Northeast Africa and the Levant in Connection

A WorldSystems Perspective of the Relationships in the

Early Second Millennium BC
Roxana Flammini
Universidad Catlica Argentina
Instituto Multidisciplinario de Historia y Ciencias Humanas-CONICET
Introduction

Traditionally, the study of the relationships between Egypt and its neighbours is one of the
main topics in the studies on the ancient Near East, an extremely extensive spatial and
temporal one. Approaches vary in their goals and in their way of analysis from mainly
economic, political and social points of view. In many senses, researchers concur with the
view that these relationships began due to the transfers of prestige goods, to become
complemented through time with more complex ways of interaction (Sherratt and Sherratt
1991).
With regard to Egypt, most research in this area is centred in defining the
characteristics of the links between Egypt and the societies with whom Egyptians
interacted. In such a context, an approach that shifts the focus away from Egypt will allow
us to take the analysis to a higher level and add a systemic examination of the relationships.
Despite its detractors, a worldsystems perspective allows, precisely, considering a wider
view, since the fundamental unit of historical development is not the single society, but
the entire intersocietal context within which individual societies exist (Chase Dunn and
Hall 1993, 851; on the discussion about the meaning of the concept worldsystem, with
and without hyphen, cf. Gills 2002).
Furthermore, this theoretical model shifts the focus from an exclusive analysis of
Egypt in its relationship with other social entities to a wider field of investigation, in which
the analysis of a whole system of relationships in operation becomes the subject, no matter
what role Egypt performed there. Thus, although the importance and the role Egypt played
was significant, it should be considered as just one society among others in the
1

interregional network of relationships of the early second millennium BC (ca. 2050-1650

BC). Taking into account this premise, I can move forward to propose a more accurate
characterization for this system and to delimit the role each of the systems partners played
during the period considered here.
As a matter of fact, relationships with nonEgyptian societies took place not only
from the emergence of the Egyptian state onwards (c. 3200 BC), but also during predynastic times. Material evidence has shown that the elites of the proto-states of Nagada,
Hierakonpolis and Abydos in the south, and those of sites like Buto in the north,
maintained close connections with Nubian and Asiatic social groups respectively (Bard
2002; Wenke 1991). In this way, it is highly possible that a worldsystem encompassing
northeast Africa and western Asia began to form during those early times.
The denomination Egyptian worldsystem is commonly used (Cline 2000; Allen
2002; Chase Dunn et al. 2003) following the designation of its main core. Yet an analysis
of the underlying ideas behind this term shows that its meaning is imprecise to say the
least. The ancient Egyptian state was its core during a long but a limited span time.
Furthermore, in different historical situations, the Egyptian state can hardly be defined as a
core (Wilkinson 1991). During the Second Intermediate Period, it is probable that
coreness shifted from properly Egyptian cities to those under foreign domination like
Avaris and even the existence of an Egyptian state is highly debatable. Even though the
situation during the First Intermediate Period in Egypt is less clear, it should be taken into
account, since it is possible that a number of core cities appeared at that moment in
Egypt, with the temporary decentralization of the Egyptian unified state. In the same way,
during most part of the first millennium BC, Egypt became a periphery of cores located far
away from Africa.
Thus, the conceptualization Egyptian worldsystem suggests that Egypt always
acted as its core. Yet as I stated before, this is a statement hard to sustain. In fact, any
denomination based in socio-political entities lacks a sufficient span time to include
different historical situations or modifications in the categorization of the partners of the
relationship. Therefore, I shall propose a different designation for this system, based on a
consideration of geographical features that allows a wider use of it.

Undoubtedly, the main axis of economic and social connections in northeast Africa
was the Nile. Starting in the inland of Africa, this axis reached the Levant through a sea
route and a land route, both of them starting from the Egyptian eastern Delta. Of course,
not only did the Nilotic axis connect regions, it also engaged different social groups in an
extensive network of relationships from early times on. In this way, Asiatics, Egyptians,
Nubians and later Libyans, Cretans and other societies from the Eastern Mediterranean
were engaged in that network of interconnection.
All this means that a new definition should take into account the importance of the
Nile as axis of interconnection. Thus, a NiloticLevantine worldsystem (NLws) can be
delineated at least until the mid-second millennium BC, when firstly Hyksos control of the
Nile from the eastern Delta to Cusae and their relationships with the Levant, and later
Egyptian control of the Levantine centres after the Hyksos were defeated enlarged the
former network of exchanges. This new definition allows, for instance, shifting coreness
from Egypt to Nubia or to the Hyksos kingdom, avoiding the contradiction of naming
Egyptian a worldsystem in which Egypt did not play the core role.
Following these preliminary considerations, I shall move forward to an analysis of
the NLws during the early second millennium BC. To begin with, I shall take into account
the premise that the presence of a worldsystem is supported by the existence of systemic
relations among different societies, considering that the particular configuration a world
system presents should be understood in a specific historical conjuncture.

The NLws in the early second millennium BC

The alternative possibilities of one worldsystem with multiple coreareas (Kohl 1987) or
a worldsystem with a core located in Egypt which came into contact with the
Mesopotamian worldsystem after 1500 BC to conform the Central one (Wilkinson
1991), has long been discussed among scholars. In fact, direct or indirect relationships
between partners could be a clue to discern this specific point. On the one hand, it is
considered that the weakness of the ties between Mesopotamia and Egypt makes the
hypothesis of the existence of a multiple coreareas worldsystem before 1500 BC hard to
accept (Beaujard 2005, 416). On the other hand, the consideration that all indirect

interactions were of systemic importance makes it possible to maintain that there was a
single global worldsystem (Frank and Gills 1996; for variations in the historical scope of
this global worldsystem, cf. Hall 2004). Possibly, the key to finding a resolution is to
reach an agreement concerning the extent of worldsystems boundaries, a topic which has
received much attention (Chase Dunn and Hall 1993; Sherratt 1994; Allen 1997; Cline
2000; Chase Dunn et al. 2002, 2003; Hall 2004; Beaujard 2005). The detection of systemic
relations to define boundaries is a crucial point. In this sense, I consider that only direct,
regular, two-way relationships (Chase Dunn and Jorgenson 2001) are systemic, while the
existence of several interweaving world-systems in the ancient Near East should be also
taken into account.
Furthermore, I could move a step forward in defining systemic relationships: a
distinction has to be made between different spheres of interaction (economic, social,
political) and the types of interaction that can be recognised in such different spheres
(symmetrical, asymmetrical). Symmetrical relationships are those in which partners can be
placed at a same level of interaction, while asymmetrical relationships recognise a
differentiated status among them (related or not to coercive long-term practices). The
asymmetrical types of systemic relationships allow us to delimit cores and peripheries.
Nevertheless, the characteristics of a given world-system should be established in a specific
historical conjuncture based on the information given by the sources. These features can be
measured and can, indeed, allow to delimiting the scope of the NLws during the early
second millennium BC.
It is worth formulating some further considerations. The Egyptian state did not
extend over a homogeneous territory, but rather over the banks of the Nile from the Delta
in the north to Semna in the south its southern boundary was at Elephantine/Aswan until
the 12th Dynasty reign of Sesostris III, when Lower Nubia became part of Egypt and the
southern boundary extended progressively to Semna. Its settlement pattern was
considerably different from that of Nubia and the Levant. During the Middle Kingdom, the
Egyptian central administration was re-established. The period was framed by two
profound crises of the State: the First and the Second Intermediate Periods, whose
particularities and development were completely different.
Scholars traditionally agree that once the Theban rulers of the 11th Dynasty
defeated the Herakleopolitan dynastic line by the end of the First Intermediate Period they
4

inaugurated one of the most important periods of State power the Middle Kingdom
despite the fact that they never abandoned the city of Thebes. Their successors, the Theban
kings of the 12th Dynasty, moved again the capital to the north, not to Memphis but to a
new location named Amenemhet Iti-Tawy (Amenemhet is he who seized the Two
Lands) near Lisht North. From the very beginning, these kings initiated a strong advance
on those regions where they could obtain goods. In this way, they not only advanced along
the Nile, but sent expeditions to uninhabited locations like those where quarries and
mines could be exploited commonly located in the western and eastern deserts or in the
Sinai; and to inhabited ones, like the land of Punt. There is no reason to find systemic
relations in those uninhabited locations, but it is appropriate to try to find them in those
places where intersocietal relationships could have taken place. This could be the case of
the people of Punt. Even though we are aware of the way Egyptians organised the
expeditions to the land of Punt during the Middle Kingdom, and extremely important
information regarding the port of departure of the Egyptian expeditions (Mersa Gawasis,
Red Sea coast) and the goods Egypt acquired at Punt was recovered (the marvels of Punt,
mainly myrrh; Fattovich and Bard 2006), there have been no excavations at the possible
places of mooring of the Egyptian ships and of exchange with the Puntites (Aqiq was
suggested, see Fattovich 1996). Therefore, it is not possible to advance in the analysis of
these relationships from a worldsystem perspective; at least new evidence becomes
available and can be evaluated in order to determine if systemic relations were established.
The situation along the Nile axis is better known. The early 12th Dynasty kings
initiated a strong advance over Lower Nubia ancient Wawat, located between the First
Cataract and Semna and continued the advance their predecessors initiated over the
eastern Delta, a territory where the Egyptian state lost its presence during the crisis of the
First Intermediate Period. Both territories were incorporated (Lower Nubia) or
reincorporated (the eastern Delta) under the umbrella of the Egyptian state during the
Middle Kingdom. We can call them linking areas because despite the fact that they were
incorporated into the boundaries of Egypt, a) the intervention exerted by the Egyptian state
on them was quite different from the practices held in the proper core and b) their main role
was to link the core with the Levant and Upper Nubia (Flammini 2008).
In Nubia, besides the well-known Egyptian occupation, Nubian C-Group
settlements were located mainly close to the Nile between the First and the Second
5

Cataracts in Lower Nubia (Adams 1977; Anderson 1999), while the Nubian city of Kerma
was placed upstream of the Third Cataract in Upper Nubia (Bonnet and Valbelle 2006).
Egyptians built a chain of visually interconnected fortresses in Lower Nubia during
the Middle Kingdom, a singular feature which does not appear in the core itself. The
occupation of the fortresses was based on rotating garrisons until the late 12th/early 13th
Dynasty, when it changed to permanent settlers. These settlers were Egyptian colonists
whose main activity was to trade with the Nubian commercial node located in Kerma
(Smith 1995; 2003). After the fall of the Egyptian core during the Second Intermediate
Period, these people continued to work for the ruler of Kush (Inscriptions of Ka and
Sepedhor found at Buhen, cf. Sve-Sderbergh 1949; Valbelle 2004). The Egyptian state
tried to reach three complementary goals through its actions in Lower Nubia: firstly, to
handle the movement of Nubians into Egypt; secondly, to exploit the quarries and mines
located in the western and eastern Nubian deserts; and, thirdly, to manage the exchange
with Kerma.
During the early second millennium BC, Kerma was an impressive city. Expanded
around the deffufa, its main building, the city was surrounded by bastioned fortifications
(Bonnet 1986; Bonnet and Valbelle 2006). Although Kerma society was stratified, it is
uncertain whether it was organised as a state or as a kinship-based society during the
Middle Kerma period (c. 2000-1750 BC). A huge hut, located near the deffufa, probably
served as a political and ritual centre, and the necropolis, situated nearly 4 km east from the
city, shows a clearly differentiated society. During the Middle Kerma phase, human
sacrifices are attested in the major rounded tumuli of the necropolis (Sackho 1998).
Unfortunately, the absence of written sources makes it difficult to gain detailed knowledge
of the social organisation, but these two points are separate: material evidence demonstrates
that relations with the Egyptian state were long-lasting.

The eastern Delta was another territory that caught the attention of the Egyptian
state during the Middle Kingdom. The Egyptian kings built palaces and administrative
districts (Hwwt) there. Moreno Garca (1999, 187-188), after making an analysis of the Tale
of Sinuhe lines B19 and R 44-45, proposed that these administrative districts were fortified
but archaeological evidence of this feature has yet to be found.

These locations especially the administrative district located in Ezbet Rushdi, near
Tell el Dab ca (the ancient Avaris) favoured exchange between Egypt and the Levantine
coast; particularly the Syrian coast during the early Middle Kingdom. Ezbet Rushdi has
produced the earliest Middle Minoan pottery fragments found in Egypt and also Levantine
pottery probably imported from the northern Levant. A settlement of people with a strong
MBIIA Levantine cultural background was established at Tell el Dabca, probably during
the last years of Amenemhet IIIs reign (c.1853-1808 BC). The features this site presents
are unique in Egypt. It was likely related to activities connected with the sea route to the
Levant and the exploitation of turquoise and copper in the Sinai quarries (Marcus 2007).
There is strong evidence of people from the Levant and Egyptians taking part together in
the expeditions to Serabit el Khadim and Maghara; these joint expeditions were organized
by the Egyptian state (Gardiner, Peet and ern 1955; Valbelle and Bonnet 1996). Manfred
Bietak pointed out that the first inhabitants of Tell el Dabca came not only from the
Levantine coast but also from an urban tradition: all the evidences suggest that their mother
city was, precisely, Byblos (Bietak 1997, 98).

One of the main Egyptian written sources mentioning contacts with the Levant and
Nubia is the Inscription of Amenemhet II at Mit Rahina. It refers to the arrival of raw
materials and manufactured objects as bakw, brought to the Egyptian king by the sons of
the chiefs of Asia and Nubia, and peaceful as well as punitive expeditions mainly sent to
Levantine locations (Altenmller and Moussa 1991). The translation of bakw as tribute is
disputed because there is no proof that Egypt dominated those who sent bakw, at least
during the Middle Kingdom. A more accurate translation could be gift-offerings since it
does not imply domination (it has also been translated contributions, Galn 2002, 33-34;
a discussion on the use of the term during the New Kingdom in Warburton 1997, 237-257)
but still implies an asymmetrical relationship between the giver and the receiver since the
root of the word is related to the concept of servant.
Unfortunately, it has not been possible to identify accurately the specific sites
mentioned in the Inscription, despite the fact that many researchers have proposed the
identification of IAsy with Alasiya, i.e. Cyprus (Helck 1989; Redford 1992; Quack 1996;
see discussion in Marcus 2007, 144). Other references are extremely general as they refer

to Lebanon or Asia. Contemporary material evidence, such as the Td Treasure, also

shows the existence of contacts with the Levant, but its origin is a matter of debate (Marcus
2007). From Sesostris IIIs reign, an inscription found in the Khnumhotep IIIs mastaba in
Dahshur mentions the intervention of the Egyptian king in a dispute between Byblos and
Ullaza, where Egyptians sent ships in the search for cedar wood (Allen 2008).
Most importantly, the regional situations in Syria and Palestine need to be
distinguished. Most Syrian cities were occupied without interruption from the last phases of
the Early Bronze to the Middle Bronze. In this way, Syrian cities Ugarit, Byblos
maintained and even improved their connections with other political entities, like the
Egyptian state, Cyprus, or those located in the Aegean (Gerstenblith 1983; Marcus 2002).
But Palestinian settlements were abandoned by the end of the Early Bronze; and the
process of reoccupation of the ancient sites, or the foundation of new ones, took place
during part of the following period. The very first centres reoccupied at the beginning of
the MBIIA were located near the coast, probably influenced by the exchange activity
between Egypt and the coastal cities of the northern Levant through the maritime route
the socalled Byblosrun (Stager 1992) and the introduction of the technology of tin
bronze. Indeed, in the beginning of the Palestinian MBIIA new objects of tin-bronze
became common among the repertoire of Palestinian manufactured objects. They were
probably local imitations of Syrian prototypes (Dever 1987), since technical studies of
metal weapons suggest the northern Levant as the source for tin-bronze metallurgy (Philip
1991; Marcus 2002). In this way, Palestinian cities began to participate in the regional
exchanges which also generated a progressive expansion of networks, from the coastal sites
of Palestine to the interior (Cohen 2002).
Recent excavations in the southern Levant show that at least two sites located near
the Palestinian coast probably participated in exchange with Egypt and the northern Levant
(Tell Ifshar and Askhelon) in the MBIIA. Egyptian ceramic imports, together with early
Levantine Painted Ware, were found at Tell Ifshar; these findings evidence a connection
with both Egypt and northern Levant at this sites incipient state of settlement (Marcus
2007, 175) but this material needs more study before it can be determined if there was any
kind of systemic relationship. Regarding the well dated forty-seven Egyptian seal
impressions found at Ashkelon (late 12th/early 13th Dynasty), not only do they remain

unpublished but also there is no other evidence, in the city or in the core, which would
allow us to include it as a periphery of the system in this period (Stager 2002, 353-357).
From the information presented above we can infer the existence of relationships
among the regions under consideration, but our goal is to detect systemic relations in
precise locations. In order to define them we should address the following features: on the
one hand, the establishment of the spheres of interaction; on the other one, the types of
interaction: I shall refer to the concepts of heterarchy, hierarchy and asymmetry.

Discussion: Characterizing the Core-Periphery Relationships in the NLws during the

Early Second Millennium BC
We possess information about the interaction among the Egyptian state, many Levantine
polities, and Kerma during the early second millennium BC. Sources reveal that the main
type of interaction they maintained was based on the exchange of goods (mainly prestige
goods) through a network of relationships. Which goods were transferred through the
system? From or through the Levant, precious metals, raw materials and some
manufactured products arrived: silver, bronze, copper, aromatics and medicinal plants,
cedar wood, resins, moringa oil, olive oil and bronze artefacts. From or through Upper
Nubia mainly precious metals and raw materials were brought, such as gold, ebony,
incense, animal skins and ivory (goods mentioned in the Inscription of Amenemhet II at
Mit Rahina, cf. Altenmller and Moussa 1991; Marcus 2007; or found in the Td Treasure,
cf. Bisson de la Roque 1953). Egypt produced manufactured goods with those raw
materials and metals, such as ointments, jewellery, textiles and pottery. Unfortunately,
many of these items do not survive in the archaeological record.
Nevertheless, and despite the particular historical situation of the partners involved
in this network of exchanges, the system not only survived but also continued to develop
increasing the amount of goods exchanged and the number of partners involved in it
through time. A regional division of labour is another feature that can be observed in these
relationships, and this differentiation helps to delineate the role each partner performed in
the system. As mentioned above, Egypt produced mainly manufactured products a
feature commonly attributed to cores while Kerma and the Levantine polities exported
mainly raw materials commonly attributed to peripheries.

Yet, trade was not the only way goods were exchanged during the first half of the
second millennium BC: foreign rulers sent the Egyptian king certain goods as giftofferings, like those enumerated in the Inscription of Amenemhet II at Mit Rahina, while
the Egyptian king sent them in exchange objects that were usually found in their tombs, in
a reciprocal and friendly relationship, as the royal Egyptian gifts an ointment container
and a small box, both of obsidian and gold, with the names of 12th Dynasty kings
Amenemhet III and Amenemhet IV respectively found in the royal tombs of Byblos
demonstrate (Montet 1928a, nos. 610-611).
Nevertheless, as Stuart Tyson Smith rightly points out with regard to the
relationship between Egypt and Nubia, Egyptologists and Nubiologists often place their
interactions within some kind of core-driven centre-periphery framework (Smith 2003,
58); but in this classical model the periphery often appears subordinated to the core.
Scholarly interpretations of the relationships between Egypt and the Levant have changed
through time; from a core-driven model of domination (Giveon 1987) to one where only
friendly relationships based on exchanges existed (Liverani 1995, 316). This latter
interpretation is being re-examined today due to the information provided by the
Inscription of Amenemhet II at Mit Rahina and archaeological findings on the Levantine
coast (Marcus 2007).
One of the main current issues in the study of ancient worldsystems is that many
ancient core-periphery relationships do not fit into a core-driven model. In this regard,
Chase Dunn and Hall introduced several revisions to worldsystems theory, defining two
types of core-periphery relationships. Firstly, core-periphery differentiation where
societies at different levels of complexity and population density are in interaction with
each other in a worldsystem and secondly, core-periphery hierarchy where political,
economic or ideological domination between different societies takes place (Chase Dunn
and Hall 1991, 19). But this bipolar definition of power relationships among societies
(interaction with or without domination/exploitation) tends to exclude the search for other
possible situations. Yet, in the case of the NLws of the early second millennium BC, we
have to admit that sources both textual and material evidence cannot prove at present
that the core exerted political or military domination, or even economic exploitation, over
the peripheries. Of course, there were sources that refer to punitive actions or specific
military interventions in the Levant, but those actions do not reflect Egyptian long-term
control on those territories. The aforementioned Inscription of Amenemhet II at Mit Rahina
10

mentions the capturing of Asiatic manpower as well as goods and raw materials through
Egyptian punitive expeditions in the Levant; and the Inscription of Khnumhotep refers to
an incident between the rulers of Byblos and Ullaza. The intervention of the Egyptian king
by request of the ruler of Byblos first, and the ruler of Ullaza later, is some extremely
important data, but it is not possible to infer from the unfortunately partially destroyed text
an accurate description of such a relationship. Nevertheless, the text does not allow us to
infer that Egyptians exerted any kind of political, military or economic control over those
northern Levantine cities. In a recovered passage, the ruler of Byblos allows the Egyptians
to moor their ships in the harbour of the city (Allen 2008, 34).
With regard to the relation with Kerma, I shall refer briefly to the steles of Semna
(Berlin Museum 1157 and 14753, year 16 and 8 of 12th Dynasty king Sesostris III
respectively, cf. Lichtheim 1973, 119-121; Loeben 2001) because they are related to the
role foreigners/enemies played in the Egyptian conception of the world. Both are boundary
steles, which means that they were objects established by the Egyptian king in a specific
place to delimit the borders of the Egyptian state. The establishment of boundary steles
reflects the achievement of a political goal precisely to delimit the borders of the
Egyptian state and of an ideological one. In this sense, they were objects which allowed
the restraint of chaotic forces. Indeed, the negative conception of foreigners that is present
in them both in written form and through iconographic representation may not always
be taken in a literal sense, considering that the ancient Egyptians had no sense of historical
facts, at least as we conceive them. Then, if a text written on a boundary stele describes
punitive actions against foreigners, these actions should be put in their own context; and the
information provided should be evaluated by comparing the results coming from another
kind of evidence, e.g. the archaeological remains. Certainly, the information provided by
the texts and the archaeological evidence prove that the Egyptian state did not exert
political or economic coercion over Kerma during the Middle Kingdom.
Thus, core-periphery relationships in the NLws in the early second millennium BC
may therefore need to be characterized in other terms.
I consider that the concept of heterarchy fits better in the search of delimiting the
nature of core-periphery relationships in the NLws. Heterarchy may be defined as the
relation of elements a system where each element is either unranked relative to other
elements or possesses the potential for being ranked in a number of different ways

11

(Crumley 1987, 158; 1995, 3, my emphasis). This definition allows to conceiving a twoway relationship among partners working on multiple spheres of interaction. During the
early second millennium BC, the partners of the NLws interacted basically through
exchange activities that were profitable for all of them (the prestige goods network),
without any kind of political or military domination or economic exploitation exerted by
the core over the peripheries. These relationships, however, also present a strong
asymmetrical rather than hierarchical bias in another sphere of interaction. This latter
differentiation deserves subsidiary consideration. In fact, hierarchy is not opposite to
heterarchy. We concur with Bondarenko, Grinin and Korotayev (2002, 56) in that
the second version of Crumleys definition of heterarchy is most
relevant for the study of the complex societies. However, when we
have a system of elements which possess the potential for being
ranked in a number of different ways, it seems impossible to speak
about the absence of hierarchy. In this case we rather deal with a
system of heterarchically arranged hierarchies. Hence, it does not
appear reasonable to denote the heterarchy alternative as hierarchy.
Heterarchical modes of interaction may or may not be related to hierarchies. In fact,
heterarchy can admit of hierarchies in discrete but overlapping systems; it acknowledges,
for example, the possibility of internal hierarchies within the discrete, horizontally
connected systems of heterarchical structures (Meyers 2006, 250). In this sense, we
consider that the partners involved in the NLws were horizontally or symmetrically
connected through a network of exchange of prestige goods clearly profitable for all
them without the existence of power relationships of domination or exploitation in
between. Nevertheless, an overlapping socio-political sphere of interaction can also be
identified where asymmetry is clearly evident.
In fact, it is possible to delineate a different situation, because the elites of the
interacting societies did not possess the same prestigious status: the Egyptian king was
recognized as a great king among the chiefs and rulers of the ancient Near East societies
during the early second millennium BC. Both the elites of Kerma and of Byblos adopted
Egyptian culture features as a way to enhance their local positions, while the Egyptian elite
did not adopt features related to foreign elites. Thus, this asymmetrical bond is crucial in
12

the characterization of Egypt as a core, and of Kerma and Byblos as the peripheries of the
NLws during the period considered here.
Nevertheless, can we then talk about the existence of hierarchical relations between
core and peripheries? In fact, power hierarchies relate in some way to a socio-political
arrangement in which someone plays the boss character and other the employee. A
bond based in power relationships is clear in power hierarchies not only on personal but
also on social spheres of interaction. This is how many of the societies in question
organized themselves: the Egyptian, Kerman and Byblian societies were hierarchical,
stratified societies. But, were their interactions hierarchical? We consider that this was not
the situation in the NLws, at least during the early second millennium BC.
I prefer therefore to characterize their relationships as asymmetrical rather than
hierarchical since despite the fact that the peripheries exhibit features or practices that
originated in the core, these were not linked to any kind of power relationship. As I have
stated above, those core cultural features or practices were probably adopted by
peripheral societies in order to fulfil local needs. Asymmetry is also evident since there is
no evidence of the adoption of practices or cultural features originating in the peripheries
by the core.
In summary, during the early second millennium BC, the hierarchical societies of
Egypt, Byblos and Kerma were linked in a heterarchical worldsystem, the so-called
NiloticLevantine one. Symmetrical relationships were established at an economic level
through the exchange of prestige goods, but also asymmetrical relationships were detected
working at a different sphere of interaction. These asymmetrical relationships allow
differentiating a core (Egypt) and two peripheries (Kerma and Byblos). This differentiation
is reinforced by the specialized production of goods (mainly manufactured goods in the
core and raw materials in the peripheries). However, we cannot set the relationship between
Egypt and Kerma in parallel with that of Egypt with Byblos. Even though both are
classified as core-periphery relationships, it is possible to establish differences, even though
they are comparable basically through the mutually profitable and horizontally connected
network of exchange of prestige goods.

Spheres of Asymmetrical Interaction in the NLws

13

The Egyptian Core and Peripheral Kerma

Systemic relations with Egypt were present in Kerma, the largest polity in Upper Nubia.
There was no other Nubian place where the Egyptian influence and material remains
appear so clearly related to the economic sphere of a polity and to the prestige of its local
elite during this period.
This does not mean that Kerma only exchanged goods with Egypt. On the contrary,
it was also connected with more southern African societies, like the Gash Group which
occupied the region around Kassala (Mahal Teglinos) (Fattovich 1995). These societies
were engaged in an extensive network of exchange relationships probably connected to
South Arabia, the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean (Fattovich 1996). But they were
outside the range of direct Egyptian influence during this period Egyptian pottery was not
found in their settlements although some core practices, like sealing, are evidenced in these
groups. It is highly plausible that sealing could have arrived there through Kerma because it
probably adopted this practice from the Egyptian fortresses located in Lower Nubia (Smith
1998, 224). Then, these southern African societies could be considered as margins of the
NLws worldsystem in A. Sherratts terms (1994). In ours, they were beyond the
boundaries of the NLws by definition, because they did not present direct, regular and twoway relations with the core. Their relations were established with Kerma and other
southern Asian societies, and possibly they were partners in a world-system which was
interweaved with the NLws, but these hypotheses have to be contrasted with the evidence
and deserve further analysis that exceeds the goal of this paper.
Moving back to the Egyptian state, it developed an extremely complex system of
sealing and countersealing to manage exchange activities in Lower Nubia, and a great deal
of evidence has been found in the fortresses at Kubban, Semna, Kumma, Mirgissa, Uronarti
and Askut (Kemp 1986; Anderson 1999; Smith 2004). Specifically, Egyptian interest in
exchange activities is evidenced by the hundreds of seal impressions found at Mirgissa and
Uronarti (Gratien 1994), by references in the boundary steles of Semna (Lichtheim 1973,
118-120; Loeben 2001) and in the Semna Dispatches (Smither 1945) as well as by the
inscriptions found in the area of the Second Cataract that make reference to individuals
related to navigation and exchange activities (ba 1974).

14

Moreover, seals and sealings were found in very different contexts at Kerma. In
fact, a number of seals and sealings of Kerma were dated to the end of the Middle
Kingdom (early Classic Kerma). These findings were made both in the necropolis and in
the town. Many of them where imports from Egypt, while others were local copies of
Egyptian models. Those found in the necropolis were possibly considered as prestige goods
by the local elite (Smith 1998), while those found in the town were used as part of
processes of exchange activities. But recently, Charles Bonnet announced the finding of
earlier evidence, dated to the Middle Kermathus being contemporaneous to the Middle
Kingdom. He found seal fragments and seal impressions, as well as stocks of fine-grained
clay ready to be used, it being already worked into small balls, cylinders or rolls and stored
in ditches or shallow pits (Bonnet 2001, 31) in an area near the harbour quarter and the
entrance to the town. These objects are proof that Kerma adopted a core-originated practice
(sealing) probably transferred through the contacts with the Egyptian fortresses located in
Lower Nubia during the Middle Kingdom.
In addition, Egyptian pottery has been found in the necropolis of Kerma. Even
though the pottery came from a cemetery, it is very likely that it arrived carrying other
prestige products possibly an aromatic cream or oil and become luxury items once it
had been emptied. It vividly shows the existence of an important network of exchanges
between Egypt and Kerma and the use of core-related items as prestige goods, probably to
fulfil local needs to reinforce social hierarchies. Recently, J. Bourriau has demonstrated
through marl analysis of the Egyptian pottery from Kerma that until the middle of the 12th
Dynasty there was a higher proportion of Egyptian pottery from Upper Egypt, but this
reverted to a higher proportion of pottery from the Delta from the later 12th (when the
frontier at Semna was established) through the 13th Dynasties. Finally, by the end of the
13th Dynasty (when the Egyptian states crisis began), there was again only Upper
Egyptian pottery (Bourriau 2004). The Egyptian pottery found at Kerma thus reflects the
fluctuations of the internal situation of the Egyptian state.
Even though there is clear evidence of the existence of a systemic relationship
between Egypt and Kerma, it is difficult to establish when it started, due to the nature of the
sources. All we can say is that contacts took place during the early second millennium BC
on a regular basis.

15

In short, Egypt and Kerma participated in a network of exchanges during the

Middle Kingdom, mainly of luxury goods, and elites in both societies benefited from this
exchange. For the period under analysis, the evidence found at Kerma suggests that certain
practices related to the exchanges, like sealing, were adopted from Egypt, which probably
means the sharing of a common logic of exchanges which favoured all the partners
involved while the finding of Egyptian pottery and sealsings in the local necropolis points
out to its use as a prestige good favouring the distinction of internal social hierarchies. This
latter feature demonstrates the existence of asymmetry in the socio-political sphere of
interaction. To sum up, we conclude that a periphery of the NLws was located at Kerma in
the period considered here.
The Egyptian Core and Peripheral Byblos
Objects imported from Egypt have been found in many Levantine cities. Among them,
royal statues have been found in Ugarit, Neirab (near Aleppo), Beirut, Qatna, Tell Gezer,
Tell Hizzin and Ebla (Scandone Matthiae 2000). In Ebla, in the famous tomb of the local
ruler Immeya, the so-called Tomb of the Lord of the Goats, an Egyptian-style sceptre
was found. The origin of the sceptre was a subject of discussion among specialists: while
Scandone Matthiae (1997; 2003) maintains that it was imported from Egypt and probably
belonged to the 13th Dynasty king Hotepibra Sa Aamu Hornedjheryotef, Ryholt (1998)
considers that it was locally made inspired in Egyptian motifs. Egyptianising ivories have
also been found at Ebla, as well as other local objects with features relating to Egyptian
kingship. Probably the meaning of these egyptianised objects was quite different from the
originals, though we are far from understanding it. The set of ivories has been compared to
two similar series, one found in a tomb at el-Jisr, near Tell Jaffa in Palestine, and the other
in the tombs at Kerma. But the Kerma ivories have been dated slightly later than the period
considered here, when Egypt relinquished its position as core to the Kerman kingdom of
Kush and the Hyksos kingdom located in the Eastern Delta (Second Intermediate Period,
ca. 1650-1550 BC).
Certainly, systemic relationships were present in the northern Levantine city of
Byblos during the early second millennium BC: it was the Levantine site where cultural
features relating to Egypt were not only abundant, but unique, the local elite acquiring the
Egyptian titles, writing, language and religious beliefs. There is no other site in the Levant
16

showing such a strong bond with Egyptian features. The asymmetry in the relationship
between Egypt and Byblos is supported by textual, material and iconographic evidence.
More specifically, the remains relating to the 12th and 13th Dynasties and the elite of
Byblos are strongly connected with the late 12th Dynasty king Amenemhet III and his
successors.
Egyptian scarabs and pottery (water jars) dated to the 12th Dynasty were found in
the tombs of the rulers of Byblos. P. Montet (1928b) found in the stone sarcophagus of
Abishemu I (tomb I) an ointment container of gold and obsidian, inscribed with the kings
name. Recently, some wooden pieces found inside the stone sarcophagus were identified as
part of an Egyptian-style coffin (Schiestl 2007). This tomb was physically connected to
another one, probably of the son of Abishemu, Ipshemuabi. In that tomb, Montet found a
small box of obsidian and gold with the name of Amenemhet IV. These Egyptian prestige
goods were used to date the local rulers of Byblos to the last years of the 12th Dynasty. In
tomb II Montet also found a beautiful Syrian weapon of gold and bronze with an
inscription written in Egyptian hieroglyphs and language but made locally. The name of its
owner (Ipshemuabi) is preceded by an Egyptian title, usually given by the king to high
officers of the Egyptian administration: hati-a (high official). In tomb IV, which
belonged to Iantin, a fragment of an alabaster vessel was found that have an inscription
which could have been part of an offering formula (Montet 1928a, 787): the title hati-a
appears between the Egyptian title iri-pat (member of the elite) and the probably local
title of heqa heqaw (ruler of rulers).
Iantin also appears in a bas relief found in the Egyptian temple at Byblos that have
him seated in front of a fragmentary cartouche with a name written in hieroglyphs, that was
attributed to the 13th Dynasty king Neferhotep I (Ryholt 1997). The local ruler is depicted
paying homage to the name in the cartouche. The image is related to an inscription written
in Egyptian hieroglyphs and language which reads: Re Harakhte, he causes him to adore
Re everyday, the hati-a of Byblos Iantin, repeating life, born to the hati-a of Byblos Ryn,
justified (Montet 1928b, figs. 8-9). It is possible that Iantin was a contemporary of
Zimrilim of Mari, since the Mari archives mentioned that a Byblian king (lugal) called
Iantin had established economic relations with Zimrilim (Kitchen 1967). If correct, this link
shows that he was independent from Egypt, as also does the fact that these rulers used to
write their names in cartouches, otherwise an exclusive attribute of Egyptian kings. A seal

17

found at Byblos belonging to Ibiaw, suggests that the relationships with Egypt were still
maintained in the reign of Sobekhotep IV (Ryholt 1997, 89-90).
Interestingly, the title hati-a appears only in the sources from Byblos but not in
Egyptian texts, where the foreign rulers are called heqa (chief). It is highly plausible that
not only the use of some Egyptian titles but also of other selected Egyptian cultural features
by the rulers of Byblos was related to their local socio-political situation, in order to
enhance their position in relation to other Levantine rulers that could be considered as
competitors, in a local system of inter-elite relationships based on patronage. The Egyptian
cultural features clearly reflect the strong relationship between the elites of both places, and
the social influence the one had on the other.
The material evidence found at Byblos proves that the relationship with the
Egyptian state was established late in the period (from Amenemhet IIIs reign onwards, ca.
1853-1808 BC) although the above-mentioned Inscription of Khnumhotep proves that the
relationship could have been established earlier (Allen 2008). Despite these facts, we can
infer that these contacts were not random but regular, even though we cannot determine
their precise frequency. In short, I maintain that Byblos effectively acted as the northern
periphery of the NLws from the late 12th Dynasty to the 13th Dynasty.

Summary and Conclusions

To sum up, the world-systems theory has many proponents as well as detractors. I believe
that a carefully adapted and detailed use of several of its main concepts has more
advantages than disadvantages for the comprehension of modes of interaction among
ancient partners. A further benefit is its explicit focus on a wider system of relationships,
allowing the consideration of many spheres and types of interconnection. In this paper I
have approached the situation of a worldsystem delimited between northeast Africa and
the coastal northern Levant during the early second millennium BC. The analysis was
settled in a specific historical conjuncture and delineated from the information provided by
the sources at our disposal.
From this point of departure, systemic relations were defined as direct, regular and
two-way relationships, that detected different and overlapping spheres of interaction
(economic, social, political) and types of interaction (symmetrical, asymmetrical). During
18

the early second millennium BC systemic relations, i.e. direct, regular, two way
relationships, were established between Egypt and two precise locations (Kerma and
Byblos). There were not proven long-term or systematic coercive practices in the
relationships between these partners.
Two different and overlapping spheres of interaction were distinguished in the
system: one, based on the exchange of prestige goods, and characterised by the
establishment of symmetrical relationships. A differentiation was established with regard to
the kind of goods each partner provided to the system, taking into account that all of them
benefited from the relationship. A second sphere, based on socio-political features, showed
strong asymmetrical relationships among the partners. These systemic asymmetrical
relationships allowed to differentiating between a core and its peripheries, because some
core practices or cultural features were adopted by the peripheral societies probably to
fulfil local needs while it was not possible to identify a corresponding inverse situation.
The possibility of detecting these different spheres of interaction allowed us to
conceive a heterarchical arrangement of the world-system. In this sense, the Egyptian,
Kerma and Byblite societies were hierarchical, stratified societies whose relationships
allowed them to be heterarchically arranged through the establishment of symmetrical and
asymmetrical relationships in different spheres of interaction.
Moreover, the evidence enables us to delineate differences in each situation. On the
one side, in the Kerma-Egypt relationship, the sources prove the existence not only of a
shared logic of exchange since the Kerma elite adopted Egyptian exchange-related
objects (seals) but also a use of Egyptian objects (pottery, sealings) as prestige goods.
Both probably related to local needs: firstly, to achieve economic benefits in the exchange
with Egypt by sharing that common logic of exchanges, and secondly, to reinforce social
hierarchies within Kerma society. On the other side, in the relationship of Byblos with
Egypt, the elite of Byblos adopted selected Egyptian titles, language, writing system and
religious beliefs, probably in order to improve its position in relation to other Levantine
rulers that could be considered as competitors. This adoption was sustained by the longterm relationship among these societies.
This brief approach to the running of this worldsystem during the early second
millennium BC is far from being a full analysis, but I am convinced that an approach from
an adapted world-systems theory opens new ways to understanding these ancient
relationships.

19

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Eric Cline for reading an earlier draft of this paper. I am also indebted to
Philip Kohl, David Wengrow and to an anonymous reviewer for their comments,
suggestions and fruitful ideas. Of course, all errors remain only mine.
Cited References
Adams, W. Y. (1977) Nubia. Corridor to Africa, Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press.
Allen, J. P. (2008) The Historical Inscription of Khnumhotep at Dahshur: Preliminary
Report. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 352, 29-39.
Allen, M. (1997) Contested Peripheries. Philistia in the Neo-Assyrian WorldSystem.
Ph.D. Dissertation. Los Angeles, University of California/Ann Arbor, University
Microfilms.
Allen, M. (2002) Power is in the Details. Administrative Technology and the Growth of
Ancient Near Eastern Cores. Political Economy of the World System Conference,
May 2002. Riverside CA, University of California at Riverside.
Altenmller, H. and Moussa, A. (1991) Die Inschrift Amenemhets II. aus dem Ptah-Tempel
von Memphis. Ein Vorbericht. Studien zur Altgyptischen Kultur 18, 1-48.
Anderson, W. (1999) The Significance of Middle Nubian C-Group Mortuary Variability,
ca. 2200 B.C. to ca. 1500 B.C., Vol. I. Montreal, McGill University.
Bard, K. (2002), The Emergence of the Egyptian State (c. 3200-2686 BC). In I. Shaw (ed.)
The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, 57-82. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Bard, K. and Fattovich, R. (eds) (2007) Harbor of the Pharaohs to the Land of Punt:
Archaeological Investigations at Mersa/Wadi Gawasis, Egypt, 2001-2005. Naples,
Universit degli Studi di Napoli "L'Orientale."
Beaujard, P. (2005) The Indian Ocean in Eurasian and African World Systems before the
Sixteenth Century. Journal of World History 16/4, 411-465.
Bietak, M. (1997) The Center of Hyksos Rule: Avaris (Tell el Dab ca). In E. Oren (ed.) The
Hyksos. New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, 87-139. Philadelphia,
University of Pennsylvania Museum.
Bisson de la Roque, F. (1953) Le Trsor de Td. Documents de Fouilles 11. Cairo, Institut
Franais d'Archologie Orientale.
Bondarenko, D., Grinin, L. and Korotayev, A. (2002) Alternative Pathways of Social
Evolution. Social Evolution & History 1/1, 54-79.
Bonnet, Ch. (1986) Kerma. Territoire et Mtropole. Quatre leons au Cllege de France.
Cairo, Bibliothque Generale de lInstitut Franais dArchologie Orientale du
Caire IX.
Bonnet, Ch. (2001) Les empreintes de sceaux et les sceaux de Kerma: localisation des
dcouvertes. Cahier de Recherches de lInstitut de Papyrologie et gyptologie de
Lille 22, 27-31.
20

Bonnet, C. and Valbelle, D. (2006) The Nubian Pharaohs. Black Kings of the Nile. Cairo,
The American University in Cairo Press.
Bourriau, J. (2004) Egyptian Pottery Found in Kerma Ancien, Kerma Moyen and Kerma
Classique Graves at Kerma. In T. Kendall (ed.) Nubian Studies 1998. Proceedings
of the Ninth Conference of the International Society of Nubian Studies, August 2126, 1998, Boston, Massachusetts, 3-13. Boston, Department of African-American
Studies, Northeastern University.
ChaseDunn, Ch. and Hall, T. (1991) Conceptualizing Core/Periphery Hierarchies for
Comparative Study. In Ch. ChaseDunn and T. Hall (eds.) Core/Periphery
Relations in Precapitalist Worlds, 5-44. Boulder, CO, Westview Press.
ChaseDunn, Ch. and Hall, T. (1993) Comparing WorldSystems: Concepts and Working
Hypotheses. Social Forces 71/4, 851-886.
ChaseDunn, Ch., lvarez, A., Pasciuti, D. (2002) WorldSystems in the Biogeosphere:
Three Thousand Years of Urbanization, Empire Formation and Climate Change.
Papers Irows 11. Riverside, CA, California Institute for Research of World
Systems, University of California at Riverside.
ChaseDunn, Ch. and Jorgenson, A. (2001) Regions and Interaction Networks: a World
System Perspective. Papers Irows 22. Riverside, CA, Institute for Research of
WorldSystems, University of California at Riverside.
ChaseDunn, C., Pasciuti, D., lvarez, A., Hall, T. (2003) The Ancient Mesopotamian and
Egyptian WorldSystems. Papers Irows 14. Riverside, CA, Institute for Research of
WorldSystems, University of California at Riverside.
Cline, E. (2000) Contested Peripheries in World Systems Theory: Megiddo and the
Jezreel Valley as a Test Case. Journal of WorldSystems Research VI/ 1, 7-16.
Cohen, S. L. (2002) Middle Bronze Age IIA Ceramic Typology and Settlement in the
Southern Levant. In M. Bietak (ed.) The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant.
Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna,
24th-26th of January 2001, 113-131. Wien, Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie
die Wissenschaften.
Crumley, C. (1987) A Dialectical Critique of Hierarchy. In Th. Patterson and Ch. Gailey
(eds.) Power Relations and State Formation, 155-169. Washington DC, American
Anthropological Association.
Crumley, C. (1995) Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. In R. Ehrenreich,
C. Crumley and J. Levy (eds.) Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies, 16, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 6.
Arlington, VA, American Anthropological Association.
Dever, W. (1987) The Middle Bronze Age: the Zenith of an Urban Canaanite Era. Biblical
Archaeologist 50, 149-177.
Fattovich, R. (1995) The Gash Group. A Complex Society in the Lowlands to the East of
the Nile. Cahier de Recherches de lInstitut de Papyrologie et gyptologie de Lille
17/1, 191-200.
Fattovich, R. (1996) Punt: the Archaeological Perspective. Beitrge zur Sudanforschung 6,
15-29.

21

Fattovich, R. and Bard, K. (2006), The Wonderful Things of Punt. Mersa/Wadi Gawasis,
an Egyptian Port on the Red Sea. The Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities
Newsletter (Fall 2006), 3.
Flammini, R. (2008) Ancient Core-Periphery Interactions. Lower Nubia during Middle
Kingdom Egypt (ca. 2050-1640 BC). Journal of World Systems Research XIV/1,
50-74.
Frank, A. G. and Gills, B. (1996) The World System: Five Hundred Years or Five
Thousand? New York & London, Routledge.
Galn, J. M. (2002) El Imperio Egipcio. Inscripciones, ca. 1550-1300 a.C. Madrid,
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas.
Gardiner, A H.; Peet, T. E. and ern, J. (1955) The Inscriptions of Sinai. Part II:
Translation and Commentary. London, Egypt Exploration Society.
Gerstenblith, P. (1983) The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. American
School of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 5. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns.
Gills, B. (2002) World Systems Analysis, Historical Sociology and International Relations:
The Differences a Hyphen Makes. In S. Hobden and J. Hobson (eds.) Historical
Sociology of International Relations, 141-161. Cambridge UK, New York,
Cambridge University Press.
Giveon, R. (1987) The Impact of Egypt on Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age. In A. Rainey
(ed.) Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the
Biblical Period, 23-40. Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv University.
Gratien, B. (1994) Dpartements et Institutions dans les forteresses nubiennes au Moyen
Empire. In C. Berger and N. Grimal (eds) Hommages Jean Leclant, Vol. 2,
"Nubie, Sudan, Ethiopie," Bibliotque d'tude 106/2, 185-197. Cairo, Institut
Franais dArchologie Orientale.
Hall, T. (2004) Intersocietal Encounters: Lessons and Questions from a WorldSystems
Perspective. American Institute of Archaeology Meeting. San Francisco, CA,
January 3rd 2004.
Helck, W. (1989) Ein Ausgreifen Des Mittleren Reiches in Den Zypriotischen Raum?
Gttinger Miszellen 109, 2730.
Kemp, B. J. (1986) Large Middle Kingdom Granary Buildings (and the archaeology of
administration). Zeitschrift fr gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 113, 120136.
Kitchen, K. (1967) Byblos, Egypt and Mari in the Early Second Millennium BC. Orientalia
36, 39-54.
Kohl, P. (1987) The Ancient Economy, Transferable Technologies and the Bronze Age
WorldSystem: a View from the Northeastern Frontier of the Ancient Near East. In
M. Rowlands, M. Larsen and K. Kristiansen (eds) Centre and Periphery in the
Ancient World, 13-24. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Lichtheim, M. (1973) Ancient Egyptian Literature: a Book of Readings, Vol. I. Berkeley,
University of California Press.
Liverani, M. (1995) El Antiguo Oriente. Historia, Sociedad, Economa. Barcelona, Crtica.

22

Loeben, C. E. (2001) Bemerkungen zur sogenannten "Kleinen Semna-Stele" (Berlin

14753). In C.-B. Arnst, I. Hafemann, and A. Lohwasser (eds), Begegnungen: Antike
Kulturen im Niltal, Festgabe fr Erika Endesfelder, Karl-Heinz Priese, Walter
Friedrich Reineke, Steffen Wenig, 273-284. Leipzig, Helmar Wodtke und Katharina
Stegbauer.
Marcus, E. (2002) The Southern Levant and Maritime Trade during the Middle Bronze IIA
Period. In E. Oren and S. Ahituv (eds) Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume:
Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines. Beersheva, vol. XV, Studies by the
Department of Bible and Ancient Near East, 241-263. Beersheva, Ben-Gurion
University of the Negev Press.
Marcus, E. (2007) Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina
(Memphis) Inscription. gypten und Levante 17, 137-189.
Meyers, C. (2006) Hierarchy or Heterarchy? Archaeology and the Theorizing of Israelite
Society. In S. Gitin, J. E. Wright, J. P. Dessel (eds.) Confronting the Past.
Archaeological and Historical Essays of Ancient Israel in Honor of William G.
Dever, 245-254. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns.
Montet, P. (1928a) Byblos et lgypte: quatre campagnes de fouilles Gebeil, 1921, 1922,
1923, 1924, 2 vols. Paris, P. Geuthner.
Montet, P (1928b) Notes et documents pour servir a lhistoire des relations entre lancienne
Egypte et la Syrie. II. Nouvelles traces des gyptiens Byblos. Kmi I/2, 83-93.
Moreno Garca, J. C. (1999) @wt et le milieu rural gyptien du IIIe Millnaire. Economie,
administration et organisation territoriale, Bibliothque de l'Ecole des Hautes
tudes Sciences Historiques et Philologiques, 337. Paris, Champion.
Philip, G. (1991) Cypriot Bronzework in the Levantine World: Conservatism, Innovation
and Social Change. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 4/1, 59-107.
Quack, J. F. (1996) KftAw and IAsy, gypten und Levante 6, 7581.
Redford, D. B. (1992) Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton, Princeton
University Press.
Ryholt, K. S. B. The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, c.
1800-1550 B.C. Copenhaguen, Museum Tusculanum Press.
Ryholt, K. S. B. (1998) Hotepibre, a Supposed Asiatic King in Egypt with Relations to
Ebla. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 311, 1-6.
Sackho, A. (1998) Le pouvoir politique des pays nubiens. Analyse du terme HoA et ses
applications archologiques. Cahier de Recherches de lInstitut de Papyrologie et
gyptologie de Lille 17/3, 203-218.
Scandone Matthiae, G. (1997) The Relations between Ebla and Egypt. In E. Oren (ed) The
Hyksos. New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, 415-427. Philadelphia,
University of Pennsylvania Museum.
Scandone Matthiae, G. (2003) Les rapports entre Ebla et lgypte lAncien et au Moyen
Empire. In Z. Hawass (ed) Egyptology at the Dawn of Twenty-first Century.
Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists, Vol. I, 487-493.
Cairo-NewYork, The American University in Cairo Press.
SveSderbergh, T. (1949) A Buhen Stela (Khartum no. 18). Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 35, 50-58.
23

Schiestl, R. (2007) The Coffin from Tomb I at Byblos. gypten und Levante 17, 265-271.
Sherratt, A. and Sherratt, S. (1991) From Luxuries to Commodities. The Nature of
Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems. In N. H. Gale (ed) Bronze Age Trade
in the Mediterranean. Papers presented at the Conference Held at Rewley House,
Oxford, in December 1989, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 90, 351-386.
Jonsered, Paul strm Frlag.
Sherratt, A. (1994) Core, Periphery and Margin: Perspectives on the Bronze Age. In C.
Mathers and S. Stoddart (eds) Development and Decline in the Mediterranean
Bronze Age, Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 8, 335-345. Sheffield, Sheffield
Academic Press.
Smith, S. T. (1995) Askut in Nubia. London & New York, Kegan Paul International.
Smith, S. T. (1998) The Transmission of an Administrative Sealing System from Lower
Nubia to Kerma. Cahier de Recherches de lInstitut de Papyrologie et gyptologie
de Lille 19, 219-230.
Smith, S. T. (2003) Wretched Kush. Ethnic Identities and Boundaries in Egypt's Nubian
Empire. London, Routledge.
Smith, S. T. (2004) Sealing practice at Askut and the Nubian fortresses: implications for
Middle Kingdom scarab chronology and historical synchronisms. In M. Bietak and
E. Czerny (eds), Scarabs of the second millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete
and the Levant: chronological and historical implications. Papers of a Symposium,
Vienna, 10th-13th of January 2002, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern
Mediterranean 8, 203-219. Wien, Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Smither, P. (1945) The Semnah Despatches. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 31, 3-10.
Stager, L. E. (1992) The Periodization of Palestine from Neolithic through Early Bronze
Times. In R. W. Ehrich (ed.) Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 3rd edition,
22-41. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Stager, L. E. (2002) The MB IIA Ceramic Sequence at Tel Ashkelon and its Implications
for the "Port Power" Model of Trade. In M. Bietak (ed.) The Middle Bronze Age in
the Levant. Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic
Material, Vienna, 24th-26th of January 2001, 353-362. Wien, Verlag der
sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Valbelle, D. and Bonnet, C. (1996) Le sanctuaire dHathor, matresse de la turquoise.
Serabit el-Khadim au Moyen Empire. Paris, ditions Picard Musumeci.
Valbelle, D. (2004) The Cultural Significance of Iconographic and Epigraphic Data Found
in the Kingdom of Kerma. In T. Kendall (ed.) Nubian Studies 1998. Proceedings of
the Ninth Conference on International Society of Nubian Studies, August 21-26,
1998, Boston, Massachusetts, 176-183. Boston, Northeastern University.
Warburton, D. A. (1997) State and Economy in Ancient Egypt. Fiscal Vocabulary of the
New Kingdom, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 151. Gttingen, Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Wenke, R. (1991) The Evolution of Early Egyptian Civilization: Issues and Evidence.
Journal of World Prehistory 5, 279-329.

24

Wilkinson, D. (1991) Cores, Peripheries and Civilizations. In Ch. Chase Dunn and T. Hall
(eds.) Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds, 113-166. Boulder,
Westview.
aba, Z. (1974) The Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia, Czech Institute of Egyptology,
Publication I. Prague, Charles University of Prague.

A Map should be placed after Cited References with this reference

Northeast Africa and the Levant during the early second millennium BC. Cited locations.

25