early contacts between egypt, canaaan and sinai

Early Contacts between Egypt, Canaan, and Sinai: Remarks on the Paper by Amnon Ben-TorAuthor(s): William A. WardSource: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 281, Egypt and Canaan inthe Bronze Age (Feb., 1991), pp. 11-26Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357162Accessed: 18/12/2009 05:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357162?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor

Early Contacts Between Egypt, Canaan, and Sinai: Remarks on the

Paper by Amnon Ben-Tor

WILLIAM A. WARD

Department of Egyptology Box 1899, Brown University

Providence, Rhode Island 02912

Archaeological and linguistic material published to date indicates peaceful rather than warlike relations between Egypt and Canaan in EB I. Military activities reflected in Egyptian texts were confined to Egypt and her east Delta frontier. Egyptian settlements in southern Canaan represent commercial ventures from which Egypt gained mostly raw materials not found in the Nile Valley. Among provable early imports were copper, turquoise, and coniferous woods and oils which, with the exception of cedar, were native to southern Canaan. Cedar came from Lebanon, though because of the ambiguity of the scant early evidence it is not possible to determine when a regular maritime trade with Lebanon began. That and other questions remain and it is possible that present excavations, particularly in the Egyptian Delta, will help in their solution.

In the light of presently published material, the outline of Egyptian contacts with Canaan presented by Ben-Tor (1991: 3-10) is reasonable:

sporadic in Chalcolithic times (= Egyptian Bada- rian and Amratian), greatly expanded in EB I (Gerzean and very early First Dynasty), a marked decline in EB II (Protodynastic/Archaic period), and almost nonexistent in EB III (Old Kingdom).' However, the crucial geographical region that might yield important information about the earliest contacts is precisely the area in Egypt-the Nile Delta-where excavations have been nigh impossible. A thick layer of silt and the high water table of the region have until recently prevented investi- gation and led some to assume that the Delta was uninhabitable in early times. The few known town sites of the Egyptian Pre- and Protodynastic periods in the Delta are on the desert fringes of the area.

Today, however, that troublesome archaeological vacuum is beginning to disappear. Surveys and excavations by investigators from the University of Munich have found several early sites (as yet mostly unpublished) that may significantly alter previous views on settlement and foreign contacts in the

Delta (Miiller 1966; Wildung 1981: 24-25). The cemetery at Minshat Abu Omar has already yielded Canaanite pottery and cast metal tools and weapons (see below). The Amsterdam University Sur- vey Expedition has found a Canaanite handled jar and several copper vessels in an archaic burial at Tell Ibrahim Awad (van den Brink 1988: 80, 82- 83), and German Archaeological Institute archaeologists have discovered early ceramic and lithic connections with western Asia at Tell Fara'in (von der Way and Schmidt 1987: 247-48; 1988: 297- 306). It is therefore reasonable to suppose that even more evidence of Egypto-Canaanite relations during the Pre- and Protodynastic periods will come to light and bring the Delta region more fully into the picture.

At the other end of the period under review, the reason for the almost complete disappearance of contacts in the EB III is, of course, tied to the emergence of the Old Kingdom, ca. 2700 B.C. While we have only limited knowledge about the internal political history of Egypt at that time, the massive step pyramid complexes of Djoser and Sekhemkhet at Saqqarah amply reflect what must have been a very strong and highly centralized monarchy with

11

WILLIAM WARD

an accompanying aristocracy of officialdom. That created a demand for more and more luxury products that could not be obtained in Egypt itself: Nubian gold, African ivory and spices, the turquoise of Sinai, and the cedar of Lebanon. Pales- tine could not compete in a market like that.

Protodynastic contacts with western Asia were numerous, although their nature is still under de- bate. There are several references to military activity on small ivory labels and the like, portrayals of bound foreign captives, and notations on the Pa- lermo Stone, which have collectively been taken to indicate hostilities of some kind between Egyptians and others. Some of this material has been mis- takenly interpreted by many as evidence of warfare with Canaan. The key word in the scant texts on those objects is the geographical term St.t, from which st.tyw, an Egyptian designation for Asiatics in general, is derived. The Palermo Stone has an entry skr st. tyw for two First Dynasty kings (Helck 1971: 15-16; de Cenival 1965), and seal impressions from the Abydos tomb of King Peribsen of the Second Dynasty have the notation inw St.t (Wright 1985: 250). The latter also appears on a stone vase fragment of the same king (Kaplony 1968: no. 18).

The Peribsen sealings are still rendered "Con- queror of Asia," or the like (Drower and Bottero 1971: 387; Te Velde 1967: 72), though this is a fanciful treatment of the verb ini, "to bring," and its derived noun inw. The latter means simply "what is brought," and can refer to tribute, gifts, or agricultural produce in general. Ogden (1982) is correct in adopting the latter meaning. The phrase inw St.t, therefore, has nothing to do with foreign conquests, but rather notes the produce of a place that has sent its regular agricultural quota to the king. Since the term St.t on the Peribsen sealings is determined with the town-sign, it must refer to an Egyptian locality. According to Godron (1958: 155), St.t here means the island of Sehel at the First Cataract of the Nile. However, Kaplony's extensive examination of the use of the term in Archaic texts (1963: 783-87) shows it was rather a royal domain in the Delta; inw St.t thus means "agricultural produce of (the royal domain) St.t."

The phrase skr st.tyw on the Palermo Stone does not necessarily apply to Palestine. St.tyw is derived from St.t, the name of the an old border town in the eastern Delta (Helck 1971: 17, n. 45; Cerny 1944: 296-97; Zibelius 1978: 223-25), which must be the same place as the St.t of the Peribsen sealings. The term st.tyw thus originally meant the

inhabitants of that area and was later expanded to include all foreigners beyond Egypt's eastern frontier. While the term may have been understood in the wider sense by the compilers of the Palermo Stone in the Fifth Dynasty, they used as their sources older records in which the intent may have been the more restricted meaning. Smith (1967) has argued that all the military activity at the beginning of the dynastic period took place within the Delta. Furthermore, the much-vaunted campaign of King Narmer into Palestine, Jordan, and

Mesopotamia certainly never took place (Wright 1985: 243-45; literature in Ben-Tor 1982: 9).

These examples illustrate how difficult it is at times to properly interpret the very short texts of the Archaic period. What was once thought to mean "Smiter of Asiatics" is rather "Smiter of the border-dwellers"; the lofty "Conqueror of Asia" is instead a record of the delivery of agricultural produce from a royal domain within Egypt. The theory of Narmer's international wars is based on little more than a rather odd interpretation of details on his famous palette (Ward 1969). One must be ex-

tremely cautious in reading and interpreting those early texts and not approach them with presupposi- tions already in mind. An earlier generation of

Egyptologists, for example, was prepared to accept any evidence that showed Egypt's early dominance over her neighbors, an idea that still receives enthu- siastic support by some (Rothenberg, et al. 1979: 116-19). But our concept of ancient historical processes has changed along with our knowledge of the language. In my opinion, nothing in the early texts smacks of foreign conquests to the east and north.

But while the evidence does not warrant a con- clusion of conquest and occupation by Egypt, we should probably allow for minor military incidents reflected, for example, in the Archaic ivories show- ing captive Asiatics. Given the fact that much of Sinai was occupied by settlements centered around the main deposits of turquoise, copper, and flint (below), isolated hostilities may have occurred which would be sufficient for Egyptian kings and officials to record "victories" over foreigners. That is a far cry from the "conquest" still defended in the literature.

Another important inscribed Archaic object is the alabaster vase fragment found at Byblos, in- cised with the name of Khasekhemwy, last ruler of the Second Dynasty (Dunand 1939: 26-27, no. 1115). Unfortunately, the piece has no archaeo-

12 BASOR 281

CONTACTS BETWEEN EGYPT, CANAAN, AND SINAI

logical context and while it is often used to support early contacts with Byblos, such inscribed vessels were kept in royal storehouses in Egypt over long periods. For example, among the tens of thousands of stone vessels discovered in the underground pas- sages of Djoser's step pyramid, many date to the First Dynasty (Lacau and Lauer 1959). The Byblos fragment is an isolated piece; the long string of dated stone vessels at Byblos does not begin until the time of Cheops (Dunand 1939: 322, no. 4506). Therefore, lacking clear evidence to the contrary, there is reason to believe that the Khasekhemwy vase may have been taken out of a storehouse of "antiques" and sent to Byblos in a later shipment of royal gifts.

How much later is hard to define. Ben-Tor allows for sporadic contacts with Byblos as early as the fourth millennium B.C., but feels that regular and significant relations between Egypt and Lebanon did not begin until the Fourth Dynasty when we have the first dependable evidence for the importing of cedar. I agree with him that Prag (1986) has greatly overstated the case for maritime trade between Egypt and Byblos in the fourth millennium. Examination of many of the parallels she suggests between objects in Byblian Chalcolithic burials and contemporary objects from Egyptian cemeteries shows that a seemingly convincing argument is not as solid as it first appears.2

The use of cedar as the key to early Egypto- Byblian contacts brings into focus one of the more critical issues in Egyptian contacts with western Asia in the earlier third millennium B.C.: the importing of coniferous woods and their products. Ben-Tor is correct in questioning the pieces of "cedar" reported from Badarian graves (Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: 62) and "cedar" beams from the Abydos royal tombs. Neither claim has ever been satisfactorily verified and the general belief that cedar was imported in Badarian times rests solely on the single report just noted (to Ben- Tor's references, add Tackholm and Tackholm 1941: 66; Germer 1986). This is a clear case of a "possible" fact becoming "absolute" simply through decades of repetition. The original identification is uncertain due to the wording of the report, which is somewhat vague.3

On the other hand, there is clear evidence that coniferous woods and their products were coming into Egypt in very early times. While the precise identification of the pieces of wood from Badarian graves is unclear, they are coniferous woods. Emery

(1962: 7) reports pieces of a cedar coffin from a Second Dynasty tomb at Saqqarah, though he gives no indication that they were examined micro- scopically. Indeed, throughout his publications of the archaic mastabas he excavated at Saqqarah, Emery (1949-1954) continually mentions coffins, pieces of furniture, and other objects made of wood. Yet he nowhere identifies the kind of wood and we have only his forceful but unsupported statement on the "import of considerable quantities of cedar and cypress from Lebanon and Syria" during the Protodynastic period (Emery 1972: 204). To my knowledge, no scientific analysis of what was apparently a substantial amount of wood from those mastabas was ever undertaken. A Third Dynasty wood coffin was discovered in one of the subsidiary burials beneath Djoser's pyramid at Saqqarah. The sides of that coffin are made up of six layers of different kinds of wood, including cypress, pine, and cedar or juniper (Lauer 1933: 161-65; Lucas 1936). The date is assured since the entrances to those subsidiary burials were sealed and covered over during one of the enlargements of the pyramid.

There is also significant textual evidence, notably the appearance in Archaic texts of three Egyptian words that denote Asiatic woods and oils/resins. The first is 's (Erman and Grapow 1926-1971, I: 228; Lesko and Lesko 1982-1989, I: 90). While some still believe this means "cedar" (Meiggs 1982: 405-9), it is now generally felt that cs means "pine" or "fir," or even coniferous woods in general (the basic studies: Loret 1916; Glanville 1932: 8-10; Jacquemin 1933; Germer 1979: 12-15). Oil from the cs tree is mentioned on alabaster vases of King Adj-ib of the First Dynasty from Abydos and

Saqqarah (Kaplony 1963: 306 = Lacau and Lauer 1959: pl. 3: 6-7) and appears among the food offer-

ings listed on a Second Dynasty stela from Helwan (Saad 1957: 19; Barta 1963: 20).

The second term is sfi, an oil or resin obtained from the s tree (Erman and Grapow 1926-1971, III: 118; Gardiner 1947, I: 8; von Deines and

Grapow 1959: 437; Germer 1979: 15-20). Sft oil is listed among the food offerings on another Second Dynasty stela from Helwan (Saad 1957: 41; Barta 1963: 33). It occurs again on a Third Dynasty stela in Brooklyn (James 1974: 11) and both U and sft oils are among those listed in the tomb chapel of Hesire at Saqqarah, which dates to the very be-

ginning of the Third Dynasty (Altenmiiller 1976: 3, 13).

1991 13

WILLIAM WARD

The third term is mrw, another word for Asiatic wood and its oil or resin (Erman and Grapow 1926-1971, II: 108; Lesko and Lesko 1982-89, I: 227). While mrw is sometimes said to mean "cedar," no precise identification is possible and it may simply denote coniferous woods in general. Mrw oil is mentioned on an ivory label of King Aha (Petrie 1901: pl. 10: 2), on an alabaster jar of the same ruler (Kaplony 1963: 308) and on a pottery vessel from the Archaic cemetery of Abu cUmfiri (Kaplony 1964: no. 1065).

There is thus sound textual evidence that coniferous wood products were imported into Egypt in Protodynastic times. Since the evidence goes back to the first years of the First Dynasty, we can justifiably assume that the trade had begun some time before. The problem, therefore, is not whether those products were imported in very early times, but rather where they originated. If not from Byb- los, then where?

It is now evident from many studies (e.g., Rowton 1967; Meiggs 1982; less dependably Nibbi 1981: 1-27) that forestation in the Near East was far more extensive in the Early Bronze Age than it is today. The vast forests, swamps, lakes, and grass- lands that covered the desert areas of the Near East in Palaeolithic times have never entirely disap- peared; some still existed in the 19th century and their remnants may still be seen. As Rowton (1967: 277) puts it, "In the Bronze Age, the mountainous

country of Western Asia was neither the great forest of prehistoric times nor the bare eroded country it is today." Much the same situation existed in

Egypt, where the present-day desert was a savanna with abundant vegetation and animal life well into the second millennium B.C. (Roquet 1985).

The situation in EB I would thus appear as follows: Archaeological and textual evidence shows that from the beginning of the First Dynasty, certain coniferous woods and wood products were

imported into the Nile Valley. We may assume that the trade was already under way in the Predynastic period. Since the case for very early maritime contacts with Byblos is weak and the several instances of actual cedar in Egypt before the early Old King- dom remain somewhat doubtful, it seems likely that the coniferous wood products mentioned in Archaic Egyptian texts came from Palestine where such woods grew, with the important exception of cedar. The southernmost extension of the cedar forests in antiquity was Mt. Hermon, now totally denuded by erosion, on the present Israel-Lebanon

border. The textual evidence supports Ben-Tor's contention that the wood products were exported from Palestine to Egypt in small jars and bottles (1986: 5, 9). Pieces of coniferous woods in Badarian graves (above) and juniper berries in Amratian burials (Brunton 1937: 91) thus are not as out of place as they might seem. When regular trade with Byblos was established, those products plus the all- important cedar could be obtained from Lebanon via the easier and cheaper maritime route. As many have pointed out, that is why Egyptian trade with Palestine declined and why the recently discovered Egyptian settlements in southern Canaan were no longer necessary.

This remarkable series of settlements in southern Palestine had a strong Egyptian character in EB I. Among them are Tell Areini (Weinstein 1984a) and 'En Besor (Gophna 1976a; 1980), where the amount and character of the Egyptian pottery indicates more-or-less permanent Egyptian colonies. Ben-Tor's assessment of those settlements as civilian, peaceful, and engaged in mercantile activities is fully justified by the evidence at hand. Con- trary to the oft-expressed view that Egypt was militarily involved in Canaan at that time, nothing in the pertinent material (see Wright 1985; Ben- Tor 1982; 1986) points to military or political domi- nation. The installations were trade settlements and nothing else. There was a string of similar settlements along the northern coast of Sinai. They flourished in EB I and early EB II and some were just as Egyptian as those in southern Canaan (Oren 1973). This whole complex of settlements existed along the land route into Canaan, serving as trade emporia much as the Old Kingdom colony at Byblos (Ward 1964: 44-45).

What of the trade products? Elsewhere, Ben-Tor (1986: 10) has listed the probable exports of Pales- tine to its neighbors, among them the "invisible" exports of organic materials which decompose and leave no trace. Foodstuffs include wine, oil (pre- sumably olive oil), honey, wheat, barley, legumes, figs, raisins, date, fish, sheep, and cattle. Other items are perfumed oils, resins, bitumen, textiles, slaves, and copper. Richard (1987: 30) speaks of the "steady importation of agricultural products, olive oil, and wine" into Egypt from Canaan. It is of some interest to note which of those products could have been exported to Egypt in the late fourth and early third millennia B.C.

Slaves can be immediately eliminated from the list. Slavery as an institution in Egypt has been

14 BASOR 281


vastly overrated in the literature. One can point to individual examples of family slaves, but the common view that slave labor was used by the state is highly doubtful. The work force that built pyramids and other monuments was drawn from the peasant population, largely idle for part of the agricultural year. That masses of slaves toiled under Egyptian taskmasters in the service of the state was eco- nomically unviable, and there is basically no evidence to support the idea (Janssen 1963; Ward 1989: 39, n. 34).

With regard to the export of foodstuffs, that would be unlikely, since the Nile Valley had its own ample food supply (Darby, Ghalioungui, and Gri- vetti, 1977). The rich, naturally-fertilized fields of Egypt generally yielded a surplus of grain, vegeta- bles, and fruit; the Nile itself and the marshes along its length teemed with fish and waterfowl. The daily records of the New Kingdom village at Deir el-Medineh show that the Egyptians enjoyed a well- rounded diet and, unless there was an exceptionally low Nile inundation, Egyptians of any social stra- tum were never hungry. While the Deir el-Medineh records belong to a much later time, the dietary situation they reflect must surely have been similar at the beginning of the Dynastic age. The Egyptian landscape at that time was even more productive than in the New Kingdom (Roquet 1985). There was simply no need for Egypt to import common foodstuffs.

One pertinent find is a complete funerary meal from an unplundered tomb of the Second Dynasty at Saqqarah (Emery 1962: 5-6, pl. 6). It apparently was served hot at the time of burial. Set out in separate vessels were bread, porridge, cooked fish, pigeon stew, cooked quail, cooked kidneys, ribs and legs of beef, stewed figs, fresh Christthorn berries, honeycakes, cheese, and a large jar of red wine. That would not, of course, represent a normal daily meal but it does illustrate the kind of food available to Egyptians of the Archaic period.

Therefore, of the list of possible Palestinian food exports to Egypt we can discount wheat, barley, fish, sheep, and cattle. Remains of all these have been found in Egyptian deposits as early as Pre- dynastic times.

The frequent assertion that olive oil must have been imported into Egypt in the large Canaanite jars found there is incorrect. It once was thought that the Egyptian word b,k, known from the Old Kingdom, meant "olive oil" (Newberry 1915: 98; Erman and Grapow 1926-1971, II: 424), but it

rather means the oil of the moringa tree, native to both Egypt and Canaan (Germer 1979: 29-30). In reality, olive oil was used very little in Egypt. The earliest physical evidence comes from the Amarna age (Germer 1980-1981; 1989). In the extensive ancient Egyptian botanical collection of the Berlin museum, there are barely half a dozen examples of olive leaves and branches used in wreathes and bouquets; the earliest sure date attested is the New Kingdom (Germer 1988: 14, 23-24). A word for "olive oil" does not appear in Egyptian until the 19th Dynasty and that is a loan from Semitic: dt from Semitic zayt. Consequently, olive oil as a component in Egyptian-Canaanite trade should be discounted until the New Kingdom; even then, it appears very rarely.4

It does not seem likely that wine was imported in quantity. Viticulture was practiced in Egypt already in Predynastic times (Germer 1979: 85; Meyer 1986). A k,nw nsw, "royal vineyard," is mentioned on a seal impression of King Adj-ib of the First Dynasty (Kaplony 1963: 137, fig. 213); 'Irp k,nw X, "wine of the vineyard of (the royal domain) X," appears frequently in Archaic texts (Kaplony 1963: 791); irp, "wine," occurs among food offerings of the Second Dynasty (Kaplony 1963: 259); sediment from wine has been found in a jar of the Archaic period (Emery 1962: 5-6). The local wine industry was thus well under way very early in Egypt. That does not preclude the importing of Canaanite wines as in later times (Darby, Ghalioungui, and Grivetti 1977: 609-12) but hardly, in that early period, to the extent suggested in the literature. Incidentally, the Canaanite handled jars in which wine is thought to have come to Egypt have been found in middle- class burials at Saqqarah, indicating that imported goods were not always restricted to the wealthy (Macramallah 1940: 13).

Figs, dates, and raisins were native to Egypt, although there is some question as to the antiquity of honey. Other than the honeycakes in the Second Dynasty funerary meal noted above, scholars agree that the earliest evidence for bee-keeping in Egypt is a relief from the Fifth Dynasty sun temple of Neuserre at Abusir. However, the idea that honey was very rare and generally restricted to royalty (Kueny 1950) is incorrect. Bi.t, "honey," occurs from the Sixth Dynasty, bi.ty, "bee-keeper," from the Middle Kingdom, both in secular and royal contexts (Erman and Grapow 1926-1971, I: 434) and honey was a frequent ingredient in medicine. Yet there is no evidence that honey was widely used

1991 15

WILLIAM WARD

in Egypt prior to the Fifth Dynasty. Since the "bee" hieroglyph is really a wasp (Leclant 1975), its appearance in Archaic texts does not imply early apiculture. Honey, then, would appear to be a possible Canaanite export to Egypt.

Legumes (pulses) present a special problem since we know so little about their use in Egypt. Few samples have been found in Egypt for botanical identification, and it is not always clear what Egyp- tian terms apply to the legumes that are known. Germer (1979: 214) notes that legumes in general do not appear in agricultural or offering table scenes; and, since there are very few actual finds from archaeological deposits, legumes seem not to have been a staple food in Egypt before Graeco- Roman times. Helbaek (1963: 178) states much the same thing about lentils, which he feels were not important in Egypt until the Roman or Islamic period.

Legumes of any kind are indeed rare in early contexts. Lens esculanta Moench (lentils) is known from Predynastic Matmar and Omari (Brunton 1948: 23; Helbaek 1963: 178) and Djoser's pyramid (Lauer, Tackholm, and Aberg 1949-1950: 137-38). Lens culinaris (lentils) has been identified from a First Dynasty burial at Tell Ibrahim Awad in the east Delta (Zeist, in van den Brink 1988: 111-14). Vicia sativa L. (a vetch) has been found in Pre- dynastic burials at Maadi and Omari and in Second Dynasty burials at Massara (Lauer, Tackholm, and Aberg 1949-1950: 138-39). Lathyrus sativus (a vetch) was found in Predynastic burials at Badari (Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: 63).

Archaeological samples of legumes in general continue to be rare until Graeco-Roman times. The two most commonly used beans in the Middle East today-lufbya (Vigna sinensis L.) and fuil (Viciafaba L.)-are first known from Egypt in the Fifth Dynasty sun temple at Abusir (Keimer 1929: 77-79; Germer 1979). Another very common le- gume used widely in the Middle East is the chickpea (Cicer arietinum); the earliest evidence of its use in Egypt comes from faience models of it from the Middle Kingdom (Keimer 1929).5

All this indicates that certain legumes may have been items in the Canaanite export trade to Egypt, namely, lentils, lubya, fuil, and chickpeas. Lentils have a very early history in Canaan, known from the eighth millennium B.C. at Muraybet, Syria, and the Pre-pottery Neolithic at Beida, Jericho, and Yiftahel in Canaan (Zohary and Hopf 1973:

890; Garfinkel, Carmi, and Vogel 1987). Ful has now been identified in quantity at the latter site (Garfinkel, Carmi, and Vogel 1987) and chickpeas were cultivated already in the Pre-pottery Neolithic in Canaan (Zohary and Hopf 1988: 101). This suggests-but only suggests-that such legumes, part of the regular food supply in Canaan in early times, could have been exported to Egypt. Much more research is needed before that can be proved, however. For example, is the rarity of legumes in Egypt the result of the chances of excavation or is it indeed true that they were little used?

An important Egyptian import in the early period was copper. While there are copper deposits in the mountains of Egypt's eastern desert, the earliest attempt at mining them was in the Twelfth Dynasty; before then, Egypt depended on foreign sources of supply (Garenne-Marot 1984: 99-100, 105). Early evidence for the use of copper in Egypt is sparse, though we must consider that what was always an expensive commodity in Egypt must have been even more so in Pre- and Protodynastic times. Copper objects may not have been regularly placed in burials, or may have been stolen if they were placed there. Still, the information available is instructive. In the Badarian and Naqada I (Am- ratian) periods, only very small objects such as beads, pins, and rings made of strips of copper foil are known, all hammered into shape from pieces of raw copper (Baumgartel 1960: 2-3). There is no evidence of smelting from any Egyptian site.

There is a marked change in the Naqada II (Gerzean) period (Baumgartel 1960: 10-23). In con- trast to the preceding periods, copper tools and weapons appear at many sites throughout Egypt; the larger objects such as adzes and axes were cast in molds and then hammered. A few small copper dishes and a bowl, all hammered, dating to the late Predynastic period are known from several sites (Radwan 1983: 3-4). The town site of Maadi has yielded evidence for the local smelting and casting of copper, though some doubt has recently been expressed that Maadi was "the Lower Egyptian trade center for copper, coming from the Sinai or even farther east" (Rizkana and Seeher 1984: 238- 39). While it is true that the material from Maadi relating to a copper industry is minimal, Maadi remains the only Egyptian site of the period where copper smelting is actually evidenced. The new study on Maadi by Rizkana and Seeher (1984) gives clear evidence that the site had both internal

16 BASOR 281


and foreign connections, which prove it dates from early Amratian (Naqada I) times to the beginning of the First Dynasty.

New excavations at the contemporary cemetery site of Minshat Abu Omar, northeast of Qantir on the ancient eastern branch of the Nile, have yielded fine tools and weapons of cast copper (Wildung 1981: 28, figs. 19, 21; Kroeper and Wildung 1985: 88-89). Both here and at Maadi, small amounts of Canaanite pottery were found (Rizkana and Seeher 1987: 52-54; Kroeper and Wildung 1985: 69-72). Other recent work in the Delta has produced copper vessels and Canaanite pottery (see above), and a strong case has now been made for close connections between Maadi and Palestine in the stone and lithic industries (Rizkana and Seeher 1988: 75). A further connection between Maadi and Canaan are the underground dwellings that appear at Maadi alongside the local architecture (Hoffman 1984: 201-2). Such houses characterize the Ca- naanite town of Tell Abu Matar and neighboring sites in the Beersheba Valley (Perrot 1984), and it is probable that those totally un-Egyptian structures are evidence of Canaanites living at the site. That Maadi was an important trade emporium is shown by the large storage areas on the fringes of the town with some of the trade goods still intact (Hoffman 1984: 202-3).

The contemporary situation in southern Canaan and the Sinai leaves little doubt that the copper industry came to Egypt from that direction. In the past two decades, surveys and excavations have drastically altered the picture of the region in Chalcolithic and EB I-II times. Ben-Tor has em- phasized the new material from Tell Areini and 'En-Besor where Egyptian colonies existed, not as military outposts but as peaceful mercantile cen- ters. Imported Egyptian household pottery and flint tools, local imitations of both, and locally made bullae with Egyptian sealings attest a resident Egyptian population whose presence there was for commercial reasons. The most striking find at CEn- Besor is a small house built in Egyptian fashion, notably in the composition and size of the mud- bricks and the method of laying and bonding used in construction (Gophna and Gazit 1985).

The sites fit into a much larger pattern of settlement in the whole region from the Negev to southern Sinai in the EB I. There are several other sites in the Negev with substantial amounts of Egyptian First Dynasty household wares (Gophna 1976b)

and more than 100 sites of that period have been discovered along the northern coastal area of Sinai between El-Arish and the Suez Canal (Rothenberg) et al. 1979: 183-85; Oren 1973), many of which are

predominantly Egyptian in character. Again, household ware predominates, indicating Egyptian colonists. Also in southern Canaan, already in the Chalcolithic period there is evidence of smelting and casting copper in the Beersheba Valley (Perrot 1955) and the spectacular Nahal Mishmar treasure illustrates the capabilities of the artists of the time (Bar Adon 1962; 1980). The copper mines that

supplied the raw material for this industry were in the Wadi Fidan and Timna Valley to the east (Levy 1986: 89-90).

Archaeological finds just as spectacular have been discovered throughout central and southern Sinai. Scores of settlements dating to the Canaanite Chalcolithic and EB I periods have been found wherever good flint occurs and in the regions of

turquoise and copper deposits. Both raw materials were mined and facilities at several sites show that the copper ore was smelted there. Pre- and Proto- dynastic Egyptian pottery has been reported from several of those settlements and a presumed local ware is now said to have been made of Nile clay. As in the north, the imported Egyptian pottery is household ware, which again indicates Egyptian settlers (Rothenberg et al. 1979: 111-19, 138-50). For the time being, however, the evidence remains somewhat questionable.6

At the beginning of EB II, new groups of settlers moved into the area around St. Catherine's Mon-

astery. Their several settlements show a material culture identical to that of Arad, the major city in the Negev. This group of Canaanites was primarily interested in exploiting the copper mines, the produce of which apparently was shipped to Arad. There are hardly any Egyptian objects from those sites (Beit-Arieh 1974; 1981; Amiran, Beit-Arieh, and Glass 1973). Contemporary settlements in the Wadi el-Qudeirat in north-central Sinai show connections with both Arad and the Canaanite sites in southern Sinai; again, Egyptian material is almost nonexistent (Beit-Arieh and Gophna 1976).

CONCLUSIONS

1. Some archaeological and linguistic factors

appear to me to be more or less certain. The rather extensive presence of Egyptian colonists in north-

17 1991

WILLIAM WARD

ern Sinai and the Negev in EB I was for commercial, not military, reasons. The scant textual material of the period should not be interpreted in terms of foreign military ventures. Contacts between Egypt and Canaan at that time seem to have been peaceful, and whatever warlike activity is reflected in contemporary Egyptian records was confined to Egypt itself and its eastern Delta frontier. Much the same position is taken by Helck (1988: 130-33) in his most recent statement on early Egyptian-Canaanite relations. Those who in- sist on an Egyptian invasion and occupation beyond that frontier place a considerable strain on what little evidence is available.7

2. Whether or not the strong contacts of EB I can be extended backward into the Chalcolithic period will depend on the final publication of current excavations in the Nile Delta and Sinai. Since the Delta sites of Maadi, Minshat Abu Omar, and elsewhere have already given proof of contacts with Canaan in Gerzean and early Protodynastic times in the form of Canaanite pottery and cast metal objects, there is every reason to suppose that other sites now being investigated will produce similar evidence. The ambiguous statements about an Egyptian presence in Chalcolithic Sinai should be clarified when the relevant material is fully published (see n. 6).

3. Defining what benefits Egypt received from those early contacts is not without difficulties. Canaanite exports to Egypt apparently were limited to raw materials not available in Egypt itself. Coniferous woods and wood products, bitumen, copper, and turquoise were certainly imported. In general, agricultural produce was not needed in Egypt, which grew its own abundant food supply. Possible exceptions are honey, certain legumes (although these were not widely used in Egypt), and perhaps some Canaanite wines. Olive oil, usually thought to represent a major Egyptian import from Canaan, was hardly used in the Nile Valley and then only in small amounts during the Ramesside period. A possible import was moringa oil, though evidence is totally lacking for the earlier periods.8 It is doubtful that Canaanite textiles, unsuitable for the Egyptian climate, were imported, and the native cloth industry was well established in Pre- dynastic times.

4. It is obvious that the study of Egyptian- Canaanite connections requires much more in the way of scientific analyses of materials and the sources of those materials. Much that has appeared

in the literature along these lines is misleading or incorrect. A parade example is the theory that Egypt's tin supply came from the Kisserwan mountains behind Byblos (Wainwright 1934), a "fact" quoted in the literature for half a century. But a recent geological study shows that tin does not, and never did, exist there and that the mining survey on which the theory was based was in error (McKay and Khawlie 1983).

Within the present context, Ben-Tor (1991: 3- 10) emphasizes that petrographic analysis of the Egyptian household pottery from sites in southern Canaan shows it to be made of both Nile and local clays. This is a strong argument in favor of the resident Egyptian colonies' continuing a ceramic tradition they brought with them. Metallurgical analyses are especially needed. Oren (1973: 203) notes that the copper from the EB I sites in northern Sinai came neither from Sinai nor Timna, but "perhaps" from the Wadi Feinan. These are all significant factors that are extremely useful in es- tablishing commercial routes and contacts. Had an earlier generation of archaeologists paid more at- tention to the scientific analysis of materials, the key problem noted in the following paragraphs might have been solved long ago.

5. Textual evidence confirms that coniferous oils and resins were imported from Canaan at the beginning of the First Dynasty, implying that this trade had begun in the Predynastic period. But since none of the pertinent Egyptian words ('s, sft, mrw) refer specifically to cedar, the early trade could have been with Palestine where such trees, with the exception of cedar, grew. The crucial point, with regard to northern trade, is when cedar wood and oil began to appear in Egypt, that is, when the trade in coniferous woods shifted from Palestine to Byblos. Unfortunately, Emery's positive assertions (above) that cedar was regularly imported during the Protodynastic period were never supported by physical analyses of the substantial amounts of wood samples he discovered at Saqqarah.

There are, however, other considerations. Chief among them is that the EB III in Palestine, which began about the time the Third Dynasty took the throne, is void of Egyptian objects, indicating that trade had ceased. That is precisely the time when demand for foreign luxuries and raw materials in Egypt must have been greater than ever before. It is with the Third Dynasty that we have the first proof of royal expeditions to Sinai, reflecting a

18 BASOR 281


new government policy to dominate the source of turquoise rather than to import it. That suggests a similar attitude toward raw materials from the north; since regular trade with Palestine had ceased, coniferous woods and oils must have come from Lebanon. And by that time, 's and sft oils were regularly included in the funerary offering lists, though the traditional "seven sacred oils" of which they formed a part were not canonized before the Fourth Dynasty.

Given these factors, it is reasonable to suppose that regular maritime contact with Byblos existed at least as early as the beginning of the Third Dynasty, in which case the stone fragment of Khasekhemwy found at Byblos would not be that much out of historical context. On the other hand, Byblos has yielded no Third Dynasty material

beyond some uninscribed stone vases (Ward 1963: 21), which were not necessarily sent to that city at their time of manufacture.

The question must therefore remain open. Prag's case for maritime contacts in Predynastic times is a weak one (see n. 2) and, as Ben-Tor emphasizes, unequivocal finds of actual cedar in Egypt do not appear until the early Fourth Dynasty. In my opinion, the cedar trade with Lebanon began before that time, but the assumption is supported at present only by an indirect argument.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank L. H. Lesko and J. M. Weinstein for reading and commenting on this paper.

NOTES

1A precise relative or absolute chronology is not possible. It is generally agreed that the Egyptian First Dynasty began toward the end of the Canaanite EB I and that the rise of the Third Dynasty was roughly contemporary to the beginning of the EB III. This places the EB II phase contemporary to much of the Egyptian Protodynastic period. On the relative chronology in general, see Kantor 1965: 1-18, though the approximate equation of the beginning of EB III with that of the Third Dynasty is a more recent development (Ben-Tor 1982; 1986). The precision in absolute dating proposed by Hennessy (1967: 85-90) or that suggested by Ben-Tor (1986) is necessary to bring some order into the study of the period, but it should not be construed as anything more than an approximate relationship between Canaan- ite archaeological phases and Egyptian dynastic history for the sake of convenience. Various authorities suggest anywhere from 3100 to 2700 B.C. for the beginning of the First Dynasty.

For the present purpose, the generally accepted relative chronology is sufficient and I follow the absolute dates of Ben-Tor (1986): EB I, 3100-2900 B.c.; EB II, 2900-2650 B.C.; EB III, 2560-2200 B.C. Those dates assume ca. 2950 B.C. as the beginning of the First Dynasty. That the absolute chronology is not at all certain is illustrated by Weinstein's absolute dating based on both archaeological and C14 evidence (1984b: 306-7): EB I, ca. 3400-3000 B.C.; EBII, 3000-2750/2700 B.c.; EB III, 2750/2700- late 24th century B.C. While I prefer Weinstein's higher chronology, the present essay is a commentary on Ben- Tor's paper so it is best to stay in line with his chro-

nology. In any case, it is basically the relative, not the

absolute, chronology that is important here. The latter may never be solved to everyone's satisfaction.

2Some of the questionable comparisons are as follows. a. An armless female ivory figurine, tomb 272 (Prag

1986: 69, pl. 9, right; Dunand 1944: no. 18550, pl. 188) is related to three Predynastic Egyptian figurines of the Naqada I period (Ucko 1968: nos. 47, 71, 166). Unless there are misprints in Prag's article, two of the parallels are totally different, and the third bears only a superficial resemblance to the Byblos figurine. (There is one obvious misprint: no. 166, fig. 69, should be fig. 68.)

b. An ivory vase with attached unidentifiable qua- druped, Tomb 272 (Prag 1986: 69, pl. 10; Dunand 1944: no. 18549, pl. 187). Prag states: "It is unique in the Levant as far as I know. Its characteristics also seem to me to be entirely Egyptian, and most likely it was made in Egypt." While there are no parallels from Egypt, Prag notes it "would be more at home in the context" of three Predynastic Egyptian objects, namely, a hippopotamus vase, a tiny animal figurine, and two ivory spoons with animals as decoration on the handles. But it is best not to propose a connection between two cultures when that connection is highly speculative. The Egyptian objects and the Byblos vase do have a common material (ivory) and they represent quadrupeds. Beyond this, they all belong to different categories of objects and any connection between them is solely in the eye of the beholder. I see nothing at all "Egyptian" about the Byblos piece.

c. A conical, flat-based ivory vase with a hole below the rim (Prag 1986: 70, pl. 9, left; Dunand 1944: no. 18551, pl. 188), said to be "characteristically Egyptian of

Predynastic date." The Egyptian parallels are not con-

1991 19

WILLIAM WARD

vincing. One (Petrie 1920: pl. 34:14) is bag-shaped with no rim and is made of stone; seven (Petrie 1920: pl. 33:54-60) are made of stone, have pointed bases, and do not seem to be vases; one (Petrie 1920: pl. 48:17) does have a shape similar to the Byblos piece and is made of ivory, but has no hole at the rim; the ivory pot from Badari has the hole in the rim but is of globular shape (Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: pl. 23:1). None of those comparisons are valid.

d. Two small bone cups with rounded bases, Tomb 1823 (Prag 1986: 70; Dunand 1973: 250-51, 311, pl. 159, nos. 33810-11), and a small footed bone jar with no rim found in a late Chalcolithic level. Dunand (1973: 311, n. 1) does not quote an Egyptian parallel, as Prag states, but rather Baumgartel's general discussion (1947: 102- 19) of Egyptian stone vases and possible foreign parallels. Dunand also notes a parallel from Catal Huiyuk for the footed jar. The two small cups with rounded bases are not Egyptian, though Prag does not specifically say she thinks they are. The footed jar, in all likelihood, is also not Egyptian. Such vessels do occur in the early Egyptian stone vessel repertoire, but they are mostly much larger and with different shapes than the Byblos piece (El- Khouli 1978, III: pls. 51-54, Class IIC, footed jars with

pierced handles). Very rarely one finds such footed jars without handles (El-Khouli 1978, III: pl. 70, Class IIIF) and smaller footed cups, two of which have a shape similar to the Byblos jar (El-Khouli 1978, III: pl. 123, nos. 5352-53); but they are of stone, have no prove- nance, and may not be Predynastic.

Prag's comparisons, however, are not all negative. Some deserve serious consideration, such as the bracelet of bone or ivory from Byblos Tomb 1832 (Prag 1986: 70; Dunand 1973: 250, 327). This bracelet is of triangular section and has disc inlays of green and white stone, closely paralleled in a Badarian grave (Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: pl. 23:14). The shape and decoration are so distinctive that these objects must have a common origin. This bracelet and a few other finds indicate some kind of contact between Egypt and Byblos in the fourth millennium, but it need not have been direct.

3The identifications of the botanical specimens were made by the director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, whose general assessment was that "precise identification of the specimens is for the most part impossible." In the statements on individual specimens, the identifications are usually labeled "apparently," "appears to be," and the like. The single entry that is not so qualified is that which notes the contents of a large pot from Grave 3165 where the specimens are identified in more positive terms: "A trimmed piece of wood of Pinus sp., small pieces of wood of Cedrus sp." Since in this case no doubt is expressed, as with all the other wood samples, one wonders if the general observation "for the most part impossible" excludes the pine and cedar from

this burial, or if the author neglected to add his usual expression of doubt.

4Dt, "olive oil," occurs only in three papyri and one donation stela, all of the Ramesside period and always in the context of royalty or high palace officials. Olive oil was thus of great rarity in the New Kingdom; the word does not appear again until late Demotic and Coptic times.

Note should be made of Stager's recent attempt to show that olives and olive oil were known in Egypt throughout its dynastic history (1988: 174-75). His key argument is that thnw oil, "probably from olives," was imported into Egypt from Libya from the beginning of dynastic history and that "what seem to be olive trees" are shown on the Libyan Booty Palette which dates just before the unification." Egyptians then knew about and undoubtedly had a native word [thnw] for olive oil long before Semitic zyt = dt entered their vocabulary...."

The identification of Libyan thnw of olive oil is due to a study by Newberry (1915), later thoroughly refuted by Keimer (1931: 130-32); few have subsequently supported Newberry's view (Gardiner 1947, I: 117; Edwards 1971: 47; Schott 1950: 19, with question). While thnw oil was demonstrably imported in very early times (Kaplony 1963: 316), the translation "olive oil" has generally been abandoned. The label thnw on the Libyan Booty Palette identifies the area from which the items portrayed came (Sethe 1914: 57-58), not the vegetation shown, which has been variously identified as trees, branches, shrubs, or bushes. I know of no evidence that links the term thnw to the olive tree, olives, or olive oil. Indeed, already in the tomb of Hesire, thnw appears as a generic term for several kinds of oil from Libya (Altenmiiller 1976), pre- cluding its use for one specific type.

5Keimer (1929: 77-90) attempted some lexical identifications, though on uncertain grounds. He suggested that the lubya bean was known by the common term iwry.t, apparently on little more evidence than the common usage of the Egyptian word and the fact that the libya bean is the bean par excellence of the modern Near East. This identification is doubtful. However, he rightly re- lates Egyptian pr to Hebrew pol, Arabicful, Copticfel, and defines Egyptian 'rsn as "lentils" on the basis of Coptic arshin, "lentils." But both pr and 'rsn are semitic loanwords in Late Egyptian and, since both legumes were known long before then in Egypt, we still cannot isolate the native terms. This is a clear case of foreigners moving to Egypt and calling common objects by foreign names that were then adopted into the colloquial vocabulary (Ward 1989b: List B, nos. 3 and 6).

6There are some apparent discrepancies in the preliminary discussions already published by Rothenberg. In his general essay of 1979, he speaks of Egyptian household pottery of Pre- and Protodynastic date imported into Sinai, Egyptian and Nubian influences on the local flint industry, and, eventually in the later

BASOR 281 20


Timnian period (early third millennium) Egyptian archi- tectural influences (Rothenberg et al. 1979: 114). The inference here is of rather widespread Egyptian coloniza- tion, which he then uses to support the-in my opinion- now discredited theory of Narmer's conquests in Western Asia voiced by Yadin and Yeivin.

On the other hand, when one studies the preliminary reports of the long survey of Sinai conducted by Roth-

enberg and his team, the picture is somewhat different. He mentions, for example, "two Egyptian sites" on the Gulf of Suez (nos. 345 and 346) west of Serabit el- Khadim and suggests that those settlements maintained the traffic route from the mines to the Gulf (Rothenberg 1969: 32). No evidence for the Egyptian character of those sites is given. In the survey of a large region in west-central Sinai, Rothenberg frequently refers to settlements that "probably" or "perhaps" contained Pre- and Protodynastic pottery and flints; only rarely are those qualifying terms absent (Rothenberg 1973: 21-31). In the reports, the positive assertion of the 1979 statement is missing.

Full publication of the results of Rothenberg's survey work will undoubtedly clear up what now appear to be

questionable conclusions. On the face of it, there is little reason to doubt some kind of Egyptian presence in Sinai in the Naqada and Protodynastic periods, since at that time turquoise was imported into Egypt and the native

population of Sinai was working the turquoise deposits there. Whether the early copper in Egypt originated in Sinai or further north, as suggested in the present paper, can only be determined when sufficient metal analyses have been completed.

7While the present context is not the place for a de- tailed discussion, note should be made of the many Egyptian contacts Kaplony finds in archaic texts (cf. Kaplony 1965: 41-42; 1966: 115-16; 1968: 39-41). His overall view is that from at least the mid-First Dynasty (King Den/Udimu) to the end of the Second (Khasek- hemwy), there were sporadic but important Egyptian military campaigns into western Asia. That military activity resulted in a number of things:

a. Female Asiatic prisoners were added to the harem of King Den/ Udimu. This assumption, however, is based on a dubious reading of an archaic text and the assumption that such a harem existed in the first place, an assumption for which there is no concrete evidence (Ward 1989a: 41-42).

b. St.t, "Asia-town," was founded through the settlement there of Asiatic prisoners of war, primarily by Kings Peribsen and Khasekhemwy. Here, Kaplony as- sumes that the original meaning of St.t was "Asia," from whence came the name of the town. I have suggested the

opposite, that the Egyptian name St.t of an Egyptian frontier town came, by extension, to indicate the territory beyond the frontier and the foreigners (St.tyw) who lived there. Kaplony also believes that Asiatic "tribute" (inw

St.t) came through that town, assuming an active Egyp- tian military role in Canaan and a sense for the word inw dependent on that military role.

c. The assumption of a military campaign of Khasek- hmwy into Canaan is supported only by an unreadable text and the stone fragment of that ruler from Byblos.

d. Kaplony has suggested further textual material that is somewhat doubtful. The geographical term htyw appears on labels noting the delivery of coniferous oils in the reigns of Qa'a and Semerkhet of the First Dynasty. He feels (1965: 41-42, n. 3; 1966: 19) that the term refers to the "terraces (of Lebanon)," under the assumption that coniferous woods came only from there. Such is not the case, as shown in this article. Kaplony (1966: 22) also suggests that an oil named Eht kfin an archaic Saqqarah tomb should be read h3t kf(tyw), referring to an oil from Crete imported into Egypt via Byblos. That interpretation is highly unlikely.

A major criticism of Kaplony's approach is that he fails to consider the mass of archaeological evidence from Sinai and Canaan that indicates peaceful relations. In his latest study on the subject, Helck (1988: 130-33) does consider this evidence and reaches conclusions very similar to those expressed in the current article. The archaeological material is of no small help in determining which interpretations of the difficult textual evidence are the more probable.

8Moringa oil (Egy. b,k) is an aromatic substance used in antiquity as well as today for medicine, perfume, and the like. While the moringa tree is at present native to both Egypt and Canaan, its early history is obscure. B3'k appears first in an offering list from the tomb of Rahotep at Medum dating to the transition from the Third to the Fourth Dynasty (Barta 1963: 38); this is the sole Old Kingdom occurrence. The tree was still a rarity in the Middle Kingdom, so much so that a unique scene in the tomb of the Nomarch Ahanakht records the act of "(receiving) a b3k branch of the temple from the priests" (Griffith and Newberry 1894: pl. 17). The word appears elsewhere in Middle Kingdom texts only three times. B'k was not common until the New Kingdom, when it is found mainly in lists of tribute from Western Asia, as an item in palace stores, and as a royal gift to temples. In general, moringa oil seems to have been used only by the wealthier classes (Helck 1963: 690-700), indicating it may have been mostly imported. Botanical samples are not known in Egypt until Graeco-Roman times, though there are textual references to moringa trees growing there in the Eighteenth Dynasty (Hayes 1951: 93).

Whether this oil was imported from Canaan in early times must remain an open question. The adventurer Sinuhe lists b'k among the products of his new home in Palestine, which means the tree grew there in the early second millennium B.C. That would imply that the tree was native to that region in earlier times, although I know of no evidence for this.

1991 21

WILLIAM WARD

Stager's defense (1985: 175) of the old rendering of b'k as "olive oil" is not convincing. His main argument is a comparison of the latitudes at which this tropical tree can grow with the list of places from which it was said to come in the annals of Thutmosis III. It is a telling argument until one recalls the vagaries of Egyptian artists and scribes. Not only did they confuse the clothing and hairdress of foreigners in their paintings, but native

Egyptian bowls and other vessels are often shown among the "tribute" brought to Egypt by Minoan and Myce- naean emissaries. Within this context, one should not take literally Thutmosis' statement that he received b3k oil from Mitanni, a region where the moringa tree did not grow. In later years, Egyptian scribes recorded the conquest of and tribute from Mitanni long after that nation had ceased to exist.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altenmiiller, H. 1976 Das Olmagazin im Grab des Hesire in Saq-

qara (QS 2045). Studien zur altigyptischen Kultur 4: 1-26.

Amiran, R.; Beit-Arieh, Y.; and Glass, J. 1973 The Interrelationship Between Arad and Sites

in Southern Sinai in the Early Bronze II Period (Preliminary Report). Israel Explora- tion Journal 23: 193-97.

Amiran, R., et al. 1978 Early Arad. The Chalcolithic Settlement and

Early Bronze City. Jerusalem: Israel Explora- tion Society.

Bar-Adon, P. 1962 Expedition C-The Cave of the Treasure.

Israel Exploration Journal 12: 215-16. 1971 The Cave of the Treasure. Jerusalem: Mosad

Bialiq. (Hebrew) 1980 The Cave of the Treasure. Jerusalem: Israel

Exploration Society. Barta, W.

1963 Die altigyptische Opferliste von der Frihzeit bis zur griechish-romischen Epoche. Munch- ner agyptologische Studien 3. Berlin: Hessling.

Baumgartel, E. 1947 The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt I. London:

Griffith Institute. 1960 The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt II. London:

Griffith Institute. Beit-Arieh, I.

1974 An Early Bronze Age II Site at Nabi Saleh in Southern Sinai Tel Aviv 1: 144-56.

1981 An Early Bronze Age II Site Near Sheikh 'Awad in Southern Sinai. Tel Aviv 8: 95-127.

1984 New Evidence on the Relations Between Ca- naan and Egypt during the Proto-Dynastic Period. Israel Exploration Journal 34: 20-23.

Beit-Arieh, I., and Gophna, R. 1976 Early Bronze Age Sites in Wadi el-Qudeirat

(Kadesh-Barnea). Tel Aviv 3: 142-50. Ben-Tor, A.

1982 The Relations Between Egypt and the Land of Canaan during the Third Millennium B.C. Journal of Jewish Studies 23: 3-18.

1986 The Trade Relations of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 29: 1-27.

1991 New Light on the Relations Between Egypt and Southern Palestine During the Early Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 281: 3-10.

van den Brink, E. C. M., ed. 1988 The Archaeology of the Nile Delta. Problems

and Priorities. Amsterdam: Netherlands Foun- dation for Archaeological Research in Egypt.

Brunton, G. 1937 Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture. London:

Quaritch. 1948 Matmar. London: Quaritch.

Brunton, G., and Caton-Thompson, G. 1928 The Badarian Civilization and Predynastic

Remains near Badari. Publications of the Egyptian Research Account 46. London: Bri- tish School of Archaeology in Egypt.

de Cenival, J. 1965 Un nouveau fragment de la pierre de Palerme.

Bulletin de la Societe Francaise d'Egyptologie 44: 13-17.

Cerny, J. 1944 Notes d'epigraphie archaique. Annales du

Service des Antiquites de l'tgypte 44: 279-98. Darby, W. J.; Ghalioungui, P.; and Grivetti, L.

1977 Food: The Gift of Osiris, 2 vols. New York: Academic.

von Deines, H., and Grapow, H. 1959 Worterbuch der dgyptischen Drogennamen.

Grundriss der Medizin der alten Agypter VI. Berlin: Akademie.

Drower, M. S., and Bottero, J. 1971 Syria Before 2200 B.C. Pp. 315-62 in The

Cambridge Ancient History, 3rd ed., vol. 1, part 2, eds. I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd, and N. G. L. Hammond. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Dunand, M. 1939 Fouilles de Byblos I. Paris: Geuthner. 1944 Fouilles de Byblos II. Paris: Adrien Maison-

neuve.

22 BASOR 281


1973 Fouilles de Byblos V. Paris: Adrien Maison- neuve.

Edwards, I. E. S. 1971 The Early Dynastic Period in Egypt. Pp. 1-70

in The Cambridge Ancient History, 3rd ed., vol. 1, part 2, eds. I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd, and N. G. L. Hammond. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Emery, W. B. 1949- Great Tombs of the First Dynasty, 3 vols. 1954 London: Egypt Exploration Society. 1962 A Funerary Repast in an Ancient Egyptian

Tomb of the Archaic Period. Leiden: Nether- lands Institute for the Near East.

1972 Archaic Egypt. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Erman, A., and Grapow, H.

1926- Worterbuch der dgyptischen Sprache, 12 vols. 1971 Berlin: Hinrichs.

Gardiner, A. H. 1947 Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, 3 vols. Lon-

don: Oxford University. Garenne-Marot, L.

1984 Le cuivre en egypte pharaonique: sources et metallurgie. Paleorient 10, 1: 75-96.

Garfinkel, Y.; Carmi, I.; and Vogel, J. C. 1987 Dating of Horsebean and Lentil Seeds from

the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Village of Yif- tah'el. Israel Exploration Journal 37: 40-42.

Germer, R. 1979 Untersuchungen uber Arzneimittelpflanzen

im alten Agypten. Doctoral Dissertation, Uni- versity of Hamburg.

1980- Olive. Col. 567 in Lexikon der Agyptologie, 1981 vol. 4, eds. W. Helck and E. Otto. Wiesbaden:

Harrassowitz. 1986 Zeder. Cols. 357-58 in Lexikon der Agyptolo-

gie, vol. 6, eds. W. Helck and W. Westendorf. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

1988 Katalog der altagyptischen Pflanzenreste der Berliner Museen. Agyptologische Abhand- lung, 47. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

1989 Die Pflanzenmaterialien aus dem Grab des Tutankhamun. Hildesheimer Agyptologio- sche Beitrage 28. Hildesheim: Pelizaeus- Museum.

Glanville, S. R. K. 1932 Records of a Royal Dockyard of the Time

of Tuthmosis III: Papyrus British Museum 10056. Part II. Commentary. Zeitschrift fur Agyptische Sprache 68: 7:41.

Godron, G. 1958 Etude sur l'epoque archaique. Bulletin de

l'Institut Francais d'Archeologie Orientale 57: 143-55.

Gophna, R. 1976a Excavations at cEn Besor. Atiqot, English

Series 11: 1-9.

1976b Egyptian Immigration into Southern Canaan during the First Dynasty? Tel Aviv 3: 31-37.

1980 Excavations at 'En Besor, 1976. Atiqot, En- glish Series 14: 9-16.

Gophna, R., and Gazit, D. 1985 The First Dynasty Egyptian Residence at 'En

Besor. Tel Aviv 12: 9-16. Griffith, F. L., and Newberry, P. E.

1894 El Bersheh II. Archaeological Survey of

Egypt 4. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

Hayes, W. C. 1951 Inscriptions from the Palace of Amenho-

tep III. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 10: 82-111.

Helbaek, H. 1963 Late Cypriote Vegetable Diet at Apliki. Opu-

scula Atheniensa 4: 171-86. Helck, W.

1963 Materialien zur Wirtschaftgeschichte des Neuen Reiches IV. Akademie der Wissenschaf- ten und der Literature. Abhandlungen des Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 1963, No. 3: Mainz: Akademie der Wissen- schaften und der Literatur.

1971 Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahytausend v. Chr. Agyptolo- gische Abhandlung, 5. 2d ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

1979 Einige Betrachtungen zu den friihesten Be- ziehungen zwischen Agypten und Vorderasien. Ugarit Forschungen 11: 357-63.

1988 Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit. Agyptolo- gische Abhandlungen, 45. Wiesbaden: Harras- sowitz.

Hennessy, J. B. 1967 The Foreign Relations of Palestine during the

Early Bronze Age. London: Quaritch. Hoffman, M. A.

1984 Egypt Before the Pharaohs. The Prehistoric Foundation of Egyptian Civilization. New York: Knopf.

Jacquemin, M. 1933 Cedre ou sapin? Kemi 4: 113-18.

James, T. G. H. 1974 Corpus of Hieroglyphic Inscriptions in the

Brooklyn Museum. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum.

Janssen, J. J. 1963 Eine Beuteliste von Amenophis II und das

problem der Sklaverei im alten Agypten. Jaarbericht ex Oriente Lux 17: 141-47.

Kaiser, W. 1987 Zum Friedhof der Naqadakultur von Minshat

Abu Omar. Annales du Service des Antiquites de l'Egypte 71: 119-25.

Kantor, H. J. 1965 The Relative Chronology of Egypt and its

Foreign Correlations before the Late Bronze

1991 23

WILLIAM WARD

Age. Pp. 1-46 in Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, ed. R. W. Ehrich. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Kaplony, P. 1963 Die Inschriften der igyptischen Friihzeit, 3

vols. Agyptologische Abhandlung, 8. Wies- baden: Harrassowitz.

1964 Die Inschriften der dgyptischen Friihzeit. Sup- plement. Agyptologische Abhandlung, 9. Wies- baden: Harrassowitz.

1965 Bemerkungen zu einigen Steingefassen mit archaischen Konigsnamen. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts, Abtei- lung Kairo 20: 1-46.

1966 Kleine Beitrdge zu den Inschriften der dgyptischen Friihzeit. Agyptologische Abhandlun- gen, 15. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

1968 Steingefdsse mit Inschriften der Friihzeit und des Alten Reichs. Monumenta Aegyptiaca, 1. Brussels: Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth.

Keimer, L. 1929 Sur quelques petits fruits en faience emaile

datant de moyen empire. Bulletin de l'lnstitut Francais d'Archeologie Orientale 28: 49-97.

1931 A propose d'une palette protohistorique en schiste conservee au Musee du Caire. Bulletin de l'Institute FranCais d'Archeologie Orientale 31: 121-34.

El-Khouli, A. 1978 Egyptian Stone Vessels, Predynastic Period

to Dynasty III. Typology and Analysis, 3 vols. Sonderreihe des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo, Vol. 5. Mainz: von Zabern.

Kroeper, K., and Wildung, D. 1985 Minshat Abu Omar. Miinchner Ostdelta-

Expedition. Vorbericht 1978-1984. Munich: Staatliche Sammlung Agyptischer Kunst.

Kueny, G. 1950 Scenes apicoles dans l'ancienne egypte. Jour-

nal of Near Eastern Studies 9: 84-93. Lacau, P., and Lauer, J.-Ph.

1959 La pyramide ai degres IV. Inscriptions gravees sur les vases. Cairo: Institut Franqais d'Arche- ologie Orientale.

Lauer, J.-Ph. 1933

Lauer, 1949 1950

Fouilles du Service des Antiquit6s a Saqqarah (Secteur Nord) (Novembre 1932-Mai 1933). Annales du Service des Antiquites de l'Egypte 33: 155-66.

J.-Ph.; Tackholm, V.; and Aberg, E. Les plantes decouvertes dans les souterrains de l'enceinte du Roi Zoser a Saqqarah (IIIe dynastie). Bulletin de l'lnstitut d'tgypte. 32: 121-57.

Leclant, J. 1975 Biene. Cols. 786-89 in Lexikon der Agyp-

tologie, vol. 1, eds. W. Helck and E. Otto. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Lesko, L. H., and Lesko, B. 1982- A Dictionary of Late Egyptian, 5 vols. Berke- 1989 ley: Scribe.

Levy, T. E. 1986 The Chalcolithic Period. Biblical Archaeolo-

gist 49: 83-106. Loret, V.

1916

Lucas, A.

Quelques notes sur l'arbre ach. Annales du Service des Antiquites de l'Egypte 16: 33-51.

1936 The Wood of the Third Dynasty Plywood Coffin from Saqqara. Annales du Service des Antiquites de l'Egypte 36: 1-4.

Macramallah, R. 1940 Un cimitiere archaique de la classe moyenne

du peuple a Saqqarah. Cairo: Service des Antiquites.

McKay, M., and Khawlie, M. R. 1983 The Problem of Tin from Byblos. Berytus 31:

143-49. Meiggs, R.

1982 Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediter- ranean World. London: Oxford University.

Meyer, Ch. 1986 Wein. Cols. 1169-82 in Lexikon der Agyptolo-

gie, vol. 6, eds. W. Helck and W. Westendorf. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Muller, H. W. 1966 Bericht iiber im Mirz/April 1966 in das ost-

liche Nildelta unternommenen Erkundigungs- fahrten. Bayerische Akademie der Wissen- schaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 1966, No. 8. Munich: Bayer- ischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Newberry, P. E. 1915 TA TEHENU-"Olive Land," Ancient Egypt

1915: 96-100. Nibbi, A.

1981 Ancient Egypt and Some Eastern Neighbors. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes.

Ogden, J. 1982 Studies in Archaic Epigraphy III. Goittinger

Miszellen 60: 81-84. Oren, E. I

1973

Perrot, J.

The Overland Route Between Egypt and Ca- naan in the Early Bronze Age. Israel Explora- tion Journal 23: 198-205.

1955 The Excavations at Tell Abu Matar. Israel Exploration Journal 5: 17-40, 73-84, 167-89.

1984 Structures d'habitat, mode de vie et enrivon- nement. Les villages souterrains des pasteurs

24 BASOR 281


de Beersheva dans le sud d'Israel, au IVe millenaire avant l'ere Chretienne. Paleorient 10,1: 75-96.

Petrie, W. M. F. 1901 The Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynas-

ties II. Egypt Exploration Fund, 21st Memoir. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

1920 Prehistoric Egypt. Publications of the Egyp- tian Research Account 31. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

Prag, K. 1986 Byblos and Egypt in the Fourth Millennium

B.C. Levant 18: 59-74.

Radwan, A. 1983 Die Kupfer- und Bronzegefasse Agyptens

(Von den Anfingen bis zum Beginn des Spdtzeit). Prahistorische Bronzefunde, part 2, vol. 2. Munich: Beck.

Richard, S. 1987 The Early Bronze Age. The Rise and Col-

lapse of Urbanism. Biblical Archaeologist 50: 22-43.

Rizkana, I., and Seeher, J. 1984 New Light on the Relation of Maadi to the

Upper Egyptian Cultural Sequence. Mitteilun- gen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 40: 237-52.

1987 Maadi I: The Pottery of the Predynastic Settle- ment. Archaologische Veroffentlichungen, 64. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.

1988 Maadi II: The Lithic Industries of the Pre- dynastic Settlement. Archaologische Veroffent- lichungen, 65. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.

Roquet, G. 1985 Avant le desert, savanes, veneries et caravans.

Reflexions sur une inscription d'ancien empire. Pp. 291-311 in Melanges offerts a Jean Vercoutter, eds. F. Geus and Fl. Thill. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Rothenberg, B. 1969 An Archaeological Survey of South Sinai.

First Season 1967/1968. Preliminary Report. Museum Haaretz Bulletin 11: 22-38.

1973 Sinai Explorations III. A Preliminary Report on the Sixth Season of an Archaeological Survey of Sinai, February, 1973. Museum Haaretz Bulletin 15/16: 16-34.

Rothenberg, B., et al. 1979 Sinai. Pharaohs, Miners, Pilgrims and Schol-

ars. Washington: Binns. Rowton, M. B.

1967 The Woodlands of Ancient Western Asia. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 26: 261-77.

Saad, Z. 1957 Ceiling Stelae in Second Dynasty Tombs

from the Excavations at Helwan. Supplement

Schott, S. 1950

Sethe, K. 1914

au Annales du Services des Antiquites de l'tgypte, 21. Cairo: Institut Francais d'Arche- ologie Orientale.

Hieroglyphen. Untersuchungen zum Ur- sprung des Schrift. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Zur Erklarung einiger Denkmaler aus der Fruhzeit der agyptischen Kultur. Zeitschrift fur Agyptische Sprache 52: 57-88.

Smith, W. S. 1967 Two Archaic Egyptian Sculptures. Bulletin of

the Museum of Fine Arts 65: 70-83. Stager, L. E.

1985 The Firstfruits of Civilization. Pp. 172-88 in Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell, ed. J. N. Tubb. Occasional Publication 11. London: Institute of Archaeology.

Tackholm, V., and Tackholm, G. 1941 Flora of Egypt I. Fouad I University, Bulletin

of the Faculty of Science 17. Ucko, P.

1968 Anthropomorphic Figurines of Predynastic Egypt and Neolithic Crete with Comparative Materialfrom the Prehistoric Near East and Mainland Greece. Royal Anthropological In- stitute Occasional Paper, 24. London: Royal Anthropological Institute.

te Velde, H. 1967 Seth, God of Confusion. Leiden: Brill.

Wainwright, G. A. 1934 The Occurrence of Tin and Copper Near

Byblos. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 20: 29-32.

Ward, W. A. 1963 Egypt and the East Mediterranean from Pre-

dynastic Times to the End of the Old King- dom. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 6: 1-57.

1964 The Inscribed Offering-table of Nefer-Seshem- Ra from Byblos. Bulletin du Musee de Bey- routh 17: 37-46.

1969 The Supposed Asiatic Campaign of Narmer. Melanges de l'Universite Ste. Joseph 45: 205-21.

1989a Non-Royal Women and Their Occupations in the Middle Kingdom. Pp. 33-43 in Wo- men's Earliest Records from Ancient Egypt and Western Asia, ed. B. Lesko. Atlanta: Scholar's.

1989b Some Foreign Personal Names and Loan- words from the Deir el-Medinah Ostraca. Pp. 287-303 in Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene J. Kantor, eds. A. Leon- ard and B. Williams. Studies in Ancient

1991 25

WILLIAM WARD

Oriental Civilization, 47. Chicago: University of Chicago.

von der Way, T., and Schmidt, K. 1987 Tell el'Faracin-Buto. 2. Bericht. Mitteilun-

gen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 43: 241-57.

1988 Tell el-Fara'in-Buto. 3. Bericht. Mitteilun- gen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 44: 283-306.

Weinstein, J. 1984a The Significance of Tell Areini for Egyptian-

Palestine Relations at the Beginning of the Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 256: 61-69.

1984b Radiocarbon Dating in the Southern Levant. Radiocarbon 26: 297-366.

Wildung, D. 1981 Agypten vor den Pyramiden, Miinchner Aus-

Ebla The Reign of A New Look at History Thutmose IV Giovanni Pettinato Betsy M. Bryan translated b' C. Faith Richardson

For thousands of years the ruins lay buried beneath the sands in northern Syria. Capital of a once-flourishing empire whose very existence was unknown to the modern world, the city of Ebla was a thriving center of trade during the Bronze Age and a for- midable political power. Its exploration by archaeologists led to the sensational find of a royal archive that held 16,000 tablets inscribed with an unknown cuneiform language. Deciphered by Giovanni Pettinato, these tablets tell a story that is obliging historians to rewrite the history of the ancient Near East.

grabungen in Agypten. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.

Wright, M. 1985 Contacts Between Egypt and Syro-Palestine

during the Protodynastic Period. Biblical Ar- chaeologist 48: 240-53.

Zibelius, K. 1978 Agyptische Siedlung nach Texten des Alten

Reiches. Beihefte zum Tiibinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Series B, No. 19. Wiesba- den: Harrassowitz.

Zohary, D., and Hopf, M. 1973 Domestication of Pulses in the Old World.

Science 182: 887-94. 1988 Domestication of Plants in the Old World.

The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants in West Asia, Europe, and the Nile Valley. Oxford: Clarendon.

"Thutmose IV was a significant ruler whose achievements have not been properly appreciated because the data on his short reign are scattered and difficult to interpret- and Betsy M. Bryan has brought him fully into the light of history. Her thoroughness, critical skill, and interpretive strengths have produced a format that will be fol- lowed by others. The Reign of Thutmose IV approaches history in its fullest sense and covers aspects of royal deifica- tion, the royal family, the role of royal women, and the complex bureaucracy of Egypt." - David O'Connor, Univer- sity of Pennsylvania

$55.00 hardcover $36.95 hardcover

26 BASOR 281

*/

early contacts between egypt, canaaan and sinai

Documents