In a previous chapter the nomadic way of life of the inhabitants of Palestine during the period roughly equivalent to the First Intermediate Period of Egypt was described. It was sharply differentiated from the Early Bronze Age, for instead of people living in walled towns there was a population quite uninterested in town life, bringing with them new pottery, new weapons and new burial practices, of types best explained as those of nomads. In Syria there is a similar break, and there are many links to show that the newcomers in the two areas were connected. In Syria, there is documentary evidence to suggest that these nomadic intruders were the Amorites, and it can thus be accepted that it was at this time that the Amorites, described in the Biblical record as part of the population of the country, reached Palestine.

The break at the end of this period of nomadic occupation is as sharp as that at its beginning. Towns once more appear, and there are once more new burial practices, new pottery, new weapons, new ornaments. There is a most surprising lack of any objects or practices which, where the archaeological evidence is sound, can be shown to carry through from the earlier stage to the later. It is for this reason that it seems misleading to apply to the stage of nomadic occupation the term Middle Bronze I, as was done when the evidence of the period was first becoming apparent, though this is still used by many archaeologists in the United States and Israel.

THE DYNASTY OF THE ‘GRAND REGENT’ RULERS IN ELAM

To posterity the history of Persia at the time when the First Dynasty of Babylon held sway in Mesopotamia seems to narrow itself down to the history of Elam, and indeed almost down to the history of Susiana, the Elamite plain which bordered on Mesopotamia. Whatever took place in the mountainous parts of the country at this time remains shrouded in impenetrable obscurity. From the whole of Persia not a single archaeological monument has come down to us for this period, not even from Susiana. From only one Elamite ruler during the Early Babylonian period has a record in the Elamite language survived. Apart from this our sources from the country itself (leaving aside certain indications in Elamite inscriptions of the later, ‘classical’ period of the thirteenth to the twelfth centuries) consist of 837 clay tablets, written in Akkadian and in many cases damaged. Of these, somewhat more than half are legal documents, the remainder commercial texts; nearly all come from Susa, only a few from Mālamīr (possibly the ancient Khukhnur).

In view of this state of affairs with regard to the sources, the main task of the next section in this chapter must be to trace a picture of the legal system in ancient Elam. However, the records in question also provide important information about its political history, in so far as the Elamites often took oath by invoking the reigning princes.

THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE

In attempting a history of the Mycenaean age we are still largely confined to the history of material culture, to the generalized story of the establishment of settlements, to their destructions and rebuildings, which are often dated only in terms of the successive styles of pottery used by the inhabitants. From the ruins of houses and palaces we can reconstruct their appearance when stone, brick, and timber were new; we can in patches see what fresco pictures brightened their walls. Fragments of carved ivory give hints of the adornment of wooden furniture long since burned or rotted into ashes and dust; some weapons, tools and vessels of metal survive, though most when outworn would have gone for scrap to the melting pot, unless laid underground with the dead; and though tombs may be robbed, we do sometimes, if rarely, find in them vessels or ornaments of gold or the more corruptible silver. We have, moreover, in various materials, these peoples’ own picture of themselves and their activities; we can, from their precious objects, their houses and fortifications and their monumental tombs, assess at least in degree their wealth and power, their pride and their fears, in this world and the next; we can trace from objects of commerce—or from such of them as are less perishable—how far they travelled and traded, what other cities of men they knew; to the extent that history is the account of ‘what it was like to be there then’, we can write their history.

THE LAST YEARS OF THE TWELFTH DYNASTY

When, in 1798 B.C., King Makherure Ammenemes IV ascended the throne of Egypt his father and grandfather before him had ruled the land for the greater part of a century. It is inevitable that he himself should have been well advanced in age at the time of his accession and it is hardly surprising that his reign, including a period of co-regency with his father, did not exceed ten years. In spite of its brevity, an understandable absence of brilliant achievement, and a slight falling off in the quality of the works of art produced, the reign shows little evidence of a serious decline in Egyptian prosperity and prestige. The monuments of Ammenemes IV are fairly numerous and frequently of excellent workmanship. They include a small, but handsome, temple at Medīnet Ma‘ādi in the Faiyūm which he and his father together dedicated to the harvest-goddess Renenutet. At Semna in the northern Sudan the height of the Nile was recorded in the king's fifth regnal year, and at Sinai working parties of Years 4, 6, 8, and 9 have left testimonials of continued activity in the turquoise mines.

Syria evidently acknowledged Egypt's ascendancy as of old. Beirut has yielded a gold pectoral and a small diorite sphinx of Ammenemes IV and in the tomb of Prince Ypshomuibi of Byblos were found a gold-mounted obsidian casket and a fine grey stone vase with his cartouches.

THE OLD HITTITE KINGDOM (CONTINUED)

In this chapter we take up again the history of the Hittite Kingdom from the moment when an usurper first assumed the throne by violent means. Owing to the recovery in recent years of a well-preserved contemporary text we have been able to follow the events of at least part of the reign of Khattushilish I in considerable detail. The figure of this ancient ruler dominates the period of the Old Kingdom, down to the accession of Telepinush, principally on account of this much fuller documentation. For his successors we are dependent almost entirely on the Edict of Telepinush, described above; but following the murder of Murshilish I, even this precious document becomes mutilated, and though no less than seven paragraphs were devoted to the reign of his successor, Khantilish I, as compared with only three to Khattushilish, little consecutive sense can be made from them. Khantilish had been a cup-bearer and was married to a sister of Murshilish named Kharapshilish. It is likely, therefore, that Khantilish was a man of about the same age as his predecessor. The narrative of Telepinush is concerned to stress the impious and monstrous nature of the act of blood committed by Khantilish and his son-in-law, Zidantash, rather than to present the history of his reign in an objective manner. It even omits to mention that he became king, but this fact can hardly be doubted, since his wife is referred to as the queen.

THE NATURE OF THE MIDDLE CYPRIOT PERIOD

The transition from the Early to the Middle Bronze Age in Cyprus is a most difficult process to define, for the later period evolves from the earlier without cultural break or natural disaster to provide a landmark. Although very few settlement sites have been investigated, it seems clear from the evidence of cemeteries which were used both in E.C. and M.C. that the transition in material culture was gradual. Probably the least unsatisfactory way of drawing the distinction between the two periods is by recognizing the decorated pottery known as White Painted II ware as diagnostic of M.C. I. Other material aspects of M.C. I are almost indistinguishable from those of E.C. III.

The Middle Cypriot period has been divided into three phases, I, II and III. M.C. I appears to have lasted from c. 1850 b.c. until c. 1800, while M.C. II covers the period c. 1800–1700; estimates for the duration of M.C. III vary between c. 1700–1600 and c. 1700–1550 b.c. The opening date is fairly closely tied to Minoan chronology in view of the imported Early Minoan III (Middle Minoan la) bridge-spouted jar from a tomb at Lapithos identified as transitional E.C. III A–B, and the Middle Minoan II Kamares cup from a late M.C. I tomb at Karmi. The date of the end of the M.C. period is determined by the contexts in Palestine and Egypt in which the earliest L.C. objects have been found; in Egypt, these are no earlier than the 17th Dynasty, and a date in the middle of the sixteenth century b.c. for the end of the M.C. period seems desirable.

INTRODUCTION

Transition from the Early to the Middle Bronze Age in Aegean lands came about gradually at some places but suddenly and with violence at others. There can be no doubt that new people came into the land. The process of change, which is reflected by archaeological evidence from many parts of the region, cannot have been simple. Rather, as was generally the case when migrations took place, the newcomers arrived in groups of various sizes, probably over an appreciable period of time. The people whom they found in possession also varied in the size and prosperity of their communities, some ready to resist while others deemed it necessary or prudent to make terms with the foreigners. Unquestionably the immigrants in the present instance were strong and the pressure of the movement was unrelenting.

The culture which they brought and the period in which it flourished on the Greek mainland are called Middle Helladic (M.H.). In the islands of the central Aegean the corresponding term is Middle Cycladic (M.C.). Roughly parallel and contemporary was the age of the first great palaces in Crete, known by Sir Arthur Evans's designation as Middle Minoan (M.M.). The limits of this period cannot be determined precisely, but it is known to have spanned the early centuries of the second millennium B.C., the time of the 12th Dynasty and of the Hyksos in Egypt, and in Mesopotamia the Isin–Larsa period and the 1st Dynasty of Babylon.

THE second volume of this History begins with events which occurred at a time when the Amorite dynasties in Western Asia were vying with each other for supremacy, making and breaking alliances but nevertheless maintaining the great Sumero-Akkadian culture which they had inherited from the conquered populations. It was the era of the Western Semites and, in particular, of the most outstanding of the Semitic dynasties, that of Hammurabi, the 'lawgiver'. The Semites were, however, not destined to remain in control for long. Foreigners from the north-east, the Kassites, soon took possession of Babylonia and held it under their sway for five centuries, thereby establishing the longest dynastic succession in the history of the land. Meanwhile, in Anatolia, the rise of the Hittites marked the beginning of the first Indo-European empire which was eventually to deal a death blow to Amorite rule in Babylon.

Disturbances in Western Asia soon began to affect life in the Nile Valley. Asiatic elements moved southwards until they occupied most of the Delta and penetrated into Middle and Upper Egypt, asserting their authority as they went. Manetho called these Asiatic settlers the Hyksos, and he claimed that they achieved their domination 'without a battle'. While there is nothing in contemporary evidence to suggest that they established their position by any other way than by a process of gradual infiltration, they were certainly helped by the possession of superior weapons, notably the horse-drawn chariot, and by Egypt's political and military weakness at the time.

In Cyprus, as in other regions, the course of the Bronze Age has been divided into three main stages, Early, Middle and Late. Each stage is further subdivided into three phases, I, II and III, which, in their turn may be split into subperiods, A, B, and C. By analogy with Early, Middle and Late Helladic, Minoan and Cycladic in Greece, Crete and the Islands respectively, the terms Early, Middle and Late Cypriot (abbreviated to E.C., M.C. and L.C.) are used.

THE IDENTITY OF THE EARLIEST BRONZE AGE SETTLERS

The beginning of the Early Cypriot period synchronizes fairly closely with the disastrous end of the E.B. 2 period in Anatolia, c. 2300 b.c.; it may, indeed, prove to have been a direct outcome of this major Anatolian catastrophe. Its duration seems to have been between four and five hundred years; the transition to the Middle Cypriot stage is an ill-defined process, but may with some probability be placed in the century between 1900 and 1800 b.c., in view of synchronisms with Crete demonstrated by Minoan vases and weapons found as imports in north Cyprus.

The account that can be given of the Early Cypriot period is very imperfect, depending almost wholly as it does upon the evidence of cemeteries and their contents. Only at the very end of the period is it possible to draw on evidence provided by settlements.

THE EARLY MONARCHY AND THE UNIFICATION OF EGYPT

Tradition and a substantial body of indirect evidence suggest strongly that Egypt, in the period immediately preceding the foundation of the First Dynasty, was divided into two independent kingdoms: a northern kingdom, which included the Nile Delta and extended southwards perhaps to the neighbourhood of the modern village of Atfīh (Lower Egypt) and a southern kingdom comprising the territory between Atfīh and Gebel es-Silsila (Upper Egypt). The residences of the kings are believed to have been situated at Pe, in the north-west Delta, and at Nekhen (Hierakonpolis), on the west bank of the river near Edfu, both of which, in historical times at least, possessed important sanctuaries of the falcon-god Horus, the patron deity of the rulers. In the vicinity of Pe lay Dep, the seat of a cobra-goddess Uadjit (Edjo); the two places were together known in the New Kingdom and later under one name Per-Uadjit (House of Edjo), rendered as Buto by the Greeks. Across the river from Nekhen stood Nekheb (El-Kāb), where a vulture-goddess Nekhbet had her sanctuary. Both goddesses came to be regarded at a very early date, perhaps while the separate kingdoms were in being, as royal protectresses.

Even such information about this period as was recorded in the king-lists is largely lost and what remains is difficult to interpret. The first line of the fragmentary Palermo Stone consists of a series of compartments, seven only being entirely preserved, each of which contains a name and a figure of a king wearing the crown of Lower Egypt, but no historical events are mentioned.

HISTORY

The oldest contact of Anatolia with the Akkadian-speaking peoples appears to go back to the time of the Dynasty of Agade. A legendary account, the so-called epic King of the Battle, relates that a group of merchants from the Anatolian city of Purushkhanda sent a delegation to the king Sargon of Agade, urging him to undertake a campaign to their city and vividly describing the wealth of their country. Sargon is reported in the legend to have, after some hesitation, acceded to the merchants' request leading his troops to Purushkhanda.

Another historiographical text, the Legend of Naram-Sin, implies that the city of Purushkhanda belonged to the realm of Sargon's grandson. Here it is related that a strange host, descending from the city of Shubat-Enlil in the country of Subartu, i.e. from northern Mesopotamia, invaded Naram-Sin's kingdom, first attacking Purushkhanda and then, turning east and finally south, advanced toward the heartland of the Akkadian Empire. It is significant that Hittite versions of both of these tales have come to light at Boĝazköy and that Sargon's exploits in Asia Minor are alluded to by the Hittite king Khattushilish I (c. 1650 b.c.) in an historical inscription; for this tends to show that the later population of Anatolia considered the Old Akkadian period the beginning of their country's recorded history. It is further worth noting that in the King of the Battle one of the principal actors bore the name of Nur-daggal, which stands for Nur-Dagan. Since, in the belief of the Akkadians, the lands dominated by the god Dagan lay west and north-west of the city of Tuttul (near the mouth of the river Balīkh) the name Nur-Dagan perhaps implies that the merchants of Purushkhanda were not Akkadians but western Semites who were anxious to enter into commercial relations with Akkad.

SYRIA AND PALESTINE IN THE HERACLEOPOLITAN PERIOD AND THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY

With the end of the Old Kingdom (c. 2181 B.C.), Egypt entered upon a period of decadence, the First Intermediate Period, comprising the Seventh to the Tenth Dynasties and lasting about 140 years. Egyptian activity in Asia, which until then had been considerable, suffered from the effects of the instability prevailing in the Nile Valley. Describing the beginning of the troubled period in his ‘Admonitions’, Ipuwer says sadly that his compatriots are no longer going to Byblos to obtain the conifer wood and resin needed for mummies. It was to be a long time before economic and diplomatic relations were to become active again. Archaeological evidence of Egyptian influence in Syrian ports between the Sixth and Twelfth Dynasties is scarce and of doubtful value. At Byblos, and in Syria and Palestine as a whole, no Egyptian king is mentioned in the hieroglyphic inscriptions between Phiops II and Sesostris I. A similar absence of royal names can also be observed (from Phiops II to Mentuhotpe II) in the mines of Sinai. This silence shows how slight and irregular connexions must have been at that time.

Internal weakness, after the end of the Old Kingdom, left the Egyptian frontiers without adequate protection. The Asiatics took advantage of this state of affairs to make their way in force into the Eastern Delta and to wander through its pastures with their flocks. Some of these invaders settled there, while others conducted raids on the territory or used it for the seasonal movements of flocks, all of which added to the prevailing condition of anarchy in the country and contributed to its ruin.