Early Dynastic Egypt (33 page)

In addition to the excavated vessels, there is also a limited amount of representational evidence for Palestinian vessels in Early Dynastic Egypt. An ivory fragment from the tomb complex of Narmer at Abydos (B17) depicts a servant carrying on his head a distinctive Palestinian ledge-and loop-handled vessel (Petrie 1901: pl. IIIA.2). Another ivory piece from the royal mortuary complex of Narmer’s successor Aha shows a similarly bearded man carrying a loop-handled jar of Palestinian form (Petrie 1901: pl. IV.6). The other side of this intensive trade is attested at Tell Arad, where large numbers of imported First Dynasty Egyptian vessels have been excavated (Kantor 1965:16), including a jar-fragment incised with the
serekh
of Narmer (Amiran 1974, 1976).

Changing patterns of trade and the rise of Byblos

Towards the end of the Second Dynasty, the intensity of Egyptian trade with southern Palestine—which had been a continuous feature of Egypt’s foreign relations for over half a millennium—seems to have diminished very markedly. This development may be connected with the rise of urban polities in southern Palestine at about the same time. Although the trade in certain commodities, notably copper and bitumen, may have been maintained, evidence for direct Egyptian involvement in southern Palestine during the Old Kingdom is practically non-existent (Ben-Tor 1991:5). The autobiography of Weni, from the Sixth Dynasty, suggests that punitive raids persisted. These may have been inspired by a desire to maintain access to or control raw materials; certainly, the gathering of booty was an important aspect of such campaigns. However, the formal commercial arrangements which must have characterised Early Dynastic relations had clearly undergone major changes (Marfoe 1987:26).

The most important factor behind this new pattern of inter-regional contacts is likely to have been the rise of the Lebanese littoral, and in particular the port and hinterland of Byblos, as the new focus of Egypt’s trading interests. It is likely that the establishment of regular trade with Byblos made the import of goods from southern Palestine redundant and brought Egyptian ties with the region largely to an end. The Byblos region could now provide Egypt with all the raw materials it required, both those previously obtained from southern Palestine and other products, notably cedar logs. The first definite evidence for

Early Dynastic Egyptian contact with Byblos is a fragment of a breccia stone vessel from the area of the Egyptian temple. It is incised with the words
H -sh mwỉ dỉ nh ,
‘Khasekhemwy, given life’, and suggests that some sort of direct contact between the port and Egypt may have been established at the end of the Second Dynasty. Possible support for this view may be provided by the fleet of boats buried adjacent to the Shunet ez-Zebib at Abydos, Khasekhemwy’s funerary enclosure, discovered in 1991. Although analysis of the wood has yet to be carried out, it must be at least a possibility that the large quantities of timber involved indicate the beginnings of the timber trade with Byblos.

The first definitely attested use of Lebanese cedar in Egypt is in the construction of Khufu’s funerary boats in the Fourth Dynasty at Giza. The earliest surviving inscription referring to cedar from Byblos dates to the reign of Khufu’s predecessor Sneferu (Schäfer 1902:30; Ben-Tor 1991:4). The traditional view that cedar was used in Early Dynastic tombs, and indeed in Predynastic burials, cannot be supported, since none of the pieces of wood concerned has been unequivocally identified as Lebanese cedar (Ben-Tor 1991:4; contra Hoffman 1980:270). Indeed, it is quite possible that coniferous woods reached Predynastic Egypt from North African or more local sources (Moorey 1987:41). Precise identification was often impossible, due to the small size and condition of the specimens. In the case of the large beams employed in the construction of the First Dynasty royal tombs at Abydos, the photograph of one plank suggests that the wood was in fact palm (Ben-Tor 1991:4), which occurred naturally within Egypt. It is probable that most of the early pieces referred to by the excavators as cedar were in fact other coniferous woods (such as fir) which grew in southern Palestine. The existence of Egyptian trade with southern Palestine as early as the Badarian and Naqada I periods makes it likely that coniferous woods were also imported from this region.

As well as the archaeological evidence, there is sound textual evidence that coniferous woods and associated products, such as oils and resins, were imported into Egypt as early as the reign of Aha. Oil from the
mrw-
tree—often translated as ‘cedar’, but possibly used at this early period to denote Asiatic conifers in general—is mentioned on an alabaster vessel and a label of Aha (Petrie 1901: pl. 10.2; Kaplony 1963:308; Ward 1991:14). The third register of this label has been interpreted by one scholar as showing ‘the return of a sea-going expedition from Lebanon with a load of the highly desired, coniferous meru wood’ (O’Connor 1987:33–4), although the commodity to which the label was originally attached is more likely to have been the processed
mrw
oil rather than the wood itself. The same oil is also mentioned on a pottery vessel from the Early Dynastic cemetery of Abu Umuri (Kaplony 1964: no. 1065). Later in the First Dynasty, the products of another coniferous tree—
š
in Egyptian, possibly fir or juniper—are mentioned on stone vessels of Anedjib (Lacau and Lauer 1959: pl. 3.6–7; Kaplony 1963:306; Ward 1991:13). The term occurs again on a Second Dynasty stela from Helwan (Saad 1957:19). A contemporary stela from the same site names another oil or resin obtained from the
š
- tree, namely
s t.
This product is likewise attested on a Third Dynasty stela in Brooklyn (James 1974:11), while the early Third Dynasty tomb of Hesira at Saqqara mentions both

š
and
s t
oils (H.Altenmüller 1976:3, 13; Ward 1991:13).

The virtual abandonment of Egypt’s long-standing links with southern Palestine was an important development. The principal reason for such a fundamental change in the pattern of Egyptian foreign-trade is likely to have been economic, in particular a

‘spiralling interdependence between timber procurement, ship construction and carrying capacity’ (Marfoe 1987:27). Larger ships, capable of undertaking sea voyages, would have provided easier and faster transportation for larger cargoes, compared to overland caravans. It has been estimated that a ship-borne cargo of trade goods could have reached Egypt in half the time required for animal and human porterage. However, the construction of seaworthy ships was only made possible by access to the superior timber of the Byblos hinterland. Thus, once the Egyptians had gained a foothold on the Lebanese littoral, economic factors quickly led to the dominance of this particular trade relationship.

Relations with Libya

Several of the ceremonial palettes from the period of state formation depict slain or captive enemies wearing the penis sheath. In later artistic convention, this piece of clothing was used,
inter alia,
to indicate Libyans. It is possible, therefore, that these palettes record skirmishes between the Egyptians and their western neighbours during the process to forge a unified Egyptian state. A more convincing piece of evidence for Egyptian contact with Libya is the so-called ‘Libyan Palette’ from the very end of the Predynastic period. The palette seems to record the name
hnw,
later associated with Libya, below a depiction of booty. This suggests a military campaign against Libya by a late Predynastic ruler, part of a general phenomenon of aggressive activity on and beyond Egypt’s borders which characterises the period of state formation. Further support for this interpretation is provided by a small ivory cylinder from Hierakonpolis, dating to the first reign of the First Dynasty. It depicts the catfish element of Narmer’s name smiting three registers of bound captives. Under the tail of the catfish a short inscription names
(T3) hnw,
'(the land of) Libya’. This record of a campaign by Narmer is the earliest-known definite representation of Libyans. In accordance with later practice, they are shown with

beards.

After these early contacts of a more or less hostile nature, Egypt seems to have shown little interest in its western neighbour until much later in its history. There is no further, unequivocal evidence for Egypt’s relations with Libya during the rest of the Early Dynastic period. Workmen’s drawings on the enclosure wall of Sekhemkhet’s mortuary complex include a crude figure tentatively identified as a Libyan (Goneim 1957:2, and 5 fig. 12), but this identification is doubtful.

Long-distance trade contacts

As well as direct contacts of a commercial or military nature with its more immediate neighbours, early Egypt maintained trading contacts with more distant lands. Evidence of long-distance trade is to be found in the wide range of exotic materials buried in wealthy graves of the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods. A good example is Tomb 11 at Hierakonpolis Locality 6 (Adams and Friedman 1992:334). Dating to Naqada III, the burial contained many examples of prestige materials imported from distant lands. These included lapis lazuli beads from Afghanistan or Iran; small fragments of flanged barrel beads made of silver, probably from eastern Anatolia; garnet from the eastern desert; turquoise from the mines of Sinai; and
obsidian
blades from Ethiopia (or Anatolia). Such

a combination of prestige materials in a single grave clearly indicates the wealth of the tomb owner, the economic power of late Predynastic rulers and the well-developed nature of long-distance trade networks in the late fourth millennium BC.

Silver from Anatolia

According to the few analyses which have been conducted, the small number of silver objects from Early Dynastic contexts seem to be made of native Egyptian silver-gold (Prag 1978:40); that is, gold with a high percentage (as much as 70 per cent) of silver, often referred to as ‘electrum’ (
m
). By contrast, the silver from late Predynastic contexts seems to be more pure, with a much lower percentage of gold (Prag 1978:39), and was, therefore, probably imported from Anatolia. The only major sources of silver in the Near East recognised today are in the Amanus Range (Prag 1978:40). Situated some 300 kilometres north of Byblos, it was probably this region that Sargon of Akkad referred to as the ‘silver mountain’, on a tablet set up in the temple Ekur in Nippur (Pritchard 1969:268).

The largest group of fourth-millennium silver objects (over 200) comes from the
Enéolithique
cemetery at Byblos. Such a concentration of silver at one site suggests that Byblos may have played an important role in the Near Eastern silver trade during the fourth millennium (Prag 1978:41). The disappearance of imported silver from Egyptian contexts at the beginning of the Early Dynastic period may indicate that the Levantine source of supply had been worked out by this date, causing the trade via Byblos to cease. The new sources further to the north, which had a higher lead content and thus required a more sophisticated technology to extract the silver, seem to have supplied western Anatolia and Mesopotamia in preference to Syria-Palestine and Egypt (Prag 1978:41). In the Early Dynastic period, therefore, Egypt fell back upon its own reserves of ‘white metal’, namely the native silver-rich gold ores of the eastern desert.

Obsidian from Anatolia, Arabia and Eritrea

Another material which may have been imported from Anatolia is obsidian, the hard, black, volcanic glass much prized both for blades and for decorative objects. No obsidian occurs within the borders of modern or ancient Egypt. A recent analysis of an obsidian tool from Tell el-Iswid South in the north-eastern Delta suggests that the material itself came from the Taurus Mountains in eastern Anatolia (Nemrut Dag) (Schmidt 1992:34); Anatolia has been identified as the primary source for the obsidian trade to the Levant, Mesopotamia and Iran in ancient times (Zarins 1990:509). However, Anatolian obsidian has not been identified in the southern Negev or Sinai, regions known to have been in close contact with Egypt during the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods (Zarins 1990:512). Furthermore, of 16 Egyptian sites with reported obsidian finds, only five are in Lower Egypt (Zarins 1989:366). Both these factors make it likely that most of the obsidian from early Egyptian contexts derives from the sources closer to the Red Sea. Trace element analysis suggests sources in Arabia and Eritrea, which would have supplied Egypt through coastal exchange and perhaps sea-borne missions down Egypt’s Red Sea coast (Zarins 1989:368).

Obsidian is by no means common in early Egyptian contexts. It may be significant that many pieces were apparently found at Coptos, the town that controlled access to Red Sea trade later in Egypt’s history (Zarins 1989:366). Obsidian was also found in several areas of the Early Dynastic temple at Hierakonpolis, although not all the occurrences can be securely dated to the Early Dynastic period. An obsidian bead was actually found underneath the Narmer Palette in the ‘Main Deposit’ (Adams and Friedman 1992:319). Most of the obsidian from Early Dynastic Egypt comes from royal tombs. Three small vases were found in Chamber C of the tomb of Neith-hotep at Naqada (de Morgan 1897:163, figs 625–7). Tomb B5 at Abydos, also dating to the reign of Aha, contained a serrated object of obsidian, referred to as a ‘comb’ (Petrie 1901: pl. XXXII.10). Vases and vase fragments were found in the mortuary complexes of Djer and Anedjib at Abydos (Petrie 1901: pl. XLVIII). There seem to be no published examples of obsidian from clear Second or Third Dynasty contexts.