Ancient Egyptian Imperialism

Ellen Morris

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781119467663
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Geschichte
• Subtopic: Geschichte der ägyptischen Antike

Offers a broad and unique look at Ancient Egypt during its long age of imperialism

Written for enthusiasts and scholars of pharaonic Egypt, as well as for those interested in comparative imperialism, this book provides a look at some of the most intriguing evidence for grand strategy, low-level insurgencies, back-room deals, and complex colonial dynamics that exists for the Bronze Age world. It explores the actions of a variety of Egypt's imperial governments from the dawn of the state until 1069 BCE as they endeavored to control fiercely independent mountain dwellers in Lebanon, urban populations in Canaan and Nubia, highly mobile Nilotic pastoralists, and predatory desert raiders. The book is especially valuable as it foregrounds the reactions of local populations and their active roles in shaping the trajectory of empire. With its emphasis on the experimental nature of imperialism and its attention to cross-cultural comparison and social history, this book offers a fresh perspective on a fascinating subject.

Organized around central imperial themes—which are explored in depth at particular places and times in Egypt's history— Ancient Egyptian Imperialism covers: Trade Before Empire—Empire Before the State (c. 3500-2686); Settler Colonialism (c. 2400-2160); Military Occupation (c. 2055-1775); Creolization, Collaboration, Colonization (c. 1775-1295); Motivation, Intimidation, Enticement (c. 1550-1295); Organization and Infrastructure (c. 1458-1295); Outwitting the State (c. 1362-1332); Conversions and Contractions in Egypt's Northern Empire (c. 1295-1136); and Conversions and Contractions in Egypt's Southern Empire (c. 1550-1069).

• Offers a wider focus of Egypt's experimentation with empire than is covered by general Egyptologists
• Draws analogies to tactics employed by imperial governments and by dominated peoples in a variety of historically documented empires, both old world and new
• Answers questions such as "how often and to what degree did imperial blueprints undergo revisions?"

Ancient Egyptian Imperialism is an excellent text for students and scholars of history, comparative history, and ancient history, as well for those interested in political science, anthropology, and the Biblical World.

1
Trade Before Empire; Empire Before the State (c. 3500–2686)

Trade is said to follow the flag. More often than not, however—at least at first—the reverse is true.¹ This is one of two main arguments this chapter pursues with regard to Protodynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. The other is that nations are often a product of empires, rather than simply a producer of them. As history and archaeology demonstrate, many of the world’s greatest pre‐modern states arose—by virtue of sudden, successful military action—out of a constellation of relatively comparable polities to unite vast swaths of territory under their rule. In some cases, these polities were already recognizably urban (such as Teotihuacan, Uruk, and Rome), while in others thriving metropolitan centers followed on the heels of empire (as with the Inka empire and Achaemenid Persia). Regardless, the salient point is that just prior to expansion, the polity that was to become an empire may have closely resembled its peers and even have been dominated by one or another among them for a period of time. Such seems to have been the trajectory of Abydos, whose political fortune lagged behind those of Hierakonpolis and Nagada—its more precocious southern neighbors—for much of early and mid‐prehistory, at least so far as it is possible to ascertain archaeologically (see Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1 Sites from southern Egypt and Nubia mentioned in the chapter.

Colin Renfrew and John Cherry have termed the type of competitive milieu in which similarly sized political units tend to operate “peer polity interaction.”² The city‐states of the Mayan heartland and Early Dynastic Mesopotamia are classic exemplars of this potentially generative dynamic. Two cities in such a system might ally themselves against a mutual foe one century, might attack one another’s territory the next, and might exist for a time in the relationship of vassal and overlord. Typically, however, any suzerainty enjoyed by one city remained on a relatively small scale and was balanced by similar relationships negotiated among its peers. As Renfrew and Cherry note, over the course of such intense and ever‐shifting interaction, the material culture of such cities tended to become ever more homogenized, heightening the impression that one differed little from the others.

The point at which a polity switches from exercising political paramountcy to wielding imperial power is related primarily to the unprecedented size of the new dominion and to the complexity of the mechanisms necessary to govern it effectively. Definitions of empire differ widely, but one tenet that most scholars agree upon is that in order to qualify, a polity must lay claim to a vast expanse of land and great numbers of people. Further, these new subjects should lie outside the constellation of peers traditionally feuded with and include a heterogeneous assortment of cultures. Carla Sinopoli offers a pithy, yet broadly representative, definition of empires as “geographically and politically expansive polities, composed of a diversity of localized communities and ethnic groups.”³

It is interesting, therefore, to compare this definition of an empire with Robert Carneiro’s definition of a state as “an autonomous political unit, encompassing many communities within its territory and having a centralized government with the power to collect taxes, draft men for work or war, and decree and enforce laws.”⁴ A close look shows the two to be inextricable to some degree, for without the initial conquests typical of an empire, the consolidation of many hundreds of communities into a state is difficult to envision. By the same token, an imperial project—whether launched by a local leader, a city, or a state—is only distinguished from a series of predatory razzias by the erection of an administration capable of doing what states do: regularly gathering resources, mustering manpower, and imposing political will.

The initial scalar leap necessary for the transformation of a relatively small polity into what was first an empire and then a consolidated (and more or less expansive) territorial state often occurred with remarkable speed.⁵ While groundwork may have been laid in peaceful as well as martial interactions that occurred many years prior, the leap into unknown territory and scale often came within the reign of one highly organized and ambitious ruler, such as Sargon or Shaka. The genius of such forgers of states and empires, however, was their ability to figure out not just how to conquer but also how to consolidate and keep—how to reorganize their own political structure to cope with a massive increase in the number of communities ruled and resources requisitioned.

In the Nagada II period (c. 3500–3200),⁶ Upper Egypt had been a land divided among a number of competing polities, each of which developed local industry, engaged in trade, constructed monuments, and buried its leaders in sumptuous style. The large‐scale diversion of power from the courts of individual regional leaders to that of a single ruler of Upper Egypt seems to have first taken place in the Nagada IIIA period (c. 3200). This conclusion stems from the massive, symbolically potent, and extravagantly wealthy tomb U‐j at Abydos; from the lack of other comparable “royal” tombs north of the First Cataract; and from the fact that the majority of known Nagada III kings (Iry‐Hor, Ka, Narmer) and all of the First Dynasty kings (c. 3000–2890) were subsequently buried at Abydos. It would be foolhardy to assume, however, that the process of establishing Abydene political supremacy was easy or linear. Indeed, the fact that U‐j was larger than any of the other Protodynastic tombs at Abydos—including Narmer’s tomb—points to the complexity of this process.

It was Narmer, after all, whose economic and political influence is most notably attested from Upper Egypt all the way to the southern coastal plain of Canaan. While this king undoubtedly stood firmly on the shoulders of the rulers who came before him, it is Narmer whose serekhs litter the Nile Valley, the eastern Delta, and Canaan; Narmer whose victories over enemies are most coherently broadcast and whose royal iconography is most elaborately expressed; and Narmer whose achievements allowed Hor‐Aha (c. 3000) to ascend to the throne of a united Upper and Lower Egypt as the first god‐king of the First Dynasty. While much of our evidence concerning this Protodynastic king’s purported accomplishments is gleaned from the iconography on votive gifts—sources that should not be accepted uncritically—the very fact that this king sponsored such ideologically laden pictorial statements speaks volumes about the political sophistication of his rule.

This chapter does not attempt to construct a chronological narrative of how the unification of Upper—and then Upper and Lower—Egypt progressed; such would be unabashed guesswork and would require far more space than is available here. Rather, its aim is to bring to the fore a sampling of the many strategies employed by the Abydene kings of Nagada III and the First Dynasty to co‐opt economic, political, and spiritual sources of power from the peoples they conquered and to consolidate their political grip. Many of the techniques utilized in this initial project and discussed below bear strong similarities to those that phara...