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.

DEFINITION OF THE INQUIRY

The Bronze Age in lands bordering the Aegean Sea was a period of roughly two millennia that followed the age of Neolithic cultures. The name is not perfectly accurate; men did begin to use metals more or less systematically in this time, but chief among them at the outset was natural copper, not yet deliberately alloyed with tin. None the less the phrase has useful connotations, reflecting the Greek memory of an older γενος μεροπων ανθρωπων χαλκειον, and it is firmly established. The terms Chalcolithic and Copper Age, logical and correct in themselves, are now best reserved for Anatolia and other areas where their meanings have won acceptance.

As a source of confusion the name of the metal is of minor consequence. More perplexing are the formidable quantities of material remains that have been gathered in three generations of archaeological research, for they beckon the student of this area to conclusions more positive than are in fact justified. Since written records are lacking in Greece during the early period with which we are here concerned, one must rely upon stratification and comparison of objects at the known sites in order to establish a relative chronology. An approach to absolute dates may be made through proven relationships with Egypt and Mesopotamia, but these are few in number and less exact than one is often led to suppose. New and promising methods of dating, including particularly the process of radiocarbon (C–14) analysis, are still in experimental stages and the results they yield must be regarded objectively.

THE BACKGROUND

It is necessary at the beginning of this chapter to define what we mean by the geographical term ‘Syria’, which includes in a single area regions which were seldom in ancient times united under one rule, and were already inhabited, it seems, during the third millennium b.c. by peoples of greatly differing ways of life, of different racial affinities and separate tongues. Yet in spite of the diversity of its peoples through the ages and the varied climatic zones into which it can be divided, the region known today as Syria and the Lebanon may be said to form a geographical entity with natural boundaries. On the north and north-west it is hedged about by the Amanus and Antitaurus mountains of Anatolia and by the Upper Euphrates bend; on the west it is bounded by the Mediterranean, and on the east by the Syrian desert, the northward extension of the great Nefūd, the arid desert of Arabia. To the south it merges with Palestine, and the natural boundary of both is the Wilderness of Sin, the desert stretch which separates Egypt from Palestine, Africa from Asia. We shall see that there were close cultural links between Syria and Palestine, though the archaeology of the latter is somewhat apart and has been treated for this period in an earlier chapter.

In the simplest analysis, the land of Syria falls into three distinct zones: the coastal fringe, later called Phoenicia, with its temperate climate, fertile soil and heavy winter rains; the steppeland, separated from the coast by a high, double mountain chain which cleaves it from north to south, and experiencing a wide seasonal variation of temperature and consequently a specialized vegetation to which the name Irano-Turanian has been given.

CLASSIFICATION OF THE MATERIAL

Although the first scientific excavations in Palestine had yielded traces of the Early Bronze Age, its chronological limits remained vague and its internal development was completely obscure. A much more exact knowledge has been acquired since 1930 by the excavation of several large well-stratified sites and by the application of the comparative method to better classified material, particularly pottery.

In 1932 seven archaic stages were distinguished on the slopes of the tell at Megiddo, the most recent of which, stages I–IV, belonged to the Early Bronze Age. On the tell itself levels XVIII–XVI, which were explored in 1937–8, represent almost the same period, but the stratigraphy is confused. The only two tombs of the Early Bronze Age which were found belong to the very beginning of this period.

In 1933, at Beth-shan, a wide sondage was made down to virgin soil which revealed, above the Chalcolithic levels, several levels (XV-XI) of the Early Bronze Age.

Excavations at Jericho reached Early Bronze Age deposits (tombs A and 24) in the seasons 1930—2 and more especially in 1935—6 when work was concentrated on the deepest sections of the tell: above the Neolithic and Chalcolithic were found five levels, III—VII (with tomb 351) belonging to the Early Bronze Age.