CH A P T E R I
OUTLINES OF TH E HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY
It is less than ten years since the earliest limit of Egyptian archaeology was
unanimously placed at the Fourth Dynasty. The dawn of history was to be synchronous
with the building of the Pyramids; and although the lists recorded three Dynasties as
reigning before Khafra and Khufu and Mycerinus, yet the kings assigned to them were
regarded as scarcely less mythical than the demi-gods who were their legendary forerunners.
In 1895, however, Professor Flinders Petrie and Mr. J. E. Quibell discovered
at Nagada and Balias a series of cemeteries representing a stage of civilization unlike
anything previously known in Egypt; and very shortly afterwards M. de Morgan
published a volume in which he broached the wholly new hypothesis that these remains-
belonged to a period earlier than any yet known to history. The discovery which he
made at Nagada in 1896-7 of the tomb of Mena, the traditional founder of the First
Dynasty, proved the correctness of M. de Morgan’s theory; and the constantly
accumulating evidence obtained since that time has placed the accuracy of his dating
beyond all doubt.
Year by year the Work of various archaeologists has disclosed fresh steps in the
evolution of this early culture, tracing it from comparatively rude beginnings to its full
maturity, and showing how it eventually merged in that of the First Dynasty. Finally,
many of the actual tombs of Mena’s successors of the First, Second, and Third Dynasties
have been identified and explored; so that an almost unbroken sequence carries the
archaeological record from a remote Predynastic period down to that of the great
Pyramid-builders.
The trend of recent discovery has unquestionably been towards unification,
and archaeologists, now that they can obtain a synthetic view of the whole earlier
civilization, are inclining to regard that of the ‘ Old Kingdom ’ more as a continuation
and development than as an independent phenomenon. But the amplification of detailed
knowledge must not be allowed to obscure the fact that the entire tenor of Egyptian life
and feeling was changed between the times revealed by the earliest cemeteries and the
accession of the Fourth Dynasty. It is difficult to define the exact place of cleavage : the
Third Dynasty seems on the one hand to lead naturally into the Fourth, and on the other
hand to be no less naturally derived from the First and the Second. But if the First
Dynasty itself is compared with what precedes it, various essential differences may be
observed, so that at the present moment it seems as if the line of demarcation would be
more correctly placed between the Predynastic and the Dynastic than between the
Third Dynasty and its successors.
Unfortunately, however, any attempt at classification is closely conditioned by the
first researches upon the subject: and the original discoverers could not of course
command the full evidence which has since become available. They were naturally
impressed in the first instance by the peculiar aspects of this early life, and by its unlike- The Archaic
ness to all that is known under the Old Kingdom. The remains of the First Dynasty,
which were next brought to light, appeared to bear the same character, and to be equally
dissimilar to those of the historic time. Consequently, before all the links in the chain had
been completed, a premature division was established with a corresponding terminology.
For Professor Petrie everything antecedent to the Fourth Dynasty belonged to his ‘ New
Race,’ while M. de Morgan, with equal ill-fortune, adopted the term ‘ Neolithic.’ That
‘ New Race’ is a misnomer has long been recognized, but the epithet is certainly less
misleading in this connexion than ‘ Neolithic.’ The detailed archaeological analysis, which
has lately been carried out, enables us to assign the tombs in these cemeteries to their
relative chronological positions, and one result of this increased accuracy has been to
prove that copper occurs in the very earliest graves. If, therefore, classifications are
to retain any value whatsoever, the term ‘ Neolithic ’ must no longer be applied to these
primitive Egyptians, who, although they preferred flint for many purposes, were yet well
acquainted with Copper, and used it in their manufactures. It is not necessary to discuss
here whether the roughly worked flints found on the surface of the desert were fabricated
by the same people, or should rather be ascribed to some otherwise unknown inhabitants
of the valley; but it can be affirmed unhesitatingly that no cemetery has yet attested the
existence of a purely Neolithic period in Egypt.
Since the first writers on the subject regarded the early civilization as a homogeneous
whole and placed its lower limit only at the Fourth Dynasty, it will tend to avoid confusion
if we adopt the same main division even at some sacrifice of consistency. It is then
requisite to find a single name which will accurately describe these several periods; and
the most satisfactory is perhaps ‘ Archaic,’ which has already come into partial use. As
an alternative | Prehistoric ’ is comparatively unobjectionable; for though the first three
dynasties are to be included under it, yet these are so far non-historic that they have left
virtually no documentary or monumental records. In the present volume we shall employ
one or other of these terms whenever it is necessary to consider the several periods as
a single whole, in contrast to the ‘ Old Kingdom,’ which begins with the Fourth Dynasty
and includes the Fifth and Sixth.
The ‘ Archaic’ itself will admit of further differentiation; and, accordingly, the
‘ Predynastic ’ should be distinguished from the first three dynasties, which may conveniently
be grouped as ‘ Protodynastic.’ Further, the Predynastic can be subdivided
on a principle shortly to be explained, so that it will fall into two halves, which may be
called respectively ‘ Early Predynastic ’ and ‘ Late Predynastic.’
This leads to the following classification:
Predynastic — includes
Protodynastic — includes
Early Predynastic
Late Predynastic
First Dynasty
Second Dynasty
Third Dynasty
Archaic Periods (from the
earliest time at which
cemeteries are found
down to the Fourth
Dynasty) include . .
Of the Protodynastic periods there are, in the first place, two series of specimens
which are closely dated by their connexion with the tombs of certain kings whose names
have been identified. Those belonging to the First and Second Dynasties were found at
Abydos in the Royal Tombs excavated by Professor Petrie, while those of the Third
Dynasty come from Mr. J. Garstang’s excavations at Regagnah. But it was only a small