GOLD
The comparative rarity of gold in Early Dynastic graves has led some to suggest that there was little, if any, systematic exploitation of the eastern desert gold reserves at this period (Klemm and Klemm 1994:193), although grave-robbing could be an alternative explanation. Rather than regular gold-mining expeditions sent from the Nile valley, sporadic finds of gold by the nomadic populations of the eastern desert could have been traded with Egyptians on an ad hoc basis. A survey of the gold-bearing regions of the eastern desert has revealed only limited evidence for gold mining in the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods (Klemm and Klemm 1994:195, fig. 2). The scattered nature of the sites and the total lack of artefacts suggests that the mines may have been used by the local nomadic populations rather than by Egyptians.
OTHER
Whilst the Egyptians may not have engaged in gold-mining activity in the Early Dynastic period, there is no doubt that they mounted expeditions to the eastern desert in search of other commodities. A single, isolated Early Dynastic hut was discovered in the Wadi Umm Sidrah, near the Roman imperial porphyry mines at Gebel ed-Dukhan (G.W.Murray 1939). Many artefacts were recovered from the hut, including pottery, flint tools, ashes and bone fragments. Five earthenware pot-stands—apparently made from a locally produced fabric—showed signs of careful repair in antiquity, an indication of the value attached to pottery at a site some 160 kilometres from the Nile valley. A small, bag- shaped vessel has been dated to the First or Second Dynasty (G.W.Murray 1939:38), providing a date for the hut and contents as a whole. The purpose behind such a dwelling is not clear, but is further evidence of the interest shown in Egypt’s desert margins in the Early Dynastic period.
The western desert
Early Dynastic Egyptian contact with the western desert seems to have been on two levels. There is evidence for limited mixing of semi-nomadic desert-dwellers and Egyptians, at desert-edge sites in Upper Egypt. Rock-cut inscriptions also attest sporadic expeditions to the western desert, mounted by late Predynastic and Early Dynastic kings.
A desert-edge site to the west of Armant, investigated only summarily, yielded evidence of contact between the inhabitants of the Nile valley and groups of cattle- herding semi-nomads (Kemp 1983:118). The relationship was possibly a symbiotic one, based upon the exchange of cattle. The site included a cemetery of 76 graves, which seems to indicate that the associated settlement was more than a mere temporary encampment. The pottery from the graves comprised both Egyptian vessels, dated to the Early Dynastic period, and non-Egyptian ripple-burnished ware. Some of the non- Egyptian vessels were decorated with incised patterns of chevrons below the rim. Twenty burials were of oxen, showing the great importance attached to cattle by these people. There were several small camps in the vicinity, indicated by ‘scatters of flint tools and sherds with various incised or impressed patterns’ (Kemp 1983:118).
More direct Egyptian involvement in the western desert is illustrated by a number of rock-cut inscriptions on the escarpment of the high desert in the vicinity of Armant. Two separate inscriptions at site 34, on the edge of the limestone plateau, bear an early royal name which has not yet been read convincingly (Winkler 1938: pl. XI.2–3; Wilkinson 1995). The epigraphy of the inscription clearly indicates that the king in question must belong to the very end of the Predynastic period or ‘Dynasty 0’. A third inscription, only 12 kilometres away, features the serekh of the Second Dynasty king, Nebra (Winkler 1938:10, pl. XI.4; Emery 1961:93, fig. 56), indicating that expeditions to the western desert were maintained during the Early Dynastic period. An ongoing survey of the desert roads in the Theban area has discovered a wealth of late Predynastic and Early Dynastic inscriptions; they include the name of a Third Dynasty official, and a large rock-cut scene from the period of state formation (Darnell and Darnell 1997:26). The latter seems to record a military victory, perhaps one of the key events leading to the political unification of Egypt.
In contrast to the eastern desert, the western desert seems to have had few, if any, resources deemed worthy of exploitation by the ancient Egyptians. Its strategic importance lay in the oases. These fertile pockets of land, which had been settled from Palaeolithic times (Baines and Málek 1980:187; Hoffman 1980) and which were very much part of the Egyptian realm despite their isolation from the Nile valley, guarded Egypt’s frontier with the Libyan peoples to the west (Baines and Málek 1980:19). References to the hnw from the Early Dynastic period (Hölscher 1955:12–13), together with the evidence of the so-called ‘Libyan Palette’, imply hostile relations between Egypt and her western neighbour throughout the late Predynastic to Early Dynastic transition. In such a political climate, the maintenance of Egyptian control of the oases would clearly have been strategically important to Egypt’s rulers. Access to the oases was by caravan, leaving the Nile valley at an appropriate point on the west bank. In the New Kingdom, and probably in earlier times too, the most important route through the western desert to the Kharga and Dakhla Oases left the Nile valley at Armant (Baines and Málek 1980:43). It is possible, therefore, that the early rulers who left their names on the limestone escarpment behind Armant mounted expeditions of one sort or another to the western oases.
The oases
Whilst there is very little material to indicate Early Dynastic Egyptian activity in the oases, evidence from the Old Kingdom may suggest at least limited Egyptian involvement in earlier periods.
Kharga
The southernmost of the western desert oases is the Kharga oasis, which probably lay on the route (called ‘the oasis road’) from Egypt to Upper Nubia taken by Harkhuf in the Sixth Dynasty. Evidence for Egyptian contact with the Kharga oasis early in the Fourth Dynasty is provided by a complete ‘Maidum’ bowl, of red-polished ware with a reflexed rim, which was found upturned beside the track at the top of the Matana pass, in the south-east of the Kharga depression (Caton-Thompson 1952:41, pl. 123.4). The Matana track joins the Bulaq track in the western desert between the oasis and the Nile valley, and reaches the latter in the vicinity of Armant. This ties in with the evidence from the western desert near Armant for Early Dynastic activity in the area. The isolated bowl ‘is unlikely to be the unique relic of its kind and period’ (Caton-Thompson 1952:49) in the Kharga oasis and its associated passes. Further surveys may therefore be expected to reveal more evidence for early Egyptian contact with the Kharga oasis.
Dakhla
Situated to the north-west of Kharga, the Dakhla oasis was under Egyptian administration from the early Sixth Dynasty at the latest. The town of Balat at the heart of the Dakhla oasis seems to have served as the administrative centre for all the oases. A Canadian expedition found limited evidence for the presence of Egyptians in the Early Dynastic period (Mills 1980:254). A small cemetery of some 60 graves in the far west of the oasis
(32/390-L2) contained a semi-contracted burial of an elderly male (32/390-L2–1) with three intact pottery vessels (a jar and two bowls) (Hope 1980:288–9, pl. XVII.b, c; Mills 1980:258). On the basis of parallels from Egypt proper, these have been dated to the Early Dynastic period, although the identification has been described as ‘rather tenuous’ (Giddy 1987:166). Even less certain is the attribution of a number of vessels and sherds from a nearby cemetery to the Third Dynasty. Late Old Kingdom parallels are known for all the forms (Giddy 1987:166–7) and a Sixth Dynasty date is perhaps more likely given the abundant evidence for Egyptian activity in the Dakhla oasis at this period.
NUBIA
Egypt’s relations with its southern neighbour were always of a different nature from contacts with the Near East or the desert margins. For the most part, and certainly throughout the Early Dynastic period, no attempt was made to settle those regions on a permanent basis or to incorporate them into the Egyptian realm. Their natural resources—whether foodstuffs, prestige commodities or minerals—were what interested the Egyptians, first and foremost. Though a few ‘colony’ sites seem to have been established in southern Palestine, they appear to have coexisted peacefu
lly with the indigenous inhabitants. A reciprocal trade relationship between Egyptians and ‘Asiatics’ would have benefited both sides, and best fits the available evidence for Egyptian-Near Eastern relations in the Early Dynastic period. The desert margins and peripheral regions were visited only sporadically, by expeditions in search of particular materials, usually stones. In contrast to both these areas of Egyptian activity, the land to the south—the Nubian Nile valley—was far more easily accessible, and presented no great geographical difference from the Egyptians’ own territory. But for the First Cataract south of Elephantine, the Nubian Nile valley was essentially a continuation of the Egyptian Nile valley, and the Egyptians seem to have seen it as a natural addition to their realm.
Throughout much of Egyptian history, the relationship between Egypt and Nubia was one of subjugator and subjugated, master and servant. Egypt sought to impose both its will and its culture on Nubia, whilst exploiting the country’s resources (mineral and human) and controlling access to the lucrative sub-Saharan trade routes; exotic goods from sub-Saharan Africa reached the Mediterranean world via the Nubian ‘corridor’ (W.Y.Adams 1977; Seidlmayer 1996b:111). The importance of Nubia to Egypt in the dynastic period stemmed from Nubia’s large reserves of gold. It seems likely that Egypt’s own sources of gold became exhausted towards the end of the Predynastic period, necessitating the exploitation of new gold-bearing areas. Other imports from Nubia included ebony.
Unlike the Near East and the peripheral regions, Nubia was settled more or less permanently by Egyptians, beginning in the Early Dynastic period. Egyptian contacts with the land to the south stretch far back into the Predynastic period. Although the relationship swiftly became an unequal one, there is some evidence that Lower Nubia was not far behind Egypt in the process of state formation and the race to establish political and economic hegemony over the Nile valley. Had Lower Nubian, rather than Upper Egyptian rulers won that race, the history of north-east Africa would have been very different.
Relations with Lower Nubia
In the early Predynastic period, there was a degree of cultural uniformity throughout Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia. The pottery of Naqada I and the earliest phase of the Lower Nubian A-Group are virtually indistinguishable. Moreover, A-Group sites are found in southernmost Upper Egypt (for example, Kubania) indicating some overlap between the two cultural areas. For the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods, the cultural inventory from sites in the Aswan region, especially Elephantine, indicates a contact zone between Egyptian and Nubian cultural areas, rather than a clear boundary (Seidlmayer 1996b:111). Cultural transfer between Nubia and Egypt is suggested by the cattle burials in the élite cemetery at Hierakonpolis, Locality 6 (Hoffman 1982:55–6). This practice does not seem to have been indigenous to Predynastic Egypt, but is attested at Qustul in Lower Nubia (Williams 1986:176). Direct contact between the peoples of Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia in the late Predynastic period may be indicated by a burial from Abusir el-Meleq in northern Upper Egypt. Grave 51b2 was found to be unusual in several respects. It was the only circular grave in the entire cemetery, a shape more characteristic of burials in southern Upper Egypt and Nubia. The grave goods included two black-mouthed jars of Nubian type (Möllers and Scharff 1926: pl. 16.96–7) and a palette of unusual shape (Möllers and Scharff 1926: pl. 33.330), more commonly found in Nubian burials. The excavator concluded that the individual buried in grave 51b2 may have been a Nubian immigrant (Möllers and Scharff 1926:29; cf. Needier 1984:224).
Graves of the Lower Nubian Terminal A-Group often contain large numbers of imported Egyptian artefacts—particularly pottery and stone vessels—indicating an intensification of trade between Upper Egypt and the emergent complex societies of Lower Nubia towards the end of the Predynastic period (Takamiya 1994). Both regions were actively involved in the process of state formation, and there is clear evidence of a centralised polity in Lower Nubia whose rulers were buried at Qustul. No other cemetery of the Terminal A-Group approaches Qustul Cemetery L in the size or wealth of its burials (O’Connor 1993:20). Lower Nubia under the Terminal A-Group may therefore be envisaged as a proto-kingdom, comparable to the late Predynastic polities of Upper Egypt (O’Connor 1993:22). The maces and mace handle from Cemetery 137 near Seyala indicate that the concentration of political power in Lower Nubia had already begun some time earlier (O’Connor 1993:23).
Egyptian domination
Egyptian expeditions may have ventured into Lower Nubia in late Predynastic times to exploit the diorite quarries 80 kilometres north-west of Toshka. Egypt’s attitude towards Nubia certainly became more predatory at the end of the Predynastic period. Sub-Saharan Africa was the source of exotic and prestige goods such as ebony, ostrich eggs, giraffe tails, perhaps incense and unguents. The desire on the part of Upper Egyptian rulers to control trade routes directly, rather than continuing to rely on Lower Nubian middlemen, probably encouraged the Egyptian rulers to mount raids against Lower Nubia. The period of state formation in Egypt was also characterised by territorial expansionism, establishing Egyptian control beyond the borders of the Nile valley. The combination of these two factors prompted Upper Egyptian rulers to launch military expeditions against Lower Nubia towards the end of the Predynastic period, expeditions which were
ultimately to result in Egyptian domination of the region and the extirpation of the indigenous A-Group culture.
THE MONUMENTS OF GEBEL SHEIKH SULEIMAN
Just such a campaign is recorded in the famous Gebel Sheikh Suleiman rock-cut inscription (Figure 5.3). The scene was carved on a rock in the Second Cataract region to commemorate an anonymous king of the late Predynastic period/‘Dynasty 0’. An empty serekh stands at the head of the scene which depicts the aftermath of a battle. Immediately in front of the serekh is a prisoner, his arms bound behind his back with a bow, the sign used in later periods to write the name for Nubia (Ta-Sety). In front of the prisoner are three signs, the meaning of which remains uncertain. A pool of water, the hieroglyphic sign for the letter š, may indicate the name of the prisoner or his territory. Two town signs surmounted by birds may also be symbols or names of defeated settlements. The end of the scene shows the prostrate bodies of victims, underneath a high-prowed vessel. This last element probably stands for the ships which bore the Egyptian expedition southwards into Lower Nubia. The whole inscription apparently records an Egyptian military raid into Lower Nubia before the advent of the First Dynasty, setting the scene for similar campaigns in the Early Dynastic period (in the reigns of Aha and Khasekhem).
A second rock-cut inscription at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman, just a short distance away, is also early in date (Needier 1967). The inscription consists of a large scorpion and three human figures (Figure 5.3). One of the figures is a captive, distinguished by an erect feather on his head; his arms are bound behind his back, and he is suspended from a rope, held in the claws of the scorpion. The second figure looks on, brandishing an unidentified weapon; an appendage dangling from the back of his kilt has been interpreted as an animal’s tail (after parallels on the Hunters’ Palette). The third man shoots with a bow and arrow towards the bound captive; he too appears to wear an animal’s tail. There may originally have been further signs between this third figure and the scorpion, but only traces remain which are difficult to delineate. The interpretation of the scene as a whole seems quite clear: the scorpion represents a divine or royal power (other animals are used in this way on late Predynastic objects, such as the catfish which smites a bound captive on an ivory cylinder of Narmer from Hierakonpolis). The two armed men must be followers of this power, whilst the captive is clearly an enemy. The motif of a prisoner being held by a rope is found in other late Predynastic inscriptions, such as the Bull Palette in the Louvre. It seems quite likely that this second inscription at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman records an expedition to the Second Cataract region by a late Predynastic Egyptian ruler, symbolised by the scorpion. The captive identified by a feather on his head may represent a native inhabitant of Lo
wer Nubia. It is possible that the scorpion alludes even more directly to the king (as the catfish does on the ivory cylinder of Narmer). In this case, the inscription would record an expedition of King ‘Scorpion’ into Nubia during the final stages of Egyptian state formation. Support for this hypothesis may be provided by a stone vessel from Hierakonpolis which is decorated in raised relief with several signs, among them a scorpion and a double-convex bow. One can speculate
Early Dynastic Egypt Page 25
