Download The First Colonial Empire: Egypt in Nubia, 3200

Society for Comparative Studies in Society and History
The First Colonial Empire: Egypt in Nubia, 3200-1200 B.C.
Author(s): William Y. Adams
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan., 1984), pp. 36-71
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/178519 .
Accessed: 31/05/2012 12:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Cambridge University Press and Society for Comparative Studies in Society and History are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative Studies in Society and History.
http://www.jstor.org
The First Colonial Empire:Egypt in
Nubia, 3200-1200 B.C.
WILLIAM
Y. ADAMS
University of Kentucky
A century ago the phrases "darkestAfrica" and "the darkcontinent" were
encounteredoften in Europeanand American literature.The darkness, one
would suppose, was in the minds of the writers, signifying their general
ignorance of African geography and ethnography.Yet I doubt if many who
spoke of darkestAfrica thoughtof it in quite those terms. For most of them,
the darknesswas in the minds of the Africansthemselves;a metaphorfor their
moral backwardnessand for their ignoranceof the higher artsof civilization.
African darkness thus contrasted with European and American enlightenment-and the contrast provided moral justification for Europe's mission
civilisatrice.
Four thousand years earlier, on the same continent, the equivalent of
"darkest Africa" was "miserable Kush." The ancient Egyptians seldom
referredto their African neighbors in any other terms; they too professed a
moral superiority which incidentally provided a cover for more than two
thousandyears of colonial domination.Nor were the attitudeandpolicy of the
pharaohsany less justified-or any more justified-than those of the latterday colonial powers. Contemplatingthe world as they knew it in 2000 B.C.,
they could recognize no civilization or power equal to their own; they had as
much reason to believe in manifest destiny as had any later people.' My
purposein this article is to outline the process of Egyptiancolonial expansion
into Africa between 3200 and 1200 B.C., and to point out some of the ways in
which it anticipatedthe colonial enterpriseof the great Europeanmaritime
powers between the fifteenth and twentieth centuries.
Partsof this article are based on five chaptersfrom my book, Nubia, Corridorto Africa (Allen
Lane and PrincetonUniversity Press, 1977). In it I have drawnextensively on earlierwork, and
particularlyTorgny Save-S6derbergh'sAgyptenundNubien and W. B. Emery'sEgypt in Nubia.
Since the article was first written, two other importantdiscussions of Egyptiancolonialismhave
appeared:B. J. Kemp, "Imperialismand Empirein New KingdomEgypt," in P.D.A. Garnsey
and C.R. Whittaker's Imperialism in the Ancient World, and Paul J. Frandsen, "Egyptian
Imperialism," in Power and Propaganda, edited by M.T. Larsen(Copenhagen,1979), 167-90.
Nevertheless, my own ideas are also expressed here, and some of them are at variance with
accepted Egyptological theories.
I On this, see B. J. Kemp, "Imperialismand Empirein New KingdomEgypt," in Imperialism in the Ancient World, P.D.A. Gamsey and C.R. Whittaker,eds. (Cambridge,1978), 8-14.
0010-4175/84/1282-7144 $2.50 ? 1984 Society for ComparativeStudy of Society and History
36
FIRST
COLONIAL
EMPIRE:
EGYPT
IN
NUBIA
37
The process of Egyptiancolonial expansion in Africa involved three major
stages. The first was a period of more or less uncoordinatedexplorationand
plundering, which served to make the Egyptians aware of the economic
resourcesand opportunitiesbeyond their southernfrontier.This was followed
by the establishment of trade relations with a powerful interior chiefdom,
backedup by an Egyptianmonopoly of tradeon the lower Nile. Still later, the
Egyptians saw a greaterprofit in the imposition of direct control over their
southernneighbors, and the native monarchywas displacedby a full-fledged
colonial regime. However, changing economic and political conditions ultimately made the cost of maintainingthe colonial enterprisegreaterthan its
revenues justified. At that point, the colonists withdrew, leaving behind an
Egyptianizedpopulationwhose political, economic, and religious institutions
for the next 2,000 years were the legacy of their colonial experience. It was
these Egyptianized "Aethiopians" that caught the attentionand the fancy of
classical writers such as Herodotus2and Strabo,3who fosteredthe myth that
Aethiopia, i.e., Nubia, was the fountainheadof Egyptian civilization itself.
As I will show in laterpages, each of the majorstages of Egyptiancolonial
expansion was paralleled in one way or anotherin the colonial enterpriseof
the Europeanmaritime powers at the end of the Middle Ages. Reasons for
these parallels, as well as their limitations, will be discussed in concluding
paragraphs.
EGYPT
AND
NUBIA
The life cycle of Egypt's ancient civilization is usually describedin terms of
three climaxes of political centralizationand cultural creativity-the Old,
Middle, and New Kingdoms-interspersed with episodes of political disintegrationand cultural stagnation. The pharaonicnation-statewas apparently
created by force of arms at just about the beginning of the historic period;
during its first several centuries (Dynasties I-III, ca. 3200-2600 B.C.) the
pharaohs were chiefly engaged in consolidating the realm and subjugating
their own people. When that process was completed, Egyptian civilization
reached its first flowering under the Old Kingdom (Dynasties IV-VI, ca.
2600-2200 B.C.), whose most enduring monuments are the pyramids. A
growing tendency toward feudal separatismin the Sixth Dynasty was followed by the breakupof the pharaonicstate and a period of political disunity
(Dynasties VII-X, ca. 2200-2000 B.C.), and then by an uneasy restorationof
central authorityunder the Middle Kingdom (Dynasties XI-XII, ca. 20001800 B.C.). This is envisioned as an age of militaryfeudalism duringwhich
unificationwas achieved throughthe efforts of a series of exceptionallystrong
and able pharaohs;4when their grip weakened, the local dynasts once again
2 Herodotus 2.29-30; 3.17-25; 4.69-70.
3 Strabo 7.1-2.
4 For this interpretation,and for the general outline of Egyptianhistory followed here, I rely
heavily on John Wilson; see his The Culture of Ancient Egypt (Chicago, 1951), 125-53.
38
WILLIAM
Y.
ADAMS
asserted their independence and the state collapsed (Dynasties XIII- XVII,
ca. 1800-1600 B.C.). Partsof northernEgypt were overrunby Hyksos invaders from southwesternAsia-the first successful foreign incursioninto Egypt
in historic times.
Efforts to expel the Hyksos were ultimately successful and resulted in a
reconsolidation of pharaonic power-the New Kingdom or Empire-on a
more militaristic and imperialist basis than ever before (Dynasties XVIIIXX, ca. 1600-1000 B.C.). Pursuingthe erstwhile Hyksos invadersinto Palestine and Syria, the New Kingdom pharaohs fell heir to a considerable
empire in those lands; almost immediately afterwardthey also pushed their
dominionup the Nile as far as the FourthCataract,far in the Africaninterior.
However, the effort of maintainingan overseas empire in the face of Hittite,
Assyrian, and other Asiatic powers eventuallyplaced an impossible strainon
the pharaonicstate and economy, and afterthe TwentiethDynastythe foreign
conquests were largely relinquished. The Egyptian state went into a long
period of decline (Dynasties XXI-XXX, ca. 1000-332 B.C.) and was itself
prey to a series of foreign conquerors, until in 332 B.C. the Macedonian
Alexander finally put an end to the age-old pharaonicsuccession.
Egypt's civilization arose and for a long time flourishedin relativeisolation
from otherpeoples. The northernfrontierof Egypt was the Mediterraneanand
its shoreline swamps; the eastern and western frontierswere the desert margins of the Nile Valley. Only in the south was there active and direct contact
with alien peoples, but here too there was a fixed culturaland ethnic frontier
at the First Cataractof the Nile, just above moder Aswan. Here ended the
relatively broad and incredibly fertile valley which stretchedunbrokenfrom
the Mediterranean,and which was the cradle of Egypt's civilization. All
evidence suggests that despite occasional periods of political disunity, the
inhabitantsof this valley were, ethnically and racially, one people since
before the historic period, speaking a common language and sharinga common culturaltradition.
The First Cataractof the Nile, like the other numberedcataractsto the
south, is formed by a barrierof naked and eroded granitethroughwhich the
river has cut a tortuousgorge. This formationextends5up the river for about
thirty-five miles, within which arable land is confined to small and discontinuous silt banks here and there along the river. Fartherto the south are
occasional reaches of broad floodplain with fairly high levels of agricultural
productivity,but they are interspersedwith equally extensive granitezones of
minimal productivity. In each granite zone, navigation is impeded or precluded by innumerablerapids, of which the six numberedcataractsare only
the largest. This alternationof fertile and infertilezones, and of navigableand
5 For the sake of clarity, I have describedthe topographyand other featuresof Lower Nubia
throughoutthis article in the present tense, although they have in fact recently disappeared
beneath the waters of the Aswan Reservoir.
FIRST
COLONIAL
EMPIRE:
EGYPT
IN NUBIA
39
non-navigablereachesof the Nile, continuesupstreamas far as thejunctionof
the Blue and White Niles, deep in the heart of the Sudan.
The parochialcivilization of Egypt, dependentas it was both on the fertility
of the valley and on the navigation of the river, was for centuriesunable to
expand beyond the barrierof the First Cataract.The people who lived to the
south continuedto pursue in most respects a Neolithic way of life even while
their northernneighbors rearedthe towering edifice of pharaonicpomp and
power. Pharaoniccivilization impingedon them, as we shall see, but it was an
external, alien force. Even when Egyptian ideas and ideals were finally implantedin the south, in the time of the New Kingdom, they were not accompanied by substantialnumbersof Egyptiansettlers. Indeed, the reluctanceof
the Egyptianmasses to live and die anywherebut within the confines of their
familiar valley has been remarkablefrom ancient to moder times. As a
result, the racial, ethnic, and linguistic frontier at the First Cataracthas
remained as fixed throughoutEgyptian history as have the more immutable
frontiersrepresentedby the deserts and the sea.
For convenience throughoutthis articleI shall refer to the dwellers beyond
the First Cataractof the Nile-the southernneighbors of the Egyptians-as
Nubians, though this is a term whose use goes back only to the beginning of
the Middle Ages. To classical writers, the Nubians were known as Aethiopians (burnt faces);6 the ancient Egyptians recognized them by still other
names, perhapsmost commonly as the inhabitantsof miserableKush.7Never
at any time before the twentieth century were they referredto as Egyptians,
despite theirfrequentimitationsof Egyptiancultureandtheirlong subjugation
to Egyptian political rule. They continue to speak today, as they probably
have throughouthistory, an indigenous African language unrelatedeither to
Arabic (the modem language of their neighbors) or to ancient Egyptian.8
They remain also racially distinct from the Egyptians, exhibiting a stable
blend of Caucasian and Negroid strains which apparentlygoes back to the
beginning of history.9 This hybrid characterresults in the Nubians usually
6 The termAethiopian, occurringin a classical text, may referto any black African. However,
since the only Africans of whom the Greeks and Romans had any detailed knowledge were the
dwellers to the south of Egypt, it follows thatAethiopiancan usually be readas Nubian. The term
very seldom has reference to the region known today as Ethiopia (formerlyAbyssinia), which
was largley beyond the ken of the classical world.
7 The name Kush did not, however, come into general use until the period of the New
Kingdom. In earlier times there was no single generic name for the southernlands; they were
called by a variety of local names.
8 In Joseph Greenberg's classification, the Nubian languages belong to the EasternSudanic
branchof the Nilo-Saharanfamily. The are closely relatedto certainremnantlanguagesfound in
the western Sudan, and more distantlyto Shilluk, Dinka, Nuer, and other languagesof the Nile
headwaters. See Joseph Greenberg,Languages of Africa (The Hauge, 1960), 86-129.
9 Earliertheories of Nubianhistory laid great stress on periodic "racial migrations";alternate
infusions of Caucasoid and of Negro blood were supposed to account for periods of cultural
creativityor of stagnation.For discussion of these racisttheoriesand of the supposedevidence on
which they were based, see my "Continuity and Change in Nubian CulturalHistory," Sudan
Notes and Records, 48 (1967), 15-18; and "Invasion, Diffusion, Evolution?"Antiquity,42:167
40
WILLIAM
Y.
ADAMS
being designated as "black" by the Egyptians and other freign viewers,
whereas the Nubians tend to identify themselves with the northernersin
contrastto the much blacker, and largely uncivilized, peoples who dwell still
fartherup the Nile.
THE PRODUCE OF NUBIA
Althoughthe Egyptiansnever showed much desire to live in Nubia, they very
early developed an interest in some of its exportableresources. The commodities which they especially coveted were the "unholy trio" of gold,
ivory, and slaves-the same productsfor which Africa was to be coveted and
exploited by foreign powers for millennia to come. Gold, however, was not
the only desirable mineral to be found in Nubia, nor was ivory the only
productof the tropical forests and savannas;these two commodities merely
stood at the head of a long list of mineral, animal, and vegetableproductsfor
which the Egyptianscame to rely on the southerncountries.For this reason it
seems appropriateto categorize the objects of Egypt's commercialinterestin
Nubia underthe three broadheadings of mineralresources, animaland forest
resources, and human resources, ratherthan underthe narrowerheadings of
gold, ivory, and slaves.
It has generally been true in history that the three types of resourcesjust
named have called forth rather different systems of exploitation. Animal
products have been obtained most often throughpeaceful trade with native
suppliers, humanproducts(slaves) throughwarfareand capture,and mineral
products through outright colonization and the establishmentof extractive
industries. Such was the case in Nubia in ancient times. All three types of
exploitative enterprisewere begun by the Egyptiansvery early in their history, and all three persisted well down into the New Kindgom. However, the
demandfor the variouskinds of Nubiancommoditiesfluctuatedthroughtime,
and that fluctuation helped to determine the changing course of Egyptian
policy towardNubia, as similarfluctuationsof demanddeterminedthe course
of Europeancolonial expansion four millennia later.
THE OLD
KINGDOM:
AGE
OF EXPLORATION
As is usual in history, the economic relationsbetween Egypt and Nubia seem
to have precededthe political ones. Even in predynastictimes (beforeunification of the Egyptian state) there was a regular commerce between the two
countries, which is attestedby Egyptian-madegoods found in Nubiangraves.
The volume of such goods shows a substantial increase during the early
dynastic period, then drops off abruptlyat about the time when the pharaoh
was achieving a maximum consolidation of his power.
(1968), 205-6. The clearest empiricaldemonstrationof genetic continuityin Nubia from ancient
to modem times is to be found in RamkrishnaMukherjee, C. RadhakrishnaRao, and J. C.
Trevor, The Ancient Inhabitantsof Jebel Moya (Sudan) (Cambridge, 1955), 73-92.
FIRST
COLONIAL
EMPIRE:
EGYPT
IN
NUBIA
41
The most conspicuous articles of Egyptian manufactureto be found in
Nubia are things like copper chisels, alabastervases, and ivory ornamentsproductsof the superiortechnology of the northerncountry. The volume of
such goods is, however, considerably exceeded by the quantity of simple
wheel-made potteryjars, which must have come to Nubia originally as shipping containers.10 Their contents have of course long since been lost or
consumed; that they were importedoriginally as containersand not for their
own sake can be inferred from the fact that the Nubians made perfectly
serviceable, and much more elaborately decorated, pottery of their own,
albeit not on the wheel. Fortunately,a biographicaltext of the Sixth Dynasty
makes mention of the Nubians' fondness for Egyptianhoney, oil, and ointments, as well as for woven garments;11presumablythese were the original
contents of the numerousEgyptian vessels which are found in early Nubian
graves.
It is a safe assumptionthat the Nubians did not receive Egyptian luxury
goods as a gift; some productor productsof the southernland must have been
exchanged for them. These productshave not survivedarchaeologically,nor
are they mentionedin hieroglyphictexts before the Sixth Dynasty. However,
the diffuse nature of the trade itself virtually rules out the possibility that
slaves or minerals were the earliest exports of Nubia. As we saw earlier, the
Egyptiansusually obtainedthese commoditiesby directseizure, for which the
Nubiansreceoved nothingin exchange. We are left, therefore,to inferthatthe
Nubiangoods which were involved in the widespreadand peaceful tradewith
predynasticand early dynasticEgypt were those same productsof the tropical
forests and savannas-ivory, ebony, skins, and incense-which were laterto
figure prominentlyin Egyptian commercialrelations.
There is much to suggest that the earliest tradebetween Egypt and Nubia
was a privateand largely unorganizedaffair. It seems to have reachedits peak
at a time (in the First and/or Second Dynasty) before the pharaohs had
successfully monopolized political and economic power in their own hands,
and there is no mentionof commercialenterprisein the biographicalannalsof
the earliestEgyptianrulers. The very wide and surprisinglyequitabledistribution of Egyptiangoods in Nubiangraves suggests, too, a decentralizedsystem
of exchange: perhaps the sort of local market-to-markettrade which has
flourished along the Nile down to modem times.12 That distributionwas in
the hands of Egyptian ratherthan Nubian entrepreneurscan be inferredfrom
10 For discussion of Egyptian goods in
early Nubian graves, see Bruce G. Trigger, History
and Settlement in Lower Nubia, Yale University Publications in Anthropology, no. 69 (New
Haven, 1965), 70-73; and W. B. Emery, Egypt in Nubia (London, 1965; publishedin the United
States as Lost Land Emerging (New York, 1965)), 125.
11 Cf. Trigger, History and Settlement, 71.
12 See G. A. Reisner, "Ancient Egyptian Forts at Semna and Uronarti," Bulletin of the
Museum of Fine Arts (Boston), 27:163 (1929), 66.
42
WILLIAM
Y.
ADAMS
the fact that the Egyptiansin the early dynasticperiod alreadypossessed sailpowered cargo vessels, while there is no evidence that the Nubians had
anything similar. It is noteworthy that, until the end of the Old Kingdom,
Egyptian commercial enterprise was confined to the northernmostpart of
Nubia, between the First and Second Cataracts-an area which is continuously navigable once the First Cataracthas been passed.
Some time before 3000 B.c., a certain King Djer, one of the shadowy
pharaohsof Egypt's First Dynasty, led an expedition into Nubia as far as the
Second Cataractof the Nile, where he left an inscriptionon a rock outcrop
beside the river. The text, which is semipictographicratherthan genuinely
hieroglyphic, seems to commemorate a military operation against the Nubians, and shows a bound captive tied to the prow of the king's boat.13 This
may be a recordof the first slave raid in Nubian history. There are other and
less ambiguous records of slave raids from the Second, Fourth, and Sixth
Dynasties.14
A significant change is observable in the characterof Egyptian-Nubian
commercial relations after the First or Second Dynasty. In both countries
there is a virtualdisappearanceof luxury goods from the graves of ordinary
folk.15 This phenomenonhas been associatedby historianswith the successful monopoly of wealth and power in the handsof the pharaohafterthe Third
Dynasty; from then onwardthe surpluswealth of Egypt, and perhapsalso of
Nubia, was skimmed off by the rulers to pay for their pyramidsand other
extravagances.16 It is significantthat when next we hear of the Nubiantrade,
late in the Sixth Dynasty, it is as a royal enterprise.
With the consolidationof pharaonicpower and the decline or eliminationof
privatecommerce, Egyptianinterestin Nubia seems to have shiftedfor a time
from its animal to its human and mineral resources. After the expedition of
King Djer there were no more militaryoperationsin the south underthe First
Dynasty, and there is only one rather ambiguous record of conflict in the
Second Dynasty;17 but it was not much later that Sneferu led his famous
expedition which claimed the captureof 7,000 men and 200,000 cattle.18 No
records of slave raids in the Fourthor Fifth Dynasties survive, but there are
several from the later Sixth Dynasty, by which time the Egyptianrulerswere
13 The Djer Inscription.For an illustration,see A. J. Arkell, A History of the Sudan, rev. ed.
(London, 1961), 39; for an interpretation,see Trigger, History and Settlement,73.
14 PalermoStone and Inscriptionsof Pepinakhtand Sebni. For the appropriatetranslationsand
discussion, see Torgny Save-Soderbergh,Agypten und Nubien (Lund, 1941), 7-10; Emery,
Egypt in Nubia, 127-32; and James Breasted,AncientRecords of Egypt (New York, 1962), vol.
I, paras. 355, 358-59, 363, 365-66.
15 For the Nubian evidence, see Emery, Egypt in Nubia, 127-30; Trigger, History and
Settlement, 78-79.
16 Cf. Wilson, Culture, 271; Trigger, History and Settlement,79.
17 Victory Stele of Khasekhemui. See Save-Soderbergh,Agypten und Nubien, 7-8; and
Emery, Egypt in Nubia, 127.
18 Palermo Stone. For discussion, see Save-Soderbergh,Agyptenund Nubien, 9-10.
FIRST
COLONIAL
EMPIRE:
EGYPT
IN
NUBIA
43
beginning to rely militarily on Nubian levies to bolster their weakening grip
on the northerncountry.19It was duringthe Sixth Dynasty that the governor
of the Aswan district was first awarded a special status as "Keeper of the
Door to the South,"20 presaging a long period in which controlof the southern frontierand its resourceswas to hold one of the keys to political power in
Egypt. This situation, which persistedfor over 1,500 years, providesa classic
example of Arnold Toynbee's "law of peripheraldomination.21
The absolute monarchyof the Old Kingdomwitnessed also the first permanent Egyptian encroachmentson Nubian territory.Prospectorsscoured both
the Nile Valley and the deserts east and west of it in search of mineralsand
stones suitable for royal statues and monuments;their discoveries led to the
opening of a diorite quarryin the desert west of Toshka, in Lower Nubia,22
and of a copper-smeltingoperationat Buhen, nearthe Second Cataract.At the
latter place the Egyptians maintained for several decades a sizable town,
though there is no evidence that they attemptedto exert any control over the
surroundingdistrictor its people. They seem to have been occupied chiefly in
smelting copper from ores which were broughtto the riverbankfrom some
now-unknownsource in the interior.23
Both the diorite quarriesand the town at Buhen date principallyor entirely
from the Fourthand Fifth Dynasties.24Underthe Sixth Dynasty the power of
the pharaohwas weakening, and perhapsthe royal treasurywas no longerable
to sustain the expense of foreign mineralenterprises.Near the end of the Old
Kingdom, however, there was a renewal of the trade in animal and forest
products, althoughin a distinctly new form. The official Harkhuf,who lived
in Aswan, was sent by the pharaoh on at least four trading and exploring
expeditions into the southernlands. Few of the places which he claimed to
have visited can be definitely identified today, but it seems clear that his
journeys carriedhim well beyond the limits of previous exploration.On two
occasions he set forth across the desert than up the Nile, which suggests that
his destinationlay somewherebeyond Lower Nubia. It was from one of these
overlandjourneys that he returnedwith 300 asses laden with variouskinds of
tropical products, and also with a "dancing pygmy."25
The royally financed expeditions of Harkhuf mark a new departurein
Egyptiancolonial expansion. Althoughthe objectives were peaceful and commercial, it is also evident that Harkhufdealt directly with local Nubianchiefs
19 See E. A. Wallis Budge, The Egyptian Sudan (London, 1907), I, 516.
Cf. HermannKees, Ancient Egypt (Chicago, 1961), 311-12.
Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History (New York, 1962), V, 267-69.
For description, see Kees, Ancient Egypt, 313-14.
For descriptionof the site, see Emery, Egypt in Nubia, 111-14.
24 Ibid., 114, 129.
25
Inscriptions of Harkhuf. For detailed accounts of his expeditions, see Budge, Egyptian
Sudan, I, 519-23; Save-Soderbergh,Agyptenund Nubien, 16-30; and Emery, Egypt in Nubia,
130-31.
20
21
22
23
44
WILLIAM
Y.
ADAMS
and not, like earlierEgyptianentrepreneurs,with the masses of theirsubjects.
The centralizationof commercialenterpriseon the Egyptianside thus probably encouraged a like centralizationon the Nubian side-a development
which set the tone and character of Egyptian-Nubianrelations under the
Middle Kingdom.
In summary,the Old Kingdom may be describedas a time of intermittent
and largely uncoordinatedEgyptianactivity in Nubia, muchof it of an exploratory nature. Various kinds of exploitative activity were undertakenas circumstances allowed. There was an increasingpatternof state involvement,
but there was as yet no fully articulatedpolitical, economic, or militarypolicy
towardthe southerncountries. This period may be comparedwith what J. H.
Parryhas so ably described as the age of reconnaissance,26when European
entrepreneurs,public and private, spread over half the globe, but before
colonialism had crystallizedas a dominantpolitical and economic concern of
the maritime powers. In Parry's words, "precious commodities-indeed,
most marketablecommodities-might be secured not only by trade, but by
more direct methods;by plunder, if they should be found in the possession of
people whose religion, or lack of religion, could be made an excuse for
attackingthem;or by directexploitation,if sourcesof supplywere discovered
in lands either uninhabited,or inhabitedonly by ignorantsavages."27
THE MIDDLE
KINGDOM:
ARMED
TRADE
MONOPOLY
The collapse of Egyptiancentralauthorityafter the Sixth Dynasty put an end
to any furthercolonial enterprisefor abouttwo centuries.Thereare almost no
records of any sort-either textual or archaeological-from the First Intermediate Period (Dynasties VII-X), but it can reasonablybe inferredthat the
weak and divided Egyptiandynasties were in no position to undertakeeither
slaving operationsor mineral enterprisesabroad.
The restorationof unified control in Egypt underthe EleventhDynasty (ca.
2000 B.C.) was followed very shortlyby a re-emergenceof Egyptiancolonial
ambitionsin the south, in a radicallynew and more overt form. After a series
of massive military incursions-obviously a renewal of the earlier slave
raids-the pharaohslaid formal claim to the territorybetween the First and
Second Cataracts,and they proceededto fortify the region aroundthe Second
Cataractwith a chain of the mightiest fortificationsever seen in the ancient
world.
The Second CataractForts were, before their destructionby the Aswan
Reservoir, by far the most impressive surviving monumentsof Egypt's Middle Kingdom. There were at least ten of them, situated at intervals over a
distance of forty miles through the heart of the rugged batn el hajjar-the
26 J. H.
Parry, The Age of Reconnaissance (New York, 1963).
27 Ibid., 35.
FIRST
COLONIAL
EMPIRE:
EGYPT
IN
NUBIA
45
m
+
<c
.Z
1st
Cataract
W AWAT
(LOWER
NUBIA:
IC
C6
3rd Cataract
Cataract
0
I
.
100
. .....................
.. I
Miles
o Tow ns
.
200
............
.
* Fortresses
FIGURE 1. Egypt and Nubia in the Middle Kingdom (c. 1900 B.c.)
46
WILLIAM
Y.
ADAMS
barren district immediately upstream from the Second Cataract.The similaritiesof design exhibitedby the ten forts suggest thatthey were all designed
by a single architectand were built at nearly the same time; duringmost of
their history they were also under a unified command, with headquartersat
the Buhen fortress, the northernmostof the group.28
The Second CataractForts have traditionallybeen regardedas a sort of
Maginot Line, the bulwarksof Egypt's newly advancedsouthernfrontier.29
Such an interpretationis supportedby the rathertruculentnames which some
of them bore: "Wardingoff the Bowmen," "Repelling the Inu," "Curbing
the Countries," "Subduing the Oasis-dwellers," "Repelling the Medjay,"
and so on.30 Yet from other points of view it is difficult to envision the
fortresses as frontierdefenses in any conventional sense. In the first place,
there is no evidence that the Egyptiansmade any effort whatever(aside from
the revival of dioritequarrying)to exploit the recentlyannexedterritorywhich
the forts defended;virtuallythe only Egyptianswho lived in Nubia duringthe
Middle Kingdom were those who garrisonedthe forts themselves. So little
impact did the Egyptian presence have on the native populace that it is
impossible to be sure which Nubian graves and villages belong to the Middle
Kingdom and which to the First IntermediatePeriod (before the fortresses
were built) or the Second IntermediatePeriod (afterthey were abandoned.)31
Fromwhat we know from their archaeologicalremains,it is also difficultto
imagine how the native Nubians of the Middle Kingdom could have posed a
threat to Egyptian security sufficient to necessitate the building of an outer
line of defense deep in their territory.They were still essentially a Neolithic
people, living in small and widely scatteredvillages. apparentlywith a segmentary lineage organization. Centralized political authoritywas probably
beginning to emerge at Kerma, 150 miles beyond the farthestEgyptianoutpost (see below), but there was almost certainly nothing of the sort farther
north, nor do the contents of the graves proclaim the northernNubians as a
warlikepeople. Even if we accordthem some warlikeprowess, however, the
Second CataractForts make no sense as territorialdefenses against them.
Clustered as they were along the riverbank,the forts would have been an
effective deterrentonly against a maritime force. They would easily have
been outflanked by an army moving overland-as any native Nubian force
would have moved.
28 The definitive publicationson the Second CataractFortsare two volumes by Dows Dunham
entitled Second Cataract Forts (Boston, 1960 and 1967), and the much older volumes by D.
Randall-MacIverand C. L. Woolley entitled Buhen, University of Pennsylvania,EgyptianDepartmentof the UniversityMuseum, Eckley B. Coxe JuniorExpeditionto Nubia, vols. VII, VIII
(Philadelphia, 1911). An excellent popular descriptionof the forts is that of Emery, Egypt in
Nubia, 143-53.
29 Emery, Egypt in Nubia, 143; Arkell, History, 59.
30 Emery, Egypt in Nubia, 144-46.
31 See especially Trigger, History and Settlement, 85.
FIRST
COLONIAL
EMPIRE:
EGYPT
IN
NUBIA
47
Apartfrom their architecturalpeculiarities,the Second CataractFortshave
two characteristicsin common. All but one of them are situatedon the west
bank of the Nile (the route nearly always followed by overlandcaravans)32or
on islands facing the west bank, and all but one of them are situatedoverlooking the most dangerous rapids which make up the Second Cataract.From
these circumstancesit is possible to infer thatthe forts were intimatelyassociated with the river and its traffic; they were meant primarilyto protect and
assist, and apparentlyalso to control, riveraincommerce. They were situated
at the places where boats had to be laboriously towed through the most
difficult rapids, and where cargoes sometimes had to be offloaded and transshipped. Empiricalconfirmationfor this theory of the forts' primarypurpose
has been providedby the finding, immediatelybelow the fortressof Mirgissa,
of a mud-lined slipway extending for a mile and a half across the desert,
bypassingthe largestof all the Second Cataractrapids.Bare footprintsand the
marks of boat keels were clearly discernible along this track.33
Only the northernmostfortressof Buhen, just below the Second Cataract,
was not closely associated with a rapid. It was probably the final entrepot
where goods were transshippedfrom the small vessels requiredto pass the
cataractsto larger vessels plying the open water of Lower Nubia. Such an
interpretationis suggested by the massive stone quays at Buhen, a featurenot
found at any of the other Second CataractForts.
If any substantialvolume of riveraintraffic was to pass the Second Cataract, it would requirethe permanentmaintenanceof laborforces sufficientfor
the work of towing and portaging. The fortressespresumablyprovidedhousing for such forces. In addition, they gave protectionto the riveraintraffic at
the points where it was most vulnerableto attackfrom the shore, and where a
militarydeterrentwas most needed. In sum, the Second CataractFortsshould
probablybe regardedas the Adens and Gibraltarsof the Nile trade,ratherthan
as territorialdefenses of Egypt.
For reasons alreadycited, it seems unlikely thatthe valley-dwellingNubian
peasants of Middle Kingdom times posed enough of a threat to Egyptian
commerce to justify the Nubian forts. Nomadic peoples, on the other hand,
have traditionallypreyed upon and disruptedcommerce, and in ancientEgyptian times there were alreadypastoralnomads-the Medjay-in the Red Sea
Hills east of the Nile. In hieroglyphic texts they are often named as the
perpetratorsof raids upon Egypt. It is significantthat it is the Medjayand the
Oasis-dwellers-presumably also desert nomads-rather than the Wawatand
Kush who are named as enemies in the defianttitles bestowed on some of the
Second CataractForts.
32 This was
apparentlydue to the much deeper accumulationof wind-blownsand on the west
bank-a peculiarityof Nubian geography-which made easier going for beasts of burden.
33 See Jean Vercoutter, "Excavations at Mirgissa-II," Kush, 13 (1965), 68-69; and idem,
Mirgissa I (Paris, 1970), 204-14.
48
WILLIAM
Y.
ADAMS
It seems evident that the Middle Kingdom pharaohs meant not only to
protectand assist the Nile commerce, but to control it as well. This is clearly
indicatedin the "boundarystele" which the PharaohSenusretIII causedto be
set up at Semna, the southernmostof the Egyptian outposts, around 1880
B.C.:
Southernboundary,madein theyear8 underthemajestyof theKingof Upperand
LowerEgypt,Khakaure
SenusretIII who is given life foreverandever;in orderto
preventthatanyNegroshouldcrossit, by waterorby land,witha ship,oranyherdsof
theNegroes;excepta Negrowhoshallcometo do tradingin Iken[Mirgissa],orwitha
commission.Everygood thingshallbe done with them[theNegroes],but without
forever.34
allowinga shipof the Negroesto passby [Semna],goingdownstream,
The message here is perfectly clear. There is no rattlingof the sword; the
pharaoh'sconcern is purely economic. The Nubians shall be justly treated,
but the Nile is closed in perpetuityto all commerce in foreign ships, except
that which is destined for transshipmentimmediately downstream at the
Egyptian port of Iken (Mirgissa). Here, it seems, is history's first recorded
decree of commercial monopoly.
If we have correctly identified the role of the Second CataractForts, then
several importantcorollariesfollow. First, theremust alreadyhave existed by
the Twelfth Dynasty a very substantialvolume of trade on the Nile, which
Egypt was at pains to protectand control. Second, the desertpeoples, afterthe
immemorialhabitof nomads, had takento preyingon the rivertrade-another
indication of its probablevolume and wealth. Third, the Egyptian "boundary" at Semna, and the effort to enforce a monopoly of tradeonly below that
point, indicatethatthe upstreamorigins of the Nile tradewere not in Egyptian
hands. Finally, the absence of Egyptian forts at the cataractsabove Semna
(admittedlynot as dangerousas those fartherdownstream)suggests that the
Nile beyond this point may have been effectively controlled by another
power. If so, this was a genuinely internationaltrade.
What was the natureand source of this flourishingcommerce, which played so large a part in shaping Egypt's foreign policy duringthe Middle Kingdom? We noted that, as far back as the Sixth Dynasty, the interest of the
pharaohshad alreadyturnedfrom the relatively unproductiveregion immediately above the First Cataractto greener pastures fartherto the south. The
majorexpeditions of Harkhufhardlypaused in Lower Nubia on their way to
more distantregions in the interior,the precise location of which will probably never by known. In the Middle Kingdom, however, we have somewhat
clearer evidence of the source of Egypt's foreign commerce. It comes from
the archaeologicalsite of Kerma, close to the ThirdCataractof the Nile and
about 150 miles upstreamfrom the southernmostEgyptianoutpostat Semna.
The most conspicuousarchaeologicalfeatureat Kermais a vast necropolis,
34 First Semna Stele of Senusret III. Translationquoted from Emery, Egypt in Nubia, 157.
FIRST
COLONIAL
EMPIRE:
EGYPT
IN NUBIA
49
containing at a minimumestimate several thousandgraves; the exact number
has never been calculated. Only a small fractionof them has been systematically excavated. Both the graves and their contents are generally similar to
those of Lower Nubia in the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate
Period, though there are consistent minor differences. Among these are the
regularpresence at Kerma of a fine polished black-and-redpottery, the frequent intermentof a native wooden bed as a couch for the deceased, and the
occasional inclusion of human as well as animal sacrifices in the graves.
These differences have led to the designationof the Kermaremainsas representing a separateculture (the Kerma Culture)from that of Lower Nubia in
the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period (somewhat inappropriatelyknown as the C-GroupCulture). At Kerma, as in Lower Nubia,
the graves are abundantlyfurnished with Egyptian-madegoods, and these
provide the principalclues to their age. On the basis of such evidence it can
reasonablybe inferredthat the Kerma Culturereached its climax late in the
Second IntermediatePeriod (XVII Dynasty), but enough earliermaterialhas
been found to suggest that a separateKermaCulturemay have evolved as far
back as the Twelfth Dynasty, if not at the end of the Old Kingdom.35
Recent archaeological surveys have shown that the Kerma remains are
typical of a fairly large area, extending northwardalong the Nile to a point
only thirty or forty miles above the Egyptian "frontier" at Semna. Beyond
this point they give way to the slightly differentC-Groupremainscharacteristic of Lower Nubia. Most of the known relics of the Kerma Culture are
mortuaryremains;the only habitationsite yet identified is at Kermaitself.36
Apart from minor cultural differences, the main characteristicwhich sets
Kermaapartfrom contemporarysites in the northis the presenceof a series of
enormous earth tumuli, whose size suggests that they contain Nubia's first
royal burials. While the external form of the tumulus is a simple dome of
earth, often covered with white pebbles, the largest of them are so vast that
they had to be stabilizedand reinforcedby an internalskeletonof brickwalls.
The largest single tumulus at Kermahad a diameterof 90 meters (about 300
feet), and the extent of the burial chamberswithin is greaterthan that in any
Egyptian pyramid.37 The number of sacrificial human burials within this
tomb-322 by actual count, and perhapsas many as 400 before it was plundered by robbers-exceeds that of any other known tomb in the world.38The
mortuaryevidence leaves no doubt at all thatthe Kermapeople had achieveda
35 The definitive archaeological report on Kerma is G. A. Reisner, Excavations at Kerma,
Vols. V and VI of HarvardAfrican Studies (Cambridge, 1923). For brief discussions, see also
Save-Soderbergh,Agypten und Nubien, 103-16, and Trigger, History and Settlement, 101-4.
36 See Charles Bonnet, "Fouilles archeologiquesa Kerma (Soudan)," Genava, 26 (1978),
107-34, and 28 (1980), 31-72.
37 Cf. Reisner, Excavations at Kerma, Vol. V, 65.
38 Ibid., 69.
50
WILLIAM
Y.
ADAMS
highly centralizedpolitical authorityat a time when the Lower Nubianswere
still organizedin an uncentralizedlineage system. The UpperNubianpeople,
ratherthan the immediateneighborsof Egypt, were thus in all probabilitythe
first Africans to emulate the example of the pharaohs.
The tombs at Kerma, unlike those in Egypt, proclaim a chiefdom rather
than a state, that is, a society in which authorityhas been formally consolidated only in the hands of the ruler, and in which there is as yet no hierarchical differentiationof power and wealth. The royal tombs, althoughconcentrated in a single zone in the Kerma necropolis, occur side by side with
common burials, and they are quantitativelyratherthan qualitativelydistinct
from their neighbors. Variations in size and wealth fall on an unbroken
continuumfrom the humblestcommon grave to the largestroyal tomb, so that
there is no certainway of knowing which are royal burialsand which are not.
However, at least thirty of the tombs excavated are sufficiently large and
elaborate that they might possibly fall into the royal category. Though the
largest (and apparentlylatest) of them almost certainlydate from late in the
Second IntermediatePeriod, the numberof potentiallyroyal graves is sufficient to suggest the possibility that the royal lineage had emergedin the time
of the Middle Kingdom, about two hundredyears before the building of the
largest tombs.39
Apart from the royal and common tombs, there are two striking archaeological features at Kerma. These are the buildings locally known as deffufas40-apparently the remainsof massive towers of solid mudbrick. One of
them is located within the royal cemetery, close to one of the largesttumuli,
and has been interpretedas a kind of hypertrophiedmortuarychapel.41The
larger of the two structures(the Western or Lower Deffufa), however, is
situated about two miles from the cemetery in the midst of a broad, denuded
clay plain. This building as originally constructedwas a solid rectangular
mass of brick, measuringabout75 by 150 feet at the base, andprobablystood
to a height far exceeding the 60 feet which are still preserved. Within this
incrediblemass of brickthereare no interiorapartments,only the remainsof a
narrow, winding stairway which presumablygave access to the top of the
structure.42
39 Reisner, the original excavator of Kerma, believed that the main period of its florescence
was in the Middle Kingdom, and that the smaller and poorer tombs representeda progressive
degenerationand impoverishmentin latertimes (ibid., 98-102, 116-21). However, otherEgyptologists soon challenged this interpretation,suggesting that the greatestof the royal tombs were
probablyin fact the latest, and that they date from some time in the SeventeenthDynasty. See
especially HermannJunker,Die Nubische Ursprungder sogenannten Tell el-YahudiyeVasen,
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-HistorischeKlasse Denkschriften, 63,
(Wien, 1921), and Save-Soderbergh,Agypten und Nubien, 111-13.
40 Deffufa is a Nubian word which designates any conspicuous standingruin.
41 Reisner, Excavations at Kerma, Vol. VI, 268-69.
42 For description, see ibid., Vol. V, 21-29.
FIRST
COLONIAL
EMPIRE:
EGYPT
IN NUBIA
51
Although the deffufas resemble the Second CataractForts only in their
massiveness, the details of construction, including the size of bricks employed and the regularuse of timberbonding, are identical in the two cases.
There is thereforea very strongprobabilitythat the deffufasare also the work
of Egyptian architects, particularlysince the native Nubians were making
little or no use of mud brick at this time. The function for which the great
towers were intended will probablynever be known; however, the largerof
them is adjoined at one side by an irregularcomplex of brick rooms, apparently also of Egyptianconstruction,whose contents leave no doubtas to their
intended function. Most conspicuous are fragmentsof 565 mud-seal impressions of Egyptiantype, which had been affixed to pots, baskets, and some sort
of wooden containers.There are also fragmentaryremainsof many objects of
Egyptian manufacture,such as alabasterointmentjars (twenty-five of them
bearingthe name of the Old Kingdom PharaohPepi I), otherand largerstone
vessels, faience and pottery vessels, beads and stone crystals for making
beads, and pieces of bronze. Except for the ointmentjars, these objects are
mostly of Middle Kingdom or later types.43 Also present in the refuse from
the Lower Deffufa are various kinds of raw materials, such as red ochre,
copper oxide, mica, and shells, used in the manufactureand decorationof
pottery, faience, and ornaments.
The Lower Duffufa, in short, was a factory, in the older sense of the word:
a depot where the goods of the south were assembled for shipmentto Egypt,
and where the manufacturesof the north were received (and to some extent
produced)in exchange. That this commerce was overseen by Egyptianscan
be inferredfrom the fact that faience and otherproductsof advancedtechnology were being manufactured,and from the finding of innumerableEgyptian
mud seals. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to suppose, as the
excavatororiginally did, that Kermawas underEgyptianpolitical or\military
control.44The great tombs in the royal cemetery are those of natives rather
than of Egyptians, and nowhere is there evidence of a large alien population.
Fitting together the various pieces of the Kerma archaeologicalpuzzle,
many pieces of which are still missing, three things become apparent:there
was a highly centralizednative chiefdom at Kerma;therewas an influentialif
not numerousEgyptianpresence, attestedboth by the contents of the factory
and by the architectureof the deffufas; and there was a flourishing trade
between Kerma and Egypt. The inference is strong indeed that these three
facts are interconnected.Seeking a reliable source for exotic southerngoods,
the Egyptianshad probablyenteredinto diplomaticand commercialrelations
with a petty Nubian chieftain. The contact was mutuallybeneficial, resulting
43 Ibid., 32.
44 Reisner's identificationof the largesttomb at Kermaas thatof an Egyptianprince(basedon
the finding in the tomb of a single piece of statuary)led him to conclude thatthis was the viceroy
of Kush and that Kermawas the viceregal seat; see ibid., Vol. V, 116-21, and Vol. VI, 554-59.
52
WILLIAM
Y.
ADAMS
in the development and institutionalizationof a prosperoustwo-way trade.
Under Egyptian patronage, the Nubian rulers became increasingly wealthy
and powerful, until in time they were able to emulate the model of the
pharaohsand to command a corps of Egyptianartisansfor the productionof
luxury goods and the design of royal monuments.
Here, in all probability, is the missing piece in our picture of EgyptianNubian relations in the Middle Kingdom:the source of that rich tradewhich
the Egyptianswere at such pains to protectand, below Semna, to monopolize.
The factory at Kermaand the Second CataractForts can thus be seen as parts
of a common politicoeconomic enterprise:a depot at the source of the trade
and way-stations for its protection and assistance. It must nevertheless be
acknowledgedthat this interpretationrests, at least for the present, more on
deductivethanon empiricalgrounds.Nowhere in Egyptianannalsis thereany
recognizable mention of Kerma at this period, nor can any of the important
remainsat Kermabe securely dated as far back as the Middle Kingdom. The
existence of a Kerma monarchy and of institutionalizedtrade between that
monarchy and Egypt in the Middle Kingdom remains merely a logical
probability.
Although armed trade with the south provided the dominant theme in
Egyptian-Nubianrelations in the Middle Kingdom, there were otherkinds of
colonial enterprise as well. Slave raids continued intermittentlyduring the
Twelfth Dynasty;as always, they werejustified in the royal annalsas punitive
expeditions against the rebellious Nubians.45In addition, the diorite quarries
west of Toshka were reopened for a time, and there is some evidence of
copper smelting at the fortress of Kuban, in Lower Nubia.46This structure,
built along the same generallines as the Second CataractForts, was situatedat
the mouthof the Wadi Allaqi, laterto be followed as the principalrouteto the
Nubian gold mines. The presence of the fortressmight suggest that the gold
mines were already in production in Middle Kingdom times, but there is
almost no directevidence to confirm this. Of the scores of inscriptionsleft by
prospectorsand mining inspectorsalong the Wadi Allaqi, none dates from the
Middle Kingdom,47nor is there any significant mention of Nubian gold in
Middle Kingdom texts. It seems probable, too, that had the gold of Nubia
been discovered at this time, the main focus of Egyptianinterestin the south
would have been on its extractionratherthan on tradewith Kerma, as was in
fact to be the case under the New Kingdom.
The Middle Kingdom may be epitomized as a time when Egyptianinterest
in Nubia became crystallizedin an official policy of expansionand of largely
45 Second Semna Stele of Senusret III; Stele of Sebek-khu; HammamatInscriptions. See
Breasted, Ancient Records, vol. I, paras. 423, 658, 687, 707.
46 See A. Lucas, AncientEgyptianMaterials and Industries,3d ed. (London, 1948), 240-41.
47 Cf. B. Piotrovsky, "The Early Dynastic Settlement of Khor-Daudand Wadi-Allaki the
Ancient Route to the Gold Mines," in Fouilles en Nubie (1961-1963) (Cairo, 1967), 135.
FIRST
COLONIAL
EMPIRE:
EGYPT
IN
NUBIA
53
indirect exploitation. The sporadic and uncoordinatedenterprisesof the Old
Kingdom were succeeded by the establishmentof regular commercial and
diplomatic relations with a native chiefdom, which was thereby enabled to
become a dominant force within Nubia itself. The collection of goods for
export to Egypt was left in native hands, but transportwas managed and,
below Semna, monopolized by the Egyptians. On the other hand, Egyptian
political control in Upper Nubia was only indirect;it was restrictedto whatever influence the pharaohand his commercialrepresentativescould exert on
the native rulers. This phase of Egyptian-Nubianrelations is comparableto
the period, between the sixteenth and nineteenthcenturies, when the European colonial powers were striving for control of the sea lanes and were
providingarmedprotectionfor their overseas trade, but were contentto leave
productionin the hands of native rulers with whom they dealt throughinnumerable factory-portsalong the coasts. The closest parallels to the Kerma
situationare to be found not in Africa, which after the sixteenth centurywas
chiefly a supplier of slaves, but in India, which like Nubia was a source of
various kinds of tropical exotica. Here, "alliances were made with indigenous powers, and minorstates acceptedPortuguesesuzerainty.But the principle laid down by Albuquerque, the first viceroy of the Indies, was always
adheredto. Portugalmust hold only key fortressesand tradingfactories. She
must rely on naval power to defend them. Territorialempire was beyond her
powers and would be unprofitable."48Albuquerquewas quoted to the effect
thatIndia Portuguesa could be securedby "four good fortressesand a large,
well-armed fleet."49
THE NEW KINGDOM: ANNEXATION
AND DIRECT RULE
During the ThirteenthDynasty the power of the pharaohrapidly weakened,
and Egypt was plunged once again into anarchy. The famous king-list of
Karnaknames no fewer than twenty-nine or thirtyrulers who held power in
different parts of the country during a period of less than a hundredyears,
some of whom apparentlyreigned for only a few days.50 It was undoubtedly
these chaotic conditions which tempted the Asiatic Hyksos to move into the
Delta region, where they set up an ephemeralpharaonicstateof theirown (the
Fifteenth and Sixteenth Dynasties). Meanwhile, a native Egyptian dynasty
(the Seventeenth) was able to restore a measureof order and unity to Upper
Egypt, but for a centuryand a half its rulerswere obliged to coexist with, and
at times to pay tributeto, the Hyksos in the north.
There seems to be little doubt that the internaldissentions of the Second
IntermediatePeriod broughta temporaryend to the Egyptiancolonial enter48 D. K. Fieldhouse, The Colonial Empires (New York, 1967), 139.
49 C. R. Boxer, The Portuguese Seaborne Empire, 1415-1825 (New York, 1969), 52.
50 See Alan Gardiner,Egypt of the Pharaohs (New York, 1966), 148; and J. A. Breasted,A
History of Egypt, 2d ed. (New York, 1909), 213.
54
WILLIAM
Y.
ADAMS
prise in the south, althoughthe circumstancesof the Egyptianwithdrawalare
somewhat obscure. One popular version of Nubian history asserts that the
Second CataractForts were stormedand overthrownby nativeattackers,51but
the evidence for this is not very convincing. The vandalismwhich is evident
at Semna and Buhen was probablycommittedas an act of desecrationafterthe
withdrawalof the garrisons, ratherthan in the course of active operations
against them. There is, too, a suggestion that an Egyptiangarrisonremained
at Mirgissa, cut off from foreign support,until in time its membersintermarried with the natives and disappearedinto the Nubianpopulation.52There are
at all events no furthertextualreferencesto the Second CataractFortsafterthe
early ThirteenthDynasty, and it seems evident that they were either voluntarily or involuntarilyrelinquishedto the natives. By the time of the Egyptian
reconquesttwo centurieslater, some of them were sufficientlydilapidatedthat
they requiredextensive rebuilding.
Freed from the militarymenace of the Egyptianpresencein Lower Nubia,
but apparentlystill maintainingactive commercialrelationswith the northern
country, the Kermarulers seem to have reachedthe peak of their power and
prosperityduringthe Second IntermediatePeriod. Thereis even evidence that
they attemptedon a small scale to take the place vacatedby the Egyptiansas
overseers of the Nile trade. Small numbersof Kermagraves from the time of
the SeventeenthDynasty have been found both at Mirgissa53and at Buhen,54
and there is a text in which an Egyptiancommandantat Buhen claims to have
served a Nubian ruler.55 This development too had a parallel in the later
colonial historyof Africa. In the late seventeenthcentury,when the European
powers were temporarilyweakened by wars at home and on the high seas,
Africanrulersincreasinglydictatedthe termsof overseas trade. "The rightto
tradewas the prerogativeof the Africanrulers, and was commonly grantedto
any Europeanwho was preparedto acknowledge African sovereigntyand to
pay the requireddues and taxes."56
In the seventeenth century B.C. there were, in effect, three coordinate
monarchies on the Nile: the Hyksos "pharaoh" in the north, the Egyptian
pharaohat Thebes, and the Nubianrulerat Kerma.This "unnatural"state of
affairswas deeply resentedby Kamose, the last Thebankinglet of the Seventeenth Dynasty: "I sit united with an Asiatic and a Nubian, each man in
possession of his slice of this Egypt," he complainedto his advisors.57The
resentmentof Kamose soon found expression in a militarycampaignagainst
51 See especially Emery, Egypt in Nubia, 167.
52 See Vercoutter, "Excavations at
Mirgissa," 72.
53 Vercoutter,Mirgissa 1, 223-306.
54 Randall-MacIverand Woolley, Buhen, VII, 134-35.
55 Stele of Sepedher. See Emery, Egypt in Nubia, 167.
56 J. D. Fage, A History of Africa (New York, 1979), 251.
57 Stele of Kamose. Translationquoted from Gardiner,Egypt, 166.
FIRST
COLONIAL
EMPIRE:
EGYPT
IN
NUBIA
55
the Hyksos, culminatinga generationlater in theirfinal expulsion from Egypt
and in the Egyptianconquestof considerableterritoriesin Palestineand Syria.
Thus was launched Egypt's great imperial age-the New Kingdom-comprising the Eighteenthand NineteenthDynasties. It was an age marked,too,
by a new phase of Egyptian expansion in the south. As had been the case in
the Middle Kingdom, the northernersseemed determinedto compensatefor
their temporaryabsence by renewing their colonial ambitionsin Nubia on a
redoubled scale. Their initial motivations were almost certainly revenge
againstthe upstartNubians and desire to reaffirmEgyptiansupremacy,rather
than any specific thought of economic profit.58 The transformationof the
reconqueredterritoryinto a paying colony was a later consideration.
Ahmose, the first pharaohof the EighteenthDynasty, evidently contemplated nothing more than a restorationof the earlierstatusquo in the south;he
was content to reoccupy Lower Nubia and to renew the garrisons in the
Second CataractForts. The fact thatBuhen and Mirgissawere given extensive
face liftings, not so much to strengthentheir defenses as to restore their
pristineappearance,suggests that the pharaohsexpected these buildingsonce
again to serve as the primarysymbols of Egyptianmajesty in the south. The
successors of Ahmose, however, soon made this policy obsolete. In a series
of massive campaigns they pushed the Egyptian frontiersouthwardanother
350 miles, to a pointjust below the FourthCataractof the Nile. The extent of
Egyptian dominion in Nubia was thus doubled within a matter of half a
century. The final Egyptian triumphwas proclaimedby the PharaohThutmose II, who completed the reductionof Nubia begun by Ahmose:
Then this army of His Majesty arrived at wretched Kush. . . . This army of His
Majestyoverthrewthosebarbarians;
theydid not let live anyoneamongtheirmales,
accordingto all thecommandof HisMajesty,exceptoneof thosechildrenof theChief
of wretchedKush,who was takenawayaliveas a livingprisonerwiththeirpeopleto
His Majesty.Theywereplacedunderthe feet of theGoodGod;for His Majestyhad
uponthisthronewhenthe livingprisonerswerebroughtin, whichthisarmy
appeared
of His Majestyhad captured.This land was made a subjectof His Majestyas
formerly..
. 59
The Kermarulermay have been the "Chief of wretchedKush" mentioned
by Thutmose. At all events, the Nubian monarchyseems to have been swept
away without a trace in the first rush of Egyptian conquest. No more royal
tombs were built, the factory and cemetery at Kermawere abandoned,and in
hieroglyphictexts we hear no more of a Nubian monarchy.HenceforthNubia
was under direct Egyptian rule.
The Egyptian occupation of Nubia in the New Kingdom was, for the first
time, colonization in the true sense of the word. The course of Egyptian
expansion beyond the earlier frontierat Semna is markednot by additional
58 Cf. Kemp, "Imperialism and Empire," 21-23.
59 Biography of Ineni. Quoted from Emery, Egypt in Nubia, 182.
56
WILLIAM
Y.
ADAMS
fortresses but by planned townsites complete with residences, magazines,
workshops, and, perhapsmost significant, temples. At least six such towns
were establishedwithin the newly annexed territorybetween Semna and The
FourthCataract.Some of their occupants may have been soldiers, but there
was a much largernumberwho were evidently civil officials, priests, artisans,
and ordinarysettlers.60 Theirpresenceis attestednot only by the townsitesbut
by hundredsof ordinaryEgyptiantombs from the New Kingdomwhich are to
be found in every partof Nubia-the first evidence of a generalmigrationof
Egyptian settlers into the southernlands.
Most of the new Egyptian towns in Nubia were walled, as were many
settlements in Egypt itself, but their fortificationsnowhere approachedthe
massive hypertrophywhich characterizedthe Middle Kingdom fortresses.
Their purpose was purely defensive, not symbolic. The temple, not the fortress, symbolized Egyptian authorityduring most of the New Kingdom.
With the southwardexpansion of Egyptian colonial domination, the old
frontierforts lost most of their strategicsignificance. Only those like Buhen
and Aniba, which remained importantas regional administrativecenters,
continued to be occupied on a large scale, and even in these places the
growing residentialand commercialtowns soon outgrewthe originalfortified
enclosures and spilled over into the unprotectedareas beyond their walls, as
towns and cities in Europe did at the end of the Middle Ages. The Second
CataractForts above Buhen-once the supremeexpression of Egypt's manifest destiny-remained importantonly for the continuedassistance of river
trafficthroughthe cataracts,and they were garrisonedonly by modest forces.
The altered character of Egyptian colonialism in the New Kingdom is
signaled too by the substitutionof civil for militaryrule in Nubia. Ahmose,
who began the work of reconquest, had essentially reinstatedthe military
regime of Middle Kingdomtimes, overseen by the commandantof Buhen. In
the following reign, however, the commandant was given a new title,
"Kings's Son of Kush'';61he became the first of a line of twenty-fiveor more
viceroys who governed the southerncountriesin the name of the pharaoh.62
The principalresidence of the viceroys was apparentlyat Aswan, and their
jurisdiction included not only the whole of Nubia, but the southernmost
district of Egypt (the Elephantinenome) as well. The viceregal regime has
been describedby A. J. Arkell:
Theviceroywas responsibleforthe punctualpaymentof thetributeof Nubia(both
fromWawatandCush).He wasusuallychosenfromtheroyalentourage,to ensurehis
fidelity,andhe was directlyresponsibleto the king. He seemsto havebroughtthe
tributepersonallyandto havehandedit overwithceremonyto thevizieror treasurer.
60 Cf. Kemp, "Imperialismand Empire," 29-30.
61 Emery, Egypt in Nubia, 173.
62 For extended discussion of the viceroyalty of Kush, see G. A. Reisner, "The Viceroys of
Ethiopia," Journal of EgyptianArchaeology, 6:pt. 1 (1920), 28-55, and 6:pt. 2 (1920), 73-78.
FIRST
COLONIAL
EMPIRE:
EGYPT
IN
NUBIA
57
of the bowmenof Cush,andtwo
The staffof the viceroyincludeda commander
deputies, one for Wawat and the other for Cush, and . . . it is thoughtthatduringthe
NineteenthDynastythe Deputyof Cushresidedat Amara(in UpperNubia).Mostof
theViceroy'sofficialswereno doubtEgyptians,buttheyincludedsomeEgyptianized
Nubians.... No doubtloyalnativechiefswereleftin chargeof theirtribalareas,and
chiefsof Ma'am(modemAniba)andWawataredepictedleadingtheirpeopleto bring
tributeto Tutankhamen.
Suchchiefswereno doubtheldresponsibleforthetributeof
suchas somechiefsmadeearlyin the
theirpeople,althoughattemptsat independence
EighteenthDynastywerenaturallycrushedwithseverity.
Thechildrenof Nubianchiefsweretakento Egypt,originallyas hostages,butthey
were given both Egyptianeducationand rank;thus a chief of Ma'amin a rock
andpage of the king. Pageswere
inscriptionat Toshkacalls himselfsandal-bearer
childrenwho werebroughtup withthe youngprinces,andtheykeptthetitlein later
life. Thereis no doubtthat Egyptianpolicy towardsNubiaaimedat a peaceful
symbiosisof Egyptiansandnatives.63
Perhaps the most subtle indication of a changed Egyptian attitude and
policy toward Nubia is to be found in the substitutionof the temple for the
fortress as the principal symbol of Egyptian authority.It suggests that, with
the opening of culturalcommunicationbetween Egyptiansand Nubians, the
basis of Egyptian domination became increasingly mental rather than
physical.
There is no evidence that the fortresses of the Middle Kingdom were
anything but purely secular affairs; they did not include religious establishments. In the first wave of New Kingdom reconquest, they were restored
more or less to their original form. The turningpoint came with the reign of
Thutmose II, the pharaohwho completed the reconquestand pacificationof
Nubia. He was the last rulerto undertakemajorrepairsto the older fortresses,
and also the first, so far as we know, to build temples on Nubian soil. The
relatively modest structureswhich he commissioned were located within the
existing fortress walls at Buhen, Semna, Kumma, and perhaps elsewhere.
The successors of Thutmose, however, turned their attentionfrom the fortresses to the new townsites of Upper Nubia, where they undertooktemple
building on a far more ambitious scale than had Thutmose. Each of the six
majorsettlementsbetween Semna and the FourthCataractwas conspicuously
dominatedby a temple.
Of all the newly founded temple-cities in Nubia, the largest and most
politically importantwas that at Napata, at the extreme upperlimit of Egyptian colonization. Here, a short distance from the bank of the Nile, there
stands a flat-topped and steep-sided desert mesa, Jebel Barkal, which has
apparentlybeen sacred to the Nubians since very early times. For strategic
and psychological reasons, the Egyptianschose this place to establishthe seat
of their ideological influence in the south. In the shadow of Jebel Barkalthey
built an enormousTemple of Amon which was to be the southerncounterpart
63 Arkell, History, 98-100.
58
WILLIAM
ADAMS
Y.
{
r7
z
X
(LOWER
I
GOLD
FIELDS
4,
3rd Cataract
Kawo
\Napto
200
100
0
^Cotaract
5th Cataract
6th Cataract
Mi I es
o Towns
with
temples
Figure 2. Egypt and Nubia in the New Kingdom (c.1200 B.c.)
FIRST
COLONIAL
EMPIRE:
EGYPT
IN
NUBIA
59
of the great Temple of Amon at Karak (Thebes), the supreme monument to
the Egyptian state deity. At least three other temples were built in the immediate vicinity, but they were dwarfed by the main structure in the same way as
are the lesser temples at Karnak. The Egyptian policy of transplanting the
Amon cult to Jebel Barkal succeeded, in the end, far better than the conquerors could have foreseen. Napata and its temple were to remain the principal nucleus of political power in Nubia for more than a thousand years-long
after the Egyptians themselves had gone.
The main thrust of Egyptian expansion into Nubia had evidently spent itself
by the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty; under the early pharaohs of the Nineteenth Dynasty there was no further building of towns or temples. Egyptian
imperialism, however, was to achieve one final outburst of creative activity in
the reign of the megalomaniac Rameses II, who adorned Lower Nubia with no
fewer than ten temples dedicated to his personal glorification. The particular
innovation of Rameses was the rock-cut shrine, of which Abu Simbel is of
course the premier example. Although most of the largest and best-known
temples of Nubia are those of Rameses, he appears to have been strictly a
builder of monuments to himself and not a conqueror and colonizer as were
many of his predecessors. His temples were in fact built at a time when
Egyptian power and prosperity in Nubia were already on the wane.
The coming of full-scale Egyptian colonization was followed by the development in Nubia of the traditional Egyptian manorial economy.64 The economic picture has been described by Bruce Trigger:
During the New Kingdom the economic life of Lower Nubia was much more
complex than it had ever been before. It was also more closely integratedwith that of
Egypt. Althoughhuntingand pastoralismmust have remainedimportant,especially in
the poorer localities, a portionof the catch or herd was probablynow requiredby the
governmentor temple as tribute. At the same time the patternof landholdingwhich
had prevailed [in earliertimes] and was probablybased largely on communityownership was replacedby an Egyptianone. Most, if not all, farmersnow worked on lands
thatwere owned by the crown, the local princes, governmentadministrators,or by the
temples which were built throughoutthe region. The shift in the patterns of land
ownership seems to have been accompaniedby a shift away from pastoralismand in
the direction of more intensive agriculture.
The profits which the temples derivedfrom theirestates and the dues which some of
them were able to levy on goods passing on the river65were used to supportnot only
officials, priests, and their servants but also specialists such as traders,miners, shipbuilders, and craftsmen. By the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty some manufactured
goods begin to appearas partof the tributewhich was sent to Egypt. Among the tribute
shown in the tomb of Huy we find shields, stools, beds, and armchairs.66
64 Cf. Kemp, "Imperialismand Empire," 30-33.
65 Kees, Ancient Egypt, 208.
66 Nina Davies and A. H. Gardiner, The Tomb of Huy, Viceroy of Nubia in the Reign of
Tutankhamen(no. 40), Egypt Exploration Fund, Theban Tomb Series, Memoir 40 (London,
1926), 22.
60
WILLIAM
Y.
ADAMS
Slaves and prisonersof war were sent to Lower Nubia to providethe laborforce in
such large state projectsas the building of temples. Libyancaptives were employed at
Wadi Sebua in the forty-fourthyear of the reign of Rameses II.67The kings of Egypt
also made permanentdonations of slaves to temples. A decree from the early NineteenthDynasty recordsthatthe king suppliedthe workshopsof a temple in Buhenwith
male and female slaves68 which His Majesty had captured.69
Just as the concept of "darkest Africa" was the forerunnerof a policy of
educationand Westerization on the partof the Europeancolonial powers, so
the concept of "miserableKush''-frequently iteratedin early New Kingdom
texts70-was a prelude to the Egyptianizationof the Nubians. The earlier
Egyptianpolicy towardthe southernershad been one of physicalrepressionor
of subsidizingnative despots, in neithercase having much directinfluence on
the indigenouscultureof the south. When the ideological indoctrinationof the
temple cults was substitutedfor the physical repressionrepresentedby the
fortresses, however, the way was open for Nubian entry into the Egyptian
cultural and social scheme.71 The Nubians were thereby transformedfrom
Neolithic barbariansinto the "external proletariat"of Egypt72-a development which was to have political repercussionsfor millennia to come.
Although the majorityof EgyptianizedNubians became simple fellaheen,
the higher ranks of society were not entirely closed to them. By the late
EighteenthDynasty, Nubians apparentlyheld positions of sufficient authority
under the Egyptian colonial regime so that they could build for themselves
quite elaborateshaft tombs of conventional Egyptiantype.73 Nothing in the
form or content of these tombs suggests that the owners were anythingbut
Egyptians;their Nubian ancestryis revealed only incidentallyin the portraits
and texts with which some of the burial chambers are adorned. From this
evidence it appearsthat colonial Nubia in the EighteenthDynasty had progressed from an ethnically-stratifiedto a class-stratifiedsociety. The Egyptianized princes whose tombs we have recognizedprobablyfelt more kinship
with their Egyptian fellow aristocratsthan they did with the Nubian masses
from whom they were originally sprung.74
67 Gardiner,Egypt, 270.
68 Save-Soderbergh,Agypten und Nubien, 168.
69 Trigger, History and Settlement, 111-12.
70 Cf. Kees, Ancient Egypt, 316.
71 Cf. Kemp, "Imperialismand Empire," 35-39.
72 This useful concept of ArnoldToynbee's (see Studyof History, V, 194-318) seems particularly applicableto the Nubiansof postpharaonictimes. It should be noted, however, thatToynbee
himself never applied the term "external proletariat"to the Nubians. Throughignoranceof the
details of their history, he regarded them as part of Egypt's internal proletariat.See ibid.,
268-69.
73 See Davies and Gardiner,Tombof Huy; T. H. Thabit, "Tomb of Djehuty-Hetep(Tehuti
Hetep), Prince of Serra," Kush, 5 (1957), 81-86; Torgny Save-Soderbergh,"The Paintingsin
the Tomb of Djehuty-Hetep at Debeira," Kush, 8 (1960), 25-44; and idem, "The Tomb of
Prince Teh-Khet, Amenemhat," Kush, 11 (1963), 159-74.
74 Cf. Arkell, History, 100; Kemp, "Imperialismand Empire," 35-37.
FIRST
COLONIAL
EMPIRE:
EGYPT
IN
NUBIA
6I
Our discussion of Egyptian colonialism in the New Kingdom has been
concerned thus far with the annexationof the riveraindistrictsof Nubia and
the establishmentthereof a typically Egyptianmanorialeconomy. Therewas,
however, anothersort of Egyptiancolonial enterprisewhich had far-reaching
political implications, though it had little direct social or culturalimpact on
the Nubians. This was the developmentof gold productionin the desert hills
east of the Nile.
So long as Egypt's gold was devoted chiefly to luxury manufactures,its
productionwas not a matterof high nationalpriority, and domestic sources
were probablyadequate.But when, in the New Kingdom, gold was neededto
finance the interminableEgyptian military operationsin Asia, the development of new sources became a critical concern of the state. It must have been
these circumstancesthat impelled Egyptianprospectorsto range far and wide
over the eastern deserts, seemingly leaving no ridge or valley unexplored
between the Nile Valley and the Red Sea. From such explorationcame the
discovery and exploitationof the extensive gold deposits in both UpperNubia
and the desert to the east of it-the "gold of Kush" and the "gold of
Wawat." One group of mines was located close to the Nile, in the granite
zone between the Second and ThirdCataracts,but by far the most productive
of Egypt's new goldfields was found in the region of barrengranite hills
which lay from 100 to 150 miles east of the river.
How importantlygold may have figured in the Egyptiandrive to colonize
Nubia it is difficult to say. The initial reconquest by Ahmose, apparently
designed only to re-establishthe trade monopoly of Middle Kingdom times,
almost certainly predatedthe beginnings of large-scale gold production.On
the other hand, the southwardexpansion of the Thutmoses, which marksthe
real transitionfrom the Middle Kingdompolicy of trademonopolyto the New
Kingdom policy of annexation,probablycoincided with the main outburstof
gold prospecting and the beginning of production.The two majorthrustsof
Egypt's southwardexpansion-up the Nile and into the easterndesert-were
thereforeprobably to some extent related, althoughthe connection between
them is not immediatelyobvious. Exploitationof the desertmines, the gold of
Wawat, requiredthe controlonly of Lower Nubia, since the principalrouteto
the mines was by way of the Wadi Allaqi, which entersthe Nile only seventy
miles above Aswan.75 Exploitationof the gold of Kush, which came from the
riveraindistrict between the Second and Third Cataracts,obviously required
the controlof the Nile as far south as the ThirdCataract,while the annexation
of regions still farther upstream might conceivably have been justified in
termsof protectingthe southernapproachesto the goldfields. Still, the newly
foundedtowns and temple estates of UpperNubia had nothingto do with gold
production,and they must be regardedas a quite separateaspect-perhaps in
75 Cf. Jean Vercoutter, "The Gold of Kush," Kush, 7 (1959), 130.
62
WILLIAM
Y.
ADAMS
the beginning the most importantaspect-of Egyptiancolonialism underthe
New Kingdom.
Gold productionin Nubia seems to have reachedits peak not in the Eighteenth Dynasty-the great age of expansion-but in the Nineteenth and
TwentiethDynasties, when other Egyptiancolonial enterpriseswere suffering
a rapid decline. There is in fact a famous inscriptionof Rameses II which
suggests that the operationof the desert mines was uneconomical,because of
the high mortalityrate among men and beasts, until the pharaohhad a well
dug in the Wadi Allaqi to supply water for the hazardousoverlandtrek. The
pharaoh'senterpriseseems to have been successful, for most of the innumerable inscriptions left by prospectorsand caravaneersalong the Wadi Allaqi
date from a time subsequent to the digging of the well, and the largest
numbersof them are found in the immediatevicinity of the well itself.76 It
seems, therefore,that gold productionbecame the dominantconsiderationin
Egyptian colonial policy only in the latter part of the New Kingdom, when
other and more traditional types of colonial enterprise were declining in
importance.
The circumstanceswhich brought about the decline and ultimate dissolution of Egypt's Africanempireare very little understood.If numbersof graves
can be taken as an index of the numbersof the living, there seems to have
been a significant decline in the population of Nubia-both Egyptian and
native-from the middle of the EighteenthDynastyonward.Rameses II in the
NineteenthDynasty undertookthe largestbuildingprogramever attemptedin
Nubia, yet evidence of other activities at this time is extremelyscarce. C. M.
Firth, who directedthe first arechaeologicalsurvey of Nubia (1908-11), was
to write:
The greatgroupof buildingsassociatedwith the nameof RamesesII are very
difficultto reconcilewiththealmostcompleteabsenceof cemeteriesfromthisperiod.
Suchhugeshrinesas GerfHussein,WadiSebua,andAbuSimbel,couldnothavebeen
themhasleft,
builtby thelocalpopulation,orif theywere,thepeoplewhichproduced
so faras is known,no traceof its existence.It is difficultto avoidtheconclusionthat
Nubiahadbecomea sortof no man'slandruledby thegodsandpeopledby theghosts
of the dead.77
There are almost no known cemeteries in Nubia from the latterpartof the
NineteenthDynasty, and only a single tomb can be datedwith certaintyto the
Twentieth Dynasty, although hieroglyphic texts found in Egypt refer occasionally to activities in Nubia at this time. The line of King's Sons of Kush,
the viceroys of Nubia, continued unbrokenuntil the end of the Twentieth
Dynasty, but it is apparentthat the later viceroys resided at the pharaoh's
court, and that their principalresponsibilitywas to oversee gold production
76 Piotrovsky, "Early Dynastic Settlement," 136-40.
77 C. M. Firth, The Archaeological Survey of Nubia, Reportfor 1910-1911 (Cairo, 1927),
28.
FIRST
COLONIAL
EMPIRE:
EGYPT
IN
NUBIA
63
and to command the Nubian levies which were now the main supportof the
Egyptianthrone.78Althoughthe Egyptiansnever formallyvacatedtheirclaim
to Nubia, the complete absence both of archaeologicalremainsand of textual
references after the Twentieth Dynasty make it evident that their effective
controlof the south had ended by the eleventh centuryB.C. Thus ended, after
2,000 years, history's first, and most enduring, colonial empire.
The decline of Egyptian power in Nubia was undoubtedlylinked in some
measure to the decline of the pharaohsat home-the consequence of their
interminablewars to defend theirAsiatic possessions. Yet politicalconditions
offer only a partialexplanation, for Lower Nubia at the end of the Twentieth
Dynasty had been quittednot only by its Egyptianoverlordsbut by the native
populationas well. For the next 1,000 years, as nearly as we can judge from
the absence of archaeologicalremains, the region between the First and Second Cataractswas devoid of permanentinhabitants.It seems evident, therefore, that some sort of environmentalreverse must have contributedto the
decline of Egypt's colonial enterprisein the south. As Lower Nubia is an area
in which the Nile is flanked by exceptionally high banks, and as the only
irrigationdevice available in pharaonictimes was the man-poweredshaduf
(lever-lift), it seems reasonableto suppose that a decline in the averagelevel
of the river, making irrigationimpossible over large areas, was the specific
factor which destroyedthe agrarianeconomy of the southerncountry.79Support for this hypothesisis affordedby the fact thatLower Nubia was to remain
uninhabiteduntil the introductionof the saqia (ox-driven waterwheel), a
much more efficient irrigationdevice thanthe shaduf, at which time therewas
a veritableland-rushof reoccupation.80It must be emphasized,however, that
there is as yet no direct evidence for a decline in the level of the Nile in New
Kingdom times.81
The fertile districtbetween the Thirdand FourthCataracts-historically the
breadbasketof the Sudan-apparently did not sharethe fate of Lower Nubia.
Here, the retreatingEgyptians left behind not an impoverishedand deserted
region, but a thriving native populace which had become accustomed to
Egyptian ways and Egyptian goods; a populace which had been transformed
from Neolithic barbarismto the status of an "externalproletariat"of Egypt
itself. The power vacuumwhich was createdby the Egyptianwithdrawalfrom
Upper Nubia was inevitably filled, in time, by the Nubians themselves, with
consequences which were soon to be felt in Egypt as well.
78
Cf. Arkell, History, 108.
79 This hypothesis was first put forth by C. M. Firth, The Archaeological Survey of Nubia,
Reportfor 1909-1910 (Cairo, 1915), 21-23.
80 Cf. W. Y. Adams, "Post-PharaonicNubia in the Light of Archaeology, I," Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology, 50 (1964), 119-20; and Trigger, History and Settlement, 123.
81 See B. G. Trigger, "The CulturalEcology of ChristianNubia," in Kunstund Geschichte
Nubiens in ChristlicherZeit, Erich Dinkler, ed. (Recklinghausen, 1970), 355.
64
WILLIAM
Y.
ADAMS
The New Kingdomrepresentsthe climactic phase of Egypt's colonial enterprise in Nubia. The armedtrademonopoly and indirectrule of Middle Kingdom times gave way to outrightterritorialannexationand colonization. Native dynasties which had formerlybeen subsidizedand encouragedwere now
swept aside; in their place there appeared a purely Egyptian bureaucratic
organization. The founding of new towns, temples, and productive enterprises broughtEgyptiancolonists to Nubia in significantnumbersfor the first
time, and permittedthe developmentof a typically Egyptianmanorialeconomy. The new circumstancesof coexistence led inevitablyto an Egyptianization of the native population, a process of ideological transformationwhich
was probably aided by the establishment among the Nubians of Egyptian
religious cults. From this acculturativeprocess there emerged a large Nubian
fellaheen class and a small Egyptianizedelite which was able to take its place
in the ranks of colonial officials-and from which undoubtedlysprang the
later ruling dynasties of Kush, as discussed below.
The final phase of Egyptian colonialism in ancient Nubia obviously bears
comparisonto the final phase of recent Europeancolonialism in Africa and
Asia. In the eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies, the Europeanpowers, like
the earlier Thutmoses, extended their military and political control beyond
their long-established factory ports, overrunningthe interior districts with
which they had earlier been content to deal through native intermediaries.
Once-friendlynative despots were deposed or reduced to figureheadstatus,
the immigrationof Europeanartisans and overseers was encouragedor actively subsidized, and there graduallyemerged the familiarcolonial regimes
of recent times.
The process of European expansion from trading enclaves to territorial
empire was of course not a uniformone; it proceededat differenttimes and at
differentrates in differentpartsof the world. It was a featureof Spanishand
Portuguesecolonial enterprisein America from the beginning, while in British India and in the Dutch East Indies it began in the eighteenthcenturyand
was completed in the nineteenth. In sub-SaharanAfrica, almost the whole
process of Europeaninland expansion took place in the years between 1880
and 1900,82 while in China it did not happen at all.
The closest parallelto Egyptiancolonialism in the New Kingdomis probably to be found in the European"scramble for Africa" in the last quarterof
the nineteenthcentury. Here, as in ancient Nubia, the initial motivationwas
nationalisticand militaristicratherthan economic.83 Economic development
in the colonies, which necessarily involved a certain amount of European
settlement,was a consequenceand not a cause of occupation;it was necessary
to offset the cost of occupation. As Roland Oliver and J. D. Fage have
82
Cf. Roland Oliver and J. D. Fage, A Short History of Africa (Baltimore, 1962), 181-82.
83 See
21-23.
and
Kemp, "Imperialism
Empire,"
FIRST
COLONIAL
EMPIRE:
EGYPT
IN
NUBIA
65
written, "the colonial powers had partitionedAfrica as an insurancefor the
future, not because they had any presentplans for its exploitation.Thenceforward, their main concern was that the annual premium should not be too
high." 84
Even within Africa there were significant differences in the patternsof
European colonial development, caused in part by structuraldifferences
among the various native societies and in part by the varying productive
potential of differentparts of the continent. However, in the broadestsense,
all of these colonial regimes involved five common features:(1) impositionof
outrightmilitary control, (2) administrationthrougha bureaucracymodelled
on Europeaninstitutionsand staffed in the beginning largely by Europeans,
(3) development of productive enterprise-agricultural or extractive-managed by Europeansbut dependenton a native laborforce, (4), introductionof
measures such as land expropriation,ruinoustaxation, corvee, or encomienda, designed to assurea native labor supply,85and (5) a system of indoctrination, sometimes throughstate schools but more often by missionaries, which
would serve to create an ideological bond and a sense of common interest
between the colonized peoples and their overlords.86As nearly as we can
perceive, all of these features were present also in the Egyptian colonial
system of the New Kingdom.
In spite of efforts toward economic development, very few African colonies proved in the long run to be profitable. It therefore became a major
concern of the colonial powers to hold down the cost of administration.One
way of doing so was to co-opt native personnel into the governing bureaucracy, and even into the military officer corps, as an alternativeto the much
more expensive business of bringing out additionalcolonists from Europe.87
It was the process of co-optation, promptedmore by economic circumstance
than by political idealism, that producedthe Europeanizedelite class which
ultimately took over the reins of government from its erstwhile overlords.
Here too, as will be observed shortly, there is a parallel to the situation in
ancient Nubia.
If the beginnings of territorialcolonization in ancientNubia and in moder
Africa were not economically motivated, the end assuredly was. In one respect the circumstances were markedly different in the two cases, for in
ancient Nubia there was a drastic decline in agriculturalproductivity not
paralleled in moder Africa. There were, nevertheless, two circumstances
common in the abandonmentof territorialempireby ancientEgyptiansandby
moder Europeans. First, the colonial powers had been so weakened and
impoverishedby wars at home that they could no longer affordthe cost of the
84 Oliver and Fage, Short History, 196.
85 Ibid., 202.
86 Ibid., 204.
87 Cf. P. M. Holt and M. W. Daly, The History of the Sudan (Boulder, 1979), 123-24.
66
WILLIAM
Y.
ADAMS
colonial enterprise. Second, acculturationof the native peoples had progressed to the point where economic, cultural,and ideological dependenceon
the formeroverlordsmight be expected to endureeven afterthe terminationof
direct control.
AFTERMATH:
THE NUBIAN
SUCCESSOR-STATE
OF NAPATA
The bond which had been forged between Egypt and Nubia under the New
Kingdom was, unlike that of Middle Kingdomtimes, too strongto be broken
merely by the withdrawal of Egyptian civil and military authority. The
Theban pharaohshad become dependentnot only on Nubian gold and ivory
but on Nubian troops to supporttheir rule at home; the Nubians had become
dependent not only on Egyptian goods but on Egyptian gods. From this
mutual dependence there emerged, in the postcolonial period, a new symbiosis which was to endure nearly as long as had the colonial regime.
Egypt in the TwentiethDynasty was increasinglytornby internalstrife, and
the viceroys of Kush, as commandersof the Nubian levies, assumed a more
and more importantrole in the northerncountry. In the end, they usurpedthe
kingly office itself; under the Twenty-first Dynasty, the titles of pharaoh,
viceroy of Kush, and high priest of Amon were combined in a single individual.88His effective power, however, was limited to Upper Egypt, for by
this time the Egyptianstate had once again fragmented,and the Delta region
was underthe control of a rival dynasty at Tanis and of Libyaninterlopersat
Bubastis. On the other hand, the Thebanpriest-kingsmay have continuedto
exert some influence in Nubia through the priesthood of Amon at Jebel
Barkal. Although there is no direct eivdence on this point, it seems clear, in
light of subsequentevents, that the Amon cult continuedto flourishin Nubia
even after withdrawalof Egyptian civil authority,and it is probablethat at
least the chief priests continuedto be appointedfrom Thebes. Whetherat this
time they were Egyptians or EgyptianizedNubians, or both, will probably
always remain moot.
The immediate postcolonial period constitutes another of Nubia's dark
ages, from which for the time being we have neithertextual nor archaeological evidence. The re-emergenceof an indigenouspolitical authoritycannotbe
clearly discernedfor at least two centuriesafterthe Egyptiandeparture;in the
meantime,the priestsof Amon may have providedwhat effective government
there was in UpperNubia, as did the priest-kingsof Amon in UpperEgypt.89
It is noteworthythat when a purely indigenous political authorityfinally did
emerge in Nubia, probablyin the ninthcenturyB.C., it arose in the shadowof
Jebel Barkal and under the tutelage of the priests of Amon.
The origins of the postcolonial Nubian dynasty are as obscure as are those
88 Cf. Arkell, History, 108-9.
89 For discussion of this theory, see Budge, EgyptianSudan, I, 650-52; and Reisner, "Viceroys of Ethiopia," 53-55.
FIRST
COLONIAL
EMPIRE:
EGYPT
IN
NUBIA
67
of the Kerma monarchy, to which in the beginning it bore a considerable
resemblance. Once again, its emergence is first proclaimednot by historical
texts but by a series of royal tombs in the cemetery of El Kurru,ten miles to
the south of Jebel Barkal. Here were buried some eight or ten Nubianrulers,
togetherwith a much largernumberof their queens and also a great many of
their favorite horses. The earliest tombs at El Kurruare much like those built
at Kerma a thousand years earlier; they incorporatethe traditionalNubian
featuresof the roundearthtumulusand the intermentof the corpse on a bed.
These tombs evidently belong to a wholly illiterateage, for thereare no names
or inscribedobjects found in associationwith them. However, the formof the
royal tombs soon underwent a strking metamorphosis,reflecting the rising
fortunesof the dynasty itself. From the sixth generationonward, for a thousand years, all Nubian rulers were buried under stone pyramidswhich were
obviously inspired by those of the Egyptian pharaohs, though considerably
smaller in size and also, in most cases, more slender in profile than are the
Egyptian pyramids. Each Nubian tomb is adjoined by a mortuarychapel
decorated with hieroglyphic texts and reliefs in typical Egyptian fashion,
depictingthe deceased rulerwith the traditionaltitles of pharaohand companion of the gods.
A certain Kashta-perhaps the sixth king to be buriedat El Kurru-is the
first of the Nubian rulers to emerge into the light of history. His name is
known to us from two brief hieroglyphictexts. Althoughtheir meaningis not
absolutely clear, one of the inscriptionsseems to imply that Kashtaat some
point in his careerjourneyedto Egypt, where he was confirmedin the title of
king by the priests of Amon at Thebes (as presumablyhe had alreadybeen at
Jebel Barkal), and where he obliged the chief priestess of Amon to adopthis
own daughter as her successor-designate.90In thus cementing the alliance
between the monarchyand the Amon cult, the Nubianrulerwas following the
practiceof many earlierpharaohs.There is no suggestion thatKashtacame to
Egypt as a conqueror;rather,he seems to have been invited as a delivererand
protector. The Theban priests, threatenedwith invasion from the north and
long accustomed to rely on Nubian troops for their protection, probably
welcomed the appearanceof a new and effective commanderwho could fill
the now-vacant role of viceroy of Kush, and they hastened to claim his
patronage.The circumstancesof Kashta's investitureas king and defenderof
the faith are strikinglyreminiscentof those 1,500 years later, when Pope Leo
III bestowed the crown of the Holy Roman Empireon the erstwhilebarbarian
Charlemagne.
Piankhi, the son and successor of Kashta, seems to have passed the first
twenty years of his reign uneventfullyat Napata. He had apparentlyinherited
the mantle of defenderof the faith from his father, however, for in due course
90 Nitocris Adoption Stele. See Arkell, History, 121.
68
WILLIAM
Y.
ADAMS
an appealcame from the Thebanpriests asking for protectionagainsta threatened invasion from the Delta. Piankhiat once dispatcheda relieving force to
Egypt, and presently followed in person with a larger army. After being
acclaimed at Thebes as a deliverer, he proceedednorthwardwith his forces,
subdued one after another the rival dynasts in Lower Egypt, and re-established a united rule on the Nile in the name of Amon. To crown his triumph,
the Nubian conquerorwas invested with the traditionaltitles and protocolsof
the pharaoh. He then retiredto Napata, where he restoredand enlarged the
greatTemple of Amon at Jebel Barkal, and finally built for himself the first of
the great royal pyramids of Kush.91 For the next century, Egypt as well as
Nubia was to be ruled by descendants of the once-despised inhabitantsof
Kush-the so-called Ethiopianpharaohsof the Twenty-fifthDynasty. It was
the high-water mark of Nubian history-an "heroic age," in Toynbee's
term.92
The successors of Piankhi were considerably less astute than he, both
politically and militarily;overestimatingtheir martialprowess as a result of
the relatively easy success in reunitingEgypt, they revived the ancientpharaonic dreamof empire in Asia. This broughtthem into conflict with the rising
power of Assyria, and led eventually to the invasion and sack of Egypt by
Assyriantroops and to the final expulsion of the Nubianpharaohs.Duringthe
centuryof their dominancein the north, however, the Nubianrulershad time
to transplantto their own country a great many of the institutions of the
pharaoniccourtand of Egyptiancivilization. Taharqa,one of the last andleast
successful of the Nubian rulers in the north,93was neverthelessone of the
greatestof all buildersin his own country. He adornedboth Lower Nubia and
UpperNubia with a series of temples second in size and numberonly to those
of Rameses II.
Although Nubian rulers never again set foot in Egypt after the seventh
centuryB.C., the Egyptian-styledynasty and state which they createdin their
own country enduredfor anotherthousandyears, and was strong enough to
resist successive attemptsat conquestby Egyptians, Persians,and Romans.94
As late as the fourth century after Christ, Nubian rulers still worshippedin
temples and were buriedunderpyramidswhose inscriptionsproclaimedthem
91 The details of Piankhi's reign are known from his great commemorativestele, found at
Jebel Barkalin 1862. It is consideredby Egyptologists to be one of the masterpiecesof ancient
literature;cf. Breasted, History of Egypt, 545; and Wilson, Culture, 293. For a full translation,
see Budge, Egyptian Sudan, II, 11-26.
92 Cf. Toynbee, Study of History, VIII, 1.
93 Taharqawas the pharaohupon whom King Hezekiahof Judahproposedto rely for protection against the Assyrians, provoking from them the contemptuousretort: "Now behold, thou
trustestupon the staff of this broken reed, even upon Egypt, whereon, if a man lean, it will go
into his hand and pierce it .. ." (2 Kings 18:21).
94 For the later history of postcolonial Nubia, see G. A. Reisner, "The MeroiticKingdomof
Ethiopia: A Chronological Outline," Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 9: pt. 1-2 (1923),
34-77, and 9: pt. 3-4 (1923), 157-60; Arkell, History, 138-73; andP. L. Shinnie, Meroe (New
York, 1967), 29-61.
FIRST
COLONIAL
EMPIRE:
EGYPT
IN
NUBIA
69
as the only true successors of the pharaohs and the special protectorsof
Amon. Egypt itself had been successively a Persian satrapy, a Greek kingdom, a Roman province, and finally an outpost of universal Christendom
before the last of Nubia's "pharaohs" passed away, probably aroundA.D.
350.95
The history of Nubia in the immediatepostcolonialperiod does not exhibit
the patternof economic imperialism,or neocolonialism, that is observablein
much of Africa today. Egyptian dominationpersistedmainly in the religious
sphere, where for a long time the priesthoodof Amon exerted a stabilizing
influence somewhat comparableto that of the churchin post-RomanEurope.
The Nubians under Egyptian rule had acquired a taste for certain kinds of
Egyptian manufacturedgoods, but many of these were now being produced
on Nubian soil, either by natives or by expatriateEgyptiancraftsmen.What
the Egyptianshad not done in Nubia was to create an economy dependenton
exports, and hence they were able to exert no real influence in their former
colony once theirpolitical control was gone. Militarilythey were weakerthan
the Nubiansthemselves; indeed, theirown frontierswere now guardedlargely
by Nubian mercenarytroops.
Although Egyptian rule in Nubia did indeed forge an enduringbond between the two countries, it was a bond which led not to the perpetuationof
Egyptiancontrolbut to the emergenceof Nubiancontrol. This developmentis
not without parallels in later history; it is but one of many instances of
barbariansgaining the upperhand over their formeroverlordsthroughsuperior militaryprowess. Indeed, the coronationof Piankhiby the priestsof Amon
foreshadowedin an extraordinaryway the coronationof Charlemagneby the
Roman Pope 1,500 years later. In each case the spiritual guardiansof an
ancient empire delivered it into the hands of a barbarianchieftain, because he
appearedto be the only person capable of restoringand maintainingorder.
CONCLUDING
REFLECTIONS
Obviously, comparisons between ancient and moder colonialism can be
pushed only so far. The Egyptians confined their attention to immediately
neighboring and easily controlled territories, while the European powers
spreadtheir dominion over half the globe. The Egyptianshad no rivals for the
controlof Nubia, whereasthe colonial activities of the Europeanswere stimulated in considerablepartby competitionwith one another.Egyptiancolonialism was from first to last largely a state enterprise, while private capital
contributedimportantlyto the developmentof Europeancolonialism. Finally,
the acquisitionof raw materialsfor manufacturingpurposesplayed no partin
the exploitation of Nubia, although the acquisition of coniferous timber for
furnitureand shipbuildingwas an importantmotivationof Egyptiancontrolof
the Levant. Nevertheless, the similaritiesbetween ancient and moder colo95 Cf. Shinnie, Meroe, 60-61. It should be emphasized that the date for the final disappearanceof the Kushite dynasty is hardly more than a guess.
70
WILLIAM
Y.
ADAMS
nialism are striking and in some ways seem even more so when viewed
against the backgroundof these differences.
Such parallels invite explanation at the level of macrotheory,but in my
view-that of an avowed positivist-no one theory is adequateto accountfor
the observablesimilaritiesboth of structureand of process. Marxistand most
other economic theory presupposesa majordifferencebetween capitalistand
precapitalistsystems of exploitation, which is hardlyconsistentwith the empirical evidence. Indeed, even in the recent past, it is difficult to perceive
much difference between colonial activities that were financed by private
capitaland those that were stateenterprises.The terminationone afteranother
of the Europeanmonopoly companies,96and the substitutionof direct state
administration,seems to suggest that private capital was a stimulatingforce
but ultimately not a shaping force in the history of Europeancolonialism.
Otherkinds of macrotheoryseem equally inadequate.Evolutionarytheory,
like Marxisttheory, has no place for atavisticdevelopments.Ecological theory, currentlyfashionable in anthropology,gives insufficient attentionto the
purely political dimension of colonialism. Structuraland cyclic theoriesparticularlythat of Pitirim Sorokin97-may contain a partof the answer, but
they account more for processual than for structuralsimilarities.
I have been forced to conclude, somewhat reluctantly, that the parallels
between ancient and moder colonialism were the result of a combinationof
factors, some constant, some cyclically recurring, and some accidentally
recurring.The motivating factors were mostly either constant or cyclically
recurring,while the enabling factors were in part accidentallyrecurring.
The most unchangingfactor in the situationwas certainlythe inequalityof
resources between the northernand southern lands, which has provided a
motive for colonial exploitationfrom ancientto moder times. Africa was the
supplierof certainkinds of exotic goods which the Mediterraneanand European peoples always coveted precisely for their scarcity value. A second
constant factor was the existence of a reliable, and controllable, connecting
route between the northernand southernlands-the Nile for the Egyptians
and the Atlantic and IndianOceans for the latermaritimepowers. Priorto the
rise of caravanand maritimetrade, the Nile was the only such route, and it
was thus no accidentthatthe world's first colonial empiredeveloped along its
banks.
Materialistswould certainly add economic greed and political ambitionto
the list of constant motivations, but this argumentis acceptableonly within
limits. Greed and ambition are no doubt universal components of human
nature, but they are not always indulged to the same degree or in the same
way. In history, they have only intermittentlyled to costly expansionistventures. Following Sorokin, I am inclined to view expansionism-at least colo96 See Fieldhouse, Colonial Empires, 143-44.
97 PitirimSorokin, Social and CulturalDynamics, 4 vols. (New York, 1937). See also F. R.
Cowell, History, Civilization and Culture (London, 1952).
FIRST
COLONIAL
EMPIRE:
EGYPT
IN
NUBIA
71
nial expansionism-as a cyclically recurrentphenomenon ratherthan as a
constant one.98 It is neither more nor less explainable in terms of causal
theory than are other types of business and political cycles.
Accidentally recurrentfactors in the history of colonialism have mostly
been of a politicomilitarynature. Militarismarises in response to proximate
causes that are somewhat unpredictablein their occurrence.Once set in motion, however, it runs a fairly predictablecourse that almost always leads to
expansionism. It is noteworthyin this respect thateach of the majorstages of
Egyptian colonial expansion in Nubia followed upon an episode of military
unificationor reunificationwithin Egypt. Similarly, the colonial expansionof
Spain and Portugalin the fifteenth century, of Englandin the sixteenth century, of Holland in the seventeenthcentury, and of Germanyin the nineteeth
century, followed, in each case, upon a major national unification. In the
nineteenth-centuryscramble for Africa, A.J.P. Taylor wrote, "all the great
powers found a safe channel for their exuberanceoutside Europe."99 This
seems to underscoreB. J. Kemp's observationthat "empires are ultimately
aboutpower and the sense of power, and belong to a stage of internalpolitical
development." 00
Naval and military superioritywere additionalaccidentallyrecurringfactors. We have little detailed informationaboutEgyptianandNubianships, but
we know inferentially that the Egyptians had craft capable of transporting
hundred-tonstone blocks from Aswan to Memphis. The Nubians, whose
territoryincludedno good buildingtimber,almostcertainlyhad nothingof the
sort. In the more recent past, it was specifically Europeanadvances in naval
design and in navigational expertise that made possible the sea-controlled
empires of the sixteenth and later centuries.101Naval superiority,in short,
was the necessary enabling factor for the second phase of ancientand moder
colonial expansion.
The necessary factor for the third phase, that of territorialempire, was
military superiority.Fage has observed that the Europeanpowers before the
nineteenthcentury were incapable of extending their dominion into the African interior, where the native armies were as well equipped and trainedas
were their own. 102Almost certainlythis was true, initially, in the relationship
between ancient Egypt and Kerma. It was the militaryexpertise and the new
weaponry gained in the campaign against the Hyksos which gave the Egyptians the upperhand over their Nubian neighborsat the beginningof the New
Kingdom. As for the European powers in the nineteenth century, Hilaire
Belloc said it all:
Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.
98 Sorokin, Social and CulturalDynamics.
99 See William R. Lewis, ed., Imperialism(New York, 1976), 199.
100 Kemp, "Imperialismand Empire," 56.
101 See Parry, Age of Reconnaissance, 67-145.
102
Fage, History, 286-88.