A Model for Egyptian Imperialism in Nubial

by Stuart Tyson Smith

Introduction.

Egyptologists have been consistently reluctant to attempt much synthesis, let

alone theory building. There is a mistaken belief that .because the record is so
incomplete, and so much material is unpublished, generalization would be :: .
premature. Yet Egypt's material and written records are richer and more detailed ,'I '

than those of other fields where synthesis and theory building are commonplace. >i
r..
Perhaps it is because of the richness of the record that Egyptologists have focused on ?';
I,*?
details at the expense of the broader picture. Certainly there are biases in the Y::
:I .c'
archaeological and textual records. This is not, however, a problem unique to Egypt.
A critical examination can help to overcome these problems, and generalization can
be limited or qualified to reflect deficiencies and/or biases in the data (Redford 1979).

Egypt's involvement in Nubia (Fig. 1) provides an excellent opportunity to

attempt a study embracing a wide body of theory, and with application outside of
Egyptology. It passed through several distinct stages. During the Old Kingdom,
military campaigns and slave raids destroyed or pushed out the native A-Group
culture in Lower Nubia. At least one outpost was established (at Buhen) for the
exploitation of mineral resources, but it was eventually abandoned. The C-Group re-
occupied Lower Nubia at the end of the Old Kingdom, establishing control over the
region. Egyptian trading expeditions were sent out from Aswan, but there was no
attempt at military control. With the Middle Kingdom, emphasis was placed on the
exploitation of resources and trade routes. A chain of several powerful fortresses
was established up to the Second Cataract, but there was little significant contact

l ~ o s of
t this article is taken from my Dissertation Proposal "Askut and the Changing Nature of
Egyptian Imperialismin Nubia during the Second Millennium BC' accepted on June 1,1990. 1 would like
to acknowledge the many useful suggestions of Professors Timothy Earle, Elizabeth Carter, and Antonio
Loprieno. I, of course, remain responsible for the contents. I would also like to acknowledge the support
of the computing facility of the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures.
between the natives and occupying Egyptians. The Second Intermediate Period saw Egyptological explanation for the differences in imperial policy between the Middle
all Nubia controlled by the powerful Kerma polity from the south, with a mixture of and New Kingdoms is that the re-unification of Egypt in these periods created a
Kerma, Pan Grave, local C-Group and expatriate Egyptian cultures in Lower Nubia. military and bureaucratic impetus towards conquest (Kemp 1978:20 ff., Mumane
With the beginning of the New Kingdom came the Egyptian reconquest, and a new 1983:56, and to a lesser extent even Adams 1984). This is not really sufficient to
colonial policy which brought Nubia directly into the Egyptian civil and religio,us I
explain the nature of Egyptian imperialism, and is something like saying that the
systems. assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria and the Serbian Crisis
explains the war of 1914. Certainly, the early campaigns of Dynasty 18 into Palestine
and Nubia were a direct result of the Hyksos i n v a s i ~ n .Once
~ the initial campaigns
had taken place, however, the Egyptians had a number of options, including simple
Elephantine
withdrawal after neutralizing the enemy. The pharaohs of the Middle Kingdom
Lower Nubia engaged in a considerable number of campaigns south of the Second Cataract, yet no
attempt was made to extend formal Egyptian control into this region. It requires
more than the simple presence of a military impetus to explain the contrasting
systems.

More plausible is the argument that fundamental differences in the

weltanschauung of the two periods explain the differing imperial approaches.
Upper Nu bia
Wilson, one of the few Egyptologists to attempt a synthetic, explanatory approach?
Third Cataract provides a summary of this idea. He characterizes the Middle Kingdom as
Kerma
essentially pacific and isolationist, concentrating more on internal development
than external conquest. With the expulsion of the Hyksos, Egypt no longer felt
Fourth secure and content within her own borders. The frontier was seen as rebellious and
Fifth
Cataract potentially threatening, and a policy of outright expansionism was followed (Wilson
\*A tbara 1951:167, 174). Trigger also argues that the personality of the monarches and
domestic political situation fueled the extent of Egypt's imperial ambitions. Thus
Figure 1: The Nile from the First to Fifth Cataracts. the critical factor between the Old Kingdom A-Group depopulation and Middle
Kingdom coexistence strategies was the more moderate nature of Dynasty 12 rulers
in their control over both Egypt and Nubia (Trigger 1976:78). The idea of pacifist or
even simply moderate kings in the Middle Kingdom, however, is contradicted by
1. Egyptological Formulations. their Nubian policies, both ideological and practical. Senwosret 111's Semna Stela
adopts an overtly bellicose tone, glorifying war and conquest. Passages in this text
Egyptologists are gradually adopting a broader perspective, but, apart from a few
exceptions, most of the theoretical work in the study of Egyptian Imperialism is Z ~ e i n s t e i n(1981) stresses the punitive nature of these campaigns, with a truly imperialistic Policy
developing only with the reign of Thutmosis 111, especially his Megiddo campaign.
being done by scholars with an anthropological background. One common 3~ontrastingsharply with the more typically Egyptological and entirely descriptive work of Sir Alan
Gardiner (1961).
seem to react to the more genuinely passive policy of the late Old Kingdom, seen in have even helped in the Middle Kingdom conquest (Fischer 1961). More convincing
the expeditions of officials like Harkhuf. For example, one part reads (Lichtheim is the argument that an already acculturated or acculturating population was more
1973:119-20): "The true son is he who champions his father, who guards the border receptive to Egyptianization, although the idea of a 'superior' Egyptian culture, and
of his begetter. But he who abandons it, who fails to fight for it, he is not my son, he to some extent even technology, is overstated. This theme will be pursued with a
was not born to me." Active' military campaigning into Upper Nubia continued slightly different twist below.4 As noted above, destruction of Kerma as a motive
throughout Dynasty 12 and well into Dynasty 13 (Trigger 1976:83). explains only the impetus for military action, not the subsequent occupation, and,
more importantly, imperial policy.
Trigger also acknowledges the nature of the conquered civilization as an
important influence. Thus during the New Kingdom, the Levantine states were Kemp notes that although militarism and the pursuit of glory and booty might
thought of as civilized peoples with an equivalent complexity and technology to have provided an initial impetus for expansion, the extension of the state, both
Egypt. They were therefore treated as subject states and taxed. Kerma and Lower secular and religious, fits a scribal, bureaucratic value system (1978:ZO). It is this sub-
Nubia, however, were thought of as barbarians, and their cultures were completely system, well integrated throughout the Egyptian state system as a whole, which
reorganized along Egyptian lines (ibid.:llO). Save-Soderbergh also considers the drove Egyptian imperial policy in the New Kingdom. Kemp particularly argues
character of the native population. He sees the lack of acculturation in the Middle against an economic return as a prime motive in imperialism (1978:19). He notes
Kingdom as a reaction by the native groups to the Egyptian military occupation of that for the New Kingdom much of the revenue was consumed locally through a
Nubia (1989:9). Ian Hodder has observed'a similar pattern in modern Kenya (1979). similar temple redistribution system to that of Egypt itself, and thus was of no
Tribes competing over limited' resources maintain distinctly separate material economic benefit to Egypt (Kemp 1978:33). This argument is not entirely convincing.
cultures, stressing inter-group differences. "When tensions exist between groups, A colonized Nubia might be expected to underwrite a considerable portion, if not the
specific artifacts may be used as part of the expression of within-group corporateness entire cost, of imperial maintenance. This contrasts sharply with the situation
and "belongingness" in reference to outsiders" (ibid.:450). Removal of the Middle during the Middle Kingdom, where the fort system must have provided a
Kingdom garrisons allowed more peaceful interaction and the beginning of considerable drain on the royal resources. Smith argues that a more permanent
acculturation. Superior Egyptian technology and culture was rapidly adopted. This garrison system was established during Dynasty 13 in order to cut imperial costs
process was furthered by the use of Nubians as mercenaries in the war against the (1976:6&9).
Hyksos. By the time of the reconquest, much of the population was amenable to
integration into the Egyptian social and economic systems (Save-Soderbergh 1989:4). Kemp's view is by no means universal. Wilson recognized the importance of
From the Egyptian point of view, the new policy was driven by the need to commerce as a factor in the end of Middle Kingdom 'isolationism' and the change to
completely neutralize the growing threat posed by the now powerful Kerma polity. a new emphasis on expansionism (1951:174, as does Murnane 1983:56). Adams
Only complete domination and control could permanently eliminate the danger (19&4:40),an anthropologist, adopts the most explicitly economic model. The nature
(ibid.:5). These are all good points, and Save-Soderbergh's emphasis of the native of exploitation is critical as a driver for colonial policy. When the area produced
population as an active player is particularly important. Yet are these factors enough animals, in the late Predynastic and Archaic Periods, peaceful trade was followed. A
to account for the differences between the Middle and New Kingdom imperial demand for slaves in the early Old Kingdom resulted in a more bellicose policy of
patterns? The New Kingdom armies were just as much an occupying force as those depopulation. The exploitation of mineral resources lead to the establishment 'of
of the Middle Kingdom. They may have been perceived as less of a fireat, but why? extractive industries, with changing demands determining the nature of the system
Nubian mercenaries could have brought back Egyptian culture, but Nubians were
also employed as soldiers during the First Intermediate Period civil war, and may e implications of this cannot be assessed until the publication of the Scandinavian Joint
4 ~ h full
I
Expedition's final volumes discussing the New Kingdom Pharaonic remains (Vol. 5).
 83

through the New Kingdom. Working along with this was the need to control the
critical trade routes to the south. This model gets closer to a viable explanation for Colonialism Imperialism
Egyptian imperialism, but is still not entirely satisfactory, since the patterns of
exploitation in the Middle and New Kingdoms are not really that different.
Although many important and useful observations have been made by Eradication
colonial culture.
Egyptologists, no one system provides an adequate explanation for the changes in
Egyptian imperialism. We must look outside of Egyptology for a model for Egyptian
imperialism.
Acculturation
colonial culture.
2. A Definition of Imperialism

At the most basic level imperialism is about power, the domination of one
society over others (whether cultural, economic, political or a mixture of the three). Equilibrium
Beyond this basic statement, there is little consensus in the literature for a definition
of imperialism. Horvath attributes this to an emphasis by scholars on the modem,
Western expressions of the phenomenon, a tendency to avoid theory, particularly in
the humanities, and the application of terms (often ideologically loaded) to very
specific situations in rigid formulations (197246). Perhaps the most useful system Figure 2: Horvath/Bartel Matrix (after Bartel 1980).
for archaeological data is that developed by Horvath (1972) and adapted by Bartel
(1980, 1985). It uses a matrix, with a difference between Colonialism (with settlers) This matrix is particularly appropriate for Egypt. The abrupt disappearance of the
and Imperialism (no settlers), and Eradication, Acculturation and Equilibrium A-Group culture at the end of the Archaic Period (Dynasties 1 and 2) has been
strategies within these (Fig. 2). attributed to Egyptian aggression, including mass deportations (Trigger 1965:77 ff.,
Adams 1977:139). It was accompanied not by large scale resettlement of the area by
Egyptians but by the establishment of a very few specialized sites for the exploitation
of mineral wealth (Trigger 196579 f., 1976:46 ff., Adams 1977:138 f.). It can be seen as
an example of Eradication Imperialism. During the Middle Kingdom the native C-
Group were allowed to remain in Nubia and retained their culture with little
Egyptian interference.5 Again there was no real attempt at large scale settlement, but
rather the establishment of a series of forts aimed at controlling the local population,
maintaining and securing the riverine and desert trade routes, and exploiting certain

5 ~ o d d e rhas established that the maintenance of separate material cultures does not necessarily
indicate limited contact and interaction. In the case of the CGroup, however, there is a corresponding
lack of culturally neutral trade goods which might establish any substantial interaction (Save-
Siiderbergh 1989:9). Williams has suggested that the Egyptians deliberately restricted the trade in
copper (1983:117).
1 mineral resources (Trigger 1976:67 ff., Adams 1977.183 ff.). This provides a good
The work of Eisenstadt provides a good example of the tendency towards over
generalization. He divides imperial systems into 'patrimonial' ones, with little
example of Equilibrium Imperialism. Egypt's New Kingdom policy towards the
differentiation between center and periphery and little interconnectedness between
Levant was similar. Again, there was no attempt at colonization. The Egyptian
the parts, and 'imperial' ones, where there is considerable differentiation within the
presence was never very large and always military and administrative (and perhaps
empire, but a high level of interconnectedness between the individual parts. He
also commercial). Each city state was left to govern its own territory, the only
likens this to a difference between mechanical and organic solidarity within the two
constraint being the regular collection of tribute for Egypt and the restriction of
systems. Thus, the kind of empire, 'patrimonial' or 'imperial,' guides the structure
relations outside of the system. Egypt's Nubian policy at the same period was
of the imperial system (Eisenstadt 1979). Yet there are basic problems with this
radically different. Nubia was brought completely within the Egyptian social,
analysis when it is applied to Egypt. Eisenstadt ignores the external empire in the
economic, religious and administrative systems. Settlers were sent from Egypt as
Levant and Nubia. He sees Egypt as an internal patrimonial empire, composed of a
well as captive populations from the Levant. Acculturation was encouraged, with
number of like parts, the Nomes. This proposal itself could be contested. Patterns of
indigenous elites allowed virtually full participation in the Egyptian system (Kemp
land tenure contradict the lack of integration proposed in Eisenstadt's model. From
1978:29 ff., Frandsen 1979). Some eventually reached high ranks in the bureaucracy
the Old Kingdom on land holdings by an individual or institution might be spread
in Egypt and Nubia (Kemp 1978:35 f.). What we see here is clearly an example of
throughout Egypt regardless of Nome boundaries. He would portray Egypt as a
Acculturation Colonialism.6 The weakness of Horvath's system is that it makes no
group of culturally similar polities which have strong tendencies towards
attempt to explain why a particular strategy was chosen. The next step, therefore, is
independence in times when the central authority weakens. This model was long in
to link this classification with a theoretical framework.
vogue among Egyptologists, but is now being replaced by a more integrative one.
Over some 2000 plus years from the Archaic Period to the Third Intermediate Period
3. Theories of Imperialism. the years of actual disunity probably do not exceed three centuries. This number
dwindles into only decades if a division of the country into two unified polities, as
was the case throughout the bulk of the First and Second Intermediate Periods, is
Archaeology has a great potential to shed light on the nature of imperial systems.
considered 'unity.' Egypt should be viewed as a well integrated nation-state, not an
It can provide a level of diachronic and cross-cultural data which is unavailable for
Empire made up of smaller, homogeneous polities dominated by a center. But
modern manifestations of the phenomenon. Yet despite this, the theoretical
whatever the internal situation, the two imperial systems imposed by the Egyptians
approach to ancient imperialism is still in its infancy. Studies to date have tended to
on the Levant and Nubia vary so widely as to belie any explanation which relies
be descriptive, without many serious attempts to go beyond the how to the why of
solely on the internal character of the conquering society. Egypt's approach to the
imperial systems. Those which do often take a comparative approach at a generally
latter was initially more along Imperial lines. Great differences between conqueror
synthetic level. Such work is useful for stimulating discussion, but by itself can only
and conquered were fostered. Later an acculturation policy was followed
advance our knowledge of imperialism in a limited way. These formulations need
(presumably a more Patrimonial approach). At the same time a classically Imperial
to be tested in explicit, localized studies (Bartel 1980:14 f., 1985:11, and Alcock 1989:88
C\
system was adopted in the Levant, with great diversity allowed to exist between
center and periphery. The fact that Egypt was a Patrimonial empire internally (if
indeed it was), characterized by a high degree of mechanical solidarity, apparently
6~agree with Slve-Soderbergh's objections to the idea that the native population was simply replaced had little influence on how it approached external imperial situations. Bartel has
by Egyptian colonists (1989:lO-1). Morkot has recently suggested that Egyptian imperialism in Upper pointed out that this diversity of approach to imperial situations over time and
Nubia between Kawa and the Fourth Cataract may have been more along the lines of the Levant, with
local princedchiefs as tributaries of Pharaoh (Morkot 1987:40). More archaeological work is needed in
space is more the norm than the exception in the history of empires (1985:12).
the fertile Dongala reach to clarify this picture.
Eisenstadt's model therefore works better as an approach to individual imperial
situations. A state can thoose between Patrimonial and Imperial styles of A tribal society's critical lack of centralization and social differentiation make it
dominance. If we adopt this idea, then Eisenstadt's model is reduced to a typology particularly vulnerable to aggression. Its high level of systemic integration
without direct theoretical implications. What we want to know is why one or the magnifies the shock to any one part of the system. Thus a system collapse is almost
other system was chosen. inevitable, encouraging direct intervention by the aggressor. The North American
Indian is a good example of this pattern. A high level of integration with low
Eisenstadt, along with others, emphasizes the dominant society to the exclusion centralization made both coordinated resistance and co-operation difficult. The
of the indigenous cultures. Doyle, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of patrimonial society has a greater degree of differentiation but still lacks a
the local population in determining the nature of the colonial system (1986:128 ff..). centralization sufficient to effectively resist dominance. The 'presence of a local elite
In order to adopt an imperialist approach, however, the aggressor must also meet and some institutional differentiation allows for collaboration while avoiding
certain criteria. There must be a metropolitan polity' with a highly centralized system collapse. The exploiting center gradually integrates sectors of the indigenous
government, strong sense of community, and substantial degree of social society into its system, until the local ruler is either deposed and replaced by a
differentiation. Not all societies meeting these criteria, however, become imperial governor or co-opted by the center. Imperial rule is much more likely to be indirect,
powers. Although ideological factors and the interests of the agents of contact can be through native intermediaries, than with a tribal society. The C-Group and A-
important, the specific nature of the imperial system adopted is largely determined Group would fall into this category, with the former coping with imperial
by the character of the dominated society. Conquered societies are classified into intervention, eventually becoming fully integrated into the imperial culture, and
three levels of internal organization, tribal, patrimonial, and feudal. These fall the latter not coping and suffering a system collapse. The feudal society is a socially
along a continuum of three critical variables, level of systemic integration, and institutionally differentiated polity of small quasi sovereignties, each pursuing
centralization and social stratification (Fig. 3). its own advantage. Centralization within each unit is high, but low between units.
Here collaboration without social collapse is very likely. Indirect rule over such well
developed systems also has the advantage of reducing administrative costs and
Low meets with less resistance than formal rule by the exploiting polity (Doyle 1986:132-
Fuedal
6). This category provides an excellent model for the Egypt's relations with the
Levantine petty kingdoms during the New Kingdom. Doyle's formulation, while
G
interesting and important in recognizing both ends of the system, perhaps errs by
placing too much emphasis on the nature of the dominated culture. It is hard to
detect differences in the level of complexity of the A-Group and C-Group cultures
i
substantial enough to explain the differences between Old Kingdom, Middle
Kingdom and New Kingdom imperial strategies in Nubia.

Low High In essence, he down plays the economic nature of imperialism. Far from being
Stratification
abandoned as a prime mover in studies of imperialism (Kemp 1978:19), it has been
Figure 3: Doyle's model of peripheral societies. given much attention over the past decade with the application of Wallerstein's
Modern World System to antiquity (1974; ie.: Schneider 1977, Ekholm and Friedman
1979, Blanton and Feinman 1984, Rowlands, et al. 1987). In his original formulation,
Wallerstein argued that the World System did not exist before the development of
capitalism only a few centuries ago. Transportation networks were not sophisticated
enough to carry bulk goods, like grain and cloth, which represented high amounts of
stored energy (man hours for their production). Ancient exchange was restricted to
luxury goods used only as status markers for a restricted elite, and thus not
important in the total economic system. Only trade in staples could support a World
System with its attendant inequities between center and an exploited periphery.
This notion was quickly criticized. Schneider (1977:22 ff.) notes that the
international trade in luxury goods was critical to the development of the early
civilizations and to the maintenance of their elites. Both Redman (1978) and
Hoffman (1979) consider control over the production of and trade in luxury goods as
a critical variable in the development of complex societies in the Near East and
Egypt. Ekholm and Friedman argue that accumulation of goods at centers represents
a real accumulation of wealth, which might be re-invested in productive activities
(1979). In his analysis of the suburbs of Amarna, Kemp proposes a similar model, in
which large estates in Egypt acted as foci of accumulated wealth from the surplus
production of grain, which was reinvested in profit making manufacturing and
mercantile activities through professional traders (1977). Schneider also points out
that bulk goods cited by Wallerstein as evidence of the modern world system, like
wine and olive oil, were indeed traded in antiquity. Other products, like copper and
textiles, were also exchanged in quantity. These trade goods were invested with
considerable energy expended in their production, and were central to the economic
systems concerned. For example, Kohl points out that the thriving long distance Each center has its own dominated periphery, which might fluctuate from period
metals and textile trade between Assyria and Anatolia was critical to the former's to period. Theoretically, vassal states were not allowed to treat outside their system.
entire economic system. In a manner highly reminiscent of modern imperialism, In practice, border states had considerable flexibility. Unlike the modern system,
core areas might even serve as nodes for the production of manufactured goods dependant states could break off and align with other systems, or even occasionally
which were traded to the periphery in exchange for raw materials (Kohl 1987, also become the center of their own system. Centers might fall and be replaced by new
Larsen 1987). It would be too much to say that there is a complete correspondence centers, as was the case with Mittanni and Hatti. The World System can contribute
between the modern and ancient systems, but by noting points of continuity and to the study of ancient imperialism through its emphasis on the fundamentally
discontinuity we can understand both better. For our purposes, Kohl's (1987) model economic nature of contacts between societies, which might be the result of stronger
of multiple world systems is the most appropriate to the Near East. A simplified societies and their elites imposing themselves on less developed areas for material
reconstruction of this system after the fall of Mittanni might look something like profit (Kohl 1987:24). The critical point for this study is that Egypt's relations with
Fig. 4.
Nubia were ultimately driven by economic (not ideological) considerations which overall framework for understanding changes in Egyptian imperialism. Due to my
spanned the entire system and connected with external systems.8 own research interests (see below), the main emphasis is on changes from the
Middle to New Kingdoms in Lower Nubia.
Alcock's approach is explicitly economic, as it relies on a cost-minimization
strategy by the dominant state as the prime mover (1989:90-2). She provides a more Using this model, then, the first possibility is that the nature of exploitation
balanced perspective than Doyle, stressing both the nature of the indigenous system created different imperial needs, requiring different levels of restructuring in
and the exploitative goals of the imperial system. As imperial polities absorb other indigenous systems and/or the creation of new systems. In order to accept of this
polities, some territorial reorganization usually follows. Where the necessary idea, a major shift in exploitation from the Middle Kingdom to the New Kingdom
infrastructure for exploitation is lacking, the imperial polity will create a new should be apparent. The most convincing evidence is the addition of intensified
system. If the existing structure is too unwieldy, it will be simplified, for example, by agricultural and/or pastoral activity to the continuing mineral exploitation. But it is
dividing a larger area into smaller units. Finally, the conquered polity will be left not clear that there is a corresponding increase in exports of these products to Egypt
intact if it can meet imperial requirements. Her approach accounts better for the (Morkot 1987:44). Local production without exports could simply be the result of the
Nubian situation. The differences between Nubia and the Levant, for example, are restructuring process and not a causal factor. As noted above, Kemp argues that
clearly not primarily due to different patterns of exploitation, although this could exports of these goods to Egypt were never significant, with most of the surplus
have been a contributing factor, but to differences in the local systems. In Nubia, the consumed locally. Another possibility is a dramatic intensification of overall
extant system was inadequate to meet Egyptian needs, while in the Levant, the mineral exploitation accompanied by the use of native labor, which would require a
political and economic systems met Egyptian imperial requirements without the colonial occupation for its mobilization (immigrants might also be used in this case).
need for radical restructuring. The driving factor behind the choice of different This is perhaps a better possibility, although it must be remembered that substantial
imperial policies in the Middle and New Kingdoms is not as easy to establish. mineral exploitation was carried out in the Old and Middle Kingdoms using labor
Differing patterns of exploitation might have played a critical role. The nature of the from Egypt, and there is no indication that this method changed in the New
imperial remnant surviving in Nubia during the Second Intermediate Period, the Kingdom.
introduction of Kerman groups, and their interaction with each other and the C-
Group polities, could have changed the previously existing infrastructure. A new The second, and I feel more likely, possibility is that changes in the local systems
policy of acculturation colonialism might have been more attractive to the Dynasty (the mix of C-Group, Egyptian expatriates, and the newly introduced Kermans and
18 invaders as a result. possibly Pan Grave peoples) during the Second Intermediate Period could have
provided a sufficient infrastructure, lacking in the Middle Kingdom, for the pursuit
of Acculturation Colonialism in the New Kingdom. The C-Group was maintaining
4. A Model for Egyptian Imperialism. strong cultural boundaries in the Middle Kingdom through an emphasis on their
own, and rejection of Egyptian, material culture. In Doyle's terms, the native
Alcock's system of an interaction between the needs of the imperial power and polities effectively resisted cultural, if not physical, domination, avoiding system
structure of indigenous systems in a cost-minimizing system provides a good collapse by emphasizing their separate cultural identity. The Middle Kingdom
indigenous systems therefore provided a completely inadequate infrastructure for
exploitation, leading to the creation of a new, parallel system completely bypassing
8~conomicin the broadest sense. Morkot (1987:44-5)rightly calls into question the uncritical use of
modern terms for pre-capitalist economies. Simple material profit was not necessarily the goal. Thus
gold extracted from Nubia during the New Kingdom was critical in the maintenance of Egypt's economic
and political relations with the Near East.
 the native one? The native polities might have- become more centralized and
stratified during the Second Intermediate Period, creating a leadership which could economic dynamics of the Inka Empire that may provide us with an explanation. In
be efficiently co-opted by the Egyptians. Unlike the Levant, the local systems would their study, they make a distinction between wealth and staple finance. The former
still not be complex enough to meet Egyptian needs by themselves, but required a consists of high value goods with low spoilage, really anything that would justify the
system of Acculturation Colonialism to meet Egyptian imperial needs. The problem costs of transport. For Nubia this category would include various luxury trade
with this idea is that there was considerable centralization and consolidation in the goods, costly bulk items like wood, and valuable minerals like precious stones and,
C-Group just before the Middle Kingdom intervention.lO At the same time there is perhaps most importantly, gold. Staple finance depends on the collection of
little evidence for increasing stratification in the C-Group during the Second subsistence goods, like grain and cattle, which would then be redistributed locally to
Intermediate Period, although there is evidence for an increasing Egyptianization state functionaries and periodic laborers.11 Staple finance would serve to support
among the C-Group just before the reconquest (Trigger 1976:79 ff., Save-Soderbergh the local administration, while wealth finance could be employed to support
1989:lO). The natives might thus have been more open to Egyptian influence. centralized state functions, both locally and inter-regionally. There are numerous
Contact and assimilation with the Pan Grave culture (Save-Soderbergh 1989:4), advantages to the imperial power with such an arrangement. The inter-regional
might also have weakened the 'traditional' C-Group's cultural identity, adversely integration of economic systems would provide a more cost effective method of
affecting its ability to resist domination. An imperial remnant during the Second mobilizing local resources. Such a system would provide a secure agricultural base
Intermediate Period, still culturally Egyptian but with profound contacts with C- for imperial garrisons. State control over the local redistribution of luxury and
Group and Kermans (and perhaps also Pan Grave peoples), would have been well subsistence goods would ensure that the local elite had a vested interest in the
placed to take advantage of the more open and perhaps culturally 'weakened' C- maintenance of the imperial system. Such a system need not be without benefit to
Group. Lacking sufficient cohesion and/or will for resistance, the native elite could the exploited. The local elite would have the obvious advantages of imperial
be co-opted by the invading Egyptians. The expatriates could have provided the patronage, while even the general populace might benefit from the state storage of
needed infrastructure to make Acculturation Colonialism more appealing than staples in case of shortage or famine, and income from corvee labor during the off
simple occupation. They would have provided a direct link to the native systems of season.
both the C-Group and Kerma cultures (and perhaps also Pan Grave). This
community is well attested at Buhen both textually and, with less precision, This model works well for Egyptian Imperialism in Lower Nubia. Surpluses
archaeologically (Smith 1976:73 ff.). created by the intensification of pastoral and agricultural activity were reinvested in
a local temple and estate system modeled on Egypt's. It would have been run partl)
This provides us with the mechanism for acculturation, but how and why would by Egyptian officials and settlers, but also by co-opted native leaders and ar
the Egyptians find such a system attractive? We have already rejected Kemp's idea increasingly acculturated population. As in Egypt, the general population woulc
of a proselytizing bureaucracy. The Egyptians simply were not that interested in have been gradually impoverished to the benefit of the Egyptian and Egyptianizec
foreigners. D'Altroy and Earle (1985) have proposed a model for understanding the

9~resumablyalso the costs of expelling the CCroup were too great compared with simply establishing
control over the region and maintaining a close watch on the population centers.
llGoods which were too cheap and too bulky, and thus too costly, to transport over long distances. 'hi
]OAS revealed in the accounts of the expedition leaders of Aswan during the late Old Kingdom was not as much of a problem for Egypt as for the Inkas, since the Nile provided a comparatively cheal
(Lichtheim 1973:23 ff.). The A-Group also showed considerable organization and centralization and means of bulk transport. Still, the higher cost and smaller productive capability of land in Nubie
had been heavily exposed to Egyptian material and cognitive culture, even more so than the C-Group. combined with the additional costs of transport, would have made Nubian grain too expensive to b
Here the bellicose Extermination approach of the early Old Kingdom may be more in the resource profitably transported, except in time of severe shortages. With cattle the situation might have beel
exploited, in this case slaves, as A d a m suggests, rather than in the native system (apart from the fact more favorable, since in some ways they might be counted as wealth goods and could be transportel
that it was weak enough to be exploited in this way). with relative ease. It is not clear, however, whether enough cattle were really exported to Egypt t
justifj this classification.
Nubian elite.12 Far from being of no real value to the state, this reinvestment of
Asia

v
resources into the maintenance of local systems would have underwritten most or Fodgn
"Gifts," Elite.
all of the costs of the infrastructure required for the exploitation of mineral resources Payment Trade.
and trade routes for exotic goods. These goods, in turn, were critical to Egypt's for goods
foreign policy in the Near East and the maintenance of her elites. Some bulk export (copper,
exotica,
goods, especially timber, could also be exploited more efficiently in this way. As
noted above, it has been argued that wealth goods had a very limited economic role,
consisting largely of reciprocal, and often unequal, gifts between elites. Morkot
rightly points out that we should not impose modern, capitalist concepts of
profitability on ancient economic systems (1987:44 f.). Luxury goods especially might
be exchanged for political and social reasons, as well as purely economic ones. This
does not mean, however, that the state did not take the costs of the production and
management of such goods into account in its organization of the state economy
(D'Altroy and Earle 1985:189-90). What appears on the surface to be simple
redistribution with little direct economic benefit to the state becomes a system of
state finance when it is used to support centrally controlled activities. Thus in
Nubia the New Kingdom acculturation policy was not meant to produce an
agricultural surplus for the direct profit of the state, but rather to finance state
activities, like mineral exploitation and the control and facilitation of the trade in
luxury goods from the south (Fig. 5).

"Tribute," Native &

Taxes, Wealth Finance - Expatriot
Profits, (Gold, Exotica) Egyptian
etc. Elite.

..
probably Token
Amounts
I y +\
Local
12~rigger(1976:131 ff., also Kernp 1978:40) proposes that this process, resulting in the concentration of redistributive
the population near the mapr Egyptian settlements and the estates supporting them, might explain the b economicsystem
'disappearance' of both Egyptian style and native burials by the Ramesside period. Depopulation
seems unlikely, since it is clear that the temple estates, imperial bureaucracy and local elite continued
on at least until the end of the New Kingdom with no real disruption. New monuments were built at
Quban as late as Ramesses X. Tombs at Aniba include the Viceroy Panhesy and an early Dynasty 20
predecessor. Inscriptions confirm the continued operation of the Viceregal and temple administration
and cults, implying the continuing support of an agricultural base (Trigger 1976:135, Morkot 1987).
-
supporting state
activities.

Figure 5: Model for the Egyptian Imperial System during the New Kingdom.
 the large forts excavated between the First and Second Cataracts, including Serra East,
which was heavily denuded prior to being overbuilt by a Christian settlement (Bruce
5. Conclusions. Williams, pers. cornm. 1988, Knudstad 1966), Kuban (Emery and Kirwan 19351, Ikkur
(Firth 1912), Faras (Griffiths 1921), and Aniba (Steindorff 1935). The Second Cataract
We now have two working hypotheses:13 1) A wealth and staple finance system forts fared little better. The inner fort of Semna South had been completely
using Acculturation Colonialism was in operation during the New Kingdom; 2) denuded, but the peripheral areas and enclosure were better preserved (Zabkar and
The mechanism for the change in policy from the Middle Kingdom Equilibrium Zabkar 1982). The cultural deposits at Kumma, Uronarti and Shalfak were too
Imperialism strategy lies in the fundamental changes in the local system brought on heavily denuded or disturbed (or, perhaps, poorly excavated) to arrive at secure
by the presence of expatriate Egyptians and their interaction with the already stratigraphic contexts. Only one section of Semna, near the later temples, had any
acculturating native Nubians. In order to test the latter, there should be evidence of stratigraphy (Dunham and Janssen 1960, Dunham 1967).15 Askut's well preserved
a culturally Egyptian population with significant native contacts having continuity stratigraphic deposits, at a consistent 1-1.5 m. in the Upper Fort and from 50 cm. to
between the late Second Intermediate Period and the early 18th Dynasty. 2.50 m. in the Southeastern sector,l6 are therefore unique to the area. The degree of
Unfortunately, both the textual and archaeological records have, up until now, horizontal and vertical control in the excavation was also much better than at the
lacked sufficient detail to determine just what happened after the reoccupation. The majority of surrounding sites. Additionally, there was no 'winnowing' of material
site of Askut, however, provides an excellent source of data for addressing these as at other sites, where 'undesirable' or 'uninformative' objects were often discarded
questions.14 All of the other major Egyptian settlements in Lower Nubia were (eg., non-diagnostic sherds were almost invariably thrown out at the other sites, and
poorly preserved or excavated, lacking the critical stratigraphic data needed for a virtually none of the pottery from Buhen was saved - Emery et al. 1979). Because of
rigorous diachronic analysis. The main forts at Buhen and Mirgissa were severely these problems, there has been a lack of sufficient archaeological definition to
denuded over most of their area. The situation at the former was particularly bad, establish the character and exact history of the critical Second Intermediate
with the mixing of deposits leading the excavators to conclude that context was Period/New Kingdom transition at the other sites. Were the expatriate Egyptians
highly unreliable (Emery et al. 1979:93-4). Mirgissa was better preserved in some allowed to switch sides again and continue on in Egyptian service after the
areas, but deposits in a large portion of the interior of the main fort were less that 20 reconquest? or were all killed or taken prisoner by the invading army? There is
cm. deep (or went unexcavated). Most of the interior was preserved to less that 50 some indication that Askut had just such an occupation, which continued without
break into the 18th Dynasty.17 Ongoing research on the Askut collection is
cm. It was also not possible to make extensive excavations in the substantial outer
fort (Vercoutter et al. 1970, esp. Fig. 38). A similar situation was encountered at all of concentrating on this problem.

1 3 ~ h two
e are not necessarily linked. For example, the first hypothesis could be accepted even if This study is not intended to provide any final conclusions about the nature of
changes in the native populations alone, and not the Egyptian expatriots, were enough to allow the
Egyptians to co-opt the native leadership and pursue an acculturation policy. Egyptian imperialism, but rather to suggest a number of possibilities, not necessarily
14The island fortress of Askut was excavated in two seasons from 19624by the late Alexander Badawy mutually exclusive, which can be tested against the extant archaeological record. I
under the sponsorship of the University of California at Los Angeles as a part of the UNESCO Aswan
High Dam Salvage Campaign. Virtually the entire collection from this project is housed in the Museum hope also that it has shown how Egyptologists can use theoretical concepts outside of
of Cultural History at UCLA. Only preliminary reports were published by the excavator (Badawy
1963,1964a, 1964b, 1965, 19661, although the manuscript of his final report may be published soon by 15For some of these forts, especially Semna and Uronarti, a careful analysis of the data might providc
the Museum. The fort was probably commissioned by Senwosret 111 in c. 1850 B.C. It was located just a clearer picture.
south of the Second Cataract, only about 20 km. north of the Middle Kingdom colonial frontier at Semna 160nly the area immediately South of the 'Commandant's Quarters' was denuded at Askut, although
(Figure 1). Occupation clearly continued well into Dynasty 13, and, after a possible hiatus, through the the entire magazine structure was heavily disturbed by later, probably Meroitic, activity.
Second Intermediate Period (Smith 1991). The site continued to be inhabited during the New Kingdom
17For example, post Middle Kingdom levels show a mix of Kenna Classique, domestic CGroup and Pan
until at least Dynasty 19. These strata form a distinct and possibly even continuous cultural and
temporal unit. Meroitic and Christian settlements overlaid these deposits, but are not considered here. Grave ceramics, but always with a majority of Egyptian style ceramics mixed in.
Egyptology to their benefit. Using the model presented above, it should be possible 1966 "Archaeological Problems Relating to the Egyptian Fortress at Askut,"
to assess the character of the occupation at Askut, and to see how it functioned Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 5:23-7.
within the broader Egyptian imperial system. Ultimately, we can perhaps identify Bartel, Brad
some of the reasons why different systems were chosen. This in turn would not 1980 "Colonialism and Cultural Responses," World Archaeology 12:ll-26.
only benefit Egyptology and Nubiology, but also people working in various parts of 1985 "Comparative Historical Archaeology and Archaeological Theory," in
the world and in various time periods on the general problems of imperial systems Comparative Studies in the Archaeology of Colonialism, edited by
and how they operate. Stephen L. Dyson. BAR International Series 233, Oxford.
Blanton, Richard, and Gary Feinman
Archaeology Program 1984 "The Mesoamerican World System," American Anthropologist 86:673-
University of California at b s Angeles 82.
D'Altroy, Terence N. and Timothy K. Earle
1985 "Staple Finance, Wealth Finance, and Storage in the Inka Political
Economy," Current Anthropology 26:187-206.
References
Doyle, Michael W.
1986 Empires. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Adams, William Y. Dunham, Dows
1977 Nubia: Corridor to Africa. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 1967 Uronarti, Shalfak, Mirgissa. Second Cataract Forts, Vol. 11. Museum of
1984 "The First Colonial Empire: Egypt in Nubia 3200-1200 B.C.," Fine Arts, Boston.
Comparative Studies in Sociology and History 26:36-71. Dunham, Dows, and J. M. A. Janssen
Alcock, Susan E. 1960 Semna, Kumma. Second Cataract Forts, Vol. I. Museum of Fine Arts,
1989 "Archaeology and Imperialism: Roman Expansion and the Greek City," Boston.
Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2937-135. Eisenstadt, S. N.
Badawy, Alexander 1979 "Observations and Queries about Sociological Aspects of Imperialism in
n.d. "Askut: An Egyptian Island Fortress of the Middle Kingdom in Upper the Ancient World," in Power and Propaganda, edited by Mogens
Nubia." Ms. on file, Museum of Cultural History, University of Trolle Larsen. Mesopotamia 7, Copenhagen.
California at Los Angeles. Ekholm, K. and J. Friedman
1963 "Excavation Under the Threat of the High am: The Ancient Egyptian 1979 ""Capital" Imperialism and Exploitation in Ancient World Systems," in
Island Fortress of Askut in the Sudan, Between the Second and Third Power and Propaganda, edited by Mogens Trolle Larsen. Mesopotamia
Cataracts." Illustrated London News, June 22:964-6. 7, Copenhagen.
1964a "An Egyptian Fortress in the "Belly of the Rock: Further Excavations Emery, Walter B,. and L. P. Kirwan
and Discoveries in the Sudanese Island of Askut." Illustrated London 1935 The Excavations and Survey Between Wadi es-Sebua and Adindan. 2
News, July 16:86-88. volumes. Government Press, Cairo.
1964b "Preliminary Report on the Excavations by the University of California Emery, Walter B., H. S. Smith, and Anne Millard
at Askut." Kush 12:47-53. 1979 The Fortress of Buhen. Part 1. The Archaeological Report. Egypt
1965 "Askut: A Middle Kingdom Fortress in Nubia." Archaeology 18:124-31. Exploration Society Memoirs, Vol. 49. London.
 Larsen, Mogens Trolle
Firth, C. M.
1987 "Commercial Networks and Trade in the Ancient Near East," in Center
1912 The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. Report for 1908-1909.
and Periphery in the Ancient World, edited by Michael Rowlands, et al.
Government Press, Cairo.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Fischer, Henry George
Lichtheim, Miriam
1961 "The Nubian Mercenaries of Gebelein during the First Intermediate
1973 Ancient Egyptian Literature. Vol. 1. University of California Press, Berkelc
Period," Kush 9:44-80.
Morkot, Robert G.
Frandsen, Paul John
1987 "Studies in new kingdom Nubia 1. Politics, economics and ideology:
1979 "Egyptian Imperialism," in Power and Propaganda, edited by Mogens
Egyptian imperialism in Nubia," Wepwawet 3:29-49.
Trolle Larsen. Mesopotamia 7, Copenhagen.
Murnane, William J.
Gardiner, Alan
1983 The Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.
1961 Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Redford, Donald B.
Griffiths, F. L1.
1979 "Egyptology and History," in Egyptology and the Social Sciences, edited
1921 "Oxford Excavations in Nubia," University of Liverpool Annals of
by Kent Weeks. AUC Press, Cairo.
Archaeology and Anthropology 8:l-18.
Redman, Charles L.
Hodder, Ian
1978 The Rise of Civilization. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.
1979 "Economic and Social Stress and ate rial Culture," American Antiquity
Rowlands, Michael, ed., et al.
44:446-54.
1987 Center and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge University
Hoffman, Michael A.
Press, Cambridge.
1979 Egypt Before the Pharaohs. New York.
Save-Werbergh, Torgny, ed.
Horvath, Ronald J.
1989 Middle Nubian Sites. The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese
1972 "A Definition of Colonialism," Current Anthropology 13:45-57.
Nubia 41. Uddevala.
Kemp, B. J.
Schneider, Jane
1978 "Imperialism in New Kingdom Egypt (c. 1575-1087B.C.)," in Imperialism
1977 "Was There a Pre-capitalist World-System?" Peasant Studies 6:20-29.
in the Ancient World, edited by P.D.A. Garnsey and C.R. Whittaker.
Smith, H. S.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1976 Buhen 11. The Inscriptions. Egyptian Exploration Society Memoir 48,
1977 "The City of el-Amama as a source for the Study of Urban Society in
London.
Ancient Egypt," World Archaeology 9:123-39.
Smith, Stuart Tyson
Kohl, Phil
1991 "Askut and the Purpose of the Second Cataract Forts," Journal of the
1987 "The Ancient Economy, Transferable Technologies and the Bronze Age
American Research Center in Egypt XXVIII.
World System," in Center and Periphery in the Ancient World, edited
Steindorff, Georg
by Michael Rowlands, et al. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1935 Aniba. 2 vols. Gliickstadt.
Knudstad, J.
Trigger, Bruce G.
1966 "Serra East and Dorginarti." Kush 14:165-86.
1965 History and Settlement in Lower Nubia. Yale University Publications in
Anthropology 69. Yale University, New Haven.
 1976 Nubia Under the Pharaohs. Thames and Hudson, London.
Vercoutter, Jean, et. al.
1970 Mirgissa I. Mission Archcfiologique Franqais au Soudan, Paris.
Wallerstein, I.
, 1974 The Modern World System. Academic Press, New York.
Weinstein, James
1981 "The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment," Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 241:l-28.
Williams, Bruce
1983 C-Group, Pan Grave, and Kerma Remains at Adindan Cemetaries T , K, U , and
I. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Expedition, Vol. V. Oriental
Institute Press, Chicago.
Wilson, John A.
1951 The Burden of Egypt. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Zabkar Louis V., and Joan J. Zabkar
1982 "Semna South. A Preliminary Report on the 1966-68 Excavations of the
University of Chicago Oriental Institute Expedition to Sudanese
Nubia." Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 19:7-50.