The Role of Foreigners in Ancient Egypt: A study of non-stereotypical artistic representations 9781841718651, 9781407328683

Citation preview

BAR S1426 2005

The Role of Foreigners in Ancient Egypt

BOOTH

A study of non-stereotypical artistic representations

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT

Charlotte Booth

BAR International Series 1426 2005 B A R red cover template CS6.indd 1

26/04/2013 10:28:29

The Role of Foreigners in Ancient Egypt A study of non-stereotypical artistic representations

Charlotte Booth

BAR International Series 1426 2005

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1426 The Role of Foreigners in Ancient Egypt © C Booth and the Publisher 2005 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841718651 paperback ISBN 9781407328683 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841718651 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2005. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS CHRONOLOGY

2

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

3

CHAPTER 1: ETHNICITY

5

CHAPTER 2: STEREOTYPICAL IMAGERY

9

CHAPTER 3: ASIATICS

14

CHAPTER 2: SYRIANS

31

CHAPTER 5: LIBYANS

38

CHAPTER 6: NUBIANS

45

CHAPTER 7: MINOANS

54

CHAPTER 8: INDIANS

59

CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION

66

CITED WORKS

68

1

CHRONOLOGY Dynasty 20

PRE- DYNASTIC 5500 – 3150 BC Badarian, 5500 – 3800 BC

1185 – 1070 BC

THE THIRD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD High Priests (Thebes) 1080 – 945 BC

Amratian, 3800 – 3400 BC (Naqada I, Early Gerzean)

Dynasty 21 (Tanis) 1069 – 945BC Middle Gerzean 3400 – 3300 BC (Naqada IIC)

Dynasty 22 945 – 715 BC (Libyan at Tanis)

Late Gerzean 3300 – 3200 BC ( Naqada IID)

Dynasty 23 818 – 715 BC (Libyan at Leontopolis)

Protodynastic 3200 – 3050 BC (Naqada III)

Dynasty 24

EARLY DYNASTIC 3150 – 2686 BC Dynasty 0 3150-3050 BC

Dynasty 25 747 – 656 BC (Nubian)

Dynasty 1

3050-2890 BC

Dynasty 26

Dynasty 2

2890-2686 BC

THE LATE PERIOD 525 – 332 BC Dynasty 27 525 – 404 BC (First Persian)

OLD KINGDOM 2686 – 2181 BC Dynasty 3 2686 – 2613 BC Dynasty 4

2613 – 2498 BC

Dynasty 5

2498 – 2345 BC

Dynasty 6

2345 – 2181 BC

404 – 399 BC

Dynasty 29

399 – 380 BC

Dynasty 30

380 – 343 BC

Ptolemaic Dynasty

MIDDLE KINGDOM 2040 – 1782 BC Dynasty 11 2134 – 1991 BC 1991 – 1782 BC

SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD Dynasty 13 & 14 1782 – 1650BC Dynasty 15 1663 – 1540 BC (Hyksos) 1663 - 1540 BC

Dynasty 17 1663 – 1540 BC (Theban) NEW KINGDOM 1570 – 1070 BC Dynasty 18 1570 – 1293 BC Dynasty 19

Dynasty 28

THE PTOLEMAIC PERIOD 332 – 30 BC Macedonian Kings 332 – 305 BC

Dynasty 9 & 10 2160 – 2040 BC

Dynasty 16

664 – 525 BC

Dynasty 31 343 – 332 BC (Second Persian)

FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD Dynasty 7 & 8 2181 – 2160 BC

Dynasty 12

727 – 715 BC

1293 – 1185 BC

2

305 – 30 BC

ILLUSTRATIONS Figure i: ‘Nine Bows’ beneath the feet of the king. Luxor Museum (Photograph by W. Frostick) Figure ii: Statue base, Luxor Museum, showing a subdued Syrian and Nubian (Photograph by W. Frostick) Figure iii: Twenty sixth dynasty faience image of Libyan (formed part of a handle on a cosmetic jar (Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC45371) Figure iv: Subdued Syrian/Asiatic. Luxor Museum (Photograph by W. Frostick) ASIATICS Figure 1:1a: Detail of Absha from the tomb of Khnumhotep (Line drawing by the author) Figure 1:1b: The Hyksos in the Middle Kingdom tomb of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan (Photograph by Ulla Kaer Andersen) Figure 1:2: Wooden servant statue of an Asiatic woman carrying a baby (line drawing by the author). Figure 1:4 Ivory Sphinx (Line drawing by the author) Figure 1:5 a & b: Terracotta Head (a - Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC 33278) (b - line drawing by the author) Figure 1:6 Offering table of the Deputy Chief Steward Imeny (line drawing by the author after Bietak 1996) Figure 1:7 Obelisk Shaped Stela (line drawing by the author after Bietak 1996) Figure 1:8 Head covering from the mummy of a nobleman (line drawing by the author) Figure 1:10 Statue of Kerem and Abykhy (line drawing by the author) Figure 1:11 Asiatic Sailors from the Temple of Sahure (Line drawing by the author after Redford 1992, figure 4) SYRIANS Figure 2:1 Syrians from the tomb of Kenamun (Line drawing by the author after De Garis Davies & Faulkner 1946) Figure 2:2 Syrians from the tomb of Nebamun (Line drawings by the author, a) after Wachsmann 1987) Figure 2:3 Stela of Syrian Mercenary (Line drawing by the author after Freed et al 2000) Figure 2:4 Syrian soldier from Amarna (line drawing by the author after Redford 1992) LIBYANS Figure 3:1 Mutnodjmet as a Sphinx with pinioned wings (Line drawing by the author Nibbi 1986) Figure 3:2 Terracotta Head from Memphis Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC34718) Figure 3:3 Shabti Figure belonging to Prince/ess Thes-theren (Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC38075) NUBIANS Figure 4:1 The Ebony Statue Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC 14210) Figure 4:2 The four sons (line drawing by the author after Davies 1926) Figure 4:3 Image of Heka-nefer (Line drawing by the author after Simpson 1963) Figure 4:4 Mercenaries from the tomb of Tjanuny (line drawing by the author after Annelies & Brack 1977) Figure 4:5 Scene from tomb of Djehutyhotep (Line drawing by the author after Save-Soderbergh 1977) Figure 4:6 Djehutyhotep and Amenemhat from the tomb of Senmose (line drawing by the author after Save-Soderbergh 1977) MINOANS Figure 5:1 Minoan Bull Leaping Scene (Line drawing by the author after Bietak 2005)

3

INDIANS Figure 6:1 Indian Dancing Figure (Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC33607) Figure 6:2 Indian Dancing Figure (Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC8788) Figure 6:3 Indian Dancing Girl (Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC8932) Figure 6:4 Indian male with Monkey (Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC17811) Figure 6:5 Indian Female Carrying a pot (Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC28787) Figure 6:6 Indian female carrying a duck on her shoulders (Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC28686)

4

ETHNICITY clearly a Greek name.8 There are many cases where the name of the individual does not match their ethnic designation. Of eighteen ‘Greeks born in Egypt’ twelve of them have Egyptian names and only two are GraecoEgyptian.9

INTRODUCTION In a study of this type in order to determine the role that foreign immigrants held in Egyptian society it is necessary to categorise what it meant to be Egyptian, and therefore how these foreign immigrants differed. This therefore warrants a discussion on ethnicity, nationalism and citizenship. However all of these concepts are new and not always visible in the ancient archaeological record. The idea of nationalism was characterised at the end of the eighteenth century AD and the French revolution.1 The concept of ethnicity is even younger and was only introduced in the 1950’s to 1960’s AD,2 although Smith believes that the concept appeared with the first city state and patrimonial kingdoms in the third millennium BC especially amongst Egyptians and Sumerians.3 To identify ethnicity in ancient societies it is important to differentiate between nationality and ethnicity as these are different concepts and the nationality of an individual is not necessarily the same as their ethnicity. There is also a general belief that nationality and ethnicity are stable and difficult to change other than through mixed marriages and their offspring.4

These classifications of being Greek or Egyptian were not class categories although as the Greeks were the ruling power they were generally economically wealthier than the Egyptians.10 However classification of nationality, during this period was not used as a means of favouring the Hellenes over the Egyptians.11 It was not until the Romans settled in Egypt that these classifications were used to assign privileges to the immigrant population.12 From the pharaonic period it has been suggested by Ward in 1994 that the foreigners at Deir el Medina identified through their foreign names (including Libyan, Nubian, Canaanite, Ugaritic, Hurrian, Cypriot, Akkadian and Hittite) were never in positions higher than the workmen, and the women were housewives of workmen indicating that there may have been a connection with ancestry / ethnicity and status.13 In the Graeco-Roman period there was often a connection between certain professional groups and nationality, for example the military was made up mostly of Hellenes and the clergy were mostly Egyptian14 and therefore could indicate there were more opportunities for certain nationalities within particular occupations. It has also been suggested that these could also be tax-status designations and in a Greek text it specifies that ‘Hellenes’ were exempt from some taxes, indicating they were trying to maintain the loyalty of the military by tax exemption.15 This further indicates that it started as an ethnic identification and then the meaning changed to that of tax status.

NATIONALITY The word ‘nation’ derives from the Latin meaning “I am born” and generally refers to the common descent of a group,5 namely the country of birth. The term ‘nationality’ is generally taken to mean being a citizen of a state or a member of the privileged inhabitants of that country.6 Nationality was a tool used by the Egyptians in the Graeco-Roman period to differentiate between the indigenous and the immigrant population. There is however a distinct difference between the Greek and the Egyptian records. Greek texts identify the population as being from two categories, either Greek or Egyptian. The demotic texts however use a number of categories with titles such as “Greek born in Egypt”, or ‘Persian born in Egypt’.7 This clearly identified the nationality of the individual. This “born in Egypt” title included a number of diverse nations, including Blemmyan, Ethiopians from Meroe, Ethiopians from Philae, Persian, Greek, Syrian and Nubian, indicating that during this period, Egypt was a multi-cultural society. These titles would have made the origins of certain individuals clear, as this is often difficult to identify from the nomenclature. For example one ‘Nubian born in Egypt’ is called Harpaesis, which is

Although race and nationality are important they are physical attributes, not social ones16 and this is where ethnicity needs to be addressed. ETHNICITY Ethnicity is not the same as nationality as it refers to the culture of a group or individual rather than the country of origin. It is a self-conscious identification with a certain group partly placed on locality and origin,17 and partially based on common behaviour patterns, language, and

8

ibid, 20 La’da 1994, 186 10 Goudriaan 1988, 116 11 ibid, 5 12 ibid 119 13 Meskell 1999, 152 14 Goudriaan 1988, 116 & La’da 1994, 187 15 La’da 1994, 188 16 Renfrew & Bahn 1996, 181 17 Shennan 1989, 14 9

1

Ostergard 1992, 16-38 ibid. 3 Shennan 1989, 14 4 Goudriaan 1988, 8 5 Ostergard 1992, 16-38 6 Goudriaan 1988, 8 7 ibid, 15 2

5

CHARLOTTE BOOTH However Gordon Childe firmly believes that ethnicity can be determined from the archaeological remains “We find certain types of remains – pots, implements, ornaments, burial sites, house forms – constantly recurring together. Such a complex of regularly associated traits we shall call a “cultural group” or just a ‘culture’. We assume that such a complex is the material expression of what today we would call a “people”.11

beliefs. Unlike nationality, ethnicity is a changing phenomenon, and an individual’s ethnicity can change during their lifetime as their beliefs, behaviour and environmental circumstances alter.1 It is common that those living close together in space and time are more likely to think and behave in a similar manner than those who are more distant from one another2 although ethnic groups are not always defined by geographical boundaries. Ethnicity is the common ground that holds a nation together.3

Ethnicity is very difficult to identify from the archaeological record as this can be affected by trade and interaction. For example if an Egyptian cemetery is excavated with a large proportion of Nubian pottery used as grave goods, it may be assumed that these graves belonged to Nubian settlers. In reality they could be Egyptian burials, and the pottery may have reached the area through trade, and they may have been copied due to fashion, and is not necessarily a reflection of ethnicity.

There are different approaches to this problem of ethnicity, and its definition. Objectivists view ethnic groups as social and cultural entities with distinct boundaries characterised by relative isolation, and lack of interaction with those of different ethnic roots. Subjectivists believe that ethnicity is formed by culturally constructed categories that dictate social interaction and behaviour.4

The study of languages is more reliable as an ethnic identifier as ethnic groups often correlate with language boundaries.12 The ancient Egyptian language has affinities with African groups around Lake Chad as well as Semitic languages and indicates a mixed source of this language13 and therefore the population. In GraecoRoman Egypt many people would have been bi-lingual, speaking both Greek and Egyptian. The adoption of a language could contribute to a change in ethnicity during their lifetime or the lifetime of succeeding generations.14 During this period those of mixed descent were known as Graeco-Egyptian, and would have been of mixed ethnicity, both biologically and culturally.15 There are however inscriptions showing that children can sometimes have a completely different ethnic identity to their father. For example a man called Horemheb was given the designation “Blemmy born in Egypt”, and a couple of years later his son is given the designation “Megabarian born in Egypt” with no explanation as to why.16

The instrumentalist view of ethnicity is that ethnic groups appear as the result of the pursuit of common interests. Similarly the primordialist view of ethnicity is that it is a result of the desire ‘to belong’ which gives rise to communal sentiments.5 The definition of ethnicity in the simplest terms is a collection of social relations between individuals with similar cultural characteristics, who consider themselves as culturally different from other groups whom they only have minimum contact.6 Ethnicity affects the decisions people make about themselves and how they relate to others.7 Ethnic affiliation is characterised not only by everyday behaviour but also to behaviour in particular situations or activities.8 The continuity of these ethnic groups depends on the maintenance of these behavioural boundaries.9

Language would have been the identifying factor as to whether in the rural villages people were Greek or Egyptian. Greek speaking Graeco-Egyptians were not considered Hellenes by the Alexandrian society as their rustic manners and behaviour would have classified them amongst the lower Egyptians.17 A number of Greek soldiers would have settled in the Egyptian countryside and therefore their contact with the Egyptians would have blurred the cultural boundaries of both groups, creating a

Material culture is a common way of identifying different ethnic groups, which is problematic in pharaonic Egypt due to the homogenous material culture, giving the appearance of a homogenous society indicating that the cultural and ethnic differences may have been more apparent in the social relations and customs.10

1

ibid, 15-6 Jones 1997, 130 3 Ostergard 1992, 16-38 4 Jones 1997, 57 5 Shennan 1989, 15 6 Meskell 1999, 151 7 ibid, 148 8 Goudriaan 1988, 12 9 ibid 10 Meskell 1999, 154 2

11

Renfrew & Bahn 1996,163 ibid, 181 13 Leahy 1995, 225 14 Goudriaan 1988, 117 15 ibid 16 La’da 1994, 187 17 Goudriaan 1988, 118 12

6

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT population of Graeco-Egyptians.1 By the second and first century BC wealthy people moved to the nome–capitals and the peasants remained in the country, giving a stronger Egyptian culture in the country and a GraecoRoman culture in the cities.2

After the Hyksos period the new Egyptian military were inclined to worship Astarte and Baal, the Asiatic deities of war7 without any reference to their ethnicity. INTEGRATED IMMIGRANTS In pharaonic Egypt it is difficult to identify the different ethnic groups within the society. Through texts we can identify nationality, (e.g. Asiatic born in Egypt, or the Nubian N), and through nomenclature it is possible, when these titles are not used, to identify foreign individuals. This however is not a reliable trace of ethnic origin, as there are periods of the New Kingdom when foreign names became popular for the Egyptian elite.

Language studies can be used to identify the common source of language, which suggests interaction between these language groups. Interaction between different groups is one of the most contributing factors to ethnicity change, as new ideas are adopted between ethnic groups, and over time new ethnic groups develop.3 In ancient Egypt the constant interaction with Asiatics resulted in hundreds of Asiatic words being adopted and transcribed into the Egyptian language. The types of words reflect the positions that Asiatics held in society as well as the nature of cultural and material aspects being absorbed into the culture. 25% of the words are military related (chariot parts, weapons and imported materials) 27% of the words are regarding wood and furniture types. 6% regard Asiatic minerals 10% are geographical terms, over half of which refer to bodies of water (lakes, wells etc.) 8% are regarding food and preparation 7% refer to containers (ceramic and basketry) 4% are legal and international diplomacy terms 3% are connected to religious cults 2% are words connected with international commerce.4

There is also the problem of foreign immigrants using their native names for a few generations and then gradually replacing them with Egyptian names. During the Ramesside period at Deir el Medina, there were a number of foreign individuals identified through their names, which then disappear in the twentieth dynasty as the families become more integrated into society.8 This integration into the indigenous population is the problem discussed in this study, as once they have integrated they become ethnically Egyptian, and their origins are masked.9 As the evidence of integrated foreigners is normally in the form of statues or inscriptions this would suggest that they belonged to the elite of Egyptian society. The elite society probably only numbered 10,000 in the whole of Egypt, and membership was quite exclusive although it is obvious from the evidence that merit and not birth is a more important criterion for integrating into the elite society.10

Religion and ethnicity are combined more often than other factors,5 as many ethnic groups share religious beliefs, and this is not necessarily reliant on geographical boundaries, language or country of origin. This does however cause some problems when dealing with pharaonic Egypt as the Egyptians absorbed foreign deities and foreign religious practices in the indigenous religion masking the ethnic origin. The worship of Anath and Astarte became so common after the New Kingdom that they were written into the Egyptian mythology and were made the daughters of the sun god Ra. The popularity of Reshef and Qudshu (the Asiatic version of Hathor) encouraged the priests to include them in the sacred triad of Min. These Asiatic gods were not just worshipped by the lower classes but by royalty too. The Asiatic gods Reshef and Astarte are displayed by king Amenhotep II as protectors of the chariot team and Amenhotep III requested from the Mitanni king, Tushratta that a cult statue of Ishta of Nineveh be sent to him, to help cure an unknown illness.6 Neither Amenhotep II nor Amenhotep III is believed to be of Asiatic origin.

CONCLUSION The criteria for defining ethnicity changes with the situation and is usually a way of identifying an “ingroup” and an “out-group”. In Graeco-Roman Egypt the Egyptians see the Hellenes as the “out-group” and viceversa.11 In this study the Egyptians are the “in-group” and therefore it is essential to define what makes someone Egyptian. Dragadze in 1980 described an ethnic group as “a firm aggregate of people, historically established on a given territory, possessing in common relatively stable peculiarities of language and culture, and also recognising their unity and difference from other similar formation (self-awareness) and expressing this in a selfappointed name (ethnonym).”

1

ibid, 117 ibid 3 Renfrew & Bahn 1996, 366 4 Redford 1992, 236 5 Goudriaan 1988, 10 6 Redford 1992, 231 2

7

ibid232 Meskell 1999, 151 9 ibid,152 10 Baines 1996, 343 11 Goudriaan 1988, 8 8

7

CHARLOTTE BOOTH This gives a list of ethnicity criteria on which to use to identify who would have been considered Egyptian or non-Egyptian in this study Shared territory or land Common descent Common language Community of beliefs or religion Self-identity A name to express identity of the group Shared origin story for history of the group1 Shared burial customs2 Although this check list will be applied, it is also important to note that ethnicity is self-acknowledged primarily and then accepted by others of the same ethnic group.3 Therefore it will be important to determine whether the characters depicted in the art consider themselves to be Egyptian or non-Egyptian.

1

Renfrew & Bahn 1996, 181 Leahy 1995, 232 3 Goudriaan 1988, 10 2

8

STEREOTYPICAL IMAGERY of Nubia, and Nubians are often shown bringing tribute of these resources to Egypt. These resources are also included in booty lists of battles between Egypt and Nubia. In the Medinet Habu texts of Ramses III it records “After His Majesty had triumphed over the countries of the wretched Kush (Nubia), the Chiefs of the countries being enclosed in his grasp and their tribute being before his majesty, consisting of gold, lapis lazuli, turquoise and every costly store”.5

In the following study I will examine Egyptian representations of foreigners which do not conform with the strict artistic conventions followed by the Egyptians. From these atypical images I hope to determine the role that non-Egyptians held in Egyptian society. In order to understand how an image can be atypical it is imperative to examine the stereotypical images of non-Egyptians. The most recognised image of non-Egyptians come from the smiting scenes which show the submissive foreigners, as ‘bound captives’, held by the forelock by the Egyptian king, his other arm raised ready to strike them with a mace. These images of ‘bound captives’ were also regularly shown on foot-stools, statue-bases, soles of the king’s sandals, and on floors to represent them being continually beneath the king’s feet (Figure i).

ASIATICS was a term that referred to people from a wide area including the Levant, Syria and Mesopotamia, and from the twenty-fifth dynasty may also have included Jews. Jews were not known in Egypt until the Persian period (after 525BC) when there was a garrison of Jewish troops at Elephantine. An archive has survived from this site giving a very detailed outline of the life of the people here.6

According to Egyptian ideology the world consisted of four races; Nubians, Asiatics, Libyans and Egyptians.1 Despite this simplistic division of the world’s population the Egyptians were familiar with many other ethnic groups and definitions of these groups can be found in various inscriptions and texts. The Egyptians are generally described as rmt which means ‘people’, indicating they are the “true” humans. Egyptian men were normally shown with reddish-brown skin, dark hair and normally adorned with a plain white loincloth or kilt, whereas women were shown with yellow skin and dark hair. The other three foreign races were further divided into the ‘nine bows’ or nine traditional enemies of Egypt, a magical number symbolising a multiplication of the holy triad (3 X 3 or plurity of plurities) and represented all the enemies of Egypt.2 This ‘catch-all’ group ensured that countries outside of Egypt’s jurisdiction were represented as symbolically under the power of the Egyptian king.3

Although Asiatics are often shown in tributary scenes they are regularly shown in open revolt against the Egyptian king.7 One of the easily identifiable Asiatic groups are the SYRIANS and they were often shown with fair skin (white or yellow), large beaky noses, long black hair, which brushed the shoulders, often adorned with head bands and full beards (Figure ii). Their clothes are made of colourful, patterned wool with fringes, and full cloaks.8 They are often shown in scenes depicting merchants indicating that they travelled to Egypt on trading missions. They are also shown offering tribute of the goods of their country to Egyptian officials. LIBYANS were sub-divided into three tribes (Tjehenu, Meshwesh and Libu), all of which were viewed as being semi-barbaric.9 Libya was not actually a country but rather a name to cover the Bedouin tribes of the western Desert, who would have posed a great threat to the borders of Egypt. Each of these main tribes had distinguishing characteristics. All of the tribes are shown with fair (yellow) skin and pointed beards, and in some instances are shown with fair hair and blue eyes.10 They generally have aquiline noses and sloping foreheads11 (Figure iii).

As the traditional enemies of Egypt there was a typical way of presenting them in art, so as to make them instantly recognisable. NUBIANS would have been a familiar sight to the people of Upper Egypt as there were numerous Nubian mercenaries in the Egyptian army. They were generally portrayed with darker skin than the Egyptians, ranging from reddish-brown to black and short black curly hair, which later developed into the ‘Nubian’ wig favoured in the New Kingdom4 especially in the court at Amarna. They often wore an ostrich plume in their hair and large gold ear-rings, in addition to elaborate kilts made from exotic animal skins which formed the valuable resources

TJEHENU Libyans were first recognised in the Old Kingdom and appear to have been replaced by the

5

Edgerton & Wilson 1936, 3 Leahy 1995, 228 7 Forbes 2005, 68 8 ibid 9 ibid, 73 10 Shaw and Nicholson 1995, 161 11 Forbes 2005, 73 6

1

Leahy 1995, 226 Shaw and Nicholson 1995, 94 3 Redford 1992, 89 4 Forbes 2005, 70 2

9

CHARLOTTE BOOTH Inw were gifts or tribute6 that went directly into the king’s privy purse and b3kw(t) was tribute that went directly to the temple and was then redistributed to pay for military campaigns and commoners wages.

Meshwesh in the New Kingdom battles of Sety I and Ramses III. The Meshwesh have similar characteristics to the Tjehenu, although each tribe is represented in a distinctive manner.1 The Tjehenu have long wavy hair, which reaches down the back and front of their torso, and they normally wear a penis sheath. There is also a tail which hangs from the waist-band of this sheath.

Inw was paid on an annual basis by rulers of various places (conquered and non-conquered foreigners, and Egyptians), directly to the king. This inw represented a personal relationship between the Egyptian king and these rulers. Although inw did not reflect Egyptian domination, the king did not view it as a transaction between equals, and was similar to anthropological giftgiving systems. There would have been rules as to what counted as inw and who qualified to give it, and would have had no connection with trade relationships.7

MESHWESH Libyans seem to be the most feared of all the tribes and caused the most fear amongst the Egyptian people. They are also depicted with long hair, without a fringe, with a feathered head-band, which may have derived from tribesmen and native chiefs, and reflects their Bedouin origins. Like the Tjehenu the Meshwesh are also shown wearing a penis sheath and kilt. The Meshwesh were a group which appear to include Libulike tribesmen and Tjehenu customs. They also adopted the use of long swords in battle, from the Sherden who formed part of the Sea Peoples.2 This could suggest that the Meshwesh were not a tribe in their own right but one made up of others.

The king would decide what goods would count as inw and these commodities included wine, other drinks, curds, fat, fowl and oil.8 As this inw went straight into the kings privy purse it was his choice as to what he spent it on. It is however recorded that he would have used the inw to pay the workmen at Deir el Medina9 who were responsible for the building of his tomb. The king himself would at times donate inw to the temples or a particular god, which is the only authority higher than him.

LIBU appear to be the most easily distinguished group of the Libyan tribes. They have short hair only reaching the nape of the neck, with a long side-lock and fringe. These side locks are sometimes elaborately plaited and decorated. They also have geometric tattoos on their forearms and wear long open decorated cloaks and kilts.3

The economic income known as b3kw(t), was different to inw and was delivered directly to the temple, rather than through the king’s privy purse. B3kw(t) could be donated to a particular temple, temple department, deity, or for a particular purpose. Once it reached the temple it was redistributed to pay the military and other rations for the common people.10 The temples could also use this income for temple repairs, or as raw-material for statues.11 “A temple is being renewed with work of eternity from the b3kwt of the princes of every foreign land and that which His majesty brought by means of his victory as plunder of his brave arm”.12

Of all the Libyan tribes the Libu and the Meshwesh were generally the groups that settled in Egypt4 and therefore the groups that the Egyptians would have been most familiar with. Although there were numerous other races depicted by the Egyptians (including Cretans, Puntites, Indians, Persian and Carians), the races discussed were seen as the main threats to the Egyptian borders and from an early period the king was depicted overpowering them. Countries outside of the Egyptian borders were presented in texts and official images as being chaotic and inhabited by barbarians and therefore as Egypt was governed by the rule of Maat, it was considered righteous to subjugate foreign countries as a way of maintaining order over chaos.5

The giver of b3kw(t) differs from that of inw and generally refers to a region, a group of professionals or foreign princes rather than an individual.13 On a stela from Karnak dated to the eighteenth dynasty reign of Amenhotep II it states “The Prince of Nahrain, the Prince of Hatti, and the Prince of Senger heard the great victory, they

However, despite these stereotypical images and propagandistic inscriptions foreigners would have been essential to the Egyptian economy, and two important economical terms have been discovered that describe this. These were inw and b3kw(t).

6

Bleiberg 1984, 155 ibid, 158-9 8 ibid, 161 9 ibid, 162 10 ibid 157 & 162 11 ibid, 159 12 ibid, 161 13 ibid, 159 7

1

Taylor 2000, 338 Wainwright 1962, 93 3 ibid 89-91 4 Taylor 2000, 338 5 Leahy 1995, 227 2

10

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT said we come bearing our b3kw to your palace, oh Amenhotep II”.1 Often the king would be responsible for taking the b3kw(t) to the temple as the foreign princes would give it directly to him. Although b3kw(t) tribute does not require that the Egyptians have conquered the area making the tribute, the redistributive system required a Egyptian temple to organise local distribution. This kind of structure appears to have been present throughout Nubia, Byblos, and in Southern Sinai in the eighteenth dynasty. In the Rammesside period this system extended to Palestine.2 This therefore suggests that there was a constant Egyptian presence in these regions whether as a religious or military presence. CONCLUSION Therefore despite the negative way of representing nonEgyptians in art and texts it is clear that the Egyptians relied on the wealth of these countries, through tributes and trade to maintain the strong economy of the Egyptian state. There can be little doubt that the images of the foreigners in suppressed positions were a propagandistic tool to represent the Egyptian supremacy over all nonEgyptians and were not necessarily a reflection of the true role that they played within Egyptian society. Although the world’s population was divided into four nations, the Egyptians were very aware of other nations and these are often displayed in tributary scenes, and mentioned in military texts, execration texts and also in correspondence between Egypt and foreign nations. This evidence coupled with the artistic images discussed in this study give a more realistic view of how the Egyptians related to and treated non-Egyptians within their society.

1 2

ibid, 160 ibid, 165

11

CHARLOTTE BOOTH

Figure i ‘Nine Bows’ beneath the feet of the king. Luxor Museum (Photograph by W. Frostick)

Figure ii Statue base, Luxor Museum, showing a subdued Syrian and Nubian (Photograph by W. Frostick)

12

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT

Figure iii Twenty sixth dynasty faience image of Libyan (formed part of a handle on a cosmetic jar (Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC45371)

Figure iv Subdued Syrian/Asiatic. Luxor Museum (Photograph by W. Frostick)

13

ASIATICS expedition of King Den of the first dynasty to the Sinai to obtain turquoise, malachite,9 and copper.10 Rock-art in the eastern desert often depicts boats and it is believed that this indicates this may have been the preferred method of transport for this Red Sea trade. Whether the boats were made of papyrus or wood, the process of transport would have been the same. The boats would have been dismantled and transported over the Wadi Hammamat to the Red Sea coast where they would have been reassembled to continue via the Red Sea. The routes used from Egypt to the Red Sea can be traced through the distribution of these boat drawings.11

EGYPT’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NEAR EAST From the pre-dynastic period onwards Egypt had contact with the Near East, primarily through trade, and the Egyptians were therefore familiar with Asiatics, both in Egypt and in their native countries. Egypt rarely invaded other countries, as their world was already ordered, and self-sufficient,1 and when they did venture past the borders of Egypt it was with the aim of obtaining natural and human resources rather than colonisation. There were a number of goods precious to the Egyptians but unavailable within the Egyptian borders. The predynastic period saw the start of long distant travel along the Red Sea Coast and the royal mastabas of this period contained vessels of obsidian from the Red Sea areas2 indicating large quantities were imported as a luxury item. Non-perishable items were also imported from the Red Sea including silver, lapis lazuli, turquoise, galena, malachite, iron, and resins, all as luxury items, and excavations in the cemetery at Naqada have shown that most of the tombs do not have more than one of these items amongst their funerary goods.3

Throughout the pharaonic period there were hostilities between Upper and Lower Egypt, and there were regular reassertions of power by Upper Egypt over Lower Egypt. For example in the sixth dynasty during the reign of Pepy I he re-conquered the Eastern Delta although this only had limited effects in Egypt’s expansion into the east12 due to varying trade routes which did not all go via the Delta. In the twelfth dynasty the Theban kings firmly reestablished control over the eastern delta to prevent infiltration from the east, and they constructed a system of fortresses and the administration of the eastern Delta was absorbed into that of the Upper Egyptian kings.13 However, as the rise of the Hyksos kings shortly after this would show, the danger was not from infiltration but from the settled Asiatics already in the eastern Delta.

It has been suggested that the relationship with the Sinai was not always amicable, and Sinai names have appeared on Egyptian Execration Texts indicating they were considered to be enemies of Egypt, and therefore a threat. There is also some evidence that during the reign of Hatshepsut, Egypt lost control over this region, although how this was lost is uncertain.4 Hatshepsut is insistent in the Deir el Bahri texts that her reign included Asiatic soil, which is believed to emphasise the fact that her rule was probably restricted to the Nile Valley.5 This fluctuating relationship was still apparent during the reign of Psammetik I (664 -10 BC) when he made every effort to reinstate Egypt’s traditional foreign policy and reestablish rule in Asia. This was partially successful due to his siege and capture of Ashdod in Coastal Israel.6

There is also evidence that the pre-dynastic Egyptians travelled further than the Red Sea and the Sinai, and there is an abundance of material from Israel, Sinai and Egypt to support this trade,14 all prior to the unification of Egypt which opened the eastern borders.15 There is also evidence of lapis lazuli amulets in tombs from the Gerzean period at Naqada and in tomb II at Hierakonpolis, which would have been obtained from Afghanistan. The Hierakonpolis tomb also contained silver beads which would have been traded with western Asia.16 A Palestinian loop-handled jar was discovered in Badari which indicates that even during this early period there was at least an indirect contact between Egypt and Palestine.17 The Maadi culture of Lower Egypt (37503200 BC) also traded with Palestine, as a number of imported Palestinian jars, V-shaped bowls, basalt rings, tabula scrapers, flint blades and asphalt have been

The Neqada I Egyptians exploited the eastern desert for various goods including malachite (from Wadi Gemal, and Um Semiuki), alabaster, diorite, schist, volcanic ash, serpentine and marble/porphyry which were used for the manufacture of stone vessels.7 There has also been a number of Egyptian pot sherds dating to the Neqada I period discovered in north-east Sinai.8 This relationship was continuous and the Palermo stone mentions an

9

Adams & Cialowicz 1997, 52 Mark 1997, 12 11 Zarins 1996, 97 12 Goedicke 1969, 11 13 ibid 14 Adams & Cialowicz 1997, 49 15 Mark 1997, 19 16 Adams & Cialowicz 1997, 52 17 Mark 1997, 12

1

10

Goedicke 1969,12 2 Zarins 1996, 92 3 ibid, 93 4 Goedicke 1969, 14 5 ibid,13 6 ibid,13 7 Zarins 1996, 94 8 Mark 1997, 16

14

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT discovered there1 and it is clear that the Lower Egyptians, during this period, had a stronger relationship with Palestine than with Upper Egypt. As well as trading with Palestine there are four underground chambers at Maadi which are similar to those at Beersheba, Israel, indicating these may have been the home of Palestinian traders living in Egypt.2

were easier to reach by boat.9 This was therefore a relatively short stay by the Egyptians, resulting in complete withdrawal from the area. There is also evidence that by the end of the first dynasty various trade posts in the Delta, and the north Sinai coast had also been abandoned due to these improved maritime routes.10 Although during this early period this area was abandoned, over the years Egypt maintained regular contact with the Near East, and from the third dynasty there was a shrine set up near the mines in Sinai dedicated to Hathor, the “goddess of foreign countries” and “Mistress of turquoise” which would have helped the Egyptian travellers settle in these outposts.

In 3300-3100 BC an Egyptian colony was established in Southern Canaan and goods were exported via this colony to Egypt and included copper ingots, ores, bitumen, salt, sulphur, turquoise, resins, aromatic oils, olive oil, wine and food for at least 200 years. They would have reached this area from the Delta via the Northern Sinai corridor.3 The east was opened to the Egyptians after the Upper Egyptian kings had gained control over Lower Egypt and the Delta,4 and this is reflected in the material culture of Lower Egypt which is slowly replaced by that of Upper Egypt.5 At the site of Arad there were two pottery sherds with the name of Narmer which would have formed a large jar (70cm). Most of the Egyptian vessels found, were not made of local materials and it is suggested they were made for the sole purpose of transportation of perishable goods. In some of the tombs at the Egyptian settlement in Southern Canaan, Nile shells were discovered, some drilled with holes which indicates they were used as jewellery. The settlement did not have an enclosure wall, and it would appear the Egyptians lived in caves adapted with walls6 and suggests that this may not have been designed as a permanent settlement.

In Southern Canaan pre-dynastic Egyptian pottery has been discovered, although they are made of local clay,11 indicating that there may have been Egyptians living in the area. In Israel a number of pottery sherds have been discovered with serekh frames inscribed on them. Not all of these frames include the name of a sovereign, but there are three examples with the name of Narmer, showing that by 3100 BC and the rule of Narmer, trade was common to this area.12 A number of Canaanite goods have been found in Egypt from this period and the majority of these goods are containers for the transportation of Canaanite products and raw material. The large tomb Uj at Abydos (dated to the Naqada II period) contained 400 imported Canaanite pots, which at this time would have been used primarily for the import of wine and oil.13 This tomb is thought to have belonged to a king (possibly King Scorpion14) and he has been considered to be the king who unified Egypt due to emblems of kingship also discovered in this tomb.15 In the later, first dynasty tomb of Djer at Abydos there were Palestinian vessels containing coniferous resins imported from this area. In exchange for the luxury items imported to Egypt from Canaan the Egyptians would have traded stone vessels, gold jewellery, fine linen and semi-precious stones in addition to perishable food items.16 From the New Kingdom onwards the Canaanite traders would have been a common sight, especially in the settlement at Memphis, with their community being based around the temple of Baal. This remained in use until Herodotus visited Egypt when he referred to it as the “Camp of the Tyrians”.17

There is no evidence of a military take-over in the Canaan region, and therefore this site was probably more of a trading post than a colony. It is likely that the trade network was state organised, run with Egyptian administration.7 The Egyptians living in this area returned to Egypt to die and were buried there as would be expected.8 Egyptians feared that should they be buried abroad the funerary rites would not be completed correctly which could result in them not being reborn in the afterlife. There were however Egyptian militia in the area but there appeared to be very little resistance by the Canaanites and it would seem they lived peacefully with the Egyptians. When the Egyptian commercial interest changed from that of the Canaan to the Lebanon and Syria, the Canaanite colonies were abandoned as these other areas

As well as trading goods with the Near East the Egyptians also adopted a number of Asiatic cultural and

9

ibid, 74 Adams & Cialowicz 1997, 51 11 ibid, 49 12 ibid 13 ibid, 51 14 Andelkovic 1995, 57 15 Mark 1997, 20 16 Andelkovic 1995, 67 & Adams & Cialowicz 1997, 51 17 Redford 1992, 228

1

10

ibid, 17 2 ibid, 18 3 Andelkovic 1995, 73 4 ibid, 72 5 Mark 1997, 19 6 Andelkovic 1995, 27 7 Adams & Cialowicz 1997, 49 8 Andelkovic 1995, 72

15

CHARLOTTE BOOTH resulted in the Hyksos being accepted as the rulers of Lower Egypt.

material aspects into their society. The most obvious would be the chariot in the seventeenth dynasty, and these were used to expel the Hyksos from Egypt. They also adopted the battering ram from the Asiatics at the end of the New Kingdom.1

Regardless of this internal struggle the new Hyksos rulers did not seem to be afraid of outside attack. A re-enforced surrounding wall at Avaris was not built until near the end of the period (1570-1540BC) at a time when they would have felt threatened by the Theban dynasties who, at this time seemed to have been getting restless with the division of Egypt. At the beginning of the Hyksos rule this division would have caused economical problems to both regions by cutting access to trade routes which would have been used regularly during the Middle Kingdom. This would have taken both areas some time to overcome, hence the delayed period of time that the Theban dynasties took to retaliate against the foreign rulers.

HYKSOS IN EGYPT Through this discussion of Egyptians within the Canaanite region we move on to Canaanites in Egypt. The most famous Canaanites in Egypt are the Hyksos. There has been much debate over the origins of the Hyksos rulers of Egypt and it is generally agreed they came from this region. The Hyksos ruled Egypt from their capital of Avaris (Modern Tell el Dab’a) in the Delta in the Second Intermediate Period. The texts describing this period would have us believe that “invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land”2

The only surviving narrative texts from or about this period, are written by Egyptians, following certain stylistic conventions in order to project the image of the ‘mighty’ Egyptians suppressing ‘barbaric’ foreigners. As no narrative texts written by the Hyksos have survived, we have to rely on artistic representations, and archaeological evidence to determine the real role in which they played within the Egyptian society.

Archaeological evidence however, shows that there was a large Canaanite population in the Delta prior to the Second Intermediate Period, and the sudden expansion of the settlement at Avaris at the start of Hyksos period (circa 1663 BC) indicates a sudden influx of people into the area. At the height of Hyksos rule Avaris had doubled in size from the settlement of the thirteenth dynasty.3

In the catalogue below there are a small number of Hyksos included, but with such a small number of representations we can only generalise about the acceptance of the Hyksos into Egyptian society. However, the scarcity of negative imagery of the Hyksos could suggest that they were accepted more than the texts would allow us to believe. One example of such negative imagery comes from the temple of Ahmose at Abydos, which shows two Hyksos warriors,7 one as a captive with a shaved head, stubble beard with a rope around his neck and another wearing a long sleeved fringed garment,8 (similar to that worn by Absha in the Beni Hasan relief (Figure 1:1). However, the imagery in this temple is completely stereotypical of captured enemies, and therefore can be seen as a product of Egyptian political propaganda. These stereotypical smiting scenes do not differentiate one group of Asiatics from another, and in the Ahmose relief, it is only the accompanying text that identifies them as Hyksos.

Some Asiatics in the Middle Kingdom (2040-1782 BC) held positions of authority and therefore were not really “the obscure race” that Manetho describes. A number of stelae and inscriptions show officials with Asiatic names, or with Egyptian names, but who name their Asiatic parents.4 It was also common for Asiatic children, captured as spoils of war to be trained in Egypt to be palace administrators, scribes, magicians or soldiers. The end of the Middle Kingdom saw a division of power, particularly in Lower Egypt. The fourteenth dynasty was ruling the Delta area at the same time as the thirteenth dynasty. The first king of this dynasty was Sheshi who is thought to have reigned for 40 years followed by his son Nehesy who reigned for a year.5 Limestone door-jambs of Nehesy have been discovered at Tell el Dab’a and other inscribed fragments found at Tell el Habua, Tanis and Tell el Muqdam, would suggest the fourteenth dynasty power was limited to the Eastern Delta. This abandonment of the northern regions after the thirteenth dynasty moved6 the capital to Thebes, left the northern areas open to internal power struggles, which eventually

Texts dating to after the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt were written to reinforce the role the New Kingdom kings played in the maintenance of the Rule of Maat. Convincing the populace that the Hyksos were barbarians, through tales of destruction and looting, ensured the new kings were seen as saviours. These tales would have been circulated verbally through the community, and may have developed into ‘myths’. However, if the Asiatics were as mistrusted and hated as

1

ibid, 214 Waddel 1940, 79 3 Bourriau 2000, 546 4 Kitchen 1991, 87-90 5 Ryholt 1997, 252 6 Bourriau 2000,190 2

7 8

16

Harvey 1999, 3-5 Bourriau 2000, 213

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT Asiatics in the Middle Kingdom would have held positions of power within the Egyptian administration, and although they changed their names to aid integration, they did acknowledge their Asiatic parentage. There are numerous examples of Asiatics in administrative texts as well as personal stela, naming a variety of different occupations that they filled, including skilled positions.2 There is evidence that there were Asiatics in Egypt from as early as the end of the third dynasty when there was an influx of foreigners into Egypt. They were brought to Egypt by the Egyptians as a means of cheap manpower, source of tribute, booty, gifts and raw materials.3 It has even been suggested that some Asiatics were sold to the Egyptians as slaves by their own people. During times of war, a number of Asiatics would also have come to Egypt as refugees. The imagery of these Asiatic migrations to Egypt would have been common and Papyrus Bologna 1086 describes this scene “When the victory is won by his majesty (l.p.h.) distributes the plunder for the return march to Egypt, but the Asiatic woman is exhausted by the march and is put on the shoulders of the soldiers”.4

the texts would indicate, they would not have been able to rise to positions of authority, and if they did, they would have been discouraged from acknowledging their nonEgyptian origins. The tomb of Khnumhotep II, being so far south from the Canaanite settlement in the Delta, shows knowledge of Asiatic races was not limited to Lower Egypt. After the Hyksos period, knowledge and acceptance of the Hyksos went as far south as Abydos, as the ivory sphinx (Figure 1:4) could suggest, were it in fact an image of an Asiatic king. Abydos would have been at that time under the rule of the Theban dynasties, which could suggest some divided opinion amongst the people of Egypt concerning the rulers of that time. The Khnumhotep image of the Hyksos and the Sphinx are not from Asiatic dominated areas and could have been owned or commissioned by Egyptian or Asiatic people whereas the statue from Avaris (Figure 1:3) is clearly from an Asiatic community, and the terracotta head from Memphis (Figure 1:5) is thought to have originated in what Petrie termed the ‘foreign quarter’.1 Although there is no definite archaeological evidence of a ‘foreign quarter’ there is much evidence that Memphis during the Ptolemaic period was a multi-cultural society, where different nationalities lived together whilst maintaining an Egyptian life style. There were a number of temples here dedicated to foreign gods, as well as being the cult centre of Ptah and the Apis Bull. These foreign deities were gradually absorbed into the Egyptian pantheon.

It was also believed that certain Asiatics had particular skills that were useful to Egypt, and their positions would have depended upon this, and on occasion they would have been encouraged to settle in Egypt for these skills. Generally however, Asiatic settlers would have initially carried out menial tasks like weaving, cultivating, or grape-crushers in the wine trade.5 Some of the speciality positions held by Asiatics were goldsmiths, coppersmiths and shipwrights. Evidence from the twelfth dynasty Lahun Papyrus suggests that there would also have been a number of Asiatics employed in the Egyptian army. The papyrus refers to an ‘officer in charge of Asiatics’ indicating there were entire regiments of Asiatics.6

Memphis was a major port site, and the numerous workshops situated here would have meant a large number of foreigners would have been travelling through. From the representations discussed above it is clear that Asiatics were a familiar aspect of life. The tomb of Khnumhotep shows them in an official aspect as part of a trading venture, and suggests a relationship between the Egyptians and this group of foreigners. The sphinx (Figure 1:4) from the tomb at Abydos, which does not appear to have other Asiatic characteristics, could suggest that the tomb owner was an Egyptian who was sympathetic towards the Asiatic rulers of this period. The noble statue being found in the Asiatic capital of Avaris and representing an Asiatic merely shows that they were living here and were living according to their own traditions and culture. The terracotta head is a little more problematic as the craftsman, and audience, is unknown. It does, however, indicate that there was an Asiatic element to the community at Memphis, either living there or at least common enough to be familiar to the craftsman of this object.

The controllable water levels at the site of Tell el Dab’a resulted in it being a major harbour town, which would have been used as a base for maritime trading and expeditions. Therefore the Asiatics settled there may have initially been a sea faring population. On the Old Kingdom temple of Sahure (Figure: 1:11) and the causeway of Unas, Asiatics are represented manning ships bringing people from Syria. There is similar imagery from the New Kingdom so it is likely that in the thirteenth dynasty Asiatics especially from Coastal Levant were used in Egypt for their maritime skills. Egypt had been trading with Byblos and the Canaan since the pre-dynastic period for cedar, pine and cypress wood which would have been used to make boats and large

ASIATICS IN EGYPT There was a major influx of Asiatics into Egypt from the twelfth dynasty onwards and as already mentioned some

2

Bourriau 1998, 50 Redford 1992, 51 4 Redford 1992, 221 5 ibid, 223 6 Leahy 1995, 228 3

1

Petrie 1910, 46

17

CHARLOTTE BOOTH buildings.1 In the Sahure image of the Asiatics coming to Egypt, the Asiatic sailors all have their arms raised in praise of the king who is probably standing to the left of the boat. In Egyptian art there are certain stereotypes that need to be adhered to and one of these is that all countries were under the mercy of Egypt2 which could explain the position of the Asiatics. However the entire theme of the scene belies this as Egypt is welcoming the Asiatic sailors, their wives and children into Egyptian society. It would seem that one of the most common reasons for migration would have been the hope of an easier and more prosperous life in this fertile and rich land.3

when I was following the ruler (on campaign)…….He is not to be beaten, nor is he to be turned away from any door of the palace. I have given the daughter of my sister Nebetto, whose name is Takament, to him as a wife. She shall have a share in my inheritance just like my wife and my sister”.7 It is clear that the barber’s possessions would remain within his family through this marriage. It is unfortunate that this inscription does not indicate whether IuwyAmun was a willing spouse or not. There are limited items from the Old Kingdom regarding Asiatics settled in Egypt, and this, rather than reflecting a lack of immigrants, suggests they did not acquire enough wealth to leave monuments.8 However, there are a number of Middle Kingdom funerary stelae, discovered at Abydos, in the northern cemetery behind the temple of Osiris and currently housed in the Rio de Janeiro Museum which represents some of the Asiatics living and working in Egypt during this period. One stela (Inv. 627) dated to the twelfth dynasty reign of Senusret III belongs to “The Asiatic Gebgeb born of Ummi”. The name Gebgeb is Egyptian and could mean ‘lame’ or ‘tall’, and Ummi is a common Middle Kingdom name and could mean mother. However it clearly states that he is Asiatic, meaning his mother or father were of Asiatic origin. The stela further mentions “His son Herunefer the Asiatic, born of his mother”. Herunefer is also an Egyptian name and means “Happy Day”. It is therefore possible that Gebgeb’s mother and Herunefer’s grandmother was Asiatic and may have been a secondary wife of concubine of his father.9

A common practice during the New Kingdom in particular was the capture the children of foreign chieftains, who would then be brought to Egypt and raised as Egyptians. These children would either be sent back to their native lands as vassal rulers, or they would be trained with the Egyptian army, and become palace guards or out-runners before the royal chariot, sun-shade bearers or members of the priesthood. In the Amarna period, Akhenaten employed these foreign chieftain sons as domestic servants or chamberlains of his entourage. Although these positions may seem mundane they were all in close proximity to the king and therefore would have allowed them to gain in power, wealth and status.4 In the reign of Sety II the vizier, a position of great power, was held by an individual named Bay who was of Asiatic origin. Also in the New Kingdom a Hurrian named Benya, son of Aritenni became the ‘Superintendent of all Construction Works of the King’. A Canaanite prisoner of war from the campaigns of Thutmosis III, named Pas-Baal, became the ‘Chief Draftsman in the Temple of Amun’. His family held this position for six further generations.5 Another Asiatic that rose to power was Aperel the vizier during the reign of Amenhotep III, as well as the Asiatic royal butler Benazu, during the Ramesside period.6 It is therefore clear that nationality and means of reaching Egypt clearly did not prevent promotion.

Another stela (Inv. 680) belongs to the foreman Karu who was Egyptian, who mentions in the bottom register two Asiatics, although only one is represented. The first is the “Asiatic and Chief of Craftsmen, Tuti”, and the other is the “Chief of craftsmen Apir, born of Abiya”. Through the study of their names it is possible to identify their origins. However it is not always conclusive as foreign names became popular during certain periods and did not necessarily reflect nationality.

Evidence also shows that Egyptian kings married Asiatic princesses as a means of maintaining peaceful relationships with these countries. It would also have been considered acceptable for lower-class Egyptians to marry Asiatic settlers and there is evidence that this did occur. From the New Kingdom onwards it was common to find Canaanite or Hurrian names in Egyptian family trees. An inscription written by the barber of Thutmosis III, Si-Bastet states “I have a slave who was assigned to me whose name is Iuwy Amun. I captured him myself

The name Tuti has the Western Semitic route, of Dwd, and is also the basis for David (later known as Dodi, Dodo).10 This route appears in Amorite texts for the third dynasty of Ur (22-3rd century BC) and also in Old Babylonian texts of the early second millennium BC, contemporary with this Middle Kingdom stela. Apir is a western Semitic name used in the Middle and New Kingdoms. The name Abiya is well attested in

1

Adams & Cialowicz 1997, 51 Redford 1992, 51 3 Bourriau 1998, 50 4 Redford 1992, 224 5 ibid, 225 6 Leahy 1995, 233 2

7

Redford 1992,230 Baines 1996, 363 9 Kitchen 1991:88 10 ibid, 87 8

18

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT Amorite and later is a Hebrew name1 although it could be translated as Ibi which is an Egyptian name. If it is an Egyptian name it suggests that Apir’s mother may have been Egyptian although she could equally be Western Semitic and the term Abi, is common in Hebrew from all periods. These names also occur in the Execration Texts and the Brooklyn Papyrus which named the current enemies of Egypt.

formal teaching of his scribal skills which indicates that this was not limited to Egyptians. From personal stelae it would appear than many Egyptian officials would have had Asiatic servants in their household, indicating there was an element of trust between the Egyptians and this immigrant population. In the stela of Amenemhat Nebuy (catalogue 1:9) he names two household servants, and identifies them as being Asiatic. It was unusual for servants to be named, and this indicates that Amenemhat held his in high esteem. Another Middle Kingdom stela belonging to Amenyseneb, a priest of Abydos, names a number of his servants, including his Asiatic brewer Irsi, and two Asiatic house-servants, Sobekiry and Senebnebit. These Asiatics like the servants of Amenemhat, all have Egyptian names, and are therefore integrated into society. The servant statue (Figure 1:2) from the Beni Hasan tomb supports the integration into society, as the food that this Bedouin woman is carrying would sustain the deceased tomb owner for eternity, therefore there would need to be trust in the figure in order to have a prosperous afterlife. The tomb owner must have had contact with the tribes represented by this woman in order to want to represent her in his tomb. There is a similar statue made of ivory in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, which is unprovenanced but is an Asiatic servant girl, with the same hairstyle, a fringed cloak and is shown carrying a baby on her back. It is likely that the owner of this ivory figure also felt confident in her to have her provide food for his afterlife. The same could be said for the Asiatic servants on the stelae, as they will be providing offerings for eternity.

The names therefore would suggest that Tuti, Apir and Abiya were in fact Asiatic. Tuti and Apir also held quite powerful positions. Both of them hold the title “Chief of Craftsmen” and were likely to have been master stone masons in charge of a group of craftsmen that no doubt included Egyptian workmen. One Asiatic resident of Avaris, the ‘Deputy Chief Steward’, Imeny, (Figure 1:6) was very proud of his Asiatic heritage. He lived in the late Middle Kingdom, and represented himself with an Asiatic beard on his stela, although his Egyptian name would suggest integration into Egyptian society. This would have been a powerful position, and the population at Avaris during this period would have been a mixed Canaanite and Egyptian one, although there were probably more Canaanites than Egyptians here during this period. The statue of Kerem and his wife, Abykhy (Figure 1:9) is another example of Asiatic settlers gaining positions of authority in Egypt. We know that Kerem was a newcomer to Egypt as he was given the Egyptian name “Geregwaset” which means “settled in Thebes”. He held the title of ‘doorkeeper’ at the chapel of Hathor in the Temple of Thutmosis III at Thebes. This title of doorkeeper was used in the Ramesside period to demonstrate loyalty to a religious cult, although in this earlier instance, due to the style of the statue, indicates Kerem actually held the religious office of chapel doorkeeper,2 which although was not a powerful position would have been a well paid one, as the carving of this statue would suggest. Although a low-grade position his role was in the chapel of Hathor of Henketankh, (the cult temple of Thutmosis III) which reflects the elevated importance of Hathor during Hatshepsut’s and Tuthmosis III’s reign. The statue itself probably stood in the chapel of Thutmosis III, which may have acted as a family chapel for the Thutmosid’s3 and being placed in a royal chapel would have been an honour, especially for a nonEgyptian.

However, considering that we are able to identify the ethnic origins of all of these individuals does indicate that they may have been considered as distinct from the Egyptian population, hence they are all identified as Asiatic. Even those with Asiatic names written in the hieroglyphic script are identified by a title regarding their origins, or as with Kerem he is given an additional Egyptian name indicating that he is a settled foreigner. CONCLUSION It is clear that the Egyptians were familiar with Asiatics, both in their native country and in the Nile Valley, and to a certain extent they were comfortable having them as part of the community. Although the stereotypical images of Asiatics are concerned with their oppression it is obvious that in reality there were a number of Asiatics living within society, as prisoners of war, mercenaries in the army and some as immigrants looking for a better world. These Asiatics were treated as equals, and were able to gain positions of authority, and commission statues and stelae commemorating their lives. It is even possible that the number of Asiatics within the Egyptian society influenced the male fashions, especially in the Middle Kingdom, as we can see with the funerary head covering (Figure 1:8). Although this image is of an Egyptian man the facial hair (which was only popular

Kerem was also given the title of ‘scribe’ and is shown holding a scribal palette indicating he would have been literate in the Egyptian language as well as his Asiatic language. This further suggests that he was able to have

1

Kitchen 1991, 89 Quirke 1990, 172 3 ibid, 174 2

19

CHARLOTTE BOOTH These figures indicate that there would have been a large number of Asiatics living in Egypt during this period. Another indication of the number of Asiatics within Egyptian society can be determined from the need to introduce hundreds of Asiatic words into the Egyptian language (see chapter 1).

during this period) is reminiscent of that of Absha from the tomb of Khnumhotep (Figure 1:1). It is possible that during the Middle Kingdom when there were a number of Asiatics migrating to Egypt this facial hair became popular amongst Egyptians too. Those Asiatics that did not rise to positions of authority, for example servants and brewers, were also accepted into the lives of eminent Egyptians, and made such an impact on their lives that they were included on funerary stela and as servant statues. However, there do seem to be ‘pockets’ of foreign communities; the Delta being the most densely populated Asiatic region from the Middle Kingdom onwards, and Beni Hasan also appearing to be popular in the Middle Kingdom. This is not to say that other areas of Egypt were not homes to Asiatic immigrants. Kerem, for example had settled in Thebes, and in the Ptolemaic period Memphis was a major port site and therefore housed a number of immigrant communities. The difficulty in tracing Asiatics is enhanced by the integration of the Asiatics into the Egyptian community. Many of the Asiatics that have been discussed here have Egyptian names, and are only identified as ‘nonEgyptian’ by the title “Asiatic”. A prime example of this is Benya the ‘Chief Architect and Chief of the Treasury’ during the reign of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III. He was buried in an Egyptian tomb and depicts himself as completely Egyptian. However his name and that of his parents are Asiatic although he has adopted the Egyptian name Paheqamun “The ruler endures” which is a common name in the eighteenth dynasty, especially for foreigners with a court connection. Other than his name there is no mention of his Asiatic background1 indicating that he believed himself to be ethnically Egyptian rather than Asiatic. Many other Asiatics adopted Egyptian names and this could indicate they had adopted the Egyptian culture. For every example of an integrated Asiatic there may be another dozen examples where they have not identified their origins. This therefore suggests that there may have been a larger contingency of foreign settlers in Egypt than the surviving texts and monuments indicate. From the annals of the New Kingdom kings it is obvious that there were a number of Asiatics brought to Egypt as prisoners of war. In the nineteen years of Thutmosis III’s campaigns he donated 1588 Kharians to the temple of Amun. Ramses III records a donation of 2607 foreign captives to the Theban temples, and 205 to the temple of Ptah at Memphis. Amenhotep III records that his mortuary temple “was filled with male and female slaves, children of the chiefs of all the foreign lands of the captivity of his Majesty……of unknown numbers surrounded by the settlements of Syria”.2

1 2

Leahy 1995, 233 Redford 1992, 223

20

ASIATIC CATALOGUE 1:1 RELIEF FROM THE TOMB OF KHNUMHOTEP II The twelfth dynasty tomb of Khnumhotep II, at Beni Hasan in Middle Egypt, shows an image of Asiatic merchants bringing eye-paint to Egypt. Khnumhotep was the ‘Administrator of the Eastern Desert’ and the ‘Mayor of Menet-Khufu’. These Asiatics, although represented as being the same size as the Egyptians surrounding them on the registers, are shown as being completely different with yellow skin and bright patterned clothing. This clothing is made of dyed wool, which was a fabric not generally worn by the Egyptians, as it came from a living animal. The group of twelve figures consist of the leader, Absha, at the front leading a gazelle by the horns, a man leading a smaller gazelle behind him, four armed men, four women and two men bringing up the rear. There are also two donkeys burdened with goods and three servants. The donkeys appear to have colourful woollen blankets over their backs in similar patterns to the clothes of the Asiatics. The inscription identifies these Asiatics as ‘hk3 h3swt’ Hyksos).

M II

bands tied around the forehead. The women are also shown wearing decorated anklets. This scene stands out from the other images on the wall of Khnumhotep’s tomb due to their colourful attire, and appearance of movement amongst the groups of Asiatics. 1:2 WOODEN ASIATIC WOMAN AND CHILD This small wooden statue is also from Beni Hasan, in Middle Egypt and was found in the twelfth dynasty tomb of User-y and his wife Aryt-hotep (number 181), and is currently in the Royal Museum of Scotland (I9II.260). This figure is of an Asiatic woman wearing an ankle length cloak which she is holding together at the front with her right hand. The statue is made of four separate pieces, with joints at the right wrist and both ankles. There is little detail on her feet and it has been suggested that she is in fact wearing boots, like the women in the tomb of Khnumhotep at Beni Hasan (Figure 1:1). This figure is a servant, which would originally have had a tray or baskets of offerings attached to a hole in her flattened head. These figures would have provided nourishment for the deceased for eternity. It was found with a wooden base, but this has since been replaced, and the right hand and the tip of the left foot have been repaired.

(more commonly known as the

Servants that follow the armed men are shown according to Egyptian convention as much smaller than the Hyksos dignitaries and suggest the revered rank and position of the Hyksos was acknowledged by Khnumhotep. In this tomb scene there are no typical characteristics to suggest the Hyksos were showing subservience to Khnumhotep, even though the scene shows the Hyksos bringing tributary offerings to him. It would appear that they are in Egypt voluntarily, and the four, armed men behind Absha are clearly protecting him. The man at the rear of the armed group is not facing the front, and therefore not facing Khnumhotep, but is looking behind him as if he were looking out for danger. The inscription tells us that the full Hyksos procession consisted of 37 Asiatics bringing eye-paint (mesdemt) only,1 which suggests the weapons being carried are not part of the tributary offerings, and therefore supports that they were an armed bodyguard. The Egyptians clearly trusted or where at least not threatened by them to allow armed Asiatics in the presence of the official, Khnumhotep. Other goods not mentioned in the accompanying inscription can be seen being carried by the last two figures in the group. One of the men is carrying a lyre, which was an instrument favoured briefly during this period. This is the earliest image of the lyre in ancient Egypt.2 The profile of the male Asiatics in this tomb scene shows them all with characteristic hooked noses, distinctive bobbed hairstyle and a beard following the line of the jaw. The women all have long dark hair and white hair-

On her back is a baby that is being carried in a sling, and the long curved neck suggests that the weight of the baby is pushing her neck forward. The head of the baby is attached by a short peg and originally looked over the right shoulder of the woman, although now the head faces the rear.3 This method of carrying a baby was not strictly Asiatic in origin, as there are numerous images from the New Kingdom showing Egyptian women carrying their babies in slings. The profile of the woman shows a slightly hooked nose, with large nostrils, full lips which turn up slightly at the corners, a prominent jaw and large ears, being pushed forward by the elaborate hairstyle. The hairstyle is very un-Egyptian, and appears to be piled on top of her head, and held off her face and in place with three thin hair-hands that start at her brow and tie at the back of her head. There are traces of black paint on the hair, and traces of yellow paint on the feet indicating that she was coloured in traditional colours to represent an Asiatic. Garstang4 mentions that when the figure was found there were traces of colour on the cloak/dress in elaborate patterns, and it is likely that she may have worn a dress similar to that on the women in the Khnumhotep image. He suggests the patterns either represent patterns woven into wool or an embroidered design. The background colour to this patterned dress was a deep red, but sadly these colours are no longer visible.

1

3

2

Newberry 1893, 69 Watterson 1998, 50

4

21

Garstang 1907, 140 ibid

CHARLOTTE BOOTH community they would not have needed to conform to Egyptian conventions for their own monuments. The hair, as already mentioned has traces of red paint, which in itself is unusual, and could have been a convention used to indicate the Hyksos support of the Egyptian god of the desert, Seth. The Asiatic characteristics of this statue suggest the craftsmen did not compromise their Asiatic origins for the sake of Egyptian convention. The statue is shown with a throw stick against his right shoulder, which is paralleled in no other statues from Egypt, the closest example being discovered in Ebla, Syria.5

She also has deep creases running from her nose along the edge of her mouth, as well as deep pouches under her eyes. These realistic features give the impression of a portrait of a “rugged peasant woman” rather than the stylistic slender Egyptian women normally reserved for these types of statues.1 In these statues it is the food that is more important than the figures carrying them, so they clearly did not have the same restrictions as they did in more conventional art. It is likely that in the Beni Hasan region there were settled Bedouin tribes from the eastern desert, either of the same tribe as is depicted in the tomb of Khnumhotep, or a different tribe, and the owner of tomb 181 thought the “exoticism” of these Bedouin women would be an unusual item to take to the tomb.2 It is also a possibility that as a member of Beni Hasan community and may have carried offerings during the funerary processions.

1:4 IVORY SPHINX In the latter half of the second intermediate period, Hyksos rule had reached Abydos, as the discovery of the ivory sphinx in an Abydos tomb (no. 477) would support. In the first half of the Hyksos rule Abydos would have been under the rule of the Theban dynasties, which could have caused divided opinion amongst the people of Egypt concerning the two contemporary rulers. This is the only known three dimensional figure of a sphinx holding a captive.

1:3 TELL EL DAB’A STATUE The statue from Tell el Dab’a is one of the few figures which have survived that was crafted by the Hyksos during their reign. It was discovered in tomb F/1-P/19:1,3 the largest tomb at Avaris from the stratum dated to the start of the Hyksos period

This sphinx was originally thought to be a representation of a Hyksos ruler,6 and as King Khayan (1621-1581BC) was the first of the Hyksos rulers to conquer Upper Egypt, or at least to adopt the title of ‘King of Upper and Lower Egypt’, it was thought to be a representation of him. This theory has recently been disputed and is now thought to represent a Middle Kingdom king.7 However the profile shows a hooked nose very similar to that of Absha, and looks more Asiatic that Egyptian, whereas the figures between his feet looks more Egyptian, although Maree also suggests this figure could be a Nubian.

The statue has been deliberately damaged leaving only part of the face, shoulder and most of the “mushroom” shaped hairstyle, which has traces of red paint. This damage was caused in antiquity, but when and why, will remain unknown. It has been suggested that this statue represents the Biblical Joseph who is recorded as the vizier in Egypt, and that this destruction was caused by Egyptians living in Avaris, in retaliation of the mass exodus recorded in the Bible.4 The statue itself would originally have stood in the mortuary temple adjacent to the tomb, although it was found in a robber’s tunnel connecting the tomb and the temple. As a man of Jewish origins it seems very unlikely that Joseph would have commissioned a statue of himself to be placed in a mortuary temple. Secondly, the tomb is the biggest one found at Avaris and may have originally been surmounted by a steep sided pyramid, which seems a little grand for a vizier, especially during times of political unrest and fluctuating economy. The damage to the statue is more likely to have been caused at the time of the Hyksos expulsion in an attempt to eradicate any evidence that they had existed.

The owner of the tomb from which the sphinx was found is unknown but associated finds and the workmanship of this piece, would suggest they were a member of the elite class. There were however no associated Asiatic grave goods which suggests an Asiatic owner, so it could possibly be an Egyptian’s tomb. However to fully support the idea that this sphinx represents a Hyksos king, other royal images from the period needs to be discovered and used for comparison. 1:5 TERRACOTTA HEAD This terracotta head from Memphis is thought to have originated in what Petrie terms the ‘foreign quarter’, although there is no definite archaeological evidence of this area. There is however much evidence that Memphis

The fragments of the statue show traces of yellow paint on the face, characteristic of stereotypical Egyptian images of Asiatics and could suggest that the imagery used by the Egyptians was accepted by the Asiatics. In an area like Avaris, which had a predominantly Asiatic

1

Bourriau 1998, 108-9 ibid 3 Bietak 1996, 20 4 Rohl 1995, 364 2

5

Bietak 1996, 20 Garstang 1928, 46 7 Maree 2002, 426 6

22

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT was a multi-cultural society.1 It was dated by Petrie as being from 500-300BC.

1:8 HEAD COVERING FROM THE MUMMY OF A NOBLEMAN This Middle Kingdom cartonnage funerary mask from Asyut is of an Egyptian nobleman, with a short, trimmed beard, and moustache and long dark hair.3 Although the mask is of an Egyptian, the beard style is similar to that of the Asiatics, shown in the Middle Kingdom tomb of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan, and could indicate that as there were Asiatics in Egypt during this period they may have influenced the fashions of the Egyptian aristocracy.

Petrie believes the round face of this terracotta figure is indicative of a comfortable and settled life and places him as either a Syrian2 or Jewish trader although there was no firm evidence of this. The profile of this terracotta head is remarkably similar to Absha from the Beni Hasan tomb images. The hooked nose is similar in shape, although it is more exaggerated in this figure. The hair-style is not bobbed, but is cropped short and curly, although the thin beard tracing the jaw line is very similar to Absha and the Beni Hasan Hyksos. Both the beard and hair are painted black. These similarities could therefore place this little figure as a hk3 h3swt. However, there are traces of red paint on the face which does not conform to the Egyptian convention of representing Asiatics. This however could be due to the later date of this piece in comparison to the other objects discussed in this study, or it was modelled by an Asiatic who was not following the conventions of Egyptian art. The reasons for the manufacture of this figure and the possible owner are unknown, but the relaxed style and cheery features could suggest it was a caricature or even a portrait of someone in the town of Memphis. The head is broken off at the neck which suggests it was part of a larger statue, either seated or standing.

1:9 STELA OF AMENEMHAT NEBUY AND HIS FAMILY This Middle Kingdom stela dates from the late twelfth dynasty, and was discovered in an Abydos cenotaph chapel which would have been visited as a site of pilgrimage due to being the burial place of Osiris.4 It is currently housed in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge (E207.I900). It is unknown whether Nebuy was actually buried here himself, although this is unlikely, as these cenotaphs were generally commemorative chapels. This limestone stela carved in sunk relief, shows Amenemhat Nebuy with his immediate family. He is given the title of “Steward of the Temple Estates” and two images of Amenemhat dominate the stela. The bottom register of the stela is of particular interest here as Amenemhat Nebuy is standing before a procession of his servants, each identified by name. Two of these servants are identified as “Asiatics” , although they are not differentiated from the surrounding Egyptian servants indicating an equal status. All of the servants are shown wearing white kilts, a white close fitting cap and are all reddish-brown in colour according to Egyptian conventions of representing themselves. Both the Asiatic servants have Egyptian names indicating assimilation into the household, although in reality they may have been given these names by Amenemhat. One servant is called Renefseneb and he is a house servant, bringing an ox leg to Amenemhat. The other Asiatic servant is called Nebsemenu, and he is carrying geese in baskets on a shoulder yoke which he is also presenting to Amenemhat.5 It would appear that Amenemhat Nebuy wanted to include as many people from his household in this stela to ensure that the family unit remained entact for the afterlife.

1:6 OFFERING TABLE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF STEWARD IMENY This offering table belongs to the Deputy Chief Steward Imeny, who was the son of an Asiatic woman. It was discovered at Serabit el-Khadim. The offering table shows images of Imeny, with long shoulder-length hair and a long pointed beard. He is making offerings of bread or incense to an image of Horus, who is in front of the goddess Isis. He is represented in a typical Egyptian pose albeit in typical Asiatic appearance. His Egyptian name suggests integration into Egyptian society. 1:7 OBELISK SHAPED STELA This obelisk shaped stela, also found at Serabit elKhadim belongs to an Asiatic mercenary in the Egyptian army. The soilders are shown kneeling, holding Asiatic duck-billed axes, and show them with mushroom-bobbed hair styles, similar to that of Absha and the twice life-size statue found at Avaris. They also are shown with short pointed beards, characteristic of that belonging to Imeny on his offering table.This obelisk indicates that these Asiatic soldiers lived in Avaris and therefore were commemorated there.

1:10 STATUE OF KEREM AND ABYKHY This limestone statue is dated to the eighteenth dynasty, from the reign of Tuthmosis III. It was discovered in a chapel dedicated to the family of Thutmosis III.6 The couple are seated on the same chair and the back of the

3

Peck 1997, 82 Vassilika 1995, 42 cat no. 17 5 Bourriau 1998, 50 6 Vassilika 1995, 48 cat no. 20 4

1 2

Jeffreys 1985, 14 & Thompson 1988 Petrie 1909b, 16

23

CHARLOTTE BOOTH chair forms a round topped stela. There are traces of blue paint in the hieroglyphs as well as on the left wadjet eye. On the side of the chair are images of the four sons of Kerem and Abykhy. Each of the sons holds an open lotus flower to their nose, and is identified by a line of hieroglyphs.

of the sacred land, that they may give voice offerings of bread and beer, cattle and fowl, linen and alabaster, incense and unguents, everything perfect and pure everything pleasant and sweet given by heaven, created by earth, brought by the inundation from the cavern, to the soul of the scribe Kerem, justified called Geregwaset, justified before the great god”.1

Neither Kerem nor Abykhy are Egyptian names, and it is believed they were settlers in the Theban area, although they are both represented as Egyptians. There are traces of reddish-brown paint on the face of Kerem, the convention of Egyptian men. He is clean shaven and is shown with an Egyptian style wig. He is shown in mummiform, indicating that he is deceased. His arms are crossed over his chest, with a scribal palette in one hand and a flail in the other. Abykhy, is shown with paler skin, and has large eyes, and a black, plaited Egyptian style wig. She is shown in a long dress, although her legs are also shown in mummiform a style unparalleled in any other statue of this type other than from the period of the reigns of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III. She has her left hand resting on her knee and her right hand is around the waist of her husband.

1:11 SCENE FROM THE PYRAMID TEMPLE OF SAHURE This temple scene shows a boat of Asiatics arriving in Egypt. These Asiatics consist of men, women and children and clearly they are travelling to Egypt with the view to settle. The conspicuous absence of Egyptian soldiers supports this as also indicates that they were welcomed into Egypt, rather than being repelled. The Asiatics at the back of the boat of very similar to the Syrians in the Theban tomb of Kenamun (Figure 2:1), although three of them, have different hairstyles from these “Syrians” but are wearing penis sheaths in a similar fashion to Libyan tribes. Although these Asiatics are thought to have their arms raised in praise to the king it could be suggested that they are raising their hands in peace, indicating they were not invading but wanted to settle. This does not necessarily mean the Asiatics are being subservient to the Egyptians as they were allowed to stay once they had docked.

Kerem has been given an Egyptian name “Geregwaset” which means “Settled in Thebes”, and it has been suggested that he was a prisoner of war, brought to Egypt by Thutmosis III after his Syrian campaigns. He was probably given his new name Geregwaset when he was given his role of doorkeeper at the chapel of Hathor. Kerem is shown holding a scribal palette and the inscriptions identify him as a scribe, and doorkeeper of the shrine of Hathor at the temple of Tuthmosis III. It would appear that despite his Semitic origins Kerem seems to have adopted Egyptian cultural mannerisms, and refers to his wife on the stela as snt=f (his sister), an Egyptian term of endearment used for spouses as well as siblings. They also have four sons, each with Egyptian names, Qenamun, Meh, Simut, Nebneteru, and a daughter Nebetiunet. The sons are represented on the sides of Kerem and Abykhy’s chairs, and Nebetiunet is depicted by her mother’s leg on the front of the statue. The inscription on the statue is as follows; Beside the seated man “Doorkeeper of Hathor of Henketankh, Kerem Beside the seated woman “his sister, the lady of the house, Abykhy” Beside the front figure on the chairside of Kerem “his son Qenamun” Rear Figure on chairside of Kerem “His son Meh” Front Figure on the chairside of Abykhy “His son Simut” Rear Figure on the chair side of Abykhy “His son Nebneteru” Next to the figure by Abykhy’s leg “His daughter Nebetiunet” Inscription on chair back “Royal offering of Osiris, Foremost of the westerners, and Anubis within Wet, Lord

1

24

ibid, 172-3

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT

Figure. 1:1a Detail of Absha from the tomb of Khnumhotep (Drawing by the author).

Figure 1:1b The Hyksos in the Middle Kingdom tomb of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan (Photograph by Ulla Kaer Andersen)

25

CHARLOTTE BOOTH Figure 1:2 Wooden servant statue of an Asiatic woman carrying a baby (line drawing by the author).

26

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT

Figure: 1:4 Ivory Sphinx (Line drawing by the Author)

Figure 1:5 a & b Terracotta Head (a - Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC 33278) (b - line drawing by the author)

27

CHARLOTTE BOOTH

Figure 1:6 Offering table of the Deputy Chief Steward Imeny (line drawing by the author)

Figure 1:7 Obelisk Shaped Stela (line drawing by the author)

Figure 1:8 Head covering from the mummy of a nobleman (line drawing by the author)

28

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT Figure 1:10 Statue of Kerem and Abykhy (line drawing by the author)

29

30

Figure 1:11 Asiatic Sailors from the Temple of Sahure (Line drawing by the author)

SYRIANS guarded. These migrating Syrians tried to integrate into Egyptian society and a number of cylinder seals have been found in Egypt which have hieroglyphs on them although it is clear that the scribe did not understand what he was writing indicating that Egyptian was not his first language. These settled Syrians seemed to be trying to eliminate their Syrian origins, and even chose Egyptian names which were based on those popular in the sixth dynasty.

Egypt maintained trade relations with the SyroPalestinian region from the pre-dynastic period onwards. Archaeological evidence from pre-dynastic Egypt shows a number of Uruk influences, which the Egyptians would have adopted whilst travelling to Syria. These influences included niched façade architecture especially in dynasties one and two,1 which was adopted from Uruk period cylinder seals, and manifested itself on larger scale architecture, and funerary furniture.2 Middle Naqada II Egypt also shows Uruk- influenced objects like cylinder seals, objects of lapis lazuli, and stylistic knife handles. These small scale motifs suggest that they were opportunistic adoptions rather than a systematic attempt to alter the Egyptian culture3 by the Egyptians or the Syrians. This indicates that contact with this region was probably small scale, using sea travel via Levantine sites such as Byblos and Ugarit.4 If there had been a significant number of Egyptian traders in the SyroPalestine area at this time there would have been some evidence of them on the environment,5 of which there is very little other than the discovery of Narmer’s serekh frame at the sites of Arad, Tel Gah and Rafia.6

It is thought that at the end of the Second Intermediate Period, Egypt began colonising Syro-Palestinian cities in the process of chasing the Hyksos from Egypt, to further strengthen the boundaries of Egypt and to prevent another foreign group gaining power in Egypt. Prior to this period the evidence of Egyptian activity in these areas is scarce. The New Kingdom saw extensive campaigning in the Syro-Palestine area10 and in the first twenty years of the reign of Thutmosis III there were at least sixteen military campaigns to this region. Prior to these campaigns, a north-eastern Syrian overlord11 had ruled the cities and towns of the Levant. He was overthrown and replaced with a ruler of the Egyptian’s choice. The main objectives of these campaigns were to establish control of the Levantine trade routes and to protect the borders of Egypt from invasion. These expeditions to Syria started from the harbour at prw-nfr (Memphis) and the troops would have been transported from here to the Egyptian bases in Palestine and Syria.12 In year 29 it has been suggested that Syrian ships were hijacked in order to take the army back to Egypt,13 due to a lack of sea-faring vessels belonging to the Egyptian navy, but by year 30 Syrian ships were regularly used to transport the army. It has been suggested that naval supremacy of the Egyptians was only possible due to the availability of Syrian ships14 and in the image of the ships in the tomb of Kenamun (Figure 2:1) they appear to be of Egyptian construction indicating that both the Syrian and Egyptian sea-faring vessels were very similar as the Egyptians learnt the craft through their contact with the Syrians. This new mode of transport gave the Egyptians power and resulted in the sacking of Kadesh and two other Syrian harbour towns. After the capture of these Syrian harbour towns, Egypt had no naval rivals in the East Mediterranean due to eliminating the only ‘competition’15.

The relationship between Egypt and Syria is thought to have strengthened as early as the first dynasty, due to the presence of foreign pottery and Lebanese wood in first dynasty tombs.7 The Old Kingdom also saw activity between Egypt and the Near East. Numerous goods at Byblos indicate there was a maritime link between Egypt and Syria.8 The land route would have been dangerous due to the roaming Bedouin tribes, and in the reign of Pepy II an official records how he was sent to Byblos to retrieve the corpse of an Egyptian sailor who had been killed by these Bedouin during a ship building exercise. This constant danger ensured there was no overland intercourse with Palestine from the Old Kingdom. Due to these problems there is very little evidence of permanent Egyptian presence in Syria-Palestine between the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom so the extent of the Egyptian political or administrative control in the area is unknown,9 although it could be suggested that the Egyptians travelled there, traded and travelled back with no permanent settlement. However as soon as the Egyptian power started to fade at the end of the Old Kingdom the Syrian influx into Egypt began, suggesting that prior to this the borders of Egypt were closely

The high point of Egypt’s Syrian domination was in the reign of Amenhotep III when none of the Syrian vassal 1

Joffe 2000, 113 ibid, 116 3 ibid, 116 4 ibid, 114 5 ibid, 119 6 ibid,95 7 Shaheen 1998, 96 8 ibid, 97 9 Bryan 2000, 325 2

10

Fransden 1979,177 Bryan 2000, 245 12 Save-Soderbergh 1946, 39 13 ibid, 34 14 ibid, 43 15 ibid, 42 11

31

CHARLOTTE BOOTH kings were powerful enough to pose any threat to Egypt.1

campaigns of Amenhotep II carried out in year 7 and year 9, described in stelae at Karnak, Amada, and Memphis describe the harsh punishments for vassal kings who rebelled against the pharaoh. In one instance seven vassal chiefs were executed and brought back to Thebes. Six were hung upon a temple wall and the other was hung in Napata in the Sudan as a warning to the Nubians against a similar rebellion.12 However, with this kind of political arrangement any sign of impassiveness on the part of the Egyptian ruler resulted in loss of power and respect in the vassal states. Due to the impassiveness of the reigns Amenhotep III and Akhenaten13 Egypt lost control of Syria-Palestine, leaving it open to conquest by the Hittitte Empire.14 This declining Egyptian power is seen in the story of Wenamun with the reception he receives from the prince of Byblos.15 “Then he spoke to me, saying “On what business have you come?” I said to him: “I have come in quest of timber for the great noble bark of Amun-Re, King of the Gods. What your father did, what the father of your father did, you too will do it” so I said to him. He said to me “True they did it. If you pay me for doing it, I will do it. My relations carried out this business after pharaoh had sent six ships laden with the goods of Egypt, and they had been unloaded into their storehouse. You, what have you brought for me?”16

TRADE From the Old Kingdom onwards the most valued natural resource of Syria was wood used in Egyptian shipbuilding. The Palermo stone2 records a time when King Sneferu of the fourth dynasty imported forty ships “laden with pine-wood”,3 possibly from the harbour at Byblos.4 The Annals of Thutmosis III mentions ‘is’ wood which was dragged to shore by the Syrians with oxen and was reserved for use just for Egyptian needs and was then transferred to Egypt by boat.5 Syria was also rich in other resources and in the eighteenth dynasty tomb of Huy, there is a scene showing Huy accepting the tributary offerings of Syria.6 The Syrians in this scene are presenting numerous objects including a bull-headed bowl, minerals, and a large ingot of copper, “Vessels of all the choicest and best of their countries, consisting of silver and gold, lapis lazuli, and turquoise, and of all precious stones”.7 The spoils of the Syrian wars of Thutmosis III also accounted for some of the imports, and the battle of Megiddo booty list included “Living Prisoners: 340………….One fine chariot of the Prince of Megiddo, worked in gold. Chariots of the allied princes: 30. Chariots of his wretched army: 892. One fine bronze coat of mail belonging to that enemy. One fine bronze coat of mail belonging to the Prince of Megiddo. Leather coats of mail belonging to his wretched army: 200. Bows: 502”.8 The list continues with livestock, vessels of varying material, furniture of ebony, ivory and gold, as well as areas of land which were divided under the care of Egyptian officials in order to control the harvest.9 These goods are all very similar to those being brought by the Syrian trading mission in the tomb of Kenamun (Figure 2:1).

If Wenamun had the power and authority of the New Kingdom behind him the Prince of Byblos would not have kept him waiting for the wood, or have demanded “payment”, although mention of the ships laden with Egyptian goods could be in reference to a strong and valuable trade relationship. Although Egypt did not seem to hold much power in Syria-Palestine, during the reign of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, there is evidence of Syrians living at Amarna (Figure 2:3 & 2:4) albeit as part of the royal guard and militia. There have been a number of items found at Syrian sites, which may have been diplomatic gifts from the Egyptians including commemorative scarabs of Amenhotep III, sphinxes of Amenemhat III and IV and a sphinx of a queen of Amenemhat II.17 The commemorative scarabs record marriages of Amenhotep III to two Babylonian princesses and two from Mitanni.18 One of the Mittannian princesses arrived in Egypt with an entourage of 317 female servants, who would have settled into Egyptian

However, Egypt did not govern Syria in the same way that it governed Nubia. After Egypt had conquered Syria, a vassal king was chosen to rule the country whilst paying tribute to Egypt. In order to ensure loyalty the Egyptian king often held members of the vassal king’s family hostage in Egypt10 to be raised as Egyptians.11 The

1

Weinstein et al 1998, 224 Wilkinson 2000, 23 3 ibid, 141 4 Save-Soderbergh 1946, 32 5 ibid, 45-6 6 De Garis Davies 1926, 29 7 ibid 8 Lichtheim 1976, 33-34 9 ibid, 34 10 Save-Soderbergh 1946, 32 11 Bryan 2000, 245 2

12

ibid, 252 Save-Soderbergh 1946, 62 14 Weinstein et al 1998, 225 15 Save-Soderbergh 1946, 70 16 Lichtheim 1976, 226 17 Trigger et al 1983, 144 18 Weinstein et al 1998, 226 13

32

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT palace life.1 The Babylonian Princess travelled to Egypt with 500 waiting women in addition to a number of unmentioned servants.2 Some of the women from these entourage groups may have married Egyptian men, therefore merging into Egyptian society.

their native weapons, suggesting that the Egyptians were open-minded as to new weaponry and would be keen to adopt any skills they did not previously have. The foreign troops are generally represented as infantry troops.10 The stela belonging to the Syrian mercenary (Figure 2:3) shows him with a spear upright behind him and indicates that he was in the infantry, but also that he was able to amass enough wealth to produce a stela, to own a metal straw, and a servant. He was also able to marry an Egyptian woman. Although most of the inscription is missing, his wife’s name irbw‘3 could be Egyptian, as she is also shown using Egyptian artistic characteristics. The mercenary on the other hand represents himself as a Syrian and calls himself the “Syrian warrior”. As a soldier in the Egyptian army he would have been paid rations by the king, and possibly even given land or a house to aid integration into society. The image of the Syrian bodyguard of Akhenaten (Figure 2:4), shows another spearman and indicates that perhaps the Syrians were valued for this skill. It also indicates that they were trusted to protect and therefore be in constant contact with the king. Although these may only form a small percentage of the few stelae that have survived, as mentioned there would have been entire regiments of Syrians in the army, all potentially marrying Egyptian women, living amongst the Egyptian population and gradually becoming invisible as foreigners.

The earliest artistic image of Syrians in Egypt is from Theban Tomb 17 belonging to the Physician Nebamun,3 and represent a trading mission similar to that of Kenamun (Figure 2:2a). Throughout the pharaonic period Syrians are regularly depicted in tombs bringing tribute to Egypt, and by the reign of Amenhotep III, Canaanite merchants were a regular sight in ancient Egypt due to these extensive trade relations. It is thought that the numerous tribute scenes showing Syrians lining up before Egyptian officials are probably scenes of bribes being brought to the Egyptian king to ensure that trade would take place.4 The scene from the tomb of Kenamun (Figure 2:1) shows a number of Syrian ships docking in Egypt and trading openly at the dock-side market place. There is however a scene showing the Syrian captains making offerings/bribes to Kenamun, which would have allowed them to trade safely in Egypt. Memphis would have been the trading centre of Egypt and there were so many Syrian merchants based here or travelling through here, that in the Egyptian language the phrase “To do business in the Syrian tongue” meant ‘to haggle”.5 This does therefore suggest that the Syrians were considered an active and permanent part of the society.

Despite the important positions held by Syrians at Amarna, literary evidence from Deir el Medina suggests that the Egyptians here held the positions of authority and the Syrians all belonged to the lower levels of their society.11 The Syrian women were all housewives, or were married to workmen, and one woman was a servant attached to a work gang. There is also evidence that a Syrian girl was taken from door to door until someone bought her as a slave from private traders.12 It could be suggested that those of Syrian origin or ancestry were not given the same opportunities as the Egyptian inhabitants of Deir el Medina, or it could simply be that most positions were passed down through the generations, and therefore any new families would have to start with the lower positions until they either were promoted or married into a family with a higher position.

SYRIANS IN EGYPT Much of the information we have regarding the Syrians in Egypt comes from military records due to extensive New Kingdom campaigns to the Syro-Palestinian region. From the reign of Amenhotep III prisoners of war were conscripted into the army.6 The prisoners were branded and placed under the control of an Egyptian military officer and native “Leaders of Tribesmen”.7 There were whole regiments of foreign troops known as thrw8 and applied to troops including Sea Peoples, Syrians and Hittites. The artistic representations suggest that there were also mixed troops of Egyptians and foreigners,9 which would have meant that they would have lived and trained together which would have aided the foreigners integration into society. Syrians are recorded as being in both mixed troops and those made entirely of foreigners. They are shown in their native costumes and armed with

In the rest of the Theban area, we see Syrians in various powerful positions including scribes of the vizier, priests, and palace officials.13 Syrian scribes were common in the New Kingdom treasury, and a Syrian called Ben-‘anath became the Chief Physician and worked in the per ankh.14 This therefore indicates that Syrians had the same opportunities as the Egyptians, and were able to gain positions of power and wealth if their abilities enabled

1

Redford 1984, 36 Leahy 1995, 229 3 Save-Soderbergh 1946, 54 4 Redford 1992, 227 5 ibid, 228 6 Fransden 1979, 177 7 Schulman 1962: 23 8 ibid, 22 9 ibid, 23 2

10

ibid, 24 Ward 1994, 67 12 Leahy 1995, 229 13 Redford 1984, 28 14 ibid, 225 11

33

CHARLOTTE BOOTH the Egyptians and therefore slowly integrating into the society.

them to do the job, and firmly suggests that opportunities were based on ability and not nationality. It could further be suggested that once someone had adopted the Egyptian language and culture they were considered as Egyptian and were therefore viewed equally with an Egypt-born Egyptian.

The images under discussion here represent Syrians from both of the main sources of Syrians in Egypt, that of trade and of the military. Although there are not enough images to come to any firm conclusions coupled with the written resources and archaeological record it does suggest that Syrians were accepted into society, but they did not ‘need’ to represent themselves as Egyptians or even to integrate into society. It was probably important that the Egyptians could automatically recognise the Syrian traders in the street so they would know who to approach to sell/buy goods. Also many of the merchants themselves would not have been permanently settled in Egypt, and may not have had the opportunities to integrate. Unlike the evidence of Egyptians trading with the meshwesh in the following chapter, trading with the Syrians was viewed as an everyday act, and not one leading to legal accusations, and therefore indicates a very different attitude towards the Syrians. Therefore, although there may not be a great deal of evidence regarding settled Syrians in Egypt, other than those in the army, this does not mean that they were not a valued, accepted and common sight amongst Egyptian society.

It is recorded that certain household positions were also filled with Syrians. For example young men from Kerke (near Kadesh in Syria) were highly favoured as butlers in Egyptian households. The Egyptian kings in particular would like to have foreign butlers as they would have no connections of their own within Egypt, and therefore would be dependent on the king1 and was a way of ensuring loyalty. This we will also see in following chapters where Nubians are highly praised as fan-bearers, and could suggest that this could have resulted in a “demand” for foreigners to settle in Egypt which immigrants could have used to their advantage. CONCLUSION Although the evidence of Syrians rising to positions of power in Egypt is scarce, this does not mean that Syrians were not accepted into Egyptian society. They appear to have travelled to Egypt for the purpose of trade, and therefore they may not have been permanently settled in Egypt. It may also have aided their merchant status to remain recognisable as Syrians, especially if Syrians were closely associated with trade. As Syrians were primarily associated with trading groups the Egyptians would have regarded them with a certain amount of trust and expectation and may have actively sought out their company as a means of ensuring good deals on exotic goods. This is in direct contrast to the propaganda scenes that show Syrian chieftains bowing before the king bringing offerings to him in submission. The relationship between Egypt and Syria appears in reality to have been a healthy business relationship, which would have been essential to the economy of both regions. As with most immigrant groups in Egypt, the largest would have been originated in the Egyptian army, whether they joined voluntarily as mercenaries or involuntarily as prisoners of war. The Egyptian king would probably have initiated programmes to aid integration into Egyptian society, by teaching them language and customs of their adopted country. Once these had been mastered the Syrians may have taken Egyptian names and blended into obscurity. It is also clear that the Syrians did not migrate to Egypt in large numbers, and therefore meant that integration into society would have been easy and quick. There does not appear to have been large settlements purely of Syrian origin, indicating that settled Syrians were living amongst

1

Leahy 1995, 229

34

SYRIANS CATALOGUE Syrian merchants there i s a scene showing an Egyptian scribe recording the names of the sailors, probably as a way of monitoring their movements and the cargo on the ships.

2:1 TOMB OF KENAMUN This scene shows a Syrian merchant convoy docking in an Egyptian harbour to sell their cargo of wine, oil, humped bulls, gold and silver vases1 at the quayside market place. On the left of the image are two large ships filling both registers. These large ships are connected by ropes to a number of smaller vessels on the right hand side of the scene. There are five vessels lined up in the top register and two vessels in the lower register, all with gang planks leading down to the shore. Continuing to the right of these vessels is the market scene where the Syrians are selling their goods. All of these vessels appear to be Egyptian in design and construction,2 although they are manned entirely by Syrians.3 This could suggest that whilst the Egyptians were in Syria on wood gathering expeditions they worked with the Syrians on ship design. Although the New Kingdom Egyptians did not try and enforce their culture onto the Syrians these boats could suggest a healthy relationship.

This relief would suggest that trade between the Egyptians and Syrians was an everyday part of life, due to a peaceful period following the wars of Thutmosis III, although at this point in time the Egyptians still governed the Mediterranean. The value placed on Syrian goods would have made it economically viable for the Egyptians to allow the Syrians to openly trade in Egypt. However, if the Syrian sailors were treated as “Vile Syrians” as described in the eighteenth dynasty tomb of Huy, they would not have been trusted by the Egyptian traders and the traderelationship would not have been successful. 2:2 TOMB OF NEBAMUN

The crew of the ship are of varying ranks, and these are identified by their costumes. The ordinary seamen are wearing elaborate patterned loincloths, and are generally clean shaven with either short cropped hair or completely shaved heads. The only three seamen with beards are those carrying goods down the gangplank to land. These three sailors also have fringed kilts and may be superior to those seamen on board. The superior crewmen on the ships are shown larger than the other crewmen and with more elaborate clothing. This clothing appears to have been made of a single piece of patterned wool wrapped around the figure creating sleeves, and tied with a belt around the waist. These sailors have shoulder length bobbed hair with a head-band tied around the crown of the head. The Egyptian official Kenamun is offered two women and a small boy by the Syrian merchants as a “gift” for ‘permission’ to trade. These women are wearing transparent full length dresses made up of a “triple horizontal flounce” which is clearly thinner than the wool of the sailors,4 and are similar to the costumes of the women in the tomb of Nebamun (Figure 2:2).

In the eighteenth dynasty Theban tomb of Nebamun there are images of Syrian ships arriving in Egypt, which are remarkably similar to those from the tomb of Kenamun. The first scene is of the Syrians arriving in Egypt, and shows the unloading of the goods from the ship, including some large bulls which would have been brought for trading. This further supports the importance

Although the majority of the goods are presented to Kenamun, the Syrians were clearly allowed to trade freely in the market place. On the Egyptian quayside three market stalls are visible, selling textiles, sandals and foodstuffs. A similar trade scene can be seen in the tomb of Apy, showing sailors exchanging sacks of grain for food, beer or wine.5 Despite this apparent freedom of the

of the Syrians as merchants in Egypt. The second scene is more interesting and shows the Syrian leader seated on a chair, with his wife behind dressed in a transparent dress with three flounces in similar style to the women in the tomb of Kenamun. An Egyptian servant is standing before the Syrian leader

1

De Garis Davies & Faulkner 1946, 45 ibid, 41 3 ibid, 41 4 ibid, 45 5 De Garis Davies 1927, 57-8 2

35

CHARLOTTE BOOTH holding out a bowl to him. It is thought that this bowl contains a herbal remedy to heal an ailment. Nebamun was the physician of Amenhotep II and it has been suggested that he had such a good reputation that this Syrian leader had travelled to Egypt for the sole purpose of consulting Nebamun. It has also been suggested that perhaps this trip was a standard trading mission upon which the leader became ill.1 Either way it would seem that they received medical care from Nebamun himself. The Syrians would have paid for this care with the metal goods, and cattle indigenous to their home land.

scene indicates wealth and status. The soldier is shown as completely Syrian and his title, as discussed may identify him as such, which indicated that he rose to a position of wealth, although not necessarily one of power. Unfortunately we do not know about this soldier’s background, and whether he had been recruited from the prisoners of war, from the large foreign settlements in the Delta or from the smaller communities of foreigners in Thebes or Memphis. As this stela was discovered in Amarna the soldier is likely to have lived here. 2:4 IMAGE OF SYRIAN MERCENARY This image is from a block from Tell el Amarna and shows a Syrian spearman in the personal bodyguard of Akhenaten. Although the figure is bent over in subservience to the king, this was the general posture of all people working in the royal entourage, Egyptian or foreign and therefore represents an equality amongst all at Amarna. He is shown with a protruding stomach, characteristic of the Amarna style art, and could also indicate a settled life.

2:3 STELA OF A SYRIAN MERCENARY This limestone stela was discovered in Amarna and probably dates from the eighteenth dynasty. A soldier sits in Western Asiatic clothes, with his spear behind him showing his military status. The inscription above his head is incomplete, but on the basis of a barely discernible inscription I tentatively suggest that it reads “Syrian warrior” as a means of identification. However the inscription referring to the man himself was not completed and gives us no other information about him. His wife is sitting on a chair opposite him and is identified as “my lady of the house” and her name is irbw‘3, which may be an Egyptian name2 although the name is not common. She appears to be Egyptian, with a full wig and transparent full-length dress.

Figure 2:3 – Stela of Syrian Mercenary (line drawing by the author)

A servant is holding in one hand a small cup, which was thought to have been used to ladle out small quantities of wine3 and the other hand is helping to direct a straw from a larger vessel into the soldier’s mouth. A number of examples of the bent straw have been found from Amarna made of various metals, including lead which would have slowly poisoned the user.4 At the end of the straw was a filter bulb, which prevented any of the sediment in the beer from being drunk. Use of this straw in the New Kingdom is further attested from the tomb of Apy, in the market place scene mentioned above.5 I feel that the straw may be indicative of a degree of wealth, as they were made of metal, possibly manufactured by foreigners within the community and therefore could have been a rare commodity. The added help of the servant also supports that this is an indication of his wealth and status. The servant himself appears to be Egyptian with a shaved head, Egyptian eyes, a collar and a pleated kilt.

Figure 2:4 Syrian soldier from Amarna (line drawing by the author)

The purpose of the stela is not clear from either the scene represented or the inscription, which if complete would merely have identified the couple, although it has been suggested that it is a funerary stela.6 Everything about the

1

Manniche, 1987, 59 Speigelberg & Erman 1898,127 3 Griffith 1926, 22-3 4 Freed et al 2000, 237 5 De Garis Davies 1927, 57-8 6 Spiegelberg & Erman 1898,128 2

36

37

Figure 2:1 - Syrians from the tomb of Kenamun (Line drawing by the author)

LIBYANS The Egyptian Libya was not a country, but an area without clearly defined boundaries1 and it is generally believed that the generic term ‘Libyans’ referred to nomadic tribes from the western desert.

In the inscriptions of Ramses III at Medinet Habu the arms of the enemy are said to be “pinioned like a bird”.9 These would seem to be inappropriate ways for the king / gods to refer to the people of Egypt. There are even images of the lapwing with a design on its back that closely resembled the Libyan dress10 and it is suggested that these birds could represent Libyans. It is further suggested that the species of bird presented is common in the Delta and could therefore represent the settled Libyans common in this region.

The earliest representation of the Libyans is thought to be from the Battlefield Palette (3100BC) showing them in the traditional fashion, being suppressed by the Egyptian king.2 This imagery did not change until the twenty-first dynasty and the advent of the Libyan Period in Egypt. The kings of the Libyan Period did not continue to represent themselves in the stereotypical Libyan dress, but showed themselves as Egyptians. They also adopted the full five-fold titulary, upheld many of the kingship traditions including the heb sed festival, and maintained Egyptian religious cults, and this could therefore represent their Egyptianisation or perhaps it was a propaganda tool to gain the loyalty of the Egyptian population.

LIBYANS IN EGYPTIAN SOCIETY Unlike the other foreign groups present in Egyptian society the evidence of the settled Libyans is scarce. This lack of evidence could however be viewed as evidence of total integration. Although, as discussed in chapter 1, names are not a reliable way of tracing ethnic origins, it is still a tool used to track foreign elements of the society. However as we have seen in the previous chapters, foreign immigrants into Egypt often adopted Egyptian names and their foreign origins were sometimes only evident from the naming of their parents. At present there is no evidence of this kind from Egypt, and the shift between Libyan names and Egyptian names was slow with Libyan names still being used in the Ptolemaic period.11 In Egypt it has been suggested that this apparent lack of integration, was due to the sheer numbers of Libyans entering Egypt at one time12 making absorption into society virtually impossible. Other foreign nations migrated to Egypt in smaller numbers and it was therefore easier for them to integrate into Egyptian society. The large influx of Libyans into the Delta region in particular may have limited their contact with the Egyptians and hindered integration. Libyans living in the south of Egypt however, may have had more contact with Egyptians and therefore may have integrated beyond detection.

It is believed that the Battlefield Palette reflects the early extension of the Egyptian boundaries rather than a battle3 and represents the Egyptian ‘king’ gaining control over an occupied area of Egypt, rather than an invasion of Libyan tribes. It has been suggested that other predynastic images of Libyans closely resemble the Egyptians with no foreign characteristics or particularly ethnic features,4 which could suggest that these people were part of the indigenous population at this time. They are defined more as being submissive than being foreigners, and this is paralleled in the Scorpion Macehead where the Egyptian populace are represented as lapwings attached by the neck to royal standards.5 It is generally accepted that the lapwings represent the lower class population of Egypt, but in later execration texts they are listed as enemies, and therefore unlikely to be the Egyptian people.6 There are numerous inscriptions from all periods that refer to the lapwings in a negative fashion, indicating they were enemies rather than Egyptians.

Prior to the Ramesside period very little has been discovered in Egypt regarding settled Libyans. However the Palermo stone lists that in the reign of Sneferu in the fourth dynasty “brought from Libya: 1100 live captives and 23000 small cattle” 13 This indicates that from an early date there would have been Libyans settled in Egypt, albeit as prisoners of war. The first evidence of migrations to Egypt is represented

The Pyramid Texts (PT1837c) states that “He quells for him all the hostile rekhet (lapwings) under his fingers”.7 In a Middle Kingdom Beni Hasan rock-cut tomb Horus is named as a “smiter of rekhet” 8

1

Baines 1996, 364 ibid 3 ibid, 365 4 ibid, 367 5 ibid, 365 6 Nibbi 1986, 7 7 ibid, 19 2

8

ibid, 21 ibid, 15 10 ibid, 67 11 Leahy 1985, 55 12 ibid, 54 13 Wilkinson 2000, 235 9

38

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT in the battles of Sety I and Ramses II, who prevented the Meshwesh from settling in Egypt. However during the reign of Merenptah and Ramses III there was a major migration into Egypt from Cyrenaica, and this migration included women, children, and cattle and was thought to be due to either an ecological disaster or changes in political and military constructs1 encouraging people to travel to the prosperous Nile Valley.

power9 before the advent of the Libyan Period. A letter (Papyrus BM 1971) dated from the later years of Ramses XI, is a request from an army commander and high priest P3y-‘nh to the Scribe of the tomb Thutmose, asking to reinstate the rations of the Meshwesh, who could have possibly been mercenaries in the Egyptian army or perhaps new conscripts for the up-coming Nubian campaigns.10

The battle reports give some indication of the number of Libyans migrating to Egypt although these are prone to exaggeration to improve the status of the Egyptian king. Egyptians rarely record the number of enemy slain, and the number of captured prisoners is normally in the hundreds, not the thousands. The numbers stated could reflect the danger that the Libyans were to the Egyptians.2 The inscriptions at Medinet Habu, claim Ramses III gathered 12,535 phalli, and 12,535 hands, as well as 1000 Libyan prisoners,3 and in year 5 of Merenptah’s reign, he claims to have killed a more modest 6000 Libyans and to have taken 9300 prisoners.4 The conflict of Ramses II with the Libu, resulted in the erection of a line of fortresses along the North West Delta edge5 as a means of protecting the borders from invasion. However, by Merenptah’s reign Libyan control had reached the west bank of the Nile6 as they became stronger.

The nineteenth and twentieth dynasties set up military colonies of freed Libyan prisoners which resulted in large ‘Meshwesh’ communities in the Delta area which was viewed as unimportant land in the eyes of the Egyptian ruler. These colonies were continually fed from constant immigration into the Delta11 and would have been considered as part of the Egyptian society. However, due to the numbers of Libyans settling into these communities, they would have outnumbered the indigenous population and the integration into Egyptian society would have been a personal choice of these Libyans and not a necessity.12 Whether they integrated or not, within 250 years the Libyans were ruling Egypt. It has been suggested that although there is evidence of a number of Libyans living in the Delta there may have been as many living in the Theban area, but due to integration into society they may have become invisible.13

The Prisoners of War listed in these battle reports would all have settled in Egypt, as mercenaries in the army, or as forced labour. They would have been housed in Egyptian forts and garrisons and would have been in contact with Egyptian soldiers.

In addition to Ramses II bringing a large number of prisoners into Egypt he also ordered his soldiers to scour the western deserts for Libyans when he had a labour shortage for his various building works. A number of Libyans would also have been captured and taken into domestic service and would have been in a better position than those on building projects. A number of Middle Kingdom stelae name these servants as if they were trusted members of the family.14 There is also evidence of Libyans in the court of Akhenaten at Amarna, who held positions in the military escort of the king or as witnesses to the king’s public activities.15 To allow Libyans into the presence of the king indicates a degree of trust, as well as a degree of integration and mingling with the Egyptians present at the royal court.

An inscription at Abu Simbel records how Ramses II decided where foreign mercenaries were going to be based “settling southerners in the north, northerners in the south, easterners in the west and Tjehenu on the eastern mountain ridges” which would have ensured that they would not have to fight their own people.7 From a text of Ramses III from Deir el Medina he tells of how the Prisoners of War were forced to integrate and to adopt the Egyptian language; “He makes their language disappear, He changes their tongues”.8 These Libyan prisoners of war would therefore have become Egyptianised quite quickly. There is also evidence of Libyans in the military rising to positions of

Libyans were also represented at Amarna bringing tribute to the king16 as was traditional for most foreigners. From the reign of Amenhotep III in year 34, the records of his second heb sed, state the supplies included jars of “fresh fat of bulls of the Meshwesh”17 which may have been

9

Taylor 2000, 339 Haring 1992a, 77-8 11 Leahy 1985, 56 12 ibid, 56 13 ibid, 55 14 Leahy 1995, 229 15 Trigger et all 1983, 272 16 ibid 17 Kitchen 1990, 16

1

10

Taylor 2000, 339 & Leahy 1985, 53 2 Trigger et al 1983, 272 3 Edgerton & Wilson 1936, 14 4 Shaw and Nicholson 1997, 161-2 5 Trigger et al 1983, 272 6 Kitchen 1990, 18 7 ibid, 21 8 Kitchen 1991,21

39

CHARLOTTE BOOTH this period. The presence of Libyans at the court of Amarna would support this.

from tribute offerings or perhaps booty from skirmishes with them. In the Amarna tomb of Meryra there is a relief showing a number of Libyans within the Egyptian army, armed with spears and throw-sticks1 and further supports that Libyans may have been a familiar sight at the new capital.

Although the evidence regarding Libyans within society is scarce there is evidence of the adoption of Libyan deities by the Egyptians. The earliest mention of these in Egypt was of the god Ash from fifth dynasty reliefs and jar seals of King Sahure9 although this deity did not amalgamate with any Egyptian deities as was common with most foreign gods. A Late New Kingdom stela from the Delta mentions the deity Shaheded who is thought to have been Libyan. The stela appears to be commemorating Libyan settlers in the Delta region.10

Initially the large numbers of migrating Libyans frightened the Egyptian population, and a number of texts from Deir el Medina report “inactivity” of the workmen, as a result of the Meshwesh arriving or being seen in the area,2 although there is no surviving record of any aggressive activity by the Meshwesh that could have instigated this fear.

There is also evidence to show that the Libyan rulers adopted the Egyptian religion, through offerings and the adoption of the five-fold titulary as mentioned above. It has been suggested that this was used as a political tool in order to win the support of the Egyptian populace.11 The evidence suggests maintenance of the Egyptian pantheon, in particular the cult of Amun, both at Thebes and at Tanis. Sheshonq I is recorded as travelling to Nubia, in order to obtain goods for the temple of Amun at Karnak12 indicating a devotion to this god. The Libyan ram-headed sun-god Hammon was very closely associated with Amun, and was considered by the Libyans as being a herdsman who gathered cattle,13 which could explain this devotion to the Egyptian god.

However contrary to the fear that the Meshwesh instilled in the Egyptians there is evidence of a number of people living in Deir el Medina with Libyan names, from different periods of the New Kingdom.3 One of the Libyan names was knr/l which was common throughout Egypt and there were thirteen people in the village with the name,4 one from the reign of Ramses II, five from the late nineteenth dynasty, eight from the twentieth dynasty and three from the Ramesside period.5 One of the Libyans from Deir el Medina rose to the position of ‘Chief Workman’. He was named Didi, and he was married to Taweret, who was probably Egyptian and they had two sons Amennakht and Penduau6 which are both Egyptian names. Penduau however had a son called Knr,7 and indicates his Libyan origins. Tomb and funerary goods of Didi identify him as a Libyan. Intermarriages between Egyptians and Libyans seem to have been common. Herihor, the ‘Viceroy of Nubia’ under Ramses XI was of Egyptian origin but his wife Nedjmet, although having an Egyptian name might not have been Egyptian as five of their sons have Libyan names.8 If the images of Queen Mutnodjmet and Queen Tiye (Figure 3:1) represent Libyans then this indicates that intermarriages also occurred between Egyptian kings and Libyan women. However, this is purely speculative but not unheard of, as foreign princesses were often used as political tools to form peaceful alliances with their country of origin. If the commonly quoted genealogy of Mutnodjmet and Tiye is correct it could suggest that they were related. It is commonly believed that Ay was Tiye’s brother, and Nefertiti was his daughter, with Mutnodjmet being her sister, which would make Mutnodjmet, Tiye’s niece. These marriages therefore could represent a continual peaceful relationship with the Libyans during

The cult of Osiris was still practised during the Libyan period. Sheshonq I dedicated a statue of his dead father in the temple at Abydos, and one of his sons, Input has a cenotaph there, although the decoration is unlike others at the site.14 Sheshonq I and Psusennes II are recorded as making a donation of 35 deben of silver to Osiris at Abydos, which would have been considered a major donation. Libyans also made pilgrimages to Abydos in Egyptian style15 and there are a number of Libyans buried at the site in re-used tombs. A stela currently in the Cairo Museum (JE 91272) shows a Meshwesh chief offering a statue of Maat to Osiris. His name is missing although we know it starts with ‘N’ and it has been suggested that it could represent Nimlot, the father of Sheshonq I.16 Most of the Libyan chapels at Karnak temple were dedicated to Osiris rather than to Amun, although this god was equally important, and a text of Nimlot makes reference to consulting the oracle of Amun.17

9

Bates 1914, 184 ibid 11 Leahy 1985, 57 12 Kitchen 1986, 293 13 Bates 1914, 187-9 14 Leahy 1990, 160 15 Leahy 1985, 56 16 Leahy 1990, 164 17 Leahy 1990, 168

1

10

Nibbi 1986, 81 2 Haring 1992a, 73-75 3 Ward 1994, 68 4 ibid 5 ibid, 69 6 Davies1999, 64 7 Ward 1994, 78 8 Kitchen 1991, 23

40

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT This clearly was not the case in the Libyan Period. This could suggest that the Libyan ‘kings’ may not have fully understood the titles in which they were giving themselves, further supporting the theory that this was merely a tool to gain popularity.

Offerings and inscriptions were also dedicated by the Libyan kings to Bastet of Bubastis, Thoth at Hermopolis, and Ptah and the Apis Bull of Memphis. Herodotus records that the Libyans abstained from eating beef out of respect for the goddess Isis. Although beef formed a major part of the Egyptian diet, this does indicate that they knew of the Egyptian goddess although did not necessarily understand the customs associated with worship. In addition to the maintenance of the Egyptian religion, both Sheshonq I and Osorkon I dedicated a statue of themselves to the goddess Baal-Gebal the ‘Lady of Byblos’,1 an Asiatic deity worshipped by Egyptians travelling to Byblos, further supporting that they did not fully understand the nature of Egyptian religion. The shabti figure (Figure. 3:3) belonging to the Prince or Princess Thes-theren further indicates that Libyans did adopt the Egyptian religion to the extent of following the burial practices. Unfortunately we do not know anything about the owner Thes-theren. If the shabti belonged to a Prince, he may have been a member of the Libyan royal family. If it belonged to a Princess she may have been married to an Egyptian king as a means of keeping a peaceful relationship with the Libyan tribes. Either way it does indicate that the Egyptian religion may have been adopted fully as often the burials are the last thing to change with an immigrant population.

Another major change during the Libyan rule was in the language. The Libyan rulers all would have learnt Egyptian as a second language and as this passed down to future generations, errors became the norm and the language permanently changed as the descendants grew up into the scribal classes.4 In addition to there being very little written evidence of Libyans within society there are very few nonstereotypical images, like those in the preceding chapter, to fully emphasise the role that Libyans played in society. There does not seem to be any evidence of stelae of Egyptian individuals shown in Libyan dress or with Libyan genealogy, but this does not mean these individuals did not exist. Their genealogy may have been suppressed, in order to try and integrate fully into Egyptian society, or they may have been part of Egyptian society for so long and had intermarried often so that their origins were no longer distinct. CONCLUSION This lack of evidence could be very telling as to the views held regarding the Libyans by the indigenous population. Other immigrants entering Egypt arrived in smaller numbers, and became absorbed into Egyptian society, with a juxtaposition of the two cultures being reflected in the material remains. There would have been such large numbers entering Egypt that they were setting up their own communities with little or no contact with the Egyptians and therefore having no need or desire to integrate. The added problem of the archaeology of the Delta not surviving well due to extensive farming and marshy conditions could mean a major part of the LibuEgyptian material culture is missing.

There is a Graeco-Roman cemetery at Seila between the Fayoum and Nile which produced a number of fair haired Caucasians. These people out-numbered the dark-haired inhabitants and could be suggestive of a Libyan cemetery of this period.2 Although evidence would suggest that the religion did not change a great deal during the Libyan period, the burial practices clearly did. There appeared to be a change in the attitude towards death with the re-use of tombs and funerary equipment. It has been suggested that due to the nomadic origins of the Libyan rulers the attitude to death was very different to that of the Egyptians.3 When living a nomadic life, great ceremonies did not take place for burials, and there was little attachment to the dead who were traditionally buried where they died. This re-use of tombs could indicate that the Libyan rulers were not completely Egyptianised. It could also indicate that the country was not as wealthy as previous dynasties and new tombs could not be financed so old tombs were reused.

On the other hand it could be argued that the lack of Libu-Egyptian material culture could suggest total integration of the Libyans into Egyptian society. This however is unlikely, as there is evidence of Libyan names from within the Egyptian populace. It could be argued that the Egyptians would have been welcoming to Libyans that wished to settle into Egypt, as long as they integrated into their society, and did not try to maintain their separate culture. As the immigrant numbers were so large, it may have been difficult for the Libyans to do this.

Lack of integration in society by the Libyan kings is also reflected in the manner in which they ruled Egypt. During this period there were a number of chieftains claiming to be “King of Upper and Lower Egypt” at one time and they seemed content with this arrangement. Only one king, according to Egyptian ideology, could rule Upper and Lower Egypt at one time, indicative of a united land.

This is a further complication with the private stela and monuments of the Libyans from the Libyan period, as they would have been destroyed shortly after their rule ended. All that seems to survive are shabti figures, which

1

Hart 1986, 51 Nibbi 1986, 96-7 3 Leahy 1985, 62 2

4

41

ibid, 60

CHARLOTTE BOOTH are not very reliable for tracing genealogies as we saw with the shabti of Thes-Theren. There is always the problem that the Egyptians clearly viewed the Libyan tribes as a threat especially in the New Kingdom as the Deir el Medina texts would indicate. This would have affected the way any Libyans living in society were viewed, and may have led to hostilities. However, if the settled Libyans presented themselves as trustworthy then the Egyptians would have conversed and traded with them. Papyrus Mayer A names a brewer Nespara and describes how he was interrogated about 4 deben of silver which he claims to have got from the meshwesh in year 20 of Ramses XI.1 Another man a woodcutter Hensumes also obtained something from the Libu and suggests that some Libyans were settled there at the same time as the invasions.2 This indicates that some people were prepared to converse and do business with the Meshwesh, even though they appeared to have been punished for it. Even the king was wary of the Libyan tribes as they did not act like other foreign nations that the Egyptians had conquered. Ramses III tried to establish a vassal king over the Libyans, which had been successful in Nubia and the Canaan, but only resulted in a Libyan rebellion rather than the peaceful acceptance that the Egyptians were used to.3 At the end of the eighteenth dynasty there was increased reference to Libyans in texts possibly due to the threat that they posed. However from the twentieth dynasty onwards the Libyans were not seen as foreigners in the same way that the Hyksos and the Nubians were, possibly because of their volatile nature; the term ‘foreigners’ (h3swtyw) was never used in connection with Libyans4 indicating that the relationship between the Egyptians and the Libyans was very different than their other foreign relationships and I think this attitude is reflected in the way in which Libyans would have been treated within Egyptian societies.

1

Haring 1992a, 78 Haring 1992b, 162 3 Trigger et al 1983, 275 4 Leahy 1985, 56 2

42

LIBYANS CATALOGUE believed that both queens were in fact of non-royal blood, with Tiye a village girl and the daughter of a foreigner who was the ‘Lieutenant General of Chariotry’ in the Egyptian army,2 and therefore was both a foreigner and a commoner. Mutnodjmet, was thought to be the sister of Nefertiti, whose parentage is uncertain although generally believed to have been non-royal. Both queens have Egyptian names which could indicate adoption of the Egyptian culture and integration into society.

3:1 QUEEN MUTNODJMET AS A PINIONED LAPWING Depicted on the side of the throne, of a statue of Horemheb and Mutnodjmet, is a sphinx with clipped wings with her arms raised in praise of the king. The sphinx is identified by the accompanying cartouche as Mutnodjmet, “Lady of the Two Lands”. This area on the side of the royal throne is normally reserved for images depicting the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt so this in itself could be considered unusual.

Although the queen is normally shown in smaller proportions to the king, she is rarely shown in a submissive position to him, which is why the two examples we have here are unusual. As suggested, the sphinxes could be representative of the submission of the Egyptian people or the Libyan people if it were not for the royal insignia and the convention that only royalty are ever portrayed in sphinx form. However, unless more examples of these images are discovered, with clearer genealogies of the people depicted, the true purpose and message of this imagery will remain uncertain. Despite these Libyan or common origins both of the queens were the Principal Wives of their king.

The overlapping wings, the positioning of the sphinx over a papyrus swamp, symbolising the Delta region, and her arms raised in praise, are characteristics of the rekhet bird or lapwing. There are however, some controversial ideas as to the meaning of the rekhet bird. It has been suggested that they represent the common people of Egypt who are under the power of the pharaoh, although an alternative theory is that they represent the captured Libyan tribes who had settled in the Western Delta. In relation to the former theory this image could represent the people of Egypt worshipping the queen in the form of her cartouche. However, the sphinx is a royal image in itself, and ordinary people are never presented in this form. The sphinx is also wearing a royal crown and jewellery, and appears to be identified by the cartouche. This could therefore suggest that the queen was in fact represented in this manner. There is a very similar image on a bracelet representing Queen Tiye with her arms holding the cartouche of Neb-ma’t-re (Amenhotep III) which was probably found in the Valley of the Kings,1 and may have belonged to Queen Tiye herself. This sphinx is also wearing royal regalia, including a crown and jewellery.

3:2 TERRACOTTA HEAD FROM MEMPHIS This figure (UC 34718) has short wavy hair tied with a thin band, a large hooked nose and very large lips. He is described by Petrie as being a Libyan or a Syrian, and I feel that this figure does not resemble the other Syrian figures that we have seen and therefore is more likely to be a Libyan. He is dated to the Roman Period and is therefore much later than the other images we have seen throughout this study, although the style is very similar to the other Memphis terracottas dated to 300-500 BC. He is clean shaven, which is unusual as most Libyans and Syrians are depicted with distinct facial hair. This figure has very exaggerated features and may in fact be a caricature of a Libyan rather than a portrait. All of these anomalies could however be due to the Roman date of this piece. The Roman excavations by Petrie appeared to be in a funerary or temple context although in the report he fails to mention this figure and did not pay it much attention “Of Roman remains many variety of cups with white slip in high relief were found and other small objects which do not call for remark”.3

Figure 2:1: Mutnodjmet as a Sphinx with pinioned wings (line drawing by the author) 3:3 GREEN FAIENCE SHABTI This shabti figure (UC 38075), made from green faience belonged to Thes-theren who may have been a Libyan

Both queen Mutnodjmet and Tiye may have been represented in this fashion to show their ‘rekhet’ origins, whether these were non-royal or Libyan. It is generally

2 1

3

Gardiner 1916, 73

43

Redford 1984, 36 Petrie 1896, 25

CHARLOTTE BOOTH princess or prince, as the name is not Egyptian. The figure has a vertical inscription down the front giving the name in black glaze which is also used to denote the flanking column as well as the traditional farming implements that all shabtis are depicted holding. The facial features are also outlined in black glaze. The shabti figure is shown with an elaborate head-dress with a uraeus and crossed arms, hence we can identify it as royal. Unfortunately the date and provenance of this object is not recorded, and therefore cannot give much insight into role of Libyans of a particular period. Figure 3:2: Terracotta Head from Memphis (Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC34718)

Figure 3:3 – Shabti Figure belonging to Prince/ess Thestheren (Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC38075)

44

NUBIANS Semnah stela of Senusret III shows that the fort at this site was seen as a true frontier to Egypt, either as a lookout post or a check point to control traffic to and from Egypt. From the Semnah Despatches it would appear that Nubians were also able to travel here to trade with the Egyptians, although it seems they were unable to pass the fort.12 At the site of Mirgissa, inscriptions indicate that this was a designated trading point for Nubians and Egyptians, as well as being a fortified grain store.13 The fortress at Buhen has evidence of copper smelting taking place at this site.14 These forts would have been manned by Egyptians, and they would have been extremely familiar with the Nubians, and this is further reflected by the evidence of Nubian immigrants in Egypt.

From the pre-dynastic period onwards Egypt exploited Nubia for a number of natural and human resources. In the Badarian period ivory and porphyry have been discovered in Egypt and this is likely to have been imported from Nubia.1 From the Old Kingdom, Nubia was a major source of granite and gold, and from the Middle Kingdom these resources included luxury items like animal skins, wood, incense, and ivory. The sixth dynasty official Harkhuf describes his first trip into Nubia “I did it within seven months and I brought back all the beautiful and exotic products therefrom, I was praised on account of it very greatly”.2 On a further trip to Nubia he had to act as peacekeeper as well as trader due to a Nubian battle with a Libyan tribe. He persuaded the Nubian chief to stop fighting and trade with him instead.3

NUBIANS WITHIN EGYPTIAN SOCIETY Archaeological evidence, in the form of pottery assemblages and burials, suggests Nubians were living amongst Egyptian society during the Middle and New Kingdoms. From the eighteenth dynasty, a large amount of used ‘Kerma’ cook-ware has been found at Edfu, Ballas, Gurob, Saqqara and Memphis15 indicative of a Kushite Nubian settlement. These vessels would not have been suitable for storage or transportation of food, only for preparation and is therefore suggestive of Nubian settlers at these sites.

These resources were used by the Egyptian kings in a gift-giving system with the rulers of Western Asia,4 but ironically not with the rulers of Nubia. During the New Kingdom, Nubia was seen as a ‘quasi-province’ of Egypt5 and they would have paid two forms of tribute to the Egyptian state. The inw which was a contribution to the king’s private coffers,6 and the b3kw(t) which was a transaction between the Egyptian temple and a foreign group or country and was used for temple expenses, rations and funding for expeditions into foreign lands.7 The Annals of Thutmosis III record that the Nubians paid most of their b3kw(t) to the local Egyptian temples in Nubia which would have then been distributed to the Egyptian military in the area, as well as to fund other local Egyptian temples.8 The giving of inw allowed the Pharaoh to exercise his power over foreign lands, even those he did not govern.9 Although it was voluntary, if the pharaoh did not feel the inw offered was enough, the giver could be punished. During the New Kingdom, the income from Nubian b3kw(t) in gold and cattle would have been enough to sustain 3180-8745.5 workmen at one time.10 It was therefore economically viable for Egypt to control the valuable resources of Nubia rather than openly trade with the Nubians. In order to do this, by the twelfth dynasty between the first cataract and Semna, Egyptian forts and fortified towns were built.11 Each site in Nubia would have had a particular function, and the

In the New Kingdom, Kerma in Nubia was an independent state outside of the Egyptian borders, and not the Egyptian colony it had been in the Middle Kingdom, although Kerma-Nubians still followed the Theban court customs.16 Funerary archaeology supports theories of Egyptianised Nubians living in Egypt. For example Emery discovered a wealthy burial at Saqqara, dating from the reign of Amenhotep I, which was completely Egyptian in style except for the ‘Kerma-ware’ buried alongside the body. At least five of the twenty-one pots were made by Nubians,17 and the others were of local materials, suggesting a settled society rather than passing trade. It is therefore not unusual that Nubians living in Egypt would be familiar with the Egyptian culture and would have adopted some of the customs. Another wealthy burial, very close to the tombs of the seventeenth dynasty pharaohs at Thebes, contained the body of a woman. The mixture of Kerma and Egyptian grave goods, could also suggest an Egyptianised Kerma-Nubian and it has been suggested that she was a princess of Kush, sent to Egypt as a wife to the Egyptian king. This potential Nubian–Egyptian marriage may have helped

1

Mark 1997, 12 Kadish 1966, 23 3 ibid, 29 4 Morkot 1991, 299 5 Kemp 1989, 168 6 Bleiberg 1982, 155 7 Bleiberg 1988, 168 8 ibid, 164 9 Bleiberg 1982,167 10 ibid,171 11 Kemp 1989, 168 2

12

Smither 1945,4 Kemp 1989, 177 14 Kadish 1966, 23 15 Bourriau 1991, 135-6 16 Trigger et al 1983, 131 17 Bourriau 1991, 140 13

45

CHARLOTTE BOOTH Tekhet was situated in modern Debeira and was an area rich in cultivations until it was flooded by the building of the Aswan dam. The archaeological record indicates that this area was a largely Egyptianised region, although there is a lack of inscriptions (except in the princes’ tombs) indicating that the people here were mostly illiterate.7

instigate peace between the two countries. However, although there is no other evidence of this marriage, it is not unlikely. Evidence shows Egyptian kings married Asiatic royalty, and if the need arose may have married princesses of other nationalities. There is evidence however, of lower levels of the Egyptian elite marrying Nubian women1 as well as Nubians in the military marrying Egyptian women2 as a means of integrating into society. Most of the Nubians travelling to Egypt to join the army would not have arrived with wives and therefore would start a new life in the Nile Valley. Even those Nubians brought to Egypt as captives would have been allowed to marry Egyptian women.3 From these mixed marriages there would have been an overlap of both the Nubian and the Egyptian culture, which could be viewed in more than the pottery from funerary contexts. This type of mixed culture could be represented through artefacts like the ebony Nubian statue (Figure 4:1). This statue was probably manufactured in Thebes, and it may have belonged to one of the Egyptianised Nubian families. Whoever owned this figure would have thought the image of the youthful Nubian girl was attractive, and due to its function as a toiletry item an image of sexuality. It’s use as a cosmetic item, decorated with a monkey and young girl is typically Egyptian and therefore this figure represents juxtaposition between the two cultures. If it was owned by an Egyptianised-Nubian then it tells us there were Egypto-Nubians living at Thebes, but if it was owned by an Egyptian it could suggest a degree of acceptance of the Nubians in Thebes through the acceptance of the statue as an attractive and sexual object, and one that would probably have been placed in a tomb alongside the female owner.

In addition to positions of such importance Nubians would also have held low grade positions within society and they were particularly popular for the elite and royalty to employ as fan bearers.8 However, the military was a major source of Nubians in Egypt and the autobiography of Weni describes how Nubians were conscripted into the army for a campaign to Palestine in the reign of Pepy I (sixth dynasty).9 He also records a number of different Nubian military groups based in Memphis.10 If foreign groups worked well together they would be kept as a group when conscripted into the army. For example the Sherden people formed a large part of the military from the reign of Ramses II 11 and Nubians were considered master archers in the New Kingdom army. The Medjay-Nubians were conscripted into the Egyptian army throughout most of the Pharaonic period, and formed an essential part of the militia. They would have originated in the western desert of Nubia and they were either captured in battle or they chose to join the army freely12 as a means to gather wealth and status. In Papyrus Boulaq (number 18) a list of goods paid out to the Medjay are recorded dating to the tenth dynasty reign of Khanefer-ra Sobekhotep. They are recorded as receiving rations of corn, and dates, ‘for the next day taken out for an expedition’ indicating that during this period they were an active part in the army. Although the Medjay were accepted into the army it is clear from the Boulaq papyrus that they maintained a tribal status as the arrival of Auspekwy, the Prince of the Medjay would indicate. It would seem that this prince was accepted by the Egyptians as he was added to an official record by the Egyptian scribe13 and possibly received rations alongside those in the army. As they would have been a common sight by the New Kingdom the term Medjay had changed within the language and just meant police force with no ethnic connotations attached to it.14

In Egyptian-ruled Nubia, elite Nubian families carried out the general administration,4 although the highest positions were held by Egyptians. These Egyptians however would not have been buried in Nubia, and would have travelled back to Egypt upon retirement.5 The Nubian families would have had extensive contact with Egypt, and probably would have adopted many of the customs and religious beliefs. Heka-nefer and the Princes of Tekhet were prime examples of Egyptianised-Nubians in positions of power in Nubia. Djhutyhotep inherited his position as Prince from his father Rwiw (a Nubian). Amenemhat then inherited this position from him. From the tomb inscriptions we learn that Rwiw was married to Rwn3’. Amenemhat was married to the lady Hatshepsut, who may have been Egyptian. They do not appear to have had any children together.6

Another Nubian military group were the Aaw “foreign speakers” who appeared to be settled southern

7

ibid, 186-7 Leahy 1995, 229 9 Lichtheim 1975, 19 10 Leahy 1995, 228 11 Redford 1992, 225 12 Leahy 1995, 228 13 Griffith 1891, 115-6 14 Leahy 1995, 228 8

1

Morkot 1991, 300 Leahy 1995,232 3 ibid, 232-3 4 Morkot 1991, 299 5 Save-Soderbergh 1991, 188 6 ibid, 187 2

46

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT accepted by the Egyptian population, or at least those in which they would have had daily contact.

mercenaries who were employed in the army. A Nubian cemetery has been discovered at Gebelein as well as funerary stelea that indicate they had settled here and could finance the erection of these monuments.1 This First Intermediate Period community of Nubian mercenaries in the Gebelein region, lived and were buried alongside the Egyptian population, and regardless of their Nubian origins they chose to be buried in completely Egyptian fashion. In these stelae the Nubian mercenaries are shown as Nubian with darker skin, bushy hair, white kilts with elaborate sashes, distinctive to this group of Nubian soldiers. Their wives, also represented on the stelae are generally all shown as Egyptian, with yellow skin and long linen dresses and suggests that they married local women. It has further been suggested that in this region they would have been held in high esteem by the Egyptians for their skills as warriors and hunters.2 Due to the close proximity of Gebelein to Nubia the Nubians were probably not so inclined to present themselves as Egyptians as Nubian groups living further north. Despite depicting themselves as Nubian they still followed Egyptian religion and burial practices indicating that they considered themselves to be culturally Egyptian with a Nubian nationality.

The non-stereotypical representations of Nubians reflect this integration and close relationship between the Egyptians and the Nubians. The tomb scenes in particular indicate that it was possible, if not common, for Nubians to change their ethnicity to that of an Egyptian. Generally with a settled society the burial practices are the last cultural aspect to change, and this makes the tombs of Heka-nefer (Figure. 4:3), Senmose (Figure 4:6) and Djehutyhotep (Figure 4:5) very interesting as they have adopted Egyptian tomb conventions with the apparent elimination of their native Nubian culture. This raises the complicated question of ethnicity, and whether the tomb owners considered themselves to be Egyptian, Nubian or Egypto-Nubian. The two very different representations of Heka-Nefer show conflicting conventions of representation. The tomb of Huy, (Viceroy of Kush), shows Prince Heka-Nefer adhering to stereotypical Egyptian conventions, whereas Heka-Nefer presents himself in his own tomb, completely as an Egyptian. The tomb of Heka-Nefer is completely Egyptian in design, and it is only the identifying inscriptions that tell us of his genealogy. Even his name was Egyptian, meaning ‘good ruler’ and without the inscriptions we would believe he was a true Egyptian.

From the Second Intermediate Period onwards Nubians were employed as scouts and light infantry in the army, and in the tomb of Tjanuny (Figure 4:4), an ‘army scribe’ from the reign of Tuthmosis IV, a scene shows five Nubian mercenaries, with one carrying a military standard.3 The Middle Kingdom tomb of Khety at Beni Hasan also shows a group of Nubians amongst the Egyptian army besieging a Libyan fortress. Middle Kingdom wooden funerary models depict Nubian military groups, and the model of a regiment of Nubian archers from the tomb of Mesheti is a perfect example. From the New Kingdom, contingents are mentioned in the Amarna letters and this indicates that throughout the military history of Egypt, Nubians were an important part of the army.4 A text from the temple of Amun at Karnak, dated to year 2 of Ramses IX praises Nubian scouts for protecting a group of workers sent to the Eastern Wadi Hammamat to the gold mines,5 indicating that they were highly valued.

The tomb reliefs of Heka-Nefer also suggest that he had adopted the traditional Egyptian gods at the expense of his native Nubian deities. The design of his tomb and adoption of the Egyptian religion, suggests he may have been a member of the elite classes within Egypt and was given access to tomb designs, and religious beliefs indicating an acceptance into this echelon of society. The reliefs of Djehutyhotep and Amenemhat (Figure 4:5) raise the same questions as that of Heka-Nefer. In the tombs of the two brothers, Djehutyhotep and Amenemhat, represent themselves according to Egyptian conventions, with reddish-brown skin and Egyptian characteristics, and strangely enough they are shown in this way by others, as we saw in the image from the tomb of Senmose (Figure 4:6).

The Nubians in the army would have lived at the army barracks and forts in close contact with the Egyptian soldiers, so would have had the opportunity to integrate into Egyptian society. The pharaoh and the Egyptian militia would have needed to trust the foreign regiments of the army in order to be able to live and work together. This would suggest that these Nubians at least, were

These brothers like Heka-Nefer have Egyptian names although their lineage is further indicated by the use of an additional Nubian name, although only Djehutyhotep’s has survived (P3-itsy). However the origin of the family and the history which gave them their Egyptianised status is unknown. Neither Djehutyhotep nor Amenemhat hold the title “child of the nursery”, which indicates they were not brought up in the Theban royal house. It is probable, however, that they had close contact with the Egyptian royal family, in their role as “Princes of Tekhet” at a time when Egypt controlled the administration of Nubia. There would appear to be little doubt that the family of “Princes of Tekhet” regarded themselves as Egyptian, and as in the

1

Baines 1996, 375 Fischer 1961 3 Shaw 1991, 29 4 Leahy 1995, 228 5 Giveon, 1969, 51 2

47

CHARLOTTE BOOTH case of Heka-Nefer, had access to traditional tomb designs and religious imagery. As discussed in chapter 1 the main definitions of ethnicity are cultural beliefs, language and activities which hold a society together, and this is often dictated by geography, with those in close proximity to each other having more cultural aspects in common.1 However, nationality and ethnicity are not necessarily the same thing,2 which is the issue concerned with Heker-Nefer, Djehutyhotep and Amenemhat. Their nationality was Nubian, as the texts in the tomb inform us, but their ethnicity was clearly Egyptian. As Heker-Nefer was raised in the palace with the royal princes, he was in essence a cultural Egyptian. In cases such as these where there was dual ethnicity/nationality they possibly could have been considered as ‘different’ whether they were in Nubia or Egypt. In Egypt their accents and appearance would render them Nubian, and in Nubia their language and customs would have rendered them Egyptian.3 This does not mean, however, that those of mixed ethnicity/nationality would not have been accepted in both countries, as they would have an affiliation with both, even if one culture was favoured over the other. It has been suggested that in order to be an ethnic Egyptian one had to live in the Nile Valley, speak the Egyptian language, worship the same gods, and in particular adopt Egyptian burial practices.4 According to this ethnical checklist Djehutyhotep, Senmose and Heka–Nefer would have been considered as Egyptian from the society’s viewpoint in addition to their own, and this would have necessitated the opportunity to integrate into society, and this opportunity would have been granted by the indigenous population. CONCLUSION It is clear that there were many Nubians living in Egypt at all levels of society and were accepted by the Egyptian society. The adoption of Egyptian burial practices and religious customs by the Nubian immigrants indicate that they had exposure to these beliefs and the opportunity to integrate into society. The Nubian/Egyptian marriages further supports an acceptance of the Nubians, by the Egyptian population. The level of integration, as demonstrated by the tomb reliefs also suggests total acceptance of these Nubians by the Egyptians.

1

Jones 1997, 130 Goudriaan 1988, 8 3 ibid, 118 4 Leahy 1995, 232 2

48

NUBIAN CATALOGUE 4:1 THE EBONY STATUE This statue (UC 14210) was reputed as being one of Petrie’s personal favourites, and other than the aesthetics of the piece we know very little about it. Petrie claims “One thing I secured in my pocket when we struck, the ebony negress, now in UC, which I had bought from old Aly Arabi”1 in Thebes but whether it originated here is unknown, although it is quite likely. This ebony statue (17.5 cms height) is of a young girl holding a large tray which is resting on the head of a monkey. It is thought that this statue group forms an elaborate cosmetic container. This statue has very few Egyptian features, and suggests that it was crafted by a non-Egyptian. The facial features of the statue are Nubian with a large flat nose and full lips. However a few Egyptian characteristics can be seen in the position the girl is standing in, with one foot forward, as is common with Egyptian statues from all periods, and also the monkey supporting the weight of the bowl on his head. The monkey was often represented in scenes of sexuality2 and was often used to decorate cosmetic jars. There are a number of cosmetic jars that depict both male and female servants carrying pots, although they are generally jars rather than trays, and the closest parallel to the one under discussion is at Durham University (Gulbenkian Museum of Oriental Art) and shows an adolescent girl carrying a pot, and resting it on her left hip. Despite the similarities, the differences are marked. The Durham statue has Egyptian facial features and is slightly bent over to the right with the weight of the pot. The Nubian girl although carrying a dish, does not appear to be taking the weight of it as it is resting upon the head of the monkey, and her arms are in the classical position for making offerings.

Figure 4:2 – The four sons (line drawing by the author) 4:2 TOMB OF HUY In the tomb of Huy there are contrasting images of Nubians. Some are shown in a stereotypical manner, kneeling before Huy, the Viceroy of Nubia, and others are shown in a non-submissive manner, and to a certain extent Egyptianised. One of the stereotypical Nubians is identified as Prince Heka-Nefer. Naming him could have been a way of honouring him with an identity in contrast to the visual imagery. These kneeling Nubian chieftains or princes are very similar to those in the tomb of Horemheb.4

The Nubian girl is shown at a pre-pubescent age with childlike features, small breasts and with emphasis on her pubic region. Her hair is a combination of shaved areas and circular locks of hair, that are similar to the side-lock of youth indicative of Egyptian children, however the hairstyle is non-Egyptian. Elaborate hairstyles on figures of adolescent girls were seen as a sign of sexuality and eroticism, and the ‘foreignness’ of this hairstyle may have added a certain degree of exoticism to this piece. This type of object was generally found in tomb chapels from the later half of the eighteenth dynasty3 and this statue may have been found in a funerary context.

The non-stereotypical Nubians in the tomb of Huy are identified as the ‘four sons’. They are standing amongst a group of people and all of them expect the two ‘princesses’, the ‘four sons’ and the servants, are shown as stereotypical Nubians, and Huy must have had a reason for deviating from this. The “four sons are all shown wearing white linen tunics comprising of numerous decorative pleats which are Egyptian in style.

1

1909b,167 Manniche 1987, 43-4 3 ibid 2

4

49

De Garis Davies 1926, 24

CHARLOTTE BOOTH father to son, but the relationship between Heka-nefer and Rahotpe is unknown.

Two of the ‘four sons’ have Nubian style wigs, which were adopted during the Amarna period by the Egyptians, and two have elaborate side locks of youth indicating that they may be younger than the other two. All of the ‘four sons’ have slightly rotund stomachs protruding over the waistband of their kilts and Davies believes it could be due to the period of artistic confusion at the time just after Akhenaten1 when this tomb was built. The only real Nubian characteristics of the four sons are the curious cat’s tails attached to their elbows and this is a characteristic common to the princesses in this tomb and also the Nubian mercenaries in the tomb of Tjanuny, and therefore suggests that there are some consistencies between the groups of Nubians shown in a nonstereotypical fashion including similar wigs and jewellery and “cats tails”, and could suggest the deviation has a common element within these groups of individuals.

He held a number of titles indicating that he was closely connected with the Egyptian royal house, including “child of the nursery” which suggests he was raised in the Egyptian nursery as a companion to the Egyptian princes. It was common practise in the eighteenth dynasty for the children of foreign kings or chieftains to be brought to Thebes and brought up alongside the royal / elite children, to be returned to their countries in adulthood to be vassal rulers.2 He was also called “Royal sandalmaker” which could indicate that he was beneath the king’s sandals and therefore subservient to him. This title also occurs in two other places from the area of Miam and could also suggest that it was a centre for leather ware. He also held the title “Bearer of the folding chair of the lord of Two Lands”, and could be a reflection on Nubia’s production of fine wooden goods. He also held the title “Chief Oarsman (river transport)” and “Commander of Rowers” and would have been responsible for the exportation of Nubian goods to Egypt.

It may have been considered safe to represent the “four sons” and the ‘princesses’ in this non-stereotypical way, as they did not hold much power and therefore were not the potential threat that the ‘princes’ were. However, Prince Heka-Nefer and maybe the other princes in this tomb were probably raised in the Theban royal house and would have been Egyptianised and not considered to be a threat to Egypt.

The gods represented in the tomb of Heka-Nefer, are also Egyptian with specific mention of Osiris, Anubis, ReHarakhty and Hathor. There is mention of Nubian deities in a piece of graffiti near the tomb in Toshka East, but seemingly only in passing “giving praise to all the gods of Nubia”3 without naming them individually. This strongly suggests that Heka-Nefer valued the Egyptian pantheon of gods over his own native Nubian ones. The design of his tomb and adoption of the Egyptian religion, suggests he may have been a member of the elite classes within Egypt. The quality of painting in his tomb is very similar to that of eighteenth dynasty Theban tombs and it could be suggested that he may have commissioned a Theban workman to fashion his tomb in this style.

4:3 TOMB OF HEKA-NEFER The tomb of Prince Heka-nefer, at Toshka, belongs to the same prince represented as a stereotypical Nubian in the tomb of Huy. The image from the tomb of Huy is in direct contrast to how Heka-Nefer presents himself in his own tomb. Although he is a Nubian he presents himself completely as an Egyptian. The tomb itself is also Egyptian in design, and it is only the identifying inscription, naming him as a ‘Prince of Miam,’ that tell us of his Nubian genealogy. This was also the most important title that he held, and only seems to be held by him and a man called Rahotpe. The princedoms of Nubia were generally passed down from

Although his tomb had been plundered in antiquity remains of a number of good quality shabti figures further indicates that Heka-nefer had adopted the Egyptian religion and burial practices. At least one of the shabtis follows a Theban style and could further support that he had commissioned a Theban workman to aid with his funerary equipment and tomb. 4:4 TOMB OF TJANUNY The scene in the eighteenth dynasty tomb of Tjanuny (TT74) shows a group of five Nubian mercenaries from the Egyptian army. Tjanuny was the ‘Royal Scribe’, and ‘Commander of Soldiers’ during the reign of Thutmosis IV.4 They are shown in the process of marching and four of them are brandishing sticks in their right hands. The fifth mercenary is holding a standard of their regiment

2

Leahy 1995, 229 Simpson 1963, 24 4 Manniche 1987, 134 3

1

De Garis Davies 1926, 3

50

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT which depicts two men wrestling. The mercenaries are all depicted in a reddish brown colour typical of representations of Egyptians. To differentiate between the mercenaries they are shown in alternate shades of darker reddish brown and a lighter shade, so there are no limbs of the same colour next to each other. They are not differentiated however, from the surrounding Egyptian military by colour, only by their distinguishing characteristics.

people coloured yellow to represent gold, and eternal life.3 In the tomb of Djehutyhotep, in order to show differences between the Princes of Tekhet and the subjects, the subjects were shown with darker reddish-brown skin. This artificial division of skin colour was also used in Egyptian conventions to show they were different from their neighbours with little regard for reality.4 With this in mind it could be suggested that Djehutyhotep was following Egyptian conventions in his representation, by showing himself as lighter in colour than his subjects.

All of the Nubians are shown with protruding stomachs which are hanging over the top of their kilts in a similar manner to those in the tomb of Huy, and could be a reflection of the artistic style of the period. It could also be an indication of their status and could indicate that they were leading a settled and comfortable life. They are all wearing short white linen kilts with a net over-skirt with a leather patch over the posterior which acts as limited protection. They also have the curious cat’s tails attached to their knees and also to the waistband of their kilts, of the same type as attached to the elbows of the ‘four sons’ in Huy’s tomb. They all have long, hair characteristic of their status as Nubian soldiers.1

Figure 4:6 Even in the tomb of Senmose at Qubbet el-Hawa the brothers (Djehutyhotep and Amenemhat) are shown as Egyptians, holding lotus flowers, and are wearing

In this scene the mercenaries are clearly represented as, and recognisable as Nubian even though the imagery does not adhere to strict stereotypical conventions. As mercenaries in the Egyptian army they would have lived at the army barracks and would have been under the direct protection and payment of the king. They would have therefore been settled in Egypt and familiar with the culture and language of the Egyptians. They are shown as equal to the other soldiers in the army, whether they were foreign troops or not. 4:5 TOMBS OF DJEHUTYHOTEP & AMENEMHAT The tombs and reliefs of Djehutyhotep and his brother Amenemhat are in a similar nature to the tomb of Hekanefer. In these tombs they represent themselves according to Egyptian conventions, with reddish-brown skin and Egyptian characteristics, although they are identified as the ‘Princes of Tekhet’. The tombs are located in Debeira East, within the Egyptian province in Nubia. Djehutyhotep was originally buried on the east bank of the Nile and Amenemhat on the west bank, although it appears that Amenemhat moved his brother to his tomb on the west to adhere to Egyptian custom. A number of Djehutyhotep’s funerary goods were found in his brother’s tomb including a scribal palette of schist and another of ivory, four fragmentary canopic jars, a vase and a flask all inscribed with Djehutyhotep’s Nubian name P3-itsy.2 Belonging to Amenemhat was a yellow mummy mask of sandstone, as well as a stela with all the

Egyptian loincloths. Their faces are reddish brown and Djehutyhotep’s face (the only one preserved) shows Egyptian features.5 Therefore it is clear that they were viewed as being more Egyptian than Nubian by themselves and by their contemporaries. In Djehutyhotep’s tomb there are a number of images showing him participating in traditional Egyptian pasttimes. To the right of the entrance is a damaged hunting scene showing Djehutyhotep in a chariot with his leg thrown over the front of the carriage. In front of the chariot is a grey galloping animal, and in the register below is a group of running men. There is also a gardening scene that shows Djehutyhotep inspecting his land. He is shown with reddish-brown skin in contrast to the servants accompanying him, who are shown with darker brown to black skin. This could indicate that his

3

ibid, 205 Leahy 1995, 226 5 Save-Soderbergh & Troy 1977, 191

1

4

Annalies & Brack 1977, 41 2 Save-Soderbergh & Troy 1977, 187-8

51

CHARLOTTE BOOTH servants were made up of different ethnic groups.1 There is also a banquet scene, which is similar to all New Kingdom Theban Tombs, and shows Djehutyhotep and his wife seated before the banquet, being entertained by a group of Nubian dancing girls. His wife has her pet dog seated beneath her seat, and she is shown with yellowbrown skin, in accordance with the Egyptian conventions.2

Figure 4:4 Mercenaries from the tomb of Tjanuny (line drawing by the author)

As well as holding the title “Prince of Tekhet’ both Djehutyhotep and Amenemhat held a number of titles of responsibility. Djehutyhotep was entitled; Scribe & Royal Scribe Able Leader for the Lady of the Two Lands The King’s Leader True Servant of the Lord of the Two Lands Prince, son of a Prince, excellent heir His brother Amenemhat held the titles Scribe Vigilant Leader for the Lady of the Two Lands Vigilant Leader for the King’s Wife Vigilant Leader for the King’s Daughter The King’s Valiant Leader The Valiant Leader in Wawat True Royal Acquaintance of his Lord.3

Figure 4:5 Scene from tomb of Djehutyhotep (Line drawing by the author)

The titles of both Princes indicate that they would have been in close contact with the King of Egypt, and would have held positions of trust. Despite the use of Egyptian common names by these two brothers, indicating integration into Egyptian society, their lineage is indicated by the use of an additional Nubian name. Neither Djehutyhotep nor Amenemhat hold the title “child of the nursery”, which would indicate they were not brought up in the Theban royal house. It is probable, however, that they had close contact with the Egyptian royal family, in their role as “Princes of Tekhet” at a time when Egypt controlled the administration of Nubia. There would appear to be little doubt that the family of “Princes of Tekhet” regarded themselves as Egyptian and wished to remain so for eternity.

1

Save-Soderbergh 1991, 187 Save-Soderbergh & Troy 1977, 198-9 3 Save-Soderbergh & Troy 1977, 206 2

52

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT Figure 4:1 The Ebony Statue (Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC 14210)

53

MINOANS The Egyptians referred to Minoan Crete as Keftiu and like the region of Punt was viewed by them as a distant source of ‘desirable but inessential exotic resources.’1 It would appear that the Egyptians maintained a constant if limited trade with Crete for these items.

albeit on a small scale. There are 35 pottery sherds here that are definitely of Minoan design. Identical types of pottery have been found in the Kamares cave in Crete. ‘Kamares ware’ has also been found at Knossos and Phaistos. However a number of the Lahun sherds are made of local materials9 in the Minoan style. The sherds of Minoan origin can be traced to the workshops serving the palaces of Knossos and Phaistos.10 This origin of the Minoans in Egypt is further supported by the designs on the plaster scenes from Tell el Dab’a (Figure 5:1) which also have a Knossos origin.

Evidence indicates that the Egyptians had been trading with the Minoans since the pre-dynastic period and a large number of pre-dynastic to Middle Kingdom stone vessels have been found on the island of Crete which have then in later periods been copied by local craftsmen. There is also a small number of Minoan pottery from the Egyptian sites of Lahun (discussed below) and El Haraga, and a Cretan vase has been discovered in an Abydos tomb.2 The Hyksos kings also appeared to have maintained this trade relationship as an alabaster vase bearing the name of Khayan was discovered at the palace at Knossos.3

All of these pottery sherds at Lahun are dated to the twelfth dynasty reign of Amenemhat III, and may have all been imported in a single batch, although scattered find spots at Lahun and local imitations indicate a longer period of importation. However the vessels discovered were not suitable for storage or transportation as they were spouted jars with drinking cups. The necks of the jars were very long and only allowed a small amount of liquid to pour out at a time. Traces of substance within the vessels have been identified as perfume or oil. These sherds formed high quality table ware and were found primarily in the larger houses at Lahun. This trade therefore could have been primarily in ‘invisible goods’ or as a ‘gift giving’ system between rulers. This small scale trade is likely to be free lance and not on a national scale.11

The Ulu Buran shipwreck which sank a couple of generations after the death of Akhenaten, indicates the relationship between Egypt and the Aegean continued, albeit at a limited pace into the latter part of the fourteenth century BC. The cargo on this shipwreck was made up of manufactured goods from Egypt, Canaan, Syria, Cyprus and Mycenaean Greece.4 The goods found on the shipwreck parallel the tributary scenes in the New Kingdom Theban tombs,5 showing Minoans bringing goods to Egypt.

In addition to trading corn, the Egyptians would have exchanged North African gold, precious and semiprecious stones, and hippo & elephant ivory for silver and perishable items including olives, wines, dye, scented oil, saffron, lichens and beans. Olive stones discovered at Memphis from the late Middle Kingdom, indicates that they did import olives although not necessarily from the Aegean.12 These perishable goods would be transported to Egypt in baskets or sacks and these do not necessarily survive in the archaeological record.13 Papyrus BM10056 records Minoan ships at the port of Perunefer, and it is currently suggested that this port could itself be Tell el Dab’a, the ancient capital of the Hyksos,14 although the common belief is that Perunefer is ancient Memphis.

The limited archaeological evidence of the presence of Minoans in Egypt as well as of Egyptians in Crete indicates that the contact between the two areas was minimal. A number of Cypriot, Canaanite and Egyptian pottery wares have been found on the south coast of Crete6 indicating trade although this could have been via Syria and not directly with Egypt. From the scenes in the Theban tombs it would appear the Minoans exchanged silver for Egyptian corn, an ‘invisible resource’ which would explain why there is little evidence of Egyptian goods in Crete.7 Pottery analysis from sherds found in Egyptian contexts indicates that there was enough contact for imitations of Minoan vessels to be made locally in Egypt.8

MINOANS IN EGYPT The plaster frescoes from Tell el Dab’a suggest a group of Minoans were living in this area at the end of the Hyksos period or the early eighteenth dynasty. Minoans in Egyptian art are normally shown with reddish

It would appear from the archaeological record at Lahun that the Egyptians there were trading with the Minoans,

1

Fitton et al 1998, 135 Trigger et al 1983, 147-8 3 Ryholt 1997, 142 4 White & White 1996, 12-3 5 Wahcsmann 1987, 130 6 White & White 1996, 13 7 Milne 1946, 178 8 Fitton et al 1998, 134 2

9

ibid, 112 ibid, 113 11 ibid, 130 12 ibid, 133) 13 ibid, 134 14 Bietak 2005 10

54

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT investigation. However, although it is clear that there were Minoans in Avaris, it seems unlikely that there was a Minoan community living there due to the lack of any Cretan cultural artefacts other than the frescoes in question. It could be suggested that the so-called ‘palace’ was purpose-built, although the purpose is unknown. There is likely to have been a reason for using these frescoes other than just decoration, as the art was actually created by Minoan artists. Egyptian artists would have been more than capable of copying the style, which does suggest there may have been a commercial, ritual or religious purpose for this building and its décor.10

complexions, long dark hair and elaborately patterned kilts,1 and the frescoes at Tell el Dab’a reflect these characteristics. The fresco fragments suggest the presence of highly skilled artists from the Minoan world2 and there is no evidence of any Egyptian motifs or symbolism included in the artistic designs.3 It is believed that the paintings probably had ritual significance and would point to Minoans living at Avaris, in close contact with the Egyptian elite, whilst being able to pursue their own ritual life.4 The frescoes originally would have decorated three different buildings, a palatial building which stood on a platform near the riverside, a further palatial building that was originally the Hyksos palace which was rebuilt in the New Kingdom, and the third area was the enclosure wall of this palace, where the frescoes were used as decoration for the gateway.5 It has been suggested that these bull scenes may have taken place at this site on a seasonal basis. The maze background is thought to represent a birds-eye view of the palatial gardens. In the painted scenes these gardens are edged with a hilly horizon which does not conform to Aegean images and could be an attempt to illustrate the Delta landscape. They resemble sand-dunes and have pointed tops but bear no resemblance to Minoan landscapes. The animals depicted in this landscape are also reminiscent of Egyptian fauna.6

The Minoan frescoes at the Tell el Dab’a ‘palace’ emerged at the same time that Minoans started to appear in numerous New Kingdom tombs11 although it is thought that these tributary scenes are copied from ‘pattern books’, or visits to earlier tombs, and do not necessarily represent real situations.12 It has been suggested that these tributary scenes represent two occasions when the Minoans actually brought tribute to Egypt; once during the reign of Hatshepsut and once during the reign of Thutmosis III.13 However, the desire to copy these scenes in many tombs in the eighteenth dynasty could suggest the submission of this nation was considered far more important than has previously been considered. The earliest representation is in the tomb of Senenmut, the advisor of Hatshepsut, and the latest representation is in the reign of Amenhotep II.

The existence of these frescoes is reason for much debate especially as they seem wholly unrelated to any other Cretan material in the same stratum.7 The complete lack of any Egyptian style architecture or artistic representation in the areas from which the frescoes were found is also puzzling. It is generally agreed that the frescoes could represent a connection between the Egyptian and the Cretan royal house, and it has been suggested that king Ahmose had married a Creten princess,8 which was a common way to seal alliances with foreign nations. However, even if there was a Minoan princess living at Tell el Dab’a it seems unusual to have a ‘palace’ devoid of any Egyptian imagery as it was normal practice for the foreign brides to adopt Egyptian culture rather than maintaining their own.

In the tomb of Anen, the brother of Queen Tiye there is a representation of a Minoan with his arms behind his back in a typical stereotypical image of a captive.14 The inscription above his head identifies him as Minoan (Keftiu). The need to represent this nation in this manner and to repeat a time of tributary offerings, could suggest that the Egyptians had enough contact with them in order for them to pose a threat, or to be considered as a desirable commodity and therefore needed to be part of the ideology of kingship and the oppression of foreign nations. There is no political reason why the Minoans would have to pay tribute to Egypt as the Egyptians had no control over Crete,15 and this could perhaps be an example of the payment of inw. One of the common images that are represented in these tombs are the offering of elaborate jars made of metal, decorated with bull motifs, and it is clear that the Egyptians associated the bull with Crete.16 However in the tomb of Senenmut it is clear that the artist did not actually see any of the jars that he was drawing as they are largely out of proportion,

It is clear that there were Minoans in the city of Avaris, at the time of the Hyksos expulsion, but whether this was due to the trade that the Hyksos instigated with the Minoans9 or due to a relationship instigated by Ahmose after the expulsion is unknown without further

1

Forbes 2005, 73 Bietak 1992, 26-7 3 Bietak 2005, 16 4 Bietak 1992, 28 5 Bietak & Marinatos 1993, 49 6 ibid, 60 7 Bourriau 2000, 216 8 ibid, 217 9 Booth 2000, 39 2

10

Bietak & Marinatos 1993, 61 Bietak 2005, 16 12 Wachsmann 1987, 13 13 ibid, 122 14 Cline 1998, 237-9 15 Milne 1946, 178-9 16 Marinatos 1993, 89 11

55

CHARLOTTE BOOTH and it has been suggested that the objects were therefore considered more important than the figures carrying them. These goods could be seen as the ultimate exotica to own and to represent in a tomb, and supports the theory that the Minoans did not make regular contributions to the Egyptian economy. CONCLUSION Although there is extremely limited evidence of Minoans living in Egypt it is clear that they were not feared as a nation. They were viewed as an area of exotic goods, and the trade relationship with them was constant although on a very small scale. The goods provided from Crete were desired but un-necessary, meaning the Egyptians were not motivated into controlling the area, and were content with the trade relation that they maintained. Due to the exoticness and desirability of the Minoan goods the tomb images represent tribute being brought from this region, more frequently than reality allowed, as a means of the tomb owner boasting about his ability as well as the abundance of exotic items available throughout his lifetime. Therefore although the Minoans were not settled into Egyptian society they would have been a desirable addition, due to the goods they would have brought with them, and the Egyptians may have anticipated their arrival with excitement rather than fear and hatred.

56

MINOAN CATALOGUE 5:1 There can be little doubt that these images of bull leaping MINOAN FRESCOES – TELL EL DAB’A A number of plaster fragments found at Tell el Dab’a, indicate Minoan ideology as they are only ever show Minoan bull leaping images on a maze design represented on artefacts belonging to the elite (rings, background, which has been connected to the myth of the bronze figurines, ivory pieces, and gold cups).11 In one 1 frieze there are two scenes which may go some way to minotaur although this theory is unlikely. Floor tiles repeating this maze design has also been discovered here. explaining this ideology. One shows an acrobat The whole bull leaping scene is framed with a rosette performing on a bull and another shows the bull on his design which is paralleled at the palace at Knossos on knees with one leaper holding his head whilst another Crete, meaning there is no doubt that these fragments are figure is standing in front of the bull with clenched fists.12 It is uncertain whether the subjugation of the bull was the of Minoan in design and manufacture. It is uncertain ultimate goal to the bull leaping, in which case it could however whether they were painted by Egyptians copying represent a contest between man and beast13 which may Minoan styles or by Minoans settled in Egypt.2 The Minoan frescoes are painted on plaster made of a double have had similar connotations to the Egyptian heb sed layer of lime with the surface smoothed to make a festival to indicate fecundity and prowess. There are no workable area to paint on. The lime did not adhere very female figures shown participating in this activity14 which further supports the kingship/leadership ideology. The well to the mud-brick walls and after a short period of palace at Knossos was decorated with similar imagery of time the plaster crumbled and fell off, and was gathered bull leaping, and represented the ideology of power.15 together and dumped a short distance away3 in the garden 4 area where they were discovered. There are many One of the areas of Tell el Dab’a where the frescoes were similarities in imagery and motives between the Tell el found is thought to be an eighteenth dynasty ‘palace’16 and therefore further supports the theory of the ideology Dab’a examples and those discovered in the palace at of power. In addition to the imagery of power and Knossos,5 and could suggest that the designs originated in this region, although the Tell el Dab’a fragments are the subjugation there seems to be a religious aspect to these earliest Minoan examples and date from the early frescoes. There are a few life-size images, which appear Tuthmoside period6 approximately a hundred years to depict priests. One shows a male head with curly hair earlier than the Knossos examples.7 Due to similar against his forehead and a beard,17 which in Aegean art, if designs and motives being discovered at this palace it is wearing long robes often represents a member the thought that the artists were Minoans trained in Knossian priesthood. Another part of what appears to be the same tradition. However due to varying artistic abilities it frieze, although in smaller scale, shows a procession led would appear that there was more than one artist working by a priest.18 However there is no evidence as yet that 8 these frescoes decorated a temple complex and no on the frescoes, of varying abilities. evidence of Minoan worship has been discovered at the The most common images show acrobats or bull leapers, site. wearing Minoan style kilts and boots, with penis sheaths, performing over the back and neck of bulls with dappled hides. Most of the figures have long dark hair, in twisted strands. These acrobats are all painted in different colours and it is thought that the white acrobats are representative of younger men than the darker ones, although white figures in Aegean art normally represent women. However the body shape of the Tell el Dab’a figures is distinctly male. Some of the white figures also have blue heads, which in Aegean art represents a shaved head, again indicative of youth.9 Yellow figures, with partially shaved heads are also unusual in Aegean art and could represent the bull leapers’ youth and inexperience.10

1

Bietak &Marinatos 1993, 51 Bourriau 2000, 216 3 Bietak 2005, 15 4 Bietak 1992, 26 5 Bietak & Marinatos 1992, 60 6 Bietak 2005, 15 7 Bourriau 2000, 216 8 Bietak & Marinatos 1992, 60 9 Marinatos 1993, 91 10 Bietak & Marinatos 1992,51 2

11

Marinatos 1993, 93 Bietak & Marinatos 1992, 51 13 Marinatos 1993, 92 14 ibid, 91 15 ibid, 93 16 Bietak & Marinatos 1992, 49 17 ibid, 55 18 ibid, 55-7 12

57

CHARLOTTE BOOTH

Figure 5:1 Minoan Bull Leaping Scene (Line drawing by the author)

58

INDIANS also may have been a source in the earlier periods for Egyptian travellers to hear news and gossip about a number of different places and cultures.

There is evidence from the archaeological record that Egypt was trading with India from at least the Ptolemaic period, although evidence suggests there was indirect contact throughout the pharaonic period. It is suggested that in the earlier periods spice may have been imported from India for use in the temples and a number of Indian products including indigo, and tamarind wood, bearing the names of eighteenth dynasty kings1 have been found in tombs, although it is likely that these goods were obtained indirectly. During the reign of Ramses II, the annual tribute from Punt, for example, contains goods that may have been obtained in India where they were readily available2 and then brought to Egypt by the Puntites.

INDIRECT TRADE Indirect trade would have been the way for Egyptians to obtain goods from outside of their political jurisdiction, and as mentioned their main trading partner was Mesopotamia. There are numerous Mesopotamian objects in Egyptian tombs from all periods and indicates this relationship was maintained for many years. There are also numerous examples of lapis lazuli objects in funerary contexts from as early as the Neqada II period. These goods are found alongside other foreign goods, and they may have come along the same trade routes. The only source of lapis lazuli was Afghanistan, and whilst it was abundant in Egypt in this early period it appears to be absent in Mesopotamia and Palestine and it may have reached Egypt via the Red Sea6 perhaps through direct trade with Afghanistan. However a lapis lazuli figure from Hierakonpolis displays numerous Iranian characteristics and it is likely that it came to Egypt via the Persian Gulf7 and the southern route. The archaeological record suggests that there was a Harappan outpost on the Amu-Darya giving access to the lapis lazuli mines of Sari-sang, Badakshan and the Egyptian expeditions may have had contact with them.

TRADE ROUTES One of the most substantial indirect trade relationships was between Egypt and Mesopotamia and this started in the pre-dynastic period. There were two passable routes between pre-dynastic Egypt and Mesopotamia, the northern route through Syria Palestine using both land and sea routes to Egypt and the southern route was by sea through the Persian Gulf, around Saudi Arabia up the Red Sea to the Wadi Hammamat and then by land to Naqada.3 The southern route is attested by “foreign ship” pictographs in and near the Wadi Hammamat4 indicating that the expeditions would have travelled this way. This route would have enabled the Egyptians to trade with numerous groups along the way. Trade between Egypt and Mesopotamia continued and a third route was introduced via the eastern coast of the Red Sea in the late third to early second millennium BC and it has been suggested that trade may have been a contributing factor to the emergence of Mesopotamian culture in the lowlands of southern Iraq during this period.

MARITIME TRADE The introduction of maritime trade saw the first direct contact between Egypt and India. Maritime trade in India started in the second to third millennium BC and was driven by entrepreneurs and a regular demand for coarse cloth, timber, and agricultural products rather than for exotic goods.8 Maritime trade in Egypt however only increased in the seventh century BC with the Greek settlement in Egypt and saw increased maritime activity between the regions.9 King Necho (610-595 BC) was particularly keen to improve maritime links, and encouraged this by hiring Phoenicians to navigate Africa on his behalf. He is also believed to have dug a canal from the Nile to the Red Sea to ease trade. It is therefore hardly surprising that the trade with India started shortly after this.

The trade routes from the Indian sub-continent throughout the near east, including Mesopotamia, Afghanistan and Syria, were also used by religious functionaries who would have formed close links with trading groups seeing a spread of Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity. There are a number of similarities between the ancient Egyptian religion and the Hindu traditions and practices5 and this could be due to contact between these functionaries and Egyptian traders in the region of Mesopotamia, and Afghanistan. Religious functionaries and pilgrims also would have been a source of news and information and a letter from a Libyan dated to 1089AD explains that he had not written to his relative in Alexandria due to receiving news from pilgrims. This

There are three maritime trading centres mentioned in Mesopotamian sources which are Dilmun (on the Arabian Gulf in Saudi Arabia), Magan (southern Iran), and Meluhha (in Pakistan) and all are mentioned in a text by Sargon of Akkad (2334 – 2279BC). In the seventh century BC the neo Assyrian king also mentions these

1

Wilkinson 1994, 237 Asthana 1976, 165 3 Mark 1997, 3 4 ibid, 4 5 Unpublished research by the author 2

6

ibid, 38 ibid, 40 8 Ray 2003, 82 9 ibid, 84 7

59

CHARLOTTE BOOTH three trading places indicating a continued trade between the areas.

INDIANS IN EGYPT In the sixth century BC the north western part of India came into contact with Egypt when they both became part of the Persian Empire, although the extent of the contact is uncertain.5 However it would appear that during the Persian period (535-405 BC) in Egypt an Indian colony had grown in Memphis,6 which was a major harbour site and centre of trade in Egypt. The so-called ‘foreign quarter’ is believed to have been on the east side of the city near the river in order to be close to the trading harbour,7 although it has been suggested that the foreign quarter did not exist, but was identified as such due to a concentration of foreign figurines in one place.8

DILMUN was one of the most important trading partners of Mesopotamia in the third millennium BC, and acted as a centre for the shipment of goods from further afield The Indus weight system was possibly adopted from this region as it was known as the ‘standard of Dilmun’ by Mesopotamians. The main resource of Dilmun and the Magan region was copper which the Mesopotamians traded for wool, silver, fat, milk and cereal products. As these goods are primarily ‘invisible’ goods there are very few Mesopotamian goods in the Indus Valley, although numerous goods have been found in Mesopotamia from this region.1

The terracotta figures of Indian dancing girls (Figures 6:1-6:3) were also found in this region and are thought to have been different from all other terracotta figures found here. Generally these figures represented nations known to the Egyptians at the time of manufacture and were of a purely decorative nature. The Indian figures however are thought to be iconographic9 with a religious function. These Indian figures are similar to the Kuvera (Buddhist) figures of the first to second century AD and it has been suggested that these Indian figures are actually from this date10 and not the 300-200 BC date assigned to them by Petrie and generally believed to be accurate.11 Although these figures are similar to Buddhist carvings the purpose of manufacture seems to be different. There was a Buddhist custom of modelling heads of all the people Buddhism was preached to. These were then presented at a great festival before being discarded12 which does not seem to have been the reason for the Indian dancing figures.

Copper toiletry items (earscoop, piercer and tweezers) have been found at Harappa and twelve similar sets in Mesopotamia so in addition to exchanging the raw materials it is clear that the Mesopotamians were trading in finished goods as well, indicating that the Indus Valley material culture was popular with the Mesopotamians. Old Akkadian texts refer to the commodity lists of MELUHHA which include carnelian, lapis lazuli, pearls, wood, plants, fresh dates, copper, gold, cats and dogs,2 and carnelian and lapis were popular in Egypt throughout her history. A number of etched carnelian beads have been discovered in Mesopotamia, manufactured using a technique perfected by the Indus Valley Civilisation, although lost after the collapse of the civilisation after the Aryan invasion.3 Again this indicates that the Mesopotamians were not just trading in raw materials but also in finished goods, and crafts.

Terracotta figurines found in Egypt were often moulded plaques with flat backs rather than hollow three dimensional figures. They were believed to have been made as offerings for temples, tombs or domestic rituals. They were generally painted and there are traces of colour (white paint or slip and black, red, blue and green) on some of the Indian figures.13 It is generally thought these Indian dancing figures may be connected to the cult of Harpocrates, who is often shown with a side lock of hair, a finger to his mouth and wearing the double crown of Upper and Lower Egypt.14 These figures may represent an early androgynous form of Harpocrates or perhaps they could represent the dancing girls participating in cult ritual.15

As Mesopotamia was trading with these regions, so close to India, and the Egyptians were trading with the Mesopotamians, an indirect route with India and a trading of ideas, crafts and commodities was therefore available to the Egyptians. Texts from Ur also refer to deliveries of over two thousand turtles and turtle eggs some of which would have come from the Persian Gulf4 and were clearly an important commodity in the culture of Ur. Although turtle shells and eggs have not been found in Egypt, currently housed in the Petrie Museum are a number of shells from the Red Sea / Indian Ocean found at various sites in Egypt dated to the late period, indicating there may have been some indirect or direct contact between the areas as well as a desire for these objects.

5

Asthana 1976, 165 ibid, 170 7 Petrie 1909, 4 8 Jeffries, 1985, 39 9 Gordon 1939, 35 10 ibid, 36 11 Harle 1989, 375 12 Gordon 1939, 37 13 Harle 1989, 377 14 ibid, 377 15 ibid, 383 6

1

Possehl 2002, 227 Ray, 2003, 87 3 Possehl 2002 222 4 Ray 2003, 88 2

60

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT However the presence of the dancing figures from Memphis indicates that there were Indians in Egypt, even if at this time they were just travelling through on trading expeditions. The female figures (Figure 6:5 - 6:6), could indicate that there were women living in Egypt, (although the provenance is unrecorded) and they seem to have a different purpose than the religious dancing figures, as they are performing everyday tasks such as carrying pots or ducks. These female figures are very similar to each other and could represent a stereotypical image of an Indian in Egypt. Even the male figure (Figure 6:3) has similar characteristics with large protruding ears and could represent a ‘recognisable’ Indian to the Egyptian market. It has been suggested that he is a Buddhist figure and could represent a religious functionary or a converted Buddhist resident in Egypt.

Although these dancing figures are completely Indian in character they are not Indian imports as no parallel examples have been found on the Sub-Indian continent,1 and therefore indicates that there was enough contact with the Indians for the Egyptians to manufacture these figures in a completely non-Egyptian style. It is generally believed that that there is no doubt that the Indian dancing figures are connected to the cult of Harpocrates, and this could be an adoption of the Egyptian religion by the Indian settlers at Memphis, or an adoption of the Indian imagery by the Egyptians there. Either way, it is clear that there was some contact between the Egyptians and the Indians from within the Egyptian population. The earliest definite evidence of Indians in Egypt is from a record of the royal procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphos (approximately 250 BC)2 which included Indian women, hunting dogs, cows and camels. The Indian women included in this procession were likely to have resided in Egypt, and may have been the same women who danced for the cult of Harpocrates giving the procession an element of spirituality. The saloon in the yacht belonging to Ptolemy II was also lined with Indian stone3 indicating that there were trade expeditions at this time to India.

Unlike all of the other foreign groups discussed in this study the Indians are the most obscure because the Egyptians did not view them as a threat, due to not bordering Egypt, and they also were not in regular contact with them through direct trade. The existence of the figures under discussion indicates that had Indians travelled to Egypt they would have been accepted under the same conditions as the other foreign groups in this study. As evidence of Indians in Egypt comes from such a late date, when a large number of immigrants were settling, it indicates that they would have been absorbed and accepted into society as much as was possible by the indigenous population. The Indian girls participating in the cult of Harpocrates could be the start of this integration and acceptance programme.

CONCLUSION Although there is limited evidence of Indians living in Egypt prior to the Persian period there are some similarities between Indian culture and Egyptian culture suggesting a prolonged contact between the two areas. As mentioned there were similarities with the religious practices between the two cultures as well as some similarities in sculpture. For example a Harappan statue from Mohenjo-Dar is of a seated man, with one knee raised and is very similar to Egyptian scribal statues.4 The Kulli female terracotta figures from the mature Harappan culture (2500-1900 BC), are very roughly moulded, with small pinched faces5 and are very similar to some Egyptian fertility figurines. One such figure in the Petrie Museum (UC 34508) is dated to the Third Intermediate Period and has remarkable similarities to the Harappan figures and could indicate a connection between the two areas. The relationship with India was a very late development in Egypt’s history, although this does not mean that the Egyptians were not aware of the continent. However, the region was so far from Egypt that it did not pose a threat to the borders and they were able to gain access to the goods of India through trade with other nations. Therefore the Egyptians did not have any desire to travel to the region.

1

ibid, 380 Gordon 1939, 37 3 Asthana 1976, 189 4 Possehl, 2002 , 166 5 ibid, 118 2

61

INDIAN CATALOGUE pouch. She also seems to be wearing an elaborate headdress rather than the side-lock of the earlier figure.

6:1 INDIAN DANCING FIGURE This terracotta figure (UC33607) from Memphis of a female dancing girl is thought to be Indian. She has Indian facial features and costume. She has a breast band across her chest which is typically Indian and her hands are in a dancing pose. Her left arm however appears to be resting on a Greek amphora jar. There is also an amulet pouch between her breasts is also more of a Greek than Indian feature.1 She has small breasts and it has been suggested that this was to give her an androgynous appearance. She also has a lock of hair over half of her face and this could be a side-lock of youth, coupled with the small breasts could represent a young girl.

6:3 INDIAN DANCING FIGURE This terracotta figure (UC 8932) also from Memphis, although unlike 6:1 and 6:2 she does not seem to be leaning on any type of vessel. She also is not wearing a breast-band and her breasts focus on the nipples. She has her right hand on her hip and her left hand held to her head. She also has an elaborate head-dress and a side lock flowing down over her right shoulder, perhaps again indicating that she is a young girl. 6:4 INDIAN MALE WITH MONKEY This terracotta head (UC 17811) possibly represents an Indian man. He has a monkey on his shoulder with a raised foreleg behind each ear. It is possible that it could represent Buddha. Petrie named it as being of 'Tibetan style'. It is dated to the sixth to fifth century BC although Weber believes it may represent an African rather than an Indian due to a small nose and prominent forehead.7 It was found in Memphis and forms part of the terracotta collection at the Petrie Museum.

The ‘Indian’ dancing girls are cause for much debate as the nationality is uncertain. Even if it was decided that they were Indian the further question arises of whether they were manufactured in Egypt by Indians, manufactured by Egyptians to depict Indians, or imported. There is literary evidence that there was an Indian colony at Memphis from 400-300 BC2 which corresponds with the date given to these figures by Petrie, and could suggest that they were manufactured by Indians in the so-called ‘foreign quarter’ at Memphis. Petrie records them as being found in a “Shop” at Memphis and supports that they may have been manufactured there for sale to the Indian population.3 The characteristics that have suggested an Indian origin are the breast bands, facial features and costumes.

6:5 INDIAN FEMALE CARRYING A POT This green glazed faience figure (UC28687) is unfortunately broken below the head, and the glaze has faded to white. The head shows a woman, possibly Indian, carrying a pot on top of her head. She is wearing a hat and she has large protruding ears, in similar fashion to all of the above Indian figures. It is dated to the twenty third dynasty (715-818 BC) although the provenance is unrecorded.

Harle 4believes the figures may have had some connection with the worship of Harpocrates rather than with India, due to all of the figures having the side-lock. Harle suggests that the small breasts common to all the figures, rather than showing pre-pubescent girls, represent an androgynous figure, possibly even Harpocrates himself.5 It seems that if they are connected to the cult of Harpocrates then they are more likely to be dancing girls rather than the god himself.

6:6 FEMALE CARRYING A DUCK ON HER INDIAN SHOULDERS This figure also dated to the twenty-third dynasty, is made from green/blue glazed faience, and shows a woman carrying a duck on her shoulders. It is unfortunately broken off at chest level. The features of her face are picked out with black glaze as well as marks on her right arm. The left arm, has not survived, although the angle at the shoulder suggests this arm would also be raised. She is also wearing a hat similar to figure 6:5 and her ears are also large and protruding. She has very prominent breasts, with well defined nipples, in contrast to the breasts on the dancing figures and therefore suggests there is a different purpose for this figure and 6:5. Her body is also beginning to curve off to the right in the same manner as the dancing figures and emphasises movement, perhaps in this incidence, walking rather than dancing.

6:2 INDIAN DANCING GIRL This terracotta Figure (UC 8788) also represents a female dancing figure from Memphis. She has her right arm resting on an upturned patera, a vessel for drinking from or pouring libations. This type of vessel often accompanies figures of Harpocrates,6 and was probably used in his cult. In similar fashion to UC 33601 (Figure. 6:1) this figure is also wearing a breast band, and amulet

1

Harle 1989,382 ibid, 375 3 Harle 1992, 377 4 ibid 5 ibid,383 6 ibid, 382 2

7

62

ibid, 379

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT

Figure 6:1 Indian Dancing Figure (Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC33607)

Figure 6:2 Indian Dancing Figure (Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC8788)

63

CHARLOTTE BOOTH

Figure 6:3 Indian Dancing Girl (Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC8932)

Figure 6:4 Indian male with Monkey (Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC17811)

64

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT

Figure 6:5 Indian female carrying a pot (Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC28787)

Figure 6:6 Indian female carrying a duck on her shoulders (Copyright: Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London UC28686)

65

CONCLUSION have all spoken different languages and had different religious beliefs, and cultural practices. By the unification of Egypt in the time of Narmer the true indigenous population would have already been absorbed and would have virtually disappeared, although at this time there was still a distinct cultural style difference between Upper and Lower Egypt.3

From the preceding chapters it is clear that Egypt was made up of a number of different ethnic groups and from the second millennium BC onwards the evidence shows that Egypt was a truly multi-cultural society.1 However it is clear that there were three attitudes that the Egyptian held regarding foreigners, in addition to the propaganda texts and images that indicate that all foreigners were viewed as inferior to the Egyptians.

Due to this the Egyptians were always welcoming to foreign immigrants providing they were prepared to become “Egyptian”. Assimilation would not have been instantaneous,4 but it is likely that there was a “programme” of integration that was offered in order to teach newcomers the language and beliefs of their adopted land. The government also gave grants of land to foreigners, especially for military service which would have encouraged soldiers to settle and marry.5 The number of immigrants entering Egypt varied, depending on the period and the method of migration. For example the large numbers of migrating Libyans in the New Kingdom made assimilation difficult as they were allocated areas in the Delta that were set up as Libyan settlements. However throughout pharaonic history the constant trickle of Asiatics and Nubians settling in Egypt made integration easier and there was an almost even spread throughout the land of these immigrants although there were more Canaanites living in Lower Egypt and more Nubians in Upper Egypt.6

The first attitude held is one of acceptance, should the migrating groups integrate into society, learn the language and adopt the Egyptian culture. The Asiatics and the Nubians are a perfect example of this kind of acceptance. The Syrians were accepted freely, although they did not appear to integrate as fully as other Asiatics, but they were firmly associated with trade, and therefore would have been essential to the economy of Egypt and would have been part of everyday life. The second attitude is fear, and this is obvious when discussing the Libyans. Although there is evidence of Libyans rising to positions of power within Egyptian society, it is a rare occurrence, and in general the Libyans were treated with trepidation due to the constant threat that they posed on the borders of Egypt. The third attitude is one of virtual indifference. The Minoans, Indians and Puntites are nations that the Egyptians had minimal contact with, and then purely a trade relationship for inessential, but desirable goods. These regions did not border Egypt and therefore did not pose any threat to the security of Egypt. The Puntites and the Minoans are shown in Theban tombs bringing tribute although whether this was a regular occurrence is contested. These nations are rarely shown in stereotypical images of subjugation, as bound captives. Although the evidence of Indians in Egypt dates to the reign of Ptolemy II it is possible that the Egyptians were aware of them from earlier periods, but were not threatened by them, and did not have a great deal of contact with them and therefore did not feel the need to depict them as subjugated.

Although it appeared to be part of the Egyptian characteristic to absorb foreign cultures without question, problems occurred when a group maintained their ethnic identity and separateness from Egyptian society.7 For example Jews on Elephantine sacrificed lambs which offended the Khnumn worshippers there and in 410 BC Egyptian priests demanded that the temple of Yahweh be destroyed.8 Despite this incident, Persian conquerors, Greeks and Jews all showed signs of Egyptianisation, mainly due to wide-spread intermarriage at this time and indicates that it was possible for any immigrants to achieve. The willingness of the Egyptians to accept anyone into society is reflected by the adoption of foreign terminology into the Egyptian language. The Medjay Nubians were so common in the military that the term soon came to mean police force with no ethnic connotations and the word for haggling was ‘to do

Despite these varying opinions on foreigners it would have been possible for all immigrants to integrate into society. The very nature of Egyptian society was always a multicultural one, as the development of the Egyptian state started in 5000 BC when tribes from all the surrounding areas settled in Egypt2 due to climatic change and environmental difficulties. This initial population would

3

ibid, 225 Baines 2000, 362 5 Leahy 1995, 232 6 ibid, 226 7 ibid, 233 8 Trigger et al 1983, 317 4

1 2

Leahy 1995, 228 ibid, 225 & Baines 1996, 361

66

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT business in the Syrian tongue’. This easy acceptance into society of anyone willing to accept Egypt as their home and to adopt their customs as their own1 is something that sets Egypt apart from other nations and makes ancient Egypt a truly multi-cultural society.

1

ibid, 317

67

CITED WORKS Adams B. & Cialowicz K.M. 1997 Protodynastic Egypt. Princes Risborough. Shire Egyptology.

1998 Pharaohs and Mortals. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 2000 ‘The Second Intermediate Period’, in Shaw I (ed.) The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 184-218

Andelkovic B. 1995 The relations between Early Bronze Age I Canaanites and Upper Egypt. Belgrade. University of Belgrade Press.

Bryan B. 2000 ‘The Eighteenth Dynasty Before the Amarna Period’, in Shaw I. (Ed) The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford. Oxford University Press. 218-71

Annelies V. & Brack A. 1977 Das Grab des Tjanuni; Theban nr. 74. Cairo. Deutsches Archaologisches Institut.

Clayton P. 1994 Chronicle of the Pharaohs. London: Thames and Hudson.

Asthana S. 1976 History and Archaeology of India’s Contact with Other Countries. New Delhi. D.K. Publishers Distributors.

Cline E. 1998 ‘Amenhotep III, the Aegean and Anatolia’, in O’Connor D & Cline E. (Eds) Amenhotep III; Perspectives on his Reign. Michigin. University of Michigan Press. 236-49

Baines J. 1996 ‘Contextualising Egyptian Representations of Society and Ethnicity’, in Cooper J.S. & Schwartz G.M. (eds) The Study of the Ancient Near East in the TwentyFirst Century. Indiana. Eisenbrauns. 339-84

Cozzolino C. 1993 ‘The Land of Punt’, in Sesto Congresso Internazionale Di Egittologia: Atti Vol II p. 391- 9 Davies B.G. 1999 Who’s Who in Deir el Medina. Leiden. Nederlands Instituut Voor Nabije Oosten.

Bates O. 1914 The Eastern Libyans. London. Macmillan and Co. Bietak M. 1981 Avaris and Piramesse: Archaeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta. Oxford: University Press. 1992 ‘Minoan Paintings Unearthed at Ancient Avaris’, in Egyptian Archaeology 2: 26-8 1996 The Capital of the Hyksos: Recent Excavations at Tell el Dab’a. London: British Museum Press. 2005 ‘The Thutmoside Stronghold of Perunefer’, in Egyptian Archaeology 26: 15-7

De Garis Davies N. 1926 The Tomb of Huy; Viceroy of Nubia in the Reign of Tutankhamun. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 1927 Two Ramesside Tombs at Thebes. New York. Metropolitan Museum of Art Press.

Bietak M. & Marinatos N. 1994 ‘The Minoan Wall Paintings From Avaris’, in Bietak M. (Ed) Agypten und Levante V: 49-62

Edgerton W.F. & Wilson J.A. 1936 Historical Records of Ramses III the Texts in Medinet Habu Vol I & II. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

De Garis Davies N. & Faulkner R.O. 1947 ‘A Syrian Trading Venture to Egypt’, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 33 40-6

Bleiberg E. 1984 ‘The King’s Privy Purse During the New Kingdom: An Examination of inw’, in Journal of the American Research Centre in Egypt XXI: 155 - 67 1988 The Redistributive Economy in New Kingdom: An examination of b3kw(t) in Journal of the American Research Centre in Egypt XXV:157-68

Fischer H.G. 1961 ‘The Nubian Mercenaries of Gebelein During the First Intermediate Period’, in KUSH 9 p. 44 -80 Fitton L. , Hughes M, Quirke S. 1998 ‘Northerners at Lahun, in Quirke S. (Ed) Lahun Studies. Reigate. SIA Publishers. 112- 37

Booth C. 2000 The Hyksos: Barbarians or Opportunists. Unpublished BA Dissertation. University College London.

Forbes D. 2005 ‘The Others’, in KMT vol 16 no. 1 p. 66-73 Frandsen P.J. 1979 ‘Egyptian Imperialism’, in Larsen M.T. (Ed) Power and Propaganda. Copenhagan. Mesopotamia vol 7 p. 167-90

Bourriau J. 1991’Relations Between Egypt and Kerma During the Middle and New Kingdom’, in Davies V. (Ed) Egypt and Africa. London. British Museum Press.

68

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT Freed R., Markowitz Y., &D’Auria S. 2000 Pharaohs of the Sun. London. Thames and Hudson.

Jeffreys D. 1985 Survey of Memphis I. London. Egypt Exploraton Society.

Gardiner A. 1916 ‘Three Engraved Plaques in the Collection of the Lord of Carnarvon’, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 3: 73-5

Joffe A.H. 2000 ‘Egypt and Syro-Mesopotamia in 4th Millennium: Implications of the New Chronology’, in Current Anthropology 41 number 1: 113-23

Garstang J. 1907 The Burial Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. London. Archibald Constable and Co. Ltd. 1928 ‘An Ivory Sphinx From Abydos BM # 56478’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 12: 46

Jones S. 1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity. London. Routledge. Kadish G.E. 1966 ‘Old Kingdom Egyptian Activity in Nubia: Some Reconsiderations’, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 52: 23-32

Giveon R. 1969-70 ‘The Shosu of the late XXth Dynasty’, in Journal of Archaeological Research Centre in Egypt 8: 51-3

Kemp B. 1989 Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilisation. London. Routledge.

Goedicke H. 1969 ‘An Egyptian Claim to Asia’, in Journal of American Research Centre in Egypt 8: 11-27

Kitchen K.A. 1986 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt. Warminster. Aris and Phillips. 1990 ‘Early Canaanites in Rio de Janeiro and A “Corrupt” Ramesside Land Sale’, in Israelit-Groll S. (Ed) Studies in Egyptology. Presented to Miriam Lichtheim. Jerusalem. The Magnes Press, Hebrew University. 63545 1991 ‘Non-Egyptians recorded on Middle Kingdom Stelae in Rio Di Janeiro’, in Quirke S. (ed) 1991: Middle Kingdom Studies. Surrey: SIA Publishing. 87-90

Gordon D.H. 1939 ‘The Buddhist Origin of the ‘Sumerian’ Heads from Memphis’, in Iraq 6: 35-8 Goudriaan K. 1988 Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieban. Greene K. 1996 Archaeology; an Introduction. London. Routledge.

La’da C. A. 1994 ‘Ethnicity, occupation and tax-status in Prolemaic Egypt’, in Acta Demotica (=Egitto e vicino Oriente) 17: 183-189

Griffith F.L. 1891 ‘The Account Papyrus no. 18 in Boulaq’, in Zeitschrift Fur Agyptische Sprache 29:102-16 1926 ‘A Drinking Siphon from Tell el Amarnah’, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 12: 22-3

Leahy A. 1985 ‘The Libyan Period in Egypt; An Essay in Interpretation’, in Libyan Studies 16: 51-65 1990 ‘Abydos in the Libyan Period’, in Leahy A. (ed) Libya and Egypt 1300-750 BC. London. SOAS. 155-200. 1995 ‘Ethnic Diversity in Ancient Egypt’, in Sasson J. (Ed) Civilisations of the Ancient Near East. London: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 225-34

Haring B. 1992a ‘Libyans in the Late XX Dynasty’, in Demaree R.J. & Egberts A. (Eds) Village Voices. Leiden. CNWS Publication. 71-8 1992b ‘Libyans in the Theban Region Twentieth Dynasty’, in Demaree R.J. & Egberts A. (Eds) Village Voices. Leiden. CNWS Publication.159-65 Harle J. 1989 ‘The ‘Indian’ Terracottas from Ancient Memphis; a Hitherto Unknown Deity?’, in Jarridge C (ed) South Asian Archaeology. Madison. Prehistory Press. 375-84

Lichtheim M. 1975 Ancient Egyptian Literature Vol I. Berkeley. University of California Press. 1976 Ancient Egyptian Literature Vol III. Berkeley. University of California Press.

Hart G. 1986 A Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. London. Routledge.

Manniche L. 1987 The Tombs of the Nobles at Luxor. Cairo. American University in Cairo Press.

Harvey S. 1999 ‘Monuments of Ahmose at Abydos’, in Egyptian Archaeology 2: 3-5.

69

CHARLOTTE BOOTH Maree M. 2002 ‘Forepart of a sphinx holding a captive (cat number 97)’, in Ziegler C. (Ed) The Pharoahs. London. Thames and Hudson. P.

1931 Seventy Years in Archaeology. London. Bracken Books Petrie W.F. Mackay E. and Wainwright G. 1910 Meydum & Memphis, vol. III. London: School of Archaeology in Egypt.

Marinatos N. 1993 ‘The Export Significance of the Minoan Bull Hunting and Bull Leaping Scenes’, in Agypten und Levante IV:89-93

Possehl G.L. 2002 The Indus Civilisation. A contemporary Perspective. Oxford. Rowmanand Littlefield Publishers.

Mark S. 1997 From Egypt to Mesopotamia; A study of Predynastic Trade Routes. London. Chatham Publishing,

Quirke S. 1990 ‘Karem in the Fitzwilliam Museum’, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 76:170-4

Meskell L. 1999 Archaeoloigies of social life. Oxford. Blackwell Publishers.

Ray H.P 2003 The Archaeology of Sea Faring in Ancient South Asia. Cambridge University Press.

Morkot R.G. 1991 ‘Nubia in the New Kingdom; The Limits of Egyptian Control’, in Davis V. (Ed) Egypt and Africa. London. British Museum Press. 294-301

Redford D.B. 1984 Akhenaten the Heretic King. Princeton. Princeton University Press. 1992 Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Cairo. American University in Cairo Press.

Milne J.G. 1939 ‘Trade Between Greece and Egypt Before Alexander the Great’, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 25:177-83

Renfrew C. & Bahn P. 1996 Archaeology; theories, methods and practice. London. Thames and Hudson.

Newberry P.E. 1893 Beni Hasan, vol. I. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co.

Rohl D. 1995 A test of Time. The bible from Myth to History. London. Arrow Books Ltd.

Nibbi A. 1981 Ancient Egypt and some Eastern Neighbours. New Jersey. Noyes Press. 1986 Lapwings and Libyans in Ancient Egypt. Oxford. Bocardo Press.

Ryholt R.S.B. 1997 The Political Situation in Egypt During the Second Intermediate Period. Copenhagen. Museum Tusculanum Press.

Ostergard U. 1992 What is National and Ethnic Identity in Bilde et al (eds) Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt. Aarhus. Aarhus University Press. 16-38 Peck W.H. 1997 Splendours of Ancient Egypt. London. Abbeville Press Publishers.

Save-Soderbergh T. 1946 The Navy of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Uppsala. Lundequistka Bokhandeln. 1991 ‘Teh-khet; The Cultural and Socio-political Structure of a Nubian Princedom in Thutmoside Times’, in Davies V. (Ed) Egypt and Africa. London. British Museum Press. 186-93

Perelli R. 1993 ‘Punt in Egyptian Myth and Trade’, in Sesto Congresso Internazionale Di Egittologia: Atti Vol II: 383-90

Save-Soderbergh T. & Troy L. 1977 New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites: The finds and the sites. Copenhagan. The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia publications

Petrie W.M.F. 1896 Koptos. London: Bernard Quaritch 1909a The Arts and Crafts of Ancient Egypt. London. Bracken Books. 1909b Memphis I. London: Bernard Quaritch. 1910 Meydum and Memphis (III). London. Bernard Quaritch.

Schulman A.R. 1964 Military Rank, Title and Organisation in the Egyptian New Kingdom. Berlin. Verlag Bruno Hessling. Shaheen A.M. 1998 ‘Syro-Palestinain-Egyptian Relations in the Early Bronze II Period; Reassment’, in Gottinger Miszellen 163: 95-9

70

THE ROLE OF FOREIGNERS IN ANCIENT EGYPT Shaw I. & Nicholson P. 1997 The British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. London. British Museum Press.

Watterson B. 1998 Women in Ancient Egypt. Stroud. Sutton Publishing Ltd.

Shaw I. 2000 Egypt and the Outside World in Shaw I. (Ed) The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford. Oxford University Press.314-29

Weinstein J. Et Al 1998 ‘The World Abroad’, in O’Connor D. & Cline E. (eds) Amenhotep III; Perspectives on his Reign. Michigin. University of Michigan Press. 223-35

Shennan S. 1989 Archaeological approaches to cultural identity. London. Routledge.

White D. & White A.P. 1996 ‘Coastal Sites of Northeast Africa: The case Against Bronze Age Ports’, in Journal of the American Research Centre in Egypt. XXXIII:11-30

Simpson W.K. 1963 Heka-nefer and the Dynastic Material from Toshka and Arminna. Peabody museum and University Museum. New Haven and Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania.

Wilkinson J. G. 1994 (reprint) The Ancient Egyptians; Their Life and Customs. Volume 2. London. Senate. Wilkinson T. 2000 Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt; The Palermo Stone and its Associated Fragments. London. Kegan Paul International.

Smither P. 1945 ‘The Semnah Despatches’, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 31: 3-10

Zarins J. 1996 ‘Obsidian in the Larger Context of Predynastic/Archaic Egyptian Red Sea Trade’, in Reade J. (Ed) The Indian Ocean in Antiquity. London. Kegan Paul. 89-106

Speigelberg V.W. & Erman A. 1898 Grabstein eines syrischen Soldners aus Tell Amarna in Zeitschrift fur Agyptische Sprache und Alterthumskunde Band XXXVI 126-29 Taylor J. 2000 ‘The Third Intermediate Period’, in Shaw I. (Ed) The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford. Oxford University Press. 330-68 Thompson D. 1988 Memphis under the Ptolemies Princeton. Princeton University Press. Trigger B.G., Kemp B.J., O’Connor D. & Lloyd A.B. 1994 Ancient Egypt; a Social History. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Vassilika E. 1995 Egyptian Art. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Wachsmann S. 1987 Aegeans in the Theban Tombs. Leuven. Uitgeverij Peeters. Waddel W.G. 1940 Manetho. London Wainwright 1962 ‘The Meshwesh’, Archaeology 48 p. 89-99

in

Journal

of

Egyptian

Ward W. 1994 ‘Foreigners Living in the Village’, in Lesko L. (ed) Pharaoh’s Workers. London. Cornell University Press p. 61-85

71