Unplanned
urban cities and towns
1. Egypt has sometimes been regarded as a
civilization without cities. This view
stems largely from comparison with the contemporary Sumerian civilization where
most people lived in large dense urban settlements that are the prototypical
“cities” of the ancient world. However,
while there are profound differences in the overall settlement pattern the gulf
is not as great as this older view would suggest.
2. In predynastic Egypt there is plenty of
evidence for the existence of walled towns clustered around temple foundations
existing in a state of competition.
Indeed it is this pattern that laid the foundation for unification under
Narmer, the ruler of one of these towns – Abydos. At this time it would be largely accurate to equate the
settlement situation with that of early Uruk Sumer, with emerging urban centers
which later vied for supremacy.
3. With the establishment of the pharaonic
state the situation appears to have changed somewhat with the foundation of a
new capital, Memphis, which dominated the entire country. All governmental functions and institutions
were concentrated in Memphis in the 1st Dynasty, with other towns
commensurately losing power and much of their significance as centers, although
some persisted as regional administrative centers under the central
government.
4. This pattern of a paramount capital city,
dominating most other settlements in a unified country continued to develop so
that by 2nd Dynasty there was essentially a two-tier settlement
pattern with most Egyptians living in small villages scattered throughout the
Nile Valley and the Delta. The
environmental and political configuration encouraged this “non-urban” (in the
Mesopotamian sense) pattern. Thus the
Nile valley was available for agriculture throughout its length with no need
for competition for water as was the case in Sumer, the political stability
that obtained for most of Egypt’s history removed the need for populations to
cluster together in fortified cities as in Sumer, and the centralized
government removed the need for multi-functional centers of the Mesopotamian
type with many administrative functions being exercised through visiting
administrators in the earliest periods and rural religious foundations in later
periods.
5. Thus, while small provincial administrative
towns existed and later political events stimulated the rise of additional
capitals (Thebes, Tel el –Amarna, Alexandria) these were always exceptions in
the overall settlement pattern in terms of size and function. Most Egyptians lived in relatively small
settlements.
Planned Settlements
Temple
Towns
1. While the type of unplanned (except for the
administrative precinct) city that characterizes southern Mesopotamia was not
prevalent in Egypt another general category of settlement was common. This is the planned community, which arose
with the establishment of mortuary temples and estates at least as early in the
Old Kingdom to house the priests, officials and workers who were part of the
wider establishment.
2. Temple Towns were part of the architectural
complexes of the mortuary temples associated with the pyramids and were either
located directly adjacent to the great mortuary compound or at times spread
into the interiors of the temple enclosures themselves. In the Old Kingdom,
while representing specialized settlements whose location and function was
determined by the state ideology and its mortuary ritual, there was relatively
little formality within the settlement itself.
This was to change in the Middle Kingdom.
3. These temple communities of the Pyramid Age
were the antecedents to a planned settlement type that lasted with
modifications throughout the dynastic age, in the New Kingdom, representing the
“model towns” of the Middle Kingdom such as Kahun and the residential
components of the great Theban temples of the 18th and 19th
dynasties.
Planned
“Model Communities” of the Middle Kingdom
1. In the Middle Kingdom, central control over
all aspects of society that fell within the managerial realm of the state
resulted in the existing rather informal temple-town pattern developing into a
formal pattern used by the government for control and colonization of areas
both inside and on the borders of Egypt.
2. Middle Kingdom settlements were still
usually associated with state establishments - most commonly mortuary
structures or temples in the Nile Valley proper, and defensive locations in the
peripheral areas of the Delta and Nubia.
3. Towns comprised blocks of residential
structures arranged in an orthogonal pattern and approached by a right-angled
grid of streets and alleys. Town walls
were aligned with the adjacent ritual complexes. Towns contained their own administrative and religious buildings.
4. Residential houses were oriented toward the
interior of their lots and included large reception/living rooms, designated
bathrooms, sleeping quarters, storage areas, food preparation and sometimes
residential craft areas. The outer
walls also often contained gardens and pools.
Houses
basically comprised two grades - a large category of smaller houses for the
bulk of the population and a small category of large houses where the managers
and administrators lived. Several
granaries contained the bulk of the food supply, each managed by appropriate
town officials and designated for a specific segment of the populace
5. While most Middle Kingdom towns existed
because of their attachment to a state foundation, their large size compared
with earlier pyramid towns signified a population larger than was necessary
purely to carry out the activities required by the parent establishment. Thus a variety of activities were present
carried out by a diverse number of artisans, administrators and subsidiary
religious officials.
6. In general the Middle Kingdom towns reflect
a very regimented and ordered society in which the state maintained a presence
in urban planning and location that had not existed earlier and was not to
persist into the New Kingdom.
Forts
1. The Nubian forts constitute another form of
specialized state settlement of the Middle Kingdom. They were located south of the First Cataract of the Nile to
defend the southern approaches of the state and to control economic interaction
with Nubia.
2. In form the forts were modified examples of
the “Model Communities.” Their massive
walls surrounded well-planned clusters of residential, religious, and storage
areas laid out by the same principles that directed town plans.
3. The forts were massive defensive posts both
and centers for often-local scouts and state trading expeditions. They were later superseded by modified
versions of temple towns in the New Kingdom when the entire area was pacified
by the expansive 18th dynasty state.
Other
Towns
1. The massive construction required for the
construction of royal tombs at the Gaza Pyramids and much later in the New
Kingdom Valley of the Kings near Thebes necessitated the housing of large
bodies of workers. These were in both
cases housed in specially built towns.
2. The Gaza pyramid workers town stood on the
plateau near the great pyramids where their inhabitants worked. Though carefully located away from the
sacred precincts they were not internally formally planned and consisted of
large clusters of small houses.
3. The Valley of the Kings workers were housed
in the special town of Deir el-Medina, west of Thebes. This town shows relaxation of the rigid
planning of the Middle Kingdom, as does the capital of Egypt during Amunhotep
IV’s (Ahkenaten) reign, Amarna.
Although the overall dimensions of the both town are set by state
design, it was left for the inhabitants to complete the houses in whatever way
they wished. Thus the internal plans
eschew the tight orthogonal pattern of Kahun and clearly demonstrate the
presence of families working independently of each other and of the overall
administration. Even in Amarna, while
the royal palaces and Aten temples are carefully aligned at opposite ends of a
processional way, the town in general displays an informality that contrasts
greatly with earlier custom.
4. In the urban sector this informality within overall central governmental control reflects wider socio-economic life in the later period. Here unlike the Middle Kingdom situation a variety of diverse of civil and religious government agents, and of a wide range of classes, all maintained a large degree of freedom and personal initiative in their social lives.