What do you think?
Rate this book
Early Dynastic Egypt
Early Dynastic Egypt spans the five centuries preceding the construction of the Great Pyramid at Giza. This was the formative period of ancient Egyptian civilization, and it witnessed the creation of a distinctive culture that was to endure for 3,000 years. This book examines the background to that great achievement, the mechanisms by which it was accomplished, and the character of life in the Nile valley during the first 500 years of Pharaonic rule.
The results of over thirty years of international scholarship and excavation are presented in a single highly illustrated volume. It traces the re-discovery of Early Dynastic Egypt, explains how the dynasties established themselves in government and concludes by examining the impact of the early state on individual communities and regions.
The results of over thirty years of international scholarship and excavation are presented in a single highly illustrated volume. It traces the re-discovery of Early Dynastic Egypt, explains how the dynasties established themselves in government and concludes by examining the impact of the early state on individual communities and regions.
436 pages, Paperback
First published March 11, 1999
8 people are currently reading
233 people want to read
About the author
Toby Wilkinson
17 books273 followersDr Toby Wilkinson joined the International Strategy Office in July 2011, working with the Pro Vice Chancellor (Jennifer Barnes) to support the schools, faculties and departments in their international engagements, and to develop the University's international strategy, particularly with regard to research collaborations and relationships with the EU, US, India and China. Prior to this, Dr Wilkinson was the Development Director at Clare College as well as Chairman of Cambridge Colleges Development Group.
As an acknowledged expert on ancient Egyptian civilisation and one of the leading Egyptologists of his generation, Toby Wilkinson has lectured around the world. He has excavated at the Egyptian sites of Buto and Memphis. He is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Egyptian History and has broadcast on radio and television in the UK and abroad, including BBC’s Horizon and Channel 4’s Private Lives of the Pharaohs, and was the consultant for the BBC’s award-winning documentary on the building of the Great Pyramid.
Upon graduating from the University of Cambridge he received the University’s Thomas Mulvey Prize and was elected to the prestigious Lady Wallis Budge Junior Research Fellowship in Egyptology. He is a Fellow of Clare College, University of Cambridge and an Honorary Research Fellow in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Durham.
As an acknowledged expert on ancient Egyptian civilisation and one of the leading Egyptologists of his generation, Toby Wilkinson has lectured around the world. He has excavated at the Egyptian sites of Buto and Memphis. He is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Egyptian History and has broadcast on radio and television in the UK and abroad, including BBC’s Horizon and Channel 4’s Private Lives of the Pharaohs, and was the consultant for the BBC’s award-winning documentary on the building of the Great Pyramid.
Upon graduating from the University of Cambridge he received the University’s Thomas Mulvey Prize and was elected to the prestigious Lady Wallis Budge Junior Research Fellowship in Egyptology. He is a Fellow of Clare College, University of Cambridge and an Honorary Research Fellow in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Durham.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
March 5, 2013
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 peoples. 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 classical European 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 18th 19th 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. Today we know those views are false, yet eurocentric scholars cling to the dogmas of the "German School" of African studies.
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 thinkers came up with the idea that "waves of immigrants from the East" populated Africa bringing people and civilization. According to the old German dogma, even black Africans came from Asia!!
This was taught in all of the great universities of Europe and propagated worldwide.
Today we know that it is false.
Thus we have the strange "Hamitic" theory where the same "Ham" is considered "black", African or Negro" when he is cursed in European folklore, Jewish religious text and popular Christianity and "whitened up" when he is found at the beginnings of human civilizations along the Nile.
Today We know that mankind has its origins in the Great Lakes region of Africa and all biblical folklore and German ideology to the contrary must be set aside .
Mr. Wilkinson follows this racialist, outdated euro-centric framework to the detriment of his endeavor.
No one has ever provided any evidence that the cultures 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"(Hamitic) or "Asiatic"(Hamitic)civilization. When and exactly where did it exist? Where is the evidence of any kind? Exactly who were these people? What languages did they speak? What were the characteristics of their culture? 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!
When faced with the black African realities of his fabled "Ancient Egypt", 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 at Shellal of a man of high status who is "unquestionably Nubian". Wilkinson writes that " the deceased was clearly a man of some status: he was interred holding two valuable copper objects, and wearing an elaborate gold necklace........." Wilkinson ends with this: " It has been suggested that the individual buried at Shellal was an Upper Nubian trade envoy who died unexpectedly whilst visiting Egypt(O'Conner 1993:27)." Perhaps he was an "Ancient Egyptian"
Mr. Wilkinson. Could your elaborate theories be wrong and biased?
At another point Wilkinson writes about certain graves : ".....the majority of the graves in this cemetery belonged to the A-Group...."
Mr. Wilkinson does not tell his readers is that everybody buried in cemetery was black- Black African people are labeled"A-Group","Nubian", "C-Group" B group and on and on......
The "ancient Egyptians" used a term for themselves that can only be translated as: "the black people" "or black men and black women" or "the Negroes". That word is "Kmt"(km (black)followed by a man glyph then a woman glyph and the three plural markers below). See R. O. Faulkner 1962 p.286, or UNESCO General History of Africa 1981 V. 2 p.42.
Eurocentric scholars translate the terms "Kemit", Kmtjw or Kmt as "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 black 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 had some terms for Asians and Europeans that were extremely pejorative, denoting an animal like human( 3mou and tahmou) using the animal determinative. Anyone familiar with the language would know this.
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. Nubia existed long before Egypt, along side Egypt and even after Egypt. There are more pyramids in Nubia than in Egypt.
Even the profoundly racist American Egyptologist George Reisner was forced by the overwhelming evidence to concede that Nubia and Egypt formed one civilization and that the origins of that civilization was the black peoples of Punt. See: Race And the Writing of History,Oxford University Press, 2000 p.79
Yet 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 by the Egyptians, we would respond in this way: 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 an 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 the old "Hamitic" theory when he writes that the "elite" of the Baganda people where "Hamitic in origin". (p.299)
I think my pretty Muganda friend( a Baganda) of Uganda would be surprised to know that the kings of her people were "Hamitic"! lol
No one can define the term "Hamitic", not even Mr. Wilkinson who supplies an interesting attempt on page 370.
"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 bring it forth.
Mr. Wilkerson certainly cites some credible archaeological 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 scholarly sounding rhetoric that conceals a racialist ideology as its unstated premise.
If we peel back the many layers of Mr. Wilkinson's rhetoric, what we find are the views of people like Hermann Kees(University of Gottingen), Hermann Junker(University of Vienna) and Walther Wolff(University of Munster) . The ideas of these men have deeply influenced the European School of Egyptology and Western thought in general.
The west has always had a love affair with German ideologies and dogma.
It should be noted that all of these men had very strong ties with the German nazi movement. Facts are stubborn things.
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.
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 peoples. 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 classical European 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 18th 19th 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. Today we know those views are false, yet eurocentric scholars cling to the dogmas of the "German School" of African studies.
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 thinkers came up with the idea that "waves of immigrants from the East" populated Africa bringing people and civilization. According to the old German dogma, even black Africans came from Asia!!
This was taught in all of the great universities of Europe and propagated worldwide.
Today we know that it is false.
Thus we have the strange "Hamitic" theory where the same "Ham" is considered "black", African or Negro" when he is cursed in European folklore, Jewish religious text and popular Christianity and "whitened up" when he is found at the beginnings of human civilizations along the Nile.
Today We know that mankind has its origins in the Great Lakes region of Africa and all biblical folklore and German ideology to the contrary must be set aside .
Mr. Wilkinson follows this racialist, outdated euro-centric framework to the detriment of his endeavor.
No one has ever provided any evidence that the cultures 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"(Hamitic) or "Asiatic"(Hamitic)civilization. When and exactly where did it exist? Where is the evidence of any kind? Exactly who were these people? What languages did they speak? What were the characteristics of their culture? 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!
When faced with the black African realities of his fabled "Ancient Egypt", 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 at Shellal of a man of high status who is "unquestionably Nubian". Wilkinson writes that " the deceased was clearly a man of some status: he was interred holding two valuable copper objects, and wearing an elaborate gold necklace........." Wilkinson ends with this: " It has been suggested that the individual buried at Shellal was an Upper Nubian trade envoy who died unexpectedly whilst visiting Egypt(O'Conner 1993:27)." Perhaps he was an "Ancient Egyptian"
Mr. Wilkinson. Could your elaborate theories be wrong and biased?
At another point Wilkinson writes about certain graves : ".....the majority of the graves in this cemetery belonged to the A-Group...."
Mr. Wilkinson does not tell his readers is that everybody buried in cemetery was black- Black African people are labeled"A-Group","Nubian", "C-Group" B group and on and on......
The "ancient Egyptians" used a term for themselves that can only be translated as: "the black people" "or black men and black women" or "the Negroes". That word is "Kmt"(km (black)followed by a man glyph then a woman glyph and the three plural markers below). See R. O. Faulkner 1962 p.286, or UNESCO General History of Africa 1981 V. 2 p.42.
Eurocentric scholars translate the terms "Kemit", Kmtjw or Kmt as "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 black 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 had some terms for Asians and Europeans that were extremely pejorative, denoting an animal like human( 3mou and tahmou) using the animal determinative. Anyone familiar with the language would know this.
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. Nubia existed long before Egypt, along side Egypt and even after Egypt. There are more pyramids in Nubia than in Egypt.
Even the profoundly racist American Egyptologist George Reisner was forced by the overwhelming evidence to concede that Nubia and Egypt formed one civilization and that the origins of that civilization was the black peoples of Punt. See: Race And the Writing of History,Oxford University Press, 2000 p.79
Yet 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 by the Egyptians, we would respond in this way: 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 an 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 the old "Hamitic" theory when he writes that the "elite" of the Baganda people where "Hamitic in origin". (p.299)
I think my pretty Muganda friend( a Baganda) of Uganda would be surprised to know that the kings of her people were "Hamitic"! lol
No one can define the term "Hamitic", not even Mr. Wilkinson who supplies an interesting attempt on page 370.
"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 bring it forth.
Mr. Wilkerson certainly cites some credible archaeological 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 scholarly sounding rhetoric that conceals a racialist ideology as its unstated premise.
If we peel back the many layers of Mr. Wilkinson's rhetoric, what we find are the views of people like Hermann Kees(University of Gottingen), Hermann Junker(University of Vienna) and Walther Wolff(University of Munster) . The ideas of these men have deeply influenced the European School of Egyptology and Western thought in general.
The west has always had a love affair with German ideologies and dogma.
It should be noted that all of these men had very strong ties with the German nazi movement. Facts are stubborn things.
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.
February 24, 2017
A dry, academic work. Reads like college textbooks and the kind of articles you find in scholastic journals in university libraries. I thought it was interesting, and those with a deep interest in archaeology in general and Egyptology in particular might also --- but, for the average reader just seeking a book to learn more about Ancient Egypt, probably not so much. Given the lack of solid reliable written records from the time of Ancient Egypt, much of what we know about it seems to be based upon educated guesses and detective work. So I think that it's a difficult topic to write about; however, more pictures of artifacts that the author describes in detail and color pics and better diagrams of excavation sites would have done much to make this book more alive, easier to follow, and more engaging. While I like books like this and it's good book for the in-depth Egyptologist, it's probably not one that most other readers will likely enjoy.
January 10, 2021
This book is a welcome addition to any library of ancient Egypt.
One of the great paradoxes is that the Early Dynastic period is the most formative phase of ancient Egyptian history, but it is also relatively poorly understood. Even the Predynastic period, concerning most of the second half of the fourth millennium BC, has yielded up more answers to its central problems than the Early Dynastic. Among the reasons for this are a change in settlement patterns, with more settlements moving closer to the river during the Early Dynastic, resulting in Predynastic remains being more readily found in the desert while Early Dynastic remains are most likely hidden beneath modern cities; and the role of writing, because in the Early Dynastic, the Egyptian writing system was already a functional recordkeeping tool, but surviving texts are rare and comparatively abbreviated.
With the Early Dynastic being such a source of mystery, especially the shadowy Second Dynasty, a book focusing on this period is quite welcome. For his purposes, Wilkinson chose to extend the definition of the Early Dynastic past the Second Dynasty to encapsulate the Third Dynasty, which is normally considered a full part of the Old Kingdom. By doing so, however, he is able to illustrate the evolution of the Egyptian kingship and its attendant administration from the late Predynastic phenomenon associated with kings like Scorpion to the state apparatus that was capable of building the pyramids of Giza in the Fourth Dynasty. It is a useful shift in perspective, and it refines the concept of the Early Dynastic as the formative period of the Egyptian monarchy.
Considering the limitations of what we do have in regard to the Early Dynastic period, this book is a comprehensive survey of what we had when the book was published, spanning the rites of kingship and changes in mortuary practice through the list of gods that were specifically attested in this period and patterns of life in provincial Egypt.
The principal caveat with this book is that it is more than twenty years old, and as such, it no longer serves as an up-to-date resource. Major work has continued in places like Abydos and Buto in the intervening years. Judging from the first volume of Romer's History of Ancient Egypt, which was published fifteen years later, it seems that the essentials of Wilkinson's book are still considered to be true, and subsequent discoveries have built on those conclusions. For example, the city of Memphis was traditionally considered to have been built by the first pharaoh, dubbed "Menes" in the later tradition. In 1999, Wilkinson considered it likely that Memphis existed in some form at least in the Naqada II period; in 2014, Romer writes of this as an established fact.
In short, Early Dynastic Egypt is somewhat dated, but it can still be considered a reliable source for the general reader or the Egypt enthusiast with an interest in filling in the story of Egypt's formative age.
One of the great paradoxes is that the Early Dynastic period is the most formative phase of ancient Egyptian history, but it is also relatively poorly understood. Even the Predynastic period, concerning most of the second half of the fourth millennium BC, has yielded up more answers to its central problems than the Early Dynastic. Among the reasons for this are a change in settlement patterns, with more settlements moving closer to the river during the Early Dynastic, resulting in Predynastic remains being more readily found in the desert while Early Dynastic remains are most likely hidden beneath modern cities; and the role of writing, because in the Early Dynastic, the Egyptian writing system was already a functional recordkeeping tool, but surviving texts are rare and comparatively abbreviated.
With the Early Dynastic being such a source of mystery, especially the shadowy Second Dynasty, a book focusing on this period is quite welcome. For his purposes, Wilkinson chose to extend the definition of the Early Dynastic past the Second Dynasty to encapsulate the Third Dynasty, which is normally considered a full part of the Old Kingdom. By doing so, however, he is able to illustrate the evolution of the Egyptian kingship and its attendant administration from the late Predynastic phenomenon associated with kings like Scorpion to the state apparatus that was capable of building the pyramids of Giza in the Fourth Dynasty. It is a useful shift in perspective, and it refines the concept of the Early Dynastic as the formative period of the Egyptian monarchy.
Considering the limitations of what we do have in regard to the Early Dynastic period, this book is a comprehensive survey of what we had when the book was published, spanning the rites of kingship and changes in mortuary practice through the list of gods that were specifically attested in this period and patterns of life in provincial Egypt.
The principal caveat with this book is that it is more than twenty years old, and as such, it no longer serves as an up-to-date resource. Major work has continued in places like Abydos and Buto in the intervening years. Judging from the first volume of Romer's History of Ancient Egypt, which was published fifteen years later, it seems that the essentials of Wilkinson's book are still considered to be true, and subsequent discoveries have built on those conclusions. For example, the city of Memphis was traditionally considered to have been built by the first pharaoh, dubbed "Menes" in the later tradition. In 1999, Wilkinson considered it likely that Memphis existed in some form at least in the Naqada II period; in 2014, Romer writes of this as an established fact.
In short, Early Dynastic Egypt is somewhat dated, but it can still be considered a reliable source for the general reader or the Egypt enthusiast with an interest in filling in the story of Egypt's formative age.
April 19, 2018
This has to be the most readable book that I’ve picked up on early dynastic Egypt so far. It hits the sweet spot between objective, professional tone and engaging style, avoiding becoming too dry and dull and consistently holding the interest. I admit it does have one or two monotonous spots – the chapter on royal mortuary architecture comes to mind – but the vast majority is written with liveliness, as well as a real understanding of the subject. The book is well-referenced for those who wish to pursue the threads back to the hard evidence, although he proposes that Queen Neithhotep (possibly wife of Narmer and mother of Aha, although some Egyptologists think she may have been Aha’s wife and Djer’s mother) may have been a scion of the local dynasts at Naqada (previously a regional royal centre in its own right before unification). It isn’t implausible that an early king might have made such a marriage alliance, but Wilkinson’s suggestion rests simply on the fact that Neithhotep’s tomb was at Naqada, and, again, whilst it isn’t implausible that she could have been laid to rest at her home town, it seems to me there’s also nothing implausible about her being laid to rest somewhere that wasn’t her home town. Essentially Wilkinson’s proposal is plausible – there’s nothing inherently wrong with it – but circumstantial and currently unprovable.
9 out of 10
March 8, 2008
Wilkinson came to speak, and I was so inspired by his book that I read it, even through the academic term, which is something I usually don't bother with since I have enough assigned reading.
The first half is great; very informative and fairly well written. It's not precisely literature, but it is certainly readable. It gives a good overview of topics like the often ambiguous history of Early Dynastic Egypt, and makes good reading. He cites a lot of sources, and offers something for generalist and specialist both.
The second half is not as well put together, and makes for rather dry reading as he essentially makes lists and then tells you what he knows about the items in the list. For example, the end of the book is about urbanism, and he makes a list of urban centres in early Egypt and writes a few sentences or paragraphs about each. It would be a good place to look for references on a given subject, but not particularly enlightening or helpful otherwise.
Still, I rate it highly for the lovely first half, and suggest using the second half as reference only.
The first half is great; very informative and fairly well written. It's not precisely literature, but it is certainly readable. It gives a good overview of topics like the often ambiguous history of Early Dynastic Egypt, and makes good reading. He cites a lot of sources, and offers something for generalist and specialist both.
The second half is not as well put together, and makes for rather dry reading as he essentially makes lists and then tells you what he knows about the items in the list. For example, the end of the book is about urbanism, and he makes a list of urban centres in early Egypt and writes a few sentences or paragraphs about each. It would be a good place to look for references on a given subject, but not particularly enlightening or helpful otherwise.
Still, I rate it highly for the lovely first half, and suggest using the second half as reference only.
December 26, 2011
A wonderful study of the first three dynasties of ancient Egypt. However, this book is not for the novice. It assumes a level of knowledge of one who has studied the period for a while. If however, you are an arm chair Egyptologist, you will love this volume, and devour each chapter. While Wilkerson does have a chapter listing the kings, and what is known of each, the book deals with the culture, people, religion, and technology of the time. This is not a political history, but rather a cultural review.
November 1, 2025
Borrow.
Not a total bust but certainly for those academically focusing on the formation of the Egyptian state. A bit too heavy on the academic thesis feel side. My copy had the sourcing within the main text too, making it quite difficult to get in a flow.
Nonetheless I flipped around a bit and liked what I was reading. Wilkinson is good and I've read his other stuff and may return to that for a reread instead along with Kemp.
Not a total bust but certainly for those academically focusing on the formation of the Egyptian state. A bit too heavy on the academic thesis feel side. My copy had the sourcing within the main text too, making it quite difficult to get in a flow.
Nonetheless I flipped around a bit and liked what I was reading. Wilkinson is good and I've read his other stuff and may return to that for a reread instead along with Kemp.
November 23, 2021
This may be a bit dry and a bit dated, but I definitely got a lot out of it and it gives me a great idea of where the Egyptian culture came from. It isn't have romanticism of Romer nor the spunk of Mertz, but definitely specifics. I just wish Toby would write an updated draft, as a lot has happened since this book was released.
November 12, 2023
The Early Dynastic Period is when the most basic structures of ancient Egyptian government and religion were formed. Yet the evidence about it, at least during the Second Dynasty, is pretty sparse. And because there are few standout artifacts from the time, even a well-informed amateur can see the stretch of time between the Narmer Palette and the Step Pyramid as a blank. Wilkinson addresses that problem by pulling together all the evidence for that era, which, in his opinion, should include the Third Dynasty as well as the First and Second.
The first chapter of Part One outlines the history of study of the Early Dynastic Period, which began only in the 1890s. It points out that, because Abydos and the Step Pyramid lay unexcavated until that time, the earliest known Egyptian monuments were the giant pyramids of Sneferu and Khufu. No doubt that is the reason for a canard that still circulates today, that ancient Egyptian civilization sprang up suddenly from nowhere—a canard that this book demolishes. The next chapter describes the emergence of Egypt during the Predynastic Period and discusses the evidence for how the country was unified. Next, a historical outline of the Early Dynastic covers each ruler and the uncertainties of who succeeded whom without getting terribly technical.
The heart of the book is Part Two, describing the elements of authority in Early Dynastic society: government administration, foreign relations, kingship, royal mortuary architecture, and cults and shrines. Much of the evidence is fragmentary and has to be pieced together to form a general picture, but Wilkinson does so admirably. We get a sense of how loosely organized the royal administration was, even though it must have been the most complex organization in the world at the time. We see the kingdom's ambiguous authority over the Eastern and Western Deserts, even though it already had a strong presence in Lower Nubia and southern Canaan. And we see the early evolution of those characteristic Egyptian buildings: temples and tombs. There are even detailed lists of symbols of royal authority, from crowns to sandals, and of all the deities who are known to have been worshipped, or might have been worshipped, in this period.
Part Three describes individual regions within the early Egyptian nation. One chapter is about urban centers and how they developed, while another surveys each major region of the country.
A book this wide-ranging will always be erroneous on some small points. For instance, Wilkinson's skepticism that Iry-Hor was a Predynastic king has been disproven by a discovery made since it was published. However, this is still the one indispensable book on the Early Dynastic Period and probably will be for years.
The first chapter of Part One outlines the history of study of the Early Dynastic Period, which began only in the 1890s. It points out that, because Abydos and the Step Pyramid lay unexcavated until that time, the earliest known Egyptian monuments were the giant pyramids of Sneferu and Khufu. No doubt that is the reason for a canard that still circulates today, that ancient Egyptian civilization sprang up suddenly from nowhere—a canard that this book demolishes. The next chapter describes the emergence of Egypt during the Predynastic Period and discusses the evidence for how the country was unified. Next, a historical outline of the Early Dynastic covers each ruler and the uncertainties of who succeeded whom without getting terribly technical.
The heart of the book is Part Two, describing the elements of authority in Early Dynastic society: government administration, foreign relations, kingship, royal mortuary architecture, and cults and shrines. Much of the evidence is fragmentary and has to be pieced together to form a general picture, but Wilkinson does so admirably. We get a sense of how loosely organized the royal administration was, even though it must have been the most complex organization in the world at the time. We see the kingdom's ambiguous authority over the Eastern and Western Deserts, even though it already had a strong presence in Lower Nubia and southern Canaan. And we see the early evolution of those characteristic Egyptian buildings: temples and tombs. There are even detailed lists of symbols of royal authority, from crowns to sandals, and of all the deities who are known to have been worshipped, or might have been worshipped, in this period.
Part Three describes individual regions within the early Egyptian nation. One chapter is about urban centers and how they developed, while another surveys each major region of the country.
A book this wide-ranging will always be erroneous on some small points. For instance, Wilkinson's skepticism that Iry-Hor was a Predynastic king has been disproven by a discovery made since it was published. However, this is still the one indispensable book on the Early Dynastic Period and probably will be for years.
December 19, 2018
An excellent reference book.
June 24, 2020
تعلم الاسماء بالانجليزى يجنن
February 7, 2025
Spectacular overview of the era
Extremely detailed and enlightening information on a mysterious yet formative era in the history of Ancient Egypt. A must read
Extremely detailed and enlightening information on a mysterious yet formative era in the history of Ancient Egypt. A must read
February 9, 2025
Livro muito interessante para um período da história Egípcia que foi precursor da criação do estado-nação e do modo Egípcio de governar. Bastante técnico e com extensa pesquisa bibliográfica.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews