Early Dynastic Egypt (36 page)

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 peacefully 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 Lower 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

that this vase may have been commissioned to commemorate a campaign by Scorpion against Nubia, represented by the bow (Needier 1967:91).

Figure 5.3
Campaigns against Nubia. Iconographic evidence for Egyptian aggression (real or ideological) against its southern neighbour: (1) late Predynastic rock-cut inscription from Gebel Sheikh Suleiman near the Second Cataract, recording a

punitive incursion by Egyptians, perhaps under the command of a ruler from Hierakonpolis (after Needier 1967: pl. I, fig. 3); (2) a second rock-cut inscription from Gebel Sheikh Suleiman, recording a subsequent campaign by an Egyptian king of the late Predynastic period (after Murnane 1987:285, fig. 1A-B); (3) wooden label of Aha from Abydos referring to a campaign against Ta-Sety, the name applied in later periods to Nubia (after Emery 1961:51, fig. 11); (4) fragmentary limestone stela of Khasekhem from the temple at Hierakonpolis, recording the king’s suppression of Nubia; the bow on the head of the prostrate captive identifies him as the representative of subjugated Nubia (the bow was the hieroglyph for (Ta-)Sety, ‘Nubia’) (after Emery 1961:100, fig. 64). Not to same scale.

EARLY DYNASTIC MILITARY CAMPAIGNS IN LOWER NUBIA

At the beginning of the First Dynasty the royal cemetery at Qustul was abandoned, indicating that the local rulers had lost power to the invading Egyptians. The virtual extinction of the Lower Nubian A-Group is traditionally linked to the beginning of Egyptian domination in Nubia. The rulers of a newly unified Egypt seem to have adopted an uncompromising attitude towards their southern neighbours, replacing the previous symbiotic relationship that had existed between Egypt and Lower Nubia, a relationship which greatly benefited the rulers of Qustul in their role as middlemen. Egyptian control may have been less than total at first, requiring follow-up action to keep the local population in check (Figure 5.3). The construction of the fortress on Elephantine at the beginning of the First Dynasty seems to have been part of a new, more aggressive Egyptian policy towards Nubia (Seidlmayer 1996b:112). As part of its programme to secure and emphasise national unity—to a large extent through ideology—the central government sought to impose political frontiers based upon territorial control, ‘in place of former, less clearly delimited ethnic border zones’ (Seidlmayer 1996b:113). The Elephantine fortress may have been used as a springboard for raids into Nubia, such as the punitive campaign recorded on a label of Aha (Petrie 1901: pls III.2=XI.l). Further military action is attested at the end of the Second Dynasty, in the reign of the Khasekhem (Quibell and Green 1902: pl. LVIII). The increased Egyptian interest in

Nubia during the Early Dynastic period may have been connected with changing trade patterns in the Near East. The apparent abandonment of the Egyptian presence in southern Palestine (the ‘residency’ building at En Besor) at the end of the First Dynasty may have resulted from an Egyptian realisation that exotic goods could be obtained more easily from Nubia.

A permanent Egyptian presence in Lower Nubia