Early Dynastic Egypt (34 page)

Lapis lazuli from Afghanistan and Iran

The ancient lapis lazuli trade appears to have had more than one supply source (Delmas and Casanova 1990:504), including mines in the former Soviet Union (Pamir Mountains) and Pakistan (the Chagai Hills on the Pakistan-Iran border), as well as the well-known mines of Sar-i Sang in the Badakhshan province of Afghanistan. Although there is a very faint possibility that there may have been a source of lapis lazuli in the region of the Kharga or Dakhla Oasis, this is unconfirmed (Needier 1984:311). The sources in Asia remain the most likely origin for the lapis found in Predynastic and Early Dynastic contexts.

The largest object of lapis from early Egypt is the statuette from the Hierakonpolis ‘Main Deposit’. It has no parallels in Egypt and may well be of foreign manufacture (Payne 1968:58; Rice 1990). The Early Dynastic contexts in which lapis has been found include early First Dynasty graves at Tura and Tarkhan, the tomb of Djer at Abydos, and mastaba V at Nazlet Batran. This large tomb is dated by inscription (Petrie 1907: pl. IIIA), by its architecture (Petrie 1907:5) and by its contents (cf. Petrie 1901: pl. L.153) to the reign of Djet. In addition to the fine toilet objects of gold and ivory, the tomb contained a small but exquisite vase of lapis lazuli (Petrie 1907:4, pls III, V.3). This represents the last occurrence of lapis in Early Dynastic Egypt, as the long-distance trade seems to have been disrupted early in the First Dynasty (Payne 1968). There is a break in the presence of lapis in Egyptian contexts from after the reign of Djet (contra Rice 1990:90) and throughout the Second and Third Dynasties. This hiatus in the supply matches a similar disruption in Mesopotamia, from shortly after the beginning of EBI until EBII (Herrmann 1968:37; Moorey 1987:39), and may have been the result of political changes in present-day Iran. Lapis lazuli is not attested again in Egypt until the Fourth Dynasty, some 500 years later. The earliest reference to lapis lazuli
(h sbd)
in an inscription is in the early Fourth Dynasty tomb of Rahotep (Petrie 1892: pl. XIII).

The Sinai

Throughout Egyptian history, the northern Sinai coast formed a convenient route from Egypt to southern Palestine. Egypt’s contacts with northern Sinai were thus inextricably

bound up with the changing pattern of Egyptian-Palestinian relations. Throughout the era of intensive contacts between Egypt and southern Palestine—the late Predynastic period and First Dynasty—northern Sinai must have played an important role. It served as the primary route for the movement of both people and commodities. However, the Egyptian sites along the north Sinai coastal route do not appear to have supported a permanent population, since the pottery was all imported from the Nile valley (Porat 1992:435)— unlike the situation at sites in southern Palestine itself where, as we have seen, Egyptians made their own pottery from local materials. The storage vessels incised with early royal
serekhs
found at el-Beda in northern Sinai (Clédat 1914) illustrate the region’s strategic location on the main trade route between Egypt and the Near East.

By contrast, the more remote and inaccessible southern part of the Sinai peninsula was only of interest to the Egyptians for its mineral resources. The history of Egyptian involvement in southern Sinai is thus essentially the history of Egyptian mining expeditions, beginning only in the Third Dynasty. In the mountains of southern Sinai a network of Palestinian settlements has been excavated, dating to the EBII (First and Second Dynasties in Egypt) (Beit-Arieh 1984). Their material culture shows close links with contemporary sites in southern Palestine, especially Tell Arad. Arad was the largest fortified town in southern Palestine at this time and may well have exercised some degree of control over the southern Sinai settlements. Their primary purpose, it would appear, was to exploit the nearby resources of copper for export. It is striking that none of these EBII settlements shows any signs of Egyptian influence. Egypt therefore seems to have shown little interest in southern Sinai during the First and Second Dynasties. The evidence from southern Sinai makes it unlikely that the First Dynasty Egyptian involvement in Palestine was of an expansionist nature for, in such a situation, the Egyptian authorities would scarcely have allowed the contact between Arad and the copper-mining settlements of southern Sinai to continue uninterrupted (Beit-Arieh 1984:23).

To date, the earliest evidence of Egyptian involvement in southern Sinai comprises the Third Dynasty rock-cut inscriptions in the Wadi Maghara, the site of turquoise-mining expeditions. It appears that the Egyptians did not venture beyond the immediate sources of turquoise, as there is no evidence of an Egyptian presence or influence at other sites in southern Sinai during the Early Dynastic period (Beit-Arieh 1984:22–3). Altogether, three kings have left inscriptions at Wadi Maghara: Netjerikhet (Djoser), Sekhemkhet and Sanakht (Gardiner and Peet 1952: pls I, IV; Giveon 1974). It is clear that the main purpose of the Egyptian expeditions was to mine turquoise, a highly valued semi- precious stone used particularly in jewellery. The name given to the Wadi Maghara in later inscriptions is
h tyw mfk3t,
‘the turquoise terraces’ (Gardiner and Peet 1955:1). The main stratum of turquoise-bearing rock lay about half-way up the cliff and the workings consisted of galleries with a small opening on the cliff-face (Gardiner and Peet 1955:20). Expeditions were clearly a royal monopoly, organised along the same lines as military campaigns. The Egyptian word
mš
may be translated either as ‘expedition’ or as ‘army’, depending on the context; it merely denotes an organised body of men.

The rock-cut inscription carved under Netjerikhet is the most informative about the composition and purpose of the Third Dynasty mining expeditions (Gardiner and Peet 1955:53). As well as depictions of the king, it includes the figure of a man carrying a staff of office and a hand axe. The inscription above his head gives his titles:
ỉmỉ-r(3) mš

and
-mr h 3st, ‘
overseer of the expedition’ and ‘administrator of the foreign land’. It is unclear whether the latter title refers to southern Palestine, southern Sinai or the land beyond Egypt’s north-eastern frontier in general. If, in this instance, the title refers to southern Sinai, as the context of the inscription suggests, it indicates that the area was considered to be outside the Egyptian realm, at least for administrative purposes, even though it was accessible to Egyptian mining expeditions. Two columns of text to the left of the figure detail the nature of the ‘royal mission’
(wpt nswt).
Although not all the inscription is readable, the end seems to refer to ‘this mountain of all minerals’. A smaller figure, accompanied by some illegible signs, follows. Behind this, in turn, are four vertical groups of hieroglyphs, each of which gives the name of a member of the expedition. One individual, called Meri-ib, bore the title ‘royal stonemason/ carpenter’, giving an indication of the type of craftsmen who accompanied such an expedition to the turquoise mines. The main inscription of Sekhemkhet, a standard scene showing the king smiting a foreign enemy, is also accompanied by a figure labelled as the
ỉmỉ-r(3) mš
(Gardiner and Peet 1955:52). In addition, he bears a string of titles
(h3tỉ- , smr,…nswt, šmsw-ỉz
and
z3 nswt),
indicating that he was a man of considerable rank with close connections to the royal court. Whether he was in fact a royal son
(z3 nswt)
is not certain, since this title was also used in an honorific sense by some non-royal high officials in the Old Kingdom. Two rock-cut inscriptions of Sanakht show the king in traditional scenes, smiting a captive and accompanied by the standard of Wepwawet (Gardiner and Peet 1955:54–6). The fragmentary smiting scene, now in the British Museum, includes the earliest-known occurrence of the word
mfk3t,
‘turquoise’ (Spencer 1993:101, fig. 77).

PERIPHERAL REGIONS

Like the Near East and the Sinai, the desert regions bordering the Nile valley also seem to have been a focus of early activity (Figure 5.2). In all probability, the geographical division between the Sinai and Egypt’s desert margins, adopted here for convenience, is not one that the Egyptians themselves would have recognised. Indeed, the use of the titles
ỉmỉ-r3 h 3st
and
-mr h 3st
may suggest that for the Early Dynastic Egyptians there was only one designation for all the lands beyond their own borders:
h 3st,
‘foreign hill- country’. Certainly the Egyptians’ interest in the Sinai and the desert margins stemmed from the same consideration: the rich stone and mineral resources which both regions possessed, and which the court required to supply its workshops.

‘One might expect that contact between desert and valley was always, if only sporadically, maintained’ (Kemp 1983:118), and there is a surprising amount of evidence for Early Dynastic involvement in the eastern and western deserts. Whilst the geographical limit for rock-cut inscriptions in the western desert appears to be a distance of just 12 miles from the Nile valley, inscriptions in the eastern desert are found ‘up to 65 miles from the river, well into the heart of the Red Sea hills’ (Hoffman 1980:243). This indicates a greater intensity of Egyptian activity in the eastern desert, probably accompanied by a greater degree of interaction

Figure 5.2
Activity in Egypt’s desert margins. The map shows the principal sites in the Egyptian deserts where evidence has been found of Early Dynastic activity.

with the indigenous inhabitants of the region. Unfortunately, we know very little about the ancient populations of the desert margins. Scatters of pottery and isolated temporary encampments suggest that the deserts supported groups of semi-nomadic pastoralists, in

whose lives and livelihoods cattle played an important part. Their material cultures, as far as they are attested archaeologically, are generally simple and show ‘broad overall similarities both to each other and to those of the Nile valley’ (Kemp 1983:116). None the less, it is likely that each group had its own history and identity and that, if more were known about their material cultures, a picture of considerable diversity would emerge (Kemp 1983:116–17).

The eastern desert

The hills and mountains separating the Nile valley from the Red Sea receive significantly more rainfall than the western desert, especially further south towards Nubia. This gives rise to a number of wells, and enables some of the numerous wadis to support vegetation—even irregular cultivation in the upper reaches of some of the larger wadis. Thus, the eastern desert has, from earliest times, supported a population of nomadic and semi-nomadic pastoralists, with whom the Egyptians—who visited the area frequently on mining and quarrying expeditions—must have come into regular contact.

Records of early Egyptian activity in the eastern desert are found in the form of rock- cut inscriptions. These usually give just the name of the king in whose reign the expedition was mounted. The earliest dated inscription is at Site 18 in the Wadi Qash, a tributary of the Wadi Hammamat almost due east of Qus, half-way between the Nile valley and the Red Sea coast. The
serekh
of Narmer is accompanied by another, tantalisingly empty
serekh
(Winkler 1938:10, pl. XI.1; Emery 1961:47, fig. 6). A rock-cut inscription in the Wadi Abbad, east of Elkab, shows the
serekh
of Djet preceded by the
k3
sign (Clère 1938). The inscription is incised on a rock at the junction of the Wadi Miyah and the Wadi Chagab, some 25 kilometres along the Wadi Abbad (Clère 1938:85, fig. 7) and five kilometres beyond Bir Abbad (Porter and Moss 1951:321). The Wadi Abbad was one of the principal routes from the Nile valley to the Red Sea, in later times linking Edfu and Berenice (Clère 1938:92). A third inscription is situated at the mouth of the Wadi Abu Kua (Site 5) within the Wadi Hammamat system, due east of Qift (Winkler 1938: pl. XI.5; Porter and Moss 1951:328). The meaning of the text is difficult to interpret, but the inscription may include the name of the Second Dynasty king, Nebra. A more extensive inscription in a small wadi north of the Wadi Fawakhir provides a small piece of information about the composition of Egyptian expeditions to the eastern desert. Dated by its orthography to the Early Dynastic period, the inscription depicts a divine bark—of Horus or Sokar—and the accompanying text mentions an overseer of craftsmen. Hence, the expedition which cut this particular inscription was probably engaged in quarrying activity, supervised by a craftsman with experience in stone-cutting (Porter and Moss 1951:329).