A STUDY OF LAPIS LAZULI IN THE FORMATIVE PERIOD OF EGYPTIAN CULTURE: AN APPROACH IN TERMS OF CULTURE CONTACT Michinori OHSHIRO* Introduction The purpose of this paper is to clarify the starting and terminating dates of the formative period of ancient Egyptian culture. Although a large number of studies have been made on ancient Egyptian culture, little is known about the formative period. The exact periodization still remains a matter of debate. It has been suggested that the fundamental structure of ancient Egyptian culture was generally completed in the Old Kingdom. W. M. F. Petrie and other scholars have insisted that all significant characteristics of ancient Egyptian culture had already appeared at the end of the Third Dynasty(1). However no one has clearly explained the process. Since the Semainean Period and the Dynastic Race theory defined by Petrie have been rejected by the research of H. Kantor by using archaeological materials(2), it has been suggested that ancient Egyptian culture had an inherent continuity from the Predynastic Period to the Early Dynastic Period. On the other hand, Kantor recognized that cylinder seals or stone vessels clearly had an influence from Mesopotamia or Syria-Palestine just before organizing the unified Dynasty. She suggested that it is not a result of an accidental trade relationship(3). Although H. Frankfort has suggested that the formation of ancient Egyptian culture was not affected by contact with Mesopotamia, on the other hand he considered that many questions were still open to speculation(4). Concerning this significant theme of Egyptology, J. A. Wilson also recognized the influence of Mesopotamia on ancient Egypt, and theorized that Egypt made a great spurt because of its influence(5). He called it the Mesopotamian Stimulation. A Japanese Egyptologist I. Kato refers to this theme in some papers. He basically agrees with Kantor. Kato insisted that ancient Egyptian * Ph.D. Student, Kansai University 60 ORIENT A STUDY OF LAPIS LAZULI IN THE FORMATIVE PERIOD OF EGYPTIAN CULTURE: …… culture directly developed from the New Stone Age culture created by native Egyptians under the influence of Mesopotamia and Syria-Palestine(6). Considering the above-mentioned situation, how should we understand the formation of ancient Egyptian culture? In other words when did ancient Egyptians create The Egyptian Characteristics, for example the solar calendar, hieroglyphs, their unique artistic style, the concept of Maat and the dualistic consideration? We do not have a definite explanation about the appearance of the formative period until now. Accordingly, I am going to suggest a theory about the formative period by using lapis lazuli as a unique material in Egypt because lapis lazuli is often quoted as evidence of long distance trade. C. Renfrew also insists that the study of the trade helps to understand culture change(7). The focus of this paper is lapis lazuli as a key to understanding ancient Egyptian culture(8). In the first chapter I will survey the preceding studies with special emphasis on culture contact and trade as currents of some information. In the second chapter I will attempt to trace the Lapis Lazuli road from its place of the origin (Afghanistan) to the place of consumption (Egypt), and to consider some of the information brought with lapis lazuli. In the third chapter I will attempt to make clear the formative period of ancient Egyptian culture from excavations of lapis lazuli. 1. The Long-distance trade as Culture Contact Although diffusionism, which means that new culture element is conveyed from one region to another and becomes influential in the second region, was criticized by J. Steward who insisted on Multilinear Evolutionism, it has been supported by some scholars like O. Montelius and V. G. Childe. It is still accepted that the diffusionism is indispensable for understanding culture development. B. G. Trigger also has suggested that diffusion means the spread of new ideas or new units of culture from one person or group to another(9). He also thinks that diffusion is a sort of culture change. Renfrew points out the significance of trade as culture contact as well. He attempts to explain prehistorical culture change by using System Theory, and holds the view that a study of trade helps us to understand culture change. According to Renfrew, Childe has described culture contact and its influence in terms of diffusionism as per the following: Once the new economy had been established in the three Vol. XXXV 2000 61 primary centres it spread thence to secondary centres, much like Western capitalism spread to colonies and economic dependencies. First on the borders of Egypt, Babylonia and the Indus valley-in Crete and the Greek islands, Syria, Assyria, Iran and Baluchistan-then further afield, on the Greek mainland, the Anatolian plateau, South Russia, we see villages converted into cities and self-sufficing food-producers turning to industrial specialization and external trade. And the process is repeated in ever widening circles around each secondary and tertiary centre......The second revolution was obviously propagated by diffusion; the urban economy in the secondary centres was inspired or imposed by the primary foci. And it is easy to show that the process was inevitable......In one way or another Sumerian trade and the imperialism it inspired were propagating metallurgy and the new economy it implies...... These secondary and tertiary civilizations are not original, but result from the adoption of traditions, idea and processes received by diffusion from older centres. And every village converted into a city by the spread became at once a new centre of infection(10). The diffusionism of Childe in terms of economics was regarded as the foundation theory of the origin of ancient civilizations. However at present Childe's theory is out-of-date as a result of radiocarbon dating and various scientific methods such as: simple inspection (materials of unique appearance, e.g., lapis lazuli, ostrich egg); petrologic examination of thin section (e.g., stone tools, pottery, etc.); optical spectroscopy (e.g., pottery, metals, obsidian, faience, etc.); X-ray fluorescence (e.g., metals, obsidian, glass, jade, etc.); neutron activation (e.g., metals, pottery, obsidian, etc.); B-ray back-scatter (e.g., glass, glaze); infra-red absorption (e.g., amber); cathode-luminescence (e.g., marble); X-ray diffraction (e.g., jade, emery); Fission-track dating (e.g., obsidian)(11). We have confirmed that the oldest megalithic architecture is not the pyramids in Egypt but megalithic temples in Malta (Saflieni Period 3300-3000 BC) and Gozo (Ggantija Period 3600-3300 BC), and Stonehenge already has completed before the birth of Mycenaean civilization(12). According to Childe's view, it has been assumed that copper metallurgy also came to Europe from the Near East, reaching first the Aegean and then Balkan peninsula. However it is clear now that copper metallurgy was already flourishing in the Balkans before it reached a comparable stage of development in the Aegean(13). Because of these facts we have to rule out not only the magnificent fantastic theory by G. E. Smith and J. Perry, and G. Kossinna's biased Indo-Germanic principle based on 62 ORIENT A STUDY OF LAPIS LAZULI IN THE FORMATIVE PERIOD OF EGYPTIAN CULTURE: …… ultranationalismic diffusionism, but also Childe's theory which is even called revised diffusionism. We have to look for new theory or new explanation. Renfrew pays attention to trade as supporting the understanding of culture change under present conditions. He regards that trade works (1) as a source of wealth to the trader and to the community, since efficient or favourable exchange can encourage the production of, or produce, a surplus; (2) towards specialized and hence more efficient production; (3) to promote contact between communities and the interchange of ideas through personal contact; and (4) to create new demand and ultimately the production of new commodities (e.g., silk in the classical world or metal in prehistoric Europe)(14). Especially in (3) and (4), the function of trade often changes by absorbing a conception of the outside. Although these functions of trade do not apply to every circumstance, when culture change or interaction are the main theme, trade should be always considered as the first problem. Do the above-mentioned conditions as a function of the trade apply to the formative period of ancient Egyptian culture? Renfrew's functions (1) and (2) are unsuitable because the Near East was not a market economy in those days and there was not a merchant class in this period of Egypt. Moreover, I do not know any examples of (4). Because of these reasons, I suggest that (3), an exchange of the idea, is the most likely theory. M. Hoffman has suggested that the trade of luxury goods in ancient Egypt suddenly appeared with the unity of the nation(15). His opinion is that the influence of trade contributed to the birth of the nation. Although the influence of Mesopotamia was not sufficient to establish ancient Egyptian culture, everybody knows that there is certainly the influence of Mesopotamia, for example Mesopotamian cylinder seals and the Gebel el-Arak knife handle depicted in Mesopotamian style. I would suggest that direct or indirect contact mean the exchange of information with some new information from the East. How did information flow in Egypt? Where did Egypt and Mesopotamia contact? Since Petrie has suggested a theory of Egypt by way of Arabian Gulf and a theory of Egypt by way of Syria in his book The Making of Egypt(16), the answer to these important questions became a focus during the debate involving in the Dynastic Race theory. However, we do not have an obvious answer yet. The only fact that we already know is the appearance of the Mesopotamian influence in Egypt from the Gerzean Period to the First Dynasty.