Displaying Individuality or Creating Authority? Commentary on the Animal Burials at HK6

Isobel Reid, UCL

Birmingham Egyptology Symposium 2015 Friday 20th February

ABSTRACT:

Locality 6 at Hierakonpolis contains the remains of a number of individuals with impressive grave

goods and superstructures, earning it the designation ‘Elite Cemetery’. However, it also contains a

number of animal burials ranging from individual exotic animals, such as elephants, exceptional

domestic animals and large numbers of domestic animals in single graves. At a time of nation

building in Egypt, the animal burials are often seen as the elite’s way of showing their wealth.

However, a design from contemporary artefacts shows rows of different species of animals

connected with items of power. Three different methods were applied to the animal burials to show

that they do not correlate with the typical model for an ‘Elite Cemetery’ where the animals are

economic units; they instead correspond to the Predynastic design of animal rows. The result of

these findings is that the HK6 cemetery is likely the creation of imagery associated with power,

rather than a display of the individuals wealth and personal preference for burial.

Displaying Individuality or Creating Authority? Commentary

on the Animal Burials at HK6

Searching for the Origins of Ancient Egypt

The site of Hierakonpolis, or Nekhen, is located on the West bank of the Nile in

Upper Egypt (Figure 1). It has captured the interest of archaeologists since the nineteenth

century with the discovery of the great “Painted Tomb”, Tomb 100 (Hoffman 1982; Savage

2001, 111) and extraordinary artefacts showing images of early unification, such as the

Narmer Palette (Bier and Hobbs 2008, 208) and the Scorpion Macehead (Millet 1991)

(Figure 2). The site is also the most extensive settlement from the Pre-dynastic era (Adams

1995, 3) and has been linked to the beginnings of Egypt around 4000-2700 BC (Hoffman

1989, 129). Kemp has identified two “archaeological signposts” for state building (Kemp

1989, 35); the drawing together of smaller communities into a larger settlement and

evidence of rewards for competition within society. The site shows the side effects of a

central economic power and the individual need to legitimise power by the display of

wealth (Hassan 1988, 165-172) gained by the successful administration of other areas

(Hassan 1988, 162). This indicates that the site shows the markers of state building at the

same time as the beginnings of unified Egypt.

Figure 1 Map of the Northern Nile Valley showing Ancient Egyptian sites, Hierakonpolis is indicated in yellow Kemp 1989, 9, Fig 1

Figure 2 The Scorpion Macehead discovered at Hierakonpolis, showing the king in the white crown of Lower Egypt, circa 3100-3000 BC Ashmoleon AN1896.1908.E.3632 Web 1

Due to its large size, the site has been divided into over seventy localities (Savage

2001, 111) including HK6 (Figure 3), the ‘Elite Cemetery’. HK6 contains over two hundred

Naqada I-II burials (Adams 2000) with rich grave goods and evidence of large

superstructures in the form of post holes (Figure 4). The work on the site and the locality fits

into the anthropological research tradition established by Hoffman (Hoffman et al. 1982, 1-

2) forming part of the search for the origins of kingship in the Ancient Egyptian state

(Hoffman 1991, 129; Quibell and Green 1902). The site is not unique in showing the

characteristics of state building (Wilkinson 1996), however, the animal burials are unique

and occur at a time when there is an increase in wealth in graves (Wilkinson 1996, 75-85),

most likely a reflection of the economics of the region. This hypothesis is supported by the

increase in the importance of the region nearing 3200-3100 BC (Bard 1994, 271; Hoffman et

al. 1985, 175-187). Due to the surrounding circumstances, the animal graves have become

an element in the argument for state building, rather than being explored as an expression

of identity.

Figure 3 Map of expedition localities in Hierakonpolis Adams 1995, 28, Figure 5 after Harlan 1992

Figure 4 Plan of the “Pillared Hall Precinct” (Tomb 23 complex) and the Tomb 16 complex as of March 2009 Hierakonpolis Expedition, Friedman 2010, 80, Fig. 3

Friedman (2010, 72) identified three types of animal burials at HK6; Type 1, largely

domestic animals buried with humans; Type 2, burials of large, exotic and wild animals with

grave goods; and Type 3, multiple animal burials without grave goods. Assessing potential

motives behind these different types of deposits shows no hypothesis fully fits these results

(Reid 2014, unpublished). Looking at the animal burials together, shows that the defining

aspect of this group is the range of species that are present. A great deal of care has been

taken to import and capture certain species, some, such as the hartebeest, indicate they

were raised in captivity on site. Elephants were possibly imported into Egypt from Nubia

(Friedman 2004, 156; Glanville 1926, 54; Redford and Redford 1989, 14), as evidence

indicates they were hunted to extinction in Egypt in early Naqada II times (Adams 1998, 50)

when they are no longer depicted in rock art (Friedman 2004, 156). The elephant at HK6 was

likely kept by the Nile Valley for a period of time as indicated by the microscopic plant

remains such as ceruana pratensis (Friedman 2004, 249). Though the animal burials are

unique, a Pre-dynastic decoration occurs later in the Naqada period which shows a visual

representation of a large range of animal species.

Introducing Animal Rows

Animal Rows are a Pre-dynastic frieze decoration dating to the Naqada IId-IIIb

period, they are used to decorate items associated with power and ceremony (Raffaele

2010, 246) (Figure 5) examples include maces and knives. These items included mace

handles and mace heads which often show images denoting power, such as the Scorpion

Macehead which depicts the king in the crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt (Millet 1991;

Quibell and Green 1902). Knives with this animal decoration became a part of the funerary

equipment of the dead, the evidence from Abydos Cemetery U indicates that the owners

were elite members (Dreyer 1999; Hartung 1998, 91).

Figure 5 Examples of handles showing animal friezes or animal rows. (1) Abu Zaidan knife handle, Needler 1984. (2) Pitt Rivers knife handle, Petrie 1896, 77. (3) Carnarvon knife handle, Benedite 1918. (4) Davis comb, Benedite 1918. (5) Berlin Museum knife handle, Asselberghs 1961, 51-52. (6) seyala mace handle, Smith 1993. (7) Gebel Tarif knife, Boehmer 1974b. (8) Abydos K1262 fragment, Dreyer 1999, fig 7. (9) Abydos K1104 fragment Tomb U-127, Dreyer 1999, fig 11d. (10) Abydos K1104 fragment, Dreyer 1999, fig 11c. Raffaele 2010, 283, Fig. 1

The basis for comparison is the association of a variety of species with power. At

HK6, the range of animals were buried in a place of investment with large and imposing

superstructures. If similar species are present in both this place of power, and later items

associated with power, it could indicate the beginnings of a tradition. This will be most

apparent if the species imported and raised on site at Hierakonpolis are depicted in the

animal rows, as they would not have been present in the environment at the time so the

designs are not depicting reality but an ideal representative of our findings at HK6.

Results from this comparison could add to the debate over whether the animal

burials were the result of a localised phenomenon arising from competition within the

emerging elite, or if this became a tradition due to its association with power. The animals

pictured include those from stone images surrounding HK6 from recent history, such as

elephants, and animals that span the length of unified Egypt and all its variety of

environments. The burials could be a way to create a physical representation of authority

over the nation in all its forms.

Comparing the Animal Row Decoration with the HK6 Animal Burials

The aim of this comparison is to identify similarities between the species depicted in

the animal row designs and those present at HK6. Similarities, especially in the species

which needed to be imported in the earlier period at HK6, will show the importance in the

depiction of this range of species in particular. The association with power in both instances

can be connected to a time when authority was being generated and expressed. While it will

not indicate motives, knowing the range of species continues will prove that the choice of

species at HK6 was not accidental.

There have been fourteen species clearly identified from HK6 (Figure 6), though

ongoing work may reveal more; for example if both Hamadryas and Anubis baboons are

present. The majority of species are domestic, i.e. cattle, dogs and ovids, the ratio of wild:

domestic is 46:116, making 40% of the animals wild. During this period of Egyptian history, it

is rare for any wild animals to be included in cemeteries at all (Van Neer et al. 2004, 105)

with the majority of domestic animals present as food offerings. While elephants were likely

imported, other wild animals include cats, leopards, baboons, crocodiles and hippos.

These species span the length of unified Egypt, from the Delta to Upper Egypt, and

cover domestic species as well as wild animals taken from the Nile Valley, river and desert.

The swamp cat would have been present in the Delta (Davison 2005, 971; Hoath 2009, 98-

99), whereas baboons would have been common in the Nile Valley (Kummer 1997, 3),

particularly of Upper Egypt. Leopards habited desert regions (Hoath 2009, 106; Roy 2011,

265), while crocodiles (Appiah and Gates 2005, 265) and hippos were common along the

Nile river. In addition to the geographical span, the raising and importation of animals

indicate species are included that are pictured in recent history but are no longer naturally

present in the environment.

Figure 6 Graph 1 based on the total number of each species buried in HK6 according to Appendix 1 based on excavations up until 2012 After Appendix 1, Reid 2014

Studying a range of animal row decoration (Figure 5) shows there is a good range of

species. For example, the seyala mace handle (6) shows three horned creatures, a giraffe, a

cat, a bird, and three different four legged creatures. Out of the ten creatures depicted, they

are all shown as different species. The knife handle (2) shows an animal with curved horns –

a characteristic that distinguishes a hartebeest from a gazelle – this shows that the

hartebeest image is recurring. The same is true of elephants, the animal in the top row of

the Davis comb (4) shows a prominent trunk consistent with an elephant.

The range of species and the variety of species in the later Naqada period decoration

shows a similarity to the range and variety found in HK6. Evidence also shows a continuation

in the importance of species, such as the hartebeest and elephant, which were not present

0

10

20

30

40

50

Cat

tle

Do

nke

y

Shee

p/g

oat

Do

g

Elep

han

t

Au

roch

Har

teb

eest

Wild

Do

nke

y

Hip

po

Bab

oon

Wild

Cat

Swam

p C

at

Cro

cod

ile

Leo

par

d

Tota

l Co

un

t

Species

Graph 1: Total of Each Species According to 2012 Appendix 1

Total According to 2012 Appendix1

in the natural environment of Egypt at this time. A feature from Tomb 100 at Hierakonpolis,

the “Master of Animals” (Raffaele 2010, 158; Quibell 1901, pl. 16.2), shows the idea of

humans as controlling nature (Hendrickx 2006, 736; Kemp et al. 2000, 234). The HK6 burials

could be the combination of these two ideas: the mastery of animals covering the

geographical span of Egypt, including important animals from recent history, to represent

the power to master all areas of Egypt.

Displaying Individuality or Creating Authority?

The site of Hierakonpolis has been occupied since Lower Palaeolithic times, circa

250,000 BC (Adams 1995, 8), and has burials up until the New Kingdom (Baer 1978).

Throughout this, the city has been seen as the mythical capital of Horus (Assman 2001, 134-

141) in his fight with Seth (Meltzer 2003, 164-168). Even in the Ptolemaic era (Adams 1995,

3), the site has been associated with the first kings of unified Egypt. If any location had the

power to inspire the decoration and traditions of later periods, it is likely to be

Hierakonpolis. The animal rows are a later decoration which can be linked to the physical

remains of Hierakonpolis.

The variety of species from HK6 covers the length of Ancient Egypt and includes

species from a variety of different types of environment. Combining these features with the

elements of power at HK6, such as grave goods and large superstructures, shows a

connection between power and animals has been established. In the later Naqada III period,

the animal decoration is shown on items associated with power. The comparison between

the range of species in HK6 and those depicted on the animal row decoration shows that

there is a similarity in a large range of species and there is a similarity in the species chosen,

even those that were no longer present in Egypt at the time.

The HK6 cemetery does not have any association between a particular human burial

and the animal burials (Reid 2014, unpublished), this indicates that the animals were not a

display of wealth for the individual, the presentation of wealth on an individual level is

occurring at this time in the complexes of the early kings of Abydos and in the Painted Tomb

cemetery at Hierakonpolis. The variety of species, as it continues in the decoration of the

animal rows, is also important. It is likely, considering the inclusion of species not present in

the natural environment, that the later decoration is continuing the HK6 tradition which

possibly represents the whole of Egypt through different animal species. The connection of

animals with power can be traced throughout Egyptian history, however, further research is

necessary to show how the traditional dynastic elements emerged from this early

association.

REFERENCES

Adams, B. (1995) Ancient Nekhen, Garstang in the City of Hierakonpolis. SIA Publishing: New Malden, UK

Adams, B. (1998) Discovery of a Predynastic elephant burial at Hierakonpolis, Egypt. Archaeology International 2 pp. 46-50

Adams, B. (2000) Excavations in the Locality 6 Cemetery at Hierakonpolis 1979-1985). ESA No. 4 Archaeopress: Oxford, UK

Appiah, K.A. and Gates, H.L. (2005) Africana. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK

Assman, J. (2001) The Search for God in Ancient Egypt. Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY

Baer, K. (1978) “Report on the Epigraphic Work at Hierakonpolis, 1978: New Kingdom Tombs” In Hawass, Z. (2003) Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: Proceedings of the International Congress of Egyptologists, Cairo, 2000, Volume 2. American University in Cairo Press: Cairo, Egypt pp. 114

Bard, K.A. (1994) The Egyptian Predynastic: A Review of the Evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology 21(3) pp.265-288

Brier, B. and Hobbs, A.H. (2008) Daily Life of the Ancient Egyptians. Greenwood Publishing Group: Westport, CT

Davison, A. (2005) Game Programming in Java. O’Reilly Media: Sebastopol, CA

Dreyer, G. (1999) Motive und Datierung der dekorierten prädynastischen Messergriffe. In Ziegler, D. (ed.) L’Art de l’Ancien Empire Égyptien. Louvre Museum: Paris, France pp. 196-226

Friedman, R. (2004) Elephants at Hierakonpolis. In Hendrickx, S., Friedman, R.F., Cialowicz, K.M. and Chlodnicki, M. (eds.) Egypt at its Origins: Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams. Peeters Publishing: Leuven, Belgium pp. 131-168

Friedman, R. (2010) The Early Royal Cemetery at Hierakonpolis: An Overview. In Raffaele, F., Nuzzolo, M. and Incordino, I. (eds.) Recent Discoveries and Latest Researches in Egyptology. Proceedings of the First Neopolitan Congress of Egyptology, Naples, June 18th-20th 2008, Haarrassowitz Verlag: Wiesbaden, Germany pp. 67-86

Glanville, S.R.K. (1926) Egyptian Theomorphic Vessels in the British Museum. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 12 pp. 52-69

Hartung, U. (1998) Prädynastiche Siegelabrollungen aus dem Friedhof U in Abydos (Umme el Qaab) MDAIK 54 pp. 187-217

Hassan, F.A. (1988) The Predynastic of Egypt. Journal of World Prehistory 2(2) pp. 135-185

Hendrickx, S. (2006) The dog, The Lycaon pictus and order over chaos in Predynastic Egypt. In Kroeper, K. (ed) Archaeology of Early Northeastern Africa. Poznan Archaeological Museum: Poznan, Poland pp. 723-749

Hendrickx, s. and Eyckerman, M. (2010) Continuity and Change in the Visual Representations of Predynastic Egypt. In Raffaele, F., Nuzzolo, M. and Incordino, I. (eds.) Recent Discoveries and Latest Researches in Egyptology. Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology, Naples, June 18th-20th 2008. Harrassowitz Verlag: Wiesbaden, Germany pp. 121-145

Hoath, R. (2009) A Field Guide to the Mammals of Egypt. American University in Cairo Press: Cairo, Egypt

Hoffman, M.A. (1982) The Predynastic of Hierakonpolis: An Interim Report. Egyptian Studies Association Publication, No. 1, Cairo University Herbarium: Giza, Egypt

Hoffman, M.A. (1989) A Stratified Predynastic Sequence from Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt). In Krzyaniak, L. and Kobyciewicz, M. (eds.) Late Prehistory of the Nile Basin and the Sahara. Poznan Archaeological Museum: Poznan, Poland pp. 317-323

Hoffman, M.A. (1991) Egypt Before the Pharaohs Revised Edition. University of Texas Press: Austin, TX

Hoffman, M.A., Adams, B., Lupton, C., Harlan, F., Berger, M., Hamroush, H.A., el-Hadidi, N., McHugh, W., McArdle, J. and Allen, R.O. (1982) The Predynastic of Hierakonpolis – An Interim Report. ESA Publication No.1: Cairo, Egypt

Hoffman, M.A., Hamroush, H.A. and Allen, R.O. (1986) A Model of Urban Development for the Hierakonpolis Region from Predynastic through Old Kingdom Times. JARCE 23 pp. 175-187

Ikram, S. (2005) Divine Creatures: Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt. American University in Cairo Press: Cairo, Egypt

Kemp, B. (1989) Ancient Egypt, Anatomy of a Civilisation. Routledge: London, UK

Kemp, B.J., Boyce, A. and Harrell, J. (2000) The Colossi from the Early Shrine at Coptos in Egypt. CAJ 10(2) pp. 211-242

Kummer, H. (1997) In Quest of the Sacred Baboon. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ

Meltzer, E.S. (2003) Horus. In Redford, D.B. (ed.) The Oxford Guide: Essential Guide to Egyptian Mythology. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK pp. 164-168

Millet, N.B. (1991) The Narmer Macehead and Related Objects. JARCE 28 pp. 223-225

Quibell, J.E. (1901) Flint dagger from Gebelein. ASAE 2 pp. 131-132

Quibell, J.E. and Green, F.W. (1902) Hierakonpolis II. ERA and BSAE 5

Raffaele, F. (2010) Animal Rows and Ceremonial Processions in Late Predynastic Egypt. In Raffaele, F., Nuzzolo, M. and Incordino, I. (eds.) Recent Discoveries and Latest Researches in Egyptology. Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology, Naples, June 18th-20th 2008. Harrassowitz Verlag: Wiesbaden, Germany pp. 245-287

Redford, S. and Redford, D.B. (1989) Graffiti and Petroglyphs Old and New from the Eastern Desert. Journal of the American Research Centre in Egypt 26 pp. 3-49

Reid, I. (2014) “A Re-examination of the ‘Elite Cemetery’ Label for HK6 through the Animal Burials”. MA Dissertation. UCL, Unpublished.

Roy, J. (2011) The Politics of Trade: Egypt and Lower Nubia in the 4th Millennium BC. Brill: Leiden, Netherlands

Savage, S.H. (2001) Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(2) pp. 101-155

Van Neer, W., Linseele, V. and Friedman, R.F. (2004) Animal Burials and Food Offerings at the Elite Cemetery HK6 of Hierakonpolis in Hendrickx, S., Friedman, R.F., Cialowicz, K.M. and Chlodnicki, M. (eds.) Egypt at its Origins: Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams. Peeters Publishing: Leuven, Belgium pp. 45-67

Wilkinson, T.A.H. (1996) State Formation in Egypt: Chronology and Society, Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 40, BAR International Series 651. Tempus Reparatum: Oxford, UK

Web 1 - http://www.hierakonpolis-online.org/index.php/explore-the-predynastic-cemeteries/hk6-elite-cemetery Accessed [24/8/14]