1 Aspects of Egyptian Foreign Policy in the 18th Dynasty in Western Asia and Nubia Aspects of Egyptian Foreign Policy in the 18th Dynasty in Western Asia and Nubia1 James K. Hoffmeier One of the most fascinating periods of Near Eastern his- Since I won't let him go until you arrive, we can then tory is the liberation of Egypt from "Hyksos" control, the divide up the towns of this Egypt, and [both] our [lands] 3 beginnings of Egypt's New Kingdom or Empire period, and will be happy again. the concomitant Middle Bronze-Late Bronze transition in The Hyksos ruler's dispatch, if it is taken at face value, Canaan. That a military presence of some kind played a cen- reveals that Kamose had earlier on attacked Nubia and that if tral role in Egypt's relationship to the Levant is well recog- the Kushites joined the Hyksos in thwarting the Theban nized, but often over-emphasized to the exclusion of other attacks, they could have a share of Upper Egypt. This latter aspects of Egypt's foreign policy. Furthermore, there is a ten- factor may explain why the Ahmose and his successors dency among scholars interested in Syro-Palestinian history adopted an aggressive posture towards Canaan and Nubia in and archaeology to forget that Egypt had a second major the- the early 18th Dynasty. This policy is in view in King ater of operation in LB I, viz. Nubia. The purpose of this paper Ahmose's campaign to Sharuhen in southern Canaan in pur- is to explore some of the oft forgotten aspects of Egypt's for- suit of the fleeing Hyksos and by an even more extensive eign policy in Western Asia, concentrating on the period incursion into Nubia, and from other campaigns recorded in 1550-1400 B.C., the reigns of Ahmose from Amenhotep II, Commander Ahmose Si Abena's tomb biography. Nubia the LB I period in Syria-Palestine. Additionally, the differ- appears to be of greatest concern to the early New Kingdom ences between Egypt's foreign policy with Nubia and the pharaohs to judge from the greater frequency of references to Levant will be explored and possible reasons for the contrast- campaigns in Nubia over against Levantine ones in historical ing models will be proposed. texts. In his report of the activities in Canaan, Commander Ahmose records just two lines (15-16a),4 whereas the invasion of Kush is recorded in eight lines (16b-24a),5 followed imme- I. The Military Priorities of the Fledgling diately by another sortie to Nubia under Amenhotep I which Dynasty occupies six lines in the biography (24-29). There is no refer- The New Kingdom was born as a result of years, if not a ence in the biography to any military action in Western Asia during the twenty-one year reign of Amenhotep I (1525-1504 couple decades of military action against the Delta and Avaris 6 by the Theban kings, Seqenenre Ta'a II, Kamose and B.C.). Only in Thutmose I's reign (1504-1492 B.C.) does he 2 mention a campaign to Western Asia, but this comes after yet Ahmose. In his stela, Kamose claims that he, Egypt's king, 7 controlled only upper Egypt, while being squeezed from the another Nubian expedition. The evidence provided by this biography coupled with that of another military officer, north by the "Prince of Retenu" and from the south by the 8 Kushites. In a communiquÈ intercepted by Theban troops in Ahmose Pen-Nekhbet, suggests that Nubia was the main the Libyan Desert, Apophis, the Hyksos king, requested assis- focus of Egyptian military activity for the period from 1550- tance from his Kushite ally because of Kamose's attacks on 1504, and not the Levant. In fact there is a dearth of textual the Delta: evidence for Egyptian military activity in Western Asia until Aawaserre, Son of Re, Apophis greets my son, the ruler Thutmose I's year two Naharin campaign documented in the of Cush. Why did you accede as ruler without inform- Tombos Stela of regnal year two, but there is no mention of 9 ing me? Do you see what Egypt has done against me? military activity in Canaan. The absence of evidence does not The ruler who is in it, Kamose the Mighty, given life, is mean that there was no military measures taken against Levan- assailing me upon my soil -- although I did not attack tine cities between Ahmose's Sharuhen campaign and Thut- him -- the very same way he did against you. It is in mose I's march to the Euphrates. However, the lack of order to torment these two lands that he picks them out. evidence should at least make historians and Syro-Palestinian Both my land and yours he has ravaged. Come north! archaeologists cautious when trying to determine the cause of Don't blanch (?)! Since he is occupied with me here, the demise of the Middle Bronze Age in Canaan. there is no one who can be opposed to you in this Egypt. Copyright James K. Hoffmeier and PennState University - 2001 - All Rights Reserved - Page 1 1 Aspects of Egyptian Foreign Policy in the 18th Dynasty in Western Asia and Nubia Traditionally, Syro-Palestinian archaeologists have to protect Egypt's vital interests.20 During the Middle King- believed that the MB IIC period came to a violent end with the dom, a full-scale annexation of Lower Nubia was systemati- expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt and subsequent Egyptian cally achieved by the Senuserts and Amenemhets as evidenced military action in Canaan.10 Thus a nice clean line could be by the building of thirteen forts from the end of the First Cata- drawn between the Middle and Late Bronze ages around 1550 ract to the Second, the southern-most being at Semna.21 These B.C. An earlier generation of Egyptologists thought along massive structures required considerable manpower to build similar lines. John Wilson, for instance, believed that "there is and an administrative network to sustain. Senusert III's Semna evidence that the Egyptians were not content to drive the Hyk- stelae make it clear that Egypt considered this fort to mark its sos out of Egypt but felt compelled to pursue them with vin- southern frontier.22 The impressive Egyptian military pres- dictive fury for more than a century."11 This understanding ence would leave no question who was in control of Kush and was adopted and amplified more recently by James Weinstein it served to protect strategic economic links with the Kerma who declared: culture to the south with whom there was brisk trade.23 That the Egyptians were responsible for most if not all Redford has argued that products, resources, and available the destructions of theMB cities of Palestine has long manpower were the principal reasons for Egypt's presence in been a basic assumption in virtually all reconstructions Nubia.24 William Y. Adams25 and Barry Kemp26 similarly 12 of Palestinian history and archaeology of this period. regard economic factors as a motivation for Egypt's intense Weinstein then offered an archaeological survey of no less interest in and exploitation of Nubia during the Middle King- than twenty sites from Tell el 'Ajjul in the south to Taanach in dom. "Acculturation Colonialism" is the term used to describe the north whose MB destructions he attributed to Egyptian 13 Egypt's policy in Nubia in the 12th Dynasty, because, as Stuart forces in the early 18th Dynasty. In fact, recent surveys in Tyson Smith notes, "Nubia was brought completely within the the hill country of Ephraim by Israel Finkelstein and Egyptian social, economic religious and administrative sys- Manasseh by Adam Zertal have shown that the destruction of 27 14 tems." This was also the case in the New Kingdom as MB sites is even greater than previously believed. So there reflected by the administrative structure used in Nubia. Based is no doubt that the end of the Middle Bronze Age in Canaan upon official titles, David O'Connor has detailed the various was turbulent indeed. administrative and military offices during the New Kingdom In an article in Levant 21 (1989) I questioned the grounds in Nubia and Egypt, (Figure 1) and they illustrate the differ- for connecting all of these destructions to the Egyptian mili- ence between the colonial and the imperial models used in tary because Egyptian records could not support this conclu- Nubia and Syria-Canaan respectively.28 The crown's top offi- sion, and on the grounds that the dating all these destructions cial in Nubia was the imy-r xAswt, sA-nsw ks, "The Overseer of to such a short period of time simply could not be demon- Southern Foreign Lands, the King's son of Kush." "Viceroy of strated by the ceramic and stratigraphic evidence as Weinstein Kush" is typically how this office rendered by Egyptolo- (and others) believed. In arguing for a more minimalist view gists.29 Under the Viceroy were the Deputy (idnw) of Wawat of Egypt's destructive actions in Canaan, I was in good com- idnw 15 16 (northern Nubia) and the Deputy ( ) of Kush (southern pany as Donald Redford, William Shea and Piotr Hry pDt n Ks 17 Nubia), and the Battalion Commander ( ), beneath Bienkowski were also casting doubts about Egypt's role. which were the Egyptian H3ty-a (Mayors) of administrative Another reason for viewing Egypt's role in Canaan to be less centers and forts and the indigenous chiefs (wrw). In the aggressive than others have thought is my belief that Egypt's Levant, on the other hand, the local vassal kings (wrw) foreign policy before Thutmose III towards Palestine and reported directly to the "Overseer of All Northern Foreign Nubia resorted to earlier, Middle Kingdom models, to which 18 Lands," as did the Battalion Commanders.