings and nobles to simple pit burials with nothing but a basketwork coffin
Craft specialization, esoteric burial practices, labor and military mobilization, scribes, royal burials all suggest many statuses in life

Egyptian writing: hieroglyphics

"cracked" using the Rosetta stone, which recorded a decree by Ptolomy V (196 BC), written in Greek (which could be read), hieroglyphic, and demotic (a late, vernacular form of Egyptian writing used for daily, secular purposes)
First writing in Egypt appeared in Upper Egypt, shortly before the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt

earliest, very simple examples around 3200 BC, maybe as early as 3300 BC
vs. about 3400 BC in Uruk period Sumer
that is, around beginning of Naqada III

Very early examples

The names of kings thought to be one or two before Narmer were inked on offering jars in their tombs

some are labeled as produce from Upper and Lower Egypt

Scorpion's name on a mace head (Scorpion was probably the predecessor of Narmer)

but is it a hieroglyph or a picture of a standard?

A German team re-excavating the tomb of Scorpion in 1998 found lots of very early Egyptian writing

jars with hieroglyphs written in ink
postage-stamp sized clay tablets with holes (labels) with scratched-on hieroglyphs
2/3 identified offerings of oil and linen, sometimes including numbers
almost all seem to identify the source of the offering, either as a geographic region, an institution, or an official

palette of Narmer with many individuals named
these show that a writing system was in use in royal contexts just before unification
but notice that all these early examples are simple identifications and counts of things, not anything like a spoken phrase or sentence, or even a transaction

Mesopotamian influence?

the timing is too close to be coincidental

hieroglyphs in Egypt appeared only a century or two after pre-cuneiform in Sumer

and the timing coincided with known Mesopotamian influence

But the Egyptian system is so different that it cannot have derived from pre-cuneiform

normally read right to left, opposite of pre-cuneiform

also can be read left to right, with signs reversed!
if used with pictures and the logic of design calls for it

Egyptian logograms are far more representational than pre-cuneiform ones
Egyptian writing recorded only consonants, not vowels, unlike pre-cuneiform

the two systems were used for very different purposes

Sumerian pre-cuneiform was used for accounting or transaction records in the temple
while early Egyptian hieroglyphic writing was used for royal and ritual activities

royal names and propaganda, activities of the royal court, royal burial inventory labels
inscriptions on pottery or stone vessels, usually identifying the owner and/or contents and/or place of origin
markers for the tombs of kings, queens, nobles, and pet dogs (!)
personal identification seals of kings, queens, and nobles
ceremonial objects like the palette of Narmer
recordkeeping, but of a royal or ritual nature:

lists of booty from war
lists of Nile flooding levels in successive years (which later kings could supposedly forecast and influence)
lists of royal activities by year: festivals, erecting statues of gods, founding and conquering towns

little evidence of early development; even in the earliest examples, the basic symbol system was already pretty well developed

suggestion (by no means certain) that hieroglyphics may have been invented by a single individual, maybe after encountering Mesopotamian writing
there are historical examples of this happening in other languages

Sequoya, who invented a syllabary for Cherokee
King Njoya, who invented a logo-syllabic system of about 1000 signs for Bamun

the first known full sentence was written at the end of the 2nd Dynasty (around 2700 BC, 500 years after the first inscriptions)

Old Kingdom: Third through Sixth Dynasty 2686 - 2250 BC

Don't worry about all the names and details; just get the general idea
the age of the great pyramids
the Old Kingdom started almost 400 years after the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt
contemporary with Mesopotamia's Early Dynastic II through the Agade Period
Let's back up and look at how burial monuments were developing in the centuries leading up to the first pyramid

mastaba tombs of the 1st dynasty began to have an internal, stepped mound
enclosed within the solid mastaba
with palace-façade paneling on the outer walls

Djoser (aka Zoser): builder of the first pyramid

Djoser was the first king of a new dynasty (the Third Dynasty)

Djoser ascended to the throne around 2686 BC
almost 400 years after King Djer was buried with 580 retainers

Djoser may have leveled one or two previous large burial monuments to build his

the evidence is numerous trenches cut into the bedrock

apparently the underground parts of large monuments
some filled with offerings datable to the Second Dynasty -- Djoser's immediate predecessors

Djoser's compound is built right over these remains
his offerings included thousands of stone bowls, many dating back to the First dynasty

they must have been looted from old high-status tombs - maybe the demolished monuments of his immediate predecessors

erasing his predecessors may have been calculated
suggesting a political change, upheaval, coup?

which you might expect when one dynasty ends and another is founded

Djoser's mortuary complex was the first attempt to built completely in stone, not to mention the first on anything like this scale

it dwarfed the largest mastabas built until then

Its final form was a stepped pyramid and other buildings inside an enclosure wall

the outer wall was decorated with palace-façade paneling, like a gigantic mastaba

while the stepped pyramid seems to be a gigantic version of the stepped mound hidden inside earlier mastabas

the pyramid alone is about 125 m X 109 m X 62 m high

that is, each side of the base is roughly as long as a football field
the base would cover about 2/3 of the main quad

the pyramid was built in stages

first, a standard royal mastaba, but built of stone, rather than mud brick

expanded in several stages

then the pyramid was built over it in several stages, each stage cased in cut limestone

so each stage was intended to be the last, was finished, and was then expanded upon

elaborate buildings inside the enclosure were apparently a stage setting for royal ceremonies

all built of small, finely stones similar in size to mud bricks
the stone is carved to imitate construction with bundles of reeds, palm logs, etc.

seems to refer to ancient, traditional rural building style
maybe associated with "the good old days", a mythical original time, or a time when kings were legitimate, pure, etc.
possibly a way of legitimizing a radically new kind of structure and/or Djoser himself

as we do when we make monuments to recent politicians in Greek or Roman style

on one side is a funerary chapel to the king, with an inscription naming the architect of the world's first pyramid: Imhotep

Four of Djoser's successors tried to build similar monuments, but none of them pulled it off

but they did use bigger and bigger stones
which may actually have been a way of controlling costs, since less stone-cutting, fitting, etc. is required

Pyramid at Meidum (c. 2600 BC)

uncertain who built it

but most likely started as a stepped pyramid by Huni, the last of the 4^th dynasty kings -- a gigantic project at the time
not finished at his death, which was the end of his dynasty
later completed as a smooth pyramid by Sneferu, the first king of the next dynasty...

Like Djoser's Pyramid, the Pyramid of Meidum was also built in stages

again, each stage was covered with finished limestone, presumably intended to be the last
146 m square (474 feet square) at final base

would almost cover 4 Salazar libraries!

apparently suffered from structural problems, maybe collapsed or cracked
never finished nor used, later partially destroyed

Sneferu, the granddaddy of all pyramid builders

First king of the 4^th Dynasty

aka Seneferu, Snofru
again, the first king of a dynasty was a hugely successful builder...

Sneferu began his unequalled building campaign less than 90 years after Djoser broke ground for his compound!
Started with the bent pyramid at Dahshur, also c. 2600 BC

This was the first attempt to build a true, smooth pyramid
Bigger than Meidum

~190 m square (620 feet square) at base

developed structural problems and cracks during construction

tried to fix it by widening the base and reducing the angle
the second try also began to crack
with the lower part already built, tried to fix it by changing the stone-laying technique in the upper part
and by further reducing the angle

producing the bent profile

As the bent pyramid was nearing completion, or just after finishing it, Sneferu began work on another pyramid: the Northern pyramid at Dahshur (still c. 2600 BC)

Sneferu's builders finally got it right
planned to be a smooth pyramid from the beginning
started with the low angle that had been successful on the Bent pyramid
succeeded in achieving a straight profile
bigger than the Bent pyramid

~222 m square (722 feet square); ~105 m tall (~340 feet tall)
each side is over twice as long as Stevenson Hall!

some indications that Sneferu then remodeled the pyramid Meidum
Putting the two pyramids at Dahshur together, even without counting Meidum, Sneferu moved more stone to build pyramids than any other pharaoh, before or after

he was not only the first to build a true pyramid
but also the biggest builder, in total mass, who ever lived

only his own son ever built a bigger pyramid
and not even his son could equal the total tonnage of stone that his father had used

Sneferu's son, Khufu, second king of the 4^th Dynasty

(aka Cheops, Khufwey, Suphis, Medjdu, Medjuro)
chose Giza as the place to build his pyramid - at the time, just an empty desert plateau
The Great Pyramid of Khufu at Giza c. 2580 BC

The biggest ever built, to this day

yet only the 7th attempt in the history of the world
with only about 100 years of experience

~233 m square (756 feet): just slightly larger than his father's

if built on this campus, it would cover Stevenson, Darwin, the Salazar library, the Student Union, the Commons, and most of the main quad

146 meters tall (475 feet): quite a bit steeper and taller than his father's
2.3 million cut sandstone interior blocks, 2.5 tons each
estimated 84,000 laborers working for 80 days/year for 20 years

if correct, that means one 2.5 ton block was set in place every 30 seconds
even if several were being worked on at once, that is still just minutes per block
implies extreme organization and control

outside cased in limestone blocks, quarried just across the Nile

very accurate, fit together tightly
weigh 16 tons each

Granite used extensively inside to line corridors, chambers, etc.

brought on rafts from Aswan, 550 miles up the Nile

Khufu directed an incredible amount of wealth into building his own tomb

the labor and stone for the pyramid alone would easily exceed six billion dollars today
not to mention all the gold, precious stones, and other offerings
or the endowment for a "pious foundation" to carry out rituals in his honor forever after

Khufu's descendents had variable success building pyramids

Khufu's successor (presumably his son) Kheper picked a different site, Abu Roash

and built a much smaller pyramid there

Kheper's son, Khafre, returned to Giza to build a pyramid almost as big as his grandfather's Khafre = Chephren = Khephren = Useryeb = Suphis

added a new touch: the great sphinx, the only pyramid that has one anything like this size

Khafre's son (or maybe grandson) Menkaure also built at Giza, around 2530 BC

Menkaure = Mycerinus = Kakhe = Mencheres
much smaller again

after him, no more major pyramids were built at Giza
subsequent ones were mostly at Abu Sir, and smaller

conclusions about pyramid building

The first few generations of the Old Kingdom saw an incredible burst of pyramid construction

2686 - 2530 BC, about 150 years, with a pyramid complex starting every 12-13 years!
so fast that almost everyone would see two or even three completed in their lifetime

and after the Fourth dynasty, nothing even close to them was ever built again.
but all this started after 400 years of unified divine rule of Egypt

The typical pyramid complex

pyramid with burial and offering chambers
attached or adjacent temple that functioned like the funerary enclosure in earlier dynasties, with a statue of the dead king
causeway from the temple at the pyramid to the valley temple, at the edge of the farmland

Use of the pyramids

the pyramids contained the royal remains and objects that the dead king would need
they were essentially "reliquaries" attached to the temples dedicated to the images of the pharaoh
the valley temple was the focus of a small "pyramid town" of people dedicated to maintaining the dead king's mortuary complex and performing rituals for him
these people comprised a "pious foundation" that the king endowed with land, facilities, and special rights so that they could honor his memory forever after

Kurt Mendelssohn's theory on the pyramids

maybe pyramid building was a means to redistribute food stored by the state to workers during the flood season
farmers paid tribute to the state
the state called them up to work on the pyramids during the flood season
while they worked, they were fed from the state stores
this seemed to justify taxation
it showed that the state was tremendously wealthy and powerful
people might store less for themselves, knowing that the state would support them during the flood period
This eventually made workers dependent upon the state
and accepting of both taxes and labor or other obligations
Does this work as a theory of the origin of Egyptian civilization?

No- civilization had clearly appeared long before the pyramids were built

but this theory still might explain part of the reasoning behind building the pyramids

or even an unintended side effect

Centralized political and economic organization in the Old Kingdom

land was held by

the king
"pious foundations" for the maintenance of shrines to ancestors and other purposes
individuals, often as large private agricultural estates

this is known from written sources, mostly later than the Old Kingdom pyramids

taxation:

Palermo stone and other Old Kingdom sources mention a biennial census of cattle, apparently for tax purposes
other decrees show that taxes could be assessed by "canals, lakes, wells, waterbags, and trees" on an estate
Later documents also suggest labor taxation
a 13^th dynasty (i.e. much later) document names people who failed to perform their labor obligations and had been captured to work on government farms or labor camps
Read the extract about scribes and taxation from the Book of the Dead (New Kingdom, 1552-1070 BC)

laws: the same 13^th dynasty document describes various crimes in precise variations, suggesting a detailed law code that is now lost

Compare Egypt with Sumer:

one individual man, the Pharaoh, was directing all of this for his own ends
this contrasts with the Sumerian pattern of temple and palace

not only two separate power structures
but also apparently pretty bureaucratic and institutionalized

Much more drastic status, wealth, and power differences in Egypt

Even the royal tombs of Early Dynastic Ur, with 50-odd retainers, jewelry, harps, etc., look paltry compared to the roughly contemporary Egyptian Early Dynastic burials of Pharaohs like King Djer, buried with 580 retainers
the power of even the greatest Sumerian temple, in the hands of the most powerful Sumerian ruler (Ur-Nammu of Ur) was modest compared to that of the pharaoh

Khufu's pyramid was about 25 times the volume of the ziggurat at Ur
and that is cut stone, not mud brick

why did they turn out so differently...?

Tax time in ancient Egypt

From Chapter 4 of the Book of the Dead, a New Kingdom traditional text that has little to do with death. Dates between 1552 and 1070 BC, i.e. over 1000 years after the pyramids were built. In this extract, a scribe extols his profession and describes the misery of a farmer at tax time: (From Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, 1961, pp. 32-33)

I am told you have abandoned writing and taken to sport, that you have set your face towards work in the fields and turned your back upon letters. Remember you not the condition of the cultivator faced with the registering of the harvest tax, when the snake has carried off half the corn and the hippopotamus has devoured the rest? The mice abound in the fields. The locusts descend. The cattle devour. The sparrows bring disaster upon the cultivator. The remainder that is on the threshing-floor is at an end, it falls to the thieves. The yoke of oxen has died while threshing and ploughing. And now the scribe lands on the river bank and is about to register the harvest tax. The janitors carry staves and the Nubians rods of palm, and they say "Hand over the corn" though there is none. The cultivator is beaten all over, he is bound and thrown into the well, soused and dipped head downwards. His wife has been bound in his presence, his children are in fetters. His neighbours abandon them and are fled. So their corn flies away. But the scribe is ahead of everyone. He who works in writing is not taxed, he has no dues to pay. Mark it well.

My minor Americanization of the same:

I am told you have abandoned writing and taken to sport, that you have set your face towards work in the fields and turned your back upon letters. Don't you remember the state of the farmer faced with the registering of the harvest tax, when the snake has carried off half the grain and the hippopotamus has devoured the rest? The mice abound in the fields. The locusts descend. The cattle devour. The sparrows bring disaster upon the farmer. The remainder that is on the threshing-floor is finished, it falls to the thieves. The yoke of oxen has died while threshing and plowing. And now the scribe lands on the riverbank and is about to register the harvest tax. The guards carry staffs and the Nubians rods of palm, and they say "Hand over the grain" though there is none. The farmer is beaten all over, he is bound and thrown into the well, soused and dipped head downwards. His wife has been bound in his presence, his children are in chains. His neighbors abandon them and have fled. So their grain flies away. But the scribe is ahead of everyone. He who works in writing is not taxed, he has no dues to pay. Mark it well.