Customer Reviews

Early Dynastic Egypt

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book replaces W.B. Emery's Archaic Egypt as the standard English-language introduction to the early dynatic period. It is a fine synthesis of the last century of work in the field and in specialist journals, including many recent discoveries (e.g., cemetary U at Umm-el-Qaab) and the most important discussions (e.g., Seidlmayer,Renee Friedman). Especially strong in dealing with the "new" archeology, the most important original contribution of this work is its analysis of royal administration in the 1st through 3rd dynasties. If the book does have a weakness, it is in its catalog-like treatment of religion: but the major references are given for the reader to follow out even here.

"Early Dynastic Egypt" is an excellent - indeed, probably indispensible - professional reference. However, it isn't necessarily suitable for most "general readers," even those who already know something about ancient Egypt.

The amount of factual detail in this book is overwhelming, as befits a scholarly work, but there is not enough interpretation or explanation to make the archaeology come alive for a non-professional reader. The book's lack of illustration (other than confusing line drawings of early dynastic seals) is another minus, both for scholars and general readers alike.

I was also surprised at Wilkinson's non-quantitative treatment of the archaeological record. Important numbers like population estimates and enclosure dimensions seem largely absent from this book.

In this stunning book, the author chronicles the cultural, religious, economic and political developments which led to the construction of the pyramids. Divided in three parts, the author provides convincing evidence in relation to the five topics discussed herein, i.e. administration, contacts with foreign lands, establishment of divine kingship, royal tombs, and early Egyptian religion. A remarkable publication with great photography. Highly recommended for the interested student or scholar.

Seriously solid information on the early Egyptian dynasties is almost impossible to find. The era gets short shrift in the popular literature owing to the paucity of remains from it. This is at least partly, we learn, because archaeologists seemed more attracted to the dynasties that would yield booty than those that would surface trinkets. Additionally, the lack of a cogent narrative for the first three dynasties gives little for non-accademic writers to work with.

Wilkinson makes up for this by organizing the book more by topic than by chronology. It makes for an interesting read, even if the picture that emerges is just a fragmentary as the evidence. A perusal of the table of contents will give you an idea of how this is done.

Wilkinson spares no detail. Looking for attested instances of Semerkhet's nswt-bty? They're all dutifully cataloged in well-written prose in the chapter covering kings by chronology and likely referenced in the chapter on population centers if they were found within one.

Aside from the actual archaeological evidence, there's a fair bit of informed speculation. The actual names of the kings isn't altogether clear and there are a few ephemerally attested kings that may be alternate names of known kings, usurpers, or something else entirely. It's these musings that make this such a great read and highlight where encyclopedias of kings' names or overviews of Egyptian history fall well short. Early Dynastic Egypt is invaluable.

The reviews prior to mine sum up the strong points of the text quite well, it is an excellent resource for up-to-date (as of its publication) information and current models about the rise of the Egyptian state. The only criticisms I have are minor and some what nitpicky, but I'll include them anyway:
1) the paper the books is printed on is slightly glossy which I find extremely irritating as it catched light and returns a glare when you're reading (I told you this would be nitpicky).
2) not many illustrations - publishing costs being what they are, etc. I can understand the lack of illustrations and the choices made as to what to include, but clear understanding of some points, especially when discussing layout of sites, etc. is greatly facilitated by the inclusion of good maps, plans, etc.

A very interesting book that gets right down to the details about Africa's greatest civilization. It nice to finally read more and more books these days that teaches the history that indigenous Africans created. No more fantasy about some outside imaginary human beings.

But it would have been nice if they told the truth about their indigenous name that they called themselves. They never called themselves Egyptians, but called themselves Kamites. The Greeks called them Egyptians thousands of years later. Maybe that will be in the next book.

Mr. Wilkinson offers his readers a view of early dynastic Egypt that is a perfect example of what is wrong with the so-called "norms of Egyptological scholarship".
All of the classical ancient writers,Greek and Roman,recognized the fact that "ancient Egypt" and "Nubia" were part of the same ancient Nile Valley complex of African civilizations. For these writers, human civilization descended down the great Nile river from the heart of Africa.For them the "ancient Egyptians" and the "Nubians" were black negro African people. They saw them,they spoke with them( For example, Aristotle, Strabo, Herodotus, Diodorus,etc,etc..).
It is interesting to note that none of these ancient writers said that the "ancient Egyptians" came from the "East" or that they received any cultural "impulses" from Mesopotamia. None said that the ancient Egyptians of their day were Asian or white.
It was during the 17th century that European nationalism and the German invention of "racial types", slowly began to change this paradigm into the one used today by modern Euro centric thinkers.
The German school of African studies, the Colonial Institute at Hamburg,which opened around 1906, became extremely influential in Europe, spreading the views of Hegel throughout Europe and America.
For Hegel Black African people were outside of human history. "There was no historical evolution in Africa proper.....it was in Asia that the light of the spirit dawned and the history of the world began." The German thinker Stulmann came up with the idea that "waves of immigrants from the East" populated Africa bringing people and civilization. According to Stulmann, even black Africans(proto-Hamites) came from Asia!!
Remember this paradigm.
Mr. Wilkinson follows this racialist, outdated euro-centric framework to the detriment of his endeavor.
No one has ever provided any evidence that the culture of the Tigris and the Euphrates predates the cultures of African river valley cultures of the Nile. Nor does anyone know exactly where was the center of this "Eastern" or "Asiatic"civilization. When did it exist? Where is the evidence of any kind? Who were the people. Where are the prototypes of ancient Egyptian culture...these questions can be ignored if one has to remain true to Herr Hegel and Herr Stulmann. Remember the paradigm!
Mr. Wilkinson struggles desperately to follow the Master Narrative of pure Eurocentrism.
For example on page 181-182, Mr. Wilkinson goes into some detail about the burial of SiSi. SiSi appears to be a "Nubian" and not "Egyptian" to Mr. Wilkinson.Later Mr. Wilkinson tells of another burial of a man of high status who is "unquestionably Nubian"." "Although the majority of the graves in this cemetery belonged to the A-Group...." Mr. Wilkinson does not tell his readers that Black African people are labeled"A-Group","Nubian", "C-Group".
The "ancient Egyptians" used a term for themselves that can only be translated as: "the black people" or "the Negroes". That word is "Kmt"(followed by man/woman and plural markers). See R. O. Faulkner 1962 p.286, or UNESCO General History of Africa 1981 V. 2 p.42.
Eurocentric scholars translate the term as "Kemit", Kmtjw Kmt or "Egyptians". Well and good ,but if we examine the term closely and study it's etymology, there can be absolutely no doubt that the literal translation would have to be "black people" or the "black men and women".

When Dr. Wilkinson discuses the "hostile" and "exploitative" attitude of the ancient Egyptians towards the Nubians, he again follows the Eurocentric paradigm and implies that some form of racial differences were at the bottom of Egypto-Nubian wars and conflicts. On page 155, Wilkinson seems to be saying that relationships between ancient Egypt and the "East", in this case southern Palestine and northern Sinai, were characterized by "a broad border zone occupied by intermixed Egyptian and native trading post-post and villages....."
This is extremely misleading,especially to general readers. On pages 77-76 of Mr. Wilkinson's book he writes of the numerous wars Den waged against Palestine and areas of the Sinai. The ancient Egyptian terms for Asians and Europeans were extremely pejorative,denoting an animal like human( 3mou and tahmou).
The ancient Egyptians built no temples in Palestine or the Sinai. Yet they built many temples in "Nubia", some with Nubian Gods and Goddesses. Egyptian women and Nubian wore the same hair styles, many were totemic.
The first "holy land" was far south of Egypt in the heart of Africa. So was the the "land of the ancestors", "land of the spirits". The Twa(so-called Pygmies) people from tropical Africa were sought after to engage in sacred rituals to dance the dance of the Gods in a ceremony involving the Pharaoh, the ultimate high priest. They buried their dead facing the south.
Mr. Wilkinson can offer nothing but pure speculation to support his many,many suggestions and nuanced assertions that the origin of ancient Egyptian civilization lay in the "East". Remember the paradigm!
As for the exploitative and hostile attitude towards Nubians; we would respond that: if we look at modern Europe we see serious conflict in the Balkans. How many times have the Germans fought the Poles? The French and the English,the Irish and the English.Spain and Portugal.... and on and on. Are they not all Europeans who share the same cultural universe?
Simply because they fought each other does not mean that there
was a some impenetrable wall between these two black African peoples. The impenetrable wall between ancient Egypt and Nubian, and the rest of African exist only in the minds of the Eurocentric thinkers who cling to the myths of the past.
Mr. Wilkinson demonstrates his determination to follow Euro-American nationalist ideologies when he writes that the royal placenta standards on early royal monuments have nothing to do with the Baganda people of Uganda. Mr. Wilkinson drags out Stulmann's old "hamitic" theory when he writes that the "elite" of the Baganda people where "hamitic in origin". (p.299) No one can define the term "hamitic", not even Mr. Wilkinson who supplies an interesting definition on page370.
"Hamitic(adj.) Belonging to the grouping of north African languages and cultures which includes, amongst others,ancient Egyptian and Berber."
An incredible, vague and confusing definition!! Since the language of ancient Egypt is not genetically related to Berber(Rif nor Siwa) and it is certainly not genetically related to any Semitic language.
The language of ancient Egypt was a black African language that is genetically related to modern day black African negro languages.See the linguistic works of C.A. Diop or Theophile Obenga or Unesco General History of Africa V.2 44-48,G Mokhtar,1981. If Mr. Wilkinson has any scientific linguistic evidence to the contrary let him him bring it forth.
Mr. Wilkerson certainly cites some credible archeological evidence, but his interpretations of the evidence is forced into his Eurocentric framework. The book may appear to be scholarly, but on closer scrutiny we find the form of scholarship but not the spirit. A slick ,devious veneer of scholarship that hides a racialist ideology as its unstated premise. Remember the paradigm.
At this point let us leave this "constellation of errors" in interpretation of these ancient black African cultures that we now call "ancient Egypt". A series of ancient African civilizations that originated in the heart of black Africa(to the dismay of many). Remember the paradigm.