"Levantine Thinking in Egypt" the Footprint of Intellectual Influence
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Faculty Publications 2011-01-01 "Levantine Thinking in Egypt" The Footprint of Intellectual Influence Kerry M. Muhlestein [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, and the Other Religion Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Muhlestein, Kerry M., ""Levantine Thinking in Egypt" The Footprint of Intellectual Influence" (2011). Faculty Publications. 1234. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/1234 This Peer-Reviewed Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Page 190 ―Levantine Thinking in Egypt‖ in Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, Volume 52 (2011): 190-235 Kerry Muhlestein, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Ancient Scripture and Ancient Near Eastern Studies Adjunct Research Fellow, Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship Brigham Young University 801-422-3911 [email protected] The Footprint of Intellectual Influence Abstract: Upon examination of material and textual remains, there is a great deal of evidence for more contact with the Levant than many have supposed. This contact took the form of both Egyptians in the Levant and Asiatics in Egypt. Furthermore, the Shipwrecked Sailor bears hallmarks of Levantine literature. This famous tale may thus say something significant about Egyptian/Levantine relations. It seems to attest to intellectual influence flowing into Egypt from the Levant. 1 The Footprint of Intellectual Influence We are approaching a clearer understanding of Egypt‘s relations with the Levant during the Middle Kingdom.1 Past ideas have ranged from the supposition of little contact to the notion of an Egyptian empire,2 and recently many scholars posit that while there was no empire there was an organic, healthy and lively exchange between the two areas,3 including eras and areas of Egyptian dominance.4 We can take our understanding of those relations one step further; we can look for intellectual exchange. While a strong case can be made for Egyptian influence among her northern neighbors, it is more difficult to determine if the impact also flowed the other way. If we want to know whether there was any kind of intellectual influence issuing into Egypt from the Levant, we must look for evidence of both opportunity and impact. Such an examination reveals that not only was the contact between the two areas substantial enough for a bi- directional intellectual influence to be possible, but even likely. Additionally, the Shipwrecked Sailor may exhibit marks of this influence. While many have investigated Middle Kingdom influence in the Levant, to date no full compilation of evidences for Levantine contact during the Middle Kingdom exists. Such a compilation would not only be a useful tool for future (page 191) scholarship (if a ‗complete‘ compilation is even possible), but is necessary if we are to have a fully rounded-out picture of opportunity for intellectual exchange. Thus we will first examine indications of an Egyptian 1. By Middle Kingdom, I mean from the reigns of the Mentuhoteps until about MernefferaIy. See Bietak, ―The Center of Hyksos Rule: Avaris ‗Tel el-Dab‘h,‖ 126; Quirke, ―Identifying the Officials of the Fifteenth Dynasty,‖ 171. 2. For an insightful discussion on these opposing views, the assumptions which influence them, and ways to move forward, see Cohen, Canaanites, Chronologies, and Connections: the relationship of Middle Bronze IIA Canaan to Middle Kingdom Egypt, 33. 3. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, 81. 4. Gee, ―Overlooked Evidence for Sesotris III‘s Foreign Policy.‖ 23 –31. See also Cohen, Canaanites, Chronologies, and Connections, 50 & 139. 2 presence in the Levant, a contact which would make a cultural/intellectual exchange possible. Since much work has been done in this area, here I will present only a brief summary. Next, we will turn our attention to the mixed presence in the Sinai. We will then look at an Asiatic presence in Egypt, an element that enables, if not requires, an intellectual exchange to occur. Finally, we will investigate features present in the tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor, which carries a very visible footprint of Levantine intellectual influence. Manifestations of an Egyptian Presence in the Levant In many studies it would be most desirable to document evidence chronologically, and some of this has been done.5 I wish to be clear. As Daphna Ben-Tor‘s piece in this volume demonstrates, interaction between Egypt and various portions of the Levant was anything but static. There was a waxing and waning of contact with both the northern and southern Levant, and differing portions of Egypt had differing degrees of such interaction over periods of time. While there was certainly an ebb and flow of contact during the long Middle Kingdom, we are attempting to examine the opportunities for exchange over just such a lengthy period of time, since intellectual influence does not happen suddenly. Moreover, the Shipwrecked Sailor is a piece of Middle Kingdom literature that has not been dated more precisely. For this paper, then, we will look at the large temporal picture, glossing over those chronological details that are so important for other subjects of study. Archeological Witnesses of Contact 5. Gee, ―Overlooked Evidence.‖ 3 When examining archeological evidence for Egyptian contact in the Levant, we must use special care. Many artifacts made during the Middle Kingdom probably traveled to the Syro-Canaanite area during the Hyksos era, after the end of the Middle Kingdom. Since the Hyksos occupation significantly changed the face of Egypt and its internationalization, we will only look at artifacts that were sealed in situ before the end of the Middle Kingdom, or that are reasonably sure to have arrived at their destination before the Second Intermediate Period. Megiddo seems to have been a hot spot of Egyptian Middle Kingdom contact. Six percent of (page 192) the undisturbed tombs that were sealed before the end of the Middle Kingdom and left undisturbed contained Egyptian scarabs,6 demonstrating an Egyptian presence.7 Furthermore, in tombs which were sealed during the Middle Kingdom but were disturbed at some later time, but not re-used, various Middle Kingdom jars and scarabs were found. It is unlikely that tomb robbers or other invaders deposited goods in the tombs. Thus we may reasonably suppose that these items were placed there during the Middle Kingdom. While items such as scarabs are highly portable, even if the scarabs changed hands several times before arriving at their resting place, at some point they had to cross from Egypt to the Levant, and that is our connection point: it is inescapable that if these objects arrived in a foreign country, someone in Egypt had to have had some contact with a foreign element. Thus, if a Middle Kingdom scarab is found sealed in a Middle Bronze IIA context, it must represent some kind of Levantine-Egyptian contact during the era. 6. Weinstein, ―Egyptian Relations With Palestine In the Middle Kingdom,‖ 1–2; Kenyon, ―The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata at Megiddo,‖ 25–60; and Loud, Megiddo II. 7. The greatest number of scarabs from the Levant come from the time of Senusret I. See Giveon, ―The Impact of Egypt on Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age,‖ 25; Dussaud, ―Nouveaux Renseignements sur la Palestine et la Syrie Vers 2000 Avant Notre Ere,‖ 216–233. 4 Additionally, a small statue of the Egyptian official Thuthotep was found ex-situ at Megiddo. While normally we would be unjustified in positing a Middle Kingdom contact here since it was discovered in an insecure context,8 in the current case this is mitigated by the fact that in his tomb Thuthotep is shown bringing cattle from the Levant. Coupling the statue with the tomb depiction leads us to conjecture that Thuthotep was involved with Megiddo as an Egyptian agent dealing with the shipment of cattle and other goods to Egypt.9 While this is only hypothetical, if correct not only was there ample opportunity for this official to be influenced by Asiatics, but also his household and staff as well. It is likely that he was not the only individual involved in this type of venture. Undoubtedly there was some form of an ―intensive relationship‖ between Middle Kingdom Egypt and Megiddo,10 affording much opportunity for interaction and exchange. This may be representative of what we know from other evidence, namely that there were many officials and their staff located in the Levant who were in charge of sending levies to (page 193) Egypt that included cattle, wine, vessels, oil, metals, food, weapons, semi-precious stones and people.11 This is corroborated by a literary text which speaks of an Egyptian treasurer returning from an expedition to Syria.12 Nearby Tel el-Ifshar contains numerous Egyptian vessels in settlement layers dating to the middle of the 20th century.13 Middle Kingdom scarabs, seal impressions, Egyptianized ivory 8. Weinstein, ―Megiddo,‖ 368. Weinstein, for example, thinks the statue came to Megiddo as loot. 9. Blackman, The Rock-Tombs of Meir, 4; Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 187. 10. Bietak, ―Canaanites in the Eastern Nile Delta,‖ 50. 11. Farag, ―Un insciption memphite de la XIIe dynastie,‖ 3–5; H. Altenmüller, et al, ―Die Inschrift Amenemhets II aus dem Ptah-Tempel von Memphis.Ein Vorbericht,‖ 1–48; Gee, et al, ―Historical Plausibility: The Historicity of the Book of Abraham as a Case Study,‖ 77. Regarding Egyptian trade routes, see Helck, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderisien in 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., 63. 12. Posener, ―Fragment littéraire de Moscou,‖ 101–06; Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, 77–78.