However, discoveries made within the last few years, particularly at Buto and Abydos, provide tantalising glimpses of a rather different picture of early Egypt. There is a small, but growing body of evidence to suggest that the birth of Egyptian civilisation may, after all, have owed a significant amount to other neighbouring cultures, particularly those of the ancient Near East (see Map 2 for location of sites). In light of this new and immensely exciting evidence, it is perhaps time to begin a reappraisal of early Egypt’s place in the ancient world, the extent and intensity of Egyptian interaction with neighbouring cultures, and the influence of those cultures on the development of Egyptian civilisation.
THE NEAR EAST AND EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN
Relations with southern Palestine
There is some evidence for sporadic contacts between Egypt and southern Palestine as early as the Badarian and Naqada I periods, the Chalcolithic in southern Palestine (Prag
1986; Marfoe 1987:26; Ben-Tor 1991:3–4; Ward 1991:13). However, intensive contacts between the two regions do not seem to have begun until later in the Predynastic period. Direct Egyptian involvement in southern Palestine seems to have occurred in two phases, separated by an intervening period of reduced Egyptian activity in the region (Gophna 1992b; Hartung 1994). The first phase occurred during the EBIa period in southern Palestine (Hartung 1994:108–9), which corresponds to the beginning of the Naqada II period in Upper Egypt (Amiran and Gophna 1992). From this time, there is evidence of Egyptian settlers, belonging to the Lower Egyptian cultural sphere (Gophna 1992b: 388– 9, fig. 4; Porat 1992:435; Hartung 1994:108), at a few sites in southern Palestine: Site H in the Wadi Ghazzeh (Gophna 1990,1992b), Taur Ikhbeineh (Oren and Yekutieli 1992), Nizzanim (Gophna 1990), Lachish (Gophna 1976, 1992b; Oren and Gilead 1981; Brandl 1992 plus references) and Tel Erani (Weinstein 1984; Kempinski 1992).
From the middle of Naqada II (Naqada He) until the end of the Predynastic period (Naqada IIIb/‘Dynasty 0’) the evidence for an Egyptian presence in southern Palestine is greatly reduced (Hartung 1994:109–11). A small population may have remained at Taur Ikhbeineh and Tel Erani, but even here the percentage of Egyptian pottery declines markedly compared to the previous phase (Hartung 1994:109). There is a clear hiatus in the En Besor area between the Egyptian activity at Site H (in EBIa) and the resumption of an Egyptian presence at nearby En Besor (in late EBIb). Interestingly, it is precisely during this period of reduced Egyptian involvement in southern Palestine that imports from the Near East are most numerous in Egyptian contexts, the most dramatic example being the hundreds of imported vessels found in tomb U-j at Abydos. So trade between the two areas was clearly maintained (cf. Amiran 1985). The evidence points to a major realignment of Egyptian-Palestinian contacts during the Naqada II and early Naqada III periods, when the courts of Upper Egypt were expanding their political and economic influence (Hartung 1994).
Colonisation
The very end of the Predynastic period (late EBIb in the Palestinian chronology) witnessed a resumption of direct Egyptian involvement in southern Palestine, but on a much larger scale than before. This development is undoubtedly linked to the process of state formation that was reaching its culmination in Egypt during ‘Dynasty 0’ (Marfoe 1987:26). Instead of small-scale trade, perhaps involving middlemen, the Egyptians seem to have engaged in larger, more frequent, state-sponsored expeditions into southern Palestine (Moorey 1987:43). These were supported by minor way-stations along the north Sinai coast, trading-stations, caravan-serais and even permanent settlements in southern Palestine itself (Marfoe 1987:26; Oren and Yekutieli 1992:381). This extension of the ‘core’ into the ‘periphery’ for a restricted period of time is part of a general phenomenon associated with the rise of early states. The establishment of ‘colonies’ would clearly have allowed the Egyptians to gather resources and control trade more effectively. More than twenty sites in southern Palestine have produced clear evidence of an Egyptian presence (Brandl 1992; Hartung 1994). This includes pottery and flint tools, made locally from local materials but in a characteristically Egyptian style and using Egyptian techniques (Ben-Tor 1991:5–6). Buildings constructed in an Egyptian manner—at En Besor (Gophna and Gazit 1985), Afridar (Brandl 1992:449) and perhaps Tel Maahaz
(Gophna 1976:33; Brandl 1992:464)—and seal-impressions made locally (Porat 1992) point to an official Egyptian administrative presence at certain sites, presumably acting under orders from a royal court back home (Gophna 1992b: 393). As one leading scholar has commented, ‘it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that southern Canaan…(in late EBIb)…was highly Egyptianized’ (Gophna 1992b: 386).
Tel Erani is a key site for understanding Egypt’s relations with southern Palestine during the Early Bronze Age. The site has produced a rich assemblage of imported Egyptian and locally made Egyptianising pottery (Weinstein 1984:61). One vessel fragment was found bearing the incised serekh of Narmer. It has been shown that the evidence for destruction layers at Tel Erani, previously interpreted as signs of Egyptian military activity, was illusory (Weinstein 1984:67). None the less, evidence for Egyptian contacts with the site goes back to the Naqada II period (EBIa-b). The Egyptian pottery at Tel Erani suggests a continuous Egyptian presence from this time until at least the latter part of the First Dynasty.
Another site of key importance is En Besor (Gophna and Gazit 1985; Gophna 1990, 1992a, 1992b). On a low hill overlooking the En Besor springs, Israeli archaeologists excavated a unique brick building, named Building A. It was constructed entirely of mudbrick, without stone foundations, and consisted of several rooms and courtyards covering a total area of some 85 square metres. Some of the walls were preserved up to a height of five courses of mudbricks. Although the bricks were made from the local loess soil, with the addition of large amounts of sand, their dimensions and the pattern in which they were laid have no parallels from contemporary southern Palestine. Rather, they are characteristic of Egyptian mudbrick construction of the Early Dynastic period, in particular the First Dynasty élite tombs at North Saqqara. Furthermore, the building as a whole, which gives the impression of having been built to a preconceived plan, is aligned north-south, as was common in Egyptian building practice (Gophna and Gazit 1985:9). A faience statuette of a baboon found in a rubbish pit confirms the Egyptian character of the site (Gophna 1992a). From the installations found inside the building – including a large pottery basin sunk into the floor of one room and a quern emplacement in the adjoining room—and from the huge quantities of bread-moulds found scattered throughout the site, it appears that bread and beer were manufactured on the premises (Gophna and Gazit 1985:12–13). Whilst many of the storage vessels found at the site had been imported from Egypt, the domestic pottery (for cooking, eating and drinking) was all manufactured locally, according to Egyptian ceramic traditions but from locally obtained clays. This indicates that ‘the local Egyptian population was large and lived away from their homeland long enough to establish independent pottery workshops, operated by potters trained in the Egyptian tradition’ (Porat 1992:434). Although it may have served as an observation point, Building A lacked any defensive features and could only accommodate about a dozen people. The likeliest explanation for the building’s function is that it served as a staging-post on the trade route between Egypt and southern Palestine, providing essential supplies (water, bread and beer) for the passing Egyptian trade caravans. Indeed, the main reason for the location of the facility at En Besor seems to be the local availability of fresh water. The building no doubt afforded the Egyptians control over the springs, which provided ‘the richest and most stable perennial water source to be found in the entire southern coastal plain’ of Palestine (Gophna and Gazit 1985:15). Numerous mud-sealings, many of which bear recognisably Egyptian inscriptions, were found in a pit
outside the building’s main entrance (Gophna and Gazit 1985:13). They can be dated to the First Dynasty, although there is some disagreement about whether a date early or late in the Dynasty is more probable. The ex
cavator dates the Egyptian presence at En Besor to the very beginning of the First Dynasty (Gophna 1992a). Although several of the sealings can be dated on stylistic grounds to the reign of Aha, partially preserved royal names on others seem to indicate a later date. Three sealings show traces of the names of Djet (no. 42), Den (no. 26) and Anedjib (no. 35) while a fourth (no. 39) may once have included the name of Semerkhet. A further sealing (no. 46) would seem to offer a more secure example of Anedjib’s name (Schulman 1983:250). As the archaeological stratum associated with the sealings is rather thin, it is unlikely that the building was occupied over a very long period of time. It is therefore possible that the royal names preserved in the sealings do not refer to the reigns themselves, but rather to royal estates or foundations which supplied the building at En Besor with supplies. In any case, the epigraphic evidence from the En Besor sealings indicates that the staging-post was most active during the mid-late First Dynasty (Schulman 1983:251). The fact that the sealings were made from local clays (the same clays used to make Egyptian-style pottery) is of great importance, as it indicates that Egyptian officials were based at En Besor, marking sealed goods according to standard Egyptian administrative practice.
A similar situation seems to have existed at another site in the northern Negev, Nahal Tillah on the Halif Terrace (Levy et al 1995). Here, at the so-called ‘Silo site’, large numbers of imported Egyptian vessels have been excavated, including late Predynastic ‘Late ware’ and Early Dynastic storage jars (Levy et al. 1995:28). A small faience jar and clay seal-impressions confirm the Egyptian nature of the assemblage (Levy et al. 1995:28). A possible public storage area (associated with a circular feature which may have been a silo) (Levy et al. 1995:30) yielded a sherd from an imported Egyptian vessel (Levy et al. 1995:32), incised before firing with the serekh of Narmer (Levy et al. 1995:31). The stratum in which the sherd was found has been dated to late EBIb (Levy et al. 1995:29), known from other sites to be contemporary with the reign of Narmer. The Nahal Tillah site may therefore have been another administrative centre for the late Predynastic/Early Dynastic Egyptian presence in southern Palestine, or, at the very least, one of a network of trading sites distributed throughout the region.
The nature of Egypt’s involvement in southern Palestine may be gauged from several pieces of evidence. The large number of flint objects recovered from sites showing an Egyptian presence do not include any arrow-heads (Ben-Tor 1991:8). This argues against an Egyptian military presence, suggesting instead that trade was the primary purpose of the settlements. It has been estimated that the number of Egyptians living permanently in southern Palestine during the Early Bronze I period may have reached several hundred (Ben-Tor 1991:8). The raw materials which they sought probably included honey, wine, bitumen and resin, as well as various coniferous woods (Ben-Tor 1991:8; Ward 1991:14–
16) with the exception of cedar, the southern limit of which appears to have been Mt. Hermon on the present-day Israeli-Lebanese border (Ward 1991:14). The apparent intensity of Egyptian activity in southern Palestine in the reign of Narmer—sherds incised with his serekh have been found at Tell Arad (Amiran 1974, 1976) and Tel Erani (see above) as well as at Nahal Tillah —seems to represent the end of the second phase of Egyptian settlement in the region. After the early First Dynasty (EBII) the evidence points to a marked decline in Egypt’s contacts with southern Palestine (Hartung
1994:112). The Egyptian presence at En Besor seems to have been maintained at least until the reign of Anedjib, but contacts with other sites in the region decrease dramatically. The Sinai coastal route to Palestine apparently fell into disuse at the same time, no doubt linked to this reduction in Egyptian activity (Ben-Tor 1991:5). The growing authority and independence of southern Palestinian cities may have been a factor, whilst an increase in maritime trade may have released the Egyptians from their dependence on southern Palestine as a source of commodities (Brandl 1992:447–8). The fundamental change in Egyptian relations with southern Palestine mirrors developments in Nubia (see below). Instead of a ‘broad border-zone occupied by intermixed Egyptian and native trading-posts and villages’ in the northern Sinai and southern Palestine (Seidlmayer 1996b: 113), Egypt seems to have adopted a more exploitative and hostile attitude. This is reflected in military campaigns which are recorded from the beginning of the First Dynasty.
Military activity
Given the lack of any evidence for a military aspect to the late Predynastic and First Dynasty Egyptian presence in southern Palestine, the campaigns launched by Egypt’s early rulers perhaps amounted to nothing more than a series of occasional, punitive raids designed to ensure the continued co-operation of the local populace. It has been suggested that the Narmer Palette records a military campaign against Palestine. The determinative accompanying one of the king’s slain enemies does indeed bear a close resemblance to a ‘desert kite’, a stone-walled enclosure used by the nomadic shepherds of southern Palestine. It is possible, therefore, that the campaigns undertaken by the king to secure the borders of his newly unified realm included a skirmish with the people on Egypt’s north-eastern border. More certain evidence for Narmer’s dealings with Palestine is provided by a fragment of inscribed ivory from his tomb complex at Abydos (B17). It shows a bearded man of Asiatic appearance, wearing a curious pendulous head-dress and a long, dappled robe. The man holds a branch or plant in one hand and is depicted in a stooping posture, perhaps paying homage to the Egyptian king (Petrie 1901: pl. IV.4–5).
There are contemporary inscriptions suggesting military campaigns against ‘the Asiatics’ by several Early Dynastic kings (Figure 5.1). An ivory label of Den—originally attached to a pair of his sandals—from his tomb at Abydos shows the king smiting a kneeling captive (Amélineau 1899: pl. XXXIII; Spencer 1980:65, pls 49, 53 [Cat. 460], 1993:87, fig. 67). The caption can be translated as ‘First time of smiting the easterner(s)’, though the label could record a ritual event rather than an actual campaign. The identification of the conquered enemy is further aided by details of the local landscape which are depicted behind the captive. The sandy, hilly topography confirms the location of the campaign as the arid lands to the north-east of Egypt, in other words the Sinai or southern Palestine. The occurrence of Den’s name at En Besor (see above) confirms Egyptian activity in southern Palestine during his reign. Further evidence that Den carried
Figure 5.1 Campaigns against southern Palestine.
Iconographic evidence for Egyptian aggression (real or ideological) against lands to the north-east: (1) year label of king Den from Abydos, bearing the legend ‘First time of smiting the east(erners)’ (after Spencer 1980: pl. 53, cat. 460); (2)
(3) (4) year labels of Den referring to the destruction of enemy fortresses, presumably in southern Palestine; on the most complete label, the reference to the destruction of a fortress is at the right- hand side of the second register (after Petrie 1900: pl. XV.16–18); (5) fragment of stone relief from a building at
Hierakonpolis erected under Khasekhemwy, giving the names of (conquered?) foreign localities (after Quibell and Green 1902: pl. XXIII, bottom). Not to same scale.
out campaigns against Western Asia is provided by four fragmentary year labels from Abydos (Petrie 1900: pl. XV.16–18, 1902: pl. XI.8). They fall into two pairs of similar or identical inscriptions. Each mentions a fortified oval enclosure, preceded by the sign wp, ‘open’, probably with the meaning ‘breach’ (cf. Weill 1961:21). On one type of label, the enclosure is labelled as wn(t), a word which can be translated as ‘stronghold’ from its occurrence in the Old Kingdom Inscription of Weni (Sethe 1903:103, line 12; Lichtheim 1975:20; cf. Weill 1961:18). Like the wnwt destroyed by Weni, the stronghold(s) breached by Den probably lay in northern Sinai or southern Palestine. The other two enclosures, on the second type of label, are named as 3 n or, more simply, 3n. It is tempting to interpret this as the Semitic word ‘En/‘Ain: ‘well’ (Weill 1961:21), referring to a settlement founded at the site of a spring (for example, En Besor). In each
case the enclosure is shown breached on one side, and the hoe depicted next to it probably symbolises destruction. The presence of Palestinian vassals or captives at the Egyptian royal court is again hinted at later in the First Dynasty. An ivory gaming-rod from the tomb of Qaa at Abydos shows a bound Asiatic captive. The hieroglyphs above his head clearly label him as an inhabitant of S t (Syria-Palestine) (Petrie 1900: pl. XII.12–13=pl. XVII.30).
Early Dynastic Egypt Page 22
