Early Dynastic Egypt (31 page)

In summary, Merka’s titles reflect a society and an administrative system in which the king was at the pinnacle, both ideologically and politically. The stela of Merka adds to the impression that, aside from the departments of government responsible for state and royal income-the treasury and its sub-departments, royal foundations and the
pr-nswt
– Early Dynastic administration was perhaps rather loosely organised, lacking precise demarcation of responsibilities.

CHAPTER FIVE FOREIGN RELATIONS‌

Ancient Egyptian civilisation has traditionally been viewed as a civilisation apart. Separated from the rest of the ancient world by the effective natural borders of the eastern and western deserts and the Mediterranean Sea, the Nile valley fostered a distinctive, and in many ways unique, culture. The comparison and contrast of ancient Egypt with its neighbouring civilisation, Mesopotamia, is a familiar theme for ancient historians. However, to the Egyptologists working earlier this century, the surviving archaeological material from the beginnings of Egyptian civilisation suggested much closer contacts between these two great cultures. Particularly striking to archaeologists like Petrie and Emery were the many borrowings from Mesopotamian iconography manifest on the earliest royal objects from Egypt. Coupled with the extraordinary explosion of creativity and organisational skill which seemed to have occurred at the very inception of the Egyptian state, the artistic evidence prompted these scholars to advance the theory of the ‘Dynastic race’ (Derry 1956; Emery 1961:39–40). An invasion of people from lands to the east, superior to the indigenous Predynastic Egyptians, was proposed as the driving force behind the foundation of the Egyptian state and the emergence of ‘classic’ Egyptian civilisation. By the 1970s this theory had been largely discredited, mainly due to the results of subsequent archaeological work at sites dating to the Predynastic period. These demonstrated the long and indigenous development of many of Egyptian civilisation’s most distinctive features. Moreover, they proved that the processes of craft specialisation, state formation and artistic formalisation had begun many centuries before the beginning of the First Dynasty, in the emergent territories of Upper Egypt. Over the last twenty years, the intensive investigation of Egypt’s origins has enhanced our understanding of these processes immeasurably. Studies have all tended to stress, explicitly or implicitly, the indigenous genius of Egyptian civilisation, eager to claim originality and independence for the achievements of Nile valley culture (cf. Kantor 1965:12–13).

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
EBI
a 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 excavator 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–